John wrote in the Book of Revaluation that "whosoevers name was not written in the Lambs Book of Life was cast into the Lake of fire". This is pretty black and white fundamentalist statement. I would advise everyone to avoid the Great White Throne Judgement. Make sure your name is written in the Lambs Book of Life. I didn't write Revelation. Seems cut and dry to me.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Thank you for your response. As a self proclaimed scientist (does computer science count lol?), I can probably relate to a lot of the logical struggles you have gone through.

Just curious, where do you find yourself now on the "religious spectrum"? Agnostic, atheist?

You brought up some excellent points though that are simply impossible to answer with our microscopic understanding of the universe. Such terrible suffering mixed with an all powerful yet loving God is difficult to reconcile. Sure, some might point to the fall of man being the reasoning, but that logic loses some footing when you factor in evolution

---

I'm a former evangelical, fundamentalist Christian who is now an atheist. We don't know all of the answers, but we know enough now that it is not necessary to have any god to explain the existence of the universe, or life within it. The fall of man is simply a religious theological explanation of man's plight for a primitive people - something common to many religions. Aside from evolution, it doesn't jive with what we know about the physical history of this planet, and the physical laws that make up the universe. Especially it is internally inconsistent with the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving god. Such a god would never have "designed" or "created" mankind or any other life form to live in this environment.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Are you really asking just trolling?

I feel like this board has discussed this ad nauseam.

If you would like to seriously discuss a SINGLE point, I'm happy to discuss with you (again). Only engaging one topic will be more fruitful for all.

---

I'm answering his direct question. Are you trolling? If you want to discuss a specific topic, go for it.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist 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.

---

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.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist 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.

---

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.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm answering his direct question. Are you trolling? If you want to discuss a specific topic, go for it.

---

Fair enough. Not trolling at all.

Your post was a mini-Gish Gallop of atheistic ideas that this board has discusses MANY times.

My apologies if I came off harsh.

I was/am sincerely offering you the opportunity to discuss one of your points at a time. Else threads become too convoluted and few have time to read much less respond.

Best wishes.

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.

---

Thanks for posting.

Not sure if "deconstructing" is the right word for my process, but I empathize with your thoughts.

I'm with you on evolution, though remember with science nothing is final. The idea of evolution has itself evolved.

The idea of hell is much more nuanced in scripture that what the average individual believes.

On historical Jesus, just remember that the "search for the historical Jesus" is a highly subjective and speculative enterprise without much historical data to back it up.

On inerrancy, we actually don't have original manuscripts, so I'm not sure what is the basis of your statement.
A manuscript is a text written by the original author. We do have old texts, but even with them, the variations are nowhere near what your statement suggests.

Inerrancy has a huge number of problems. What kills it right off the bat is that it claims the the scriptures are inerrant in their original manuscripts, which we don't have. People misunderstand that inerrancy doesn't mean that the Bible in their hands is inerrant. Yet many teachers deceive laypeople into thinking that's what it means.

That kills it by itself. But if that doesn't, a second fatal blow is that inerrant interpreters don't exist. We're all flawed and sinful, individually and corporately. So the value of inerrant scripture without an inerrant interpreter is at the least questionable.

Good for you in centering on Christ. That's what we need to do!

Booboo Bear said:

---

The more conservative I get in my theology (inerrancy, Christian exclusivity, the authority of Scripture), the more moderate and liberal I get in my politics. Go figure.

---

I am interested in what you mean by liberal. Its usually a bad word on this site.

Good post sir.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist 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.

---

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.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

I would put emphasis on intelligent design

Watch the video

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist 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.

---

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.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

watch the video in the link and then share your thoughts

I have a few thoughts and some questions, TexasScientist, if you don't mind. These are sincere questions to get a sense of how you got to where you are:

1. You say you are now an atheist. It always seemed to me to be odd to take an absolute position on something we do not know. That is, if you have direct evidence of something, that is certainly reason to believe it exists, and without clear evidence there is reason for doubt. But how do you reach the conclusion that there is - to a point beyond doubt - no God?

2. You attribute the Fall of Man myth (using the term from my own Religion class, by the way) to the primitive beliefs of people. Yet many advanced thinkers have been known as religious, and the basics of our Math and Science come from the work of those 'primitive' cultures. How do you reconcile this?

