So long, and thanks for all the guilt!

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

2010-08-14T22:38:00.002+08:00

Here's a very good book that I just finished while on holidays in Australia. It is written by one of my heroes of Biblical scholarship, Bart D. Ehrman. Don't be put off by the fact that he's a Biblical scholar, it is very readable and entirely fascinating.

From Publishers Weekly

What if Marcion's canon-which consisted only of Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity's canon? What if the Ebionites-who believed Jesus was completely human and not divine-had ruled the day as the Orthodox Christian party? What if various early Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Secret Gospel of Mark, had been allowed into the canonical New Testament? Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture), a professor of religion at UNC Chapel Hill, offers answers to these and other questions in this book, which rehearses the now-familiar story of the tremendous diversity of early Christianity and its eventual suppression by a powerful "proto-orthodox" faction. The proto-orthodox Christians won out over many other groups, and bequeathed to us the four Gospels, a church hierarchy, a set of practices and beliefs, and doctrines such as the Trinity. Ehrman eloquently characterizes some of the movements and Scriptures that were lost, such as the Ebionites and the Secret Gospel of Mark, as he outlines the many strands of Christianity that competed for attention in the second and third centuries. He issues an important reminder that there was no such thing as a monolithic Christian orthodoxy before the fourth century. While Ehrman sometimes raises interesting questions (e.g., are Paul's writings sympathetic to women?), his book covers territory already well-explored by others (Gregory Riley, The River of God; Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief), generating few fresh or provocative insights.

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

2010-07-19T20:08:00.001+08:00

Here's the latest book causing a wee stir amongst the Atheist/Agnostic/ex-Christian scene:

Below is a summary from an ex-Christian blogger:

April 10, 2010

By	Ken R. Pulliam (Atlanta, GA)

This review is from: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (Paperback)

This newly published book is an anthology containing 15 chapters written by 9 scholars, most of which were at one time conservative Christians. It surveys the problems with Christianity from a number of different angles--sociological, psychological, scientific, historical, and biblical. It is the probably the single best volume available today to debunk evangelical Christianity. It brings together a variety of arguments into one work, that prior to its publication, would have required one to sift through dozens of books to find them. While there are some areas that still could be covered, for example, the immoral and illogical nature of the atonement (a topic near to my heart), nevertheless, it covers most of the bases.

Chapter One is written by anthropologist David Eller and discusses how Christianity is a phenomena that can be understood purely on cultural and sociological grounds.

Chapter Two is by psychologist Valerie Tarico who examines the concept of belief (or faith) as it is presently understood by neurologists and shows that it is rarely based on evidence or arguments.

Chapter Three is by pharmacist Jason Long who deals with how religious ideas develop in people and how they hold on to them regardless of the evidence.

Chapter Four is by former Pastor and Christian apologist John Loftus who explains his Outsider Test for Faith. He invites people to "step outside" of their belief system and evaluate their religion in the same way they would evaluate a religion that they do not hold.

Chapter Five is by librarian Ed Babinski who has studied Young Earth Creationism extensively. He clearly presents the pre-scientific understanding of the cosmos as held by biblical writers and shows that it is impossible to reconcile that understanding with what is currently known in science.

Chapter Six is by author (The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus ) Paul Tobin who shows that the historical criticism of the Bible reveals that it contains errors, inconsistencies, myths, legends, and forgeries.

Chapter Seven has John Loftus returning to demonstrate how the Bible fails to communicate clearly. He shows how interpretational conflicts over the meaning of Scripture has led to millions of deaths as well as untold suffering through the ages. He argues that one would expect an omniscient God to be able to communicate his will in a much better fashion.

Chapter Eight is by biblical scholar Hector Avalos and discusses why the God of the Old Testament is a cruel and monstrous tyrant in spite of Christian apologists attempt to justify him.

Chapter Nine is my favorite chapter in the book. In it John Loftus returns to lay out the problem of animal suffering and examine 8 different ways Christians have tried to reconcile that suffering with a good God. He shows convincingly that each Christian answer fails and that there is no reconciliation possible.

Chapter Ten is by NT scholar Robert Price who, in his own unique and sarcastic way, demolishes the attempts by evangelicals to wiggle out of the implications of biblical criticism.

Chapter Eleven is by historian Richard Carrier who applies the Outsider Test of Faith to the "historical evidence" put forward by Christian apologists for the resurrection. He demonstrates conclusively that if one treats the NT as historians treat every other ancient document, the teaching that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead is untenable.

Chapter Twelve brings John Loftus back again to show that Jesus of Nazareth is but one in a long list of failed apocalyptic prophets. He demonstrates that Jesus taught the world would end in the lifetime of the disciples and that all of the first century believers including Paul thought Jesus would return at any moment. He goes on to show how Christians have had to rethink their eschatological ideas in light of the failure of Jesus to return.

Chapter Thirteen is a repeat performance by David Eller in which he explodes a commonly held myth that morality must be based on a divine being. He proves that morality is merely an expression of one's culture.

Chapter Fourteen has Hector Avalos returning to deal with the argument put forward by Christians that the holocaust and the other atrocities committed by Adolph Hitler were a result of Darwinian or atheistic ideology. He shows that instead Hitler's motivating factors were actually the example of the Roman Catholic Church and the teaching of Martin Luther about the Jews.

Chapter Fifteen is another essay by Richard Carrier in which he shows the absurdity of the Christian claim that modern science is based upon the precepts of the Christian worldview.

Once again, this is an excellent volume and I highly recommend it to anyone who is willing to examine the evidence and think seriously about the Christian faith. I am sure many Christians will be afraid to read it or even advised by their leaders not to read it. But as Socrates is reported to have said: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The Argument from Authority

2010-07-15T21:31:00.001+08:00

I have been reading Dan Barker's book, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. I found a great portion that deals with basing an argument on authority or consensus. I liked what he had to say.

This quote comes from page 81,

Jesus is coming back...Quick, look busy!

2010-07-15T21:20:00.001+08:00

I started, and have been heavily involved with, a discussion concerning the return of Jesus (or lack thereof) on a forum I am co-moderating.

Some good issues have been raised and I have actually learned a lot as the discussion had unfolded. There was a lot about Preterism that was new to me.

Have a look at the discussion here.

Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary (2009)

2010-04-22T13:15:00.008+08:00

I am now reading an online book, Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary by Ken Daniels. It's another memoir by an ex-Christian. I am drawn to these kinds of books for obvious reasons. The thing that sets Daniels apart from other authors of this kind is that he writes with very little venom or sarcasm. He makes the point in his preface that this was intentional, but I think one must really be free of resentment to successfully write in the style he does. He pulls it off, so ten points to him. I know I would still want to rip into Fundys and Evangelicals if I were to write my story. I guess this means my time to do so is not yet.

The thing that struck me was how similar his thinking was to mine as he deconverted. His story is certainly very different to mine, but a lot of the conclusions he drew are identical to my own. What I want to do here is paste some quotes from Daniel's book that resonated with me or mirrored my own journey.

Why Even Be Concerned?

(Chapter 1)

Why should I be concerned with what other people believe, as long as they aren't causing any harm, or as long as their beliefs lead to admirable acts of charity? I have heard this objection from a number of Christians, an objection I find surprising in light of the Apostle Paul's view:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men (1 Corinthians 15:14-18).

Paul goes on to assert that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, but if his assertion is mistaken, then according to these verses, my intention to bring that to light should be seen as a noble endeavor. I don't quite concur with Paul that Christians are to be pitied more than all men if their faith is baseless. After all, knowing the truth is not a precondition for happiness; there are happy and unhappy members of every religion. But Paul does make a valid point: devoting our life to an illusion is not the best use of the only life we have.

Mormon Similarities

(Chapter 2)

One of my best friends that year was a Mormon, so I read extensively on Mormonism from an evangelical perspective, finding numerous faults in the Latter Day Saints' scriptures and discussing them with my friend into the wee hours of the morning. After I pointed out a number of historical and theological flaws in Mormonism, he confided in me, "Religion is a bitch." I responded that no, it was clear the universe was created by a personal being, and so it was a no-brainer that we needed to give him our allegiance. I never did convince him to leave his faith, but I became more confident in the moorings of my own faith. I did agree to read an apologetic book he gave me entitled A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (Richards 1950) and was able to find enough faults in its reasoning to dismiss it quite readily. It did not occur to me to apply the same level of criticism to Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict (McDowell 1979), a popular evangelical apologetic work I read during that same year.

