You're sleeping with your girlfriend, therefore God exists..?

I really have no idea how to approach this kind of twisted, illogical jumble of words strung together into an entirely religious diatribe. I am (but I shouldn't be) completely confused as to how one should even begin to comment. Is this being touted as some kind of breakthrough soul-winning apologetic approach?

In a nut shell (no pun...yes, pun intended), apologist Frank Turek is telling the story about him and a friend named David being approached by a young agnostic fellow after David was done teaching (convincing the already-convinced) about the evils of the "new atheism". After several back-and-forths with the young man, David threw down the gauntlet, let go with both barrels, and got to the obvious heart of the matter; “You’re raising all of these objections because you’re sleeping with your girlfriend. Am I right?” Turek continues - "All the blood drained from the kid’s face. He was caught. He just stood there speechless. He was rejecting God because he didn’t like God’s morality, and he was disguising it with alleged intellectual objections.
Take note that Turek neglects to quote the young man's tearful admission of "You're right, you're right! I am a horrible sinner deserving of eternity in hell. Thank you for revealing to me that god is real." All Turek does is give us his view of why the poor fellow was embarrassed and silent. Nice touch. Almost believable.
In the rest of the article, Frank goes on to show that every single atheist rejects god because they just don't want to believe, and don't want to be obligated to live a life of...well...godleness.

I kind of wish I were the one in this dialogue with Turek and David. When accused of sleeping with my girlfriend, the blood would have remained where it was, and I would have proudly (but discreetly :) proclaimed "YES, I am sleeping with my girlfriend, and it is wonderful. We love each other and enjoy our sex life. And for what it's worth, my girlfriend, of 2 years, is a Christian. And as best as I can tell, what little religion-induced guilt she may feel obviously does not detract from the pleasure she derives from our "sleeping" together.

I have to ask, is this modern day apologetics - when confronted by a (possibly) confused young man who is looking for answers, you grab him by the crotch and accuse him of using it?

Oh, and by the way Frank, since your entire article was to show the mentality of the non believer, and their propensity to shun god just because they want sex, shouldn't you do a little research into the sexual activities of those who believe as you believe? It seems that with every adolescent that you bring to the Lord, you also bring them closer to losing their virginity.

'ata boy Frank.

Absolute Moral...yada, yada, yada

Visits at Truthbomb Apologetics have yet to yield much in the way of reasonable arguments for why I should adopt the Christian faith...again.

Here's a tidbit from this post: "All of us know that there are absolute moral obligations. Who in their right mind would suggest that rape should be legalized? An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law points to an absolute Moral Law Giver."

Allow me to dissect:

"All of us know that there are absolute moral obligations."
Who is he talking to? He obviously is not posing this as a question...you know..."Don't we all know that there are absolute moral obligations?" This statement (not the post authors) is based on nothing more than a belief in what the bible says. It is not based on any observation of human interaction, for if it were, the statement could not be made. So, if you can't produce convincing evidence for your opponent, attempt to dazzle them with baseless claims.
I would like to ask the poster to name every single "moral obligation" for us. I mean, if we all know, beyond any doubt, that there are moral absolutes (put in place by the Christian god), then surely one or two of these believers could list for us these moral absolutes. And perhaps they could let us know which moral obligations are not absolute?
The ones that are so often repeated by them, when desperately trying to make make their point, are rape and murder. Are there any others? I want an exhaustive list by someone in authority, so that there are no questions. Because it seems to me that, with every claim made by Christians concerning "evidence" for the existence of their god, the only thing they succeed in producing are more questions from those who actually think for them selves.

"Who in their right mind would suggest that rape should be legalized?"
Indeed. And who in their right mind would mandate that the stoning to death of disobedient sons should be legalized? How about stoning a man for working on the sabbath? Who in their right mind would forbid the wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics? Who indeed?

"An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places."
Again, I sure would like a list. I have to assume that the current prohibition against stabbing an infant with a sward, or dashing it's head against a rock, is not a moral absolute? I mean, there was a time...? And if I am not mistaken, even rape and murder were tolerated, and even commanded by a certain absolute moral law giver?

"And an absolute Moral Law points to an absolute Moral Law Giver."
I could consider this point, if there was any indication that the absolute moral law giver (you speak of) was actually actively involved in enforcing his absolute moral laws. But he isn't, is he? He is conspicuously absent, leaving us humans as the law-makers, law-breakers, and law-enforcers, and we do it with such irregularity and inconsistency so as to leave the rational thinking person to conclude that YOU ARE WRONG.

But, I am under no illusion that any of this will make it past the perpetual bible colored lens that so many Christians view their world through.

Suggested reading here, and here.

Joseph Coveney

Paster Wardle's blog offered a link to a video by a young minister named Rob Wegner. The video takes place in a cemetery and starts with Rob near the monument of Joseph Coveney, a notable free thinker of the mid to late 1800's. After some comments, Rob then moves over to the grave of Del Fehsenfeld, in the same cemetery.

I remember Del. Though I never met him, back in the early 1980's, when I was a church go-er, his Life Action Singers came to my church and performed their musical. Del died back in the late 1980's at a young age.

The differences - Joseph Coveney was an atheist. Del Fehsenfeld was a Christian.

In a nut shell, what Rob Wegner does in his video is point out how much more attractive it is to believe in eternity after death, as apposed to believing that, at death, that is it, no afterlife.

Now, in case you are wondering, especially if you haven't watched the video, no, Rob offers absolutely no evidence that there is an afterlife. Perhaps this video is just to wet our appetite, and perhaps the evidence will follow in subsequent videos, though that is highly doubtful.

Joseph Coveney was a self made man, worked hard, built a fortune, generously supported his community, and lived his entire adult life as an atheist and died at a very old age for his time, 92.
His monument, which was more a monument to free thought than to himself, was defaced by vandals, at least one of whom was the son of a local minister.

One particular comment of Rob"s I take exception with - He says that the news paper of the time described the inscriptions on Josephs monument as "slanderous inscriptions against Christianity", he continues "Now-a-days, slanderous inscriptions against Christianity end up on the New York Times Bestseller List."
I am assuming he is referring to the recent publication of best selling books by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.
I have to wonder what it is about those books that Rob finds slanderous?
I think this is very revealing. Rob considers any intellectual oral or written attack on Christianity as slander. Just as most informed Christians today would. Those who speak ill of the faith of a person is almost guaranteed to receive sarcasm or lies in the form of an holy rebuke.

Rob moves on the the headstone of Del Fehsenfeld, the Christian. On the headstone it reads:

HE KNEW GOD
HE LOVED GOD
HE WALKED WITH GOD
HE BELIEVED GOD
HE LIVED AND DIED
FOR THE GLORY OF GOD

Fine. This is what Del believed. But for all that he did, as attested to by the inscription on his headstone, there is not one single shred of evidence that his cause, his God, is real. And while I have no doubt that he truly believed in God, and no doubt that he influenced many more people in his short life than Joseph did in his long life, to what end? Propagating a myth?

I realize that Robs video and Pastor Wardle's blog are intended for one audience, Christians. But they have to expect that non Christians (since we have access to their thoughts on the web) will read, listen, and watch from time to time, just to see what those who consign us heathens to the ash heap they call hell, are saying.

Anyway, here is a tidbit on Joseph Coveney.

The story of the Coveney family in America begins with Joseph, who arrived in New York at the age of 20 in 1825. He seems to have been destitute and without financial assistance from anyone, because his name appears on the Bond Registers for the New York City Almshouse, for June 18, 1825, about a month after his arrival. Joseph Coveney may have lacked money and friendship in his early days in America, but he certainly did not lack ambition. He learned and later mastered the carpentry trade. It was also during his early life in America that he was reading newspaper articles by Thomas Paine, which would later influence his views on religion.
When the California Gold Rush occurred, Joseph went west and earned good money working as a carpenter there. When living in Buchanan, Michigan, he bought a good deal of real estate and became a prosperous farmer. He was well-known and respected in Buchanan for his generosity in providing additional financial support to the public school, but he was most known for his freethinking ideals.

