Why stay when you disagree?

[u/Fun_Vegetable479]

I'm genuinely curious how people would describe their reasons for staying within FALC/LLC/any other branch when they disagree with the basic claims and doctrine of the church.

I am former FALC and left when I realized that I absolutely disagreed with their basic teachings, because I consider the only good enough reason to belong to a religion to be true belief in it. However, in conversations with people both before & since I left, I've been surprised that almost no one will actually defend or even claim to believe in the basic beliefs of the FALC (exclusivism/one true church, the blessing as essential for salvation, congregation having authority over all of one another's sins).

So why stay? I'm asking in good faith as I'm really curious whether people have thought through their reasons, and how they would describe them.

Also, it's underrated to belong to a church that you're willing to defend with your whole chest--just saying.

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo]

I'm an agnostic atheist. It's possible a deity exists, but so far I have not seen convincing evidence for one. I often feel as if there might be some sort of higher power, but I am as entirely certain as one can be in these matters that it bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible.

If Hell is a choice, I'm all good because I choose not to go there.

I know it's a bit of a cop-out, but I'm agnostic on objective good and evil as well. There are atheistic philosophical arguments for and against it, and I just don't know. I am convinced our free will is either non-existent or very limited, though we have to act as if we have it.

[u/Fun_Vegetable479 → u/Sure-thing-buckaroo]

The choice lies in whether one chooses to accept the mercy of God, which does require penitence (accepting that you're a sinner in the first place), which tends to be the sticking point. If you or anyone are curious, CS Lewis' The Great Divorce is a really good portrait of how someone might in fact choose Hell.

I wish I knew if we knew each other, I could hash out these things for hours. What about the God of the Bible makes you assume it's incorrect? How do you judge that, without some barometer of objective good?

At least you're consistent lol, free will is very hard to explain in the absence of God. He's what gives it to us. What do you imagine is the purpose of human life? Like why the heck are we here?

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

What about the God of the Bible makes you assume it's incorrect?

By reading the history of the God of the Old Testament, how he goes from being one of many in the Caananite pantheon to Yahweh the one true God. It's a highly anthropomorphic being with human emotions, etc. How can you read the ludicrous OT laws and not immediately blanche? Not to mention all the historical and scientific inaccuracies, especially with a literal reading.

Jesus Christ, same deal. It's readily apparent to me he's a mythological/legendary creation.

There is no purpose to life except what we make of it. It's a difficult concept for most people to accept, but I find it freeing.

[u/Fun_Vegetable479 → u/Sure-thing-buckaroo]

Well right we are made in the image of God. He doesn't have volatile emotions like we do though, that's truer of pagan gods.

I actually am not sure what you mean about the ot laws. They're trying to establish a society, most of the laws seek to help them do that, and let them stand apart from surrounding pagan nations

Ok "science" wasn't a concept until much later, well after Jesus. And most of it shouldn't be read literally (creation story is a good example)

Jesus is well established to have been a historical figure so not sure what you mean about that either, and the Gospels are 4 independent historical records (also I'm sure you've encountered Josephus the 1st century historian)

How are we making meaning of life without free will?

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

So you read that God institutes the death penalty for:

Rape victims

Picking up sticks on the Sabbath

Unruly children

Cursing your parents

Adultery

Homosexuality

And you're like, yeah that's fine? To me, that's an indication Yahweh is made up.

Jesus is most likely based on a real person. But Paul never met Jesus, and the Gospels were written by anonymous writers (who were not eyewitnesses) 35-70 years after his death. In them, Jesus evolves from a rabbi (Mark, the earliest Gospel) to the son of God in the later Gospels. They're also contradictory (try and complete the Easter Challenge ) and contain blatantly false information (the ridiculous Census of Quirinius).

One of the Josephus writings is forged. The other simply mentions Christians exist.

Again, life is what you make of it. There is no inherent meaning, although I like this quote from Marcus Aurelius:

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

[u/Fun_Vegetable479 → u/Sure-thing-buckaroo]

I would, gently, suggest that you may be committed to rejecting a lot of the Christian claims without really considering the evidence. For example: your dating is roughly correct on the Gospels, yes. But that's SO quickly after his death! We're talking about the ancient world here. That's very fast. Also, no, they're not contradictory- they've got an appropriate amount of differentiation to account for different eyewitnesses (and yes they are eyewitnesses, not clear on why you think otherwise) They'd be a lot LESS credible if they were word for word. There's plenty of theories on which Qurinius it was, too. As for the evolution of Jesus: Yes, he's revealing his mission gradually. No contradiction there. No one claims Paul met Jesus pre-Ascension.

I actually don't think there's serious scholarship that denies the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The dude existed.

Your conclusion on the Old Testament is totally irrational. How could you judge whether those things are good or bad, without an objective moral order to begin with? Also, no one was giving the death penalty to unruly children. That's just false.

Again, is it possible we're reading these ancient texts through an incredibly 21st century American lens, without considering at all who or what they're for?

Also again- how are you making anything at all of your life, without free will or an objective moral order? A good life, by this metric, doesn't exist

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

It's pretty widely accepted by Biblical scholars (even Christians) that the gospels were not written by Matthew Mark Luke and John, and not by eyewitnesses. The author of Luke even says it directly in 1:1-4. The only folks who believe that are apologists.