The Old Testament

(Chapter 2)

Often when I had been tempted to doubt earlier, I would remind myself of the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible outlined in Evidence that Demands a Verdict (McDowell 1979) and other apologetic works. But I was confused as to why on the one hand the Old Testament seemed so ugly while at the same time it seemed to have amazing predictive ability. The prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel particularly impressed me because of its accuracy in predicting the time of the messiah's coming. Subsequently I found arguments on both sides of the issue on the Internet, but the skeptical explanations began to look increasingly plausible

[...]

Why does the Old Testament incessantly violate my idea of right and wrong? Why does it regard women in such a poor light? Why are the people of Yahweh supposed to wipe out men, women and children but are allowed to take the virgins for themselves [Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Numbers 31:17-18]? Why are the sacrifices offered in the tabernacle called food for Yahweh [Leviticus 21:21-23]? Why does Yahweh need sacrifices anyway? Can't he simply forgive those who ask for his forgiveness, just as we humans forgive each other? Why do some people get zapped instantly for touching the ark inadvertently [2 Samuel 6:1-8] while Aaron, Moses' brother, gets off scot-free after making a golden calf for the people to worship [Exodus 32], and then he becomes the leader of the priesthood and the recipient of the best of all the offerings of the people? Why do women suspected of adultery have to go through some bizarre ordeal of drinking bitter water and seeing their womb swell and thigh waste away, while no provision is made for women to test their husbands for the same offense [Numbers 5:11-31]?

God, the weight of all these troublesome passages, and many more, add up in my mind to foolishness. Or at least an attribution of ancient cultural ideas on the God of all creation. The list goes on: the Bible's endorsement of polygamy[10] [2 Samuel 12:8], the magic of the striped sticks causing sheep's offspring to be striped [Genesis 30:31-43], the assertion that camels don't have split hooves [Leviticus 11:1-4],[11] the mixed use of round numbers and exact numbers in Numbers [3:39-51] to justify paying redemption money to Aaron's family, Yahweh's command to hamstring the horses [Joshua 11:6], the barbaric brutality of the Israelites in their holy wars, the contradictory teachings on divorce [Deuteronomy 22:19, 29; Ezra 10:2-3; Malachi 2:16; Mark 10:11-12], the many little historical contradictions, the attempt to explain language diversification through a "how-the-leopard-got-its-spots" Tower of Babel story [Genesis 11:1-9], the conception of a young earth which is clearly unattested to by the facts [Genesis 1-11], the inability of Christians to agree on so many doctrines while reading the same Bible that seems to say one thing in one place and another in another place, the long process of canonizing the Bible, the vengeful attitudes ascribed to Yahweh when his wayward people are attacked by their enemies, the sacrifices in Ezekiel's temple that has yet to be built [Ezekiel 40],[12] the vengeance Samson took on his betrayers under the influence of the Spirit of Yahweh [Judges 14:19], the exclusively physical punishments and rewards promised for the Israelites [Deuteronomy 28] with no mention of heaven until late in the writing of the Old Testament, and on and on and on.

Doctor Robert M. Price

(Chapter 2)

Not wanting to give up the faith that had been so dear to me for so long, I searched the Internet for some helpful apologetic articles. I had heard that Clark Pinnock was an apologist of a more scholarly caliber than Josh McDowell, so I searched for his name. Instead of finding anything written by Pinnock, I found an online book referencing him entitled Beyond Born Again by Robert M. Price (Price 1993). Price spent his youth as a fundamentalist, attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary as an evangelical, transitioned to liberal Christianity, then went on to earn two doctorates in New Testament studies. He was still a liberal believer when he wrote this book, but he later became a humanist after some 20 years as a liberal Christian. In any case, his was the first book I had read specifically attacking evangelicalism, and it was compelling, throwing my already fragile faith into a tailspin. I don't believe I would have been willing to listen to anything he had to say had it not been for my prior misgivings about the Old Testament. Having devoted my life to the calling of Bible translation, it was devastating to realize that the Bible probably is not God's word after all. You can only imagine the knot in my stomach and the beating of my heart with every new discovery I made confirming my suspicions that the Bible is man-made from start to finish.

Divine Inspiration
(Chapter 2)

The Bible seems so conditioned by the ideas of the times in which it was written and to me bears no evidence of divine authorship. Must I be eternally damned because I can't believe that Samson, under the influence of your Spirit, avenged himself on his personal enemies by killing 1,000 of them with the jawbone of a donkey? Or because I see inconsistencies in the accounts and viewpoints of the biblical authors, such as whether Jehu was justified in killing the household of Ahab (Kings) or not (Hosea)? Or because I see many of the ethics of the Bible (for example, polygamy, taking virgins as war captives and slaughtering the rest, and slavery) as objectionable? Or because I see innumerable parallels between the myths of the Ancient Near East and those of the Bible, leading me to believe that they are in fact mere myths? Or that I can't see why you couldn't just forgive truly penitent people for their sins without requiring a blood sacrifice, just as humans forgive each other? Or that I can't see any fundamental reason to choose Christianity over Islam except for evangelical Christianity's emphasis on a personal relationship with you (but there are sects within Islam and other religions that do emphasize such a relationship)?

In short, it seems quite clear to me that Christianity is just another religion like the others, perhaps a little more advanced than others, but a human creation nonetheless.

Hell
(Chapter 2)

In this final crisis it was not only the Old Testament that drove me to doubt, but increasingly the New Testament as well. While the Old Testament can seem cruel in its advocacy of genocide and capital punishment for Sabbath breakers and rebellious sons, all these punishments are limited to the present life. By contrast, the New Testament suggests (at least, as I understood it; evangelical leader John Stott and Seventh-Day Adventists would disagree) that unbelievers will spend an eternity of conscious torment in hell, an infinitely worse proposition than being stoned to death. I could no longer believe that a god who enjoins us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek could be capable of subjecting his own enemies to endless punishment with no further offer of mercy or reprieve (Hebrews 9:27). Why not simply annihilate his rebellious subjects and put them out of their misery?

The Failed Return of Christ
(Chapter 2)

Other objections to the New Testament I began to consider at this time were the failure of Jesus to return in the generation of his disciples as promised and the significant discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts of the Gospels. I discuss both of these matters in chapters 10 and 11.

Lack of Miracles
(Chapter 2)

Though I wanted a world in which God was active, my personal observations during my relatively well-traveled life had never encountered an unambiguous supernatural event. Experience seemed to be at odds with the belief that God is at work in the world. I will expand on this issue in chapter 13.

The Presence of God
(Chapter 2)

During my years as a Christian (and even afterward), every now and then I would sense what I thought was God's presence: a warm, beautiful sensation flooding my soul as I talked to God (or sometimes when hearing a patriotic song or stirring classical music, but that's another category, or so I thought). One day in 2002 I prayed, as I had prayed many times before, "God, if Jesus is your Son, I accept his sacrifice for my sins, and I ask you to help me believe." Immediately this same wonderful sensation flooded my soul. I was thrilled. But wanting to know whether this was a unique confirmation of the gospel, I prayed, "God, if you are Allah, and if Mohammed is your prophet, please let me know." And the same sensation came over me! What was I to make of that, if as I had always been taught, Islam and Christianity are incompatible?

I cannot doubt that Mormons and members of other faiths experience this same phenomenon when they talk about a "burning in the bosom" as a way of authenticating their faith. Given this reality, I don't think it's unwarranted to ask for more than a sense of God's presence, a satisfaction with the doctrines of a particular faith, a sense of joy, the fellowship of believers, or a "could be" miracle to authenticate the kinds of claims that are made by many religions. If God truly intervenes in people's hearts, why did he allow this real sense of peace, what seemed like God's presence, to flood my soul in both cases, rather than in just the first case or in neither case? If God, being able to intervene in any way, had prevented any sensation at all, I would have been left much less confused. Though I continued to pray occasionally for God to make himself known to me were he to exist, this experience marked a turning point, a loss of expectation of ever hearing from God after years of seeking him.

What's Really Wrong with You?
(Chapter 2)

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.

What is the source of Christians' reluctance to accept the above simple explanation for my unbelief? I cannot speak for all, but as a former Christian, here is how I might have internally processed a story like mine:

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. Only God knows his heart; it may be that Ken will ultimately recognize his error and return to God, refined by fire and more useful to God than before.

I invite Christian readers to consider the possibility that my apostasy is a result not of divine or diabolical deception but of a simple weighing of the evidence. It would be impossible for me to relate here the volumes of arguments I have considered on both sides of the question. It is my hope that those who are unable or unwilling to read skeptical works extensively will consider the possibility that there might be legitimate reasons for taking the position I have taken, given my willingness to risk my eternal destiny as a result of what I have come to believe.

So what’s it like to leave Jesus behind?

2009-06-07T21:35:00.012+08:00

I was listening to an audio book recently, God’s Problem by renowned Biblical scholar and former Evangelical Christian, Bart D. Ehrman. As I listened to his words I felt such a resonance with what he wrote. He captures how I felt, how I sometimes still feel, and the issues I face(d) having left Christianity behind.

To my Christian readers, I don’t share this to try to convince you of anything, or to try to deconvert you from your faith. I share it with you just to share it with you.

"People who have gone through a kind of “deconversion” experience like mine understand how emotionally wrenching it can be. It may be easy to have a good sense of humor about it now that I’m well on the other side of the crisis (a friend of mine says that I went from being “born again” to being “dead again”), but at the time it was extremely traumatic. I went from being a hard-core and committed evangelical Christian who had spent his young adulthood in a fundamentalist Bible college, an evangelical liberal arts college, and a number of Bible-believing churches, to being an agnostic who viewed the Bible as a book produced entirely by human hands, who viewed Jesus as a first-century apocalyptic Jew who was crucified but not raised from the dead, and who viewed the ultimate questions of theology as beyond a human’s ability to answer.

"I don’t know if there is a God. I don’t call myself an atheist, because to declare affirmatively that there is no God (the declaration of atheists) takes far more knowledge (and chutzpah) than I have. How would I know if there’s a God? I’m just a mortal like everyone else. I think what I can say is that if (IF!) there is a God, he is not the kind of being that I believed in as an evangelical: a personal deity who has ultimate power over this world and intervenes in human affairs in order to implement his will among us. It is beyond my comprehension that there could be a being like that—in no small part because, frankly, I don’t believe that interventions happen. If God cures cancer, then why do millions die of cancer? If the response is that it is a mystery (“God works in mysterious ways”), that is the same as saying that we do not know what God does or what he is like. So why pretend we do? If God feeds the hungry, why are people starving? If God takes care of his children, why are thousands of people destroyed by natural disasters every year? Why does the majority of the earth’s population suffer in abject poverty?

"I no longer believe in a God who is actively involved with the problems of this world. But I used to believe in a God of that sort with all my heart and soul, and I was willing and eager to tell everyone around me all about him. My faith in Christ made me an amateur evangelist, one determined to convert others to belief as well. But now I’ve deconverted. And I have to say, the deconversion process was not easy or pleasant. As I pointed out in an earlier chapter, I left the faith kicking and screaming.

"But what can else could I do? What can you, or anyone else, do when you’re confronted with facts (or, at least, with what you take to be facts) that contradict your faith? I suppose you could discount the facts, say they don’t exist, or do your best to ignore them. But what if you are absolutely committed to being true to yourself and to your understanding of the truth? What if you want to approach your belief with intellectual honesty and to act with personal integrity? I think all of us—even those of us who are agnostics—have to be willing to change our views if we come to think they were wrong after all. But doing so can be very painful.

"The pain for me was manifest in lots of ways. One of the hardest things was that I was now at odds with many of those who were near and dear to me—members of my family and close friends—people with whom I had once shared an intimate spiritual bond, with whom I could, before, pray and talk about the big questions of life and death with the full assurance that we were all on the same page. Once I left the faith, that no longer happened, and friends and family started treating me with suspicion, wondering what was wrong with me, why I had changed, why I had “gone over to the dark side.” Many of them, I suppose, thought that I had learned too much for my own good, or had opened myself up to the snares of the devil. It’s not easy being intimate with someone who thinks you’re in cahoots with Satan.

"Probably the hardest thing for me to deal with personally involved the very core of what I had believed as an evangelical Christian. I had become “born again” because I wanted “to be saved.” Saved from what? Among other things, from the eternal torments of hell. In the view that was given to me, Christ had died for the sins of the world, and anyone who accepted him in faith would have eternal life with him in heaven. All those who did not believe in him—whether out of wilful refusal or sheer ignorance—would necessarily have to pay for their own sins in hell. Hell was a well-populated place: most people went there. And hell was a place of everlasting torment, which involved the spiritual agony of being separated from God (and hence, all that is good) and the physical agony of real torment in an eternal lake of fire. Roasting in hell was, for me, not a metaphor but a physical reality. No wonder I was so evangelistic in my faith: I didn’t want any of my family or friends to experience the fires of hell for all eternity, and so I did everything I could to make sure they accepted Christ and received the free gift of salvation.

"This view of hell was driven into me and deeply burned, so to say, onto my consciousness (and, probably, my unconscious). As a result, when I fell away from my faith—not just in the Bible as God’s inspired word, but in Christ as the only way of salvation, and eventually from the view that Christ was himself divine, and beyond that from the view that there is an all-powerful God in charge of this world—I still wondered, deep down inside: could I have been right after all? What if I was right then but wrong now? Will I burn in hell forever? The fear of death gripped me for years, and there are still moments when I wake up at night in a cold sweat.

"All of this is rooted in a sense of suffering, of course. The evangelical theology I had once held was built on views of suffering: Christ suffered for my sins, so that I would not have to suffer eternally, because God is a righteous judge who punishes for all time those who reject him and the salvation that he has provided. The irony, I suppose, is that it was precisely my view of suffering that led me away from this understanding of Christ, salvation, and God. I came to think that there is not a God who is actively involved with this world of pain and misery—if he is, why doesn’t he do something about it? Concomitantly, I came to believe that there is not a God who is intent on roasting innocent children and others in hell because they didn’t happen to accept a certain religious creed."

========================

Taken from chapter five of God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer by Bart D. Ehrman, published by HarperCollins.

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

2007-04-26T22:11:00.000+08:00

This website makes an interesting assertion. What would happen if all Christians started praying for amputees to regrow lost limbs?

No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can electronically search through all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated leg being restored spontaneously. And we know that God ignores the prayers of amputees through our own observations of the world around us. If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day.

Click the pic above to visit the site.

I Joined the Atheist Blogroll

2007-04-26T20:01:00.000+08:00

I recently nailed my colours to the mast and joined the Atheist Blogroll.

On to Hell folks! LOL!!!

Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars

2007-04-07T09:06:00.001+08:00

Biblical Archaeology Review have an article about 4 scholars and how their vocation affected their faith. They note Bart Ehrman's journey from faith to non-faith.

Sorry, but the article has been removed. Try a database that carries the publication if you're really keen.

Newsweek: "Is God Real?" and "The God Debate"

2007-04-05T19:19:00.000+08:00

The April 7th, 2007 edition of Newsweek ran a few articles about Atheism and Christianity in the USA. Both articles listed here are worth a read no matter what side of the fence you hang out at.

Is God Real?

Click here to reads this article

Detail Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel via Web Gallery of Art

God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren

Click here to read the article.

The Great Divide: Atheist Sam Harris (right) and evangelist Rick Warren (left) meet to discuss religion and faith in America at Warren's Saddleback Church in California

Barry Smith's Books

2007-04-05T10:05:00.000+08:00

If you haven't read my first post about Barry Smith then do so here before you continue reading this post.

I think the funniest thing about Smith's books, at least the first four, are the titles. They all sound so final, and then the next one sounds more final than the last. Smith really did believe he was living in the last days. You don't really don't need to buy all his books to show how loopy Barry Smith was as there are some collections of his bullshit online here and here. The best one is his claim that Jesus would return by the year 2000 (here).

