From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: why i no longer hate christianity
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:20:36 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
><  i did not mean to imply that because i was depressed and despairing that
><god necessarily exists.  rather, i meant that thinking the whole biblical
><ball of wax was just crap was an opinion i began to re-assess when my life
><was miserable.  my belief in jesus, the bible, god etc depends on more than
><just me having been depressed.  it had to do with my internal belief in god,
><rationally analyzing the irrational hatred of christianity i held, clearly
><and calmly exploring why one would be a christian and comparing it with the
><dozens of other spiritual practices/thoughts that i had examined and that
><had utterly failed to provide any peace in my heart.

>What was there of Christianity that you hated? And how is Christianity better
>than Islamism, Shiitism, Suniism, Gnosticism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, 
>Zenism, Jainism, Taoism, Ying/Yangism, Lao Tzuism, Rastafarianism, Zoroastism, 
>Nietscheism, Perennial Philosophyism, Unified Field Theoryism, Mandianism...? 
>And which type of Christianity is best? What's wrong with the other types of 
>Christianity?

  darn good questions.  i hated pedophile priests and the spanish inquisition;
self-righteous christians and christians who raped the natural resources
of the planet.  i also hated many other things.  the irrational part of that
hatred was in that once i looked at the goods [the bible itself], none of
what i hated christians for was sanctioned in the bible--in fact those things
were to be avoided according to the book.  so what i was blaming god of the 
bible for were failures and perversions of god's word by human beings.

  the only "type" of christianity that i consider to be christianity is one
that is based on the fundamental literal interpretation of the bible.  those
"christians" who don't, for instance, "need" the sacrifice of jesus i do
not consider to be christians.  christianity is more of a relationship with
god through jesus than a religion.  those who subordinate christ's role
don't fit even the dictionary definition [let alone mine] of christianity.

  why is christianity better than all the others?  well, it was the only
one that answered all my questions about the nature of reality.  it was the
only one that asserted itself as absolute truth to respond to my growing
disbelief in the philosophy of subjective reality.  and it was the only
one that, on a pragmatic level, actually revived life in me and gave me
a purpose to live; because every other philosophy i explored left at least
one crucial question/critique unanswered.

  regarding the list [which isn't exhaustive, of course] you provided above
generally contains philosophies that failed me because of reasons in the
above paragraph.  some in the list i haven't explore and others not listed
i have.  but i will point out a few big issues:

  unified field theoryism:  after studying classical and twentieth century
physics, i came to a general conclusion that humanity will never be able
to fully comprehend reality [that is, until we become omniscient--not very
likely :) ], thus depending on man-made philosophy [field theory, etc.]
cannot provide broad enough answers that are provided by god taking the 
initiative and revealing himself to us in the bible.

  hinduism, buddhism, zen: all work from the premise that the material
world is illusion.  a fun pub conversation, but i don't believe it.  and if
it were, i believe my actions in this "virtual" reality [that's a neat pun
there :) ] count more than what they advocate.  plus the idea that the
most enlightened state is actually nothingness really revolts me.  see also
my critique of nietzscheism:

  nietzscheism:  i don't believe god is dead.  i do believe people can 
sever [though never ultimately] their contact with god.  i have always believed
in god.  besides, his philosophy as well was too despairing to cling to
with any hope of being lifted from a miserable life.

  most of the others in the list: those did not offer or deem necessary the
presence of a saviour.  and frankly i'm not too proud to admit that everything
i tried [derived in my own mind or through my study] failed to provide a 
context of meaning for my life because none brought me to the objective,
absolute god i believe in.  for a decade i felt converting to christianity
was the big intellectual wimpout, but upon utter despair in my life, i
needed something, jesus, to save me.  my life was like digging a hole in
the ground.  after going down 48 feet i was alone there with a shovel and
no chance of getting me out of my pit of meaninglessness and despair.
no other human or man-made philosophy or psychology could save me and i turned
to jesus and he did--quite handily i might add.  we all need our crutches, 
though many adamently refuse to admit that.  what are our philosophies and
therapists for anyway if not to help us cope with an imperfect world.  simply
this, after a decade of trying crutches that kept snapping, i turned to the
crutch that was the only one that asserted to work for anyone and everyone.

   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc