Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

A Former Missionary with Wycliffe Translators in now an Agnostic Atheist

Ken Daniels was a missionary in Africa when his doubts finally overtook him and he had to leave the faith. He describes his intellectual journey in his recently published book: Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary . It is available on-line but I would highly recommend buying the book and distributing it widely. It may be the single best book to give to an honest doubter. It is written on a layman's level and will resonate with anyone who is an evangelical. It also has an irenic tone and does not come across as condescending.

Daniels' evangelical credentials are impeccable. He was born on the mission field and reared by missionary parents. He graduated from LeTourneau University and Columbia Biblical Seminary. He joined Wycliffe Bible Translators soon after graduation from Seminary and began linguistic studies in order to translate the Bible into the dialect of a particular tribe in Africa. He spent a number of years in Africa as a missionary among these peoples. Daniels commitment and dedication cannot be questioned. Yet, he, as I, found that he had to be intellectually honest with himself and leave the faith. This was an incredibly hard thing to do. He was on the mission field, churches were supporting him, his entire family on both sides were Christians, all of his friends were Christians, his whole life revolved around Christianity. He writes:
If I could patch things up by forcing myself to believe again, I would do so in a heartbeat. Unfortunately I have tried that several times, only to be besieged again by doubt, and have come to the conclusion that attempting to will myself to believe that which in my heart I do not believe is futile.
I can fully relate to Daniel's statement. You cannot force yourself to believe something that you sincerely know is false. It just doesn't work no matter how hard you try.

Often ex-believers are asked why we don't just drift off into the sunset. Why do we find it necessary to explain why we have de-converted from the faith? Is it because we feel the need to justify our unbelief? Daniels gives one of his reasons:
It grieves me to witness bright, promising young men and women distracted by the study of fundamentalist theology, or by the prospect of traveling the world to convert people from one empirically unverifiable form of supernaturalism to another. I regret having used up the best years of my youth pursuing religious goals.
I agree. When you consider all of the man hours as well as all of the money that is invested in religion, its mind-boggling. What if all these resources were poured into a purely humanitarian effort? Wouldn't the world be a better place?

Another reason why we former Christians feel the need to explain why we left the faith is because our motives are constantly being judged. Daniels elaborates:
Some of my readers might wonder, "Why did he do it? Why did he leave the riches of his faith for the despair and danger of unbelief? It couldn't be that he sincerely believes Christianity to be untrue; there must be some deep underlying issues he's dealing with, some flaw, some hidden agenda, some dashed expectation." I have been asked this question directly, and my response has been this: you can dig as deeply as you like, and when you get to the bottom of it, you'll find I believe what I believe because I think it's true. There may indeed be some hidden issues that have driven me to this point, but if so, they are as hidden to me as to anyone else. I have shared freely with others and with God the matters I consider relevant to the question, but nothing definitive has turned up.
Christians, especially conservative evangelicals, have a very difficult time accepting the notion that one could leave the faith for intellectual reasons. There has to be a deeper reason, they muse. He probably has a secret sin that he wants to indulge in and he doesn't want to submit to the authority of God and the Bible, or he has been hurt personally by Christians or a church and has taken it out on God, or some difficulty in his life has caused him to become bitter against God and Christianity. Daniels explains how a Christian might "internally process" a de-conversion story like his:
He appears to be sincere, and he seems to have been a genuine believer, but he has now rejected God, so despite appearances, it may be that he never experienced a true relationship with God. According to Hebrews 10:26-27, the penalty for rejecting Christ after having followed him is divine judgment with no further hope for redemption, so Ken must be in danger of this fate. He claims his motives are pure, and that he truly perceives Christianity to be untrue, but there must be some fundamental flaw in him, something that marks him off from other believers who remain faithful to the faith, or he could not justly be subject to the judgment described in Hebrews 10. I don't know what it is, but I trust God's word over Ken's. His willingness to embrace something as problematic as evolution and to believe that the universe could have formed by chance must indicate an underlying desire to disbelieve despite the evidence for God and the Bible. At times he displays an argumentative, arrogant spirit, which may reveal a willful rebellion against God. Perhaps his motives are not as pure as he claims.

On the other hand, he does seem to be aware that he's putting the eternal fate of his soul in jeopardy if he turns out to be wrong, so he must have a high degree of confidence in his belief that the gospel is not true. What could possibly have motivated him and driven him to such a degree of certainty that he would be willing to invite the disapproval of his friends, family, supporters and mission board, to live without the hope of a hereafter, to abandon his calling and sense of purpose, and to risk divine judgment? Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 2:10b-11 pertains to him: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie ..." This could mean he truly does believe what he says he believes, but God has brought this on him because of his rebellious spirit and his failure to acknowledge God for who he is.
We former believers are usually told that we were not "real" Christians. If we had been true believers we would not have departed the faith (I John 2:19) [see this link, especially comment 7]. My former Pastor had a saying, not sure where he picked it up, a faith that fizzles at the finish had a fatal flaw at the first . His brand of Calvinism demanded that he explain apostates in this fashion. The problem with saying that, however, is two-fold. 1) These individuals do not know my heart. I was as sincere in my belief and trust in Christ as I think anyone could be. 2) If I was not really saved, even though I thought I was, they cannot know for sure that they are genuine believers today. If, as Calvinism says, all genuine believers will persevere in their faith until the end, how does one know that his or her faith is genuine until the very end? There is always the possiblity that they may turn away sometime before they die thus proving that their faith was not real. So, there is no assurance of salvation for the consistent Calvinist.

I will be sharing some additonal insights from Ken Daniels' book in upcoming posts. Again, I highly recommend it.

79 comments:

  1. Ken,

    Great review. I can't wait to read this book. I don't know personally any doubting Christians. I've not experienced any Christians showing the slightest interest in reading what I might recommend. But that's okay-they have their journey and I have mine.