I'll post the original publishing date of each book and an assortment of some of the more freaky chapter titles and headings. You can click on the book cover to go to Smith's own website which gives a more detailed table of contents list.

First Published: 1980
Does The Bible Speak Of The E.E.C.?/ The E.E.C. Leader's Reign/ Galloping Inflation/ Cash Cancelled/ The Five "I Wills" of Satan/ The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion/ The Illuminati/ The Seal of the Illuminati - On The US Dollar/ The Club of Rome/ The Russian Revolution and the Zionist State of Israel/ Christianity Under Attack/ Postscript to the Mystery of Iniquity: Freemasonry

First Published: 1985
Cash Will Crash In A Flash/ Back to The Club Of Rome/ Danger Famine Ahead/ Kissinger Capers/ Ivan Panin Proves Authority of Bible/ Law Systems Become Corrupt/ The Seal on the US $1/ The Plan Behind the Seal/ Education and New Age/ World Government Will Confiscate Guns, Ammunition and Communications Equipment/ Who is the God of Freemasonry?/ British Royal Family Envolvement/ Dangers to the Law System/ The World Church/ The Occult, Witchcraft, Tea Cup and Palm Reading, Divination/ Homosexuality/ Compulsive Gambling, Drug Taking, Tobacco, Alcohol/ Soap Operas/ Stages of Musical Disintegration/ Plastic Cards/

First Published: 1989
Noah's Ark Found/ 666 has arrived/ Where the Big Crash Will Start/ Undermining of Nations Sovereignty/ Mystery of Iniquity/ Henry Kissingers Role in Peace/ Prototype for E.C. 1992/ Illuminati History/ World Domination Aim/ The Protocols/ Link-up Pope John 23rd, R.C. and Mafia/ Cash - The Last Bastion of Privacy/ Spying on Christians/ A False Nuclear Threat/ A False Greenhouse Effect (Ozone Deception)/ The World's Population Needs to be Cut Down/ Aim to Bring Alternative Lifestyle People Out of the Bush and Control All Others/ The Aids Cover-up/ Overthrow of New Zealand Sovereignty/ Others Can Spy Too/ Commos Are Such Nice People/ Reason for USSR Strength/ A Demonic Spirit Controls All Unions/ The U.S.A. in World Government Plans/ Computerization Equals Bondage

First Published: 1992
Communism Not Dead/ Aids Created by Man/ Nuclear Scam/ Japanese Real Estate Collapse/ Masonic Symbols in Washington's Streets/ Mason's Say 'Lucifer is God'/ Methods to Ruin Each Sector of Society/ Small Business to Shut Down/ E.C. to Control All Trade/ Global Army/ One World Religion/ Silicon Chips - Microdots/ Trapped in Your Own Home/ Why go to Hell?

First Published: 1996
These chapter titles seem to be much like the last book.

First Published: 1998
South East Asia Ready for the High Jump/ The Berlin Wall/ What About Great Britain?/ All Countries are Linked in Trouble/ Goodbye China/ The U.S. Role in the Conspiracy/ The Kabalah/ America is Run by the Devil/ The Russian Invasion of Israel/ The Millennium Bug/ The Great Pyramid of Giza

First Published: 1999
Proof of a Conspiracy/ The Illuminati and America the Horrible/ The Illuminati Chooses U.S. Presidents/ The Y2K Bug/ Come Back Henry Kissinger

OK, so it all sounds really, really kooky. You may be wondering how I ever got sucked in by something so whacky. Well, that's the million dollar question really isn't it? I was young, and impressionable I guess. I also (wrongly) put a lot of trust in those in authority in the Pentecostal scene. Smith is also, like most end-times conspiracy preachers, very good at collecting facts, half-truths and complete bullshit and putting them all together with just enough spin to make it say whatever he wants it all to say. Remember, not all that he says is crap, just most of it and definitely the conclusions he draws. A lot of what he says is not verifiable as he claims 'indier information' at times. Let's just hope I learned some valuable lessons about verifying the claims of others, too easily accepting 'expert' opinions from less-than-experts, and blindly following people.

There is no doubt about it, this end-times nonsense is really that, pure nonsense. Smith and guys like him repeatedly get it wrong or at best, take current events (not future events) and position them onto their doctrines of Bible prophecy. In other words they have a revisionist view of Bible prophecy (it sounds like an oxymoron because it is!). They rarely get any of their predictions right and erroneous predictions are quickly forgotten. For the last 2000 years or so, none of them have seen Jesus return yet!

Barry Smith

2007-04-05T00:35:00.000+08:00

Back in my AOG days, there was one End-Times preacher who was both well-known and well able to draw sizable crowds to his meetings whenever he visited Australia. He was a New Zealand AOG preacher named Barry Smith. Most of us had either read one of Smith's books, watched his video tapes or been to a meeting.

While I never immersed myself in Smith's teachings, though many did, his stuff had enough of an impact on me to warrant a post here. In fact, back around 1991 or 1992 I watched one of his videos which predicted 'the Lord' might return by 1996. Of course Smith was careful to word this prediction right so as not to make it sound like he knew 'the day or hour'. Nevertheless, my friend and I both commented that there was no point living as if this world had long to go. In other words, it effected the way we lived and planned for the future. There is no doubt that his End-Times nonsense instilled some irrational fear in me that had to be later dealt with.

Well everyone has 20/20 vision in hindsight and I now realise that Smith was full of shit. He was, quite simply, a religious conspiracy theorist. I don't believe Smith was a con-man or anything. I think Smith really believed what he preached which makes it worse really as it means he was simply a nutter. One person summed up Barry and one of his last books as 'a hotchpotch and steaming mish-mash of paranoiac confusion'.

I seriously considered buying his books and going through them to see how many of his prophecies fell flat or how much of his material is based on paranoid conspiracy nonsense. I may still do this, but for now I will just post some of the chapter headings of his books and a few comments along the way. That post can be found here.

By the way, Barry Smith is dead. Yes, even he didn't live to see the imminent return of Jesus. "He's coming soon." Not soon enough for Barry it seems.

Intentional Changes to the New Testament - Factual and Interpretive Errors

2007-03-29T22:44:00.000+08:00

The following quote comes from, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why pp. 94-95 by Bart D. Ehrman.

Sometimes scribes changed their texts because they thought the text contained a factual error. This appears to be the case at the very beginning of Mark, where the author introduces his Gospel by saying, "Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'behold I am sending a messenger before your face...Make straight the paths.'" The problem is that the beginning of the quotation is not from Isaiah at all but represents a combination of a passage from Exod. 23:20 and one from Mal. 3:1. Scribes recognised that this was a difficulty and so changed the text, making it say, "Just as is written in the prophets..." Now there is no problem with the misattribution of the quotation. But there can be little doubt concerning what Mark originally wrote: the attribution to Isaiah is found in our earliest and best manuscripts.

On occasion the "error" that a scribe attempted to correct was not factual, but interpretive. A well-known example comes in Matt. 24:36, where Jesus is predicting the end of the age and says that, "concerning that day and hour, no one knows-not the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, but only the Father." Scribes found this passage difficult: the Son of God, Jesus himself, does not know when the end will come? How could that be? Isn't he all-knowing? To resolve the problem, some scribes simply modified the text by taking out the words "nor even the Son." Now the angels may be ignorant, but the Son of God isn't.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

2007-03-29T22:36:00.000+08:00

The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book. Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Saul, Saul, which was it?

2007-03-21T09:07:00.000+08:00

I mentioned the contradictions in Paul's conversion stories here, but it seems that there is yet another major contradiction that either calls Galatians or Acts into question.

In Galatians, a largely undisputed epistle of Paul, he says that he did not straight away go to Jerusalem to see the other Apostles after his conversion.

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) (Galatians 1:15-20 RSV)

But then the account in Acts say the exact opposite. After he left Damascus the first time he went straight to Jerusalem and eventually mixed freely with the Apostles.

And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, (Acts 9:26-28 RSV)

This contradiction matters as Paul is making a serious point in Galatians which testifies to his right to claim Apostleship. Paul claims to have been called directly by God. His Apostleship was not given by other Apostles and he did not confer with them. If the Acts account is true then Paul's argument here in Galatians is undermined. He even goes so far to assure us that he isn't lying.

Jesus Gets it Wrong...

2007-03-21T07:53:00.000+08:00

This one is a problem for those who hold to a perfect Bible as Jesus refers to a story from the Old Testament but gets a major detail wrong. In Mark 2 Jesus says the story happened "when Abi'athar was high priest".

And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" (Mark 2:25-26 RSV)

But when one looks back to the Old Testament telling of the story we see that Abi'athar was not yet the high priest, rather it was his father Ahim'elech.

Then came David to Nob to Ahim'elech the priest; and Ahim'elech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" (1 Samuel 21:1)

The NIV Bible tries to accommodate this apparent error by saying, "In the days of Abiathar the high priest" (Mark 2:26 NIV) thus implying that it happened when Abi'athar was alive but not necessarily holding the office of high priest (at that time). But if you read most translations you will see that this is just creative translating by our Evangelical friends responsible for the NIV.

Atheist? Who me?

2007-03-17T23:42:00.000+08:00

I don't like the word Atheist. I think because it was such a loaded term back when I was a Christian. Since walking away from Christianity I have come to realise that just as there are many kinds of Christians, there are many kinds of Atheists.

It seems there are two main types of Atheists. Active Atheists are those believe there is no god and are certain of it while passive Atheists feel there is not enough evidence to warrant or justify a faith in a god. It may sound like semantics but the difference is marked. The passive Atheist is really more like what most Christians would define as an Agnostic. To many though, the term Atheist seems to be the active kind, and I am not that.

As you know, I label myself an Agnostic on this blog, but the thing is, I am not entirely comfortable with that term either. It sounds, I dunno, kind of weak. As if I am simply not informed enough to be a Christian or an Atheist. It means to not have gnosis or knowledge. As a matter of fact, I feel that as an Agnostic I have far more information and knowledge than I ever had as a Christian. Go figure.

Some have suggested other labels such as non-Theist, unbeliever or free thinker. But the problem with these terms is that they are derived from the terms believer and Theist, thus denoting a stance opposed to belief or faith. Some have suggested using the term a bright to define unbelievers thus creating a word not linked to belief. A bright is someone who believes as they do and is not defined by those who believe otherwise. Just as a Muslim, Hindu or Jew is not defined by their stance toward Christianity, a bright is not defined by their stance on Theism.

According to some definitions I am an Atheist, unbeliever, non-Theist and a bright. You pick which one you want to see me as. For now I am sticking with Agnostic, it seems less...Atheistic.

Richard Carrier has more to say on the matter here.

How Mum, Hollywood and Ozzy Osbourne brought me to Christ

2007-03-17T09:37:00.000+08:00

I've been thinking a lot about my conversion process lately and how it all fell together and brought me to a Christian faith. It is funny how we interpret and reinterpret things in light of who and where we are at the time of reflection. History is never objective but always interpreted in light of the historian's world view.

My parents were not practising Christians beyond having my brothers and myself baptised or 'christened' as infants in the Anglican Church. As an Evangelical I would share my testimony with people and always say that, "I was not raised in a Christian home..." On later reflection though I realised that my upbringing, geographical and social contexts did play a large part in my conversion.

1. I knew from a young age that our family's religion was Christian, Church of England (or Anglican) to be exact. When as a child your parents tell you things, you believe them. So I was already in a place of (at least conditional) acceptance of the Christian religion. While my parents never gave us dogmatic religious training, we were taught that Jesus was God's son, he died on a cross, rose again and the Bible was God's book. We all had our own children's Bibles and were taught the story of Adam and Eve at a young age. We never heard concepts or words like inerrancy, Trinity, incarnation or atonement. As I said, we were only nominally Christian, but we knew the stories...at least the major ones.

2. As an Australian I was told that I was part of a Christian nation. Now back in the 70s and 80s, Australians didn't use the term 'Christian nation' in quite the same way as Americans do now. It wasn't such a politically laden term. It was simply another identity marker we used. You didn't need to be a Christian to be considered truly Australian or patriotic. Nevertheless, this fed my identity as a young person.

3. Despite what the religious-right in the US want us to believe, one of the biggest influences that led to my conversion was pop music. I was very much into heavy metal music as a kid. Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne, Iron Maiden, and the like were always in my Walkman in the early 1980s. The clever marketing behind these bands was rooted in what Sharon Osbourne called 'horror-rock'. Satan, demons, witchcraft and black magic were touted as both real and somehow infused in the music. Of course I no longer believe there was ever any sinister Satanic plot to undermine young people through music, rather I think the image portrayed struck a rebellious chord with teens and sold records. And as a teen, I had no trouble believing Ozzy Osbourne worshipped a very real, literal devil. Because I believed it to a degree, the music scared me, which was part of its appeal I suppose. Nevertheless, a lot of the imagery used in the music and marketing was drawn from a Christian world view. A world view I held to be true.

4. Perhaps more influential, were the movies I saw. Horror films like The Exorcist, said to have been based on a true story, filled me with such a fear of being demon-possessed at ten years old that I refused to sleep in my own bed for months. The Omen, which I was told was based on Biblical predictions about the coming anti-Christ, also terrified me. Only the true followers of Christ could resist Damian's control, Regan flailed at the name of Jesus and the heroes in these movies were either priests or used Christianity is some way to defeat the devil. Though the Christian imagery has been toned down in more recent incarnations, the vampire films of my youth showed holy water, churches and crucifixes were among the weapons of choice when fighting the undead. Hollywood taught me that the only defence against the devil was Jesus or Christian icons.

The philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce called this way of knowing something, knowing by tenacity. These basic assumptions are are often untested and seen as 'ordinary' or 'usual'. These can be fairly innocuous beliefs like, 'swimming less than one half hour after eating gives you a cramp' or 'carrots are good for your eyesight.' They can also be more serious life effecting beliefs such as superstition and racism. The thing about these kinds of beliefs is that once they are accepted, they are accepted tenaciously. People who hold these tenacious beliefs can be shown evidence contrary to their belief but the evidence is then either ignored or all too easily dismissed. The odd thing is that knowing by tenacity is perhaps the least reliable method of knowing something, and yet it is the most difficult form of knowing to challenge in people. People simply won't, or don't want to, abandon these kinds of beliefs.

Once I began to take a critical approach toward Christianity, I realised how much of my faith was based on these tenacious assumptions. The very existence of God, Heaven and Hell, Jesus, Satan and even the Bible were all bred into me and then fed by the world I lived in and the culture I was immersed in. When the Christian evangelists eventually crossed my path and told me I could have the Holy Spirit live inside me, I was thrilled. Not only was I free from my long carried fear of demon-possession or Satanic control, but now I was one of the good guys. I never stopped for a second to weigh up the truthfulness of their claims. Besides being only 13 years old I was already primed, "white unto harvest." I had NEVER tested the assumptions that my conversion and later faith was based upon.

I wonder how different my story would have been had I been born in China, India or Saudi Arabia...

Saul, Saul, why getteth thee thou story wrong?

2007-03-03T21:11:00.000+08:00

What is up with Christians and the story of Paul's conversion? Why do they throw this story up as 'evidence' or 'proof' of the Christian religion? As a Christian I always thought the story of Paul's conversion was relevant in that it was the conversion account of the most influential Apostle for the later Church, but proof or evidence? Why would a non-believer be moved by the account of an Apostle's conversion? I never used it in my witnessing as I could just hear non-believers saying, "So? How do we even know that is a true story?" or "Who cares? Who's he?"

Yet for many Christians this story holds water for some reason. Evangelists would sometimes preach the story and even get a response at the altar-call. I never understood that. As I ponder it I think that maybe it is the drama of it. The hard-ass persecutor gets zapped and becomes the hard-ass Apostle. I guess that much of it makes a good story. Perhaps there are some archetypes in there that resonate with us. Like Darth Vader's deathbed conversion at the end of Return of the Jedi, we all love it when bad guys turn good.

The story of Paul's conversion is told 3 times in the book of Acts (9; 22; 26). And yep, you guessed it, the stories don't match up. The accounts are not only different but in some places, irreconcilable.

After the light hits Paul and Jesus talks to Paul the stories conflict.

