You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

Around here, we have jackrabbits that could pull a beer wagon. But I never even heard of the Tooth Fairy until I was past tooth-bearing age, and my father wouldn't allow talk of Santa Claus. I was indoctrinated by isolation. I was in a vacuum, where the only information available was evangelical propaganda.Luckily for me, that vacuum did suck in outside information and I was able to learn at an early age that most fundie doctrines have no basis in the Bible or the real world. For me it was just the opposite - finding out that "there are no miracles" was one of the most joyful and empowering experiences of my life. If a miracle was required, I knew I had the capability - and the responsiblity - to create it.I didn't have to sit and wait to see if I was "worthy".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Then why are you replying as though I did?Does that strike you as an effective debate technique? Rebutting statements that your opponents didn't make? Then what the fuck are we talking about?

And I still know parents who are the same, who don't allow holiday celebrations, or costumes, or even the mention of Halloween, and act like no one is going to walk into Acme and see pumpkins and candy. I daresay the kids will suddenly lurch into some critical thinking. That's the point; the most trivial incidences in life can plant the seeds of criticism. The little vacuums suck up the oddest dustballs. It's not like my parents wanted me to think Santa was God, but I had no evidence that it was either Santa or a parent bringing toys. So, 'god' as usual. Answer man. Mom bringing toys=no God, Weird. Of course it taught me to think critically, but the main disappointment wasn't about the 'miracle' but about remembering all the times we made five foot long lists, went thru the catalogs, made demands, and complained in the end about the wrong toys.Back to the fundie doctrine and the vacuums; it is not nearly so surprising that baby vacuums suck in info, as it is when adult full-grown vacuums start emptying their own bags.

I'll echo Percy when I say that I think your skepticism is rooted in an ignorance of the entirety of Harris' position.I tried to explain this to breannaki in the Harris/Sullivan thread: Message 93Now there are some problems that I see now in my treatement after reading this thread and that is the issue of what is a moderate. I don't think Harris' would consider jar or myself grouped into that category because we do not let our dogma override our skepticism of the base traditions.There are plenty of people though who hold what most people would subjectivly consider moderate views of Christianty who fall directly into what Harris is talking about.I don't think it is black and white though and I agreed with breannaki in that post that it IS valid to criticise Harris on the over generalization. I don't think that takes away from the basic truth of what he is saying though which is that a non-insignificant number of people can be described exactly as he does.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

But you do call yourself Christian? I think Harris actually does speak to that point:

quote:

---

Here, I do not merely refer to twenty-megaton displays of religious mendacity of the Ted Haggard variety. I mean the daily and ubiquitous failure of most religious people to admit that the basic claims of the their faith are profoundly suspect. How likely is it that Jesus was really born of a virgin, rose from the dead, and will bodily return to earth to judge us all? How reasonable is it to believe in such a concatenation of miracles on the basis of the Gospel account? How much support do these doctrines receive from the average Christian's experience in church? It seems to me that honest answers to these questions should raise a tsunami of doubt. I'm not sure what will be "Christian" about any Christians left standing...

​

What if, tomorrow, a blue-ribbon panel of archaeologists and biblical scholars demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Gospels were ancient forgeries and that Jesus never existed? Would this steal the ground out from under your spiritual life? It would be a shame if it would. And if it wouldn’t, in what sense is your spirituality really predicated upon the historical Jesus?

---

I think there's a point there - if you really have integrated skepticism and doubt into your Christianity, then surely you've come to the conclusion that the miracles and divinity of Jesus - even the very authenticity of the statements he's supposed to have made - aren't supported by any evidence; and if that's so, in what sense can you be said to be a "Christian"?Nobody's saying, of course, that reasonable people burn their Bibles. Obviously there's a vast weight of historical and cultural significance there, and perhaps even some human wisdom. And it doesn't have to be true to have merit; any more than Romeo and Juliet has to be a true story to tell us something true about love.But once we're at the point where the Bible is just another human text with some wisdom in it, what sense does it make to restrict one's reading to only the Bible, or to set it superior to other religious texts?And if you're not doing that; if the Qu'ran and the Bhagavad Gita are held as much in your esteem as the Bible is, then, again, in what sense are you specifically a Christian?

