Why I left the Christian church

[matt_mcl]

I posted this originally in Esprix’s thread here, and was asked by several posters to repost it as a new thread. So, on the principle that a religion is a philosophy like any other and is therefore open to philosophical discussion, here goes.

-I see a religion which denies humanity’s ability to construct its own ethical structure. It promulgates moral rules not in reference to any consequences they could have, but just “because He said so”. Its followers are not encouraged to consider local conditions when making a choice, but rather to believe in a chimerical universal moral code, whether or not it is useful in a particular circumstance. *It is abstract. *

-As a result, in direct contravention of its founder’s dictum that man is not made for the sabbath, every historical indication is of a church that has encouraged its followers to think of the needs of human society as less important than the needs of the church. *It is anti-humanist. *

-It does not encourage learning and knowledge. Consider the prayer “lead us from doubt to faith”. It is not interested in consideration and questioning except insofar as that would tend to bolster the Christian argument (consider the Scholasticist clerics prior to the Enlightenment). Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge caused the stigma of original sin, rather than being rewarded as a portion of the quest for knowledge and understanding. *It encourages blindness. *

-It includes no reference to balance. It instead urges its followers to identify whole halves of the human condition, whole “others”, and cut them off, rather than attempting to create an eclectic life, learn from every source, balance their experience, sample, stay in moderation, and enjoy. Once one has identified The One Right, Just and True Way, one is not encouraged to pursue it in moderation or to doubt its rightness, but rather to believe that one has God on one’s side in whatever means one might take to that “holy” end. *It is unbalanced and dualist. *

-It involves a God who rules the universe and is outside the universe. Since humans are created in the image of God, this encourages humans to think of themselves as outside the realm of nature - to “have dominion over the Earth” rather than to consider themselves part of it. *It does not recognize the need for harmony with nature. *

The philosophical failings I listed above have been the spiritual ancestors of débâcles such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the slave trade, and the growth of scholasticist rationalism of the Voltaire’s Bastards variety.

As I’ve mentioned, most of these are not the fault of Jehoshua bar-Joseph; they are more or less the fault of Saul of Tarsus and later commentators, who wasted no time converting the popular new cult into an abstract power structure. Much of the dualist and abstract baggage came from the religions of Greece and Rome, and piggybacked quite nicely on the remaining Jewish remnants of Christian doctrine. But there we have it.

This is why I left the Christian church.

[matt_mcl]

Jodi’s comments are in italics.

It promulgates moral rules not in reference to any consequences they could have, but just “because He said so”.

*The unthinking reason for following any rule-system is “because those are the rules;” the thinking reason for following rules is because you personally see the validity and utility of them. Just because one can be an unthinking Christian doesn’t mean one has to be. *

That may be, but my point is that Christians have never been encouraged to do this. The Bible, for the vast most part, does not attempt to give any justification for its rules other than “this or that is hateful to the Lord.”

Its followers are not encouraged to consider local conditions when making a choice, but rather to believe in a chimerical universal moral code, whether or not it is useful in a particular circumstance. The existence of universal moral rules – it is wrong to murder, for example – does not make those rules chimerical.

Since “it is wrong to murder” is circular (“murder” meaning “wrongful killing”), let’s deal with “killing”. To promulgate a universal rule about killing is to imply that you know every situation that will ever take place, and you know that killing will be wrong in all of them. What about killing in defense of yourself or your loved ones? What about killing during a war? Promulgating universal rules is an attempt to hide real issues because they could lead to doubt.

It is abstract. *All religions are to a great degree abstract; concrete religions are not flexible enough to survive or universal enough to prosper. *

Just because something can survive and grow doesn’t mean that this is good. Also, perhaps I should explain what I mean by “abstract” religions. I mean those religions which are applied onto reality rather than being derived from reality. If Christianity is, as I charge, applied onto reality rather than being derived from it, I see that as quite a damning condemnation.

It is anti-humanist. *It is only anti-humanist to the extent that it recognizes that human wants cannot out-weigh God-given responsibilities. Just because you want an apple doesn’t mean you can steal it. *

Straw man. Humanism doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you like. It means that philosophical systems are true insofar as they improve the lives of humans, rather than bear witness to some abstract reality beyond our lives.

