Any former religious types here?

[LutherDestroysTheGond | 690]

I grew up in a devout southern Baptist household.  By the time I was a teenager I was so over it.  My whole family kept up with the religion and I just got out as soon as I was allowed to.  It was brain washing, focused on demonizing other people, a lubricant for xenophobia, and overall just an unhealthy culture.  I went to several southern Baptist conventions, camps, missionary trips, church 3 times a week, it was awful in hindsight. 

Now I have a family of my own and we do not do anything religious.  There are a few teachings (don't lie, don't steal, dont willingly hurt others, treat others how you want to be treated, respect the earth and nature as much as you can, etc) that my wife and I pass on. 

There was an interview I had watched years ago saying where the author being interviewed suggested that in our post modern world we can pull valuable lessons from different religions and cultures.  We don't need to put ourselves in the constraints of one religion or teaching for self improvement.  That really stuck with me and we're happy and volunteer and try to be helpful to others.  I like to think we're raising our kids to be good humans and don't need to put them in a religious box or give them false hope of afterlife or scaring them with divine retribution to act in a way that isn't selfish or harmful to others.  

[fcgamer | 4,719]

52 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Oh shit, it definitely won't work out between the two of us then.

But...but.... we're both good people, we should try to make it work! 

[Kguillemette | 1,543]

I was raised Roman Catholic. It always felt more like a chore to me, and I made a deal with my parents that I would continue to go to mass until my confirmation. After that, I was free to stop going. Within a year later the pedophile scandal blew up and a priest that used to babysit me was named and pled guilty. I dodged quite the bullet and pulled further away. 

Being a spiritual person, I've dabbled with new age(not for me) and was led back to God and Jesus over the past few years and stuck my toes into modern evangelicalism. It's so theatrical and also not for me. Lately I have been doing mostly independent bible study and putting it into context with history to make as much sense of the stories as possible.

One thing I take away from Catholicism is that not only are we all sinners, there is a tier system for them. The venial sin causes a damage to our soul, and if we are repentant, it can be repaired. The mortal sin destroys our soul and thus is cannot be repaired. As best as I understand evangelicalism, it all falls under the veil of sin in God's eyes. Adultery is no different than taking the last slice of pizza or making a passive aggressive comment to a coworker, which I can't get behind.

As for where I am, I am somewhere in the middle. I just keep reading my Bible and keep brushing up on my western civilization, until I come up with the best lessons possible. After all, I just wish to be as Godly as a person as I can be. After all, the main teaching of Jesus is to Love thy neighbor, which no matter what your faith, I feel you can agree with.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

13 hours ago, CasualCart said:

I hope my logic here makes sense. I appreciate the openness and honesty of your response, and feel free to keep picking my brain if you want me to clarify anything further.

Thanks for expanding on that. Although I'm not sure I fully agree with everything you said, I have a much better understanding of your position on things. 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

Here's a question for the devout in this thread. Have you done serious research into the possibility that there may not be a God? Have you studied how different religions came to be over the years? Have you looked into the science that might show otherwise?

I'm just curious. The main reason I ask is that after doing my own research on the matter, it seems impossible to come to that conclusion. I think it would be an important piece of determining your faith, to do that kind of research. 

[LutherDestroysTheGond | 690]

To expand on my last post, one of the most valuable things I read, I want to say it was from Thomas Aquinas, was that you never truly believe in something until you doubt that thing/concept and it makes it through your doubt.  I read this at 17-18 and apply to it to many things in life. 

Some people just naturally question authority or the way things are but growing up in a religious environment I need to consciously take this step.  Like I said earlier I am not religious anymore but this is one concept that has stuck with me and has proved very useful.  Blind faith in religion, institutions, employers, ideas, etc is not healthy and everything should be challenged with a healthy amount of skepticism. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by LutherDestroysTheGond

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,104]

1 hour ago, Kguillemette said:

I was raised Roman Catholic. It always felt more like a chore to me, and I made a deal with my parents that I would continue to go to mass until my confirmation. After that, I was free to stop going. Within a year later the pedophile scandal blew up and a priest that used to babysit me was named and pled guilty. I dodged quite the bullet and pulled further away. 

