Ritual, symbolism and storytelling are all powerful human traits, but trying to attribute them to supernatural events is where I always depart from others. Your videos are still great to hear, and I hope your channel grows.
This is a Comment of Love. I’m 73 and have been a Seeker since childhood. Raised Catholic … never lost Faith, just Christianity. You opened a door to view Christianity differently💕
I've jettisoned many of the traditional doctrines over the years as unnecessary to my faith. Stripped down to a loving God, universal salvation, love for your neighbor, what more do we really need? We're all God's children ❤
Not only unnecessary, but actively working against the very thing the Bible says it wants us to know: namely that God is love, Jesus saved sinners & the gospel is good news that brings peace & joy.
Well said, brother. My personal view is that the story of Jesus is incredibly valuable when taken as a spiritual allegory and incredibly toxic when taken as a literal history. It has saved a lot of people and destroyed just as many. It all depends on the perspective one takes when utilizing it. I've studied many religions, and I've noticed a common thread through all of the great ones that shouldn't be ignored - death of the lower self and rebirth of the higher self - forgiveness & redemption of past transgressions - progression towards a connection to the divine, etc. The problem seems to come when an individual finds religion, or is raised in a religion, and, as a result, falls into the supremacist mind state, shuts off their willingness to take in and consider new information (especially when it conflicts with their current beliefs), and doesn't respect the paths of those around them when they don't completely match their own. Whatever way people find/look for God, however we want to define such a thing, so long as that search helps them become a better person to themselves and those around them, then whatever label they put on that belief, more power to them.
Love this video. I am in exactly the same spot in my deconstruction of my faith right now. Raised fundamentalist evangelical, but I'm finally reconsidering the nuance of Christian interpretations, other worldviews, and the big questions that have plagued all of humanity. Yet I find myself listening to worship and attending church for exactly the reasons you mentioned. This video is a big help. Thank you.
Carl Sagan knows why = "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves - that we've been (taken.) so credulous. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)”. In other words, when someone is “In Too Deep” they no longer care about the truth. Instead, they care more about keeping that lie/belief alive. That is called: Sunk Cost Fallacy.
I don't understand how you can sit through the sermons, unless you attend a universalist type church. I started similar to you, thinking there was still a lot worth saving in the church. The older I get, the more convinced I am that the harm most Christian organizations do outweighs the good. Instead of going to church, there are many other ways to spend time with other people that are much more meaningful.
How refreshing to hear an honest christian. I hear what you are saying but i don't understand how you know what you know yet still want to be a part of any organized religion. I appreciate your videos. Keep them coming.
I just have to say how much I've appreciated your videos, especially this one. After decades in evangelical churches, my wife and I have started a phase of exploring what we believe of Christianity and the kind of church we think would be a good fit for us. Thank you so much for making these videos.
100% correct. For the vast majority of Christian history, the faith has been much broader, kinder, and more intellectual than the scaled down version of Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism. You are correct about the self-contradictory nature of inerrancy, the creeping anti-intellectualism, the limitations of vicarious substitutionary atonement, the value of orthopraxy over orthodoxy, Christianity’s dynamic, communal nature. To be fair, as you note, there are still churches all over the world that didn’t fall into the limitations of the current north American zeitgeist.
There are many other great churches. But from where I sit in Canada, there's a powerful media and financial force behind extremist Christianity pushing it forward. It's worrying. I want us to recapture the other kind
@@cjohnyrun What I'm seeing in the US is really a heartbreaker. Most progressive congregations have about a score of worshippers most Sunday mornings. One such church in my area has about as many people who are involved through volunteer work but not services or studies. It's a good thing that people in the neighborhood have a place for Christian charity, but they would probably get more out of it if they became regular members. The sparseness of the memberships might not be as bad as the average age of the members--a lot of funerals but not many baptisms.
Good Video. I was a Christian for over 30s. It never felt quite right. I just happened to be born at the right time in history, into the right family, in the right country where the religion that I was born into was the correct 1/1000s. I'm fully Deconverted now and it feels amazing not living in fear of Eternal Hell fire "concept"...I cannot go back into a church. I just cannot. I was forced to for almost 3 decades. I now see thru these preachers like a glass window. Christianity is a man-made scam created for control over your mind. Very well orchestrated by the ecumenical councils between the 4th and 5th century. That's it. They even say themselves that they created this religion with intentions to last for millennias. Fyi I still believe in a Creator of the U-ni-verse. But clearly not the biblical one
I hear you. I’ve been deconverted for about 2 years. I’ll be 40 this year. I’m experiencing a perspective of life that I feel saddened to have missed for the bulk of my life. However, I would like to challenge you a bit. Those that are still “in it” quite probably genuinely believe it. While I agree that the narratives of religion are constructed by human minds, I’m not convinced that it’s part of a grand deliberate control scheme. I think the development of religions are very much like biological evolution. They just happen on the social plane, rather than the biological. There’s no end goal. Only what works to structure our societies in a way to create functional and beneficial communities will continue to be “evangelized”.
@@Wericii Both things are apparently true: some people utilize religions for deep personal meaning and growth and some for gaining and maintaining power imbalances. From my perspective it's obvious that every new development in the long but accelerating evolution of human culture and technology is immediately weaponized by a minority of the most ruthlessly self serving members of every culture that's ever risen and fallen. Including religions.
@@scottevans1096 true…true. You’re right. There are bad actors for sure. I suppose that’s why it’s important for us to remain vigilant in monitoring for these folks and keep a critical eye on each movement.
I am 73. I have explored 6 religions, made one of my own and am about to make another change. I am realizing that there will never be a perfect fit for me. What I must accept that for me I must stick with the one which in my soul I am most peaceful with and even then it will not be perfect. And yes, I will be happy if I connect with others in that choice.
I am Christian. I was never a fundamentalist. I really appreciate you! I am saddened that what used to seem "fringe" Christianity to me now seems mainstream. The people who raised me have some similarities to President Carter. I am so grateful for that.
Hiya jeni I have a kinship with you. Life is stranger then fiction. I Deconstructed and Deconverted from fundamentalism I feel free. I'm a Christian I feel closer to God now. All fundamentalist try to do is control peoples lives in their own little world. I'm saddened when people Deconstruct and turn atheist or agnostic.
Religion is definitely a fundamental human behavior, which is why I always felt the term "organized religion" was redundant. If your religion has at least one moral rule, one holiday, or a teacher/leader differentiated from other adherents, then it's organized.
I think the teachings in christianity are pretty abusive and toxic. A God who says that "few are saved" a God who will "cut you off for not bearing good fruit" also, a God who punishes people eternally in the worst way possible for finite crimes done in a finite nature with a poorly written book isn't a God worthy of my devotion and love. That's why i left.
Agreed. Some cherry-picking is probably needed to follow any religion, but far too much cherry-picking is needed to follow any religion associated with the Bible's god.
@tombrower6544 Yeah, that's why Christianity is still thriving. People take all the good parts and ignore all the atrocities and abusidities and nonsense of it all.
Quakers share journeys like yours with no guilt. Many followers of other traditions enjoy such freedom as well. I am glad you found your fit, and I appreciate your willingness to articulate it with such humility.
thanks Chris. love your channel. i used to think that people can believe whatever they want. but, i dont think that anymore. you believe what you believe based on your experiences. you can lie to yourself and pretend to believe something that you don't. but, if you truly don't believe something due to your life experiences, its pretty much out of your control. and if people give you hate, that is their problem and their burden. i grew up with no religion and am in my forties now. so its hard for me to get on board with any organized practice. it just doesnt mean anything to me as someone who didnt grow up with it. but religion seems to be a good in a lot of people's lives, so i think its good for those people. but i do believe that there is more to this reality, what ever reality means. there is more than just material and energy. i can feel it. and my atheist friends would say that doesnt make sense and that's okay too. take care.
I have noticed that a lot of Christians who outgrow the simplistic faith they were born into but want to continue with the positive parts of the faith eventually become Episcopalians. It seems like Episcopal churches do a lot of good charity work.
I’m in the same boat - Evangelical Fundamentalist for 25+ years, deconverted because of digging deep into the religion with an assist from apologists because all they do is lie. I love alot about Judaism and Christianity and still study and learn and watch endless RUclips videos on the subject. I have a deep appreciation for scholars (yes I despise apologists) and I’m more happy with my “religion” than I ever was as a “believer”
Exactly. I'd put it this way: Evangelical Fundamentalist for 16 years, deconverted because of digging deep into the religion, especially the Bible itself, with an assist from apologists because they are SO dishonest. Their lack of integrity so transparent in their "answers" to the Bible's legion problems did more to undermine my faith than almost anything else.
Excellent perspective, thanks for sharing. Certainty is a powerful and addictive drug. The fundamentalist perspective from my childhood resulted in me becoming an atheist Christian. I love Jesus since he's become my favorite literary character.
It's a journey countless millions of individuals have taken, and quite normal one should imagine. 1 Corinthians 13:12 to me suggests we all get it right, and we all get it miserably wrong. Spirituality is not something we get from the intellect, but from humble exploration, often out of periods of desperation. Never stop exploring, learning, questioning and being open. Great video, no yelling here, my friend.
The book of Leviticus broke my heart a longtime ago. I was a strong bible literalist/absolutist the first time I read that book all the way through as an adult. There was no way I was going to pretend that the morality clearly stated there was reconcilable with my Christian values. I struggled to preserve my faith the best I could, but with a little more research, it was obvious that I was kidding myself. Eventually I took pretty much the same route you did. I will be going to sleep soon, so that I will be well rested for Sunday service at a liberal Lutheran church tomorrow. These Lutherans are good at encouraging one another in the Christian values that are so important without requiring that anybody pretends that he or she believes any nonsense.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Thank you, That is a very nice thing to say. I think most Christian folk are better than the book that they pretend to study so much. I have come to realize that I don’t know what the heck is going on in the invisible realm, and I don’t know what happened in Palestine two-thousand years ago. I do know that I want to be kind like Jesus taught, and that fellowshipping with other Christians helps with that a lot.
Dont sweat any negative comments you might get. Ive often wondered how people end up where you are after deconstructing, and hearing it explained from someone who applied solemn thought to the matter was helpful. Great video
I don’t think it matters how you label yourself because people will always have an opinion on whether you’re yogurt or just curdled milk. Just live your truth whatever that is to you at the moment.
I was raised Roman Catholic in the US, so not at all orthodox in my beliefs. I still feel awe and find beauty in cathedrals, religious art, and traditional hymns. Thank you for expressing those feelings, too.
I like the things you say in this video and the way you express your thoughts and experiences. I like all your videos that I have watched so far. Your videos are food for thought and I find them interesting. I am 64 years old and I agree with, I guess, everything I have heard from you in your videos. But you say it all better than I can. Thank you.
Hi Chris. I've appreciated hearing some of your story (first on Myth Vision, now here). I grew up in Southern Ontario and was part of the Plymouth Brethren fundamentalist sect. I left in my early twenties due to an overall disillusionment with their narrow and oppressive view on many things; music being a major one. I started attending a Catholic church where they welcomed my bass. I could play every Sunday, guilt-free, wow! 🤘🏼🤘🏼At present I identify as an Agnostic (with Christian sympathies, whatever that means 😉). I enjoyed this video. My only question is, at 11:29 you call yourself an "Agnostic." At 13:29 you refer to yourself as a "Christian." Could you clarify that for me, if you would? Thanks, and all the best in your ongoing journey of discovery. ✌✌
oh yikes, we probably know some of the same people. agnostic is a belief proposition--I really don't know, but I'm open to the possibility. Christian is my faith tradition, my language for those things, and my ancestral home. That's pretty much it
I'm not a Christian (I"m a student of Vedanta). I enjoyed your video very much. I was particularly struck by by the point you made, that religion is a fundamental human activity.
