Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

My outlook started to change about 10 years ago. I still read the Bible daily. I have stopped trying to get people to conform to a "my way or the highway" and try to respect others. I try to lead my life as a good example by helping people that need it and sharing my talents with those that can benefit. I dont think my works will get me to heaven but it makes it easier for me to live. I believe in hell but dont think a loving God would damn a person that never had the chance to accept Christ. I have no idea what heaven will be like. I have never heard a description I think I would enjoy.

Theres a lot of things I dont understand.

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

1. Hell is not a place of "torture" - that picture comes from Dante and Milton. It is a place of separation from God, which may bring "torment" from the soul's internal anguish.

2. Unreached persons are not automatically condemned, as explained in Romans 1.

3. A certain group of scholars and theologians may hold that view, but there is no shortage of those who feel differently. Since all of the earliest sources recount that the Christians believed Christ to be divine, it is not clear where these particular "scholars and theologians" are getting their information.

4. 99 percent of those "variations" are inconsequential and meaningless - the scribal equivalent of typos. Not one single variant ever identified makes any difference in beliefs or theology. Even those variations which are more than mere typos are things like 1 Timothy 3:16, which the Byzantine text renders "great is the mystery of godliness - God was manifested in the flesh" while the Alexandrian text says "great is the mystery of godliness - he was manifested in the flesh." So all the talk about "variations' is vastly overblown.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I think that Protestant fundamentalism had done a lot of harm. Christianity is such a more complex faith than many would allow us to believe. I think the core problem has been fundamentalism's move away from the worship of G-d in Christ to the worship of the Bible. My thoughts on your specific questions:

1. The Bible is not and does not proclaim to be a scientific document. It should be read in the context of the ANE, where people did not have a post-Enlightenment view of history or science. Genesis never was intended to be a historical account, but it's true in the sense that G-d created the world not because he had to but he chose to do so.

2. Great answer above - Hell is not Milton but estrangement from G-d.

3. Always a tough one. Don't think I have a great answer. Should not really affect one's faith ... that's between G-d and His creation. Some things are transcendent and we cannot fully understand.

4. Theologians are always finding new things to write papers. Just men making up stuff 2,000 years later that likely fits their current world view. What is more reliable, accounts closer to the time an event occurred or some professor in an office two millennia later postulating about stuff?

5. Agree with above. The Bible is amazingly consistent across textual variations given the realities of the time during which it was written. I do not really adhere the the "inerrant" argument as deployed by fundamentalists but I would agree it is inerrant in its message and teaching in totality, the truth about G-d's relationship with His creation.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

1. Hell is not a place of "torture" - that picture comes from Dante and Milton. It is a place of separation from God, which may bring "torment" from the soul's internal anguish.

2. Unreached persons are not automatically condemned, as explained in Romans 1.

3. A certain group of scholars and theologians may hold that view, but there is no shortage of those who feel differently. Since all of the earliest sources recount that the Christians believed Christ to be divine, it is not clear where these particular "scholars and theologians" are getting their information.

4. 99 percent of those "variations" are inconsequential and meaningless - the scribal equivalent of typos. Not one single variant ever identified makes any difference in beliefs or theology. Even those variations which are more than mere typos are things like 1 Timothy 3:16, which the Byzantine text renders "great is the mystery of godliness - God was manifested in the flesh" while the Alexandrian text says "great is the mystery of godliness - he was manifested in the flesh." So all the talk about "variations' is vastly overblown.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching

  ---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z

---

• 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?

---

• 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

BaylorJacket said:

---

Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching

  ---

I agree with you about Genesis (the first 11 chapters) not being a literal, historic text book about creation. Nor is it meant to be a scientific textbook.

Pope John Paul II stated in is message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 22, 1996,

"There is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his
vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points …"

Those indisputable points are that humans are created in the image and likeness of God; that the whole person is spiritual soul and material body; and that, if the human body evolves, God immediately creates the soul. It is also true that we cannot deny original sin.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z

---

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states about Hell:

• 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

God doesn't send people to hell; they choose it themselves by rejecting God.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?

---

The Catholic Church (in the CCC) states that those people will NOT be lost:

• 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

BaylorJacket said:

---

Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.

---

Please cite the specific Scholars and Theologians that state this. This sound like a modern twist on old heresies which were dismissed in the earliest Councils of the Church. None of the writings of the Church fathers remotely resemble these notions.

BaylorJacket said:

---

The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

JXL nailed this VERY well in his post.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching

---

BaylorJacket

• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states about Hell:
  
  
  • 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
  
  God doesn't send people to hell; they choose it themselves by rejecting God.
  
  
BaylorJacket

• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• The Catholic Church (in the CCC) states that those people will NOT be lost:
  
  
  • 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
  
  
  
  
BaylorJacket

• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• Please cite the specific Scholars and Theologians that state this. This sound like a modern twist on old heresies which were dismissed in the earliest Councils of the Church. None of the writings of the Church fathers remotely resemble these notions.
  
  
BaylorJacket

• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

JXL nailed this VERY well in his post.

---

Thank you for the detailed response and posting your sources! I find myself incredibly interested in the early Catholic Church. I remember as a young Protestant, I used to wonder if Catholics went to heaven. Lol... Now, I am inspired by the writings of the early church fathers.

The purpose of the OP was not to debate these topics, but more so just to see peoples experience with deconstruction and reconstruction of their faith (or perhaps lack of). Hope you have a blessed day.

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

1. Hell is not a place of "torture" - that picture comes from Dante and Milton. It is a place of separation from God, which may bring "torment" from the soul's internal anguish.

2. Unreached persons are not automatically condemned, as explained in Romans 2.

Quote:

---

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

---

3. A certain group of scholars and theologians may hold that view, but there is no shortage of those who feel differently. Since all of the earliest sources recount that the Christians believed Christ to be divine, it is not clear where these particular "scholars and theologians" are getting their information.

Quote:

---

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:49-58)

---

4. 99 percent of those "variations" are inconsequential and meaningless - the scribal equivalent of typos. Not one single variant ever identified makes any difference in beliefs or theology. Even those variations which are more than mere typos are things like 1 Timothy 3:16, which the Byzantine text renders "great is the mystery of godliness - God was manifested in the flesh" while the Alexandrian text says "great is the mystery of godliness - he was manifested in the flesh." So all the talk about "variations' is vastly overblown.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Dr. Russell Lester?

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-approves-plan-to-redeploy-several-hundred-ground-forces-into-somalia/ar-AAXlbyi, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-approves-plan-to-redeploy-several-hundred-ground-forces-into-somalia/ar-AAXlbyi, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Gen 1 and 2 are not history but poetry. There is history, prophecy, apocalyptic literature, songs, analogies, metaphors and they are all true WHEN read in context and take into consideration the type of literature they are.

The gospels are written as history and part of that history is Christ teaching with parables.

Not every train leaving Chicago at 60 mph in 7th grade math is a real train.

---