What Leaving My Religion Did for Me

[cbayer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/14/what-leaving-my-religion-did-for-me/

September 14, 2014 by Neil Carter

People often ask me if my life is better now that I’ve left my religion. My honest answer is that it’s a mixed bag. On the negative side, I have to say that the reactions of people who liked me better when I still had faith have been at times very strong. I usually become a target for re-evangelism for a while, but they eventually learn to quit pushing me after they realize that I’ve heard everything they have to say about this a thousand times. Most people probably just decide I’m being stubborn and/or that the Devil’s got me under a spell; but while the pushing may stop, the disappointment lingers on. Some do their best to keep a lid on that, which I appreciate, but you can still hear it in their voices and that can hurt. If you crave the approval of people, and if you live where I live, I wouldn’t recommend atheism for you.

But once you rule out how some have behaved toward me because of my unbelief, I have to say that (when I am not working too much) I am enjoying life in a way that I haven’t enjoyed it in a long time. It’s not always about what I’m doing at the time, either. Often it’s just about feeling more at home in my own skin than I ever felt when I still believed that Earth is not my home and that I’m supposed to be longing for some other place. To explain what I mean, here is a list of the things which leaving my religion has brought me. Not everyone will necessarily experience the same things I did, but these are the benefits that I see I personally have derived from this development:

1. Peace of mind. As a person who likes to try to understand the world around me, I have found that this perspective fits so much better with the world I see than the religious perspective ever did, and that brings a tangible sense of satisfaction for me. Every week, every month, I find things seem to get clearer and clearer to me. Things just make a whole lot more sense to me now. Julia Sweeney said it perfectly when she said, “The world behaves exactly as you would expect it would if there were no Supreme Being.” I don’t mean that I understand everything, and I’ve still got plenty of unanswered questions. But you don’t have to be ruled by your need to have answers to all your questions. I think our religions feed that problem in order to perpetuate our need for them. Leaving your religion can free you up to find better answers to some questions while enabling you to let go of the ones that don’t really have good answers.

2. A rediscovery of a love of learning. For me personally, I found that the loss of my religious beliefs opened me up to a really big universe of fascinating and intriguing realities. I realize that faith and learning coexist in some people’s minds better than others, but more often than not they are in great tension with one another, and at times they are diametrically opposed to one another. My change of mind energized my dormant scientific side, and as a consequence I find that almost daily I learn something new which amazes me and further stimulates my love of learning about the world around me.

more at link

[clydefrand]

1. WOW. I wish I could have put

those things into words. I agree with everything you said in the full article. However, I don't try to convince anyone else to my way of thinking. Maybe I should. I'm getting too old to do much serious thinking.

[cbayer]

4. Just to be clear, I only posted it, I did not write it.

But I thought he expressed himself really well.

As to trying to convince others to one's way of thinking, I don't like it whether it is coming from a theist or an atheist.

[trotsky]

5. "As to trying to convince others to one's way of thinking"

What about if it comes from a Democrat or Republican? That's how politics works. Are you suggesting we should all just live in little thought cocoons and never have our beliefs challenged?

[Lordquinton]

49. It's framing it in a way to make both sides seem like they are doing the same thing

But really, it's telling the atheists to shut up, because when was the last time an Atheist showed up at your doorstep?

[trotsky]

64. Well, it's always been very important for some...

to make it appear like there are two extremes, so they can place themselves right in the "sensible" middle.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Do you like it when feminists try to convince others to our way of thinking?

How about liberals in general?

[trotsky]

7. Seriously, what's the point of any kind of discussion...

if we aren't allowed to present our point of view and perhaps persuade people to adopt it? Is that in and of itself a bad thing or something?

[beam me up scottie]

8. Would any of us belong to DU if we didn't think it was necessary?

I thought that was the goal.

[trotsky]

11. I thought it was too!

But apparently there are those who disagree. And make it their job to chide everyone who isn't following their rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. The point is to have 135,000 posts.

If you want a discussion, you should go over to Discussionist. They have fabulous discussions over there, of the "your mother wears combat boots, neener neener" variety. Here we just post stuff, stuff we clipped from google news. It is all about post count.