A joke I heard that references a different definition of religion. A driver gets stopped at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland. The guard asks, “are you Catholic or Protestant?” The driver says, “I am an atheist” The guard says, “Well that’s good, are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
I have to disagree on something, mate: while thousands of other religions practiced transactional salvation, where you do something good enough, collect points, and then maybe those good things will outweigh the bad, Christianity is the only one that rejects salvation by works. With Christian's world model, Jesus died taking unto Himself the sins of mankind so that men can be saved even with their imperfection. The Christians who accepted the salvation would try to better themselves as the psychological effects of gratitude on grace given, fail as they may, or as glorious as they attempted; none of it would impact their salvations, nor will they be able to boast on their works. I think this is a really great model, and I can see how it is working when implemented as distributed systems (individuals interacting with each other). The real Christians would shy away from judging others and focus on doing good work because they know nothing nobody does can better the salvation work of Jesus. As for the billions of people who did not even know who Jesus was. I don't think there is hell with perpetual torments for the unbelievers, just simply indifferent oblivion. For whomever trusts in their own ways and denies God, or unfortunately did not know Jesus, they shall join the entropy of the universe and decay with it.
I may add more to this comment thread as I digest the information shared. I may not lol. Your statement on the case of symbols being a part of how people/humans communicate a shared idea is a unique train of thought I haven't considered in modern times until you said it. And it honestly makes sense as a pattern I was seeing but never condensed it to a simplified argument. People still speak in symbols hoping it conveys a unified understanding of large concepts. It is still going on but isn't as basic as "symbols". People may mirror a phrase from their favorite movie and those who know it are more likely to understand the context of the phrase. This works on the same principle where the phrase becomes symbolic to refer to any situation that mirrors the shared understanding of that scene in the movie. This also occurs with groups who have the same training and shift to speaking in acronyms and short hand titles. The military is a great example of acronyms being used in normal dialogue that would confuse uninitiated civilians. In modern Christianity, especially of the theological, seminary and doctrinally trained, terminology has become those symbols. The Trinity, Eschatology, dispensationalism; all of these are words used to communicate large christian concepts that people just say the word to voice that they "know" it. But like you said, the truth is much more difficult to ascertain whether or not the person speaking actually understands the concept behind the term. Example: I personally sat in a chapel filled with Christians with a Christian leader who came to visit asking a couple questions to the group. He asked for everyone present to raise their hands if they believed in the Trinity, and everyone raised their hands in agreement. Then he asked everyone to raise their hands again if they could explain The Trinity. Not a single hand was raised. I was so shocked that I didn't even raise my own. I almost stood up. I was shocked. Over 100 men in a room admitted that they believed in something that they could not explain. Trinity is a modern day Christian culture symbol people say to convey an ideal or doctrine without knowing if everyone understand it. It is assumed. And I honestly believe this is a detriment to the authenticity pf christian culture. People speak doctrinal concepts reduced to words and phrases throwing them around in conversation without really knowing if its truly understood on the same level. The pride in the perception of knowing of the doctrine takes precedence over actually being able to communicate it let alone exercise these doctrines. It has become a game of head knowledge with little time to practice because the objective is to gather knowledge and be accredited for having that knowledge and being able to speak the same symbols as the elect you want to be regarded as. Even worse, it is disturbing to sit in a conversation where there is disagreements on terms/doctrines as people cut and paste what parts they like. I sit there and wonder what is the point of using the doctrine if you are butchering it to your own interpretation purposefully. They talk with the same words but purposefully twist what it means to be different. I believe that is called "double speak" biblically. Not that I enjoy talking in lofty doctrinal statements lol, but with these types I have to always verify specifically what they mean so as to not get side swiped by any other altered interpretations of anything lol. Just thought to share. I understand why seminary had a high probability of breaking your faith. I was already warned by others who have gone to Seminary that I would have constant conflicts as I don't just take what people tell me. I too have a mind of reason, but I have always considered it what God gave me. It has garnered many altercations from other Christians who wanted me to just have faith in what they said despite what was written, and despite how it was being expressed {or not} in their own lives. LOL Even God himself has said in the old testament; telling the nations of the world to "come and reason with Him". He invited them to make their cases known. He looks down on the children of man to see if any have wisdom, if any seek God. Even King Solomon tells his sons in proverbs that in all of their getting, all of their searching, find wisdom; get understanding. I don't believe God wants blind faith. Heck, even Jesus speaks of people in the end being cast away even though they did many sings in his name. The one thing they lacked was that Jesus himself did not know them. Understanding is vital. Having a mind that thinks allows us to really see how things work and see beyond the letter of the law to understand the spirit of it.
I agree with you and believe much like you. At the same time, I wonder if Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, would call me a Christian or a follower of Christ.
I appreciate that you're trying to be honest with yourself and others and that you are able and willing to experience joy by being part of a religious community. However, I would argue pretty strongly against what you seemed to be expressing with the idea that atheists practice religion because they do some of the things that religious people do. The supernatural aspects of religion might be a minor fraction of the thing in terms of overall content and behaviors, but they are not a minor thing in terms of its importance in that tradition - quite the opposite. So, in short, in just the same way that you don't want people telling you how to practice your religion, I don't want you to insist that I am practicing religion when I have absolutely no belief in the supernatural and it plays no role in my internal life. (We all live in a social world where we interact with others and their belief systems, so of course a variety of religions impact my life when they are imposed upon me by others). Religious behaviors are a subset of social behaviors, not the other way around, you know? For example, the Girl Scouts have a moral code, leadership structure, special clothing, regular meetings, ritual sayings, etc, but that doesn't make them a religion. There are aspects of their behavior that they share with religious organizations, but that's because they're both human social groups. It's when you substitute a deity for cookies that you get a religion. I did enjoy your random car thoughts though, to be clear!
lol to cookies. But maybe the girl scouts are a religion? I think part of the problem comes with definitions-- religion is notoriously tricky to define. but I agree--at least for Christianity--the metaphysical is a vitally important part of the history. But it's the part that feeels the most like ordinary humans who claim to have supernatural glimpses of the opther side.
@@cjohnyrun I almost wrote something about definitions being problematic and fuzzy, but I had already written two paragraphs and figured that my internet comment quotient had been filled for the day and decided to give it a rest.
Thanks for sharing this. Well done! I’ve have had lots of time for my thoughts on religion to have evolved . I see religion like tribalism as human constructs. Religion has had great value providing sense of community and comfort for humans dealing with the world and its never ending stream of problems. On the other hand is the immense amount of misery caused by those who use religion as a very effective tool for dominating , controlling and abusing other people. In recent decades my judgment has become - religion in balance does more harm than good.
@ Interesting question. As we’ve seen, traditional religious practice in the western world has declined over the last several decades, but the “hangers on “ are fighting like crazy to maintain domination. That coupled with the comfort and community benefit tells me religious practice of some sort would only disappear with lots more evolution of humanoids. I expect extinction will occur before that happens.
Fantastic outlook on life and religion in this vid. Growing up has showed me that black and white opinions mix to shades of grey as you get older and are exposed to more of life and other people. Religion often is used to maintain the in and out groups which as you travel the world you see how that only preserves the power of the in-group. As long as one person does not legislate based on their religion's perspectives everyone should be free to believe and "unbelieve" as they wish. Thanks for such an honest video.
@@cjohnyrun "Swedenborg ... a colossal soul who lies vast upon his times." RALPH WALDO EMERSON "There are more truths confessed in the writings of Swedenborg than in those of any other man." THOMAS CARLISLE "Swedenborg's theology is sublime. He alone allows man to touch." HONORE DE BALZAC "I admire Swedenborg as a great scientist and a great scientist at the same time." CARL JUNG "Swedenborg message has been my strongest incitement to overcome limitations." HELEN KELLER "Even my own constricted self expands to feel a Swedenborgian spirit world." JOHANN VON GOETHE "Swedenborg's philosophy explains much that was incomprehensible.' ELIZABETH BARRETT BROWNING "As a moralist Swedenborg is above all praise." SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE "Swedenborg's visions are the foundation for grand things." WILLIAM BLAKE "Swedenborg ... that mountain peak of mentality." ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE "Swedenborg answers all my questions." AUGUST STRINDBERG
Your brain is evolved to be what it is. You are a very high functioning ape that has come about through some wildly environmental situations that determined where and who you are. No deities needed. Your consideration of the universe is an electrochemical process performed by a mass of organic cells. Really makes Christianity just a story we have conjured to entertain/belay our fears. Biologically you are no different than any of the other billions of species that have come and gone. We just have the hubris to imagine we are special cause we can perform some high functioning activities. Enjoy the ride...it is really short.
Nice story. You claims. A lot of them. But I am totally unconvinced. I see little to no reason to believe almost anything you just said. It’s just way out there.
I too am a materialist/atheist but very much disagree with one part: it's not hubris to acknowledge and question why only one species on this planet has evolved cognitive functions that include such highly abstract language as ours has. This undeniable fact of evolution doesn't make us superior to other species in any way that I can see but it undoubtedly has some obvious connection to the cultural and technological evolutions that are clearly continuing to evolve. How else do you explain the massive changes over time we see? To be clear, the concept of deities is a useless placeholder to explain this evolution and only serves as a vestigial obstacle for humanity, in my opinion. I'd like to understand this evolution and consider religions as a huge clue to be studied.
I skipped over parts of the video, so I may have missed it, but if you don't believe Jesus was who he claimed, God, that he died for your sins, that he is your lord and savior, and that your just performing the rituals because that's what you've been doing most of your life, then I don't believe you can call yourself a Christian.
Keep exploring. Miles Smith (17th Century Anglican bishop) wrote the "man has but a shallow sound and a short reach and dealeth only in probabilities and likelihoods "
For nearly a hundred years the English and American Churches have been striving to civilize and Christianize Western Africa, and with what result? Around Sierra Leone, and in the neighborhood of Cape Palmas, a few natives have been made Christians, and some nations have been partially civilized; but what a small number in comparison with the thousands, nay, I may say millions, who have learned the way to Heaven and who have been made to know their Savior through the means of African slavery! Stephen Elliott: Bishop of Georgia
Something creates a need. Then someone points to the needed. Later, one searches for the needed. It's difficult to ask oneself, when the needed is so important and has taken such proportions, why one has that need. With or without a brain."
Watching this, I immediately thought you have probably made yourself a target for both theists and atheists 😅 Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this. I don't entirely agree - mainly regarding the idea that atheists still retain elements of religious practice, or that it is a fundermental aspect of being human. You also suggested/implied that atheism is relatively recent, and I'm not sure there is evidence for that. Sorry I'm not explaining myself at all. I keep trying to but a combination of chronic fatigue at 2:30am are impeding any ability to form proper thoughts. I was going to finish on a question but I can't even get that written down correctly.. I am really enjoying your content, and how you present the information. Keep up the good work.
So, after studying, Bob comes to the conclusion that the gospels are fictive spiritual scriptural narrative designed to be allegories. He takes this on “faith”, and surrenders his life to the Spirit of Christ within him and is transformed. Dave, however, sees the gospels as journalistic history accounts. He takes this on “faith”, surrenders his life to the Spirit of Christ within him and is transformed. Both Dave and Bob had the same outcome. “Faith”, in my little story, doesn’t mean “intellectually assenting to a piece of data” but “surrendering to the ineffable sovereignty of God in each moment.”, which leads to a spirit of love, the spirit of Christ. It’s the “spiritual” aspect of religion that makes it relevant to us in the present moment, not the historical. History is past and only memory (ideas in the mind or words on a page). The spirit of Christ (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness) is with us now and can be embodied now, experientially. It’s about surrender, not “getting the right ideas in your head.” Fussing over historicity is fussing over a mental concept: a synapse of electrical fibers in the brain. Let’s fuss over joy, peace, and compassion instead.