Act 9:7

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Act 22:9

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

OK, so there we have the guys with Paul hearing the voice and then not hearing the voice. So which one is it? It can't be both.

Act 9:4, 7, 8

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?...And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless... And Saul arose from the earth

Act 22:7

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Act 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And here we have Acts 9 & 22 saying it was only Paul who fell and then chapter 9 even saying that that the other men were standing, but chapter 26 says they all fell. Which is it? It can't be both. Either Paul fell alone, or they all fell together.

Go and read the NIV to see how the Evangelicals involved in that translation have amended this apparent error. They have changed the word 'hear' in Acts 22:9 to 'understand' which is something earlier and later translations including the KJV and RSV do not do for good reason. The Greek word for 'hear' in verse 9 simply shouldn't be translated as 'understand' (see here).

One guy fell, they all fell. One guy heard a voice they all heard heard a voice. How did I ever believe God had a hand in that book?

More on Location

2007-02-28T08:16:00.000+08:00

Here is a clever little video showing the historical and geographical spread of the major world religions. If Christianity is true, then lucky for Christians that they were born where they were huh?

Location, Location, Location

2007-02-24T12:50:00.000+08:00

John Loftus, in his book, Why I Rejected Christianity, makes an excellent point about religious adherence relative to geography. He asserts that people will adhere to a religion or a variation/sect of that religion based on where they were born. Simple statistics give his assertion definite credence.

Rather than reinvent the wheel by putting this in my own words, let me quote another blog.

..I'm with John on this one. From the atheist's perspective, it seems too coincidental that religions just happen to dominate certain geographic locations and culture.

Consider this map of world religions found here:

World Religions Map

Here's the key enlarged a bit in case it is too small in the picture:

Map Key

Now, from an atheist's perspective, it certainly seems reasonable to assume that, generally speaking, people adopt a religion because it is part of the culture of the geographic region they are from. In India, most people are Hindu. In the Middle East, most people are Muslim (though, some of the Christians here have made a good point that this is a state-imposed religion in much of the Middle East; I still think that it might be a stretch to assume that most Muslims in the Middle east only believe from coercion). In South America, most people are Roman Catholic. In the US, there is a close split between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but even these are geographically located.

I think that Christians, here, might even agree with this partially except in regards to their own Christianity. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a Christian to also assume that a person is Hindu because they grew up in a country of Hindus. I'm sure the reformed among us would say that these people have rejected the Christian god because they love their sin and that they have adopted a religion only to justify their rebellion, but it still seems reasonable to conclude that they adopted that particular religion because it was the popular religion of that geographic location.

I know that most Christians, here, believe atheism is a religion and we hold it like any other religious person holds their faith. I know that the Christians, here, believe that we are only atheists because we love our sin and we want to deny the Christian god's sovereignty over us. But I have to say, as honestly as I can, that it doesn't feel that way to me.

I feel that I am "unaffiliated" when it comes to religion. I feel that I am not a Christian because there is simply no good reason to believe and a lot of reasons not to believe. My moral life since leaving my faith is virtually unchanged. I have been faithful to my wife. I have a job that most people would not work that allows me to help poor, racial minorities in an infamously difficult inner-city setting. I have very close friends (all of whom are Christians, by the way--three career missionaries, two seminary students, one seminary graduate (i.e. aside from the career missionaries who are also seminary graduates)), a good family (who are also all Christian), etc.

My point is that it feels to me that, because I am unaffiliated, I am being "courted" by the various religions. The Muslims are recommending Islam, the Hindus are pushing Hinduism, the Christians are offering Christianity (in all of its various forms). . . Each of these groups say that theirs is the only "true" religion. I look at the map above, though, and I wonder if that same person would be arguing for a different religion if they had been born in a different place in the world.

In other words, it is hard not to dismiss a religious person's claim that their religion is the truth when it certainly seems, from my point of view, that that same person would be pushing another religion had they been born in a different part of the world.

...But can the Christians, here, not also admit that, from our point of view, it is certainly suspicious that world religions dominate geographically and that it is not unreasonable for us to conclude that religions are products of culture and geography, not products of "truth" and "falsehood"?

Farting Preacher

2007-02-19T20:59:00.000+08:00

Robert Tilton, Pentecostal Televangelist and con man, has had someone take the piss out of him by making this (and other) videos. This is one of the funniest things I have seen in ages...

YouTube Note: This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Reverend Robert Tilton

Stupid Design

2007-02-17T23:29:00.000+08:00

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History and Visiting Research Scientist and Lecturer at Princeton University. He is also a regular on PBS.

Here he responds to the standard assertion of the Teleological Argument that 'some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural - if not inescapable - to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena.'

A Talking Snake?

2007-02-17T22:20:00.000+08:00

I found this article online. Here's one way around the talking snake problem. I will comment after the article...

A Talking Snake?
Ask a Bible Teacher

Q. This has driven me crazy and no one ever talks about it. Why didn't Adam and Eve think it strange that a serpent could actually speak to them? I would have been freaked out.

A. Great question, but one rarely asked. The Hebrew word translated serpent in Genesis 3:1 is used 31 times in the Old Testament and is never translated any other way. But it comes from a root meaning "to practice divination." As a noun this root is translated "enchantment" and in its verb form, "enchanter."

Whatever confronted Eve probably came to be called a serpent because of the judgment God pronounced upon it, that it would crawl on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life.(Gen. 3:14) But what it looked like before its judgment is anybody's guess, except that it almost certainly didn't look like a snake. Satan himself is called "that ancient serpent" in Rev. 12:9 but nobody thinks of him as looking like a snake. Paul said that he masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Cor. 11:14)

We don't know what form the devil took on to have his chat with Eve, but whatever it was didn't frighten her. Nor did she appear surprised to find herself conversing with it, but was persuaded by it's logic, though flawed, and the authority with which it spoke.

Some have speculated that before the fall man and animals could talk with one another, but other than this event and the incident with Balaam's donkey there's no indication of that being generally so. It's more likely that Satan came to Eve as a familiar figure, someone she recognized and perhaps even admired. Remember, the angels had been created sometime earlier. (Job 38:4-7)

Great question, but one rarely asked? Hello? Even Ricky Gervais asked this one! But before I let him answer this one for you, let me point out that the text in Genesis says nothing about the devil or an angel of some sort and even calls the serpent 'the most crafty of all the animals'. It makes it clear that the serpent was an animal, not a supernatural being. Anyway, take it away Ricky...

Creation Scientists To Search for Talking Snake Bones in Africa

2007-02-17T22:13:00.000+08:00

At what point in history did snakes lose their vocal cords and legs? Creation Scientists turn to the Bible and the continent of Africa for an answer.

Freehold, Iowa - Most True Christians™ acknowledge that the key to solving the greatest mystery of Creation Science may lay buried deep within the heart of African jungle. Creation Scientists agree that snakes lost their vocal cords along with their legs between 8,000 and 7,800 BC. Today, modern Christians, like those at the newly founded, Creation Studies Institute, are spending almost a million dollars, and investing countless hours to gather the evidence needed to prove, without a doubt, to the secular scientific community, that the planet Earth was once populated with walking, talking snakes. "Christians have The Talking Snake Theory, and Atheists have Evolution," says Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards. "Only one can be correct. Sadly, until us Creation Scientists can prove that snakes once had vocal cords, I expect that them silly old hell-bound evil-lutionists won't take us seriously."

Dr. Edwards is leading the first of many Creation Science expeditions to Africa. "We pick Africa because we know that Eve was in a giant garden the last time she saw a talking snake with legs," says Dr. Edwards. "The Genesis account of Creation describes something very similar to the pictures of Africa that I've seen in the National Geographic Magazines I have stuffed between my mattresses, so I'm fairly certain that Africa is where these fantastic creatures once resided. In addition, Eve's testimony and conversation with the last known talking snake is transcribed word for word in the book of Genesis. I'm sure it breaks the Lord's heart that unsaved secular scientists have stooped so low as to question her eyewitness account."

(You can exhale now. Yes, it's a joke!!! This article comes from the parody rich Landover Baptist Church website.)

The Late Great Planet Earth...is still here Hal!