[Lordquinton]

50. At least you found a way to feel superior to both sides.

[cbayer]

53. What? That is so completely out of context and untrue.

Please. Surely you can do better than that.

[okasha]

70. Unfortunately, he probably can't.

[cbayer]

87. He frequently makes attacking accusations, but rarely responds when called on it, well

at least not directly to me. He does actually respond to much of what I say in other areas.

Curious.

[trotsky]

88. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=153347

Pure class!

[Lordquinton]

93. your constant false equilvances are even more tierd than your offence at santa

So you make it seem like both sides are equal in an aspect so you can seem like a reasonable person, but you're basing your superiority on a false premise. His is not an attack, this is a callout of bad behavior.

[cbayer]

94. Both sides aren't equal?

Believers are not equal to non-believers?

If not, who do you think is superior and why.

I am actually a reasonable person. Who do you think I feel superior to?

[3catwoman3]

2. Very interesting article.

One of the things I say about calling myself a happy agnostic is that I don't know all the answers, nor does it bother me that I don't. I am OK with spiritual uncertainty.

[cbayer]

3. I am as well, though I recognize that others want something more definitive.

That's ok with me, as long as people have a live and let live attitude.

[3catwoman3]

10. What I am definitely not OK with...

...is being told we are not supposed to understand things that make no sense, and that devastating life experiences are part of some superior being's will and plan for us.

[cbayer]

12. I agree that some things just make no sense

and it is offensive to say that it's part of a plan.

If there is a god, I think it is definitely not interventional.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Would you say that you are opposed to evangelism in any form?

Do you think there are any boundaries to your live and let live philosophy?

[cbayer]

17. I am opposed to proselytizing when it comes to religious beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Conversion or deconversion are both concepts that I reject.

In terms of live and let live, I mean to include in that concept not imposing one's beliefs on others or infringing on their rights.

[LiberalAndProud]

27. Aren't we talking about belief systems when we

discuss women's rights (especially reproductive rights), racial equality, children's rights, teaching science in the classroom? Should a religious belief system get a free pass because it's believed by some to arise from divine revelation?

[cbayer]

31. I am speaking specifically of religious beliefs when I make this distinction.

Promoting ones ideology, political platform, philosophy, etc, is a different matter, imo.

If anything, I think religious belief systems should be more stringently prohibited when it comes to things like legislation, not given a pass at all. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. Those areas that I mentioned fall under the umbrella of religious beliefs.

Believe me cbayer, I understand when you state that it is not possible to know that there is, or is not a divine being and you're fine with not knowing. I consider myself to be an agnostic (knowledge) atheist (belief). But no matter where we fall on the belief spectrum, we are necessarily engaging in ideas about the nature of God if we engage at all. That's where I think your live and let live philosophy fails.

[cbayer]

36. I think they are influenced by religion in many cases, but can be

completely independent of religion.

Live and let live doesn't mean that one has to abandon their ideas or beliefs. It merely means that they should not impose them on others in a way that infringes on their rights.

I don't see how that is a fail.

[LiberalAndProud]

37. How does legislation regarding teaching evolution in the classroom

separate itself from religious belief? If we teach evolution, we are offending religious sensibilities. If we co-teach intelligent design, we are making a mockery of science and introducing religious belief. There is no middle ground.

We could argue that leaving choice to women does not infringe on religious beliefs, but most people opposed to that notion are opposed because they believe it is a religious mandate, and they have a mission. So you say, keep religion out of it. In my opinion that is simply impossible. Maybe you have found a way to argue for choice without arguing with notions about God. I'd be interested in hearing if you have.

[cbayer]

38. In the example of teaching evolution, I do not think it can be separated from religious

belief.

I'm not concerned about "offending religious sensibilities". People are permitted to believe what they want, but their religious beliefs can't over-ride the science that completely contradicts it. I agree that there is no middle ground.

As I have said again and again, but apparently not clearly, I do not think that people's religious beliefs have any place in legislation, unless it is about enforcing 1st amendment religious rights.