I figure there's only two reasons you could be. Either you are afraid of hell or afraid of being outcasted by others. Or you have a sincere conviction and maybe you've had experiences that confirm your belief and it gets you through the day or something. As someone who never had any kind of religious belief I can't pretend to understand why but then again that's why I started listening to what you had to say lol
It was interesting to hear your thoughts, but a bit confusing. You said that you initially took a step back from fundamentalism because it was so important for you to pursue the truth, and then the rest of your video basically described why it doesn’t really matter to you whether Christianity is actually true. As I clicked on the video, I predicted that your reasoning would boil down to social belonging and emotional satisfaction. That’s what seems to be the core motivation from the conservative to even the most open minded religious people I talk to. And it seems I was right. It’s indeed very human to pursue social belonging and emotional satisfaction. I agree that those can be good personal reasons to hold onto a belief, but their outflow from that belief is not good a reason to think that the belief is actually true. I expect a lot of your audience is in fact focused on truth over utility, so this video may not speak to them. Either way, I’m so glad you escaped fundamentalism.
The choice isn’t science vs. belief but how to curate humanity’s toolkit. Science masters the external world; stories navigate the internal one. Faith is a reminder that humans are meaning-makers, not just data-processors.
@@mtamer2943 If by “the internal world” you mean our imagination, then I agree. But imaginary things aren’t real. At least, we shouldn’t think so until there is evidence from the external world that corroborates its existence in reality. The video, and you, are arguing that religion is subjective and imaginary and untethered from the real world beyond wishful thinking and fuzzy feelings. I guess I’m glad to see religious people acknowledge that, but it simply makes me curious why you’d still believe the religious claims at that point. Stories are a human thing, but we can enjoy them and find meaning in them without believing them. If it’s about the community and feelings, well, you can get that from other sources that aren’t centered around a book that motivates political violence, that tells you that this life is a dirty rag, and that tells you that you can buy slaves.
As for the former, yes. I have no problems acknowledging I cannot prove my faith. It was my own choice based on my own studies that led me to choose to believe, with no indoctrination. I get to lose nothing and maintain my critical thinking, and it gives me a positive personal impact. I guess that you can strawman people's experiences like healthy mindfulness and wellbeing and call them fuzzy feelings if that makes you feel better about yourself. About the latter, we live in a free world where we get to choose our life and activities. Your antitheism might blind you to the dogma that a believer = ignorant, or that every branch of Christianity is fundamentalist. I believe my beliefs point me to the fact that life is beautiful, that there's a state-church separation, and that slaves happened but they remained in the long gone past.
I agree with so much of this, but I also see problems with so much of this, which is what I wrestle with. There are religions that were founded by straight up charlatans, and I wouldn't encourage someone to participate in them on the basis of having a human experience. I think that sometimes people who are skeptical and yet "go with the flow" end up getting pulled deeper into the religion than they wanted or anticipated. But I know what you mean.
A very good thought. I would only suggest considering nature with the idea of how our actions and our things reveal our choices, purposes and sometimes our love. Then consider the evil we have experienced and felt so deeply and how much we would give if we could correct it. We are driven by our love for the oppressed and the victims. So far as we can honor the purposiveness and, thus, the beauty of the earth, so far can we love God. So far as we suffer with them can we love our neighbors. Perhaps our vision, from whatever culture we come, corresponds to the commands of Jesus.
Some of what Jesus said is helpful and other things very destructive, unjust ,and unloving. Cherry pick what inspires you and leave the rest, if it makes your life better. For myself, I can't see the need or the point for Jesus without the awfulness of the OT. I am not born guilty, dirty, in need of saving. Wisdom and love are everywhere and can be had by all without any religious figures or texts. But again, whatever brings you peace.
Christian for 43 years here. Never went to anything fundamentalist when I was young, which was probably helpful. Started off in a Congregational and broad-minded local church, and didn’t find out a complete picture of doctrine until I’d been a Christian for a few years and went to an Anglican church. My approach was chasing after God first and foremost, and understanding that Jesus and the Gospel are counter-cultural, subversive, and revolutionary at heart. But key was an understanding of what the Bible is and is not, and what the primary evidence for the Gospel is. A lot of people seem to rail against ideas given to them about Christianity which simply aren’t true, but which are/used to be used to simplify the faith to make it “easier” for the person putting forward the gospel to have an impact. Bottom line is that the Gospel relies on the resurrection and early Church history more than it does the Bible. The NT tells us how we should be. The resurrection and early church history tells us why. The OT gives us a philosophical and historical framework for the NT. The reason so many struggle when they get to seminary is they are never told about the history of Biblical criticism. All the theoretical investigations and historical analysis and textual analysis is based on a secular, naturalist, and anti-Christian premise. So if you use Biblical criticism to undermine Christianity, you’re actually engaging in circular reasoning. The details of the history of Biblical criticism are actually far grubbier than that. But if you want to get through most seminaries you have to pay your dues at the shrine of critical scholarship, but you aren’t told at the same time that it’s the historical equivalent of homeopathy, and of no practical use at all in the real world. Even from a secular perspective. The other issue is the wrong perspective of what the Bible is. It’s a record of man’s dealings with the God of Abraham. It’s written by men, inspired by God and/or what happened to them. It’s a warts-and-all account at times. Not everything in there is meant to be taken literally. Not everything that happens in there is endorsed. But what is there can’t be ignored. What the Bible is not is what the “scholars” make it out to be. It is not a secular document, and nor is it one which is going to give you any insights into what “really” happened from a secular or critical historical perspective. So you have to be realistic, and that realism is often the difference between struggling with the contents of the Bible and its relationship to the Gospel, and managing to work your way through it.
Your characterization of textual criticism as "anti Christian" seems very much the opposite of the truth, especially in its origins. The methodological naturalism of the enlightenment was eagerly embraced by zealots who assumed it would confirm their metaphysical assumptions and dogmas. As is often the case, once you allow yourself to question just one theological assumption the process can't be reversed and it finally becomes apparent that the humans who wrote, copied, edited, amended, translated and interpreted religious texts were inspired by their very human concepts of the deity they're opining about. As for me, I'd rather have questions without answers than answers that can't be questioned.
@@scottevans1096 You've fallen at the first hurdle. Sorry. "The methodological naturalism of the enlightenment was eagerly embraced by zealots who assumed it would confirm their metaphysical assumptions and dogmas.". In what universe is naturalism, even methodological naturalism, compatible with the Gospel. We're talking about a message which is predicated on Jesus rising from the dead. Does that sound naturalistic to you? This works fine in areas where what you are investigating work on the basis of understanding is that this is how things work, assuming only natural (i.e. no supernatural) phenomena occur. Modern science owes much of its existence to this premise, which underpinned the Christian investigation of the world, the skies, and their mechanisms. This was the understanding at the beginning of the enlightenment. You might spot the reason why having this spill over into the realms of religion might be changing the goalposts somewhat. Biblical criticism originally styled itself as part of the methodological naturalism movement. It was not. It was part of a humanistic element within the enlightenment which took naturalism and made it unversal, resulting in secularism. Look up Spinoza and Hume. To summarize what happened, there were clergy in various churches who had lost their faith, or possibly had never had any, and wanted to find a way to rationalize keeping their jobs while managing to cover up the fact that they should have resigned. This is how Biblical criticism, and its secular approach to religious texts, managed to wheedle its way into the churches and seminaries. It was initially done by collusion and subterfuge, and the result is the Church was paying non-believers to undermine the very message the Church was supposed to promote. This is not to say that there isn't a history of churches having agnostics and atheists among their clergy. It is possible to go through the motions. Actively undermining the founding text of the church, while claiming a salary from the Church, is simply disingenuous. It's fine calling for people to question "just one theological assumption", but this presupposes that one jettison any idea that naturalism shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny. Question just one assumption of naturalism - that the supernatural does not and cannot exist - and you hit the buffers pretty quickly. Besides, Christian faith is not simply held as a result of theological enquiry or philosophical navel gazing. At its core is an event so seismic that almost all modern calendars use it as a marking point. Whether you want to follow where that even leads, or instead discard it, is up to you. But if you want to follow where that event leads you will find little use for promoting ideas of an inerrant text. The record is written by men, as I stated. But the result is still that seismic event. "As for me, I'd rather have questions without answers than answers that can't be questioned.". This is all very fine, but with Biblical criticism you don't get answers that are of any use in the real world. They're not even the type of history that the majority of historians would do anything but scoff at. Textual and historical criticism are useful to have as disciplines, but I couldn't list all the assumptions made which (for example) constitute the basis of Markan priority. There's so many of them I'd run out of space. Scholarly conclusions are like internet chat rooms. The level of confirmation bias is dangerously high. Which is why "scholarly consensus" is largely meaningless. It's just the current zeitgeist, based on whose theories have received the most likes. If you want to keep questions in your head on that basis then that's your choice.
@@mikehutton3937 You're certainly entitled to all those opinions and the assumptions they're based on but I find them wholly inadequate explanations for the prevalence of "the seismic event." David Hume and Baruch Spinoza are only two amongst thousands of individuals who's ideas have contributed to my current understanding of the big picture of humanity. Out of curiosity, is "the seismic event" your euphemism for the domestication of fire or the evolution of abstract thought and language? From my perspective humans are living in the Third Centimillennium or the Fifteenth Millennia depending on where you prefer to start the clock. Continuing to limit your frame of reference to just "The Twenty-first Century" is sadly myopic in my opinion.
@@scottevans1096 The seismic event is the resurrection. Hence the comments about the calendar (BC and AD). If you're going to rely on Hume and Spinoza then you're inevitably moving towards naturalism and humanism, and away from Christianity. But that is a move on your part based on a view of reality, rather than a move away from any perceived issues with Christian doctrine as such. It is, if you like, a little more fundamental than issues around how you can make sense of the Bible. In terms of questions and answers, you've then chosen the most basic answer, most likely based on a percieved rational but in reality emotional response, rather than one which is based on any kind of evidence. Which makes most of your questions about Christianity moot. You have already turned away at a basic level. This seems to be a common issue with people undergoing "deconstruction". What seems to be happening in many cases is not deconstruction as such, but rather a conversion to a kind of naturalism, which then undermines previously held beliefs, and often without a proper critique of naturalism itself. Knowing what I do, it's not a move I would recommend.
@mikehutton3937 You are full of assumptions, Mike. I'm not moving away from Christianity at all. Everyday I learn more details about how the story most likely began before it immediately fragmented into endless variations. This fragmentation accelerated at the protestant reformation and continues to the present day with no end in sight. I'm sure you're completely confident that your preferred assumptions about correct beliefs and practices are the only correct ones from amongst all the available options. The utter lack of self skepticism is what makes fundamentalism so fascinating and also so culturally harmful regardless of which religion it is. There was a time when I very much wanted to believe in the comforting aspects of Christianity but the more I learned about the historical origins of religions throughout human history the more clear it became at this point in history that religious beliefs are nothing more than metaphysical assumptions that are simply not possible for me to make regardless of how comforting they may seem conceptually or how much I want to believe them. I chose to be Christian and resulted in my realization that I've always been atheist. Now I study the Bible as mythology and consider myself an atheist Christian. I don't rely on any great thinkers, really. I pay attention and compare perspectives and consider conclusions from a very diverse cross section of worldviews.
Really enjoying your videos. Was wondering if you could give a concise definition of the Christianity you hold to. I deconverted from evangelical Christianity, never finding a level patch to halt the slide to “practical” atheism*. If there is something, I would have a look. (*By practical atheism I mean that I don’t see a meaningful distinction between vague deism, agnosticism, or atheism. If evangelicals are right, I am screwed any way I dress it.) If staying in Christianity simply means enjoyment of a particular community, being part of something larger, being part of history, taking comfort in familiar ritual, I can get that too.
You are getting closer and closer to knowing the truth. Keep seeking (that is why you have a working brain!). If and when you wish, I would be happy to share what my seeking has revealed in relation to some Christian concepts, our universe, and the awesomeness of the consciousness of your own existence.