In Ireland Joseph had been an Episcopalian, but he became an atheist after reading the works of Paine and Voltaire. He openly expressed his views to anyone at anytime and his tombstone in Oak Ridge Cemetery in Buchanan is a tribute to his freethinking ideals. The ornate tombstone has become something of a tourist attraction because of its bold and irreverent statements. A few examples are as follows: “Nature is the true God. Science the true religion. The more religion, the more lying. The more Saints, The more Hypocrites.” There was even an article on his death in the New York Times with the headline “Death of an Infidel: Last Words of Joseph Coveney of Michigan were ‘Die as I lived.’”
link
more info

Are Christians saved?

Over at The Reformed Gadfly, Tim Brown attempts to explain why us "former Christians" now turned non believers, don't really exist. In other words it's the tired mantra of once saved always saved = not saved now, never was saved then.

In his post Once a Christian, Mr. Brown explains, using his reformed theology (surprise!!!) that "Becoming a Christian isn't a matter of saying a few words and asking Jesus to become part of your life." Well Mr. Brown, I, as a former Christian, agree completely with that statement. And I think that the vast majority of Christians will agree also. Why? Because the vast majority of them actually believe that Jesus died to save them from their sins. They do not think that you can simply mouth the words and that makes you a Christian. You have to actually agree with the words you are uttering. It's not rocket science Timbo.

Now, does Tim tell us exactly how to become a Christian?

*reading*

*reading*

*reading*

Answer - NO.

You would think that a post explaining why those of us who claim to be former Christians were never actually Christians in the first place, would perhaps sneak in a little instruction on how one actually becomes a Christian. Nothing. All he does is explain why we never were.

What is so apparent from reading his comments is this: He is actually glad that we were never "saved". If you are among those that left the faith, and are actually glad you made it out, and have the nerve to vocalize your joy, Tim Brown is happy that you will spend eternity in hell with your father the devil. Yep, he is. That my friend, is the hallmark of the "Reformed Christian". Just read his post, hell, read his entire blog and you will soon realize that Tim is angry at you for being so unashamed of your unbelief that he can hardly wait to look down from heaven and see the flames begin to lick around your naked, blistering body. Is it any surprise that he holds to the Calvinistic mindset?

I have gotten pretty good at discerning the religious leanings of believers before they even mention their denomination. Baptist, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, and Reformed almost have their key beliefs stamped on their foreheads.

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance."
~Eric Hoffer

Tim became a Christian 10 years ago. In 1998 I was nearing the end of my 25 year journey as a Christian. Feel free to read my first post in this blog and tell me what is in it that would give you any indication that I was never a (here goes...we have heard it before) "True Christian". I can tell you in a sentence what Tim will answer - he will simply say "You were not a Christian then because you are not a Christian now.", and he will use bible verses to back up his accusation. Imagine that - using the bible to tell a former bible believer that he didn't believe the bible. My head hurts. It is comical and frightning at the same time. Christians get to decide who is a Christian.

Let me see if I can explain it to him: Tim, being a Christian means one thing, and one thing only - a Christian believes in the Jesus of the bible. That is it. It doesn't matter to what degree they follow the teachings of the bible. They could be a murder, child rapist, embezzler, racist. The only thing that makes a person a Christian is if they believe they are a Christian. If a person, when asked what religion they are, honestly answers "Christian", they are in fact a Christian. You can point your knobby finger at them as you scream from the pulpit, frothing at the mouth as you try to yell your theology into them, but they will still be Christians as long as they believe they are Christians.
Did I believe this when I was a Christian? Absolutely not. You may be able to see from my initial post that I was, (even though not completely sure) of the "once saved always saved" mindset.

Let me reiterate; A Christian, a "True Christian", is a person who honestly considers themselves to be a Christian.

How hard is that? Well, very hard in the mind if the reformed believer. There is a very long hoop you have to jump through. This hoop is the size of your entire life. And while floating through this hoop, you are expected to be virtually "sinless" and always looking toward the end of the hoop.

I won't bore you with all of Tim's explanations and bible quotes. Suffice it to say, his explanation (accusation?) is just his religious belief. It is his belief based on what he has been taught from the bible. And when it comes to ones religious beliefs, every ones belief is correct except the other guys.

I will now offer a not so profound thought. This is my conclusion, after many years of experiencing Christians, both from inside the club and now from without - Christians, every one of them, are Christians. But Christians, just like non Christians, are not "saved". Why? Because there is no such thing. There is no biblical salvation. There is no "sins" to be saved from, no hell to avoid, no heaven to attain.

So, when a person, any person honestly claims to be a Christian, they are in fact a Christian. Tim Brown is a Christian. Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, they are Christians. My elderly next door neighbor lady who smokes like a chimney is a Christian. My girlfriends aunt who will not vote for Obama because he is black, is a Christian. I was a Christian. All you have to do to be a Christian is believe in what Christians believe in, namely Jesus Christ.

The world is full of Christians who will tell other Christians, (or at least think it and keep it to them selves) that they are not "True Christians" because of something they have done or neglected to do. As long as we have Christians, there will always be Tim Browns.

You know, what is so funny is that there are Christians who actually think Tim Brown is not a Christian. Wow! Does that blow your mind or what?

Forward vs. Backward Thinking

From Humanist Dad

I've begun to wonder if there are only two different ways to think about truths in reality. The non-scientific mind tends to reason 'backwards' and scientists are trained to think 'forwards'. I believe 'forward thinking' is superior but it takes some work to explain why 'backward thinking' doesn't work yet appears, on the surface, to be legitimate. I'll look at these two ways of thinking by imagining a murder scene:

Backward Thinking - The detective comes to the scene and sees a dead woman, a kitchen knife in her chest, lying in the living room. A crying man is sitting at the kitchen table with blood all over his shirt and hands shouting, "I killed her!" The detective decides that the man is most likely the killer and begins finding evidence to support his theory: signs of a struggle, the man's fingerprints on the knife, the next-door neighbour whispers that she always heard them arguing, they have high debts. The man is obviously guilty, no need to waste money doing more investigations, case closed.

Forward Thinking - Another detective enters the same scene and collects the same evidence. However, he then looks for other evidence as part of his routine: fingerprints are taken from all doors and windows, footsteps around the house are collected, tires marks on the driveway are analyzed, cigarette ashes are found on the floor but no ashtrays. This evidence suggests a third person was at the house recently (who the detective simply calls Mr. X). The detective formulates a theory - The man owed a debt to a shady character (Mr. X) who smoked. Mr. X entered the house and argued with the man and woman. Mr. X grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed the woman. The distraught man tried to remove the knife but couldn't and hugged the woman while she died. He blames her death on his debt to Mr. X.
The detective has a valid theory but still requests more time to investigate further. The backward thinker quickly forms a conclusion and seeks out evidence to support it. The forward thinker never assumes a conclusion and looks at ALL evidence to see where it leads.
This, I believe, is the fundamental trap that theists fall into. They become backward thinkers. They start with an obvious conclusion (god exists, Jesus lived, Mohammed was the final prophet) and look only for evidence to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored or a twisted explanation is offered. They are not interested in changing their conclusion - they want to be right. Forward thinkers don't assume any knowledge. They use a much more difficult mental process that forces them to base a conclusion on all available evidence - even if this conclusion conflicts with what they hoped was the right answer.So, how do we teach a new generation to abandon backward thinking? Certainly more science education but teachers need to spend more time on the process (collecting evidence) and less time on giving the solution and asking students to confirm it. Even in literature studies teachers will point out what a character did (a conclusion) and ask students to find evidence for why they did it. Students need to be required to find evidence that also conflicts with a character's actions. Critical thinking is an advanced form of forward thinking so teaching students to think forward may be the first step to raising a generation of truth-seekers.

Something has come between us...

A while back my friend David over at nakedpastor offered one of his cartoons (I love his art but at times it is over my head).

(In case you can't tell, Jesus is the fellow on the left)

I couldn't resist offering my own reasons for those feelings of...well, separation.

Tim Brown? Why do I bother?

Please accept my apology. I just can't help myself.

I have a rather useless and time wasting habit of visiting several Christian blogs (as you can plainly see from my previous posts). My problem is, I enjoy the dialogue, when I do find it, that comes when two people disagree. I think there are few things as intellectual stimulating as a cordial debate.
But, what I am finding is that many Christians seem to have little or no desire for such antics. It seems that all they care about is telling anyone who will listen (or read) what they think, and have no desire to reciprocate, especially, ESPECIALLY, if the response is disagreeable. Case in point: Tim Brown has a blog, The Reformed Gadfly, of which I visit from time to time. If I find a post of interest, I will read it. If I find the post deserving of a response, I will submit one. Now, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I don't quite understand what is...wrong?, undesirable?, offensive?, in my doing that.
Tim Brown has a new post up where he states his plans on posting "Troll quotes". Honestly, I have no idea what a "Troll" is with reference to blogging. I am not sure if it is someone who reads your blog and leaves disagreeable comments? I am not sure if it is someone who leaves nasty comments? I just don't know, but since Tim Brown has not posted any, (or rather, either) of my responses in his comments section, I have to assume he is referring to me (as one of the many "Trolls" he has to sift through.
I am going to try very hard not to sink to his level as I continue with this post.
First, the reader will notice the picture he is using to reference those of us who disagree with him.

Sure, he is just trying to be funny...I think, and I guess if I was a believer, my attitude would be such that I would feel that anyone who disagreed with me, and had the nerve to tell me so, would be a rather ugly person.

On to a few of his comments: We get them all the time here at the 'Fly. Comments that never see the light of day, for all kinds of reasons. One main reason is that trolling has, of late, grown to almost epidemic proportions. Not necessarily in number but in just plain old nastiness. And I mean nasty. Well, at least they haven't stooped to calling my mother names. . .at least not yet.
Now, as I said, I am not very sharp, but Tim Brown seems to be saying that he gets a lot of "trolling" commenters. I have to assume that he doesn't get very many...(what's the opposite of troll)...agreeable commenters because most of his posts have no comments, and those that have comments have one or two, that's it. I have to wonder what he considers "epidemic proportions"? Is he exaggerating? Is he being dishonest?
You can plainly see from my previous post that I was anything but nasty. My comment was never posted on his blog.

It just seems that posting a comment from someone like this would be generally, well, stupid. What would be the point? After all, the whole idea of what a troll does is to try to get some sort of visceral gut reaction and start a fight. It turns into one of those "Supply proof but I'll never accept anything as valid proof" things. . .although they would never admit that.
Again, I have no idea if I qualify for a troll or not. I just have to assume that I do. I guess I will find out when he posts the "Troll quotes", to see if any of mine are in there. I don't necessarily disagree with him here. If my desire was to "start a fight", then why bother. But my only motivation in submitting a comment was to see if he is capable of thinking for himself with regard to his religious beliefs, and to (hopefully) influence a reader of his blog to think for them selves, rather than offer the robotic "Amen" to his every post.
As for his "valid proof" claim. All I can do is scratch my head. I am sure his definition for "proof" is much different than mine, especially with regard to HIS OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Proof is unnecessary with regard to a religious belief. He needed no proof to become a believer, so why would he claim to be offering proof to us non-believers? Answer: The line between proof and belief has become so blurred, in his mind and with regard to HIS OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, that he can no longer see it.

And since the chief end of man is to glorify God and such conversation doesn't glorify God, then it just stands that it doesn't belong here. Besides, so many times, these people have their own blogs and submitting their comment basically amounts to advertising their blog (click on their name and "presto" you're reading their stuff!). Don't care for that too much here.
This is one of the many reasons why I find Tim Browns particular brand of Christianity so repulsive. He actually thinks his actions "glorify God". He actually thinks everything he posts on his blog glorifies God, that includes posting pictures of ugly ghoulish figures in reference to those who disagree with him.
As for the last sentence, I find that attitude to be incredibly shallow and self serving. What kind of blogger would not want his readers to expand their minds?...answer, Christian Tim Brown.

See, just because we don't post troll comments doesn't mean we don't have them archived. No No No! Yesserreee Bob, we sure do keep them. See, we can answer troll comments, but we can opt to do it on our own terms. . .and in doing so, we don't get mired in a thread that gets further and further afield and begins to generate more heat than light.
Now, this may be a play on words, maybe not, but my blogger name is "bob"?

Besides, if I started discussing things with all the trolls that come by here demanding a "conversation", I wouldn't have time for anything else. So, they are archived. And we indeed deal with them; in a controlled way. It just seems to be the wise thing to do. Think of it as quarantining.
Actually, I really had little desire for a "conversation" with him. Would have been interesting, possibly. I mean, I do enjoy the debate, but I just submitted a response in disagreement. Me thinks Tim Brown thinks to highly of himself.
Notice the last sentence. Tim Brown actually considers any opposition as completely unworthy of any response besides making fun of. I have come across other believers like this. Their only defense for their absurd beliefs is to make fun of those who disagree with them. Kind of how middle schoolers act. If you can't offer any defense, pretend like it doesn't matter, and stick your tongue out at your detractor.

So, while I sort through the troll archives, prepare yourselves for a chuckle or two. Yes, names will be changed to protect the. . .er, never mind. We'll just change the names or leave them off altogether.
The insults never cease. Of course, all I am offering is my opinion of Tim Browns attitude. He couldn't care less what I think. But what I think of him, and those like him, is important to me. And it is attitudes like this, from Christians, that makes me rejoice that I got out when I did, eight years ago. According to Tim Browns blog, he has been a Christian for ten years. I was one for 25 years. Is it possible that, when I was a Christian, my attitude towards those who disagreed with me, was as unappealing as Tim Browns? I guess so, but I think personality is very hard to hid, even when inside a religion. Some people are just not nice, and Jesus seems incapable of making them nice.

In a nut shell, if I had any inclinations of becoming a Christian...again...it is people like Tim Brown who would make me pause. If he is an example of what God does when one becomes a believer... no thanks. I find nothing attractive in his attitude...his attitude toward, shall we say, the vocal lost.

A Revolting Call to Action

Over at The Reformed Gadfly, the blogger posted his call to action against McDonald's, joining in with the likes of the American Family Association, those appointed by them selves to watch over the sinfulness of the entire US of A, and probably beyond.
I left a comment for the reformed gadfly but, as has been the case before, it probably will fall short of approval, so I thought I would post my comment to him here.

What is it exactly that you are against? It's obvious you are against homosexuality? Are you against homosexuals being able to make a living? I have to guess you are. Are you against anyone offering to help homosexuals make a living? Again, I have to assume you are. McDonald's wants to put some of their resources and influence to work "promoting "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures." In other words, to help gays and lesbians make a living, correct? What other "sins" do you believe should keep a person from making a living? How about fornicators? Do you think Christians should boycott any business owned by a person who had sex before marriage? What about cigarette smokers? If the owner of your local KFC is addicted to cigarettes but is heterosexual, would you consider boycotting his restaurant? How about gluttony? What if your banker is 50lbs over weight, are you going to pull your money out? Since being any religion other than Christian is sinful, just to be consistent, why don't you limit your patronage to only business that display a cross or Jesus fish in their window?
I have no confidence that you will be able to see the absurdity in your stance, but I had to try.

Am I an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian...?