-It does not encourage learning and knowledge. . . .* According to my experience, this is absolutely and demonstrably incorrect, both in terms of modern moderate Christianity and in terms of historical contributions to the universal body of knowledge. *

Tell it to Galileo, Bruno, Darwin…

Once one has identified The One Right, Just and True Way, one is not encouraged to pursue it in moderation *Assuming you are confident you have ahold of it, how and why does one pursue justice or truth in moderation? *

Because you can never know that you have a hold on these things. That’s why you must proceed cautiously, with doubt and consideration and reflection, lest your wilful blindness lead you to justifying the means on the grounds of the ends.

but rather to believe that one has God on one’s side in whatever means one might take to that “holy” end. *Christianity is not Machiavellian; it does not stand for the proposition that the ends justify the means.

I contend that it does, for the reasons listed above.

It involves a God who rules the universe and is outside the universe. It involves a God who is throughout the universe.

He may be throughout the universe, but he is the ruler of the universe, not a part of the universe, any more than the king is part of the peasantry.

Humans manifestly “have dominion” over the earth; I don’t think this is arguable. I also don’t think it can be credited to or blamed on Christianity.

This is true. Whether we ought to hold dominion over the earth, or whether we ought not to exploit it for our own use, is another question.

Great evil has been done in the name of God; great good as well. Again, Christianity can neither accept all the credit nor take all the blame for this. Do you have the same problems with Islam and Judaism?

Yes.

[Navigator]

He may be throughout the universe, but he is the ruler of the universe, not a part of the universe, any more than the king is part of the peasantry.

Isn’t part of Christianity that God became part of the peasantry (Incarnation), and continues to do so through the work of the Holy Spirit?

[The_Tim]

Isn’t part of Christianity that God became part of the peasantry (Incarnation), and continues to do so through the work of the Holy Spirit?

An often forgotten part even by Christians. Especially since the humanity of Jesus is heavily down plaid. To continue the metaphore a king dressed as a peasent is still a king.

The Gospel According to the Son (I forget the author at the moment) Is an interesting attempt to give Jesus some humanity. But a fair deal of the time Jesus is presented as God in a nifty disguise.

[Polycarp]

Since I was part of the “public outcry for this thread” I’ll start the response. Matt’s comments in quotes, my responses follow.

-I see a religion which denies humanity’s ability to construct its own ethical structure. It promulgates moral rules not in reference to any consequences they could have, but just “because He said so”. Its followers are not encouraged to consider local conditions when making a choice, but rather to believe in a chimerical universal moral code, whether or not it is useful in a particular circumstance. It is abstract.

This takes two separate responses to address adequately. First, in reference to the first two sentences:

It would be part of the essence of a theistic religion to take into consideration what the deity of that religion, who is by definition interested in human conduct, expects. The laws of God can be changed by God, just as the laws of Canada can be changed by Parliament; but until and unless changed, the citizens of Canada and the followers of God are obliged to comply with the laws that are in place, on appropriate penalty. While a religious system such as paganism or deism may recognize that there is no god with an interest in human behavior, it is not self-contradictory for one which asserts such a god to have him legislate. Now, as to the content of the laws:

It is in the nature of man to make rules. Your company no doubt has a procedures manual, or unwritten ways of doing things. The university has codes of conduct, regulations on when one may do thus and so – withdraw from a course, appeal a grade, etc. I doubt I’m the only one who has ever worked somewhere that has posted the rueful slogan: “It doesn’t have to make sense; it’s our policy!”

What I see is Christianity structuring a moral code which its followers are obliged to comply with over a quite simple and reasonably humanistic ethic which its God proclaimed in a particular time and place while incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth: Love God with all that is in you; love every other person as you love yourself. Don’t judge others; treat them as you would want to be treated in their shoes. This is not particularist but universal. Too, I think that the Torah was an attempt to spell out the implications of just that code, which is incorporated in it, and resulted in the fences and rabbinical hairsplitting that Jesus had problems with. And the cycle repeats itself. Presumably His return will result in the same cycle: He’ll teach love, his followers will try to follow that teaching, and along will come moralistic codifiers to say who can do what when, after killing Him again.

As a result, in direct contravention of its founder’s dictum that man is not made for the sabbath, every historical indication is of a church that has encouraged its followers to think of the needs of human society as less important than the needs of the church. It is anti-humanist.

Depends. Every church takes seriously the needs of the poor; but many find it secondary to “getting them saved.” Lots of left-wing churches focus on social justice and humanistic concerns.