Being a spiritual person, I've dabbled with new age(not for me) and was led back to God and Jesus over the past few years and stuck my toes into modern evangelicalism. It's so theatrical and also not for me. Lately I have been doing mostly independent bible study and putting it into context with history to make as much sense of the stories as possible.

One thing I take away from Catholicism is that not only are we all sinners, there is a tier system for them. The venial sin causes a damage to our soul, and if we are repentant, it can be repaired. The mortal sin destroys our soul and thus is cannot be repaired. As best as I understand evangelicalism, it all falls under the veil of sin in God's eyes. Adultery is no different than taking the last slice of pizza or making a passive aggressive comment to a coworker, which I can't get behind.

As for where I am, I am somewhere in the middle. I just keep reading my Bible and keep brushing up on my western civilization, until I come up with the best lessons possible. After all, I just wish to be as Godly as a person as I can be. After all, the main teaching of Jesus is to Love thy neighbor, which no matter what your faith, I feel you can agree with.

I always felt like going to church felt like a chore more than it did anything for me personally. I never understood how my attendance had any bearing on how I conducted myself outside of the building. I've known plenty of unpleasant people that never missed a church service and plenty of great people that never went a day in their life. As you mentioned, loving thy neighbor is something that anyone can do, regardless of their faith. 

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,055]

(Ducks behind cover) just trying to add some levity 

[fcgamer | 4,719]

2 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Here's a question for the devout in this thread. Have you done serious research into the possibility that there may not be a God? Have you studied how different religions came to be over the years? Have you looked into the science that might show otherwise?

One of my issues with the science aspect is that for a lot of the higher-level science, the average person has to just "accept it" at face value, since the average person isn't likely to have the background to understand the theories, nor do they have access to the equipment needed to test and draw conclusions. So in this way, do much of the scientific world has to be taken essentially "in faith" for a large portion of the population.

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

One of my issues with the science aspect is that for a lot of the higher-level science, the average person has to just "accept it" at face value, since the average person isn't likely to have the background to understand the theories, nor do they have access to the equipment needed to test and draw conclusions. So in this way, do much of the scientific world has to be taken essentially "in faith" for a large portion of the population.

 

I mean that's almost everything though. You haven't seen the earth from space, so how do you know what the continents look like? You just assume the pictures shown to you are correct. You have to take an educated guess on who to believe with almost everything. 

[fcgamer | 4,719]

11 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

I mean that's almost everything though. You haven't seen the earth from space, so how do you know what the continents look like? You just assume the pictures shown to you are correct. You have to take an educated guess on who to believe with almost everything. 

Yeah, I'd agree on that.

I guess I just sometimes find it funny though, those who denounce the existence of a higher power due to science, despite the fact of not being able to actually prove that either. I'm not talking about you, rather in general it's an argument I hear thrown around (with science we've proven XYZ) yet of course it's just taken on blind faith by many.

 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

7 hours ago, fcgamer said:

One of my issues with the science aspect is that for a lot of the higher-level science, the average person has to just "accept it" at face value, since the average person isn't likely to have the background to understand the theories, nor do they have access to the equipment needed to test and draw conclusions. So in this way, do much of the scientific world has to be taken essentially "in faith" for a large portion of the population.

That's why there is a scientific process where they have to show their work... They aren't just declaring whatever they want in a vacuum.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

Actually, who was it that said on NA, and I quote, that "the jury is out on science"

That was an all-timer 

[fcgamer | 4,719]

24 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

That's why there is a scientific process where they have to show their work... They aren't just declaring whatever they want in a vacuum.

Yeah, I totally get this too, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not really accessible to the average person.

 

[RH | 4,895]

11 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Here's a question for the devout in this thread. Have you done serious research into the possibility that there may not be a God? Have you studied how different religions came to be over the years? Have you looked into the science that might show otherwise?

I'm just curious. The main reason I ask is that after doing my own research on the matter, it seems impossible to come to that conclusion. I think it would be an important piece of determining your faith, to do that kind of research. 

Absolutely, but all of what is presented by atheist is lacking a critical component of the possibility of spiritual truth, which is by definition "unobservable" from a scientific stand point.  Religion can have concrete tenants but much of the experience, at least with in Christianity, is a personal experience because we are a faith of a very personal, relatable, present God.  Others can observe the experiences of others but internal change is not something that we can measure, especially when the initiation of the change cannot be executed in controlled environments.