2007-02-13T20:17:00.000+08:00

For some time I was considering getting Hal Lindsey's 1970 version of The Late Great Planet Earth to read through and see what predictions he made (or said the Bible makes) that did not come true. Well, had I ordered it and got it sent to me here in China, it would have cost a fair bit and take up to 3 months to arrive. As keen as I am to read into it all, I am not keen enough to spend that much money, so I abandoned that idea. Instead, I did some digging online and it seems that there were many others, Christian and non-Christian, who came up with the idea long before me. Some Christians who don't share Lindsey's views on Biblical prophecy rip into him on theological or interpretative grounds while the unbelievers tended to just show what he said and what did or didn't happen after the fact.

I am going to go with the latter form and just put the first of his failed predictions in order as they appear in his book (which has not been revised and is still available). I will also provide some links for further reading.

Jesus will return by 1988

“When the signs just given begin to multiply and increase in scope it’s similar to the certainty of leaves coming off the fig tree. But the most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves.
Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then he said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.’ (Matthew 24:34 NASB).
What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs -- chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied the Bible all their lives believe that this is so.” pp.53-54.

The Jewish Temple will be rebuilt and desecrated

“The main points are these: first, there will be a reinstitution of the Jewish worship according to the Law of Moses with sacrifices and oblations in the general time of Christ’s return; secondly, there is to be a desecration of the Jewish Temple in the time immediately preceding Christ’s return.
We must conclude that a third Temple will be rebuilt upon its ancient site in old Jerusalem.
If this is the time that the writer believes it is, there will soon begin the construction of this Temple.” p. 57.

The USSR/Russia will be at war with Israel

“Shortly after the restoration of the Jews in the land of Israel, an incredible enemy will arise to its ‘uttermost north.’ This enemy will be composed of one great nation which will gather around it a number of allies. It is this ‘Northern Confederacy’ that is destined to plunge the world into its final great war which Christ will return to end.” p. 59.
“For centuries, long before the current events could have influenced the interpreter’s ideas, men have recognized that Ezekiel’s prophecy about the northern commander referred to Russia.
Dr. John Cummings, writing in 1864, said, ‘The king of the North I conceive to be the autocrat of Russia . . . that Russia occupies a place, and a very momentous place, in the prophetic word has been admitted by almost all expositors.’” p. 63.
“In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, such men as Bishop Lowth, Dr. Cumming, and Rev. Chamberlain, were ridiculed by many of their contemporaries. After all, who could have imagined that what we now see in modern communist Russia -- a country founded upon Atheism?” p. 65.
“You need only to take a globe to verify this exact geographical fix. There is only one nation to the ‘uttermost north’ of Israel -- the U.S.S.R. . . . General Dayan’s statement that ‘The next war will not be with the Arabs but with the Russians’ has a considerably deeper significance, doesn’t it?” p. 66.

The USSR and Iran Become Allies to give a strategic advantage

“All authorities agree on who Persia is today. It is modern Iran. This is significant because it is being wooed to join the United Arab Republic in its hostility against Israel. The Russians are seeking to gain footholds in Iran by various overtures of aid. In order to mount a large-scale invasion predicted by Ezekiel, Russia would need Iran as an ally. It would be much more difficult to move a large ground army across the Caucasian Mountains that border Turkey, than the Elburz Mountains that border Iran. Iran’s general terrain is also much easier to cross than Turkey’s. Transportation, however, will be needed through both countries.” p. 67.

Africa will be largely Communist

“The sobering conclusion is this: many of the African nations will be united and allied with the Russians in the invasion of Israel. This is in accord with Daniel’s graphic description of this invasion (Daniel 11:36-45).
The Russian force is called ‘the King of the North’ and the sphere of power which the African (Cush) force will be a part of is called ‘the King of the South.’
One of the most active areas of evangelism for the Communist ‘gospel’ is in Africa. As we see further developments in this area in the future, we will realize that it will become converted to Communism.” p. 68.

Libya will join the USSR in its attack on Israel

“The conclusion is that Russia’s ally, Put, certainly included more than what is now called Libya. Once again there are current events to show the beginning of this alliance.
The territory of Northern Africa is becoming solidly pro-Soviet. Algeria appears to be already Communist and allied with Russia.
As we watch this area in the next few years we shall see indications that it is destined to join the southern sphere of power which will attack Israel along with the ‘King of the North.’” p. 69.

Eastern Europe will back the USSR

“The conclusion is that Gomer and its hordes are a part of the vast area of modern Eastern Europe which is totally behind the Iron Curtain. This includes East Germany and the Slovak countries.” p. 70.

They will use a cavalry to invade the Middle East

“The conclusion is that Togarmah is part of modern Southern Russia and is probably to origin of the Cossacks and other people of the Eastern part of Russia. It is interesting to note that the Cossacks have always loved horses and have been recognized as producing the finest army of cavalry in the world. Today they are reported to have several divisions of cavalry. It is believed by some military men that cavalry will actually be used in the invasion of the Middle East just as Ezekiel and other prophets literally predicted. During the Korean War the Red Chinese proved that in rugged mountain terrain, horses are still the fastest means of moving a large attacking force into battle zones.
Isn’t it a coincidence that such terrain stand between Russia and the Israeli?” p. 70.

African nations will align themselves with the Arab nations

“From the standpoint of this study of alliances which make up the King of the South we saw a valuable link in the alignment of several black African nations with the Arabs in their determined plan to ‘liberate’ Palestine from Israel. This is another confirmation of prophecy as we have seen from Old Testament prophets.” p. 74.

Egypt attacks Israel

“Current events in the Middle East have prepared the stage for Egypt’s last act in the great drama which will climax with the finale, Christ’s personal return to earth.
We are not attempting to read into today’s happenings any events to prove some vague thesis. This is not necessary. All we need to do is know the Scriptures in their proper context and then watch with awe while men and countries, movements and nations, fulfill the roles that God’s prophets said that they would.” p. 77.
Our interest here is the revelation that Egypt will attack the revived state of Israel, which will them be under the control of a false Messiah. This man will probably be a Jew who works closely with the world dictator who will them come to power in Rome.” p. 77

Russia Invades Israel again

“This immediately triggers another invasion of Israel by Russia who is here called ‘the king of the north.’” p. 77.

Egypt unites the Arabs and Africans

“Are you discovering more pieces of this stirring prophetic puzzle? The Egyptian plan to unite the Arabs and black Africans into a ‘third world force’ seems to be fulfilling what the prophets have said.” p. 79.

The Nile River is diverted

“If you think the famous Aswan Dam, which diverts the main channel of the Nile River, will help the Egyptian situation, you’re mistaken. Somehow the headwaters of the Nile will be diverted and that important river will be a parched piece of real estate. Imagine the terrifying implications of this to an Egyptian.” p. 79.

The Antichrist takes Egypt

“Isaiah warns of a powerful dictator who will invade and take them over: ‘. . . I will give over the Egyptians into the hands of a hard master; and a fierce [merciless] king will rule over them’ (Isaiah 19:4 RSV). This refers to the Antichrist of Rome who will possess Egypt after Russia is destroyed.” p. 79

Summary

“We have seen that current events are fitting together simultaneously into the precise pattern of predicted events. Israel has returned to Palestine and revived the nation. Jerusalem is under Israeli control. Russia has emerged as a great northern power is the avowed enemy of revived Israel. The Arabs are joining in a concerted effort to liberate Palestine under Egyptian leadership. The black African nations are beginning to move from sympathy toward the Arabs to an open Alliance in their ‘liberation’ cause.
It’s happening. God is putting it all together. God may have his meaning for the ‘now generation’ which will have a greater effect on mankind than anything since Genesis 1. Will you be ready if we are to be part of the prophetic ‘now generation’?” p. 80.

Source:
Hal Lindsey's Prophecies: A Study of The Late Great Planet Earth

Further Reading:
Hal Lindsey: The Father of Apocalyptic Christian Zionism
Hal Lindsey’s Prophetic Jigsaw Puzzle: Five Predictions that Failed!
Hal Lindsey Oracle (Lindsey's official website)

Take Jesus to China

2007-02-11T21:35:00.000+08:00

I was recently trying to answer questions about Christianity in China and while browsing some websites I stumbled on this poster. It is an advertisement for a missions group somewhere in the USA.

