From Bible Christian to Catholic to Atheist

sent in by Chris

First off, I would like to say that I appreciate the many testimonies and stories on the site. It has given me hope and courage in the face of the trials I face daily with my decision to search for the truth as opposed to the Christian myth. Ever since I was baptised as an infant my life has been centered around the Christian religion. My mother's family is devout Catholic, which is actually quite rare in the state of Oklahoma. However, after my mother divorced my father, she decided to raise my brother and I as protestant Christians in my small, Baptist-run hometown due to her disgust with the Catholic Church's position on divorce. Everyone I knew in my hometown was a devout Christian and Church attendance was a given for just about everyone. My brother and I were thrown head first into the Christian culture during our childhood and involvement in our youth group. We started the church youth band and spent at least 5 days a week involved in some fuction at church. Summers were spent at multiple church camps playing music and preaching to our peers. It was a pretty normal life for an Oklahoma boy. My brother and I were talented musicians (he more so than I) and we took every opportunity to show off our talent under the guise of worshiping god.

This lifestyle continued throughout high school. I never questioned the Bible or my denomination's interpretation of the Christian religion. Then I went to college. College has been the most interesting and beautiful experience of my life. My first semester was spent partying with a diversity of people that I had never come into contact before: muslims, atheists, socialists, buddhists, catholics, jews, ect. I stopped attending church and became primarily apathetic to religion. This continued into my second semester when one night I attended a choir concert put on by the university. They did a gorgeous rendition of Ave Maria and I was so moved by it that I decided to look into my family's traditional religion. I found that I could believe in evolution and study philosophy while still being a faithful Catholic Christian. I was a firm believer in reason and rationality and it seemed that Catholicism was the light of the Christian world for me. It was like I finally found something to belong to and a community that was intellectually mature and had an ancient identity. I was wrong.

I felt absolute bliss as I went through the rituals of confirmation. The priest was chanting a beatiful gregorian song, the incense smelled heavenly and the orchestra accompanied our ancient liturgical hymns. I was so caught up in my new Catholic faith that I began speaking with my priest about seminary. I was intent on becoming a priest or possibly a monk. I went to meetings with the diocesan vocations director and I enrolled in philosophy in order to fulfill pre-theology requirements set by Pope John Paul II. In my first philosophy class I was to find the true light and purpose of my life. I began to study as much philosophy as I could. Little did my priest know, the philosophy intended to prepare me for the priesthood led to my disavowal of all irrational faith and religion. I began to honestly search for the truth like the great philosophers of the past. Socrates destroyed my belief that god was the standard of morality and the Catholic arguments from natural law were weak and dishonest. Further studies led me to completely reject my faith. Bertrand Russell and other great minds gave me hope and showed me what it was to be a genuine, rational and virtuous person.

Recently, my new convictions of secular humanism have left me with no community and my closest friends no longer ask me to spend time with them. They see me as a sinner and a lost soul. I press on in my search for truth and my search for others who have similar convictions in this Christian strong-hold of Oklahoma. My family still doesn't know about my loss of faith and probably still believe I am considering the Catholic priesthood. It has cost me almost everything to follow this search for truth. Still, I am not unhappy about my discovery of philosophy. Philosophy gives me a reason to press on and change this world for the better. Ethics has given me a chance to study the real foundation for human morality. I would not give up this opportunity for anything. Fond greetings and well wishes to you all from an ex-Christian philosopher.

Oklahoma
How old were you when you became a christian? as early as I can remember
How old were you when you ceased being a christian? 21
What churches or organizations or labels have applied to you? Independant Christian Church and Catholic
What labels, if any, would you apply to yourself now? Atheist/Secular Humanit
Why did you become a christian? Born and Raised, Community
Why did you de-convert? Philosophy, Rationality

21 comments:

ficino said...

Thanks for sharing this, Chris. I know just what you mean about the first excitement of discovering the good side of Catholicism after coming out of Protestant fundamentalism. I also know the disappointment at discovering the problems with Christianity as such that lie beneath both versions. Welcome to your new simplicity and to this site.

Anonymous said...

Hi and thanks for sharing your story. I too spent my younger years under the influence of the evangelical movement, only to move on to Catholicism as an adult and then 20 years later...with a divorce under my belt, I realized that I wasn't standing up singing on Sunday morning's as a believer...but rather for my own fulfillment...and I could no longer stand my own hypocricy. My religious life was over and I no longer cared to go thru the motions of a believer. I am a new atheist...I thought I was agnostic for the past couple of years...but I am not. I am glad to read these testimonials as they give me courage. Thanks again!

chad said...