I've read my share of Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, DuBois and I've heard plenty of debates with others.  I'm well acquainted of many of the tenants and supporting arguments for atheism, as well as many other religions.  Christianity is not strictly an intellectual exercise (though it is an important component), but it's also not intended to be blindly accepted.  In fact, Paul in scripture defines faith as the "evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Biblical faith requires both evidence and substance.

So what is the "substance" of our faith that provides the "evidence" for our hope?  There are many substantive fruits of a true walk with the God of Christianity, but those "substances" often hold up poorly under the eye of science because they can seem subjective or personal.  Case and point.  One of the greatest examples that can be observed is the truly changed individual from a conversion experience of meeting and following God.

I grew up Christian and I went to a Christian college that was part of my denomination.  Both before and during college I have come to know countless people who lead hard lives before encountering Jesus.  Heavy drug addicts and users,  some who got close to death and drug dealers or members of highly violent societies where it seemed impossible to get out of alive due to their obligations often tied to organized crime.  Some of these individuals either felt compelled to go to church on a whim, or possibly even went to get a friend or family member off their back.  At church, they didn't experience a religious routine, but they encountered a God that instantly delivered them from their sinful life and surrounding circumstances. 

I know many people who have had instantaneous deliverance from addictions upon conversion.  I know some people who showed up smashed drunk, didn't recall a single word from the sermon, but they knew they had to go to the alter and basically prayed "God help me" and had the affects of the alcohol or drugs instantly leave them.  After that, they never touched the bottle, the coke or whatever, ever again.  For others, even extreme prejudice and hate left them and all they could feel was remorse and repentance for ever even considering being skin-heads or KKK members. These individuals uniformly admit, and can not be convinced otherwise, that an encounter with God 100% transformed their lives, and some of them weren't even looking for that type of experience when they happened into a church. 

This is one example of the "substance" of what is unseen.   It is also the "evidence" of what we hope for because though we all may not have that type of conversion experience, it is a promised glimpse at what life will be like after the resurrection.

And this is not the only evidence of our faith.  I could give other examples, but like miraculous conversion they cannot be observed under the scrutiny of some scientific experiment.  As such, story after story after story of conversion can be written off as "anecdotal".   Regardless, to those who have had, and are having a continual, experiential relationship with God, "scientific" conjecture is lacking evidence compared to the evidence of what they encounter in the faith they live every day.

Edited April 7, 2021 by RH

[phart010 | 1,705]

2 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

That's why there is a scientific process where they have to show their work... They aren't just declaring whatever they want in a vacuum.

It depends on the type of science. Science just means “the study of”

There are sciences of objective measurements and reproducible experiments. There are sciences lacking experimentation and are purely of observation and speculative theories to explain the observations such as evolution. Religious studies can even be classified as “sciences” when you take into account the formalized methodologies used for contributing to the subject.

One thing I take issue with is the sciences of observation being given the same level of credibility as reproducible experiments. Maybe I am biased as I am an engineer but I feel that I can objectively believe in physical sciences with objective measurements that can be reproduced by experiments. Other things like people taking guesses to explain things like how the universe was created billions of years ago or by guessing how the continents drifted from Pangea to their current arrangement, or by looking at fossils and guessing how life evolved from single cells into progressively more complicated life forms... ok I am not against it if that’s what really happened, but can someone actually “prove it” to me.

At best some sciences can only give us some circumstantial or analogical evidence, but it still requires that leap of faith if you want to believe in it. In that way, some sciences are kind of similar to religion.

 

[Estil | 1,261]

On 4/4/2021 at 7:45 AM, RegularGuyGamer said:

Ingredients for intolerance from a doctrine that says only God is the one who can judge us and that all people sin? Seems like a misinterpretation of the text to me. 

Well except for that one guy...    Though I have to reckon if that Enoch guy (from Genesis, no not the video game console, no not Phil Collins' former band) walked with God for 600ish years and was taken body/soul into heaven...

[CMR | 519]

I wouldn't marry a cultists.