I noticed I had been mentioned in a few posts on this thread regarding my beliefs etc. Here's a brief synopsis.I was born a Protestant and baptised in the Church of Scotland and brought up going to the local Baptist Sunday school, just because it was closer than the Church of Scotland which my mum and dad belonged to. I continued going to the Baptist Church because I knew everyone there.I have to explain that the part of the world I come from has problems of a sectarian nature and RCC and Protestants were discouraged from mixing at all. However, I didn't pay any attention to that and attended Mass with various RCC friends just to keep them company. When my mum found out she enlisted my grandfather to put a stop to it. All he said was "Well, at least she's going somewhere".I was confirmed in the Church of Scotland when I was twenty, after a few years of being an atheist.About three years ago I converted to the RCC. There were various reasons, but I asked many, many questions before I took that step. I found to my surprise that our local priest, who was also Dean of the Diocese, was in favour of married priests, women priests and all sorts of things that the RCC was supposedly against. He had alter GIRLS passing out the sacraments and many older members of the church were aghast.Our Archbishop was also in favour of changes to the priesthood and shortly after being appointed a Cardinal, he repeated these ideas. He was contacted by the Vatican and forced to retract his comments. Sadly he did and my respect for him decreased. He was toeing the party line because now he was in the higher echelons.My experience has been that the priests on the ground and the congregations of the RCC are much more liberally minded that the Vatican, the Cardinals etc. I have seen no evidence of suppressing children's questions and they are encouraged to voice their doubts. Not only that, but sometimes the answer is "We don't know", rather than some made-up story or goddidit.In addition, the RCC in this area makes an effort to acknowledge festivals of other religions. They also do not claim to be the only way to God, but have a truly catholic outlook (note the small c), completely inclusive.I don't deny that the RCC has in the past and probably still does in some places, try to indoctrinate children, but from what I've seen it's a pointless exercise. I'd be more worried if they tried to indoctrinate teenagers or young adults.Hope this isn't too far off topic.Oh, and Schraff, the horse made it through the grass sickness!!! She's one of the few to ever survive it!

I don't know. It is a valid question that can probably be asked to myself, jar, arach, etc. You are picking up on the exact theme that I was trying to convey to Archer. My definition of moderate does not include myself, jar, arch, and other examples of people on this board. I am with buzsaw on this one in saying that we are probably better catagorized as extreme liberal Christians or not even Christians at all. In fact, I explicitly do not meet the conditions that Harris iterates as defining a Christian in Letter to a Christian Nation let alone a moderate variety of that.I'll post that later when I get home.IIRC there was the following minimum condition:1. Belief in the divinity of Christ.
2. Belief that the Bible is the inspired work of God.
3. Belief in the virgin birth of Christ.
4. Belief that only faith in Christ's divinity will buy you a ticket to heaven.I fail on at least 2 of those 4. I can concieve that jar fails on at least one of them.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Hi Trixie, I have not seen much of you, and it is nice to get to know you after hearing so much.For my part, I have always been Catholic, raised Catholic but kind of stuck in that European slump where there is open animosity between the Irish Protestants and the Polish Catholics in my family. I grew up hearing on the one hand not to listen to the Protestants, and on the other, that the deceased members of the family should be rolling in their graves knowing that my father married a Catholic. I do not much condone conversions that are not founded on what the church stands for, or an affinity to a certain parish or priest, because it is ultimately disappointing. I am old-fashioned in the sense that I support the allegience of bishops and Cardinals to the Vatican until it changes its mind, since the church has always held to an ideal of unity which is intended to further its integrity...you know, the house divided against itself can not stand thing. Yes, the church does seem to integrate other religions, allow people to celebrate according to local custom and tradition, and acknowledge that people of other faiths will attain heaven. Of course, it still claims exclusive truth, but not exclusive salvation, if I understand correctly.

I conceive that I fail on at least one as well. #4, nevermind the divinity...I think people of other faiths can be 'saved', period. As far as I know, the whole RCC teaches this, and they are not 'unchristian' by any stretch of the imagination...well, except the imagination of the fundies. I think that this is a corruption of the teaching of Luther 'faith not works' becomes 'faith alone, and obviously, in Christ'. But that is another story.

Jar, your reply doesn't address the substance of the message you replied to.In fact, you ignored most of it, including my second attempt to get you to explain what definition of "prevalent" means "blanket statement.Let me know when you are ready to actually discuss what I write instead of what you wish I had.

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."--- St Ignatius Loyola.

Thanks for your input, Trixie.All I can say after reading the description you gave is...I think that most Scottish/UK/European Catholic priests are very, very different than most western Pennsylvanian/American Catholic priests.Very different.However, I must disagree with you and say that indoctrination clearly works, since most people remain in the religion they were raised in.PS Yay about your horsie!

Nice quote there, from one of those Jesuits who are known to teach critical thinking.

Actually, Loyola is a great example of teaching critical thinking.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't see that, at all. I know Kader tried this, but who here has remained in the religion they were raised in? Me, and jar, that I know of. And don't tell me that changing from one christian denom to another doesn't count, because it definately does. That would be like me turning into Rob, and that is a totally different ballgame. How so? You don't think there are dissident clergy in America? And do you think that teaching critical thinking means directly opposing what you claim allegiance to?