Over at "The Reformed Gadfly" there is a post, which, as is the case for so many Christian blog posts, shows definite signs of straw-man building. Allow me to illustrate. Referring to an atheist encounter (probably with me) he says: "...they are "struttin' their stuff", acting all intellectual about how God doesn't exist." First of all, I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know that any gods, including the Christian God, do not exist. So, I generally refrain from "struttin'" my "stuff", since I am open to persuasion. It would be rather embarrassing to claim that I know there is no god, only to have some Christians prove to me that their God is in fact real. So, since I do not know, I just admit that I do not believe.
As for the next accusation, "acting all intellectual" since I barely graduated high school and never went to college, I don't think I could even begin to know how to act intellectual. So, I think it is blatantly obvious that the blog author, Tim, is using dishonesty to draw a picture of an atheist. Since I do not agree with him, he resorts to name calling.
He continues his description with such phrases as, "big ornery atheist", "someone who proudly says "there is no God", and "those who put on the appearance of intellectualism". All accusations against a people simply because they don't believe as he does. Why do so many Christians resort to this type of defence (offence?)?

Somewhere amongst all the straw, he draws the readers attention to a pie chart showing Christians how to get an atheist to admit that, since we don't have all knowledge of everything in the universe, we then must admit that we are really not atheists after all, but are actually agnostics. Problem is, I am still an atheist. I have no belief in any gods. I am without belief in gods. I do not believe the Christian God exists. I do not KNOW that the Christian God does not exist, I just do not BELIEVE that the Christian God exists. I am an atheist.

Now, let's use Tim's illustration, creatively? Tim says, "..."agnosticism", which is a more accurate term, which means "I don't know".
Well, Tim, do you KNOW that your God exists? Do you actually have any more knowledge about the existence of your God than I, a former believer of 25 years, have? Belief does not equal knowledge with regard to religious faith. You probably feel like you KNOW, or think you KNOW (that your God exists), but do you actually know, in the same way we have knowledge of proven scientific and historical facts? I think we know what the answer is - Tim, and all the millions and millions of Christians in the world, do not KNOW that God exists. Accurately speaking, they believe that God exists.

Tim instructs further: "...ask them "Do you possess the sum total of all knowledge?" If they are being honest at all, they will have to admit they don't know everything." I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know everything. So we have to wonder who Tim is asking his Christian friends to direct this question to (hint-strawmen)?

Do Christians "possess the sum total of all knowledge"? If not, won't they have to follow Tim's admonition and "admit they don't know everything."

My point is, if Christians will be honest, and apply Tim's instructions for dealing with us big ornery atheist, they will have to admit, since they actually DO NOT KNOW that their god exists, they will have to admit that they are, in reality, agnostics. For an agnostic, according to Tim, just doesn't know. Let them claim "Christian-Agnostic" if they want, but to be honest, they have to admit that they are just as "agnostic" as Tim claims I am.

love one another...?

I honestly don't mean to keep commenting on the postings of Pastor Buck. I mean, I really have nothing against the guy. He seems nice enough. I think he is genuine (what ever that means). But since I really only read two Christian blogs, and since his church is in my community, I guess if I am going to respond to the words of a church leader, may as well keep it close to home.
Below are his word from a recent post to his blog, and my comments will follow.

“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” (I John 3:14)
If I were forced to choose just ONE verse that best describes our church family, I’d have to go with John’s description the Christian life. For John, LOVE is one the defining factors that you’ve truly been saved. Love evidences the fact that what we have is the real deal. . . it evidences the fact that we have truly passed from death to life!
I don't know. I mean, I give out of love to those I love. My family, my friends, I give to them out of my love for them. How can I do that if I am not a Christian?
I just don't understand how Pastor Buck can read a bible verse, such as the one above, and completely ignore the FACT that born again Christians are not the only people who love, give out of love. Read the verse again: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers." I love my brother. I love my sister, my parents, my kids, my pets, my friends. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! How can it be that I love people?

Out of all things for which I am thankful about our church family (and there are MANY!), what touches me the most is the love of Christ that fills our fellowship. You don’t just talk a good game, you live it. You genuinely care about those inside and outside our church family, and it shows, repeatedly.
Over the past couple years I have attended Pastor Bucks church from time to time with some friends. I can count on one hand the number of members there who have come up to me and started a conversation with me. I am largely ignored. I am not ugly, I don't stink, I am not mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, but I am rather introverted. It is difficult for me to put forth an effort to make new friends. But once a person approaches me, I am friendly and can be conversant.
I can think of perhaps 4-6 people, members of the church, who have actually made an effort to talk to me beyond the tepid "good morning, how are you..." So, can anyone describe to me this "love of Christ" he is talking about?

The bottom line, you guys are the real deal! I love serving Jesus with you and I truly see Him in you! In John 13:35 Jesus summed it up in a single sentence - “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
Oh, I can see it. I can see them "loving one another", but I do not experience any of that love. I mean, what does a person have to do, be a member in good standing for 36 months before he or she fits in?
What I experience in Pastor Bucks church, is the exact same thing I experience or have experienced in every other church I have ever visited, or been a member of. Pure and simple - Human Nature. Some people are genuinely caring and compassionate. Some are not. But most will fall in the middle.
It doesn't matter if they are Christian or not. It makes no difference. And this is the chief reason that I find no reason, any longer, to believe in the Christian God. Christians do not, in any way, display any evidence that they have been motivated (transformed) by a supernatural being. What they do display, in their attitude and approach toward their close friends-vs-people they do not know, is exactly what you would expect to see in any group, club, church, gathering, etc. If you are their friend, you fit right in. If you are not their friend, you are largely ignored. And believe me, I have sat many a Sunday in Pastor Bucks church and been completely and totally ignored. Do I hold that against them? Absolutely not. As I have stated, it is human nature. What I do protest though is the largely held Christian belief that they, (and THEY all pretty much believe THEY are the "they") by reason of their faith, have been transformed. And that as a result of that supernatural transformation they now display such a love for all humanity.
The news is, THEY don't. They are just people who believe they do. And as they gather with each other every Sunday, they reinforce each others delusion, and keep ignoring that fellow sitting...over there. ("I can't go up and talk to him now. I mean, I have been ignoring him for months. I didn't mean to. Time just got away from me. I missed a few Sundays in a row and when I came back, there he was. How long has he been coming now? What will he think of me if I go up to him now? No, the easiest thing to do is just keep ignoring him...")

For what it's worth, during this time, I have had one person (1), out of perhaps 200-300 members, ask me if I knew Jesus as my saviour. No one else in that church has ever asked me anything about God, Jesus, church, the bible, etc.

That, my friend, is Human nature.

Jesus to the rescue

From Pastor Buck's blog:
This video is definitely worth five minutes of your time. It creatively portrays the following truth: “You, dear, children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. . . everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (I John 4:4, 5:4)

The video is basically from a play, contemporary Christian music is the soundtrack, and depicts a young woman experiencing a new relationship with the Jesus character. But then the cares and influences of the world creep in, distracting the young woman, and drawing her away from her loving relationship with Jesus.
Things soon turn bad, as they always do when you forget about Jesus (sarcasm). Jesus is off to the side, wooing her back, but to no avail.
Jesus finally jumps in to protect her from her bad choices (audience breaks into cheers and applause).
What a wonderfully appealing story, if only it were true, as Pastor Buck claims. Being a sensitive atheist guy, I even felt a tug of emotion as I watched Jesus hold back all the bad in the world from reaching the young woman. But as life continually proves, it is just a story. A myth. Strip away the music, the facial expressions, the choreographed dancing, and all you have left is a few sentences in an old book. That's all.

Have I Been Educated?

Pastor Buck posted a list on his blog with numerous comparisons of secular learning-vs-religious learning:

Have I Been Educated?If I learn my ABCs, can read 600 words per minute, and can write with perfect penmanship, but have not been shown how to communicate with the Designer of all language .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I can deliver an eloquent speech and persuade you with my stunning logic, but have not been instructed in God's wisdom.... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I read Shakespeare and John Locke and can discuss their writings with keen insight, but have not read the greatest of all books -- the Bible -- and have no knowledge of its personal importance... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I have memorized addition facts, multiplication tables, and chemical formulas, but have never been disciplined to hide God's Word in my heart .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I can explain the law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity, but have never been instructed in the unchangeable laws of the One Who orders our universe .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I can classify animals by their family, genus and species, and can write a lengthy scientific paper that wins an award, but have not been introduced to the Maker's purpose for all creation, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I can recite the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution, but have not been informed of the hand of God in the history of our country .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I can play the piano, the violin, six other instruments, and can write music that moves men to tears, but have not been taught to listen to the Director of the universe and worship Him, ... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I can run cross-country races, star in basketball and do 100 push-ups without stopping, but have never been shown how to bend my spirit to do God's will, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I can identify a Picasso, describe the style of da Vinci, and even paint a portrait that earns an A+, but have not learned that all harmony and beauty comes from a relationship with God, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I were to graduate with a perfect 4.0 and am accepted at the best university with a full scholarship, but have not been guided into a career of God's choosing for me, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

If I become a good citizen, voting at each election and fighting for what is moral and right, but have not been told of (or believe) the sinfulness of man and his hopelessness without Christ,... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.

However, if one day I see the world as God sees it, and come to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, and glorify God by fulfilling His purpose for me, THEN I HAVE BEEN EDUCATED!

There is a marquee at a Baptist church in my town that says something like: "Success is gaining eternal life - all else is failure".

That kind of goes along with this "Have I been educated" theme. Looking at it from a purely rational perspective, which is all I have, some Christians would equate a person who has read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, all 20+ volumes, as being less educated than a person who has read only the bible.

It would seem to me that Pastor Buck is equating education with religious belief. Lack of religious belief, lack of education. I will forever wonder how a persons faith can be equated with education.

Is there any non believer who he could then concede is more educated than even the most uneducated believer? Does mere faith in the God of the bible trump all the learning of an engineer or medical doctor, if they do not have a belief in the Christian God?

If that is what Pastor Bucks belief is, it is that primitive belief that kept humanity wading through the dark ages for 500 years. It is just that mentality that the Taliban possesses which restricts females from going to school.

That mentality, while it is music to the ears of the believer, terrifies the non believer. It truly frightens me to think that Christians in my community actually think a non believing college professor is less educated than the little five year old boy who got saved in last Sundays service.

Am I exaggerating? Only if Christians like Pastor Buck don't really believe what he is trying to tell us he believes.

Bible...skepticism...archeology...

I visit some Christian blogs from time to time. Well, really only two: Pastor Buck and nakedpastor. I have posted on nakedpastor before. It is a very welcoming place.

I try to keep my comments limited, only posting when I feel I must, when something is said that I feel I really must respond to. I have made a few comments in the past on Pastor Bucks blog.

I realize that I am really wasting my time doing this. There is little hope that anything I might say could penetrate through a long held and cherished religious faith.

I really don't think my purpose in responding to Christians is to get them to consider anything I have to say other than to attempt to convince them to exercise some integrity when it comes to what they consider to be supporting evidence for the claims of their faith. They can believe what they want to believe. All I ask is that they refrain from offering "proof" in support of what they believe, (whether it be scientific or historical findings) without actually examining this "proof" before hand.

A few weeks ago I posted some links in a response on Pastor Bucks blog, when someone made mention of Werner Keller's book, "The Bible as History". I read the book many years ago when I was a bible believer.

Anyway, I really don't want to take up space on Pastor Bucks blog. I mean, it is a Christian blog, and I am not a Christian. I doubt many ministers would want their blog hijacked by an infidel.

Torn between just keeping my mouth shut, or speaking out when I see the need, I try to compromise and speak out just a little when visiting Christian blogs, and then invite them to read my response here...well...at least that is what I will do from now on.

Anyway, my response is below.



Hi Pastor Buck,

You said,
"The articles seem to be pretty consistent with others I have read from those whose worldview approaches the issue of faith with skepticism."
Of course. But how do you feel about "skepticism"? It is difficult to tell from your comment. Is it a good thing? Aren't you skeptical? Are you not just as skeptical about the historical accuracy of Islamic texts and their claims of inspiration, as, say, an agnostic is of Christian texts and their associated claims? Just a guess, but I would bet that you are.
So could we agree that we are both skeptical, just to differing degrees? Surely you will admit that you view "issues of (other religions) faith" with just as much skepticism as some view yours...?

I read some of the links you posted. I will read further, but I have to comment on what is said right out of the blocks.

From the first link: "Because the Christian faith is based on historical events, Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word."

I really have a hard time responding to such a statement. It is so full of "We believe what we believe and there is absolutely no amount of "facts" that will persuade us otherwise because what we believe is true".
Is the Christian faith based on historical events, or is it based on claims of historical events as written down in the bible? How many Christians actually researched the faith before they became believers?....very, very few? And once they are believers, if they do any research, isn't it almost exclusively in literature designed to bolster the faith. How often do you, or your Christian friends, read, I mean really read, with mind open, scientific material that is not written from the Christian perspective, but solely from the scientific perspective? Will you admit, very seldom if ever?

As the statement from the first link above says: "Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word.", there is nothing that the non believer can present that will persuade the believer, if the believer is not willing to consider that they may be wrong. It is that simple. I think many claims in "God's Word" can be shown to be false, but in the mind of the believer it will never be dis proven.

I listened on-line to one of your sermons many months ago, on the book "The Da Vinci Code", and you made a statement that went something like this: Archeology has confirmed the trustworthiness of the bible. Excavations of Jericho has proven that the walls are confirmed to have fallen outward.
But, if you cared to look further, you might find conflicting data and conflicting conclusions, even from believers, as to when that happened:

Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.
Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record. The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer .
(Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24


(This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.)

Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests.

This link, from a conservative Christian, shows that the above conclusions are most likely correct.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php

My point is not to throw dates back and forth in a battle of evidences, but to just point out that you made a claim based on what...Christian apologetic literature, void of any referencing to non Christian literature, neglecting to do any further research to see if what you were saying was actually based on scientific fact.


From the second link you provided: "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible.
Biblical archaeology has silenced many critics as new discoveries supported the facts of the Bible."

I just don't understand how a "faith" can be based on known facts. Doesn't it cease being "faith" if faith is no longer needed after one offers confidence in "known facts"? In other words, once I "know" something as fact, faith in that 'something' is rendered obsolete, is it not?

That first statement in the link - "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible." is where this argument begins to fall apart. Right from the beginning, the author misrepresents his own religion. Christianity is not a faith that is based on known factual events. From what I know, Christianity is based, by faith, on the biblical claim of the life, death, and resurrection of the God-man Jesus the Christ. Am I correct?
The authors use of the word "actual" is where problems arise, for we can't even begin to confirm that Jesus was born (of a virgin no less), that he lived, died, nor arose after death. And if we can't confirm, by scientific means, any of those supposed "actual events" how could we even begin to confirm that the Jesus of the bible was God, or that there even is a God?

What it boils down to Pastor Buck, is this: Christianity is a faith. A faith based on the writings in a 2,000 year old book, nothing more. It is not based on any scientific or historical evidence at all. No evidence outside of the bible is needed for anyone to believe what the bible says. No factual confirmation is necessary. Therefore, Christian apologists are wasting their time searching for confirmation in the dirt or in the sky, because what ever they will find (as evidenced by the past conclusions of many a Christian) they will use, or misuse to bolster their faith, when their faith is all that is really needed...correct?

