Religious guilt tripping.

Post Reply New Topic

I hope you meant to say "some Christians", just like "some" people of other faiths, and "some" atheists lobby for discrimination and spread damaging policies. Just clarifying.

I did not mean every individual Christian. But this is true of Christians as a demographic, at least in US.

Fnord's reply on virtue signaling is dead on.

My thoughts on it are that most people, both Christians and non-Christians, theists and atheists/anti-theists alike are indoctrinated into what I like to call the Gospel of Guilt. It's the idea that someone does not follow your reason or faith, thus there is something terribly wrong with them. They do not subscribe to your perfect worldview and are therefore intellectually beneath you or even subhuman. Christian faith doesn't help matters any because many teachers promote the idea that essentially each and every individual is responsible for nailing Jesus to the cross. And because everyone, even non-believers, know that Jesus said some things about loving your neighbors and not judging people, they use this as a weapon to manipulate Christians based on their inherently guilty feelings.

The act of Jesus on the cross was to do away with human guilt, therefore it is inappropriate for Christians to feel guilty (unless the Christian ACTUALLY DID knowingly do something wrong). If there is something you do that doesn't hurt anyone, that has no self-destructive consequences, that doesn't violate anything clearly spelled out in the Bible, that doesn't really violate your conscience, then nobody has any business telling you that you're wrong. There is nothing wrong with consuming alcohol within reasonable limits. There is nothing wrong with making love to your wife simply for pleasure and not procreation. There is nothing wrong with accumulating wealth and enjoying your wealth. Greedy church leaders and other envious people will have you believe you OWE them your money. The panhandler on the street will have you believe you OWE him money. The husband will have his wife believe that she has to do all the housework and raise the children. The wife will have her husband believe he's not working hard enough to give her the lifestyle she wants. And on and on it goes with people twisting Bible words around to make it seem like the resident Christian somehow owes them something for no other reason than they consume oxygen.

Look, I'm not a believer in prosperity gospel. But the Bible does lay out very good advice and strategies for accumulating and managing wealth. And I'm not saying every Christian is rich in a material sense. I'm far from rich myself, actually. It's just that the Bible does celebrate wealth as God's blessing without condemning the poor. There literally are billionaires out there who will publicly say they are ashamed of their wealth, and I believe they set a poor example. So when God DOES choose to bless some of us with good things, there are those envious, butthurt people going around calling us hypocrites. I prefer to just ignore those people right out of existence.

On the intellectual front, you do have a pretty massive hypocrisy of those who scream "don't judge" all the while judging Christians for all sorts of evils. Christians understand hell to be a real place of eternal torment for the unrepentant. It's difficult for some brought up in a culture that doesn't really value anything, that emphasizes living however you like as long as you don't live like a Christian, to understand how they could possibly be wrong about something, If Christians values people and souls, knowing God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, then that creates an urgency for Christians to tell others the gospel, that Jesus died to save humanity from sin and rose from the grave to demonstrate His power over death. We're not telling you that you're going to hell to threaten you, scare you, or judge you. It's that we see you as a fellow image-bearer of God and we don't want you to be destroyed. It's a simple statement of fact. If one does not have faith and repent, that is what he can expect once this life is over. What it boils down to is that we get judged because we are concerned about the destiny of the souls of the people we are called to love and serve. I think it's largely the fear of having to become a completely new person when you like yourself the way you are that keeps people from becoming Christian or at least trying to understand people who already are Christians.

As I said, it's the urgency that people be saved that drives Christian witnessing. We can't just stand by and say nothing. I think one thing we could do better is understand that planting the seed is really all we can do. We cannot be responsible for making it grow. Only God can do that. I'm a strong believer in spreading the seed, or casting a wide net, and leave the opportunity for dialog open to someone who is genuinely interested in becoming a Christian. Non-Christians like to point out that Jesus was always hanging out with sinners. They miss the part that the sinners in question were seeking repentance. They'll say we're being arrogant, we have an attitude of superiority, that we are irritating. Very well...then all we can do as Christians is just let that go. At least everyone knows who we are and where to find us. People who act and feel that way pretty much have their minds made up already. There's no point in bothering then further. But for those who do want to know us and our Savior better, I think we should be prepared to talk with THEM and not feel so compelled to persuade the haters.