Funny how the experience of attending college is the common denominator among many de-converts who were indoctrinated since youth; this fact is a cogent testiment to the irrationality of fundamentalism and the intellectual disgrace of religious dogma. I'm glad to know that logic saved another mind from faith!!!

I couldn't help but notice that philosophy played a major role in your de-conversion, as I'm also a huge fan of philosophy--particularly the rationale discipline that it teaches. So, I'm curious, what specific aspects or branches of philosophy were the most responsible for kick-starting your journey of apostasy? And, now, what schools of philosophical thought grab your interest....metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, philosophy of language, etc...?

Chris said...

Chad, basic logic and rationality were the catalysts in overcoming my dogmatic beliefs. I apply a specific logical and epistemological system to all of my beliefs. I am primarily an empiricist, so I saw the inconsistencies in holding a dogmatic belief in religion as opposed to the way I come to beleive anything else about the world as I experience it. My greatest passions are metaethics and normative ethics. I also have an interest in philosophy of mind but its mainly a hobby. Same with political philosophy, especially John Rawls and other theories of justice and social contractarianism.Epistemology and linguistics are essential for any serious philosophical study, so I have a fair understanding of the analytic tradition and the history of both. Thanks for the comments everyone, I really appreciate it.

debellogallico said...

I am sorry that the Modern Catholic Church’s emphasis on secular humanism actually steered you away from the Church and most importantly Christ. This unfortunately is very common in the seminaries as well as the prevalence of homosexuals and quasi socialist teachers. Unfortunately, these things are very common in the current Church structure. It sounds like what brought you to Catholicism was its acceptance of new ideas that are not in conformity with traditional Catholic teachings.

It is too bad that the Church has fallen away from studies of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius and St. Augustine. You might have had a chance to grow spiritually in apostolic teaching. The fact is, despite what philosophy may teach, Christ was born, lived and died for our sins. He did sacrifice Himself at the first Mass at the last supper and did fulfill prophesy and died for our sins on the cross. Philosophies are a nice thing but salvation from the fires of Hell is a lot better. Hell is a real place. Try St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius and St. Augustine. Try Christ. He loves you. Also look for the Traditional Latin Mass. God Bless you.

Dave Harty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave Harty said...

"The fact is, despite what philosophy may teach, Christ was born, lived and died for our sins."

Spoken like someone truely out of touch with actual history. Aren't you glad you gave this up, Chris? This respondent sounds like a five year old reciting to their parents. Hell is real! You should kiss god's ass so you don't have to go to hell! Because he loves you!

Dano said...

debellogallico wrote:

"The fact is, despite what philosophy may teach, Christ was born, lived and died for our sins. He did sacrifice Himself at the first Mass at the last supper and did fulfill prophesy and died for our sins on the cross. Philosophies are a nice thing but salvation from the fires of Hell is a lot better. Hell is a real place. Try St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius and St. Augustine. Try Christ. He loves you. Also look for the Traditional Latin Mass. God Bless you."

Dan observes:
Chris,
All of that logical thought. All of that reason. All of that rationality, and it was right under your nose all the time.

You should have tried Christ, because he loves you. debellogallico had no trouble finding out that hell is a real place. He understands completely the prophesy of Jesus dying for your sins, despite the fact that it is an insult to a rational mind, and what ever gave you a brain.

Try St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius and St. Augustine.

debellogallico did, and now he is a fully functioning adult, living among us, secure in the knowledge that no matter what conclusions some of the smartest people who ever lived or are living today have come to, if you are not repeating the Christian liturgy, over and over, and over, you are destined for the "Fires of Hell"

If you ain't scared now, there is no hope for you.

Dan (Who realizes that debellogallico could be living right next door to me, and has, and is, and it scares the shit outa me)

rocky said...

Chris,
Welcome, fellow Oklahoman! You'll get lots of support here. I was raised by a beautiful Catholic (my mother) and an equally beautiful atheist (my father). My parents let me make up my own mind, and well, you see where I am. I'm lucky.

People like debellogallico pull the same tired threats of hell from the hamper and then have the gall to tell you "God bless you". And the Christians are screaming that THEY'RE being persecuted.