I do not care why a person might be opposed to abortion. No one should ever force them to have one. But their opposition should not restrict the rights of others to exercise their own choice.

I see no place for an argument about god to enter into a discussion of choice. One person believes it is wrong, another does not. Choice is the only logical conclusion until and unless there is something definitive about when "life" begins, which I don't foresee ever happening for precisely the reasons you point out. That discussion would involve a theological concept which can not be proven or disproven.

[LiberalAndProud]

39. Okay. If your position is

"feel free to believe anything you want, as long as you don't take political action on behalf of your belief," I'm with you 100%. Having said that, would you agree that convincing others of the righteousness of that stance might require some proselytizing?

[cbayer]

40. That is exactly my position, though there are those

here that rather vehemently disagree with me. Their position is that it is impossible not to take political action on behalf of your believes, but I disagree entirely.

Trying to sway opinion or educate or convince others that their POV is mistaken is different than proselytizing, imo. Proselytizing includes an attempt to convert or deconvert. When it comes to religious beliefs, I do not think there is any proof or disproof that justifies at attempt to convert or deconvert.

OTOH, when it comes to evolution vs. creationism, I think there is proof that justifies making a strong case. But I don't think that should extend beyond just making that case.

Do you define proselytization differently?

[LiberalAndProud]

41. If I am trying to persuade another person to adopt my ideas,

I think I am proselytizing, in whatever sphere we may be discussing. If you and I have agreed that religious beliefs should not be legislated, now our mission, if you will, is to convince other people that that is the best way to proceed. The problem is, that in doing so we are interfering with other people's concept of their own mission. It seems to me that at that point you and I have failed the live and let live test.

I don't think it would be ethical or moral to censor Christian television broadcasting. On the other hand, I think I should also be free to persuade others that there is no basis to continue to hold on to these archaic, often damaging belief systems.

[cbayer]

42. Your definition is different than mine, but knowing that helps with communication, I think.

If you want to set up a station that tries to deconvert others, which is basically what you are describing here, then I would put that on the same footing as the proselytizing christian stations. As long as I am not forced to watch either of you, I don't care how many stations you have.

But if you start trying to integrate your belief that religions are archaic, often damaging, belief systems into our laws, then we are going to have a problem.

Again, interfering with other people's concept of their own mission does not concern me if their mission is to infringe on the rights of others. That is the second half of live and let live.

[LiberalAndProud]

43. We agree on so -- almost everything, cbayer.

We agree that one person's rights end at the tip of another person's nose. Now let's start defining boundaries. We seem to have settled the evolution argument already. (Yay, us!)

Does a parent have a right to discipline their children according to their religious beliefs?
Does a fetus have rights? If so, at what point do those rights supersede the woman's rights?
Should we leave the ecological balance of our planet in God's hands?

I could go on, but you get the drift.

[cbayer]

45. Lol, you really are fun to talk to and

a great addition to this group.

The questions you ask are difficult to answer, as you well know. We try as a society to walk that fine line between protecting an individual's religious beliefs and protecting those that might be impacted by them.

As a society, we define and adjust what constitutes child abuse. That supersedes religious belief. The really interesting ethical dilemmas arise when issues like withholding medical care or vaccines from children come into play.

In terms of the fetus, as long as people have vastly different opinions on when "life" begins, the case for choice will always be the most logical position to take.

And, thankfully, some evangelical groups are taking on ecological issues as their god given responsibility. I'm going to support them.

These are great questions and great issues, but the lines are not always clear…..


leading me to conclude that we will never run out of things to talk about.

[LiberalAndProud]

46. Right?

But we must acknowledge that when we have political discussions, they must necessarily turn into religious discussions. I will always favor inclusion over exclusion, growth over atrophy. In those things, I think you and I provide a united front.

[okasha]

71. The difference between discussion and proseletyzing

is that discussion acknowledges the other person's right to believe differently than you do. Prozeletyzing assumes a priori that you're right and the other person is wrong.

Now when you get into imposing a religious belief on science or on available reproductive services, then you're in the realm of law and politics. It does in fact become a matter of attemping to make the better argument, usually in a court of law, and at some point the Constitution kicks in.

That doesn't give religion a pass. It just means that proseletyzing is inherently antagonistic and usually leaves its targets thinking the proseletyzer is a self-righteous asshole.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. As we've discussed before, live and let live would include not injecting religion into legislation.

or lobbying or the like. No social modification according to a faith doctrine.

Once that sort of nonsense stops, people like me won't have much to say about religion anymore, because I won't care.

[cbayer]

22. Not in my way of thinking it wouldn't.

Live and let live to me means that you don't inject your beliefs onto anyone else, particularly when it would infringe on their rights. That's the "let live" part.

[trotsky]

24. I wish you realized how that logic can be used to support the anti-choice movement.

Too bad.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Well, let's grab one of the giant, stinking, hot-button issues at non-random.

Abortion. I view religiously inspired pro-life lobbying efforts to eliminate abortion facilities from states like Louisiana as an unacceptable introduction of religious doctrine into law. Or things like trying to require hospital admitting privs. over in texas for the same. It's clearly just a gambit to nibble away at, and eventually destroy any opportunity to acquire an abortion.

And the lobbying effort behind it is religiously inspired, however you feel about the overall intersection between religion and abortion.


That, to me, is not live and let live. That's injecting religious morality into law, something I will always fight.

Same for physician assisted suicide. As we've discussed, the opposition to that in WA was almost entirely religious based, and religiously funded. For the small physicians group that didn't identify their religion at all, having the appearance of a secular group, one could easily spot-check the membership to see they at least worked, for the most part, in hospitals and clinics owned by catholic orgs. So I suspect the overall funding/lobbying effort from religious groups that was overt and identifiable, is also likely the motivator, even for the apparently secular, private individuals that just didn't want to say for privacy reasons (eminently reasonable, I don't begrudge them that) what their motivation was.

If someone wants to make a rational, convincing, secular case to force someone to die naturally (even with pain management) from some painful, debilitating, quality of life destroying illness, when they would otherwise choose to die by their own hand, I have yet to hear it.

[cbayer]

29. I agree with you. To me, that is not "live and let live" either.

I am opposed to religion being introduced into legislation, particularly when the result is to restrict the rights of others who do not share one's religious beliefs.

Perhaps I was not clear in my initial statement. I was responding to someone who said they felt very comfortable with the uncertainty of agnosticism.

I agreed with them and noted that others sometimes wanted people like us to take a more definitive stance.

I then stated that I didn't care what position someone had as long as they had a "live and let live" philosophy. The implication, which I guess wasn't clear, was that I would object if their philosophy was one of "live and tell everyone else how to live".

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Fair enough. We're on the same page then.

[trotsky]

65. But to them, the idea of abortion isn't "live and let live."

It's their religious belief that an embryo is a human being with full rights, and that therefore abortion is murder. That is hardly "live and let live."

How do you reconcile these viewpoints? An anti-choicer could say the same thing as you and be perfectly validated in opposing abortion rights.

[Fumesucker]

9. "If you crave the approval of people, (...) , I wouldn’t recommend atheism for you."

No truer words were ever written.

[cbayer]

13. If you crave the approval of people, I'm not sure what I would recommend.

Pole dancing? Major league sports?

[Fumesucker]

14. We have a word for those who don't care at all what others think of them

Sociopath.

[cbayer]

16. There is a difference between craving approval and not caring at all what others think, though.

[Fumesucker]

56. True, some people want others to think they are assholes

And many of them succeed in their quest.

You were the one who posted the article, now you quibble over me agreeing with a portion of it.

Relatively normal people denied approval will crave it, we are social creatures whether we like it or not. It's like food, if you have plenty of food you don't crave it, go without a few days and the cravings will start.

[cbayer]

57. I agree about relatively normal people wanting approval and attention.

Whether one gets it or not depends on many things and, in particular, the group in which one finds themselves.

So atheism may get you exactly that in the right environment, but might lead to disapproval in another.

And that is only a big problem if one "craves" it or must have it in most if not all circumstances.

I'm just trying to have a conversation with you, fumesucker. I hope you don't expect me to agree with every word I copy and paste here.

[Fumesucker]

60. Not collecting stamps can get you approval and attention too in the right environment...

In my experience those who crave attention and approval the most are the least likely to be self aware enough to realize it.

[cbayer]

62. I guess it could if you could find an organization or group specifically

for those that don't collect stamps and have that as part of their identity.

Craving might indicate something abnormal. It is often associated with withdrawal from something one is addicted to. And, like with many addictions, there may be a lot of defenses that prevent someone from seeing it.

[phil89]

44. A sociopath?

You're terribly misinformed if you think that makes someone a sociopath.

[Fumesucker]

47. Why would a sociopath care what you thought about them?

I thought this was a pretty good take on sociopaths when I read it.

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828

[okasha]

72. No.

A sociopath lacks a conscience, which is quite a different thing from desiring social approval.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Clearly a reference to this.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130100220.htm

[cbayer]

21. Is it? That's about trust, but I guess you could extrapolate it

to approval.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. I would consider them part and parcel.

Approve is certainly a related word, via the thesaurus.

[cbayer]

25. What do you think are the most important factors in the high level of distrust?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I suspect it mostly boils down to acceptance of the canard that without god one cannot have

objective morality.

I might make an argument that 'objective' morality is itself not necessary, or maybe even desirable, but that's a separate issue. (I think society should be CONSTANTLY engaged in evaluating and self-critiquing whether or not certain mores, or laws, or moral precepts are valid or useful)

I think they genuinely cannot work out what my rationale for NOT going on a bloody-minded rampage every Monday is. I'm sure they know that I have no intention of ever doing so, but the lack of understanding WHY I would never do so, breeds distrust.

And from my vantage point, their reliance or acceptance of people saying they wouldn't kill for religious reasons, leads to a false sense of security. (But that doesn't mean I don't trust them, though it might impact a different metric of my opinion of those people, perhaps around credulity or gullibility.)

[cbayer]

32. That makes sense and it is consistent with prejudices that other

groups have encountered. There is often an accusation of amorality contained within bigotry.

But I object to a premise that you appear to be building here. It sounds like you are saying that the only thing that keeps religious people from going on a rampage is their religious beliefs. I don't think that is true at all.

They may see the basis of their general morality as built upon religious doctrine, but I don't think they believe they would lose control without it. It is generally accepted as something internalized, not distinct. So, I do think they may see atheists as lacking that.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. No, that was what I meant.

"It sounds like you are saying that the only thing that keeps religious people from going on a rampage is their religious beliefs. I don't think that is true at all."

I agree, I don't think it's actually true. But people generally believe it to be true. And it's actually a long running Christian Apologetics argument. The 'without god all things are permitted' canard. When people fall out of religion, they don't become dangerous murdering psychopaths. Clearly demonstrable. But I think they do accept the premise that religion makes people better/law abiding/non-murderers.

One of those things that people generally accept as true and move on, rather than critically examining if it is actually true.

[cbayer]

35. It's tricky, I think.

Those that embrace a religion as part of their identity may find it hard to understand how a person could be "whole" without it. That certainly could lead to a lot of distrust, intolerance and downright bigotry.

Now, the question is how to best address that. I think the Humanist Organizations can play a significant role in this area by promoting a "good without god" platform. I also think that "interfaith" groups that include non-believers could go a long way towards showing people that one does not need religion to have an upstanding sense of morality and ethics. I acknowledge that "interfaith" is an unfortunate word in this context, but I've yet to find another.

I also think this is a two way street, and there is wisdom to be gained in both directions for some people.

[Fumesucker]

48. Religious people imply that religion is the only thing holding them back when they ask the question

They simply can't imagine that someone wouldn't want to rape, pillage, burn and kill without God watching everything they do and threatening punishment.

It's the only reason for asking such a question.

[cbayer]

52. That's a pretty broad statement and while you may have heard

some religious people "imply" that their religion is the only thing holding them back from committing atrocities, I do not think that is the position of most religious people.