-It does not encourage learning and knowledge. Consider the prayer “lead us from doubt to faith”. It is not interested in consideration and questioning except insofar as that would tend to bolster the Christian argument (consider the Scholasticist clerics prior to the Enlightenment). Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge caused the stigma of original sin, rather than being rewarded as a portion of the quest for knowledge and understanding. It encourages blindness.

Again, it depends on who you talk to. Fred Phelps is not intersted in intelligent dialogue. Jerry Falwell has the Answer, and it’s pretty simple. But take a look at John Shelby Spong, or John A.T. Robinson. My own church is not unique among Christian churches, and it’s an intellectual ferment.

-It includes no reference to balance. It instead urges its followers to identify whole halves of the human condition, whole “others”, and cut them off, rather than attempting to create an eclectic life, learn from every source, balance their experience, sample, stay in moderation, and enjoy. Once one has identified The One Right, Just and True Way, one is not encouraged to pursue it in moderation or to doubt its rightness, but rather to believe that one has God on one’s side in whatever means one might take to that “holy” end. It is unbalanced and dualist.

True, more or less. Jesus spoke (figuratively) of a balanced and integrated life lived in dedication to God and enjoying His Creation, but the mind/body duality of the Greeks was imposed by rather ascetic followers early on and has been a problem to be dealt with ever since.

-It involves a God who rules the universe and is outside the universe. Since humans are created in the image of God, this encourages humans to think of themselves as outside the realm of nature - to “have dominion over the Earth” rather than to consider themselves part of it. It does not recognize the need for harmony with nature.

See above. I’ve been trying to express the idea of a God whose Providence works through the world as we know it, rather than “r’aring back and passing a miracle” to change it. After all, He has a purpose for everything, according to Christianity, and He made the world as it is, with full knowledge of what would happen. It makes more sense for Him to work within his creation than as an outside force. “The Kingdom of God is very near / The Kingdom of God is within you.” Mebbe he even works through you and me?

As I’ve mentioned, most of these are not the fault of Jehoshua bar-Joseph; they are more or less the fault of Saul of Tarsus and later commentators, who wasted no time converting the popular new cult into an abstract power structure. Much of the dualist and abstract baggage came from the religions of Greece and Rome, and piggybacked quite nicely on the remaining Jewish remnants of Christian doctrine. But there we have it.

I prefer to get rid of the dirty bathwater and keep the baby. Your mileage may vary.

[Navigator]

I prefer to get rid of the dirty bathwater and keep the baby.

How very apt, given the season.

[Moirai]

Matt, do you mind me asking which denomination you were once part of? I assume that some of your discontentment comes from the teachings of the particular church you were raised in.

Please? Thank you! It would help me understand your post better.

[Fletch]

A bible scholar co-worker and I disagree with the notion that a person must accept consciously Jesus in order to enter heaven. He believes that this idea is all encompassing and if a person doesn’t accept Jesus they are condemned to hell.

I asked him about babies and children that die before they are able to consciously accept Jesus and people that have never had any exposure to the bible. He states there are no exceptions, they are condemned to hell.

I have a very major problem with this notion and Christianity. If God created man and loves man then why condemn that same man to hell? God loves you, you better know Jesus real well or God will fry you. Why condemn a baby, a child, a tribesman in some jungle or a citizen of a country that won’t allow any religion?

[Jodi]

MATT:

That may be, but my point is that Christians have never been encouraged to do this [think for themselves].

Again, I can only say that this is not my experience. There have been countless books by Christians contemplating their faith, from the Desert Fathers to C.S. Lewis and beyond, and asking “what does God ask of us by saying ‘X’?” If God had meant for humans to be sheep, He could have withheld from us the desire to know. I, like Galileo, do not believe that a God that gave me a brain would expect me not to use it.

The Bible, for the vast most part, does not attempt to give any justification for its rules other than “this or that is hateful to the Lord.”

The question is not whether the Bible justifies such commandments as “love your neighbor” and “forgive seven times seven” but whether you, as a thinking person, can personally justify following them. If you can’t, then by all means don’t. I mean, I hardly constrain myself to be silent in church just because Paul (that old mysogynist) said I should be.

Since “it is wrong to murder” is circular (“murder” meaning “wrongful killing”), let’s deal with “killing”.

No; we must deal with murder, precisely because the universal tenet (not religious but sociological) is not “it is wrong to kill” but rather “it is wrong to murder” (i.e., to kill without justification).

To promulgate a universal rule about killing is to imply that you know every situation that will ever take place, and you know that killing will be wrong in all of them. What about killing in defense of yourself or your loved ones? What about killing during a war? Promulgating universal rules is an attempt to hide real issues because they could lead to doubt.