    But, along those lines, one thing that should bother and wake up Christians is the very issue that doubt strikes fear in their heart. Other Christians and pastors then encourage this fear. That should immediately bring to mind the word "control."

    When they have fellow Christians recommending against reading certain books, that should also be a wake-up call.

    Surely Christianity doesn't want to be seen as something that stifles free thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ken Daniel's book was the turning point for me to make the decision that I could no longer believe in the Christian God of the Bible.
    Your statement:
    "If I was not really saved, even though I thought I was, they cannot know for sure that they are genuine believers today."
    How very true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Really,

    Thanks for making me aware of this book

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for that link! As a former missionary, from a four-generation missionary family, I am encouraged to find others honestly facing the same issues I do.

    I'll start reading online immediately. (Can't wait to get the book now, but I will, to pass on.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Daniels' evangelical credentials are impeccable."

    Except the only one that matters...

    Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” ~John 3:3

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, "witness", that's right. Daniels' evangelical credentials are impeccable except for the fact that he's no longer an evangelical. That is precisely the point of the discussion.

    As for John 3:3, the assertion that you can only believe if you already believe doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling argument in favor of belief. If it were true that those who have been born again can see the Kingdom of Heaven, then surely nobody who believed would ever leave the faith; they'd be able to see the evidence that would support their belief. And yet, back here in the real world, people who at one time truly believed leave their faiths with some frequency.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Michael!

    I guees you misunderstand what it means to be "Born Again". Being born again, or saved is not based on something we do. It goes beyond mere belief in some facts. Being born again comes about by and through a sovereign act of God.

    But as many as received Him[Christ], to them He[God] gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. ~John 1:12,13

    So then, credentials, or declarations on an individuals part have nothing to do whether they are truly a Christian or not. I can declare I am the President of the United States and dress like, act like, or whatever like him. But I am not him, and tomorrow when I wake up and announce I am not really him, it was because I never was.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ken Daniels is missing something and never had what it takes to be "Born Again", and that is God's own Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you say so... but that's equally problematic in its own way. Look again at his background:

    "He was born on the mission field and reared by missionary parents. He graduated from LeTourneau University and Columbia Biblical Seminary. He joined Wycliffe Bible Translators soon after graduation from Seminary and began linguistic studies in order to translate the Bible into the dialect of a particular tribe in Africa. He spent a number of years in Africa as a missionary among these peoples."

    This is - these are - the life and actions of someone who was utterly sincere in his belief and devotion. For God to withhold His Spirit from a man like that strikes me as nothing less than cruel.

    May I assume that you consider yourself born again? I ask because I'm sure Ken Daniels did, too - and even if I'm wrong about that, there are plenty of people who did, and who subsequently left the faith. So how do you know that God isn't playing the same trick on you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Michael... just wanted to let you know my name is David... I appreciate your time.

    You pointed out how sincere Ken was and the way he lived his life; again, that has nothing to do with being saved. God does not save or give of His Spirit based on our actions or sincerity. The mistake you are making in your reasoning is misunderstanding why God saves anyone. God saves to glorify Himself as He is the only one who is deserving of glory and a honor. Notice what the Apostle Paul wrote here in 1 Corinthians…

    For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. ~1 Corinthians 1:26-29

    Note that salvation is a calling; we, who are saved, are called by God. God chooses whom He will save. The reason is that no one will be able to receive glory or honor for it. Only God will be glorified for the saving of anyone. No one will be saved because they did this or that, but by God’s grace alone

    For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. ~Ephesians 2:8,9

    Now about me… How do I know I am really saved? Because my salvation is not based on what I do, but rather what God has done and continues to do in me. I have God’s Spirit dwelling in me and to describe that witness to someone who does not have it, is like describing the color red to a blind man.

    The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God ~Romans 8:16

    But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ~1 Corinthians 2:14

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whoa, wait... Are you seriously saying that God is going to let the rest of us burn in Hell - for eternity, mind you - because saving us doesn't glorify Him?

    Don't get me wrong, I think that's a perfectly valid bit of exegesis. I'm just not used to seeing it stated so baldly.

    Because if that's really the case, you worship a monster. A monster who will save you, granted, but a monster nevertheless.

    Also, if that's the case, why are you here? God chooses whom he will save. Our actions don't make any difference. So why bother telling us about it? If God chooses to save us, He will; and if he doesn't, we'll burn.

    I'm leaving aside the question of whether Mr. Daniels ever felt God's Spirit dwelling in him, mainly because I haven't read his account and I don't know what he had to say on the matter, if anything.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ken Daniels book was excellent and played a significant role in my deconversion. I have a very similiar background to Ken's and was a missionary overseas for 10 years.

    His book would be best for someone who already has doubts and/or is questioning. My short review on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3003ROJA57UO5/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

    ReplyDelete
  13. David,

    I know that your theology demands that you say that Ken Daniels as well as I were never really saved but I find that offensive. You don't know my heart and you don't know his. Let me challenge you to read his book on-line. Then come back and talk to us about it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike what I am saying is God is glorified when He chooses to save undeserving sinners and God is glorified when He chooses to punish undeserving sinners. Believers and unbelievers are from the same lump clay. I am no better than you or anyone else, the difference is God has saved me.

    Why am I here, because I do not know whom God will save. God may have chosen to save you and God ordains that those whom He saves will share the Gospel with others. The Gospel is what God uses to bring about the knowledge of Sin and regeneration to the dead heart.

    I have to go, but if you will allow me to come back here tomorrow to answer your questions I would love to. I would like to share with you why God does what He does. If that’s ok?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Frisbee,

    Thanks for your comments. I would love to hear your story.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Ken, I know you find that offensive, it's not meant to be, but I can give analogies all day long to illustrate how people call themselves something based on a faulty understanding and really aren't.

    I don't have to know your heart or anyone elses, your unbelief is based on your own testimony. I promise to read his book and get back to you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ken... I started reading and am absolutely enthralled by it! After I get home from church tonight, I intend to stay up and ready every bit if it. I weep for him; his account is typical of someone Jesus mentions in Matthew 7:21-23.

    We'll talk tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David - It's fine by me; I'm running out of time, too.

    I would like to add that I think you're doing this backwards: reasoning from a conclusion. That is, if Mr. Daniels (and our host, for that matter) were once Christians and then became non-Christians, then it must be because they were doing it wrong; that Real True Christians, by definition, can never fall away from the faith.

    The fact that quite a few people leave Christianity even after feeling the Love of God and the Witness of the Spirit suggests to me that there's a problem with your assumptions: perhaps the evidence of the spirit is not enough to keep people from falling away. Either that, or it's flatly impossible for a human being - imperfect creatures that we are - to know for certain that what they feel is actually the indwelling of the Spirit, and not just a fleeting human emotion. Neither option strikes me as entirely satisfactory.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David,

    In chapter 14, Ken says this: I predict that not long after the publication of this book, one of the most common responses will be, "This guy never had a personal relationship with Christ. He was a follower of Christianity (the religion) but not of Christ." This conclusion will not be based on any real familiarity with my background but on a theological conviction that does not allow for the redeemed to be unredeemed.... The upshot is that I could attempt to demonstrate the authenticity of my former faith until I am blue, but for many believers, my claims will fall on deaf ears—their theology bars any conclusion other than that I was only going through the motions and was a believer in name only.

    He also makes this interesting observation: Few evangelicals conclude that a Hindu or a humanist who becomes a Christian was never a "true Hindu" or a "true humanist" in the first place. Christians generally welcome the news when true members of other worldviews convert to Christ, but they (especially Calvinists) often cannot acknowledge that true members of the Christian faith abandon it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ken,

    You have several problems in this post that are working against your truth claim rather than for it. Unwittingly you are establishing the veracity of the Bible and its Author instead of nullifying it. Both your testimony and Ken Daniels’ testimony are perfectly and accurately described in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ken,

    The length of Ken Daniels book and my need for sleep proved my desire yesterday to be a bit over zealous! :) I did make it through Chapter 6 and I must say that Mr. Daniels has been down a very difficult and painful path. The internal struggle and stressed personal relationships have been very trying for him I am sure.

    But, as Olan has already pointed out in the previous post, his testimony, and yours, establish what the Bible says is true. In fact, my own faith is strengthened by what I see in Mr. Daniel’s words and God’s. I truly feel for Mr. Daniels as his testimony is another painful result of modern day evangelicalism’s squishy theology. Not that theology saves (God does), but modern day evangelism is a seedbed and nurturer of false conversion.

    I found a number of comments Mr. Daniels made that I would like to comment on if I may. First this statement from him from a time when he was four and there was a raging thunderstorm outside his home…

    ”I called to my mother, who came and comforted me, assured me Jesus would protect us, and invited me to ask Jesus into my heart. Trustingly, I prayed a prayer to accept Jesus as my personal savior.”

    This is what he bases his original salvation on. The idea that one can be frightened by a storm and then ask Jesus into one’s heart or accept Jesus as a personal savior is patently non-biblical. The rest of his life is evidence of never having had his heart regenerated and repenting in faith. Repentance and faith from a changed heart by God is the basis for true salvation. Salvation is not initiated by anyone other than God Himself. The following statement from him proves his “salvation experience” was only spurious and false…

    ”Like many believers, I was aware of puzzles in the Christian faith even in my youth.

    At least for me, his words show someone who never understood God, man and his relationship to God, sin, or the rudiments of salvation. Mr. Daniels was exposed to faulty theology and an over-the-top fundamentalism that focuses on the externals rather than the internals. All in all… sad.

    ReplyDelete
  22. David,

    I had an email from Ken Daniels last night. Here is what he said: I'm not too surprised by the discussion following your post about my story; it's so predictable how preoccupied people get over the one question about whether a former believer was ever a true believer. I'm guessing "Witness" will read my book and find a few areas where my outlook or my understanding or my attitude is off (based on his understanding of what a true Christian is), and then he'll say, "Aha! See! That's it!" Or he may home in on some of my views expressed in my prayers while my faith was wavering and say, "Look, this proves he was off base!" (I say this from experience.)

    What you and Olan are saying is so typical. You two are convinced that you and your little group of Calvinists are the only "true" Christians. I call that the Elijah mentality I Kings 18:22. Isn't it amazing that you and Olan have hit upon the truth and the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians have got it wrong?

    Is God such a stickler that if one calls upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13) and asks for forgivness as Ken Daniels did as a 4 year old and as I did as an 18 year old, that God is not going to answer unless the individual has all of their theology straight (according to the way you define "straight")? If so, your God is not very merciful.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No... see Ken you are doing it again and thereby revealing your inability to understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14). One does not need their theology straight before God saves them.

    What you are saying is so typical. You have never experienced saving faith and so are inclined to believe that no one else has either.

    Let me ask you this, why do you think it unmerciful of God to save some and not others?

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Ken - actually, if I'm following David's theology correctly, it's even weirder and more arbitrary than that. God will answer - or not - for ineffable reasons of His own, apparently based on what will "glorify" Him (or, alternately, on making sure that nobody else is glorified by the process). Why an all knowing and all powerful being would need to be glorified, I can't say; I would think that glory would be inherent to His being.

    That also implies that God sends the unsaved to burn for eternity, not for lack of faith or good works - not, in other words, on the basis of any sort of merit - but because saving us would not glorify Him.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ken I like how you refer to me as...

    "you and your little group of Calvinists"

    I did not hit upon the truth, God hit me with it. The truth is very few are saved and much of that which calls itself Christian is not. I again refer to to what Jesus said...

    Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. ~Matthew 7:14

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ ~Matthew 7:21-23

    ReplyDelete
  26. Michael,

    David's theology really demands him to say that only the elect (those that God chose in eternity) are genuinely saved and they can be saved only after they have been regenerated first. Regneration precedes faith in strict Calvinism. So, David's theology is really just saying that Ken Daniels and Ken Pulliam were never part of the elect. They tried to get in on "the action" but because they were not chosen by God they never were saved and never "understood the things of God" ( 1 Cor. 2:14).

    ReplyDelete
  27. David,

    I know those verses as well you do. I just think its very arrogant to consider yourself part of "God's specially chosen". The God you believe in is not merciful nor is he just. He creates man, stacks the deck against him so that he falls, and then condemns the entire human race to eternal torment. You think he is merciful because he decides to reach down and save a "few." Would you think the same if you did not believe you were part of the elect? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Ken,

    I have posted a response here on how you are unwittingly establishing the veracity of the Bible and its Author. I didn't address all the issues in this post but only the heart of the matter. We'll have an in-depth conversation if you like either here or there.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Mike! God does save based on His own reasons, you got that right! You also got it right that He will make sure no one else is glorifed by it. IOW no one else will get any credit for being saved other than Him.

    Then you said this...

    "Why an all knowing and all powerful being would need to be glorified, I can't say; I would think that glory would be inherent to His being."

    The reason is that God is the only who is worthy to be glorified, that is to be known, loved and exalted as infinitely valuable. As far as those who enter into hell, it is for sin, falling short of God's glory and breaking His laws.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ken I never said you or Michael were not elect. I do not know that and only God does. You may yet be saved. And you are right about one thing I would not think God merciful or just if He had not saved me. I would still be dead in my trespasses and sins and unable to believe like you.

    I am not arrogant, just saved and undeservedly so. I am no different than you, other than God chose to save me for His own reasons, not because I am worthy of it in any way. In fact I am no more deserving of it than you. My prayer is that God will have mercy on you and save you as well.

    What grounds do you have for God’s apparent injustice?

    ReplyDelete
  31. David,

    The funny thing is that I used to believe exactly like you do now. If we were having this discussion 20 years ago I would have agreed 100% with what you just said. I would like to think that I have grown beyond that type of "provincial" thinking.

    As far as holding out hope for me to yet be saved, forget about it. Try reading Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29 and 2 Pet. 2:20-22. If you believe your Bible, then there is no hope for apostates like me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ken I am honestly and painfully sorry you found other things worth more than the love of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ken,

    I appreciate your last comment, As far as holding out hope for me to yet be saved, forget about it. Try reading Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29 and 2 Pet. 2:20-22. If you believe your Bible, then there is no hope for apostates like me.

    That is true.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ David - First you tell me that God only saves the ones he chooses to save, without regard for their moral worth. Then you tell me that the ones he doesn't save burn in hell "for their sins" - but I don't see how their sins can be the cause, when clearly the cause is that God has not chosen to regenerate their hearts.

    If, as you insist, it's all down to God, then the fact some significant fraction of the human race is born to burn for eternity can only be his fault.

    I am aware of the doctrine of original sin, but that only tells me that God has chosen to punish the unsaved for the sins of a semi-mythical ancestor from thousands of generations back, rather than fix the problems that He allowed Adam to cause. So, again, I'm forced to assume that this is the arrangement that God wants. If that's the case, I can only view God as a monstrous sadist. That he chooses to spare, and even reward, a few of his potential victims makes no difference at all.

    Similarly, you suggest that "One does not need their theology straight before God saves them." In that case, I ask again: what are you doing here? What's the point of proselytizing, or correcting our errors, or whatever it is that you're doing? Surely if an all powerful God wants us, He'll let us know.

    Come to think of it... if God selects whom He will save in such fashion that nobody but God is glorified by it, then you're almost certainly compromising our chances of salvation by telling us how it works. After all, if we were to suddenly get Saved, we might glorify you for your role in the process...

    ReplyDelete
  35. I should add that I don't actually hold any of the positions I just articulated; I see them as a logical consequence of your position, but I disagree with your underlying assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  36. No, what I found was that what I had believed to be the love of Christ was in fact imaginary. People imagine all kinds of things and they are personally convinced of them usually. For example, there are plenty of people today who are convinced that they have seen the Virgin Mary or have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit or have encounted aliens from outer space. You can argue with them until you are blue in the face and they will never deny what they sincerely believe they have seen or felt. In your case, you probably would reject them all as being deluded. That is precisely what I think of evangelical Christians--they are deluded. I don't expect to be able to convince you of that any more than I can convince my neighbor who says the Virgin Mary appeared to her.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ken,

    You said, No, what I found was that what I had believed to be the love of Christ was in fact imaginary.

    Well now, that is not the heart knowledge based on illumination that is necessary for salvation. It is what you have said, imagination. Because one imagines himself to be saved no matter how sincerely doesn't make it so. So your sincerity theory is shot!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mike you said this...

    "I am aware of the doctrine of original sin, but that only tells me that God has chosen to punish the unsaved for the sins of a semi-mythical ancestor from thousands of generations back, rather than fix the problems that He allowed Adam to cause."

    We are sinners by nature and inherited that nature from our father Adam. Each individual will be punished for their own sin. You have sinned, I have sinned, etc. If you do not repent and trust Christ as your Savior then you will reap the wages of that sin.

    The reason I am here is because God commands me to share the Gospel and through that He saves people. God uses His Word to bring the knowledge of sin and repentance for that sin.

    Plus Ken was just mischaracterizing what it means to be saved on another board so I offered to give the biblical perspective.

    The Bible clearly teaches God is sovereign in salvation by choosing, for His own purposes, whom He will save. So, it is not just an assumption on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Olan & witness,

    One question: do you believe that humans have intrinsic worth and value in their created, pre-redeemed state?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Eric our intrinsic worth and value is found in that God created us in His image.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Olan,

    I didn't think it was imaginary then. I sincerely believed it then. Have you never changed your mind on anything? Once you changed it does it mean you didn't really believe it before?

