it is scary to lose your faith

"Losing Your Faith" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Losing Your Faith” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

It is scary for your beliefs to change, or for you to abandon your beliefs, or for you to even lose your faith. Or, at least, to lose the faith you once had.

I think part of the reason why it’s so scary is that we still carry the residue of threats if we do lose our faith. I mean, I was taught that nothing good can come of it. In fact, I was taught that it was the worst thing that could happen. It was a matter of life or death.

If you are struggling with this very issue, fear not! Come pull up a chair at The Lasting Supper and we can do this together! It doesn’t have to be scary, or at least scary alone. You can get through it. I’m proof, as well as many others.


You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Bernardo says:

    Scary not so much as it is troublesome when the women in your family who are all very intelligent continue to practice the absurdities of Christianity.

  2. Caryn LeMur says:

    Bernardo: I think the question becomes ‘why do they continue’? And, ‘if they leave, what will they lose and what will they gain?’

    There must be a hundred (or more) motives when a person stays within a ritual that includes the supernatural.

    I stay within my faith, and the rituals of individual prayer and worship, because of peace, joy, and a sense that what matters to Jesus (and God) – that is, to help the poor, the widow, the orphan, the hungry, the thirsty, the unclothed, the homeless, the sick and the prisoner.

    I am not that certain that there is a heaven nor a hell. However, those are not driving motives to me. I am very much a ‘in the now’ person.

    I love to share the peace and joy that is within me with others… it is really that simple for me.

  3. Ducatihero says:

    Would you care to explain in your own words why you consider there being a dichotomy between being an intelligent woman and practing Christianity?

    Do you mean to imply that Caryn in clearly commenting from a position of faith is absurd in her conduct?

  4. Ducatihero says:

    One more question if I may trouble you for your indulgence Bernardo?

    If someone were to regard homosexual practice as absurd, would you consider them to be bigoted and to be making a homophobic statement?

  5. Bernardo says:


    Some are very intelligent in many fields and this includes the women in my life. Unfortunately, said women have not taken the time to peruse historical Jesus studies.

    Regarding homosexuality, many people fail to peruse the contemporary studies. Summarizing:

    From the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with homosexuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”
    “Most scientists who study human sexuality agree that gay people are born that way. But that consensus raises an evolutionary puzzle: How do genes associated with homosexuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

    People who might be considered bigoted about the gay life are simply uninformed.

  6. Ducatihero says:

    Bernardo, so you regard said women as acting absurdly because in your words they have not engaged in “historical Jesus studies”. It would therefore follow that in your view they would become enlightened if chose the same or similar path to you on this.

    I understand that you hold to the view that sexual orientation is determined at birth and that people considered bigoted may be “simply uninformed “.

    In the UK according to the Equality Act 2010 there are certain “protected characteristics” which include religion ( including atheism) and sexual orientation against discrimination.

    It cannot be shown that either Christian or atheistic practice is absurd as the existence or non-existance of God cannot be objectively and indefatigably proven.

    Therefore with this fact, UK law and how you have answered, it can as easily be argued that what you call “absurd ” might be considered a Christianophobic act of bigotry but coming from an absurd position of being uninformed, and having not critically engaged sufficiently to determine historical fact.

    I’m not creating any stir or being condescending, but just holding up a mirror a making a comment about how anyone who doesn’t have the same perceptions as you can easily argue the opposite to you with an approach to discussion and debate of rhetoric that is not dissimilar to how you have commented.

  7. Bernardo says:

    Hmmm, perceptions? No, the facts speak to the issues. Without the proper perusals of the facts, minds are bent to perceptions. The necessary factual studies have been previously presented regarding the historical Jesus.

    For further edification of the issue of homosexuality:

    1. The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:

    “ Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] ”

    2. “Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, “The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.”[8

  8. Ducatihero says:

    “Without proper perusals of the facts, minds are bent to perceptions “.

    Precisely the kind of point I am making re rhetoric and critical engagement.

    So no matter who you quote, that is a perception in this case of support for what you claim to be “absurd “.

    John Lennox and Richard Dawkins are two Oxford university professors with opposing views on the issue of faith that you claim to be absurd. Quoting an “authority ” is no proof of a fact.

    It is logicall fallacy to argue from authority.

  9. purvez says:

    Bernardo, I’ve ready ‘most’ of your posts. Please may I ask…do you have a single thought in your head that is ‘original’?

    I know that is very accusative, but all you do is quote ‘other experts’. Does it not occur to you that with your clear interest in the subject that you can think for yourself and come up with at least ‘ONE’ original thought?

    Bernardo, this is confrontational, I understand that but I think it is time for you to use all this ‘knowledge’ that you’ve gathered to have an ‘opinion’ for yourself. It is a most liberating thing.

  10. whisperingsage says:

    I’d have to say that was how I was pulled out of liberalism and after reading none Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, I kept reading more and more, None Dare Call It Treason, etc, and eventually had to face that my liberal beliefs had no foundation (the Rockefellers are near the top of the pile and they buy everyone on both sides, right and left) . That did knock my foundation down- but after more books and more reading )( in a day when the internet was not easily available) I had to face that the Bible’s Prophecies were indeed true. They were coming true right now, under my nose and I couldn’t ignore it.