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

12 hours ago, RH said:

all of what is presented by atheist is lacking a critical component of the possibility of spiritual truth

Well yea, that's the definition of atheism. 

12 hours ago, RH said:

One of the greatest examples that can be observed is the truly changed individual from a conversion experience of meeting and following God.

 

12 hours ago, RH said:

but they encountered a God that instantly delivered them from their sinful life and surrounding circumstances. 

 

12 hours ago, RH said:

These individuals uniformly admit, and can not be convinced otherwise, that an encounter with God 100% transformed their lives

Alight man. I get what you are trying to say. But.... I'm sorry, I disagree. The examples you provided are not substance and are not evidence. Anyone can say that they "met God". Anyone can convince themselves that something is true. It happens all the time. That is not evidence. 

Is it a good thing that these people found a way to get over addiction, sad ways of life, etc? Yes it is. If religion is the crutch they need to do that, and be a better person, I am happy for them and I support that.

But it is not evidence of God.

It actually makes me a little sad too, because these people came to a realization that they needed to make a change, and they did it, and instead of giving themselves the credit they deserve for having the strength and will power to change, they are instead placing that credit elsewhere. 

Also, I'd say a counterpoint to your example is countless junkies, criminals, addicts etc, who also "meet God", yet continue to relapse, commit crimes, etc, and not change their ways. Why did meeting God not help them like it did others? 

That would be free will yea? The same free will that the people you mentioned are using to actually change...

I'm glad it helped people. But It's not evidence and its not substance. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by CodysGameRoom

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,055]

Serious question. May have been brought up but there has been a bunch of replies since I last looked. 

How do people convince themselves that their religion is correct? By that I mean, there have been hundreds if not thousands of god(s)/religions since the beginning of man. What makes a person so sure theirs is even remotely close to accurate? Especially the “younger” faiths like christianity and muslim. There were thousands of years worth of various religion before that. Why would god suddenly decide 2000yrs ago that it was time to make the “true” faith known? What happens to all of the people before that time? They just burn in hell because the “right” religion didnt exist yet? What about the other far reaches of the world, that disnt get a prophet sent by god? Were they just not worthy of hearing about it or something? What if a particular religion was wrong all along and the right answer was the sun god Ra or something?

This has always been my number one reason for not being religious. There has been far too many of them over far to long a period of time to choose the “correct” one. Any reasoning that someone might provide for the correct choice would be nonsensical.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

45 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

How do people convince themselves that their religion is correct?

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

57 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

This has always been my number one reason for not being religious. There has been far too many of them over far to long a period of time to choose the “correct” one.

I touched on this with my question earlier as well. If research is done into the actual history of religion, it seems pretty nonsensical to follow one of the "newer" religions. 

[Webhead123 | 675]

1 hour ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

How do people convince themselves that their religion is correct? By that I mean, there have been hundreds if not thousands of god(s)/religions since the beginning of man. What makes a person so sure theirs is even remotely close to accurate? Especially the “younger” faiths like christianity and muslim. There were thousands of years worth of various religion before that. Why would god suddenly decide 2000yrs ago that it was time to make the “true” faith known? What happens to all of the people before that time? They just burn in hell because the “right” religion didnt exist yet? What about the other far reaches of the world, that disnt get a prophet sent by god? Were they just not worthy of hearing about it or something? What if a particular religion was wrong all along and the right answer was the sun god Ra or something?

Dawkins has a famous response to the "How do you know your belief is the right belief?", which many may have heard before. But I've always found it incredibly interesting to consider, so I thought it was worth sharing here:

Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" - YouTube

[RH | 4,895]

 

@CodysGameRoom & @LeatherRebel5150 I'll try to respond later to your comments.  I'm busy at work.  I just wanted to make note unless I can't get back to this until late tonight, or tomorrow, and it's buried by other comments.

[CMR | 519]

8 hours ago, Webhead123 said:

Dawkins has a famous response to the "How do you know your belief is the right belief?", which many may have heard before. But I've always found it incredibly interesting to consider, so I thought it was worth sharing here:

Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" - YouTube

The problem with Dawkins's answer was that he never actually answered the question, but in my opinion a better question for Dawkins would be: If you're an atheist, then why do you care?