    ReplyDelete
  42. David,

    You said: We are sinners by nature and inherited that nature from our father Adam. Each individual will be punished for their own sin.

    Is it possible for anyone born of Adam not to sin?

    You said: Ken was just mischaracterizing what it means to be saved on another board.

    Can you please document your assertion?

    You said: The Bible clearly teaches God is sovereign in salvation by choosing, for His own purposes, whom He will save. So, it is not just an assumption on my part.

    It is an assumption because you are assuming that the Bible is the Word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi witness,

    What does that mean, "in His image"? Is it kind of like a child bearing the image of his parents? Does God have that kind of love for ALL the people he creates?

    And just what good is that intrinsic worth and value for the unredeemed or apostate? As that person stands before the judgment throne, can appeal to his "made in God's image" humanity before being cast into hell?

    Also, doesn't the New Testament repeatedly refer to the unredeemed as "children of the devil" or "children of disobedience"?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Eric and Ken I will have to get back to you later as I am having a problem with some web apps on a server I maintain. I will be back as long as Ken will graciously allow.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "We are sinners by nature and inherited that nature from our father Adam."

    Did Adam have a sinful nature? Or are we being punished for his sin? As far as I can see, it's either one or the other; being all-powerful, God didn't have to allow the taint of Adam's sin to fall on his descendents as well. A truly omnipotent being could easily arrange for the descendents of the Second Sinner to be born innocent, rather than sinful, if He chose to.

    So either He designed us to have a sinful nature (starting with Adam), in which case He clearly wants people to end up in hell; or else He's punishing us for Adam's sin by afflicting us with a sinful nature (with the result that many end up in hell), in which case He's monstrously unjust.

    I keep coming back to that word, "monstrous," which is odd because I don't usually think of God that way.

    "If you do not repent and trust Christ as your Savior then you will reap the wages of that sin."

    But that is exactly what Ken Daniels was taught from birth to do, and you tell me that God didn't deign to offer Mr. Daniels His Grace. Why should I expect to be treated any differently? Why should you?

    On the one hand, you tell us that "One does not need their theology straight before God saves them" and on the other hand you say that Mr. Daniels fell away from Christianity because he was Doing It Wrong. How are these not mutually contradictory positions?

    Also... Nobody calls me Mike. If I wanted to be called Mike, my username would say Mike. (Or Mike-Mock, which sounds like a cartoon sound effect.) As an attempt at friendly familiarity, it's backfiring badly; it comes across as overbearing and intrusive.

    Take your time; I'll check back later.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ken,

    You said, I didn't think it was imaginary then. I sincerely believed it then. Have you never changed your mind on anything? Once you changed it does it mean you didn't really believe it before?

    But you have since said that it was imaginary and therefore it wasn't based on knowledge but on imagination. Simply put, if what you believed wasn't based on knowledge but was based on imagination, you weren't a true believer no matter how sincere your false faith. This is the testimony of Scripture and you are establishing its veracity.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Olan,

    My conclusion NOW is that the idea of Christ dying for sins and rising from the dead is false. At the time my conclusion was that it was true.

    I will ask again. Have you ever believed something was true and then later changed your mind?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'll add this. Back when I was an Evangelical Christian, I liked to focus on three aspects of the nature of Man, which I called the "three D's": Dignity (as made in God's image), Depravity (sin nature), and Dependency (on God).

    (By the way, non-Christians I evangelized to liked the "dignity" part.)

    But I came to conclude that under traditional Christian doctrine, "depravity" dominated and ultimately negated "dignity." In the end -- and indeed even from the beginning -- the only "dignity" that one could obtain or ever had was the imputed righteousness of Christ. Without it, per Christian theology, one is condemned to hell.

    Which means that under Christian theology, "dignity" isn't intrinsic after all. It is acquired or imputed. Being "made in God's image" has no eternal value and is ultimately meaningless.

    The failure of core Christian doctrine to affirm intrinsic dignity; the arrogant & deeply demeaning implication that you only have value or worth if you are a believer; and the connection I observed between this theology and the typical ethnocentrism so popular amongst the religious right; led to the unraveling of my faith.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ken,

    No. I was an agnostic before I was saved :)

    Over and over you are establishing the veracity of the Bible and its Author. The Bible never says that we must believe the idea of Christ dying for sins and rising from the dead and it never says that we must imagine the love of Christ for us but that we must come to know and believe the love which God has for us (1 John 4:16) and that we must confess with our mouths Jesus as Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9).

    You give testimony to believing the idea of Christ dying for sins and rising from the dead and of imagining the love of Christ but never of knowing either one.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Eric,

    I know that you addressed me also in your question and I am not avoiding it. I will have to answer later tonight or sometime tomorrow. Off to church. But I would like to leave you with this thought: In your current worldview how much dignity does man have and why?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Over and over you are establishing the veracity of the Bible and its Author."

    Um, what? That you feel you can reconcile Ken's experience with your reading of the Bible is not exactly a compelling proof of its veracity.

    As for this distinction you keep trying to draw between believing and knowing, that strikes me a purely semantic quibble. We must come to know and believe? What does that even mean? If you know, then there's no need to believe - any more than I believe in gravity. (I don't have to believe, it's right there.) The statement only makes sense if the two words are reinforcing each other, rather than describing two separate kinds of experience.

    More to the point, as imperfect beings there is no reliable way for us to ascertain the difference between temporal believing and eternal knowing; all our knowledge is imperfect.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Olan,

    I look forward to your answer.

    Your counter-question is poignant and it is a question everyone should ask of themselves. It is my own litmus test for worldviews and why I ascribe neither to Christianity nor athiesm.

    I have a powerful heart-felt conviction -- perhaps instilled in my mind by evolutionary biology; perhaps instilled by God or his Spirit (like the kind you allude to in your last post to Ken); I frankly don't know -- in the intrinsic dignity of being human. (And that extends to you too, Olan).