But this is not what I said. The universal sociological rule (reflected in religions) is not that it is wrong to kill but that it is wrong to murder – or, if you will, that it is generally wrong to kill, unless that killing can be justified. All of which is beside the point, which is that the promulgation of universal rules is hardly a characteristic of Christianity alone – every organized religion, and indeed every organized soiciety, does so. Promulgating universal rules is not an attempt to hide “real issues” but rather a recognition that certain behaviors are generally to be encouraged, certain behaviors are generally to be discouraged, and certain actions are not to be tolerated.

Also, perhaps I should explain what I mean by “abstract” religions. I mean those religions which are applied onto reality rather than being derived from reality. If Christianity is, as I charge, applied onto reality rather than being derived from it, I see that as quite a damning condemnation.

Interesting. Because I, of course, believe exactly the opposite. If a religion is formulated primarily to meet the needs and wants of the populace, without reference to a perceived higher morality or overarching divinity, then it is pablum.

Humanism doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you like. It means that philosophical systems are true insofar as they improve the lives of humans, rather than bear witness to some abstract reality beyond our lives.

So Christianity is only anti-humanist if it does not improve the lives of humans. This is not even the same as “putting the church first,” which you said before. Of course, a religion that puts the organized church first (even assuming all Christianity does, which I don’t think you can say) could still do great good for humanity and, if it does, it is by your definition not anti-humanist.

Tell it to Galileo, Bruno, Darwin…

Occasional oppression of human thought is not the same as universal or systematic oppression of human thought. In particular, however, I do not have to “tell it” to Galileo, who lived and died an ardent Christian and who himself recognized that the wrongful actions of the Catholic church could not be imputed to all of Christianity.

Because you can never know that you have a hold on these things (the One Right, Just and True Way).

Oh, sure you can. I know it is right to love my neighbor because I have thought that through and see the rightness of it. Having done so, I can pursue that goal with zealotry and wild abandon, and I don’t have to re-think it 900 times. (“Is this still right?”)

That’s why you must proceed cautiously, with doubt and consideration and reflection, lest your wilful blindness lead you to justifying the means on the grounds of the ends.

You must proceed cautiously, yes, but you must proceed. You must not be so caught up by indecision that you are paralyzed and accomplish nothing. A considered response is absolutely appropriate; that does not, however, support the conclusion that any response is by definition inconsidered.

I contend that it does, for the reasons listed above.

Hmmm. “Does, too.” Well, I have no response to that.

He may be throughout the universe, but he is the ruler of the universe, not a part of the universe, any more than the king is part of the peasantry.

He IS a part of the peasantry – you know, that whole Jesus thing.

I asked “Do you have the same problems with Islam and Judaism?” to which you respond: “Yes.” So would it be fair to say that your problem is not so much with Christianity as it is with organized religions?

[Grim_Beaker]

It’s my experience that the requirements for getting into heaven differ from christian denomination to christian denomination. The opinion expressed by your friend, while probably representative of the church he attends, isn’t universally held by all christian sects.

A lot of a given churches doctrine is due to the interpretation of biblical passages. Some congregations concentrate on only a subset of the books in the Bible. Sometimes a single book in the Bible. Others use the entire Bible. Under these conditions no wonder theres a plethora of churches based on christianity. I think it would have probably been more accurate to title this thread “Why I left the such-and-such denomination” rather than “Why I left the christian church”.

[jmullaney]

Matt – don’t let Jodi fool you with semantics – it is always a sin to kill. Since Christians are not to resist evil, what possible justification could there be?

[Fletch]

Hello Grim, yes, I am alive. My family attended a rigid protestant type church when I was growing up. The church focused on hell fire and brimstone, if you didn’t believe exactly as they dictated, you were going to hell. I married a Catholic woman and started attending the Catholic church with her and eventually became a Catholic.

I don’t agree with all the doctrines of the Catholic church but I am more comfortable with it than the hell fire and brimstone church.

The hell fire and brimstone church turned me off to christianity for a good many years. I think that the extreme interpretations and denial of any other beliefs having a chance to enter heaven were just too much. The church put the price of entrance to heaven unreachable for anyone.

My co-worker attends a church called Bible Believers. He is well versed with the bible and can quote scriptures for hours at a time. I say that the bible contradicts itself and he says that the humans are the contradictions.

[Moirai]

Fletch- WHICH “rigid protestant-type church?” I ask because, as stated earlier, some denominations are very different from others, even if they come under the same heading of “Protestant.”

My denomination, Methodist, encourages thought and does not preach hellfire and brimstone. No-one EVER told me that my baby would go to hell if he died before baptism or confirmation, nor will my lapsed Catholic husband burn forever. When we have communion, all are welcome at the table of the Lord, regardless of church affiliation. I find that sort of bullshit absolutely ridiculous.

Yet I am still a Christian.

Elsewhere on this board, folks are so careful not to paint a diverse group of people with one wide brush, yet it seems to be no problem for Christians.

PS- if you’re not going to seperate different denominations, then don’t seperate Protestant and Catholic.

[Fletch]

Okay EJ, the church was named “Jesus Saves”. I don’t think it was a particular denomination, I have never seen another one. This is why I didn’t mention the name, it might of well have been named “The Church at 810 Main Street”, the name lacked any tie into other churches.

I do remember that “Jesus Saves” didn’t hold Methodists in any higher regard than Catholics or Latter Day Saints, they were all hellbound heathens to them.

I don’t know anything about Methodists, Zionists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians or Lutherans or their practices. I can only state what I have been exposed to “Jesus Saves” and the Catholic church.

PS-I can’t stand painting.

[Weirddave]

I, like Galileo, do not believe that a God that gave me a brain would expect me not to use it.

Jodi, this is a good point. It is also something that a great many Christians can’t seem to grasp. ( nobody in particular here ) Their attitude seems to be, How can you say you’ve thought about it? You don’t agree with it. Such an attitude is condesending in the extreme, and one of the things that puts off a lot of non Christians.

[Jodi]

EJ’S GIRL – Hail, fellow Methodist! It sounds to me like the church Fletch is talking about is a non-denominational evangelical church, one of those four-square gospel ones. They are the true Bible-thumping born-againers. I would take everything an adherent says with a grain of salt, and certainly not take their word for what Christianity is. Like you, Fletch, I look at their version of it (“everyone who lived before Christ is damned. Everyone who lived since Christ but didn’t know who he was is damned. Everyone who heard of Him but didn’t accept Him is damned.”) and thought “Huh. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Where’s the whole ‘God of Love’ thing in there?”

Again, nobody said we have to turn our brains of just because we’re talking about religion.

WEIRDDAVE:

Jodi, this is a good point. It is also something that a great many Christians can’t seem to grasp. ( nobody in particular here ) Their attitude seems to be, How can you say you’ve thought about it? You don’t agree with it. Such an attitude is condesending in the extreme, and one of the things that puts off a lot of non Christians.

Dave, I agree; this bugs the CRAP out of me. I mean, if you really want to see me lose my temper, this is the way to do it. The whole “well, if you don’t agree, you must not understand” or “if you don’t agree, you must not have thought it through” position is SO offensive – not just in religion but in every context – because it translates to “I’m smart and you’re stupid.” I’ve never understood why people think this would be a suggestful way to convert others to anything.

[Fletch]

Thank you Jodi, you are absolutely correct. I refused to go to that church with my parents at about age 13 and didn’t see the inside of a church for a long time after that. I think that particular church did more to drive people away than it did to “save” them.

EJ, good to see you found another Methodist friend on the board. I hope this explains the funky church my parents drug me to until I got too big to be drug any more.

[tracer]

Navigator wrote:

I prefer to get rid of the dirty bathwater and keep the baby.

How very apt, given the season.

You mean the season of the Sol Invictus festival, with its Saturnalia and its Yule Log and its wild debauchery and abandonment? Ooh, baby!

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

[RoboDude]

------------------------------------------------------------What I see is Christianity structuring a moral code which its followers are obliged to comply with over a quite simple and reasonably humanistic ethic which its God proclaimed in a particular time and place while incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth: Love God with all that is in you; love every other person as you love yourself. Don’t judge others; treat them as you would want to be treated in their shoes.

You forgot a few, Polycarp: Don’t be gay, don’t have sex with someone you aren’t married to, and don’t use birth control (I’m not sure if that one is believed by anyone other than Catholics, though). Do those sound reasonable and humanistic to you?

[matt_mcl]

I’m extremely tired after a draining political meeting, but I’ll answer one question tonight. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, my parents’ denomination had little or nothing to do with my problems with Christianity. Actually, I was baptized in the United Church of Canada, one of the most liberal denominations in this country.