I read Harry Potter, eat meat on Friday, wear pants, cut my hair, believe gay people have the right to marry and a woman's right to choose.
Rare for someone from Oklahoma, I know.

Check in with us often, Chris, and keep developing that fabulous brain!

SpaceMonk said...

Welcome Chris.
None of us may ever know 'the truth', but we can still recognise what can't be truth.
Christianity definitely isn't it, and the longer you search the more things you can add to the list of 'not truth'.

Sometimes it can hurt the ego, and sometimes it's kinda fun.

Sometimes we strike gold, eureka!

DoesItFlow said...

Chris, I find it very respectable and noteworthy that your beliefs have been steered by reason, rationality, and logic, instead of by dissapointments and disillusionment involving people of certain belief systems. Obviously, there are hypocrites, extremists, and frauds to be found among adherents of any "faith," and their behavior really has nothing to do with the validity of the belief system itself, only with the character of the individual.

Many who post on this site have deconverted from various forms of Christianity as a result of traumatic experiences occuring at some point in their life, but you have instead chosen the path of study, inquiry, and experimentation. I admire that, as it seems to be the only rationally acceptible way to confront any belief system. Plus, it makes for much more interesting discussion!

I was recently confronted with this series of questions/statements from a Christian friend (I attend a discussion group comprised of college students of various faiths, including Christians), and am curious as to the way that someone with your depth of study (or anybody on this site who wishes to comment, I guess) would respond.

1. If human life arose through the process of evolution - a process in which "survival of the fittest" is an essential element - how did abstract thought come about? Thoughts such as "the ocean is beautiful" and "I wonder if there is life on other planets?" [my examples] have nothing to do with survival, so how did "survival of the fittest" produce beings with these types of thoughts?

2. Many atheists (among others) express a desire/plan to live a "good" [in your case, they would refer to "virtuous"] life. However, what can be used as a rational standard for this lifestyle? And, why even bother being "good" if there is no God to obey and no afterlife - shouldn't we be trying to enjoy the few precious moments we've got to the fullest?

These are not uncommon questions for Christians - and other monotheists - to present, and I have given them some thought before, but now they have been brought up in the discussion group, which meets again next Wednesday. I want to have a well-thought-out response for these people, so any input from people like you, Chris, who rely on their brains and not their achy-breaky hearts, would be greatly appreciated!

.:webmaster:. said...

"1. If human life arose through the process of evolution - a process in which "survival of the fittest" is an essential element - how did abstract thought come about? Thoughts such as "the ocean is beautiful" and "I wonder if there is life on other planets?" [my examples] have nothing to do with survival, so how did "survival of the fittest" produce beings with these types of thoughts?"

Here's an answer for that one: "I don't know."

This one answer seems to elude, at times, even the smartest people. Yet, it is by far the simplest response we can make, unless we actually have studied the science in depth.

Now, just because I don't have the answer to a well rehearsed question from an apologist, that doesn't prove that Jesus is God. Evolutionary thought examines the verifiable evidence of our animal existence and uses the known physical sciences to understand how it all happened. Even if evolution is completely off base, there is no verifiable evidence for a personal deity who killed his only son. In other words, even if Evolution is found to be false, the correct answer doesn't default to: "God did it!"

Besides, even if a god did do it, how did he/she/it do it? What process did he/she/it use? How long did it take? What steps were taken? What physical laws apply to the process of creating matter? Can we replicate the creational process?

Saying "God did it" does nothing to answer any questions. In fact, retreating behind a "God did it" declaration stifles all inquiry. The “God did it crowd” must be satisfied with "We can never understand" as the answer to all their questions.

“2. Many atheists (among others) express a desire/plan to live a "good" [in your case, they would refer to "virtuous"] life. However, what can be used as a rational standard for this lifestyle? And, why even bother being "good" if there is no God to obey and no afterlife - shouldn't we be trying to enjoy the few precious moments we've got to the fullest?”

What standard does Bible-God use to determine right from wrong? Bible-God has ordered the complete genocide of entire people groups. How would we view a dictator that ordered the complete genocide of a people group? Hitler tried it. So did Stalin. Is genocide ever virtuous? Yet, Bible-God ordered it, so in HIS mind it must have been the right thing to do. Bible-God is also going to relegate most of humanity to horrific eternal retribution for the heinous sin of disbelief. Temporal sins are punished with eternal torture. Is torture ever right? Is eternal punishment for temporal crimes really justice?

