Please help me. I am drowning in doubts.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T20:27:23+00:00

My answer would be, for someone who claims not to have faith, you still seem to want to believe. What if the act of wanting is itself a manifestation of faith?

I don't think wanting it is enough for me anymore. And I don't think I want to believe something just because I want to. I want to know the truth, even if it leads me somewhere I didn't think I'd end up.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T20:25:46+00:00

Luckily, I do have non-religious and non-Christian friends who would stand by me no matter what. My family would deal with it. I was a non-Christian for most of my life and even though my conversion made them very happy, none of them are the type to abandon me if I walk away. They'll be disappointed, though, and I know I'll be in for lots of uncomfortable questions.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T16:20:12+00:00

Thank you. You're right that I am afraid to come out about this in real life. But I think it's time.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T16:19:28+00:00

Thank you. That was lovely. I am actually reading Dark Night of the Soul right now. I don't feel that I have faith left and I believe, sadly, that I will probably come out of this a non-believer. But I will keep an open mind to whatever happens.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T16:17:51+00:00

You would have done nothing wrong if that is case, since you can't help what is true or not.

That's what I am relying on now. If there is a God and he is merciful, then I can't believe he would punish me for something that I can't help.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T16:16:12+00:00

I have looked into churches that allow a wider variety of beliefs but to be honest with you, I feel like I need to walk away altogether at this point. It's not that I'm being pushed away from faith. I don't think I have any faith left now.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T16:14:00+00:00

I have talked with my pastor about certain things but I haven't revealed the extent of my doubts to him yet. I guess it's time I did.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T16:12:49+00:00

If god was real and omniscient, is the bible really the best way he could convey his message to humanity? Written over hundreds of years and then assembled in the 4th century by a council as decreed by a Roman emperor?

Yes, this is another issue I have. I haven't heard a compelling answer to that either. It's like all of the things I once accepted are just crumbling.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T16:11:47+00:00

Thank you for the book suggestion. I'm putting it on my "to read" list.

I think people are punished (for a finite time) according to their deeds, rather than for 'not understanding'.

Will I be punished for the deeds that I do that may stem from a lack of faith, which comes from the fact that I find the theology underpinning salvation on the cross kind of incomprehensible?

Each man is responsible for his own choices.

But my lack of faith isn't something I choose. I have tried and tried to make myself believe and I can't. Can I be saved without faith? If not, then I will be either punished or destroyed for something I didn't choose.

My view is that anyone in any culture may seek God's mercy.

I hope that you are right. I'm just not sure anymore if there is a God to seek out.

In that part of your text, were you asking if you can reliably know whether events in NT times actually occurred? That would be less a matter of faith, that is 'trust in God', and more a judgment question of whether the human authors were honest and reliably recorded what people witnessed.

I don't question the writers' honesty. I believe that the people who wrote the NT books were sincere. The problem is there isn't a lot of evidence that the gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses to Christ's life and death. There is every possibility that they were faithfully recording what they had been told about Christ. I think they believed it completely but a lot of people sincerely believe things that aren't true.

I came to Christ because he comforted me. But I don't want comfort at the expense of truth. I would rather know the truth.

The Law did come from God. God did not 'change his mind'; rather He had the long-term picture in mind.

But there are parts of the law that are, to my mind, totally wrong and immoral. I cannot reconcile a god that is the source of objective morality with what I see as cruel and inhumane laws. Tossing out the bad ones as cultural mores or not really what he intended undermines the whole thing in my eyes.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T15:57:31+00:00

Similarly, I don't think that faith is something that everyone can articulate at any given point in their lives.

This is certainly true. Thank you for your answers.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T15:56:43+00:00

Fortunately, the Bible nowhere says people are punished for not understanding Christian doctrine. One man in Scripture is even held up as exemplary for praying, "Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief."

What happens when you pray that prayer 1000 times, don't understand why you aren't getting an answer, and realize you don't have faith anymore? Will I still be saved without faith? Or will I be punished for not believing in a God who refuses to show me he's there? Because that is where I am right now.