I guess what it comes down to is this: I would have much more respect for modern Christianity if they would simply and honestly admit the facts;
Christians believe that Jesus was born, died, and arose from the dead.
Christians believe that God is real.
Christians believe that the words in the bible are true.
And when a Christian says to me that I should believe as he does, or I will go to hell, if he was honest, he would end his plea with, "...but that is just my belief, for I actually don't have any factual evidence to back it up."
That would be honest, wouldn't it?

bob

scenario

A pilot, who is an atheist, is flying over the ocean in a small plane with a friend, who is a Christian.
They run into bad weather and crash on an uncharted, deserted island with no hope of ever being rescued.
They both survive the crash, but suffer permanent amnesia due to a head injuries. The only useful thing that they remember is how to read.

Surviving the crash with them are two books: one is a book on island survival tips, including farming, edible plants, hunting and fishing, and the other book is the Bible.

The survival book suggest, if there is no dry wood available, to use pages out of a book as kindling to start a fire.

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God..."

My questions:
Which book should they use as kindling to start the fire?

could someone please explain it to me?

How in hell did Adam Sandler become this mega-millionaire "actor"? Please!
Years ago, during my on and off years with Saturday Night Live, I would either turn the channel or hit the mute button when a skit with Adam Sandler came on. In my view, he was not funny. He was silly at best, to the point of embarrassing, and the mere fact that he had somehow managed to land a spot on one of the most popular comedy shows, made his lack of talent that much more irritating to me.
Now he has, like many of the former SNL cast members, graduated to the big screen. How? Why? What am I missing? Even now, when a preview of one of his movies runs, I change the channel.
I have never watched more than a minute of a Sandler movie. I just can't stand it. I have never watched more than a minute of a George W. Bush speech for the same reason. No talent. How? Why?

why do they believe? why do they worship?

I don't know where I read this. I made a few modifications to suit my line of reasoning.

Why do Christians believe in and worship God?

See if you agree with this statement - Christians believe in and worship God because they believe he is loving, and because, in his mercy, they believe he gave his only son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins.

As a Christian, do you agree with that statement?

I do not agree with that statement. I'll show you why.

Lets pretend for a second.
Take the average Christian. Let's say he or she agreed to the above statement as to why they believe in and worship God.

Let's say that the bible states that God loves us, and that all people must believe in and worship God (pray to him, worship him and fellowship with other believers, financially support his ministers, help spread his word, obey his commandments, etc), basically what the bible actually does say...correct?

Now, let's pretend that the bible says that when we die, Christian or not, you, me, and every human on earth, all of us are condemned to hell forever and ever, no matter what we do or what we believe.

I know the bible says that if you believe in Jesus as your savior you will go to heaven, but we are pretending that the bible says everyone goes to hell when they die. We are pretending that everyone is doomed, but at the same time everyone is commanded by God in the bible, to worship God (go to church, tithe, and follow the laws of God, etc).

Now, with this in mind, (please try to think how you would feel if this was what the bible said) do you think people would worship God knowing that they were going to hell forever, whether they worship him or not?

Take a moment and think about it.

Think.

Think.

I don't think they would.

If the bible said: "Believe in and worship the Lord your God, and when you die, you will spend eternity in hell ", would you worship God?

Think about it.

Wouldn't it be kind of...insane...for people to waste their lives worshipping God, even though they knew from what the bible said, that he was going to send them to hell anyway?

If there were no heaven, only eternity in hell, what would be the benefit of worshiping God? Would there be any benefit at all?

People would not care about religious beliefs because those beliefs simply would not matter. Most likely they would place a greater value on life and try their best to live as long as they could. They would be afraid of war because, if killed, they would meet the wrath of God and his eternal punishment immediately. This world would be a different place. No one would worship God even if they knew for a fact that God existed. We would all probably be angry at him for the punishment that we would face, and that of our children.

Now, according to Christian beliefs, based on the bible, there is a heaven and eternal after-life in heaven for Gods followers, which means none of what I wrote above really matters anyway.

However what it does tell us is actually why people worship God. It's not because he's all mighty, all loving, and all powerful, or all merciful. What it means is believers worship God for one reason: to escape hell. For, as I have shown, if there were no heaven, but only eternity in hell, no one would be worshiping God, regardless of the claims in the bible about his nature (all-mighty, all-loving, all-powerful, and all-merciful).

And God knows all of this because he is all-knowing, correct? This tells us three very important things;
1- People believe in and worship God for one reason; to escape hell.
2- God knows this.
3- No one will go to heaven.

Why will no one go to heaven?

Because God knows that the only reason people believe in and worship him is to escape hell. He is all-knowing remember? And he knows that if there was no heaven, only hell, that all those who worship him, would not be worshiping him. This means that Christians do not worship him because of who he is, but because of what the bible says he will do for them, namely; keep them out of hell.

This is the epitome of selfishness...and God knows this, and since no Christian will admit that the reason they worship God is just to escape hell, they are lying to God, themselves, and all those who they witness to.

they are not looking

An email to my friend.

Bill,
I have had kind of an epiphany. Goes something like this: As long as a Christian is satisfied with what their faith gives them (emotionally) it is absolutely futile to try to get them to see that what they believe in is based on nothing more than myths and emotions.
As you have experienced before, and I have also, and thousands and thousands of non believers before and after us have and will experience, when you talk to a Christian who is content that what they have is the truth, you will not be able to break through to them. Why? Well, because they are not looking.
Just as if you were trying to get your sister to see that her husband is abusing her. If she is content in the relationship, she will not be able to see what you are talking about.
Same with a person who has a lousy job. If they work long hours and get paid next to nothing, but are reasonably happy, they will never understand why you are trying to tell them to go get a better job.
My girlfriend is happy with her church life. She goes every Sunday morning, sings the songs, gives at least 10%, listens to a 45 minute sermon, is on the finance committee, and never picks up her bible Monday through Saturday. She is happy with that. It would be insane for me to even try to bring up just some generic biblical topic or religious discussion, because we will probably disagree, and she does not care to hear any disagreements. She is content to believe what she believes because she believes she believes the truth. She is not looking.
Same with your Grandson. He believes he has all he needs, and is happy with that. It was a mistake for me to even enter into a discussion with him. There was no way that I could possibly break through his "happiness". He is not looking.
Now, if you come across a Christian who is looking, well, now there is a chance of getting through to them. Why, because they are not satisfied with their faith. They are either dissatisfied with their church, or their own "spiritual condition", or both, or, they are new to the faith and the cement has not had time to cure.
When I was a Christian I was never satisfied. I always wanted to "grow in the Lord" but could never seem to reach an even plain, could never rest in where I was. I always felt I was lacking in some area of "spiritual service or worship". So, I was never happy with where I was. I was always looking.
But, I am guessing you are similar to me in that, you enjoy discussing with people of faith, what they believe and why you don't believe what they believe. I greatly enjoy that, especially when it is a civil discussion. But, as I am just now realizing, it will most likely not be civil if the person we are talking to IS NOT LOOKING. If they are perfectly happy where they are, in their religious faith, leave them alone, let it go, zip it shut.
From now on, if I am approached by a Christian, and they show some interest in my lack of faith, the first thing I am going to ask them before we discuss anything about belief-vs.-non belief is -
Are you prepared to accept that idea that you may have it all wrong?
Are you prepared, finally, to give the idea that there may not be a God, that the bible may not be the word of God, and that there is a chance that everything you now believe concerning your Christian faith may be simply based on nothing but myths and emotions?

If they can't give me that, they are not looking, and if they are not looking, our dialogue will end badly.
So, my late new years resolution is to follow my own advice above.

why I am who I am

I am not to comfortable talking in depth with the local folk about my leaving the faith, mainly due to the trust factor. As a self employed person, if word got out that I was a non believer, I would stand to loose a good portion of my business. In my part of the country, probably 95% of the population are professing Christians. Why would they want a non believer performing my service when they could use the Christian down the road?

I became a believer at 17 years old back in '74 or so. I came to the conclusion, through people witnessing to me, religious radio, and reading the bible for myself, that I was a lost sinner, worthy of punishment in hell. I accepted the gift of salvation that God offered, which was by way of trusting, by faith, in what Jesus accomplished on the cross.