The laws human beings have developed over the past several millennia – the laws that stand the test of time – are laws that help us survive and thrive. We are social animals who want to live, reproduce, and feel a measure of security. Societies and laws have developed to help assure those general goals are accomplished. Those tyrants who have tried to build other types of societies eventually fade away, or are overthrown.

As far as talk of the afterlife as being the only motive for living a virtuous life, then I wonder why the Christian really tries to live virtuously. Is it a tit-for-tat relationship he or she has with his or her God? I mean, are the only reasons he or she serves this god is because of the threat of eternal punishment versus the promise of a jeweled crown? If that stick and carrot were removed, would the Christian instantly become a hedonistically driven maniac?

Again, even if I cannot explain ever detail as to why people do the things they do, the default answer to any of these questions is not “GOD.” “GOD” may be an adequate answer to all of these questions, but is it indeed THE answer to any of these questions? When ancient men ran in fear from earthquakes, floods, storms, pestilence, volcanoes, and so on, they imagined that an angered deity was raging. That was an adequate explanation, only because they had no other explanation. However, we now know that their primitive explanation was false. If our theory of how lightning is produced proved false, would failed theory now prove that god is throwing bolts of fire from heaven?

Nature is difficult to understand and uncontrollable, but nature is not a god.

When the Christian asks these typical questions, ask them first to give evidence of their god, and then you’ll answer. Having hitherto unanswerable questions about the natural universe does not prove anything, except that there are hitherto unanswerable questions about the natural universe.

DoesItFlow said...

Webmaster,

Thank you for your response! I can see that we share a passion for wrestling with these deeper, core questions... I appreciate you taking the time to indulge me(I am also curious as to Chris' response, but I suspect that he would follow yours with a simple "ditto!"... You never know, though).

Regarding your answers:

1. Well put! It is important to avoid hiding behind a simple "God did it" when confronted with a philosophical question such as this. Leaving it at "I don't know" seems like a sensible (albeit frustrating) conclusion. And considering the tricky concept of "thinking about" the origin of thought, it is unlikely that a solid answer will ever be discovered by those confined to human thought. To confront this type of issue, one would have to possess some kind of non-human consciousness or intelligence, able to examine our consciousness from an independent perspective. And, since no one on earth has that ability, claiming that the answer to this question was written by humans in a book seems rather presumptuous. On the other hand, it would be just like life to present such a simple answer to the most complex of questions... Of course, it would require belief in some sort of deity or higher consciousness of some type... Atheism holds a pretty weak case for me on this issue. But, I agree that simply concluding something to be unanswerable does not necessitate a "god" answer.

2. From what I understand of Christianity, "good" is anything that is consistent with God's will and desires, and "bad" is anything that conflicts with these. Therefore, anything that God does is "good" simply by merit of the fact that it is "done by God." Conversely, anything that a human does must be put into one category or the other. Comparing the "morality" of God's actions to human's actions is therefore illogical, according to this school of thought. I don't think the Christians in my group will be able to see outside of that frame, but I will give it a shot anyway.

As far as the "tit for tat," "Stick and Carrot" analogy goes, I am interested to hear them come up with a response for that one! It seems no matter how you slice it, obedience to someone who rewards you for your obedience and punishes you for disobedience necessarily creates an ulterior motive, right? Unless the motive for obedience is love, which generally ignores all negative consequences and disregards all rewards for its good deeds... But how do you love someone that you can't prove exists? Kinda sounds like insanity!

Anyway, I need to get some sleep at some point tonight, so I must go, but I look forward to future brainstorming with you! Thanks again for the helpful response! I wish you well...

Dano said...

If you ask:
Now that I don't have a religion to dictate moral behavior, what is going to keep me moral?

Answer: Morals and moral behavior has existed ever sense societies were first formed. The first little group of monkey-like men and women learned what kind of behavior would allow them to stay in the group, and what kind of behavior would get them kicked out. Thus morals.

Moral behavior was around about a million years or so before Christianity, and every one of the thousands of religions that preceded Christianity instructed people about morality.

The sermon on the mount was just a simplified version of "Do's" and "Don'ts" that had been around for millennium. "Thou shalt not kill" was not new. It probably was the first rule societies came up with. The problem with "Don't kill," usually meant don't kill any one here in our group, but if you kill someone over there in that other group that is always giving us problems, that is not only OK but you have done a good and moral thing.