    I am not here to create, promote, and proselytize a new metaphysical worldview.

    I simply want you to explain the position of your worldview on intrinsic dignity, and how you square that up with the doctrines of original sin, hell, predestination, and the like, and with hundreds of inspired but deeply dehumanizing (to the unredeemed, to apostates, to the Amalakites, etc.) Bible passages.

    The fact is, core Christian doctrines relegate being made in God's image to little more than a meaningless footnote. It provides a basis for the proscription of murder in this brief breath of a life, but one's status as being made in God's image clearly has no eternal significance.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Olan,

    I asked you: Have you ever believed something was true and then later changed your mind?

    To which you replied: No. I was an agnostic before I was saved :)

    I take it you were trying to be funny but I would like for you to honestly answer the question as it is fundamental to what we are discussing.

    You said: You give testimony to believing the idea of Christ dying for sins and rising from the dead and of imagining the love of Christ but never of knowing either one.

    Olan you are playing word games. Let me reiterate for the nth time.

    If you had asked me 20 years ago, do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose again. I would have said an emphatic YES. If you had asked me, do you know the love of Christ? I would have answered an emphatic YES.

    If you ask me today to explain how it was that I was so certain back then but today I am not a believer, I would say that I was deluded.

    I don't think its possible to make it any clearer in the English language.

    Now, I know you want to quibble over this word or that word because you MUST find some excuse to say I wasn't really saved in order to stay consistent with your theology. Can't you see that your theology is demanding that you deny what I have said? If we were talking about any other subject besides theology, you wouldn't be quibbling over whether I really believed or not.

    At one time, I really believed in Santa Claus. I was as certain of his reality as any 5 or 6 year old could be certain of anything. Why did I believe it? Because the authority figures in my life told me it was true. People around me, my brother and cousins, supported the story. The evidence of presents under the tree on Christmas morning seemed to confirm his existence.

    Now that I no longer believe in Santa Claus, does that mean I didn't really believe in him back when I was a child? Come on, Olan, get real. My patience is beginning to wear down.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Olan & David,

    Since we're on the subject of a deep heart-felt "knowledge," have you not ever felt alienated or anguished by the doctrines of original sin, hell, and predestination?

    Have you ever felt alienated from God thinking about the horror of all those who perish? Did you ever watch Schindler's List and think, through tears, how could have most of the millions of Jews who perished in the Holocaust only meet a God that condemned them to an even worse fate, and infinitely greater torment, in everlasting hell? It is unthinkable, isn't it? And if it isn't, where is your humanity?

    Have you ever felt alienated from fellow man by the belief you are saved while others about you are perishing?

    My own heart-felt assurance and conviction in Christianity was gradually and continually eroded by that deepening anguish and alienation.

    Michael Mock said it well: "That [God] chooses to spare, and even reward, a few of his potential victims makes no difference at all."

    I should add this: my adoption of a 4-year old orphan about a year ago (our first/only child) forced me to confront all these issues afresh.

    I simply cannot relate to him in the fearful authoritarian way I related all of my life to God.

    I love my son so dearly. I could never imagine condemning him to hell.

    Yet to believe that God would condemn those He made in his own image to eternal infinite torment, and for his glory no less, is -- or should be -- deeply alienating.

    Have you not felt that alienation or anguiah? I hope you have. I would like to think apologists are more likely -- than your average lay believer -- to anguish over these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Eric,

    I can't speak for Olan and David but one of the so-called "great" Calvinist theologians, Jonathan Edwards, actually taught that the bliss of heaven would be increased for the redeemed by watching the damned in hell. Since they would know how gracious God was in keeping them from the torment.

    That is how warped a person's mind can become with religion.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ken,

    When I read about that in Ken Daniels' book (which I am reading through -- I agree it's a terrific book), I had to look that up.

    Here's a link to that sermon:

    [url=http://www.jonathan-edwards.org/Eternity.html
    ]http://www.jonathan-edwards.org/Eternity.html[/url]

    "[T]he sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever.... When they see others, who were of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, O it will make ...them sensible how happy they are. A sense of the opposite misery, in all cases, greatly increases the relish of any joy or pleasure."

    One assumes that Edwards would have really gotten an ecstatic foretaste of heavenly joy out of the Holocaust.

    Fortunately, I have never met anyone today who would agree with Edwards.

    Nevertheless, the modern Evangelical argument would still suggest that someone with Edward's redeeming faith/belief system would be rewarded with heaven -- because you are saved if you have the right beliefs -- but someone with Gandhi's belief system (an exemplary contrast) would burn in hell.

    Apparently, salvific beliefs have nothing to do with your beliefs about fellow man.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Eric,

    Thanks for the link. While very few today, if any, would be so undiplomatic as to phrase things the way Edwards did, I think that if Calvinism is correct, then Edwards was right. Certainly, God is aware of the punishment going on in hell, according to Calvinist theology, and it apparently causes him no pain but rather brings him glory, and since in heaven, the believer becomes one in will and desire as God, then it stands to reason that the believer would see hell as a good thing too.

    I think that evangelicals today try to sugarcoat their theology to make it more palatable to modern man. They ignore or try to explain away the genocides in the OT, the slavery, etc. and then they want to water down hell (pun intended) by making it either annihilation or just separation from God but not the flaming inferno that the book of Revelation or Jesus himself spoke of. These passages are a public relations nightmare for the evangelical church in America today. BTW, my posts on infant salvation is an attempt to illustrate this point. The fact is that the Bible gives no assurance to the parent of a dead infant that the infant is in heaven. If anything, the theology of original sin would demand that the child be in hell. That is so distasteful to modern people that Christians pretend that the Bible teaches something that it doesn't--namely that all children go to heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Speaking of infants & Calvinism, here's a quote that expresses Calvin's thoughts on intrinsic dignity:

    "[E]ven infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God."

    Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8

    Incidentally, I started reading Calvin's Institutes for "devotional" purposes back in 1994. It was thoroughly Biblical and oppressive; I only made it through about 1/4 of it before I sunk into a spiritual melancholy.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ken,

    You said, Have you ever believed something was true and then later changed your mind?

    I believed at one time that I was my own source of truth and that what was true to me was my truth and what was true to anyone else was his truth.

    You said, Olan you are playing word games.

    Actually I am not playing word games. I am showing from your own words that the belief that you had was just that, yours.

    You said, Now, I know you want to quibble over this word or that word because you MUST find some excuse to say I wasn't really saved in order to stay consistent with your theology.

    You MUST maintain that you were once a true believe and not just a sincere one because if you don't you give absolute veracity to the Bible and its Author.

    As I said before and you refuse to acknowledge, "Because one imagines himself to be saved no matter how sincerely doesn't make it so. So your sincerity theory is shot!"

    A man's sincerity is just that - a man's! So the belief you had was yours and not that which is given by God as a gift.

    Why would any apostate want to prove that his former belief was of the saving type? He would give credibility to the Bible!

    ReplyDelete
  60. My last statement should have said, Otherwise he would give credibility to the Bible!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Olan,

    We are going around in circles. If you want to believe I was never really saved, be my guest. But remember, I was as certain of my salvation back then (for over 15 years) as you are now and I based my assurance on the same Scripture you base yours on now. So if I wasn't really saved back then, you may not be either. Selah.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hi Eric,

    As far as intrinsic dignity or value, man is more valuable than the lower life forms because of his position in creation. However, dignity or value can be lost. When that happens to objects that belong to us we do one of two things: (1) either we send them to the trash dump or (2) we restore them back to items that we treasure.

    This is precisely the biblical record - "All have turned aside, together they have become useless" (Romans 3:12).

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ken,

    There's a huge difference between the belief that you had and the belief that I have and that according to your own words. You based your assurance on your sincerity and not the Scriptures.

    Apostatizing is a reality in the Scriptures for those who never were truly saved. But it is an impossibility for those who are.

    There are a lot of apostates today who are still religious and still in churches and still pastoring who would claim that they have biblical assurance of their salvation but who would nonetheless fail the test. I'll give you one example - Rick Warren.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Olan,

    This is my last post to you because frankly I don't care if you think I was saved or not. If you go over to your blog and look at the answer I gave you when asked me what I based on my salvation on, I said: I based it on the testimony of Scripture and the inner conviction of what I perceived to be the Holy Spirit.

    I never said I based it on sincerity. I mentioned that I was sincere but I didn't base my salvation nor my assurance of salvation on my sincerity. I would have told people back then that they can be sincerely wrong. I believed the Scripture when it said that I was a sinner, that Christ died for me, and that if I would confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead, I would be saved. If that is not good enough for you, fine. I really don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Olan,

    I appreciate your stunning honesty about Christianity's position on intrinsic dignity.

    Better than the animals but (unless redeemed) still just rubbish.

    According to orthodox Christian doctrine, that dignity was lost from the moment of conception, so no one really ever had any intrinsic dignity from the second generation of mankind on.

    "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." Psalm 51:5

    "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." Psalm 58:3.

    And yet the very appeal of Christianity is that God restored dignity, worth, and value to sinners such as yourself. From your own testimony, I imagine you felt pretty unworthy. The appeal of, and best argument for, Christianity is the restoration of dignity, value and worth that redemption offers.

    But in the end, Christianity simply offers a tribal dignity. You have dignity if you join and stay loyal to the tribe; but you have no dignity outside of the tribe or if you betray the tribe.

    This tribal view of dignity explains the slaughter of the Amalekite infants too. They weren't part of the tribe.

    Why deny that dignity from birth; why deny that dignity to those outside your preferred tribe? It is, after all, dignity that appeals to you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I've found this entire back-and-forth fascinating, and had to read it all. Olan and David (witness), I've had a life-course similar to Ken's (whose history I know in some detail), and probably to Eric's and other participants here: from committed (undoubting, experiencing the "love of Christ"), "born again," well biblically educated Christian to a "spiritual but not religious"--or Christian--kind of posture.

    I have to concur with the "de-converted" on a key point: that I eventually (around age 45, after 30 years a Bible student/apologist) had to conclude, based on Scripture (using Greek as well as English translations), that there is no real basis for "assurance of salvation." (I concluded lots of other heretical things, as well.) I think some part of each of you, and other Christians, realizes this. It's not a comfortable position.

    I now perceive that much of apologetics and detailed theology is more than anything an attempt to bolster a faith (Christian theology) with very weak evidential foundations and having logical inconsistencies, contorted reasoning.

    I appreciated Michael's questions about your reasons to "be here." Like all of us on a given issue, you may not know the deeper aspects of that. But my guess is that, in part, it is because you have many of the same questions we others have had, and are hoping that your answers are adequate. And maybe you sense that, if you keep exploring truth, it WILL "set you free," but that it will be very inconvenient and perhaps costly (in relationship and ego stress, if nothing else). There are factors and resources that can mitigate that, including us here, and many similar blogs, books, groups, etc. I hope we can be of help, should you decide you want it.

    Howard

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yes Eric,

    that is precisely right. There are the redeemed and the unredeemed and what makes one a member of the redeemed is not that he imagines himself or holds to the idea that he is redeemed but he actually is redeemed. The redeemed never get over the fact that they were trash before they became treasure.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Howard,

    Have you never read, "And these whom He predestined, He also called, and these whom He called He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified" (Romans 8:30)?

    ReplyDelete
  69. olan strickland said, "There are the redeemed and the unredeemed and what makes one a member of the redeemed is not that he imagines himself or holds to the idea that he is redeemed but he actually is redeemed."

    Counterpoint: I submit that it is impossible for any human being to know that he or she is truly redeemed. We are imperfect creatures, and quite capable of deluding ourselves - about anything. Add to that, being Elect is an eternal quality; but our understanding (at least while we live) is temporal, mortal, and limited. As human beings, we are simply incapable of accurately evaluating eternal truths.

    To put that another way, in this life it is impossible to know that you are saved.

    So every time you say, "I'm different because I know that I'm saved, whereas you just believed that you were saved," all I hear is, "I'm arrogant enough to believe that I know the mind of God."

    ReplyDelete
  70. Olan,

    The humility of regarding your former self as trash will never compensate for viewing others also as trash.

    And I'll bet you still feel like trash. How can you not, when meditating over Romans 6-8 (which I memorized in full as a teenager), or other passages about reckoning our natural selves crucified and buried with Christ.

    I certainly did.

    You see, from a Biblical perspective, there isn't anything good about your created nature or its passions or desires. Even its aspirations and acts of charity toward others are "filthy rags." You must continually empty (and negate) yourself completely so that you can purely reflect Christ.

    Francis Schaeffer liked to write about pushing nonbelievers to the edge of despair. It was constantly meditating on passages like those I mention above that drove me to despair.

    Do you not feel that despair sometimes? So many Christians do.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Michael,

    Your counterpoint is just that - yours! If you were equal to God and His Word then you could write or rewrite the Bible so that it says that we cannot know that we are truly redeemed - but IT doesn't. I'll trust God instead of you if you don't mind.

    Do you live by your convictions? Are you sure you're not deluding yourself about this? If so then don't be so dogmatic!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Coming back to the same thought from another direction:

    Olan, you think there's a qualitative difference between 'believing' that you're saved and 'knowing' that you're saved. The former is fleeting and false; the latter is eternal and true.

    By contrast, I see only a difference in perspectives. Ken Daniels and our host are looking at the certainty of salvation from the outside, so they perceive that certainty as something they 'believed' (and you still believe). You are looking at it from the inside, so you perceive it as something you 'know' - but it's the same certainty. The only difference is in how one happens to be looking at it.

    This is what is known as an irreducible conflict, as there's no way to test the validity of those views without dying - and by then it would be too late to do anything about it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Eric,

    I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh. That is the resounding testimony of all true believers. And yes I know that all men are sinners and that apart from being redeemed are headed to the eternal gehenna.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "I'll trust God instead of you if you don't mind."

    That's entirely your business. My point is only that you cannot know (in the eternal sense) that what you're doing actually is what God wants; that what you believe actually is The Truth.

    We all do the best we can with limited information and limited understanding. Even if the Bible is the precise and literal Word of God, perfect in every way, here on Earth there are no perfect readers to understand it completely. We're bound to get something wrong; that's what people do.

    And that is precisely why I object when you state categorically that someone else's experience cannot be what they say it is.

    ReplyDelete
  75. But Michael,

    You can't be sure. Your conviction is that all human beings are quite capable of deluding themselves about anything. Why you even bother to argue is beyond me. I no longer live by such illogical convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Michael,

    The eternal God can communicate His infinite truth to finite creatures. It is on the basis of His Truth that He has revealed in His Word that I can categorically say that someone else's experience cannot be what he says it is.

    If I speak according to what God has said then I am making a righteous judgment that is not based on appearance (see John 7:24). This is precisely why we are told in the Bible not to believe every truth claim but to test them to see whether or not they are from God (1 John 4:1-6).

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Your conviction is that all human beings are quite capable of deluding themselves about anything."

    I would say rather that my experience is that human beings are capable of deluding themselves about anything.

    "The eternal God can communicate His infinite truth to finite creatures."

    That may be so, but finite creatures cannot tell the difference between eternal god communicating his infinite truth, and a chemical imbalance in the brain; which is why you can have murderers who think that "God told me to do it."

    "If I speak according to what God has said then I am making a righteous judgment that is not based on appearance (see John 7:24)."

    Perhaps; or perhaps you're taking the Name of the Lord in vain by presuming to speak for Him. For someone who claims to have no worth outside of what God has chosen for you, you have a very high opinion of your ability to understand His ways.

    It's not the Christianity that bothers me; it's the arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Michael,

    Are you sure that's not what you are experiencing right now with yourself?

    Also your example of a murderer saying that God told him to do it is quickly and easily verified in the Bible as not being from God.

    You said, For someone who claims to have no worth outside of what God has chosen for you, you have a very high opinion of your ability to understand His ways.

    Understanding His ways is part of what God has chosen for me. His ways are discovered in His Word by those who are redeemed.

    You said, It's not the Christianity that bothers me; it's the arrogance.

    Are you sure?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Well, there's always the possibility that I'm wrong, and that God will... how did David put it? ...hit me with His truth. It hasn't happened so far, and I don't see any reason to think it will, but I suppose it could.

    But if you're asking whether I'm sure I think you're arrogant, then the answer is yes. You just told me that you believe that you can understand an all-knowing, all-powerful being who exists outside of space and time, and judge people based on your special understanding. Pushing it back a level - by saying that it's not you that's special, it's just that God chose to let you understand him - doesn't really take away from the underlying arrogance of the assertion.

    If you're asking whether I'm sure that your arrogance bothers me, the answer is a resounding yes. The sly little implication that if I bother to discuss these things at all, there must be a Jesus-shaped hole in my life is laughably incorrect.

    And, of course, if you're asking whether I'm sure that it's not Christianity that bothers me, the answer is still yes. I've nothing against Christianity; my reasons for not being a Christian have nothing to do with any perceived slight from a Christian, or bad experience with a church, or anger at god, or desire to sin freely. As a general rule, I tend to think of Christianity - and religion in general - as an intriguing byproduct of human nature; sometimes dazzlingly good, sometimes heartwrenchingly evil, but overall mostly a harmless diversion.

    The fact that your words bother someone does not always indicate that that person secretly worries that you might be right; sometimes it just means that you're being a prick.

    ReplyDelete