People can say they are Christian or not and get inspiration or a feeling from Christianity even though they don't think the Bible is true as the stories proport. The issue is it mucks up what it means to be Christian and gives more credence to the hard core Christians. If Christianity meant the hard core literalists that go to Church every week then it would be easier to separate them from the people who like Christian stuff but aren't that.
I enjoyed your video, respect your honesty, and agree with much of what you have said. However, I do I want to make one criticism. I think you're defining the term "religion" so broadly so as to render it almost meaningless. Most people would understand the word "religion" to mean something like the worship (or something similar) of some form of deity which usually involves accepting certain beliefs and involves participating in certain practices. How closely a person practices any particular religion is a separate issue. To most people, religion doesn't mean just being human, enjoying the company of others, finding value in participating in group activities or rituals etc.
If you enjoy the ritual and experience of religion, have at it. If you want to call yourself a Christian, go for it. I can understand why you might value parts of religion, but it seems confusing and unnecessary to redefine "Christian" and then embrace your own personal definition. You must find yourself saying, "I'm a Christian, but...," all the time.
C.J. - I take one thing away from what you said early on in the video, as the same thing happened to me. If you want to stay a Christian, you should never pray for the truth. That was my mistake, I went to bed every night praying God would teach me the truth. And I feel he did. The truth is that is that the truth is beyond me. I don't know all the answers, but that really is better than knowing all the answers, and knowing you are not complete in those answers. I at least know who I am. Praying for truth is dangerous, because God might just give it to you. If your goal is remain a Christian, and you pray for truth, God is too likely to honor your prayer. You can pray for faith, or that others come to your faith. But honestly, as humans the truth is so far beyond us that "we can't handle the truth". Godel's theorem says that our system of understanding is insufficient to know all truth, that any complete system is inconsistent, and any consistent system is incomplete. And this is a mathematical proof, it is not some colloquial meaning of truth here. You can know true, facts, but you cannot know "the truth". C.J. - If you honestly seek the truth, I don't see how you can come out anywhere other than where you came out. And once you realize who you are, you are able to make a decision about your faith that is informed by who you are. No more apologetics, telling lies that you know are lies to make what you believe work out. I don't think you will get a lot of problems with this video. I think you just came to the same conclusion a lot of our audience came to. If a lot of your audience is over 60, like me they had to work all of this out over a long life. You just stated it in a way that helps us understand it better.
If you want to experience a real mind bending twist on religion, take some time to explore the concept of paleocontact through such persons as Paul Wallis, or, not. Regardless, I agree completely with you that religion is a human experience, and I must acknowledge Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) making the claim that even an atheist is one who has the 'no-God, God.'
Yes, rich emotional and community experiences are valuable, but subscribing to a faith comes with too much baggage if truth is valuable to you. Our ancestors did it, but I’d argue it’s time to cherrypick the best of the philosophy found in various religious traditions, whilst putting aside the superstitions that our ancestors lived with. Wish you well.
Right? Why must community involvement and purposeful living be linked to superstitious or baseless beliefs? As a lifelong atheist, I just don’t get it. It seems to do so much more net harm than good, to do things that way. I wish people would just stop it already, and embrace the healthier ways to be human and neighborly together.
There is good that comes with the literal community that comes with christianity, but holding onto the idea of "being a christian" has so much baggage. From my perspective, being a christian has a different meaning for many self proclaimed christians, but one thing that is shared amongst 99% of them, is the shared belief in the truth of the christian doctrines. The belief in a virgin birth, and in the resurrection of Jesus after his sacrifice to atone for sin. For many, it even comes with the belief in creationism, in a global flood, and other things as well. I get feeling the way you do, but I can't help but to think that it's a bit of a subconscious emotion or feeling, clinging on to what you know. Because under the definition of christian that practically all modern sects of christianity use, you wouldn't be considered a "true" believer. I personally deconverted awhile ago, and I was in a similar spot as you are now. I'm not telling you or even suggesting that you should deconvert, but I'm simply sharing my experience. Once I was at the point of not believing those core doctrines anymore, it took a long time of self reflection and deep thought and even prayer; but I genuinely couldn't find a reason to self apply that label anymore. I still hold to some of the beliefs, specifically some of the moral beliefs as there genuinely is some good stuff in there, but for me, it was just delaying the inevitable. Clinging onto that label since I enjoy some aspects of christianity still (even while not believing the actual core tenants and doctrines). I hope your journey goes well, but in all honesty, I can't help but to feel that you're in a very similar spot to where I once was. Again, not trying to persuade you do anything one way or another, but I do hope you have a good journey through this desire to seek truth.
1:52 have you kinsidered following the instructions in the book, and rightly dividing the TRUTH from LIEs? 🤔 5:28 a lot of the prophecies are completed... The two Tribulations Enslavement are near done... 7:34 Theres no practical application with benefits and evidence in religion RELIGARE' TO BIND ⛓️ Have you ever read transliterated scripture? It reads better, and teaches waaaaaay more. Plus the benefits are awesome.
As long as we have death in the world there's always going to be a need for belief in an afterlife, and people choose their 'faith' based on upbringing and their own personality/psychological moral view! (and I firmly believe that at least 90% of Christians don't really love God or Jesus, just the idea of heaven!)
I think you are transitioning. I am no longer a christian but I know God exists, and He is not confined to the bible. He manifests to different people in different ways. Christianity causes mental problems to people
I beg you to hook up with RUclipsr Dan McClellan. You and he should collaborate. You are both incredibly articulate, intelligent and thought provoking. And that’s what I’m seeking in my journey. To provocatively think, so-to-speak. To not plod through life believing what I believe because “it’s always been that way”. Your channel is amazing. Thank you for what you do.
I will do a video on it at some point. Basically "religion" is a concept that we make up to describe certain human activities. Many atheists take part in those activities as well. Religion is more complex than just belief or disbelief in a deity
Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but this really comes off like "I'm an atheist that values the culture and ritual of Christianity". If that's the case, that's fine. I can't do it myself, as I don't see any morality in Christianity, but at least you probably won't be one of the actively harmful ones. 🤷♂️ We all make our own paths through life. While I may not agree with this particular path, I certainly wouldn't want to stand in your way. I hope you find what you're looking for ✌️
Something like that. But not an atheist. More like "I'm open to the possibility of metaphysical realities, and Christianity is my way of understanding or relating to whatever that is"
Yes,,,, this has bothered me A LOT...what happened to people who were born before Jesus OR who died without hearing about Jesus? Will they go to "heaven"? If so, it means there's a non-Jesus path to heaven. If so, why is there a need for Jesus? It seems an all-knowing god should be able to suss out our actions and intentions - that alone should be the path to "heaven". It's a COMMON FACTOR in humanity - above all theological nonsense.
If a divine word is convoluted and open to so much interpretation , it results in disagreement on what it means is not divine, in my opinion. It shouldn't be exclusive to the time it was written. It should be withstanding and eternal and, most importantly.........straightforward and easy to understand, so it's not the victim to false teaching. At the end of the day, the bible says not to follow false teachers, so why make it so easy for that to happen? Feels like a setup. I've hears countless people saying countless times "I think X means Y and I'm right" no, what you think is irrelevant, that's your personal opinion and if I'm not mistaken adding to the bible is a sin according to the very thing you're adament you're devoted to following. It's a blatant contradiction.
Ah the curse of intelligence... overthinking ❤️ Jesus didn't tell us to study our brains out, he told us to love God and each other. Loving God and accepting Jesus is everything. You got this!
@@ginabeena6757 Do you think that’s enough to justify passing laws that force non-Christians to live according to your religious lifestyle restrictions? Because apparently that’s enough for a lot of you guys.
Please don't stereotype all of us believers together. There are a lot more of us that are all about the love, acceptance, and embracing of everyone, no matter what. (Except trump, f that guy😂)
If the universe was actually governed by random chance and not by a perfect plan by an omniscient planner, how much worse would it be than five global extinction events treating our planet like some sort of a cosmic Etch-a-sketch, and why does an omniscient planner need five resets? And how do you characterize this planner as omnibenevolent when he has wiped out 75% to 95% of all life on the planet five separate times? If the universe was governed by random chance and not by a perfect plan, how much worse would it be than 10 million children dying every year of hunger and preventable disease? I guess what I'm trying to ask is what is your God contributing to these outcomes? How much better is he making it? I do not see any fine tuning, to be honest. The sun gives you cancer and 97% of the water is poison. The world is filled with invisible creatures that can torture you and have you die in horrible ways. Mosquitoes alone kill 600,000 children a year with random bites. It really looks for all the world to me like nobody is steering this ship, least of all an omniscient planner with a perfect plan. But please tell me where I am wrong.
Do you actually ask these questions in the hope of getting a new, insightful answer or is their purpose merely to confirm your own bias? Did you ever consider that you might think you know more than you actually do? Your questions being predicated on assumptions you make on faith which are commonly called “science”, is there any consideration to the possibility that the truth is beyond understanding by your own intellect alone? If you say no then why is so much of what you think you know would not have been grasped by yourself but you achieved through accepting the sayings and thoughts of other men. Now if you rely on other men to reveal to you things that are otherwise beyond you, how much more would what God knows be beyond your individual efforts to comprehend?
If Jesus is the "savior" what does he save Christians from? If not hell, there is nothing for Jesus to save anyone from. If there is a hell, which was never once mentioned by the Old Testament by its god or any of his prophets, then Jesus would be infinitely evil if he didn't save everyone. No good mother would torture her children for a second, much less for all eternity, so Jesus would be infinitely inferior to good mothers if he condemned any of the children he created, according to the gospel of John, to eternal suffering. The only versions of christianity that make any sense to me are Universalism and Gnosticism, with Jesus being an agent of a Good God, sent to correct the errors of an evil Creator.
Ritual, symbolism and storytelling are all powerful human traits, but trying to attribute them to supernatural events is where I always depart from others. Your videos are still great to hear, and I hope your channel grows.
This is a Comment of Love. I’m 73 and have been a Seeker since childhood. Raised Catholic … never lost Faith, just Christianity. You opened a door to view Christianity differently💕
I've jettisoned many of the traditional doctrines over the years as unnecessary to my faith. Stripped down to a loving God, universal salvation, love for your neighbor, what more do we really need? We're all God's children ❤
Not only unnecessary, but actively working against the very thing the Bible says it wants us to know: namely that God is love, Jesus saved sinners & the gospel is good news that brings peace & joy.
Well said, brother. My personal view is that the story of Jesus is incredibly valuable when taken as a spiritual allegory and incredibly toxic when taken as a literal history. It has saved a lot of people and destroyed just as many. It all depends on the perspective one takes when utilizing it. I've studied many religions, and I've noticed a common thread through all of the great ones that shouldn't be ignored - death of the lower self and rebirth of the higher self - forgiveness & redemption of past transgressions - progression towards a connection to the divine, etc. The problem seems to come when an individual finds religion, or is raised in a religion, and, as a result, falls into the supremacist mind state, shuts off their willingness to take in and consider new information (especially when it conflicts with their current beliefs), and doesn't respect the paths of those around them when they don't completely match their own. Whatever way people find/look for God, however we want to define such a thing, so long as that search helps them become a better person to themselves and those around them, then whatever label they put on that belief, more power to them.
That was an awesome thought thank you for sharing it and thank you for thinking it, spot on in my opinion ❤
@DCfromBC beautifully said!
@@cjohnyrunwhat is your salvation theology? And have you heard of typology?
Love this video. I am in exactly the same spot in my deconstruction of my faith right now. Raised fundamentalist evangelical, but I'm finally reconsidering the nuance of Christian interpretations, other worldviews, and the big questions that have plagued all of humanity. Yet I find myself listening to worship and attending church for exactly the reasons you mentioned. This video is a big help. Thank you.
Carl Sagan knows why = "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves - that we've been (taken.) so credulous. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)”.
In other words, when someone is “In Too Deep” they no longer care about the truth. Instead, they care more about keeping that lie/belief alive. That is called: Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Wow - thank you.