3. You bring up the - to my opinion - canard that an "all knowing, all powerful, and all loving god" would not create the Universe as we know it. But you have also admitted that we as humans are limited in our comprehension and understanding. Just as a child may not understand a loving parent withholding sweets or dangers that the child desires, is it not reasonable to consider that if God exists, He sees father than we do and for better purpose?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on these questions.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

The more conservative I get in my theology (inerrancy, Christian exclusivity, the authority of Scripture), the more moderate and liberal I get in my politics. Go figure.

---

I am interested in what you mean by liberal. Its usually a bad word on this site.

---

I believe that many here use 'liberal' in place of the word 'progressive'. Certainly I believe that classic Liberalism has much more in common with the Right than the Left these days, but that is for a different thread.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Without replying to a particular poster, I think there is a clear stream throughout Scripture from the Garden of Eden to the Cross of mankind's hubris. Maybe the most famous example is the aforementioned Tower of Babel. We see that play out today in modern man's faith in science to understand the transcendent and that our scientific, rational understanding could not possibly be limited. Practically for me that means while I do not disavow or disregard science as man understands it I also enable myself enough humility to acknowledge the science of man might be much more limited than we allow ourselves to acknowledge.

---

that word "humility" can be quite the stumbling block for all of us, including those who put all their eggs in the science basket

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have a few thoughts and some questions, TexasScientist, if you don't mind. These are sincere questions to get a sense of how you got to where you are:

1. You say you are now an atheist. It always seemed to me to be odd to take an absolute position on something we do not know. That is, if you have direct evidence of something, that is certainly reason to believe it exists, and without clear evidence there is reason for doubt. But how do you reach the conclusion that there is - to a point beyond doubt - no God?

2. You attribute the Fall of Man myth (using the term from my own Religion class, by the way) to the primitive beliefs of people. Yet many advanced thinkers have been known as religious, and the basics of our Math and Science come from the work of those 'primitive' cultures. How do you reconcile this?

3. You bring up the - to my opinion - canard that an "all knowing, all powerful, and all loving god" would not create the Universe as we know it. But you have also admitted that we as humans are limited in our comprehension and understanding. Just as a child may not understand a loving parent withholding sweets or dangers that the child desires, is it not reasonable to consider that if God exists, He sees father than we do and for better purpose?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on these questions.

---

belief is a choice as is unbelief.

ShooterTX said:

---

so you read the Bible and study the Bible, even though you do not believe it to be accurate?

---

Accurate in what way?

Booboo Bear said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

The more conservative I get in my theology (inerrancy, Christian exclusivity, the authority of Scripture), the more moderate and liberal I get in my politics. Go figure.

---

I am interested in what you mean by liberal. Its usually a bad word on this site.

---

Feed the poor. Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Take care of the stranger. Don't mock God. Have no idols before Him (including political figures, parties, ideas, or policies). We are all of one blood/race in Adam. Those that are different from me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Those that are similar to me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Stuff like that . . .

---

Amen. I experienced the same changes as I started travelling and seeing people of different cultures, I became much more concerned with people than politics. I really like your answer.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist 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.

---

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.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

---

Correct.
Scientists in 1952 claimed to make claimed to make organic compounds from inorganic matter. That was 70 years ago. Nobody has claimed to make life from inanimate chemicals, abiogenesis.

Look at the state of organic chemistry in 1952 and the scientific advances in every field of science. Don't you think someone could do it.
Metaxas has a good discussion of this in his latest book.

Booboo Bear said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

The more conservative I get in my theology (inerrancy, Christian exclusivity, the authority of Scripture), the more moderate and liberal I get in my politics. Go figure.

---

I am interested in what you mean by liberal. Its usually a bad word on this site.

---

Feed the poor. Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Take care of the stranger. Don't mock God. Have no idols before Him (including political figures, parties, ideas, or policies). We are all of one blood/race in Adam. Those that are different from me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Those that are similar to me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Stuff like that . . .

---

voter registration drives from the pulpit, candidates in the pulpit? Those type things?

Liberal may be the wrong word. I'm pretty sure Christ would have plenty to teach both parties

Booboo Bear said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

The more conservative I get in my theology (inerrancy, Christian exclusivity, the authority of Scripture), the more moderate and liberal I get in my politics. Go figure.

---

I am interested in what you mean by liberal. Its usually a bad word on this site.