Taking someone else's stuff could always get you beat up by the tribe, especially if you took something from the big guy, the guy who made the rules in the tribe. The problem with that one though is it has been construed to mean: "Don't take anyone else's stuff, unless you are the leader of the pack, and can get away with it with impunity.

Disrespecting the tribal elders, has always been a tribal taboo!

Disrespecting the leader, or anyone the leader nominates as important, such as the current God of the hunt, or God of whatever makes crops grow, or makes women pregnant, etc., could always get you in trouble.

So you see THE CHRISTIANS DID NOT CREATE MORALITY!

Morality had been around a long time before any one had ever heard of the Christian God, it is always changing. Societies will be constructing what is good and permissible, and what is not, long after all the grinning preachers talking about their favorite mythological story, have faded out of our consciousness.

Dan (Who is afraid of the Christians who ignore moral, and ethical behavior, because it is so easy for them to get forgiveness)

.:webmaster:. said...

Doesitflow used the phrase: "...it is unlikely..."

Whenever someone uses that phrase, my ears perk up. A more accurate thing to say would be: "it seems unlikely to me."

Too many things that were seen throughout history as unlikely, or impossible, are commonplace, today. It seemed quite unlikely that man would ever fly. It seemed damned unlikely that man would walk on the moon.

Even Paul the Apostle didn't serve his GOD strictly out of love. He said, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."—I Cor 15:19.

He was preaching the resurrection from the dead and boldly declared if there is no resurrection, if you're just dead when you die, then serving Christ is a waste of time.

Some love.

I serve my family, even though I know that when I die, I die.

Ask the Christian if they would still love and serve this god if there was no promise of reward. When you love someone, you love them without expecting a payoff for the love.

Whatever God does is good. Yes, and undoubtedly God's ways are not our ways. However, I would expect that God's ways would be superior to our ways—more compassionate and more just. As it stands, God's ways are pretty damned brutal, more in line with the Bronze Age concepts of justice than anything else.

Well, come to think of it, the Middle East practices quite a bit of the Yahweh Old Testament kind of justice. I guess the Allah and Jesus' dad have a lot in common.

boomSLANG said...

The idea that there exist "Divine morals" inspired by the Christian deity is absurd. It's lunacy. If it were true, in other cultures---cultures who adhere to NON-Christian values, and some, no religious values at all---we'd see people running around killing, raping, robbing, commiting adultery, in monumentous proportions. Yet, we see it no more than we see it here, in our lovely "Christian Nation". In fact, we have more pervs here than anywhere else.

DoesItFlow said...

Webmaster,

Thank you again for your response! Good catch on my "unlikely" phrasing... I agree with your correction!

As to your comments regarding God's "justice," it seems to me that once a person embraces the "Christian" or "Biblical" world view (or whatever you choose to call it) any and all of God's actions can be somehow justified in that person's mind. Whether or not it is sensible for them to do so is, or course, a matter of personal opinion. :)

Regarding the "reward/payoff" concept, I think the second-to-last paragraph of my previous post reveals that we take a very similar stand on that issue. I am definitely going to bring that up on Wednesday.

Dano and Boomslang,

It is important to keep in mind(especially in a debate-type situation, such as I am currently involved in at a weekly discussion group) that those adhering to the Christian intelligent design/creationist view have ready responses for statements such as yours. These responses are often fueled by the belief that "God reveals Himself through his creation," somewhat like an artist does through his or her artistic creations. If an artist is asked what his or her artwork "means," or what he or she is "trying to say" or "express," the artist is often able to respond with some sort of summary or explanation in the form of words (verbally or written). However, artists will generally agree that what they are really attempting to communicate with their work is best stated by the creation itself.

A parallel is made between this and the Bible God's creation (except on an even larger, deeper scale, because it is such a complex creation), and conversation of morality often results. Many Christians hold that basic moral codes have arisen - in ancient times as well as today - as a result of this communication with God and man via God's creation, nature. Even the most ancient, culturally isolated tribes generally have some kind of code of ethics. Christians attribute this to God's communication of his nature through his creation, thereby allowing every person in the world to have some kind of understanding of God's existence, nature, and moral statutes. Whether they choose to accept or adhere to "God's way" is up to them. "Of course *Christians* did not create morality," they would say, "God himself did, and revealed it to man through His creation!"