I don't think of it that way. Admittedly, I do find it difficult to take the beliefs of religious people like Christians or Muslims seriously. But I wouldn't say they're less human than me or even less intelligent. People's spiritual and religious beliefs are informed by complex cultural and social factors that have very little to a person's intelligence. Afterall, as an atheist myself I'm quite aware of the survival advantages that are gained by belonging to religiously connected group and the consequences faced by those who leave.

Imagine that someone came up to you and said that aliens are trying to control our minds via telepathy and the only way to stop them is to wear tinfoil hats that block their transmissions. You would likely not consider such a person a reliable source for information or advice. If this person were to sell all his belongings and use all his savings to build an alien-proof bunker, you might think that his beliefs are causing harm. But I doubt think you'd consider him stupid or subhuman. It makes sense that an atheist and a Christian would view each other in a similar way. Each would see the other as someone who (perhaps unwittingly) engages in actions that are detrimental to both themself and society because they hold erroneous beliefs.

I think psychologists would be able to give a detailed answer based on their own analysis.

When it comes to religion, I have been through a fair bit, so have quiet a bit of experience with people from various religions, including:

Hare Krsna
Buddhism
Born Again Christian
Satanism
Neo Paganism
Jehovah Witness Watchtower society
Rastafarians
"spiritual" hippies

I have also been to some of the most known religious places in India.

Over the years, I have experienced all sorts of behaviour from such "spiritual" religious people.
And sure, a high number of them do exhibit what the Buddhist Teacher Chogyam Trungpa referred to as "spiritual materialism".

Spiritual materialism is where someone considers them self to be superior, righteous and good when compared to "normal" people because they practice a particular religion or religious behaviour.

Trungpa explains in his book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, that turning ones religious practice into what is perceived as a possession that one has, turns their practice into something that is material and which endangers them in to fixed false beliefs about themselves, and others around them, as well as how they interact with the universe around them.

Many of the people who come from these religions do end up mistreating others based on their perceptions of themselves and others and thus by doing so end up generating bad karmic debt (from a Buddhists perspective) or lead into sinning in their Gods eyes.

Personally, I always see an individuals spiritual path as the only spiritual path that is their business.
I believe an individuals spiritual path is every man (woman, etc) on their own merits, with their connection to God.

I do hold the opinion now that religion, like any other activity that grows in popularity, is prone to abuse by the mankind, who are but imperfect and generally are always on the look out for avenues of power / resources to exploit.

In that, i personally believe in practising one to one religion. Man to God. Man to Buddha. Man to the Universe.
But never Man answering to Man. As no man walks in any others shoes. No Man knows what another has been through. So when it comes to religion, I believe it is no man's right to stand in for God. As another man will not be able to answer to God when our time comes, nor can we answer for others either.

In other words. It is not Church that we need. But we need to humbly look after our own salvation through our own life actions.

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me!".
No Church, no police, no priest required.

I also agree with several others who have written answers, in that yes, some religions including Christianity, it is ones obligation to preach to others the good news.

This however, I believe was in order to install the new system of things (Christianity), as the new improved system of things from the old system of things (Judaism), which was being exploited by the priesthood at the Jesus's time.

So, good bye Judaism, people no longer have to pay the priests sacrifices and now can go to God Direct through Jesus Christ but also by keeping the Holy Laws.

Wow! excellent post Brictoria

My views on that are complex. My first question for the UFO conspiracist would be is he actually right? My next question is how do we know whether he's right or not?

I've never had the deep struggles with my faith that some have experienced, but it has been a tough journey trying to take opposing questions (Am I right? How do I know?) seriously and come up with a satisfying answer. The problem between what I know and what you believe is that a real dichotomy exists between the two, that being my faith doesn't leave room for uncertainty. That dichotomy means only one of us can possibly be right. Actually...that dichotomy means that only my knowledge is correct TO THE EXCLUSION of all other ideas. Mr. Tinfoil Hat would have a tremendous burden proof, same as anyone who would try to sway me to believe anything else.