---

Feed the poor. Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Take care of the stranger. Don't mock God. Have no idols before Him (including political figures, parties, ideas, or policies). We are all of one blood/race in Adam. Those that are different from me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Those that are similar to me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Stuff like that . . .

---

While I might quibble those are "liberal," not much to argue with on the list. However, I do think G-d calls His people to obedience, which is the part most of us (myself included) don't like to think about or to live out.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

The more conservative I get in my theology (inerrancy, Christian exclusivity, the authority of Scripture), the more moderate and liberal I get in my politics. Go figure.

---

I am interested in what you mean by liberal. Its usually a bad word on this site.

---

Feed the poor. Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Take care of the stranger. Don't mock God. Have no idols before Him (including political figures, parties, ideas, or policies). We are all of one blood/race in Adam. Those that are different from me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Those that are similar to me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Stuff like that . . .

---

While I might quibble those are "liberal," not much to argue with on the list. However, I do think G-d calls His people to obedience, which is the part most of us (myself included) don't like to think about or to live out.

---

I just had the mental image of JHVH shouting at us "did I stutter?!?!?!?!"

RMF5630 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist 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.

---

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.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Funny, I have been reading the opposite. That the more we learn the case for spontaneous creation isn't compelling. That there is some type of design or order, not saying God spinning a top. But an overarching order.

---

wait! Your telling me that scientists disagree with what they see? What a bunch of Neanderthals

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist 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.

---

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.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

Interesting

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106655119?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed

BUbearinARK said:

---

Interesting

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106655119?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed

---

" All life on Earth is unified by its use of a shared set of component chemical compounds and reactions, providing a detailed model for universal biochemistry. However, this notion of universality is specific to known biochemistry and does not allow quantitative predictions about examples not yet observed. Here, we introduce a more generalizable concept of biochemical universality that is more akin to the kind of universality found in physics. "
Based on this idea (biochemistry and physics are universal that is the some thought the universe) then one cannot posit a supernatural God.

47, don't be scared to watch the video

Waco1947 said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

Interesting

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106655119?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed

---

" All life on Earth is unified by its use of a shared set of component chemical compounds and reactions, providing a detailed model for universal biochemistry. However, this notion of universality is specific to known biochemistry and does not allow quantitative predictions about examples not yet observed. Here, we introduce a more generalizable concept of biochemical universality that is more akin to the kind of universality found in physics. "
Based on this idea (biochemistry and physics are universal that is the some thought the universe) then one cannot posit a supernatural God.

---

I think the point is there is missing information and extra information, which questions the idea that life came from nothing.

'We also illustrate how network analyses shed light on the functional principles underlying the observed scaling behaviors. Together, our results establish the existence of a new kind of biochemical universality, independent of the details of life on Earth's component chemistry, with implications for guiding our search for missing biochemical diversity on Earth or for biochemistries that might deviate from the exact chemical makeup of life as we know it, such as at the origins of life, in alien environments, or in the design of synthetic life.'

May purchase the full version as this is an interesting abberation in 'evolutionary science'

Edit: found it for free. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349223788_Scaling_laws_in_enzyme_function_reveal_a_new_kind_of_biochemical_universality/fulltext/6025ce57299bf1cc26bcd714/Scaling-laws-in-enzyme-function-reveal-a-new-kind-of-biochemical-universality.pdf?origin=publication_detail

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Thank you for your response. As a self proclaimed scientist (does computer science count lol?), I can probably relate to a lot of the logical struggles you have gone through.

Just curious, where do you find yourself now on the "religious spectrum"? Agnostic, atheist?

You brought up some excellent points though that are simply impossible to answer with our microscopic understanding of the universe. Such terrible suffering mixed with an all powerful yet loving God is difficult to reconcile. Sure, some might point to the fall of man being the reasoning, but that logic loses some footing when you factor in evolution

---

I'm a former evangelical, fundamentalist Christian who is now an atheist. We don't know all of the answers, but we know enough now that it is not necessary to have any god to explain the existence of the universe, or life within it. The fall of man is simply a religious theological explanation of man's plight for a primitive people - something common to many religions. Aside from evolution, it doesn't jive with what we know about the physical history of this planet, and the physical laws that make up the universe. Especially it is internally inconsistent with the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving god. Such a god would never have "designed" or "created" mankind or any other life form to live in this environment.

---

Of course such a god could have easily chosen to design or create man to live in this environment. Perhaps this is the only environment possible for a truly loving Creator.