I have found this view to be very interesting, and have heard it defended quite effectively. If true, it could potentially account for the "pre-Christian" moral and ethical codes referred to by Dano and Boomslang, as well as the "non-Christian" ones in use today. However, in order for it to have any basis at all, one must accept not only the existence of one supreme God, but also the doctrine of creationism. This is quite a tall order, and a step not hastily taken by most philosophical thinkers, myself included. Making an argument about morals that presupposes Biblical verity seems to be an excercise in circular reasoning!

P.S. Dano, I think your fear of Christians who disregard morality and ethics as a result of "grace" is certainly justified!

P.P.S. No offense, Dano and Boomslang, but your statements regarding (respectively) tribal practices and the geographic concentration of "pervs" seem to me to be somewhat less than scholarly. Actual facts and statistics would strongly increase your credibility, and would allow you to be more respected in a philosophical debate setting.

Dano said...

DoesItFlow wrote:
"P.P.S. No offense, Dano and Boomslang, but your statements regarding (respectively) tribal practices and the geographic concentration of "pervs" seem to me to be somewhat less than scholarly. Actual facts and statistics would strongly increase your credibility, and would allow you to be more respected in a philosophical debate setting"

Dan says: You can't have a debate about something unless you can define what that something is. To interject God into the process of deciding what is good for the tribe and what is not, is to add an unnecessary and meaningless aspect to the discussion, because no one knows what God is.

To say that you can have a scholarly debate about what God does or does not do is an oxymoron! Debating about the origins of moral laws can be scholarly. Debating about an imaginary being who makes us come to conclusions about morals is a waste of time.

You are right about one thing though: God, the force, the prime mover, the cause of everything, the creator of everything, whatever it is, Did CAUSE EVERYTHING. Everything that we know, everything we can think, everything we can see, everything we do EVERYTHING!

Dan (Chimps have morals too. IF you groom the biggest chimp, he will let you stay in the group.)

boomSLANG said...

Doesitflow said: "No offense, Dano and Boomslang, but your statements regarding (respectively) tribal practices and the geographic concentration of "pervs" seem to me to be somewhat less than scholarly."

Trust me--zero offense taken. I'll tell ya, what seems "less than schloarly" to me, is the notion that a Supreme ghost-being...i.e.."Divine babysitter" swooped down from out of the clouds and delivered some stone slates telling us what is "right" and what is "wrong"....all under the premise that, if we didn't have these slates, we wouldn't be able to figure out that killing another human being is wrong. Again, absurd.


Since you kinda missed my point, or don't agree with it, or think it's unscholarly, or whatever--- why in India(a culture of people who largely don't adhere to Christianity) are there not people running around out of control killing each other on a whim? Moreover---Why aren't Atheists, even here in America, running around doing the same? On another note---why in Africa is the removal of a women's clitoris not considered "wrong" there, but it would be here? It's called "cultural relativity".

I, for one, don't need to read from a "divine" handbook each night to be "reminded" that murder is wrong. Again, that we have been given objective morals by a "God", is false, mainly because 1) it's presuppositional, and 2) because we can plainly see that even Christians cannot agree on what is "right" or "wrong", hence, the gazillion denominations. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Does It Flow: "These responses are often fueled by the belief that "God reveals Himself through his creation," somewhat like an artist does through his or her artistic creations."

God reveals himself/herself/itself through us, therefore, all human action is divinely inspired. Thus, whence come evil?

If god is manifest through Nature, and god is perfect, then all that is Natural is perfect. Like the perfect cannibalism of Jeffery Dahmer, etc.

IDers and Creationists, are obviously unaware that religions of the past, hold god in a transcendent ideaology, in order to keep their god "free" of any association to worldly "sin".

IDers & Creationsists, thus, attempt to have their cake and eat it too, keeping their "god", in a perfect transcendent state outside "sin", but still somehow "manifesting" their godliness in Nature in some mysterious manner.

IDers & Creationists typically argue from science, and rarely engage in direct theological argument, as their own belief is self-refuting.

DoesItFlow said...

Dano and Boomslang: Thanks for cutting me some slack on that whole "P.P.S." business! Looking back, that had a rather pretentious tone to it, which was certainly not my intent. On the other hand, I really enjoyed your responses! I look forward to hearing more from you two in the future. And you, too, "Anonymous!" Who are you? I like your style.

Anyway, on to some more recent posts...

Archived Testimonial Pageviews this week: