返回列表 回覆 發帖

[轉載] 網絡名人 - 大黃傻貓GARFIELD 的離教經歷

貓貓剛剛變了無神論者

This is a long long road.

I started out as a Fundamentalist, because the church I attended was a Fundamentalist church (Rev Daniel Ng, now the pastor of Kong Fook Tong, and the church was closely linked to Society of Truth and Light).

I first turned away from my rigid position as a Fundamentalist when I found that I could not defend cases when churches or para-Christian organizations or Christian groups hire staff based on their religion (hire Christians only) as well as those rigid marriage rules (marrying Christians only).
In both cases the arguments for the positions are weak, contrary to my values of equal/fair treatment to all.

As I got plunged to a war between Catholics and Fundamentalists in a number of forums (CCfellow, allenchow.com, iShare, etc), all the deadly flaws, toxic teachings of Fundamentalism were thrown to my face. I met the meanest humans beyond description---spitting poisons, deceitful, abuse of powers (when they manage the forum), twisting truths, slanderous, etc.

(My persistent fight with the Fundamentalists indirectly caused these three forums to close down for good. There were at least 2 others which met the same fate).

It is then I changed my position to a "mainstream Baptist" (after I was influenced by writings of this site www.mainstreambaptists.org). I questioned the validity of Bible inerrancy, literal interpretation, anti-Catholicism, once-saved-always-saved, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.

In fighting with the Fundamentalists alongside with Catholics, I delved into books of all brands of Christianity---Catholicism, Lutheranism, Baptists (of course), Calvinism, Eastern Orthodoxy, touching subjects on salvation, end times, liberal theology, etc.

It was then I started to pick up logical thinking and reasoning again, because I must be able to weigh each brand of Christianity on their merits. I owned almost all books by 李天命. There are a number of Christian theologian-written books trying to debunk 李天命, but their arguments were laughable.

Then comes ID (Intelligent Design), the Noah's Ark fiasco of Media Evangelism. Both incidences drawn me to look at evidences of the origin of earth and evolution. At the point I remember saying to a Fundamentalist (a more benign one) that I don't think the Flood happened exactly the way it was written in the Bible (I believed it was a local flood, and later I found it to be true, only that Noah became a Babylonian). By this I effectively denied literally interpretation.

The next tipping point, as I remember, was SODO (2005).

I took on the HK brand of Christian Right-wing directly and sharply criticised their actions, wrote long articles and debated with right-winged Christians on Christian Times.

When Rev. Silas Wong was forced to resign, and along with the deceitfulness of KWAC, the silence of Christian community over this, and 梁家麟博士 defending it, I lost faith totally in the evangelical circles of Hong Kong. They were just like any ideological groups, refusing to listen to facts and different opinions. I was also convinced then homosexualilty is something similar to psychiatric diseases or of in-born nature, and that they were not morally wrong.

These events gradually changed me, I already thrown out Bible inerrancy, I thrown out "simple faith", I denied that homosexuality is a sin, it was only a matter of time before I thrown out the miracles, God creationism, etc.

I did not remember when, I purchased a book written by 方舟子(方舟子揭開世界之謎). In the book there is a full section refuting all psuedo-scientific claims cooked up by Christians to claim evolution is a "theory". How different schemes by Creationist can be debunked by rigorous science.

Round about the same time I purchased "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and in it loads of reasons that God is not necessary nor the hand in everything that happened.

In a separate incidence, I had a confrontation with my church's senior pastor over the question of "once-saved-always-saved".

During the conversation, he just printed out 10 pages and said there were "over 100 verses in the Bible" that proved "once-saved-always-saved". He was not ready to discuss with me, he wanted me to submit. I challenged him a number of points citing the Christian Times article then labelling a church "heretic":

Me: the article listed a number of criteria that makes this church heretic. One is the divinity of Christ, one is pastoral authority, and the other one is "rejecting once-saved-always-saved". I reject once-saved-always-saved, you said the other Sunday with emphasis on this point when talking about this church. Answer me, am I now a heretic?

Pastor: ..... you took the words out of context, it should be placed alongside with the others...

Me: this is illogical, if you listed it there, then as long as you fulfill the one or more of it, then it meets the criteria

Pastor: ....no ..no, you have to consider it with others

Me: then this criterial "rejecting once-saved-always-saved" should not be there ?

Pastor:.....I am a Baptist minister for 40 years, I was to preach the truth in the Bible, once-saved-always-saved is the truth as proven by the Bible.

Me: then what about the Methodists, the Lutherans, surely you know they don't teach once-saved-always-saved ?

Pastor: I don't comment other churches. I tell you, I am a veteran minister who preached for 40 years. We preach the truth said in the Bible. The Bible is literally true, the world is created in 6 days, each day a 24 hour day. Do you know that in USA the South Western Theological Seminary, once professor published a set of commentaries and used the word "myth" to describe Genesis ? He was sacked and the whole set of commentaries were rewritten. I preach what I believed is true and I do not have to answer individual. You are free to read anything you like, but in my church, it is what it will be taught.

.....

We have no common ground.

The above incidence convinced me that I could not stay in this church as long as this pastor is there.

To research on Creationism, I went to www.infidels.org to look for more research material. Most questions of evolution was answered by 方舟子, but there was yet a question not answered, how do the universe arise? (Creation Ex nihilo)

This site gives me that article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

Then I also realized, the preposition that "things can only come to existence via creation, before that there is nothing" contains an assumption -- "before that there is nothing".This assertion is unfounded, why can't it be that things were there all the way along, then creation will be unnecessary.

The articles answered my doubt, and then I realized that Creation thing is now out of the window. The same night, I was supposed to attend the Hong Kong Franklin Graham Festival (I was one member of the big choir), then I found that I could not bring myself to go.

My mind would not allow it. I loved singing, but my mind told me that I could not do it, I should not go.

I kept this change of mind for about 2 months, I go to discussion forums as usual, but my demeanor has changed already.

During this period, I purchased a number of DVD from BBC discussing Bible mysteries (the Flood, the fall of Jericho, Jesus' death etc). Those materials confirmed me that God could not have existed, or the chances of it would be even slimmer than Jesus is a female.

I almost gave myself away when I told my ex-Pastor (Dr. Sun Po-Ling) that I was about to be an ex-Christian. He was kind, gracious and not a judgement word came out of him when I had coffee with him. He certainly appreciated me as being a socially concerned Christian, but he had no idea that I was so near to the brink of quitting Christianity.

However, the more I ponder on this, the more I felt I should make a decision. I decided that I should not kept this to myself so I declare it in discuss.com.hk.

I am planning my exit from my church friends and deciding how to break the news to my Christian friends.

I am lucky that most of my Christian friends are genuinely kind, friendly, and many of them are funny people that you will like to hang around with.
I hope that my news will not startle them. I have to really think hard on how to tell them.

I was initially worried that my change will also give ammunition to the hostile Fundamentalists (mainly on the Internet, e.g. in Christian Times), that they could use this against me and my causes. However, I reconed that I should not be deterred by those people, they considered me an apostate anyway.

However, I do not want my case to harm those groups I affiliated with. Those mean Fundamentalists can do anything just to show that they are righteous, so I have to plan my exit very carefully.

.....

抽覆:

貓姐:

看到你的文章,十分欣賞你的坦誠和勇氣。我想你在宗教問題的透切了解,絕對在許多人之上(包括我在內)。

對於在信仰問題上的痛苦掙扎,我想你已一一承受過。因此,儘管在立場上是對你的「新生」表示認同,但我不會「恭喜你」。我想,你亦不會因此而停止一切對生命的思索和追求。

你的分享很值得借鏡,絕對是許多人希望獲得的寶貴經驗。冒昧一問,離教者之家可以傳載你的分享麼?

抽刀斷水 謹上


http://www.armbell.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4888&mforum=liberalhk
支持鼓勵每位離教者 › 閹割神父 刻不容緩 ‹
猫姐未玩聖靈充滿就離教,都幾可惜!
回復 9# 抽刀斷水


    錢穆亦說中國文化可以兼容所有宗教.孔孟之學可以用作日常道德指引,如果有個教信了可以上天堂不妨信下.
由猫猫的分享聯想到,如果個個都信聖經是真的,又會自己睇明聖經,真是基督教末日!同一本聖經,個個宗派解出的結論不同.教會只是宗教家製造出來的玩物.教義只是由聖經中斷章取意再加水份泡製出來.
本帖最後由 weiyan 於 2010/6/6 21:35 編輯

回復 78# 淚兒


    2.要靠好行為行得救.同天主教有些似.馬丁路德十分憎恨天主教利用行為德救論去騙錢,所以取消所有行為有關的經文.雅各書主講好行為的功效.信心得救主要根據羅書.所以馬丁路德想把雅各書由聖紅中取消.讀一次雅各書就知好行為的重要.
----咁新教聖經不就刪了相關經文

-----最後刪除失敗.但很少講道會講雅各書.書中題出沒有行為的信心是死的.
1:22                  只 是 你 们 要 行 道 , 不 要 单 单 听 道 , 自 己 欺 哄 自 己 。
1:23                  因 为 听 道 而 不 行 道 的 , 就 像 人 对 着 镜 子 看 自 己 本 来 的 面 目 。
通常牧羊人教d羊仔傳福音就是行道,話之你冇飯開.

:26                  若 有 人 自 以 为 虔 诚 , 却 不 勒 住 他 的 舌 头 , 反 欺 哄 自 己 的 心 , 这 人 的 虔 诚 是 虚 的 。
邊個最多野講?邊個條舌鋒利如劍?邊個未試過被屬靈前背把舌劍刺到週身傷痕?

2:14                  我 的 弟 兄 们 , 若 有 人 说 , 自 己 有 信 心 , 却 没 有 行 为 , 有 什 么 益 处 呢 ? 这 信 心 能 救 他 吗 ?
2:15                  若 是 弟 兄 , 或 是 姐 妹 , 赤 身 露 体 , 又 缺 了 日 用 的 饮 食 ,
2:16                  你 们 中 间 有 人 对 他 们 说 , 平 平 安 安 地 去 吧 , 愿 你 们 穿 得 暖 吃 得 饱 。 却 不 给 他 们 身 体 所 需 用 的 , 这 有 什 么 益 处 呢 ?
2:17                  这 样 信 心 若 没 有 行 为 就 是 死 的 。
又吾可以講冇行善.基督徒一行善,全世界都知道.我又未遇過經文中所講咁離譜的教徒.起碼都祈三分鐘禱,吾會一句就打發你走.

行善是得救的必要條件嗎?天主教說是.基督教說只是行為要與蒙招的恩相配.

    5.教會?原文是群體.教會,包括英文Church是譯經是新作的名詞.群體,一群人一齊活動,沒有組識架構.教會?自然要有領導人.King James下旨譯經指定要用Church. Church of England,即聖公會,要有主教.大主教就皇帝.皇權神權集中於一人身上,都幾happy.
----咁人人街劑屍米即係廢話??
---人人街劑屍是堅野.劑屍的工作系出糧比服侍劑屍的僕人--就系話比你聽你係劑屍果個解經權威.我認為新約時期根本冇劑屍.舊約劑屍是神同人之間的中間人,是神指定代人獻劑的人.

聖經充滿矛盾是因為在教會學的是教義.洗軏腦再睇當然睇吾明.
回復 77# weiyan


    2.要靠好行為行得救.同天主教有些似.馬丁路德十分憎恨天主教利用行為德救論去騙錢,所以取消所有行為有關的經文.雅各書主講好行為的功效.信心得救主要根據羅書.所以馬丁路德想把雅各書由聖紅中取消.讀一次雅各書就知好行為的重要.
----咁新教聖經不就刪了相關經文
    5.教會?原文是群體.教會,包括英文Church是譯經是新作的名詞.群體,一群人一齊活動,沒有組識架構.教會?自然要有領導人.King James下旨譯經指定要用Church. Church of England,即聖公會,要有主教.大主教就皇帝.皇權神權集中於一人身上,都幾happy.
----咁人人街劑屍米即係廢話??

耶教 ,對世人唯一有相似之處 ,就是自相矛盾 ,都幾合人性架
回復 74# 淚兒


    一言難盡.我總結數點:
1.說阿門立刻得救 vs 要經歷一個過程才能得救
2.要靠好行為行得救.同天主教有些似.馬丁路德十分憎恨天主教利用行為德救論去騙錢,所以取消所有行為有關的經文.雅各書主講好行為的功效.信心得救主要根據羅書.所以馬丁路德想把雅各書由聖紅中取消.讀一次雅各書就知好行為的重要.
3.十一奉獻沒有聖經根據.瑪拉基書所說把十份一歸入倉庫是以色利的稅制.另外還有各種節慶奉加起要33%.
4.有組識架構,向公司註冊處註冊的教會不是神.奉獻給這些機構沒有根據.耶穌所說的奉獻是為這最小的一個做的就是為我做.你上到街,幫助你有感動幫助的人就是奉奉獻.
5.教會?原文是群體.教會,包括英文Church是譯經是新作的名詞.群體,一群人一齊活動,沒有組識架構.教會?自然要有領導人.King James下旨譯經指定要用Church. Church of England,即聖公會,要有主教.大主教就皇帝.皇權神權集中於一人身上,都幾happy.
6.牧師在聖經中只出現一次,是因賜,不是職位.他賜的有使徒,有先知,有牧師和教師...為何各牧師位置如此高?有些教會沒有牧師,但亦有一類似職位的人,可能叫長老.當心啊,幾十人,幾百人甚至幾千人的靈魂交在一個人手裏,都幾牙煙.

你可以自己讀聖經,在綱上找資料,看歷史,你就知道人需要有神.歷代帝皇,包括今日牧師信徒,都要借神過橋.例如,你今日吾想打麻將,就話神不喜悅打麻將.明天想打,就話為傳福音去接觸世界的罪人.想清楚才好離教.
回復 75# kwongyauleung

盡信書,不如無書。宗教靈性大師也往往是高明的神棍。如果靈性大師真的能解釋所有東西,那不是他腦袋壞了,就是信眾腦袋壞了。
加上硑讀歷史,發現從第四世紀開始,一批又一批自大狂的哲學家,政治家,霸權主義者發明各種教義。最終是要人服從於地上領導。 --> 很對呢.. 其實, 政治加埋宗教一起就可以好容易去管理一個國家.

不如你睇下奧修..會令你所有野通哂..

你無聽錯..係所有野..
回復 71# weiyan


    我睇過high criticism的書。用同樣一本聖經,經由不同的剪貼方法,得救可以同佛教一樣要修練。
--係點架 ,說來看看
回復 72# weiyan


    吾道不孤, 有離教者之家丫.
回復 70# 龍井樹


    咁你要學唱My Way.
十分欣賞猫組有勇氣硑究有神無神的問題。
我到今日都沒有,亦沒有計劃研究有神無神的話題.用有限生涯去追求無涯有些不現實.我反而在聖經裏(當然得到一些書本啟發),加上硑讀歷史,發現從第四世紀開始,一批又一批自大狂的哲學家,政治家,霸權主義者發明各種教義。最終是要人服從於地上領導。
關於得救神學,我睇過high criticism的書。用同樣一本聖經,經由不同的剪貼方法,得救可以同佛教一樣要修練。今日的教義只是抽一兩節經文,用顯微鏡放大一萬倍.所謂信教只是信教義.我曾經十分不化,以為虔誠,後來才發現誤信屎片.
回復 69# weiyan

我就係剩餘果 1%, 所以最終做唔成教徒要離教啦.
回復 18# 龍井樹


    忠於聖經教道?9成9教徒都不會自己解聖經.一睇到吾明就問牧師.再有問題就是信心不足.所謂忠於聖經只是忠於某一神學觀點.
我會看看!謝謝!
回復 66# Guest from 113.252.177.x


    你看過本網的離教見證後,就知道離教並不容易。
放棄容易成事難
離開一個群體認為不屬於基督倒容易
但真要尋找正確的人生道理
倒要用心
回復 61# Guest from 113.252.177.x


    其實離教就是突破自己的限制啦,真不明白為何不離教。
真不明白為何要離教?而不是突破自己的限制!
人生不如意的事十常八九!
我想這不是信仰的問題,而是自保, ...
Guest from 113.252.177.x 發表於 2010/4/15 00:30



真不明白為何要信教?而不是靠自力突破自己的限制!
人生不如意的事十常八九!又不見你們思考一下人生是什麼??
我想這不是信仰的和價值觀問題,而是懦弱,不是向難處前行盡自己的微力改變,而是用「交給神」這藉口去逃避。
返回列表
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個