Jump ahead to the early 80's. I was in the military, married, and had a young son. I was attending at a local Independent Baptist church. Jesus was my life. When the doors of the church were open I was there. I would take vacation time to attend daily services during revival. I taught Sunday school, was in prayer groups, went on visitation, witnessed to my co-workers, studied my bible and prayed daily. Life was good.

Sometime in '84, I began to get disillusioned with organized religion. I felt that the church was going in the wrong direction. Not enough emphasis was on total surrender to Christ. There was too much talk of increasing membership and participation. I felt that the direction should be on brokenness before Christ. People were not open and honest. We were more of a social club than a body of believers.
Now understand, we were probably one of the more spiritual minded churches in town, yet I did not think we, as a body, were spiritual minded enough. I read constantly: Watchmen Nee, Jessie Penn Louise, David Brainard, Reese Howells, Andrew Murray, Roy Hession, etc. I wanted to experience the deeper life. I wanted nothing less than to be a helpless glob of flesh in the hands of Master Jesus. I was of the mindset that the only way the Holy Spirit could control me, use me, was if I allowed him to expose every area of my heart that was still under my control, under the control of the "self", the old sinful nature.

In '85, I got orders to another part of the country. We moved, had two more sons, and could not find a new church home. We bounced around for a year or so, but never seemed to fit in. I still went to church on occasion, but my wife stayed home with the kids. I would go on a Sunday evening or Wednesday evening because experience taught me that, it is at those times that you got to see the "real" church. I never did find one.

I happened upon a fellow Christian one day while eating lunch. He saw me reading my bible as I ate. We talked and became friends. He was of the Pentecostal persuasion and I was of the Baptist (I never called myself a Baptist, just a follower of Christ). We soon began to discuss our differences and would meet one night a week to study and debate. It was a wonderful time because I now had some serious fellowship, and had some incentive to study. This lasted for almost a year, eating lunch together, meeting one evening a week for debate and study.

All good things must come to an end. My friend, I found out, was no different than 99% of the Christians I encountered. They believed what they had been taught and had not really learned anything on their own. My beliefs transformed as a result of our discussions, and I came to doubt some of my long held beliefs because of what he shared with me. I became more open to what I could learn from the bible rather than hold firm to what I had already believed, had already been taught. He, on the other hand, had his feet firmly stuck in the mud of his denomination and would not even consider that what he had been taught may not be scriptural. We parted ways, never to talk again.

Something happened to me the day of our last meeting. All of a sudden, I was aware of the fact that I really didn't know anything. Sure, I knew what I read in the bible, and I knew what I thought it meant, but there were millions who thought it meant something else.

I found myself as a man without a country. I could not find any church or denomination I could agree with. I wanted to know the truth and not follow the traditions of men. I prayed. I prayed more. I studied, more and more...but nothing came. I felt God was ignoring me, and perhaps had been ignoring me all along, because what I had in essence was 8 years of desiring, yet never really attaining what I thought was true, one on one communion with my God, the creator of the universe.

At about this point in my life, I started my journal.

January 1985
A man is what he say’s he is, not what he appears to be, or what he claim’s to be, but what his conversation reveals him to be. The inner man is revealed by his words. The tongue and the heart are always in complete fellowship. Matthew 12:34-37.
Don’t try to explain bible doctrine to a lost person. The only thing they should be acquainted with is the gospel of the crucified Christ. They will be forever curious about things they disagree with. When their curiosity surfaces, share Christ crucified. Never get into an unnecessary conversation about doctrine with them, especially, if before hand, you believe they might disagree with you. Phillipians 2:14.
Complete surrender is necessary for salvation. If I am not willing to die for Christ, then he is not mine. Upon acceptance of Christ, one possesses all of Christ. Will He dwell in a temple that is not entirely His? Will He enter a heart that He cannot control? Will He save that soul that is not completely surrendered? Matthew 16:24-26.

February
I am troubled over this theology of “willingness”. I have often thought to myself and told God, “I am willing to go where ever, do what ever, and be who ever you want me to be”. I am beginning to wonder if God is pleased with willingness. Take the word “willing”, and write it next to the word “desire”. You see a difference. The definitions go from: “favorably inclined”, to, “an intense longing”. Willingness seams to be nothing more than indifference. Is God seeking those who have a “take it or leave it” attitude concerning His will, or those who will settle for nothing less than His will?

February 1986
Through lack of discipline, I have neglected these notes for a year. Many thoughts of great importance are gone, never to be recalled. What can be more important than the meditations of my mind? If they can’t be recalled, then whatever good may be in them can’t be applied. If they can’t be applied, then I waste a lot of time.
God has been faithful to me, as I have been studying some subjects these past few months. Subjects that there seems to be much disagreement over. I have based my beliefs on the teachings of man for so long that, when challenged, I have been without defense. I find there is no one I agree with and I find no one genuinely desiring the truth. My stand on these subjects is not dogmatic. I am open for spiritual persuasion.
Water baptism : Defended as necessary for salvation by some, as an outward sign of obedience by others. What is the mode? Sprinkling, pouring, immersion. Who's name do you speak during the ceremony? (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38) The arguments have been made for years. I wonder if water baptism, whatever its mode or purpose, might have ceased with the end of the apostolic age. (The completion of the New Testament.)
Holy Ghost baptism : Misunderstood by many, especially those in Pentecostal denominations. Upon acceptance of Christ, He comes to dwell in us and places us into his spiritual body. This “baptism”, or “placing into” is explained in the later part of 1 Cor. 12:13.
Tongues : Cults have sprung up around this spiritual gift stunting the spiritual growth of millions. I have never seen it done according to the scriptures. (1 Cor. 14) I believe it ceased with the apostolic age.
Tithing : I am amazed at how man finds it difficult to live under the grace of God and is therefore constantly placing himself under the law of God. A person should give of their money, (Which is Gods money upon salvation.) as moved by God. God is to be glorified, not paid back.
Eternal Salvation : Will God take this gift of salvation back when a person sins? This is another doctrine that strengthens denominational barriers. I have yet to find substantial scriptural evidence for either belief, but I find it hard to grasp the idea of God snatching so precious a gift out of the heart of a Christian because of the sinful nature once again regaining control of the individual. It seems contrary to His nature to give us this “pearl of great price”, out of love and divine grace, as unworthy as we are, to then tear it from within us the moment we perform unworthily.
Pastoral Duty : In my Christian experience, the Pastor of the church has stood in front of the congregation three times a week and preached a sermon at them. Surely this is not New Testament worship. I see nothing in this practice but following the traditions of men. During the average church service, there is little room for the Lord to move people’s hearts. Everything is so predictable. Seldom have I attended church expecting to meet with God. The question then is,” Why go to church?”, or if we do go, ”What will we do if we don’t here a sermon?” The only answer can be - “surely God will show us.”
The Holy Trinity : I never considered this doctrine as questionable. I couldn’t understand it, but neither could anyone else. It seems that the scriptures do show a plurality in the Godhead, but I don’t believe this plurality is a separation of persons, but a distinction of attitudes, or modes of operation that God uses in dealing with man.

April
A true test of humility doesn’t occur very often, but when it does occur, Christians often fail. To admit you’re wrong after a minor remark, is no great feat of the humble attributes. Consider this test :
1) A doctrinal belief you have had for years has never been challenged until now.
2) All you can do to meet this challenge is to quote other people, not scripture.
3) Substantial biblical and historical evidence is given to prove your belief wrong.
4) The person presenting this evidence is physically, emotionally, and spiritually younger than you, and he is also from a different denomination.
5) If you are wrong, then so is everybody you have trusted for so long.
But remember; truth in one area does not prove infallibility, and error in one area does not prove carnality.
This past week I have been experiencing thoughts and feelings I haven’t felt before. After many months of studying books on the tongues movement, water baptism, the book of Acts, and discussing these subjects with a member of a different denomination, I am wondering if I know anybody who is experiencing genuine biblical salvation. I know of nobody who is living in the manner that is spoke of in the scriptures, especially myself. In considering Matthew chapter 5, 6, and 7, the attitudes spoken of by Jesus the Christ are nonexistent in the lives of professing Christians that I have encountered. All I have met are foolish men. (Matt. 7:26) I have lived the life of a foolish man. There has been little audible, and much less visible evidence to support my profession of faith. Why talk about it if I’m not living it?