I don't understand how you can sit through the sermons, unless you attend a universalist type church. I started similar to you, thinking there was still a lot worth saving in the church. The older I get, the more convinced I am that the harm most Christian organizations do outweighs the good. Instead of going to church, there are many other ways to spend time with other people that are much more meaningful.
Yep, that's why I attend a UU fellowship
How refreshing to hear an honest christian. I hear what you are saying but i don't understand how you know what you know yet still want to be a part of any organized religion. I appreciate your videos. Keep them coming.
I just have to say how much I've appreciated your videos, especially this one. After decades in evangelical churches, my wife and I have started a phase of exploring what we believe of Christianity and the kind of church we think would be a good fit for us. Thank you so much for making these videos.
thank you so much for saying this. I'm glad they're helpful. Good luck on your search!
100% correct. For the vast majority of Christian history, the faith has been much broader, kinder, and more intellectual than the scaled down version of Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism. You are correct about the self-contradictory nature of inerrancy, the creeping anti-intellectualism, the limitations of vicarious substitutionary atonement, the value of orthopraxy over orthodoxy, Christianity’s dynamic, communal nature. To be fair, as you note, there are still churches all over the world that didn’t fall into the limitations of the current north American zeitgeist.
There are many other great churches. But from where I sit in Canada, there's a powerful media and financial force behind extremist Christianity pushing it forward. It's worrying. I want us to recapture the other kind
@@cjohnyrun What I'm seeing in the US is really a heartbreaker. Most progressive congregations have about a score of worshippers most Sunday mornings. One such church in my area has about as many people who are involved through volunteer work but not services or studies. It's a good thing that people in the neighborhood have a place for Christian charity, but they would probably get more out of it if they became regular members. The sparseness of the memberships might not be as bad as the average age of the members--a lot of funerals but not many baptisms.
Good Video.
I was a Christian for over 30s. It never felt quite right. I just happened to be born at the right time in history, into the right family, in the right country where the religion that I was born into was the correct 1/1000s. I'm fully Deconverted now and it feels amazing not living in fear of Eternal Hell fire "concept"...I cannot go back into a church. I just cannot. I was forced to for almost 3 decades. I now see thru these preachers like a glass window. Christianity is a man-made scam created for control over your mind. Very well orchestrated by the ecumenical councils between the 4th and 5th century. That's it. They even say themselves that they created this religion with intentions to last for millennias.
Fyi I still believe in a Creator of the U-ni-verse. But clearly not the biblical one
I hear you. I’ve been deconverted for about 2 years. I’ll be 40 this year. I’m experiencing a perspective of life that I feel saddened to have missed for the bulk of my life.
However, I would like to challenge you a bit. Those that are still “in it” quite probably genuinely believe it. While I agree that the narratives of religion are constructed by human minds, I’m not convinced that it’s part of a grand deliberate control scheme. I think the development of religions are very much like biological evolution. They just happen on the social plane, rather than the biological. There’s no end goal. Only what works to structure our societies in a way to create functional and beneficial communities will continue to be “evangelized”.
@@Wericii
Both things are apparently true: some people utilize religions for deep personal meaning and growth and some for gaining and maintaining power imbalances.
From my perspective it's obvious that every new development in the long but accelerating evolution of human culture and technology is immediately weaponized by a minority of the most ruthlessly self serving members of every culture that's ever risen and fallen. Including religions.
@@scottevans1096 true…true. You’re right. There are bad actors for sure. I suppose that’s why it’s important for us to remain vigilant in monitoring for these folks and keep a critical eye on each movement.
This was beautiful. Thank you. Spoke to me.
I am 73. I have explored 6 religions, made one of my own and am about to make another change. I am realizing that there will never be a perfect fit for me. What I must accept that for me I must stick with the one which in my soul I am most peaceful with and even then it will not be perfect. And yes, I will be happy if I connect with others in that choice.
Pal I like what you are saying. are you still a Christian?
@@johngrimkowski598
Yes, back to being Christian
I am Christian. I was never a fundamentalist. I really appreciate you! I am saddened that what used to seem "fringe" Christianity to me now seems mainstream. The people who raised me have some similarities to President Carter. I am so grateful for that.
Hiya jeni I have a kinship with you. Life is stranger then fiction. I Deconstructed and Deconverted from fundamentalism I feel free. I'm a Christian I feel closer to God now.
All fundamentalist try to do is control peoples lives in their own little world. I'm saddened when people Deconstruct and turn atheist or agnostic.
You're one of the good ones then.
Religion is definitely a fundamental human behavior, which is why I always felt the term "organized religion" was redundant. If your religion has at least one moral rule, one holiday, or a teacher/leader differentiated from other adherents, then it's organized.
I think the teachings in christianity are pretty abusive and toxic. A God who says that "few are saved" a God who will "cut you off for not bearing good fruit" also, a God who punishes people eternally in the worst way possible for finite crimes done in a finite nature with a poorly written book isn't a God worthy of my devotion and love. That's why i left.
Agreed
Agreed. Some cherry-picking is probably needed to follow any religion, but far too much cherry-picking is needed to follow any religion associated with the Bible's god.
@tombrower6544 Yeah, that's why Christianity is still thriving. People take all the good parts and ignore all the atrocities and abusidities and nonsense of it all.
Your honesty and authenticity is a breath of fresh air. And your unique approach. I have subscribed to see what else you have to share!
Thanks so much!
Quakers share journeys like yours with no guilt. Many followers of other traditions enjoy such freedom as well. I am glad you found your fit, and I appreciate your willingness to articulate it with such humility.
I welcome your viewpoint, appreciate your story and belief - thank you - very helpful
thanks Chris. love your channel. i used to think that people can believe whatever they want. but, i dont think that anymore. you believe what you believe based on your experiences. you can lie to yourself and pretend to believe something that you don't. but, if you truly don't believe something due to your life experiences, its pretty much out of your control. and if people give you hate, that is their problem and their burden. i grew up with no religion and am in my forties now. so its hard for me to get on board with any organized practice. it just doesnt mean anything to me as someone who didnt grow up with it. but religion seems to be a good in a lot of people's lives, so i think its good for those people. but i do believe that there is more to this reality, what ever reality means. there is more than just material and energy. i can feel it. and my atheist friends would say that doesnt make sense and that's okay too. take care.
27 years in the Institutional Church. My last church was 14 years at a Reformed Baptist. I'm now in the process of winning back my family.
I respect your openness and honesty!
Thanks so much
@ You are welcome!
you're basically saying you're culturally christian.
Yes, I was going to say the exact same thing, but you beat me to it.
I wouldn't try to talk somebody out of being a Christian.
Epistemic humility is something I experience, and most appreciate, in the Anglican tradition, as an Episcopalian in the US.
I have noticed that a lot of Christians who outgrow the simplistic faith they were born into but want to continue with the positive parts of the faith eventually become Episcopalians. It seems like Episcopal churches do a lot of good charity work.
I think epistemic humility is attributed to Socrates. Also, some histories trace it Kant.
I’m in the same boat - Evangelical Fundamentalist for 25+ years, deconverted because of digging deep into the religion with an assist from apologists because all they do is lie. I love alot about Judaism and Christianity and still study and learn and watch endless RUclips videos on the subject. I have a deep appreciation for scholars (yes I despise apologists) and I’m more happy with my “religion” than I ever was as a “believer”
There is so much great stuff online. It's hard to believe the value of what is available to us really
Exactly. I'd put it this way: Evangelical Fundamentalist for 16 years, deconverted because of digging deep into the religion, especially the Bible itself, with an assist from apologists because they are SO dishonest. Their lack of integrity so transparent in their "answers" to the Bible's legion problems did more to undermine my faith than almost anything else.
And the second half too: I still love studying the Bible. Freed from fundamentalist blinders, it's so much more fascinating and inspiring.
@@tombrower6544 💯
Excellent perspective, thanks for sharing.
Certainty is a powerful and addictive drug.
The fundamentalist perspective from my childhood resulted in me becoming an atheist Christian. I love Jesus since he's become my favorite literary character.
It's a journey countless millions of individuals have taken, and quite normal one should imagine. 1 Corinthians 13:12 to me suggests we all get it right, and we all get it miserably wrong. Spirituality is not something we get from the intellect, but from humble exploration, often out of periods of desperation. Never stop exploring, learning, questioning and being open. Great video, no yelling here, my friend.
The book of Leviticus broke my heart a longtime ago. I was a strong bible literalist/absolutist the first time I read that book all the way through as an adult. There was no way I was going to pretend that the morality clearly stated there was reconcilable with my Christian values. I struggled to preserve my faith the best I could, but with a little more research, it was obvious that I was kidding myself. Eventually I took pretty much the same route you did. I will be going to sleep soon, so that I will be well rested for Sunday service at a liberal Lutheran church tomorrow. These Lutherans are good at encouraging one another in the Christian values that are so important without requiring that anybody pretends that he or she believes any nonsense.
Good for you. It speaks well of your character that you couldn’t stomach, let alone worship, the biblical god.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Thank you, That is a very nice thing to say. I think most Christian folk are better than the book that they pretend to study so much. I have come to realize that I don’t know what the heck is going on in the invisible realm, and I don’t know what happened in Palestine two-thousand years ago. I do know that I want to be kind like Jesus taught, and that fellowshipping with other Christians helps with that a lot.
leviticus is just a list of how levites should live
@ Are you serious? Have you ever read the book?
@@kentjenkins734 yes. I have read Leviticus. Nothing shocker in the book of Leviticus.
Dont sweat any negative comments you might get. Ive often wondered how people end up where you are after deconstructing, and hearing it explained from someone who applied solemn thought to the matter was helpful. Great video
Thanks so much!
I don’t think it matters how you label yourself because people will always have an opinion on whether you’re yogurt or just curdled milk. Just live your truth whatever that is to you at the moment.
I was raised Roman Catholic in the US, so not at all orthodox in my beliefs. I still feel awe and find beauty in cathedrals, religious art, and traditional hymns. Thank you for expressing those feelings, too.
I like the things you say in this video and the way you express your thoughts and experiences. I like all your videos that I have watched so far. Your videos are food for thought and I find them interesting. I am 64 years old and I agree with, I guess, everything I have heard from you in your videos. But you say it all better than I can. Thank you.
Hi Chris. I've appreciated hearing some of your story (first on Myth Vision, now here). I grew up in Southern Ontario and was part of the Plymouth Brethren fundamentalist sect. I left in my early twenties due to an overall disillusionment with their narrow and oppressive view on many things; music being a major one. I started attending a Catholic church where they welcomed my bass. I could play every Sunday, guilt-free, wow! 🤘🏼🤘🏼At present I identify as an Agnostic (with Christian sympathies, whatever that means 😉).
I enjoyed this video. My only question is, at 11:29 you call yourself an "Agnostic." At 13:29 you refer to yourself as a "Christian." Could you clarify that for me, if you would?
Thanks, and all the best in your ongoing journey of discovery. ✌✌
oh yikes, we probably know some of the same people. agnostic is a belief proposition--I really don't know, but I'm open to the possibility. Christian is my faith tradition, my language for those things, and my ancestral home. That's pretty much it
I'm not a Christian (I"m a student of Vedanta). I enjoyed your video very much. I was particularly struck by by the point you made, that religion is a fundamental human activity.
In short, you are saying that Man invented God to fulfil some needs.
I think what he is saying is that Man has some needs, so why not use this thing we invented to fill them?
No hate bro you seem legit and honest ✌🏿
Thanks!
A joke I heard that references a different definition of religion.