I think the issue is that many do believe their ingrained moral base comes from their religion and is a part of them, and I do agree that some have trouble getting their head around where else it might come from.

[Fumesucker]

54. The implication is contained in the question itself

If someone doesn't believe that the only thing holding everyone back from a life of sheerest mayhem and debauchery is fear of punishment in the afterlife why would they ask the question?

[cbayer]

55. I think that is a leap that is not necessarily accurate.

If someone feels that the basis of morality comes from religion (which I do not believe in the least, btw), then they may have trouble understanding where non-believers get their morality. They see a source and don't understand that there may be others.

It is then quite a leap to say that their belief in hell is the only thing holding them back from a life of sheerest mayhem and debauchery. It also doesn't mean that they think that those without religion are living lives of sheerest mayhem and debauchery. They just don't understand what the basis for their morality might be.

And in not understanding it, I think there is distrust and prejudice.

[Fumesucker]

58. In many cases that's the message their religion teaches in an unequivocal manner

I don't think most of these people would in fact go and commit mayhem and debauchery without the fear of divine punishment but I do think they themselves believe it.

Religion that makes people believe they are worse than they in fact are isn't a healthy thing in my opinion.

[cbayer]

59. This sounds like the concept of original sin, which many people are not raised with.

I and others were raised in religious traditions that taught that everyone was basically good but could always be better. That included everyone including those that had no beliefs or different beliefs.

Things like original sin and confessions were entirely foreign to me.

[Fumesucker]

61. I got both sets of teachings at the same time

Episcopalian and Southern Baptist, at eight years old it was hard to reconcile the two.

Come to think of it, it still is hard to reconcile them.

[cbayer]

63. That would be confusing. I think many find their own reconciliation when

they encounter conflicting teachings. That is why it often doesn't make sense to make broad brush assumptions about big groups, for example "christians".

[Fumesucker]

66. My comments in this thread are about people who ask a certain question

Not all Christians ask that question so my comments aren't about those who do not.

I suspect there are plenty of Muslims who ask the same thing too although we are fairly short on Muslims in my area so I've never personally had the honor of being so interrogated by a Muslim.

[Tikki]

51. I never have had religion....(for me) #11..An appreciation for the preciousness of life is what....

it is about, that and finding beauty in things and events that are random.

We reside on a big blue marble, floating in space. It is pretty amazing and I am
here with some fine folks along for the ride.

Tikki

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. If you don't accept original sin and substitutionary atonement, you are not a Christian.

It's disingenuous to state otherwise.

If you are not flawed and sinful just because you are born, then you don't need Jesus as your substitutionary atonement. It's simple. Then you don't need to be a Christian. Those are the foundational premises of Christianity without which it has no doctrinal basis.

[cbayer]

68. You don't get to define christianity or who is or is not a christian.

Your definition is very rigid and restrictive. The only definition which we might all agree on is those who believe Christ is the son of god and follow his teachings for that reason.

And that might even be too restrictive.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. Then you wouldn't recite the Apostles' Creed, then, would you? Does your church do that?

If you go to a church that recites the Apostles' Creed during Sunday services, and you don't believe that and speak it, then you don't believe what you are saying, and are thereby a hypocrite.

That's the closest thing to a definition of Christian that I have seen, the one I posited.

"Those who believe Christ is the son of good and follow his teachings for that reason."

So does that include substitutionary atonement and original sin? I think it would.

Christ being the son of god and being sacrificed for our sins would be substitutionary atonement. If he wasn't the son of god then he wouldn't be an adequate sacrifice, would he? No ordinary human would do.

Have you got a better definition of Christian?

[cbayer]

86. Your insistence on defining christianity certainly says more about your apparent

need to pigeon hole it than what it really is.

I'm not going to speculate on why that might be, but I think you are entirely wrong here.

I have you my definition of christian. anything you add to that just comes from your own distorted way of seeing christianity.

[okasha]

73. That's a definition of strict Calvinism, not Christianity as a whole.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

74. What's your definition?

Do not the Catholics also state that we suffer from original sin and need substitutionary atonement?