For me, the light bulb moment was realizing that I was unable to explain my experiences as anything else except divine. It was that despite never demanding proof or evidence, God went ahead and wrote His name all over my life. It's a long and winding road of a story and I write too much as it is. But it was reflecting on that and realizing there was no rational way I could dismiss my beliefs, and it didn't matter whether I could sufficiently prove to anyone else what I came to accept as knowledge. After trying to dialog with atheists, agnostics, other religionists for a while, I figured out the main flaws in my arguments. First, rational proofs for the existence of God do exist--and my opponents would pull out one well-worn counterargument after another. Even when confronted with evidence and proof, they will fight to deny it and move one goalpost after another if it makes them feel better. And even then proving the existence of God is not necessarily a proof that Christianity is the correct religion. Second, classic arguments presuppose that God does NOT exist and proceed to build a case from there. Those arguments are fundamentally flawed. If a Christian knows that God exists and Jesus died to save all humanity, why would he ever accept the premise that God doesn't exist? Of course Christian arguments are easily defeated.

This all changes if Christians already know about God and Jesus. There's no need to build a case for what people already know axiomatically. The atheist then either has to accept the same premise and the defeat that goes with it, or he simply has to withdraw from the discussion. I think a Christian who really knows his stuff will refuse to engage unless and until the other person is willing to learn and accept the gospel as truth.

What happens is that atheists and other essentially take the same position, although I've met very few people who openly admit it. I don't mind expressing how I feel about it because it saves a potential opponent time and energy. Well...meh, I engage sometimes out of boredom. But I do it recognizing that others are just as firm in their positions as I am. I'm pretty sure I could be really annoying about it in the past. However, in the end I stopped apologizing (in the classic sense of the word) and cut straight to the chase. I don't mind mentioning my faith if it's relevant, but I pretty much ignore any challenges when they show up. It's good enough that people know where I stand. And then it's all, like, "Hi, Atheist! I'm Christian! Nice to meet you!" It's more interesting getting into the deep discussions with those who really want to become Christians.

But more so than that, I feel that a lot of Christians have been harmed by extremely neeeeeggggggaaaaaattttttiiiivvvve theology that serves anything but the believer's best interests. Jesus didn't die on the cross going to defeat, but rather rose from the grave in victory over death. So why are so many Christians so sad-sacky about their faith? If we are saved from our sins, that means we are free from guilt. So why all the emphasis on so much guilt? If the good shepherd (Jesus) leaves the 99 in safety to seek the 1 lost sheep, then why all the talk about collectivism and altruism if the individual is really that important? I don't get why our religion has to be so downer all the time. Granted, not all denomination or churches are like that, but it freakin' bothers me. When I go to church on Mother's Day, they sing the praises of women. But when I show up on Father's Day, all men are the scum of the earth. Why claim to honor our fathers and mothers, give them special days, and go on and on and on about how dishonorable we are? Why claim to build up the body of Christ only to tear each other down week after week? I'm more interested in seeing Christian faith restored to what it was always meant for, for building up, encouraging, generosity, family--and even things we seem to have completely lost, like justice. In my experience, mercy and compassion were things reserved for the affluent and for those who mistreated others. Over the course of nearly 15 years, I saw my wife and children escorted off the church premises, I was accused of stealing, I was told to leave the church building (where I worked), CPS was called on us, my job was threatened on two occasions, I was accused of showing up for church stoned, humiliated in front of choir, isolated from other church members and staff, and I could keep going on and on, while absolutely NOTHING happened to the people pushing my family and I around. Oh, wait...I was told I needed to pray for them. Now how is any of that Biblical or consistent with what you should expect from us? The apostle Paul described much worse treatment from unbelievers. So what do you do when it's the CHURCH that does all the persecuting?

I don't deny that there are problems with people. Heck, that's anywhere you go. But that has also served to cement Objectivist thinking for me since I do feel the need to promote self-esteem, forward thinking, and value of all people. Objectivism is brilliant for shaking off things like altruistic guilt and the idea that I'm compelled to subject myself and my family to mistreatment, especially from fellow, nominal Christians who you'd think ought to know better. My life now is radically different from how it was 5 years ago. Heck, it's radically different than it was last year, and I've got nothing but gratitude for it. I owe that to a balance of Bible study and Objectivist philosophy.

The Bible has never met its burden of proof.