A driver gets stopped at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland. The guard asks, “are you Catholic or Protestant?” The driver says, “I am an atheist” The guard says, “Well that’s good, are you a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”
lol that's a good one
I have to disagree on something, mate: while thousands of other religions practiced transactional salvation, where you do something good enough, collect points, and then maybe those good things will outweigh the bad, Christianity is the only one that rejects salvation by works. With Christian's world model, Jesus died taking unto Himself the sins of mankind so that men can be saved even with their imperfection. The Christians who accepted the salvation would try to better themselves as the psychological effects of gratitude on grace given, fail as they may, or as glorious as they attempted; none of it would impact their salvations, nor will they be able to boast on their works. I think this is a really great model, and I can see how it is working when implemented as distributed systems (individuals interacting with each other). The real Christians would shy away from judging others and focus on doing good work because they know nothing nobody does can better the salvation work of Jesus. As for the billions of people who did not even know who Jesus was. I don't think there is hell with perpetual torments for the unbelievers, just simply indifferent oblivion. For whomever trusts in their own ways and denies God, or unfortunately did not know Jesus, they shall join the entropy of the universe and decay with it.
I may add more to this comment thread as I digest the information shared. I may not lol.
Your statement on the case of symbols being a part of how people/humans communicate a shared idea is a unique train of thought I haven't considered in modern times until you said it. And it honestly makes sense as a pattern I was seeing but never condensed it to a simplified argument. People still speak in symbols hoping it conveys a unified understanding of large concepts. It is still going on but isn't as basic as "symbols".
People may mirror a phrase from their favorite movie and those who know it are more likely to understand the context of the phrase. This works on the same principle where the phrase becomes symbolic to refer to any situation that mirrors the shared understanding of that scene in the movie. This also occurs with groups who have the same training and shift to speaking in acronyms and short hand titles. The military is a great example of acronyms being used in normal dialogue that would confuse uninitiated civilians.
In modern Christianity, especially of the theological, seminary and doctrinally trained, terminology has become those symbols. The Trinity, Eschatology, dispensationalism; all of these are words used to communicate large christian concepts that people just say the word to voice that they "know" it. But like you said, the truth is much more difficult to ascertain whether or not the person speaking actually understands the concept behind the term.
Example:
I personally sat in a chapel filled with Christians with a Christian leader who came to visit asking a couple questions to the group. He asked for everyone present to raise their hands if they believed in the Trinity, and everyone raised their hands in agreement. Then he asked everyone to raise their hands again if they could explain The Trinity. Not a single hand was raised. I was so shocked that I didn't even raise my own. I almost stood up. I was shocked. Over 100 men in a room admitted that they believed in something that they could not explain. Trinity is a modern day Christian culture symbol people say to convey an ideal or doctrine without knowing if everyone understand it. It is assumed.
And I honestly believe this is a detriment to the authenticity pf christian culture. People speak doctrinal concepts reduced to words and phrases throwing them around in conversation without really knowing if its truly understood on the same level. The pride in the perception of knowing of the doctrine takes precedence over actually being able to communicate it let alone exercise these doctrines. It has become a game of head knowledge with little time to practice because the objective is to gather knowledge and be accredited for having that knowledge and being able to speak the same symbols as the elect you want to be regarded as.
Even worse, it is disturbing to sit in a conversation where there is disagreements on terms/doctrines as people cut and paste what parts they like. I sit there and wonder what is the point of using the doctrine if you are butchering it to your own interpretation purposefully. They talk with the same words but purposefully twist what it means to be different. I believe that is called "double speak" biblically. Not that I enjoy talking in lofty doctrinal statements lol, but with these types I have to always verify specifically what they mean so as to not get side swiped by any other altered interpretations of anything lol.
Just thought to share. I understand why seminary had a high probability of breaking your faith. I was already warned by others who have gone to Seminary that I would have constant conflicts as I don't just take what people tell me. I too have a mind of reason, but I have always considered it what God gave me. It has garnered many altercations from other Christians who wanted me to just have faith in what they said despite what was written, and despite how it was being expressed {or not} in their own lives. LOL Even God himself has said in the old testament; telling the nations of the world to "come and reason with Him". He invited them to make their cases known. He looks down on the children of man to see if any have wisdom, if any seek God. Even King Solomon tells his sons in proverbs that in all of their getting, all of their searching, find wisdom; get understanding.
I don't believe God wants blind faith. Heck, even Jesus speaks of people in the end being cast away even though they did many sings in his name. The one thing they lacked was that Jesus himself did not know them. Understanding is vital. Having a mind that thinks allows us to really see how things work and see beyond the letter of the law to understand the spirit of it.
I agree with you and believe much like you. At the same time, I wonder if Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, would call me a Christian or a follower of Christ.
I appreciate that you're trying to be honest with yourself and others and that you are able and willing to experience joy by being part of a religious community. However, I would argue pretty strongly against what you seemed to be expressing with the idea that atheists practice religion because they do some of the things that religious people do. The supernatural aspects of religion might be a minor fraction of the thing in terms of overall content and behaviors, but they are not a minor thing in terms of its importance in that tradition - quite the opposite. So, in short, in just the same way that you don't want people telling you how to practice your religion, I don't want you to insist that I am practicing religion when I have absolutely no belief in the supernatural and it plays no role in my internal life. (We all live in a social world where we interact with others and their belief systems, so of course a variety of religions impact my life when they are imposed upon me by others).
Religious behaviors are a subset of social behaviors, not the other way around, you know? For example, the Girl Scouts have a moral code, leadership structure, special clothing, regular meetings, ritual sayings, etc, but that doesn't make them a religion. There are aspects of their behavior that they share with religious organizations, but that's because they're both human social groups. It's when you substitute a deity for cookies that you get a religion.
I did enjoy your random car thoughts though, to be clear!
lol to cookies. But maybe the girl scouts are a religion? I think part of the problem comes with definitions-- religion is notoriously tricky to define. but I agree--at least for Christianity--the metaphysical is a vitally important part of the history. But it's the part that feeels the most like ordinary humans who claim to have supernatural glimpses of the opther side.
@@cjohnyrun I almost wrote something about definitions being problematic and fuzzy, but I had already written two paragraphs and figured that my internet comment quotient had been filled for the day and decided to give it a rest.
Thanks for sharing this. Well done! I’ve have had lots of time for my thoughts on religion to have evolved . I see religion like tribalism as human constructs. Religion has had great value providing sense of community and comfort for humans dealing with the world and its never ending stream of problems. On the other hand is the immense amount of misery caused by those who use religion as a very effective tool for dominating , controlling and abusing other people. In recent decades my judgment has become - religion in balance does more harm than good.
I totally agree with all this. But it's worth asking whether it's possible to get rid of. Any chance it's just part of the human condition?
@ Interesting question. As we’ve seen, traditional religious practice in the western world has declined over the last several decades, but the “hangers on “ are fighting like crazy to maintain domination. That coupled with the comfort and community benefit tells me religious practice of some sort would only disappear with lots more evolution of humanoids. I expect extinction will occur before that happens.
Fantastic outlook on life and religion in this vid. Growing up has showed me that black and white opinions mix to shades of grey as you get older and are exposed to more of life and other people. Religion often is used to maintain the in and out groups which as you travel the world you see how that only preserves the power of the in-group. As long as one person does not legislate based on their religion's perspectives everyone should be free to believe and "unbelieve" as they wish. Thanks for such an honest video.
I am curious about your views on Jesus post-deconstruction. Do you think there is anything special about him now?
I don’t know whether you’ve come across Emanuel Swedenborg, but you have got to take a look at his work. So many parallels with what you’ve said here.
No, actually I don't. I will check it out. Thanks
@@cjohnyrun "Swedenborg ... a colossal soul who lies vast upon his times." RALPH WALDO EMERSON
"There are more truths confessed in the writings of Swedenborg than in those of any other man." THOMAS CARLISLE
"Swedenborg's theology is sublime. He alone allows man to touch." HONORE DE BALZAC
"I admire Swedenborg as a great scientist and a great scientist at the same time." CARL JUNG
"Swedenborg message has been my strongest incitement to overcome limitations." HELEN KELLER
"Even my own constricted self expands to feel a Swedenborgian spirit world." JOHANN VON GOETHE
"Swedenborg's philosophy explains much that was incomprehensible.' ELIZABETH BARRETT BROWNING
"As a moralist Swedenborg is above all praise." SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE
"Swedenborg's visions are the foundation for grand things." WILLIAM BLAKE
"Swedenborg ... that mountain peak of mentality." ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
"Swedenborg answers all my questions." AUGUST STRINDBERG
Your brain is evolved to be what it is. You are a very high functioning ape that has come about through some wildly environmental situations that determined where and who you are. No deities needed. Your consideration of the universe is an electrochemical process performed by a mass of organic cells. Really makes Christianity just a story we have conjured to entertain/belay our fears. Biologically you are no different than any of the other billions of species that have come and gone. We just have the hubris to imagine we are special cause we can perform some high functioning activities. Enjoy the ride...it is really short.
Nice story. You claims. A lot of them. But I am totally unconvinced. I see little to no reason to believe almost anything you just said. It’s just way out there.
I too am a materialist/atheist but very much disagree with one part: it's not hubris to acknowledge and question why only one species on this planet has evolved cognitive functions that include such highly abstract language as ours has.
This undeniable fact of evolution doesn't make us superior to other species in any way that I can see but it undoubtedly has some obvious connection to the cultural and technological evolutions that are clearly continuing to evolve.
How else do you explain the massive changes over time we see?
To be clear, the concept of deities is a useless placeholder to explain this evolution and only serves as a vestigial obstacle for humanity, in my opinion. I'd like to understand this evolution and consider religions as a huge clue to be studied.
Also, find "Neighborhood Atheism", by Baba Brinkman ft Greydon Square.
I skipped over parts of the video, so I may have missed it, but if you don't believe Jesus was who he claimed, God, that he died for your sins, that he is your lord and savior, and that your just performing the rituals because that's what you've been doing most of your life, then I don't believe you can call yourself a Christian.
Keep exploring. Miles Smith (17th Century Anglican bishop) wrote the "man has but a shallow sound and a short reach and dealeth only in probabilities and likelihoods "
For nearly a hundred years the English and American Churches have been striving to civilize and Christianize Western Africa, and with what result? Around Sierra Leone, and in the neighborhood of Cape Palmas, a few natives have been made Christians, and some nations have been partially civilized; but what a small number in comparison with the thousands, nay, I may say millions, who have learned the way to Heaven and who have been made to know their Savior through the means of African slavery!
Stephen Elliott: Bishop of Georgia
Something creates a need.
Then someone points to the needed.
Later, one searches for the needed.
It's difficult to ask oneself, when the needed is so important and has taken such proportions, why one has that need.
With or without a brain."
Watching this, I immediately thought you have probably made yourself a target for both theists and atheists 😅
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this. I don't entirely agree - mainly regarding the idea that atheists still retain elements of religious practice, or that it is a fundermental aspect of being human. You also suggested/implied that atheism is relatively recent, and I'm not sure there is evidence for that.
Sorry I'm not explaining myself at all. I keep trying to but a combination of chronic fatigue at 2:30am are impeding any ability to form proper thoughts. I was going to finish on a question but I can't even get that written down correctly..
I am really enjoying your content, and how you present the information. Keep up the good work.
So, after studying, Bob comes to the conclusion that the gospels are fictive spiritual scriptural narrative designed to be allegories. He takes this on “faith”, and surrenders his life to the Spirit of Christ within him and is transformed.
Dave, however, sees the gospels as journalistic history accounts. He takes this on “faith”, surrenders his life to the Spirit of Christ within him and is transformed.
Both Dave and Bob had the same outcome. “Faith”, in my little story, doesn’t mean “intellectually assenting to a piece of data” but “surrendering to the ineffable sovereignty of God in each moment.”, which leads to a spirit of love, the spirit of Christ.
It’s the “spiritual” aspect of religion that makes it relevant to us in the present moment, not the historical. History is past and only memory (ideas in the mind or words on a page). The spirit of Christ (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness) is with us now and can be embodied now, experientially. It’s about surrender, not “getting the right ideas in your head.” Fussing over historicity is fussing over a mental concept: a synapse of electrical fibers in the brain.
Let’s fuss over joy, peace, and compassion instead.
