I thought it might be appropriate to begin my blogging experience by telling my de-conversion story. I've never written about it before so, frankly, I have no idea how many posts this will take (the de-conversion itself took about two years). I'll do my best to cover all of the salient points in my journey and, hey, I'll be done when I'm done...
It all started in 2008 when I made a decision, together with a group of fellow Christians, to read the Bible from cover to cover (quite literally...beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation). Having just come out of a dry spell, aka a "lukewarm" period, in my faith, I was feeling a renewed sense of passion to dig deeper into (what I thought at the time was) my walk with God. Simply put, I was pretty excited about the challenge.
Now, don't get me wrong, I knew full well there was some weird stuff in the Bible. Also, I had read much of the Old (and New) Testament before, but, for an assortment of reasons, that I won't take the time to analyze now, this time around it hit me in a totally different way. Yes, of course, I knew the Old Testament was the "old covenant", and that Jesus (supposedly) abolished all of these weird laws and restrictions, with the "new covenant", but, still, it WAS supposed to be the same God...wasn't it?
Well, if so, than this God is way more petty (which isn't to mention cruel, barbaric...) than I had ever imagined Him to be. (And isn't God supposed to be the same "yesterday, today, and forever"?)
For example, what spiritual lesson was I supposed to be gleaning from verses like Leviticus 19:19? "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." Mixing fabrics used to be sinful in God's eyes? Was I missing something here?
I could give many many many more examples (so please don't waste your time on trying to justify and/or explain this single verse) but, for the purposes of my initial (de-conversion themed) post, I simply want to make the point that it was the Bible itself that first stirred up doubts in me (but really they were more like questions, at this stage of my journey, since I was still convinced there were satisfactory answers to be found...if I looked hard enough).
Well, over the next two years, I looked. And looked and looked and looked again. And the more I did, the deeper my questions (soon to be doubts) became.
I'll pick up this story, again, in my next post.
So I've taken your advice and began at the beginning. I know, you said not to "waste my time" trying to justify Leviticus 19:19, but I don't think the comment I'm about to leave is a waste of time at all. Rather, I can only hope that you'll see the shaky reasoning here. You argue from incredulity: you can't conceive of a reason why cattle should not be mixed, and so you conclude that God is being petty.
ReplyDeleteDo you see the danger there? It's the same thing as so-called "vestigial organs." That you don't see a valid reason for X doesn't mean X doesn't have a valid reason.
I can only hope that your future reasons for rejecting Christ are not founded on incredulity!
Actually, I'm not really trying to make an argument here at all. There were certain things that initially struck me as odd, during the Bible reading challenge, and these were some of the thoughts that went through my mind at the time. I don't move into the "making arguments" stage of the blog until much later on.
DeleteSince you brought it up though...how would you, as a Christian, explain Leviticus 19:19? I'm curious.
There were certain things that initially struck me as odd...
ReplyDeleteI know, I get that. I'm cautioning against making inferences on the basis of incredulity.
Since you brought it up though...how would you, as a Christian, explain Leviticus 19:19? I'm curious.
Genetics comes to mind. It makes perfect sense to me that there might be genetic reasons for God prohibiting the mating of different types of animals.
I'm cautioning against making inferences on the basis of incredulity.
DeleteI understand your point, and I have no problem with it. I was fully aware then, as I am now, that alternate explanations might exist for things that I initially found confusing. That's why I said, above, "Am I missing something here?".
It makes perfect sense to me that there might be genetic reasons for God prohibiting the mating of different types of animals.
Well, firstly, it was the second half of the verse that struck me as odd (not the first half). This is why I followed up the quote by saying, "Mixing fabrics used to be sinful in God's eyes?". So, now that we're discussing the verse, how would you explain that second half?
I've noticed you do a lot of "cautioning", so allow me to offer a caution of my own at this stage...
The mere existence of a "possible" explanation, for a given Bible verse, does not entail its probability. You seem like a smart guy, so I know that you already know this. It is not enough for you, or anyone else, to simply come up with something that problematic verses might "possibly" mean. Gleason Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" is nearly 500 pages long, yet very few of his arguments strike me as very probable at all. "Possible" arguments may keep the faithful from (lethal levels of) doubt, but they are less than convincing to those of us who are already willing to entertain doubt and even disbelief. I want the truth; not just a "possible" explanation that serves the function of keeping Christian faith viable on a surface level.
Sorry, I meant to bold your words (so as to distinguish them from mine). My bad.
DeleteIt feels like I'm annoying you with my cautioning. Sorry if that's the case.
ReplyDeleteSo, now that we're discussing the verse, how would you explain that second half?
A model for purity. I could think of other reasons but that one strikes me as the most plausible because it is present in so many other verses.
The mere existence of a "possible" explanation, for a given Bible verse, does not entail its probability.
I agree, but I'm confused: Why would you caution me against a precept I haven't endorsed? You asked what reason I could think of for Lev. 19:19 and I supplied—not a "merely possible" explanation—but a rather plausible explanation given what we now know of genetics. Did you misunderstand something I wrote?
It is not enough for you, or anyone else, to simply come up with something that problematic verses might "possibly" mean.
"Not enough" for what? To convince a skeptic? If so, I agree, but in my opinion, simply asserting that a given verse is problematic because you can't make sense of it is not enough to justify doubt. Early, you said you "understand my point" on this, so if that's the case, I have no further points to make save for a few comments and questions on this:
I want the truth; not just a "possible" explanation that serves the function of keeping Christian faith viable on a surface level.
Hey, I'm right there with you, I want the truth, too, but how can I possibly confirm that my answer is the One True Answer? Don't you think that's a bit of an unreasonable request?
Also, I'm a little bummed because that's the second time you've alluded to intent that simply does not exist. What I said about genetics has no "function" at all, and your remark implies that you view what I said as some sort of security blanket to keep me believing. I take mild offense to that, but, no big deal, if it's not the case I'm sure you'll clarify. It's likely the case that some or even many of the Christians you know have these sorts of security blankets, but does that give you the right to imply the same of me?
Love your blog. I was a Christian for about 25+ years, until three years ago. I remember hard times when I couldn't wait to shut out the world and jump into one of my One Year Bibles.
ReplyDeleteIt was my fourth time through (in about 2000) that I started having troubles. Some passages didn't seem to jibe with others.
One of my biggest problems was 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 "Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth." In other words God does A (sends them a strong delusion) in order to bring about B (they believe what is false) in order to bring about C (condemnation and Hell). The only logical pathway I can see is that if God did not do A then C would not occur. In order to accomplish C, God does A. What are we to think then? That there are people (Christians?) who would not be condemned unless God tricked them into believing falsehood. I guess there are just some people God does not want to get into Heaven and so He has to deceive them in order to keep them out. Weird.
Great point Scott, and thanks for the encouragement. I'd love to hear more of your story sometime.
DeleteHi Scott. Here's what I'd say to your comment:
ReplyDelete"The only logical pathway I can see is that if God did not do A then C would not occur."
It's not that. You're really starting at B. You didn't assess the character of those the writer refers to here. The people in question allowed themselves to be deceived, and refused to love the truth. Therefore, there is no recourse left for them. In other words, their doom is the result of their own choice.