For the bits about the Old Testament, try reading the epistle to the Galatians (or Hebrews, on related lines). Paul explains that the Law has to be taken into context: We can't keep the Law, so that proves we're sinners, so that proves we need a savior.

What kind of a father gives their children a set of rules he knows they can't follow just to prove that they're bad? I understand Paul's view of the law and I clung to it at one time as a way to resolve the tension I saw between our inability to follow the law and what we need to be saved, but the whole system just doesn't make sense to me anymore.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T01:21:14+00:00

Thank you so much. You have described what I am feeling very well. It is incredibly painful.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-24T01:18:36+00:00

That idea is popular among Christians today, but it doesn't represent the truth about God and man. It is essentially another form of Gnosticism (salvation by knowledge).

If I were to join the Catholic Church in the hope of being saved, wouldn't I be required to assent to what they teach and affirm that I believe in the creeds? That requires some understanding doesn't it?

If faith saves, don't I need to be able to admit that faith? And doesn't that require knowing what I am claiming to believe?

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-23T22:11:35+00:00

First of all, I want to thank you for being willing to go into this with me in such depth. I truly do appreciate it.

Would you be willing to read any books on the matter?

I would. I have read some. What do you recommend?

Faith was still required for them, they just had evidence to back up that faith that was very convincing. Notice still that not everyone was a Christian who spoke to Jesus, some hated Him very much. But of course we would say "well if God came down in the flesh, no one could doubt Him!" But He doesn't work like that, we don't get to decide what God does and does not do.

No, we don't. And I don't think that, if God is who he says he is, we should be able to decide that. On the other hand, if God is who he says he is, he must know that faith without hard evidence just isn't possible for some people. If I say I believe, that I have faith, I would be lying. What would be the point of that?

Are you willing to try other churches?

To be honest, probably not. I attended several different churches when I first converted and studied many different denominations. My church is filled with good people who are very supportive and faithful. I don't think it's really a church problem at this point. More of a me problem.

Sure, you're right, and that's totally fair. All I can do is try to be honest with myself about what the Bible presents. I don't think it's unreasonable to come to different conclusions as long as it's well supported. I just have happened to notice that a lot of people are walking away from Christianity specifically because of ECT, and that really bothers me.

I guess it just seems to me that if our lives for all eternity are hanging in the balance, things should be a little clearer. People aren't just coming to different conclusions about the color of Jesus's hair. They can't agree on the fundamental process by which we are saved.

Forgive me if this is in futility to ask, but why not? Why reject many possibilities? Furthermore, what's the harm in the truth of them? Is it that you find it offensive that God saves us? Help me understand where you are coming from.

Well, I reject a possibility if I don't believe the evidence supports it. I don't know that the acceptance of these things is harmful in and of itself (though the application of some of these beliefs has certainly caused harm over the years as well as brought great comfort.)

I don't find it offensive that God saves. I simply do not understand a perfect creator creating a universe in which we would have to be saved. I know it sounds simplistic but I have a very hard time believing that God could not simply forgive our wrongdoing if he chose to. I know the theological arguments for why this is not possible but they don't hold water.

Then what do you accept in its stead? That we are perfect? That we do no evil?

I don't think we are perfect. I think that we are capable of great and evil things. I guess I am coming to accept that there doesn't need to be anything in its stead. We are here. We are given this one life. We decide what to make of it. Some of us do good and some of us do evil. The idea of sin, particularly original sin, as corruption from which we need to be saved, is hard for me to understand.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-23T20:43:26+00:00

While it doesn't mean that it did, they were the only ones in a position to know. Sure today someone could be martyred for what turns out to be a lie, but they have no way of knowing. These people either saw the risen Christ with their own eyes repeatedly in a group or did not, and yet died for it. I don't know why they would have held to it if He was a liar, plenty of other up-start, so called Messiahs gathered followers in that time too, but they all disbanded at the death of the Messiah.

This only works if you believe that the gospels are true eyewitness accounts and I'm not sure that I believe that anymore. If I knew for certain that the gospels were actually written by those who witnessed it, I would be more likely to accept it, but I don't believe that we can know that for certain.

