That's a funny tension, though, to have had a relevation from Jesus for a faith that's predicated on a collection of books that you've come to conclude misses the critical mark. This would lead me into the awkward position of believing in a religious or spiritual truth, while the physical texts that inform those truths are not what they ultimately claims to be. That just doesn't work. Even objective truths are appropriated subjectively by the individual in his or her understanding of those truths. I have no idea why a particular individual might ask, 'Why should I believe in Jesus?' For example, are they sincerely asking? Are they being contrarian? Are they looking for a debate, or an argument, or an opportunity to prove their intellectual superiority? The fuller answer depends on an unknown 'why', and I wouldn't want to assume that I know what that 'why' is. 'Why should I believe in Jesus after all the evil and suffering I've experienced?' is quite a different question than 'I'm familiar with the historical arguments for the resurrection, but why should I believe in Jesus?'
Sure, and I'm not trying to argue. I don't get it. I am not trying to say anything about your faith. I'm saying that I simply do not understand your presuppositions or how you arrived at them in describing your deconversion.
Yes, this is precisely what I've been saying. I didn't hold the Christian Bible to the same standard I demanded of other religious texts, and when I finally recognized this double-standard and confronted the issue directly, it led me to decide I could not remain a Christian.
I'm not saying that the faith of those who leave Christianity, or 'lost their faith', wasn't real. It very likely was real, and sincere, and utterly convincing at the time; but, I'm arguing that it was grounded in something other than God, for example, archaeology, philosophy, theology, etc. Good guesses.
I agree with you here, but I guess we're both surprised how many Christians there are that are in exactly this position, though. They don't believe the Bible is the infallible or inerrant, they deny the inspiration of some or most of it, they acknowledge it has things in it that are simply wrong... but they continue to believe in Jesus for other reasons.
On the subject, I'm not really surprised. I'm under the impression that you studied Scripture at length academically, so I'm also assuming that you would have met quite a few people who profess faith who don't hold to an inerrant view of Scripture. Maybe I'm wrong in that impression and assumption, but that's been my (academic) experience. The people I encountered were great people, too, but who hold to views different than those I was brought up with. I haven't found that defeating, though. There are plenty of Christians with views I don't necessarily agree with, but who love and follow Jesus all the same and there's nothing I can, or should, say about that. I don't think these people are in the position I describe, though, and it's only a positive I've described in light of your contention that one can have a spiritual experience even in spite of the 'objective' truth (which is itself also ultimately understood subjectively by the individual). They, and I, would reply that we're not in fact in that position, and what you see as problematic, we don't. Going back to my earlier example: it's not as if Ezekiel 26 and 29 are new additions to Scripture. They've been known for millennia, and it strikes me as unusual to think that all of the most critical, educated, and academically rigorous believers - both Jewish and Christian - have gone on believing regardless. Well, they've either all stuck their heads in the sand and played dumb, or there are views that aren't problematic (that you would dismiss in light of your earlier statement above regarding prophecy).
Arguing that someone placed their faith in XYZ instead of God falls flat if the person isn't convinced 'God' exists. The arguments works only under the assumption that 'God' is real and knowable, and that person doesn't share that assumption. Cognitive dissonance is a universal phenomenon. It can take the shape of 'playing dumb' or overt hostility, but it can take shape as highly creative solutions. Brilliant people engage in it, too. In this case, it can take the form of reinterpreting prophetic texts -- or even the nature of prophecy itself -- in a way that minimizes the problematic elements and enables them to continue believing. I'm afraid I'm talking in circles on these two issues, and admittedly on the limits of my expertise. (I'm not a psychologist, nor a philosopher.) I'm open to talking about my approach to prophetic texts, since that was the reason for my own 'deconversion', but I don't want to risk repeating myself on these other two points (especially since I feel we are talking past each other).