I figure there's only two reasons you could be. Either you are afraid of hell or afraid of being outcasted by others. Or you have a sincere conviction and maybe you've had experiences that confirm your belief and it gets you through the day or something. As someone who never had any kind of religious belief I can't pretend to understand why but then again that's why I started listening to what you had to say lol
There would seem to be more to religion than rituals, symbols, meeting in community etc. Transcending the self or ego is the why. 🎉
It was interesting to hear your thoughts, but a bit confusing. You said that you initially took a step back from fundamentalism because it was so important for you to pursue the truth, and then the rest of your video basically described why it doesn’t really matter to you whether Christianity is actually true.
As I clicked on the video, I predicted that your reasoning would boil down to social belonging and emotional satisfaction. That’s what seems to be the core motivation from the conservative to even the most open minded religious people I talk to. And it seems I was right.
It’s indeed very human to pursue social belonging and emotional satisfaction. I agree that those can be good personal reasons to hold onto a belief, but their outflow from that belief is not good a reason to think that the belief is actually true. I expect a lot of your audience is in fact focused on truth over utility, so this video may not speak to them. Either way, I’m so glad you escaped fundamentalism.
The choice isn’t science vs. belief but how to curate humanity’s toolkit. Science masters the external world; stories navigate the internal one. Faith is a reminder that humans are meaning-makers, not just data-processors.
@@mtamer2943 If by “the internal world” you mean our imagination, then I agree. But imaginary things aren’t real. At least, we shouldn’t think so until there is evidence from the external world that corroborates its existence in reality.
The video, and you, are arguing that religion is subjective and imaginary and untethered from the real world beyond wishful thinking and fuzzy feelings. I guess I’m glad to see religious people acknowledge that, but it simply makes me curious why you’d still believe the religious claims at that point. Stories are a human thing, but we can enjoy them and find meaning in them without believing them.
If it’s about the community and feelings, well, you can get that from other sources that aren’t centered around a book that motivates political violence, that tells you that this life is a dirty rag, and that tells you that you can buy slaves.
As for the former, yes. I have no problems acknowledging I cannot prove my faith. It was my own choice based on my own studies that led me to choose to believe, with no indoctrination. I get to lose nothing and maintain my critical thinking, and it gives me a positive personal impact. I guess that you can strawman people's experiences like healthy mindfulness and wellbeing and call them fuzzy feelings if that makes you feel better about yourself.
About the latter, we live in a free world where we get to choose our life and activities. Your antitheism might blind you to the dogma that a believer = ignorant, or that every branch of Christianity is fundamentalist. I believe my beliefs point me to the fact that life is beautiful, that there's a state-church separation, and that slaves happened but they remained in the long gone past.
Love you, bro.
I agree with so much of this, but I also see problems with so much of this, which is what I wrestle with. There are religions that were founded by straight up charlatans, and I wouldn't encourage someone to participate in them on the basis of having a human experience. I think that sometimes people who are skeptical and yet "go with the flow" end up getting pulled deeper into the religion than they wanted or anticipated. But I know what you mean.
A very good thought. I would only suggest considering nature with the idea of how our actions and our things reveal our choices, purposes and sometimes our love. Then consider the evil we have experienced and felt so deeply and how much we would give if we could correct it. We are driven by our love for the oppressed and the victims. So far as we can honor the purposiveness and, thus, the beauty of the earth, so far can we love God. So far as we suffer with them can we love our neighbors. Perhaps our vision, from whatever culture we come, corresponds to the commands of Jesus.
Some of what Jesus said is helpful and other things very destructive, unjust ,and unloving. Cherry pick what inspires you and leave the rest, if it makes your life better. For myself, I can't see the need or the point for Jesus without the awfulness of the OT. I am not born guilty, dirty, in need of saving. Wisdom and love are everywhere and can be had by all without any religious figures or texts. But again, whatever brings you peace.
My takeaway (and maybe I’m totally misreading you) is that you’re an agnostic who still enjoys going to church. I think I can comprehend that.
Christian for 43 years here. Never went to anything fundamentalist when I was young, which was probably helpful. Started off in a Congregational and broad-minded local church, and didn’t find out a complete picture of doctrine until I’d been a Christian for a few years and went to an Anglican church. My approach was chasing after God first and foremost, and understanding that Jesus and the Gospel are counter-cultural, subversive, and revolutionary at heart. But key was an understanding of what the Bible is and is not, and what the primary evidence for the Gospel is.
A lot of people seem to rail against ideas given to them about Christianity which simply aren’t true, but which are/used to be used to simplify the faith to make it “easier” for the person putting forward the gospel to have an impact. Bottom line is that the Gospel relies on the resurrection and early Church history more than it does the Bible. The NT tells us how we should be. The resurrection and early church history tells us why. The OT gives us a philosophical and historical framework for the NT.
The reason so many struggle when they get to seminary is they are never told about the history of Biblical criticism. All the theoretical investigations and historical analysis and textual analysis is based on a secular, naturalist, and anti-Christian premise. So if you use Biblical criticism to undermine Christianity, you’re actually engaging in circular reasoning. The details of the history of Biblical criticism are actually far grubbier than that. But if you want to get through most seminaries you have to pay your dues at the shrine of critical scholarship, but you aren’t told at the same time that it’s the historical equivalent of homeopathy, and of no practical use at all in the real world. Even from a secular perspective.
The other issue is the wrong perspective of what the Bible is. It’s a record of man’s dealings with the God of Abraham. It’s written by men, inspired by God and/or what happened to them. It’s a warts-and-all account at times. Not everything in there is meant to be taken literally. Not everything that happens in there is endorsed. But what is there can’t be ignored. What the Bible is not is what the “scholars” make it out to be. It is not a secular document, and nor is it one which is going to give you any insights into what “really” happened from a secular or critical historical perspective. So you have to be realistic, and that realism is often the difference between struggling with the contents of the Bible and its relationship to the Gospel, and managing to work your way through it.
Your characterization of textual criticism as "anti Christian" seems very much the opposite of the truth, especially in its origins.
The methodological naturalism of the enlightenment was eagerly embraced by zealots who assumed it would confirm their metaphysical assumptions and dogmas.
As is often the case, once you allow yourself to question just one theological assumption the process can't be reversed and it finally becomes apparent that the humans who wrote, copied, edited, amended, translated and interpreted religious texts were inspired by their very human concepts of the deity they're opining about.
As for me, I'd rather have questions without answers than answers that can't be questioned.
@@scottevans1096 You've fallen at the first hurdle. Sorry.
"The methodological naturalism of the enlightenment was eagerly embraced by zealots who assumed it would confirm their metaphysical assumptions and dogmas.". In what universe is naturalism, even methodological naturalism, compatible with the Gospel. We're talking about a message which is predicated on Jesus rising from the dead. Does that sound naturalistic to you?
This works fine in areas where what you are investigating work on the basis of understanding is that this is how things work, assuming only natural (i.e. no supernatural) phenomena occur. Modern science owes much of its existence to this premise, which underpinned the Christian investigation of the world, the skies, and their mechanisms. This was the understanding at the beginning of the enlightenment. You might spot the reason why having this spill over into the realms of religion might be changing the goalposts somewhat.
Biblical criticism originally styled itself as part of the methodological naturalism movement. It was not. It was part of a humanistic element within the enlightenment which took naturalism and made it unversal, resulting in secularism. Look up Spinoza and Hume.
To summarize what happened, there were clergy in various churches who had lost their faith, or possibly had never had any, and wanted to find a way to rationalize keeping their jobs while managing to cover up the fact that they should have resigned. This is how Biblical criticism, and its secular approach to religious texts, managed to wheedle its way into the churches and seminaries. It was initially done by collusion and subterfuge, and the result is the Church was paying non-believers to undermine the very message the Church was supposed to promote.
This is not to say that there isn't a history of churches having agnostics and atheists among their clergy. It is possible to go through the motions. Actively undermining the founding text of the church, while claiming a salary from the Church, is simply disingenuous.
It's fine calling for people to question "just one theological assumption", but this presupposes that one jettison any idea that naturalism shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny. Question just one assumption of naturalism - that the supernatural does not and cannot exist - and you hit the buffers pretty quickly. Besides, Christian faith is not simply held as a result of theological enquiry or philosophical navel gazing. At its core is an event so seismic that almost all modern calendars use it as a marking point. Whether you want to follow where that even leads, or instead discard it, is up to you. But if you want to follow where that event leads you will find little use for promoting ideas of an inerrant text. The record is written by men, as I stated. But the result is still that seismic event.
"As for me, I'd rather have questions without answers than answers that can't be questioned.". This is all very fine, but with Biblical criticism you don't get answers that are of any use in the real world. They're not even the type of history that the majority of historians would do anything but scoff at. Textual and historical criticism are useful to have as disciplines, but I couldn't list all the assumptions made which (for example) constitute the basis of Markan priority. There's so many of them I'd run out of space. Scholarly conclusions are like internet chat rooms. The level of confirmation bias is dangerously high. Which is why "scholarly consensus" is largely meaningless. It's just the current zeitgeist, based on whose theories have received the most likes. If you want to keep questions in your head on that basis then that's your choice.
@@mikehutton3937
You're certainly entitled to all those opinions and the assumptions they're based on but I find them wholly inadequate explanations for the prevalence of "the seismic event."
David Hume and Baruch Spinoza are only two amongst thousands of individuals who's ideas have contributed to my current understanding of the big picture of humanity.
Out of curiosity, is "the seismic event" your euphemism for the domestication of fire or the evolution of abstract thought and language? From my perspective humans are living in the Third Centimillennium or the Fifteenth Millennia depending on where you prefer to start the clock. Continuing to limit your frame of reference to just "The Twenty-first Century" is sadly myopic in my opinion.
@@scottevans1096 The seismic event is the resurrection. Hence the comments about the calendar (BC and AD).
If you're going to rely on Hume and Spinoza then you're inevitably moving towards naturalism and humanism, and away from Christianity. But that is a move on your part based on a view of reality, rather than a move away from any perceived issues with Christian doctrine as such. It is, if you like, a little more fundamental than issues around how you can make sense of the Bible.
In terms of questions and answers, you've then chosen the most basic answer, most likely based on a percieved rational but in reality emotional response, rather than one which is based on any kind of evidence. Which makes most of your questions about Christianity moot. You have already turned away at a basic level. This seems to be a common issue with people undergoing "deconstruction". What seems to be happening in many cases is not deconstruction as such, but rather a conversion to a kind of naturalism, which then undermines previously held beliefs, and often without a proper critique of naturalism itself.
Knowing what I do, it's not a move I would recommend.
@mikehutton3937
You are full of assumptions, Mike. I'm not moving away from Christianity at all. Everyday I learn more details about how the story most likely began before it immediately fragmented into endless variations. This fragmentation accelerated at the protestant reformation and continues to the present day with no end in sight. I'm sure you're completely confident that your preferred assumptions about correct beliefs and practices are the only correct ones from amongst all the available options. The utter lack of self skepticism is what makes fundamentalism so fascinating and also so culturally harmful regardless of which religion it is.
There was a time when I very much wanted to believe in the comforting aspects of Christianity but the more I learned about the historical origins of religions throughout human history the more clear it became at this point in history that religious beliefs are nothing more than metaphysical assumptions that are simply not possible for me to make regardless of how comforting they may seem conceptually or how much I want to believe them. I chose to be Christian and resulted in my realization that I've always been atheist. Now I study the Bible as mythology and consider myself an atheist Christian.
I don't rely on any great thinkers, really. I pay attention and compare perspectives and consider conclusions from a very diverse cross section of worldviews.
Have you read "Jesus Contradicted" by Michael Licona? It helped me understand inerrancy. I would be interested in what you thought about it.
Really enjoying your videos.
Was wondering if you could give a concise definition of the Christianity you hold to.