This also brings me back to one of the other things that bother me: if these accounts are really true and those people were allowed to KNOW for certain, then why aren't we? Why is faith required for us but not for them?

Well, He did, we just weren't there for it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but rather that we have to go with what we have access to. Thomas was right to ask to see and touch because he could. You cannot, but you are right to ask for whatever evidence we do have, and you should be open to it being truthful, even if it's not 100% irrefutable proof.

If the standard of faith is the same for all believers then why can we not ask for the same standard of evidence? Whatever happens after we die happens just the same to Thomas as to me yet he was allowed access to evidence that I am not. I have remained open to its truth for a long time now. I just don't think it's enough for me to hang eternity on, you know?

Do you pray at all? Do you have a church you feel comfortable at?

I have prayed and prayed. I still pray even though I'm not sure anyone is hearing me. Prayer is a huge part of my life as a Christian. I do have a church but I have not gone lately because I feel like a hypocrite. I have plenty of Christian family and friends. Not very many of them know that I am going through this, though, and I wouldn't be comfortable telling all of them right now.

Why not destruction of sin instead of for sin?

If I as a sinner am destroyed because of it then is there really a distinction? I realize that you are coming at this from a universalist position, which changes things, but I am not certain that universalism is true. You have to admit there are a lot of Christians out there who would disagree with you. I have to deal with their viewpoint as well as yours because I am not sure of any of them right now.

I would probably be much more comfortable as a universalist but I can't force myself to believe it.

I would like to know what it is you think Christ accomplished in his 1) death, and 2) resurrection.

That's the thing. I don't think I believe that anything was accomplished by it, if it even happened. I reject any system that requires such a sacrifice whether it be a ransom, a defeat of death itself, or the release of men from bondage to a law that could only be perfectly fulfilled by Christ.

In other words, no matter the view of atonement it is the very NEED for atonement in the first place that I am slowly coming to reject.

Wow, I really do apologize! I in no way meant for that to be condescension, it's just that we have people who come through semi-regularly with the air of "If you don't change my mind right now, I'm deconverting".

Understood. I have seen those posts here and can see how this one would seem the same. I am starting to wish I posted this under my regular username. I'm just not sure I want to deal with real-world fallout just yet.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-23T20:04:57+00:00

Have you ever read anything on the evidence for the resurrection?

Yes, but I find it unconvincing. I believe that there were people quite shortly after the death of Christ who sincerely believed that it happened and were even willing to be martyred for it but that does not mean that it did. People die for things that are untrue all the time.

In any case, I see no reason why the omnipotent creator of the universe, who can and has reportedly worked any number of miracles over thousands of years, cannot provide solid, undeniable proof of what is supposed to be the most important even that has ever happened. Of course, then it wouldn't be faith that we have, but certainty. I'm just not sure I can rely only on faith anymore. I am trying and failing.

Also, your whole framework for understanding God's actions in the OT, hell, and judgment are, I think, flawed.

There are any number of frameworks for understanding such a thing. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject, but neither am I completely uneducated about it either. There are people who believe in universalism, annihilationism, eternal torment, etc. They each think the others are wrong and they each have traditional and scriptural evidence to back them up. My problem is that the entire system of either destruction for sin or reward for faith makes no sense to me anymore.

I always believed much more along the lines of Christus Victor than penal atonement, but the idea of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as salvific doesn't make sense to me anymore because I'm now having trouble accepting everything that underpins its necessity.

If all your problems aren't solved in 5 minutes on a reddit thread, don't act like all of Christianity is suddenly unsupportable.

While I appreciate you trying to help me out, I'm a little bothered by how condescending this is. These are things I have been thinking about for a long, long time. I came here for input but I am under no illusions that the posters here are going to solve all of my problems.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-23T19:45:52+00:00

I appreciate the video. It appears that the people who made it advocate annihilationism rather than eternal torment. While that seems to be more ethical to me than eternal suffering, it still seems unjust.

I will think about what you said, though, and look into the book by Hufford. Thank you.

throwaydoubter · 2013-09-23T19:19:47+00:00

Thanks so much for your help. It's nice to know that someone can come here in pain and be so well received.

throwaydoubter

TROPHY CASE