I think if talking about a very personal experience that can't be specifically proven or disproven the issue shifts to whether you, the listener, consider my testimony to be credible, however outlandish it might sound. In the same sense that eyewitness testimony is used in a court of law even though the only eyewitness may have nothing that can demonstrate their words to be true or false, so a personal testimony can be part of a process of evangelism. Admittedly it would be a very strange situation for someone to accept Christ for no reason other than hearing a testimony of a great miracle allegedly witnessed by someone else but, if they consider the speaker to be credible, the testimony may have some role to play in someone's conversion. That leads into a loosely associated question of "why would I lie about this?" If we look at someone who pastors a huge church and directly benefits from increased congregational giving we might argue that they have a vested interest in getting bums on seats and dollars in baskets every Sunday and therefore have a vested interest in being economical with the truth to get more people to come along and hear more. Maybe they don't even care what their attendees believe as long as the gifts keep coming every Sunday. On the other hand someone who clearly has nothing to gain but a high reputational risk or even a high personal risk has a clearly identifiable interest in not making outlandish claims that can't be verified. If someone would literally rather die than recant their claims that suggests a very fervent belief in the claim. It could be that the person is mentally unhinged but could equally be that the person has a reason to be so convinced of the truth of something. The existence of members of other faiths who would rather die than renounce their faith muddies the water somewhat, even if it does suggest there is something beyond the realms we can see and measure that affects at least some lives.
Perhaps Job, et al. who, without textual guidance or apparent revelation, was keen to the preexisting crisis which separates men from God. His faith was not diminished by the most brutal of testings, including the fanciful notions of his peers. "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." Rm 1:19 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" v20 The sobering conclusion here that true, correct faith resolves that inherent crisis for the individual, and all who will recieve it. This suggests something more than merely an intellectual assent, something resolved in the very heart of men, resulting in a recreation of men. Deconversion is beyond my ken.
Okay, thanks, I get what you are saying. Aha, the answer to my question, per your suggestion I will start a new thread about that.
I remember a similar story, a tourist saw 3 orthodox jews praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. The tourist became curious and started to ask them questions and they told him they survived the Nazi concentration camps and that most of their families were gassed. The tourist bewildered by the volume of suffering said, then why don't you say that God of yours good-bye? And they answered him saying, to whom sir shall we go then? As for contrast - I know someone close whose 26-27 year old son died during his sleep. He was a marine and in perfect condition. That father became so angry at God he left the faith. He could not believe a loving God could do that to him.
But the point is that at a given time, the person in question was convinced that God exists, and is knowable. Someone might come to an utterance of belief following an investigation into the historicity of the resurrection, but then make the decision to stop believing after further investigation defeats what they initially found convincing, compelling, etc. This is a faith that is built on an interpretatation and self-understanding of archaeology, history, etc., and that's where that person's faith lives and dies. (We all interpret and understand, subjectively, the 'objective' world around us, so I'm not saying that this is bad or unusual. It's how we are.) That this person then later decides their faith was misplaced doesn't therefore cause everything else said to fall flat. This is how a majority of people understand faith these days, but that's not the Christian understanding of faith, as you allude to. On the other hand, if we keep rejecting presuppositions then every argument falls flat because there will be no arguments -- just hand waving. Well, sure, we see that when Ezekiel himself starts wondering about his prophecy concerning Tyre. The modern American Evangelical will quickly point out that poor Ezekiel is vindicated after all, because hey, Alexander the great! It's just too bad that Ezekiel technically ought to have been killed for the fact that the prophecy initially failed, i.e., he didn't pass the test of a true prophet. Worse still when he makes a second prophecy as seemingly tenuous as the first. Did Ezekiel even understand what he was prophesying? Huh. But what, though, thousands of years of highly competent people -- all in a state of cognitive dissonance? I don't think you're giving those other people enough credit, or enough credit to views of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (canon and non-canonical) that don't adhere to the strict 'You must believe in...' we're taught. Or I assume the 'we', at least. I don't think that we're talking past each other, but talking about your approach to prophetic texts would be an interesting thread indeed. I don't think there are a lot of people - Christians in particular - who realise just how 'problematic' textual criticism can be.