I see no difference between Catholic and Protestant on those two points.

[okasha]

75. My definition

is "someone who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth."

Catholics put far less emphasis on original sin these days than they once did--hence the abandonment of Limbo--and regard salvation as forgiveness of sins they have actually commited and repented.

Not all Protestants are Calvinists.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

76. What does Calvinism have to do with original sin and substitutionary atonement?

Tell me where ANY Christian church has explicitly abandoned those two foundational premises in their statements of belief.

[okasha]

77. You tell me

why the only definition of Christianity you accept is Calvinist.

Your problem, not mine.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. I asked you for a definition.

What part of original sin and substitutionary atonement is Calvinist?

[okasha]

79. All of it.

And I gave you a definition a few posts back.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

80. What is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism

with regard to original sin and substitutionary atonement? Do not both segments of Christianity believe in BOTH those concepts?

You have not answered me.

[okasha]

81. Depends on which variety of Protestantism you're talking about.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

82. All of them.

Definitions regarding original sin and substitutionary atonement.

[okasha]

83. Look 'em up for yourself.

I don't have a week to dpend on the answer to that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

84. You give me an answer in written doctrine.

I am assuming that ALL major Christian denominations accept as their starting premises original sin and substitutionary atonement.

I cannot find any doctrines that state otherwise.

[cbayer]

89. I would suggest that continuing to make assumptions without evidence is, well,

almost akin to a religious beliefs.

Your assumption is wrong. You have been told that repeatedly. And as you are the one making the claim, it is incumbent on you to show that it is true.

I was raised in a mainstream protestant denomination. I never heard of original sin.

[trotsky]

90. What denomination were you raised in, cbayer? n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

91. You never heard of it. What is their official doctrine?

Do you not need salvation by Jesus for your sins? All mainstream Protestant denominations that I know about teach that there is no salvation except through Jesus. That's substitutionary atonement. And you need substitutionary atonement because of original sin.

Show me where my assumption is wrong. I've read several statements of faith.

[cbayer]

92. I don't even understand what "official doctrine"

you are talking about. In the denomination in which I was raised, there are a set of beliefs and practices that are modified by an elected assembly on a regular basis.

I don't doubt that you have read several statements of faith. The problem is that you have apparently drawn some board and erroneous conclusions about all christian sects based on your limited reading.

[trotsky]

85. All you have to do is name one that doesn't.

Your task is considerably easier - especially since you claimed that only Calvinism has both.

I'll get you started. Let's check Methodism - pretty mainstream Protestant sect. What do they think?

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1389

Does The United Methodist church believe that babies are born in sin?
Yes. We do believe that babies, at birth, are contaminated by sin. The ancient teaching of the church on this is called the doctrine of original sin.

http://www.bethany-umc.com/AboutUs/methodistbeliefs.htm

The official United Methodist doctrine is that sin separated all persons from God. Jesus’ death on the cross was an atoning sacrifice, making possible our forgiveness and reconciliation with God.

Whoops, there's another one that supports MoL's statement. What about Lutheranism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism

Consequently, people are saddled with original sin, born sinful and unable to avoid committing sinful acts. For Lutherans, original sin is the "chief sin, a root and fountainhead of all actual sins."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Justification_in_Lutheranism

God declares the sinner to be "not guilty" because Christ has taken his place, living a perfect life according to God's law and suffering for his sins.

Ouch. Strike two for you. Surely the Anglicans/Episcopalians don't fall under the Calvinist spell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_doctrine

The church not only retained the core Catholic beliefs common to Reformed doctrine in general, such as the Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus, the nature of Jesus as fully human and fully divine, the resurrection of Jesus, original sin and excommunication...

http://www.sds.asn.au/assets/Documents/synod/Synod2010/SynodBook2010/12.PenalSubstitutionaryAtonement.Rep10.pdf

The doctrine of the atonement known as “penal substitution” says that, on the cross, Christ paid the penalty of death in the place of
sinners.

Strike three, you're out.