June
I have reached a point in my life, which I guess could be called a valley. A spiritual Death Valley. It seams as though I have abandoned all that I once believed. Faith in the claims of the scriptures seems to be so weak, almost undetectable. I can’t honestly say that I have experienced anything during my walk as a Christian that would confirm what I claim to believe. I can offer no testimony of answered prayer, no victory over sinful tendencies, no boldness in sharing the bible with others. Maybe I have not been, as the Bible says, “born again”. Could it be that I have mistaken an intellectual curiosity, for scriptural faith? I wonder if the gospel seed that was sown many years ago, in my heart, found only rocky places where the soil was shallow. (Matt. 13) I want so badly to accept the spiritual claims of the Bible, but I find no evidence to support those claims. The evidence I am looking for is in the lives of those who call themselves Christians. I have read of people who could be called meek, merciful, pure in heart, and persecuted. (Matt. 5) People such as David Brainard, Reese Howels, and Richard Warmbrand, but I have never been acquainted with even one such person in the flesh. Where are all the “Christians”? Is the spiritual aspect of the Bible all fairy tales? Where are the over comers (1John 5:4,5), where are the lovers (1John 3:14-18), where are the righteous (1John 3:4-10), where are the holy (1Peter 1:13-16), where are the wise (James 4:17,18), where are the good (Titus 3:1-8)? Does anybody posses these God-given qualities? Does anyone really care more about his brother than he does for himself? I want to be one of those people, but for right now, I would settle for just meeting one.

December
It has been six months sense my last entry. As I can see, nothing has changed. My mind is very cold toward God, yet my relationship with my wife and boys has seemingly not been affected by my turmoil and complacency about religious matters. Emotionally, I’m fine. I don’t break down and weep, I don’t lose my temper, and I don’t fall into deep states of depression. My job performance is unaffected. So, how has my abandonment of all religious exercise affected my life? I don’t go to church, pray, witness, tithe, study the scriptures, etc., yet I’m still a productive member of this society. The only reason that I am not a very happy person seems to be that I miss being “religious”. I miss the routine, the theological arguments, the holy feelings, the confidence that I wasn’t going to spend eternity in hell with the heathens, yet I don’t seem to miss God. The only reason I can see, that I don’t miss God, is that I have never known Him personally, intimately. I’ve known Him only from what I have heard and read. Is that how you get to know the creator of the universe . . . talk about Him, read about Him? I think I really want to know the true God. I want to leave all ideas that I have about him, in the past. Even those that were truth, because I have no way of knowing truth from a lie at this point in my life. I just can’t trust my judgment in these matters. I must be taught by God Himself. I want God to teach me what a real servant of His must live like, inwardly and outwardly. I want to belong to Him, as a servant.

May 1987
Since my last entry, in my judgment, there has been no spiritual improvement. There seems to be definite signs of worldliness in my attitudes and actions. Two years ago I would have been in agony over my thoughts and my choice of words at certain moments. I am obsessed with photography. I spend a lot of time thinking about equipment and techniques. I feel guilty about this, but I’m unsure why . . .it is my job.

December 1989
Over the past two months I have had a renewed interest in God. The desires of wanting to trust Him, obey Him, rest in Him, and really get to know Him, have started to stir in me. The confidence that I once had, that God was real, has been revived. I have prayed for the first time in over a year. I have talked to Josh about the Lord for the first time in over two years. He still remembers and is still sensitive. I asked Caleb who God is, and he didn’t know . . .had no idea. This hit me very hard.
I spent the 19th of last month with Don. This was beneficial and, I believe, instrumental in my renewed desire for the Lord. My heart was dealt with as Don spoke. This is what I have prayed for recently. Thank you Lord.

September 1990
Since my last entry, I have had very little thought of God. Occasionally a twinge inside, maybe a little desire left, trying to surface. Maybe the Spirit of God? I don’t know. I don’t think like a child of God.
I don’t talk like a child of God.
I don’t react like a child of God.
I don’t live like a child of God.
Am I a child of God??? I refuse to be a “sham” Christian. I will be real, or nothing. Terry and Ray visited last weekend. Since then I have had renewed interest in the truth. But I believe I want the truth simply to prove others wrong. Can I seek after the Lord as much as I seek after the truth? Is finding the answers as important as finding the Lord? Where do I stand with God? Am I a Christian or an infidel? Have I been born again or deceived? Is Christ my savior or my judge? I honestly don’t know. Do I want to know???

October 1991
Since September 1990, I have not talked to any Christians except The Smiths in June of this year. Where are they? Do you have to go to church to find Christians? Well, I’ve tried that before . . . they’re not there.
My spiritual condition is unchanged. I dislike most people. Their attitudes ether anger me or bore me. My faith in God is dwindling daily. I love my boys dearly though . . . why can’t I love God?

May 1995
My spiritual and emotional condition is disastrous. I see myself as a complete failure in every area of my life. I feel I am as close to being a ship lost at sea in a hurricane as a man can be. I don’t know which direction to try to steer toward, therefore, I drift, a victim of my circumstances. I am inconsistent, indecisive, temperamental, lazy, thoughtless, uncaring, vulgar. I hate my job and the people I work for. All this affects my family adversely. My boys aren't given or shown discipline. My wife worries about me. I am rapidly approaching 40 and my future is bleak. I don’t look fondly at my past because of where it has led me, financially, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. Where can I find relief? How can this downward spiral be halted? I need to find rest somewhere, somehow, or I am going to sink!

May 1996
No change. One year and no change. My entry from last year could be written again, word for word.

April 2000
In a matter of a few hours, the answer to my suffering for the past twenty five years has appeared. I now see with telescopic vision what has been hidden from view by superstition. It’s as if I have been released from leg chains in the hold of an 18th century slave ship and transported to a world of such natural beauty that I can’t find a point to begin observing it for fear that I will miss something in another location. The truth has broken through the thick shroud of old bible leather that has covered my eyes for so long.
I no longer believe in a god!
Christianity, as I have known and experienced, is the biggest fraud that mankind has ever exposed himself to!
The bible is the work of men. It is a mixture of one part fact, to five parts fiction.
Science, not religion, is the source of truth in the world.
The guilt, self doubt, and worry that plagued nearly every waking moment of my life for the past twenty five years, has been replaced with a new wonder, a sense of adventure, and a freedom that can only be had when one is no longer shackled to a belief system that threatens to punish you for every human thought, word, or deed. There is no heaven, no hell, only birth and death, and what ever you can learn, enjoy, and contribute in between.

August
There is so much to observe, absorb, ingest. I feel like a child. Like a vacuum, sucking up everything I see and hear. I worship life, love, knowledge, truth. I believe this journal is complete.


Ingersoll's Vow
When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world -- not even in infinite space. I was free -- free to think, to express my thoughts -- free to live to my own ideal -- free to live for myself and those I loved -- free to use all my faculties, all my senses -- free to spread imagination's wings -- free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope -- free to judge and determine for myself -- free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past -- free from popes and priests -- free from all the "called" and "set apart" -- free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies -- free from the fear of eternal pain -- free from the winged monsters of the night -- free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought -- no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings -- no chains for my limbs -- no lashes for my back -- no fires for my flesh -- no master's frown or threat -- no following another's steps -- no need to bow, to cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain -- for the freedom of labor and thought -- to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains -- to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs -- to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn -- to those by fire consumed -- to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.
--Robert G. Ingersoll