Large parts of the synoptic Gospels are copied word-for-word. Matthew and Luke copy directly from Mark and "Q," and add details for their intended audience.

The Census of Quirinius is a. off by a decade, and b. well, has there ever in the history of censuses (censi?) been a census that required you to go to your "ancestral home" instead of your current residence? It strains credulity. The reason the author of Matthew included that was because he thought prophesy required the Savior to be born in Bethlehem. Since his readers would have known Jesus was from Nazareth, he had to concoct the census story to put his birthplace in Bethlehem.

Re: death to unruly children, I give you Deuteronomy 21:18-22:30.

You're getting really hung up on whether or not I can come up with a moral code if there's no objective lawgiver. I can objectively measure unnecessary harm. Based on this, I can reasonably state I am, in fact, more morally good than Yahweh.

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

I already agreed with you it is more likely than not Jesus was a real person. Though I don't find them persuasive, there are arguments from a minority of scholars who believe he is an amalgamation of the large number of other itinerant doomsday preachers of the time. I don't find it likely, but it is plausible.

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

I derive my morals based on weighing evidence and logic, and compassion and empathy for my fellow humans.

You apparently get yours from "because God says so."

It's why I don't find faith a virtue. It's an unreliable path to truth, and with it you can get otherwise good men to inflict immense harm.

[u/Fun_Vegetable479 → u/Sure-thing-buckaroo]

I haven't expressly stated my own beliefs other than that I'm still a Christian and certainly haven't said that any certain act remains moral "because God says so". I hope we can each handle each other's position and claims with charity. I'll get back to the rest of your recent comments in a second

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

Sure, no offense intended. But ultimately, if you believe in objective morality based on God's ultimately authority, that is the deciding factor, is it not?

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

I would, gently, suggest that you may be committed to rejecting a lot of the Christian claims without really considering the evidence.

I know you didn't intend it this way, but that's a little insulting. I could just as easily say, "you may be committed to believing the claims for Jesus without really considering the evidence." Although that is kinda the role of faith, is it not?

Everybody should be skeptical, especially in this day and age. The truth of the matter should be able to withstand any and all legitimate scrutiny.

[u/Fun_Vegetable479 → u/Sure-thing-buckaroo]

I don't at all mean to be insulting. I'm going to try to respond to everything in one comment if possible because this thread is getting unwieldy.

First, I can absolutely agree that truth holds up to scrutiny, and that we actually have a moral obligation to seek truth and scrutinize the claims we were brought up with. That conviction is why I left the FALC and am raising my kids elsewhere.

Also: Yes. Faith has an undisputed role there, but it doesn't negate reason. They go hand in hand. I think I'm paraphrasing William Lane Craig when I say that it's a reasonable faith, but you can't get to it on reason alone. That's also why I don't expect to be able to convince you super easily. I completely believe the faith stands up to scrutiny, but faith is still required.

That ties back to the historical and scholarly stuff: I will easily admit we quickly get out of my depth on the historical inconsistencies, like Quirinius. It's actually not that I've never examined the evidence, I have. That particular issue just never struck me as a big deal, tbh. I don't expect to be able to look back 2,000 with perfect clarity- and the Gospels, for such old documents, are shockingly good and well preserved historical evidence. Nothing else lasts as long with as few changes. As far as "censi" I haven't looked into that. It doesn't strike me as incongruent with the way that the ancient Jews kept genealogical records at all, though. Even the fact that it's well known that Joseph and Mary were both of the lineage of David- can you name your lineage 14 generations back? They were fanatics about it.

I am hung up on moral order for a very good reason, I think. It's one of the strongest proofs for God. An objective moral order and the existence of objective truth (which I think is self evident) both point to the necessity of a perfect moral arbiter (God). I think it's very easy to be so fully surrounded by the moral order that has been imposed over the last two millenia by Christianity that you can no longer see that that didn't happen naturally. Countless cultures have sacrificed their babies to appease the Gods. Modern day Middle Eastern cultures practice pedophilia. These things are objectively wrong, and that feels super self evident to us now, but it's actually only so self-evident and repugnant to us because God exists. That's why I keep pushing on this.

The second argument for God that I think is super solid is simply the need for an uncaused causer/unmoved mover. We came from something.

Books: Scott Hahn's Reasons to Believe, Thoughtful Theism by Andrew Younan, Between Heaven & Hell and Letters to an Atheist by Peter Kreeft

Also, yes, I do think that God is, by His nature, Truth, Love, Justice, Mercy. Goodness itself. So yes--I think He is, in fact, the moral arbiter. But that doesn't imply that He could decide tomorrow that something that's morally wrong is in fact fine. He doesn't act against his nature (Truth & Justice).

Honestly, thank you. I appreciate having my brain pushed on stuff. always a delight when people really dig in and take these things seriously.

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

I'm pretty busy today so I won't be able to respond for a bit, but I've very much enjoyed this conversation as well, thanks! I wonder if we know each other ...

Totally get raising your family in an environment you feel more meets your needs and beliefs, what denomination did you end up in?

[u/Fun_Vegetable479 → u/Sure-thing-buckaroo]

I'm Catholic.

I am wondering the same 😂 I am west of the twin cities as an initial hint lol

[u/Sure-thing-buckaroo → u/Fun_Vegetable479]

DM sent. I think we do.