I deconverted from evangelical Christianity, never finding a level patch to halt the slide to “practical” atheism*. If there is something, I would have a look. (*By practical atheism I mean that I don’t see a meaningful distinction between vague deism, agnosticism, or atheism. If evangelicals are right, I am screwed any way I dress it.)
If staying in Christianity simply means enjoyment of a particular community, being part of something larger, being part of history, taking comfort in familiar ritual, I can get that too.
I don't think any atheists will be complaining about your religion.
You are getting closer and closer to knowing the truth. Keep seeking (that is why you have a working brain!). If and when you wish, I would be happy to share what my seeking has revealed in relation to some Christian concepts, our universe, and the awesomeness of the consciousness of your own existence.
People can say they are Christian or not and get inspiration or a feeling from Christianity even though they don't think the Bible is true as the stories proport. The issue is it mucks up what it means to be Christian and gives more credence to the hard core Christians. If Christianity meant the hard core literalists that go to Church every week then it would be easier to separate them from the people who like Christian stuff but aren't that.
Doesn’t hurt to think on your own
I enjoyed your video, respect your honesty, and agree with much of what you have said. However, I do I want to make one criticism. I think you're defining the term "religion" so broadly so as to render it almost meaningless. Most people would understand the word "religion" to mean something like the worship (or something similar) of some form of deity which usually involves accepting certain beliefs and involves participating in certain practices. How closely a person practices any particular religion is a separate issue. To most people, religion doesn't mean just being human, enjoying the company of others, finding value in participating in group activities or rituals etc.
That was how I felt.
If you enjoy the ritual and experience of religion, have at it. If you want to call yourself a Christian, go for it. I can understand why you might value parts of religion, but it seems confusing and unnecessary to redefine "Christian" and then embrace your own personal definition. You must find yourself saying, "I'm a Christian, but...," all the time.
C.J. - I take one thing away from what you said early on in the video, as the same thing happened to me. If you want to stay a Christian, you should never pray for the truth. That was my mistake, I went to bed every night praying God would teach me the truth. And I feel he did. The truth is that is that the truth is beyond me. I don't know all the answers, but that really is better than knowing all the answers, and knowing you are not complete in those answers. I at least know who I am.
Praying for truth is dangerous, because God might just give it to you. If your goal is remain a Christian, and you pray for truth, God is too likely to honor your prayer. You can pray for faith, or that others come to your faith. But honestly, as humans the truth is so far beyond us that "we can't handle the truth". Godel's theorem says that our system of understanding is insufficient to know all truth, that any complete system is inconsistent, and any consistent system is incomplete. And this is a mathematical proof, it is not some colloquial meaning of truth here. You can know true, facts, but you cannot know "the truth".
C.J. - If you honestly seek the truth, I don't see how you can come out anywhere other than where you came out. And once you realize who you are, you are able to make a decision about your faith that is informed by who you are. No more apologetics, telling lies that you know are lies to make what you believe work out.
I don't think you will get a lot of problems with this video. I think you just came to the same conclusion a lot of our audience came to. If a lot of your audience is over 60, like me they had to work all of this out over a long life. You just stated it in a way that helps us understand it better.
If you want to experience a real mind bending twist on religion, take some time to explore the concept of paleocontact through such persons as Paul Wallis, or, not. Regardless, I agree completely with you that religion is a human experience, and I must acknowledge Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) making the claim that even an atheist is one who has the 'no-God, God.'
I am curious what Christian tradition you participate in.
I’m with you…
Love it ❤
I feel like you would vibe with John Vervake
Oh cool. I don't know his stuff well, but I'll check it out
💯💯💯💯
Yes, rich emotional and community experiences are valuable, but subscribing to a faith comes with too much baggage if truth is valuable to you. Our ancestors did it, but I’d argue it’s time to cherrypick the best of the philosophy found in various religious traditions, whilst putting aside the superstitions that our ancestors lived with. Wish you well.
Right? Why must community involvement and purposeful living be linked to superstitious or baseless beliefs? As a lifelong atheist, I just don’t get it. It seems to do so much more net harm than good, to do things that way. I wish people would just stop it already, and embrace the healthier ways to be human and neighborly together.
I’m not sure.. I’m still deconstructing.. let’s see where I land.. leaning towards atheism/humanism
An answer that makes nobody happy! There's something to be said for that. BTW, I watch your channel and I'm 71.
Fantastic! I really appreciate that
There is good that comes with the literal community that comes with christianity, but holding onto the idea of "being a christian" has so much baggage.
From my perspective, being a christian has a different meaning for many self proclaimed christians, but one thing that is shared amongst 99% of them, is the shared belief in the truth of the christian doctrines. The belief in a virgin birth, and in the resurrection of Jesus after his sacrifice to atone for sin. For many, it even comes with the belief in creationism, in a global flood, and other things as well.
I get feeling the way you do, but I can't help but to think that it's a bit of a subconscious emotion or feeling, clinging on to what you know. Because under the definition of christian that practically all modern sects of christianity use, you wouldn't be considered a "true" believer.
I personally deconverted awhile ago, and I was in a similar spot as you are now. I'm not telling you or even suggesting that you should deconvert, but I'm simply sharing my experience. Once I was at the point of not believing those core doctrines anymore, it took a long time of self reflection and deep thought and even prayer; but I genuinely couldn't find a reason to self apply that label anymore. I still hold to some of the beliefs, specifically some of the moral beliefs as there genuinely is some good stuff in there, but for me, it was just delaying the inevitable. Clinging onto that label since I enjoy some aspects of christianity still (even while not believing the actual core tenants and doctrines).
I hope your journey goes well, but in all honesty, I can't help but to feel that you're in a very similar spot to where I once was. Again, not trying to persuade you do anything one way or another, but I do hope you have a good journey through this desire to seek truth.
1:52 have you kinsidered following the instructions in the book, and rightly dividing the TRUTH from LIEs? 🤔
5:28 a lot of the prophecies are completed... The two Tribulations Enslavement are near done...
7:34 Theres no practical application with benefits and evidence in religion RELIGARE' TO BIND ⛓️
Have you ever read transliterated scripture? It reads better, and teaches waaaaaay more. Plus the benefits are awesome.
As long as we have death in the world there's always going to be a need for belief in an afterlife, and people choose their 'faith' based on upbringing and their own personality/psychological moral view! (and I firmly believe that at least 90% of Christians don't really love God or Jesus, just the idea of heaven!)
Thank you brother. God has indeed blessed you with a powerful mind that's able to articulate what many feel.
I think you are transitioning. I am no longer a christian but I know God exists, and He is not confined to the bible. He manifests to different people in different ways. Christianity causes mental problems to people
"Religion is something you do, not something that's true". Dis you?
Thanks for this video. There is a lot of overlap with what is expressed in another RUclips channel, "No Nonsense Spirituality."
Actually, I've seen it on Instagram but never here. I need to subscribe! I really like it.
I beg you to hook up with RUclipsr Dan McClellan. You and he should collaborate. You are both incredibly articulate, intelligent and thought provoking. And that’s what I’m seeking in my journey. To provocatively think, so-to-speak. To not plod through life believing what I believe because “it’s always been that way”. Your channel is amazing. Thank you for what you do.
I love Dan's stuff! He's much further along this RUclips Journey than I am. But if the opportunity should ever present itself, I would enjoy it
I ended up choosing Islam to become a practicing Christian basically.
Hey, I'm confused by your statement that atheist take part in religious activities.
What do you mean by that?
I will do a video on it at some point. Basically "religion" is a concept that we make up to describe certain human activities. Many atheists take part in those activities as well. Religion is more complex than just belief or disbelief in a deity
Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but this really comes off like "I'm an atheist that values the culture and ritual of Christianity". If that's the case, that's fine. I can't do it myself, as I don't see any morality in Christianity, but at least you probably won't be one of the actively harmful ones. 🤷♂️
We all make our own paths through life. While I may not agree with this particular path, I certainly wouldn't want to stand in your way. I hope you find what you're looking for ✌️
Something like that. But not an atheist. More like "I'm open to the possibility of metaphysical realities, and Christianity is my way of understanding or relating to whatever that is"
Yes,,,, this has bothered me A LOT...what happened to people who were born before Jesus OR who died without hearing about Jesus? Will they go to "heaven"? If so, it means there's a non-Jesus path to heaven. If so, why is there a need for Jesus? It seems an all-knowing god should be able to suss out our actions and intentions - that alone should be the path to "heaven". It's a COMMON FACTOR in humanity - above all theological nonsense.
Religion is derived from LIFE/JESUS, not LIFE/JESUS from religion.
What about sin? What happens when you died.
Is it my imagination or the algorithm, but is mainstream Christianity heading for change?
I ask myself that very same question
If a divine word is convoluted and open to so much interpretation , it results in disagreement on what it means is not divine, in my opinion. It shouldn't be exclusive to the time it was written. It should be withstanding and eternal and, most importantly.........straightforward and easy to understand, so it's not the victim to false teaching.
At the end of the day, the bible says not to follow false teachers, so why make it so easy for that to happen? Feels like a setup.
I've hears countless people saying countless times "I think X means Y and I'm right" no, what you think is irrelevant, that's your personal opinion and if I'm not mistaken adding to the bible is a sin according to the very thing you're adament you're devoted to following. It's a blatant contradiction.
How old are you? I connect with your belief system.
39 :)
Ah the curse of intelligence... overthinking ❤️ Jesus didn't tell us to study our brains out, he told us to love God and each other. Loving God and accepting Jesus is everything. You got this!
I'm not sure if, "You can believe it so long as you don't think about it too hard," is the winning point you think it is?
No point at all, just that faith is believing in something you can't see or prove. The love in our hearts for God is enough.
@@ginabeena6757 Do you think that’s enough to justify passing laws that force non-Christians to live according to your religious lifestyle restrictions? Because apparently that’s enough for a lot of you guys.
@@weirdwilliam8500 this made me LOL. Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning.🤣
Please don't stereotype all of us believers together. There are a lot more of us that are all about the love, acceptance, and embracing of everyone, no matter what. (Except trump, f that guy😂)
If the universe was actually governed by random chance and not by a perfect plan by an omniscient planner, how much worse would it be than five global extinction events treating our planet like some sort of a cosmic Etch-a-sketch, and why does an omniscient planner need five resets? And how do you characterize this planner as omnibenevolent when he has wiped out 75% to 95% of all life on the planet five separate times? If the universe was governed by random chance and not by a perfect plan, how much worse would it be than 10 million children dying every year of hunger and preventable disease? I guess what I'm trying to ask is what is your God contributing to these outcomes? How much better is he making it? I do not see any fine tuning, to be honest. The sun gives you cancer and 97% of the water is poison. The world is filled with invisible creatures that can torture you and have you die in horrible ways. Mosquitoes alone kill 600,000 children a year with random bites. It really looks for all the world to me like nobody is steering this ship, least of all an omniscient planner with a perfect plan. But please tell me where I am wrong.
Do you actually ask these questions in the hope of getting a new, insightful answer or is their purpose merely to confirm your own bias? Did you ever consider that you might think you know more than you actually do? Your questions being predicated on assumptions you make on faith which are commonly called “science”, is there any consideration to the possibility that the truth is beyond understanding by your own intellect alone? If you say no then why is so much of what you think you know would not have been grasped by yourself but you achieved through accepting the sayings and thoughts of other men. Now if you rely on other men to reveal to you things that are otherwise beyond you, how much more would what God knows be beyond your individual efforts to comprehend?
If Jesus is the "savior" what does he save Christians from?
If not hell, there is nothing for Jesus to save anyone from.
If there is a hell, which was never once mentioned by the Old Testament by its god or any of his prophets, then Jesus would be infinitely evil if he didn't save everyone. No good mother would torture her children for a second, much less for all eternity, so Jesus would be infinitely inferior to good mothers if he condemned any of the children he created, according to the gospel of John, to eternal suffering.
The only versions of christianity that make any sense to me are Universalism and Gnosticism, with Jesus being an agent of a Good God, sent to correct the errors of an evil Creator.