You can't presuppose what you're trying to prove. That's circular logic. Meet your burden of proof, then I'll believe you.

If you have rational proof for God I want to hear. If you meet your burden of proof, I'll have no choice but to believe.

The mistake you're making here is assuming that I'm trying to prove anything.

Besides that, burden of proof arguments never hold up because there's no way to determine what proof really is. You are unable to claim ANY knowledge with any degree of certainty.

As to circular logic, this just shows you have no idea what an axiom is. Nobody proves an axiom. If what you are saying is correct, all of science is invalid because it presupposes the scientific method. You cannot scientifically prove the scientific method without the scientific method. Therefore, all of science is false because it is all based on circular reasoning.

Last edited by AngelRho on 18 Feb 2021, 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You claimed that rational proof for God exists.

I made no such claim. I stated a historical fact. Go brush up on your philosophy.

If you're talking about the Kalam or the Ontological arguments, both have been debunked.

Btw, did you know that Ayn Rand was an atheist?

Wow!

The debunking has been debunked. So what? The issue is that arguments for or against will never have a satisfying conclusion for the opposing side. Arguments cannot be conclusively won as long as an opponent refuses to concede. This presupposes that proof of God's existence is necessary, as though the apologist is compelled to accept the premise of God's non-existence. No rational proof can possibly be satisfactory because goalposts can always be moved and standards of proof can always be changed.

Another issue is the problem of proof itself. It is logically possible that objections to, say, the Kalam argument can also be debunked, which means the Kalam argument still stands. Given that objections can also be refuted, are you prepared to abandon your atheism and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior? Most people I've ever known who said that they would abandon their atheism if proof or evidence was shown proved disingenuous, as they weaseled out of it by making claims that evidence was not evidence and proof was not proof. But supposing you made good on your word and quasi-converted to Christianity because "evidence," you'd also be logically compelled to recant Christianity the instant one of your atheist friends refuted Christianity. And then you'd have to reconvert as soon as one of your Christian friends gave you another proof and more evidence.

The question is this: At what point do you accept evidence or proof and commit to Christian faith? At what point is proof or evidence ever enough?

The problem is that no amount of proof or evidence constitute knowledge on any level of certainty. The difference between us is I can claim to know something, while you cannot claim to know anything. Actual knowledge has to transcend proof and evidence in order to be knowledge.

I've actually already addressed the issue with Rand's atheism. Rand's philosophy was built on the idea that it had to be 100% right. If any part of it was wrong, the whole thing was wrong. Her mistake was asserting absolutes without allowing for even the possibility that God occupies and is responsible for objective reality. The absolute claim that there is no God when, for Rand, the existence of God was unknowable throws a monkey wrench in her entire system. Rand fell prey to the weak excuse that "one cannot be called upon to prove a negative" when, in reality, she herself was assuming something that had to be proven. Objectivism was a great idea. It just needed a few tweaks. And that wasn't something that Rand and her inner circle were ever prepared for. I'm more attracted to the idea of open objectivism, the idea that the book isn't closed on Ayn Rand's philosophy and that there is work yet to do. Her main objection to religion was that it encouraged wishful thinking while imposing altruistic guilt. Church leaders in essence expected congregations to shut off their rational minds, all the while working in tandem with the state to control and restrict the freedom of the individual. I'm in lock step with Ayn Rand up to this point. It's a pretty wide leap to go from living in an objective universe to asserting that God can't possibly have a place in it. It presupposes that the independent church can't possibly encourage congregants to make up their own minds, that religious people are incapable of worshiping God according to their own conscience and on their own initiative. The church congregation is the embodiment of the sheeple. Rand was unable to conceive of Christianity as anything else.

If a Christian church congregation had the capacity to believe in God and Jesus and simultaneously harmonize naturally evident laws with what is known about the nature and character of God from the Bible, the main tenets of Objectivism would be compatible with that congregation, making it difficult for Ayn Rand to maintain her atheist position. The word "altruism" never once appears anywhere in the Bible. Mosaic laws make it clear that each individual has a right to defend himself. The very first chapter of the Bible makes it clear that the universe is God's creation, His property, and His to dispose of as He likes. God is the Supreme Individual, the Ego, and mankind is created in His image, reflecting God's individuality among many other character traits such as the capacity for rational thought and the possession of God's creative power. As such God displays His own rational self-interest by creating human beings. Jesus' death on the cross for the salvation of mankind was never an altruistic gesture. It was the exchange of one life for many, fulfilling the restoration of man with God. I think a large part of the problem with the church as a whole over the millennia is emphasis on guilt and punishment for sin and the alienation of reason. I think it's at least possible if Ayn Rand had properly understood Christianity as was intended, she might at least have been friendlier towards the church.

But being an atheist is largely irrelevant because many other Christians have come to similar conclusions. Just as Martin Luther forced a dramatic change in the Catholic Church, I think Ayn Rand could have a positive influence over Protestant Evangelicals and maybe even, again, the RCC. Rejecting God after being so adept at unconsciously helping others come to a better understanding of God's wisdom and commands is tragic.

If you want to convince me of the claim that God exists, then you do need to provide evidence that supports that claim. The position of atheists is skepticism. We are neither presupposing that God does exist or that he does not; we're only saying that we're unconvinced until the burden of proof is met.



Well, no. Given that the Kalam attempts only to prove the existence a god; if it were to succeed, you would still be required to prove that god is Jesus Christ. This is not a moving of the goal posts, since the Kalam never was a proof of the Christian god in particular.



I've watched countless videos of theists claiming to have evidence for God, but when they presented their arguments they were full of logical holes. Because they are engaging in bias confirmation, they fail to see the flaws in their own arguments. And when the flaws are pointed out to them they feel that the atheist is just stubbornly rejecting their evidence. If you feel that your arguments are superior, please feel free to post them. I'm sure that many others in the forum will also weigh in on both your arguments and my responses.



That's a really good question. The short answer is when the evidence meets the burden of proof.

But I understand that's not as simple as it sounds. If Jesus were to appear right in front of me, I still wouldn't know if my experience was real or a hallucination of some kind. If Jesus were to preform some kind of miracle that defies known scientific laws and left behind evidence that confirms its occurrence; I still wouldn't be able to eliminate the possibility that he was actually someone who somehow had access advance technologies that defy our current understanding. Now I understand you might find that last part ridiculous; but if you were step outside of your perspective as a believer for a moment, you'd realize that the creator of the universe becoming his own son in order to sacrifice himself to absolve humanity of its sins is equally as implausible at best.

Matt Dillahunty proposed a rather ingenious solution to this dilemma: since God is all-knowing, he knows exactly what evidence is necessary to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt. And since he is all-powerful, he is capable of presenting me with that evidence.



You can claim to know something, but that doesn't mean that you do. The best any of us can say is that none of knows.

But while I acknowledge that I can't know if a god exists; it has been proven that the accounts of Genesis are incorrect. It has been proven that Noah's flood never happened. Every testable claim made by the Bible has been proven false. And historians are able to trace how Abrahamic religion evolved over time by adopting and incorporating elements of other religions into itself. So while I don't know whether or not a god exists, I can say with confidence that the Abrahamic god almost certainly does not.

Except I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm simply stating that I know God exists. What you choose to believe is up to you. I'm not in the business of convincing people of anything they do not wish to believe. No burden of proof can be met if the person demanding proof refuses to be satisfied with any proof, regardless of how overwhelming the proof is. The turning point for me when it came to wasting time trying to convince others was coming to the realization all people have seen the evidence and know God already. The defining characteristic of atheists isn't that you a) believe that there is not God, or b) do not believe that there is a God. It is rather the persistence by which unbelievers refuse to accept the evidence they already have.

It's not, therefore, that an overwhelming burden of proof cannot be met. It's that there is NEVER any amount of evidence or proof that can overcome the will of any believer or non-believer. Knowledge is never about method nor evidence, but about faith.


It IS moving goalposts when an argument is logically proven, counterarguments are countered, opponents soundly defeated, and yet another argument follows. At what point do you put an argument to rest? You cannot cry "burden of proof" when you aren't willing to accept that the burden of proof has already been met. Therein lies the problem. I agree that Kalam was never about proving Christianity, but when I brought up the concept of theistic proof, I never said anything about proving anything about Jesus. YOU mentioned that if there was any such proof of God's existence that you'd believe. Yet you don't. You already have all the evidence anyone needs, which is proof that no burden would ever be sufficient.


Yeah, at this point we're just repeating ourselves. The only thing I can contribute with regard to apologists is they largely fail to acknowledge that the MO for scientific inquiry is starting from a position of denying what it is they are trying to PROVE. It's the concept of the null hypothesis. You can't have proper execution of the scientific method without beginning from the position that you do NOT know something and then move to a position of knowledge about something.

The logical problem for Christian apologists arises that Christians ALREADY know God and are logically unable to deny something they already know. Think of it like the difference between gravity and gravitation. There's no need, nor is there any point, to being skeptical regarding the force of gravity. You don't need to prove that gravity exists in order to drive to work every day. You don't need to prove gravity to anyone, nor do you need anyone to prove it to you. It is foundational to your existence and enables everything you do. Gravitation, OTOH, is a whole other beast. We THINK we understand a relationship between gravity and the mass of celestial objects, but we have yet to fully understand where that comes from. Magnetic force is a similar mystery. In order to study these things, we cannot make assumptions about them from the outset. But if you apply the same exact skepticism to gravity as a practical issue of daily life, you'll be unable to function as a normal human being and still remain logically consistent.

The same holds for understanding God. In the same sense that it is absurd to question the knowledge you have about gravity each and every morning as you prepare for your daily activity, it is absurd to question knowledge you already have about God. Skepticism is useful when it comes to things you don't know. It's perfectly useless for things you know already. Christians have no reason to doubt God's existence. Christians have no reason to doubt the saving work Jesus did on the cross.

And because it is logically absurd to deny what we already know, it is likewise logically absurd to engage in skeptical dialogue ABOUT God and Jesus as though God DOESN'T exist.

That's why it's so easy to trap Christian apologists. In order to engage in skeptical dialogue, Christians are required to accept the premise that God doesn't exist. To deny God exists when you already know God exists is logically absurd. The Christian apologist has lost the argument before he even starts it.

I also think the concept of "Christian apologist" is a bit absurd, too. The sovereignty of God is one of God's defining attributes. The mere suggestion that God somehow needs to be defended is an attack on God's nature itself. Therefore it's useless to think somehow, as a Christian, you have to defend your beliefs. You are under no compulsion to do so. It IS useful, however, to openly discuss the relationship we have with our Savior. I'm just not obligated to concoct some elaborate, unnecessary defense when someone else elects to nitpick everything I say. If it's that same relationship you want, then we have something to discuss. Otherwise, I'm not up for wasting time.

For the sake of simplicity, "apologist" is as good a word as any to describe someone who is open to dialogue about faith. I just think you have to be real and understand that the purpose of Christian apologetics has never been to defend God but rather as a means of sharing faith with skeptics. The better apologists out there, such as William Lane Craig, demonstrate that the ability of so-called intellectuals to run roughshod over Christian thinkers proves nothing with regard to those same skeptics actually being right. Christians are perfectly adept at learning new things and intellectual heavy-hitting. My position is that while Craig and others can be persuasive and convincing, or at least prolific at demonstrating Christians have nothing to fear, the mental masturbation that goes on in such discussions is entirely unnecessary and often unhelpful. Anybody who fights hard enough, long enough, can eventually get the last word in whether they are a Christian or not. Winning the argument is never the point. Winning souls for the kingdom of heaven IS. If I have absolutely no chance of seeing you on the other side, no matter what I do or say, practicing apologetics is an exercise in futility. I think I'm better than that.


Right...which happens, erm, WHEN, exactly? [/rhetorical question]



The problem is mainly this:

Once you KNOW something, it is completely irrational to deny what you know. The irony is I actually do believe you. If I were to completely ignore that I already know this to be true, that Jesus was God in the flesh and sacrificed Himself to atone for the sins of humanity, then I'd actually take this a few steps further and say it's not only implausible, but that it's outright absurd. The difference is that I know this to be true and you don't.

I'm not sure whether I find Dillahunty interesting or not. He's comparatively lightweight when it comes to atheistic apologetics. He's a good example of how different people can view the same evidence and come to exact opposite conclusions. It's kinda like how I've realized Ayn Rand, without the least amount of intention of doing so, completely reinvented Christianity. I mean, think about it...she committed to atheism early in life, wrote off all religion as wishful thinking, demonized mystics, and distilled a more accurate interpretation of the Bible into a distinct philosophy. No, I'm not kidding--I'm absolutely astounded that someone can be an atheist and yet reveal so much spiritual truth while insisting she's not. When I read Galt's speech, I'm thinking, "well, you just described what Christianity was always meant to be, so how can you write this and still not believe?" Dillahunty goes more the opposite direction from me, which is obvious to me because I was also raised Southern Baptist. He takes the same thought pattern as Southern Baptists and crafts that into a distinctive approach to atheism. For me, it's just too handwaveable.

As far as being Southern Baptist goes, it's just familiar and comfortable because I've been in the SBC for so long. I've attended Presbyterian churches and even gone to mass once a week for a couple of years. My wife was raised United Methodist. But I've always been impressed by how chill all the Assembly of God kids are, and they always have the best music. As long as nobody will judge me if I don't speak in tongues, I could conceivably switch denominations. Heck, I'd go Catholic in a heartbeat if it weren't for all the transubstantiation, immaculate conception, praying to all the saints and baby angels and...heck, just all the dogma. Catholic worship in the mass is always a beautiful experience, something I worry is missing in Protestant worship. I just left a Baptist church where the worship just seems...ugh...so STERILE. I'd suffered, as did my family, a lot of abuse within that church for probably longer than I should have tolerated it, but I also knew I wanted leaving it to be more about God's will than my own. When Catholics treat you better than Baptists do, something has gone terribly wrong. I decided to leave after visiting another Baptist church right on the heels of a massive COVID-19 outbreak that claimed the life of their pianist. For that and many other reasons, I started the process of wrapping up my career at the other place, and the difference is night-and-day from what I'm used to. It's a good thing.


But you don't know that.



Not really.



You can't say anything with confidence.


The main problem with this view, YOUR view, is exactly what I've already just outlined in this reply. These "historians"--and btw, I've seen all of these arguments and supposed evidence dozens of hundreds of times, this is nothing new to me--are all committed to the idea that the Biblical record is false from the outset. They do not know that the Bible got it right. Therein lies the problem. If you assume the Bible to be false and then proceed to find "evidence" that backs that up, well then, you're just guilty of the same confirmation bias as what I've been accused of.

The apparent evolution of the Abrahamic religion is a good case in point. You ASSUME that it evolved from a coalescence of similar, related religions. You haven't considered the possibility that other religions broke away from the ancient Hebrew faith. And there's nothing new or surprising about the relationship between Hebraic religion and other Semitic and even Egyptian religion. The Bible presents a cycle of God's chosen falling in and out of favor with God. You don't have to be terrifically intellectual to piece it all together. Adam and Eve lived in God's presence and still disobeyed. Abraham wavered in his faith by basically trafficking Sarah out, and even after knowing he'd father a son through Sarah still gave in and used a servant girl as a surrogate. Lot benefitted from trade with Sodom. Jacob's wives returned home with him carrying idols, which were strictly forbidden. The Israelites were led out of Egypt by a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, yet somehow insisted on worshipping a golden calf. The worship of Baals. The Canaanites were known in the Bible to worship Molech and practice child sacrifice. Some people believe the pre-captivity (Egypt) religion established by Melchizedek was the result of a Christophany, an idea I'm not entirely opposed to. My point is that the Hebrews and their predecessors didn't even need exposure to other people groups to violate what they knew was God's law. And even after that, the Israelites were influenced by Egyptian religion, various nomadic peoples they encountered during the Exodus, and almost IMMEDIATELY they blended their religion with the Canaanite tribes they encountered in the Promised Land. The Northern Kingdom seems to have lost all semblance of identity with the tribes that arrived at the end of the exodus.

So-called historians who don't even follow Christian faith have no idea what they're talking about. The Bible beat them to the punch thousands of years ago. Oh, sure, I think some of that might actually be thoughtful stuff. It's certainly imaginative. I'll give them that much. They come up with some wonderful works of fiction while slapping the names of ancient heroes on their characters, but it's seriously lacking in theological substance. Davinci Code and Angels and Demons are great for some laughs. But that's about as far as I think you can take it.