They obviously want to take Jesus to China.

I get the feeling that he is already here though. There are churches all over the place. One near my house has John 3:16 in large Chinese characters on the outside wall of their building. One of my Chinese co-workers went to an evangelistic rally a few weeks back and said that although she didn't, she wanted to respond to the altar-call and accept Jesus (I told her to be careful). She also told me that the pastor was telling them all about a 1 million Yuan donation some parishioner made (I then asked her why God needs so much money if he is, in fact, God).

I live in China and I would prefer it if believers in the USA just take Jesus to the movies.

"...the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

2007-02-08T09:33:00.000+08:00

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe....For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (1 Cor 18-21; 25)

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (Rom 1:21-22)

Say the word philosophy to most conservative or fundamentalist Christians and you will probably get the above verses quoted to you at some point. If you raise philosophical objections to their faith or their belief in an inerrant text then they will probably feel these verses are an adequate enough response. They feel they do not need to enter the realm of the philosopher, as their Bible makes it clear that their religion is superior to philosophy.

The circular reasoning is almost comical. It goes something like this:

The Christian message and the Bible are true.
The Bible says philosophy is foolish.
Therefore, philosophical objections to the Christian message and the Bible are foolish.
Therefore, the Christian message and the Bible are true.

How easy for them. How convenient for them.

I remember arguing with Mormons about their 'proofs' for the Book of Mormon. They would quote the promise to those who wished to know if the book was true...from the book itself. There is something there about asking with a pure heart and then you get a 'burning in the bosom' or some other thing. To me though, the whole process seemed like asking a used car salesman if the car he was selling was any good. Of course he'll respond favourably to his product. The Book of Mormon isn't going to suggest a test of itself that will fail. That would just be self defeating for the Mormons. What I wanted from the Mormons was something outside of the Book of Mormon, not verses from within their book. They had very little.

Because of this experience, it unsettled me as a Christian when others would apply similar reasoning as an excuse to avoid philosophy or its objections to the faith. To reject philosophy simply because your religion or inerrant text teaches it is 'foolishness' is no different from what the Mormons do.

Here's my perception of what really goes on in the minds of many Christians:

Can We Trust the New Testament We Have?

2007-02-07T20:58:00.000+08:00

I remember being quite surprised to read books like those by Josh McDowell that were quick to dismiss charges that the New Testament was so old that the versions we have these days simply cannot be accurate. As I remember it, McDowell and those like him said we had thousands of very early manuscripts and the differences between them were minimal. This, it seemed to me at the time, was sufficient for me to place my faith in the accuracy of my KJV and NIV. After some of my own research, having left the fundy fold, I realised I was just a bit too hasty in accepting McDowell's arguments.

The following tidbits of information are the bits that McDowell left out and come from the course notes of The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon, a non-accredited university level course offered by The Teaching Company. The lecturer is one of my new heroes, Professor Bart Ehrman.

So Just What Do We Have?

We do not have the originals of any of the letters of Paul, the Gospels,or the Apocalypse - indeed, of any early Christian text. What we have are copies, the vast majority of them produced centuries after the originals from copies that were also centuries removed from the originals and that had themselves been made from earlier copies.
Dating back to AD 125-140, the earliest manuscript in existence is written on papyrus in codex form (like a book); it is called P52 because it is the 52nd papyrus that has been catalogued. (Of note is that this is a two-sided piece only about the size of a credit card. - Troy)
We don't have complete books of the New Testament (NT) on any surviving manuscripts until about the end of the 3rd century.
We don't have complete copies of the NT until the 4th century. 300 years after the books themselves were written.
Of the thousands of copies of the NT that now that survive, most are from the Middle Ages, and no two are exactly alike in all their wording (with the exception of the smallest surviving fragments).
Today we have well over 5,000 manuscripts available.
As a result we don't know how many variant readings survive; no one has been able to count them all. Perhaps it is easiest to put the number in comparative terms. We know of more variants in our manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Changes and Variations

Some variants in the manuscripts appear to have been made by accident: others, intentionally (by scribes wanting to modify the texts).
Accidental changes would include such relatively innocent differences as changes in spelling, the omission of a word or line, or the accidental rearrangement of words.
Intentional changes would include places where scribes modified the text because they thought it contained an error or a reading that was problematic.
Some of the variants - especially the intentional ones - are significant for understanding the meaning of the text. For example: The woman caught in adultery (John 8); the last 12 verses of Mark; Jesus' prayer for his executioners in Luke; Jesus' reaction to the leper (some texts read 'angry' and others 'compassionate') in Mark 1.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

2007-02-07T20:28:00.000+08:00

On March 28, 2006, Dr. Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, and Dr. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, debated the status of the Christian claim to Jesus' resurrection from the perspective of historical data. The debate was sponsored by the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture at the College of the Holy Cross and the Campus Christian Fellowship.

Click here to access the debate transcript in .pdf form

Professor Bart D. Ehrman

2007-02-07T19:41:00.000+08:00

Professor Bart Ehrman is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a bit of a poster boy for us 'walk aways' and his CV is impressive.

More impressive though is his story of how he went from a conservative Christian, with a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, to an Agnostic, with no faith in the Christian message at all. The Washington Post did a story on him in March last year which I thought was worth noting.

The Book of Bart

Why Leave Church?

2007-01-31T20:46:00.002+08:00

When I read John Loftus' comment about how no one joins or leaves the faith on epistemic reasons only, I remembered a story I heard a preacher tell once. It may or may not have been a true story, you know how easy anecdotes get passed around in sermons, but he said that a debate was held sometime in the 1800s concerning the legitimacy of Christianity. The convener was a Christian and he opened the platform up for critics to come forward and tell of their objections to, and problems with, the Church. Many came forward, so the story goes, to voice their criticisms for a few hours. After a time the convener then asked all those who had problems with Jesus Christ to come forward. Apparently no one came forward. The clock ticked on for some time and a silence gripped the hall. This, said the preacher I heard that day, is where people fall down in their faith. They focus on the imperfections of the church and take their eyes of the perfection of Jesus. Of course, were this story to happen today and were some of the more vocal critics of the faith invited, I expect it would have ended differently and I doubt the point the preacher was trying to make would have been so well illustrated. Nevertheless, I remember being quite impressed with the point he made that day and somewhere in that bought into what is a common idea amongst Christians: leaving the faith because of the Church, or because of our experiences with the Church, are not legitimate reasons to leave.

OK, so who says we can't leave the faith because of the misdeeds of the Church?

It seems to me that the Church, both past and present, is a fairly good reason to leave. You can search online for a list of historical misdeeds of the Church. Christians and their institutions have most certainly been involved in gross acts of racism, torture, murder, and other heinous crimes.

On a more personal level, I can honestly and accurately say that I have never felt, both before joining or since leaving, that I have ever been treated as badly as I was while in the Church. I think it has something to do with the Christian idealism that I was indoctrinated with that caused me to put aside a healthy amount of suspicion toward those who were supposedly my brothers and sisters. Perhaps this made me more vulnerable than I would have been otherwise. But I was told that these people were filled with God's Holy Spirit and were truly seeking to imitate Jesus. Was I wrong to let my guard down around them? It appears so.

We all know of the televangelists who fleece the flock, but what of that which is has now been termed spiritual abuse? What of those who have their self esteem crushed, their decision making skills diminished, their critical reasoning skills stunted? We're not talking here about cults. No, spiritual abuse is something Evangelicals admit goes on in their churches all the time. Authoritarianism, manipulation, guilt and shame, are, and have always been, rife in the Church. So is the Church really such a good place for anyone to be? More than that, where is the Christian God in all this? If the Church is truly his body, then why are so many people so badly damaged by it? Where' does the Christian God's responsibility lie in all this?

I think disillusionment with the Church was the starting point for many of us who have walked away. Why? Because the Church is where the gospel is supposedly lived and worked out. The Church is where the gospel rubber hits the road. For many of us, it was when we admitted how broken, defective and beyond repair the Church was that we began to question the basic tenets of the faith itself. It was then that we went on to explore why the Christian message doesn't work.

I would say that those who say, 'one cannot leave the faith because of the Church,' have found a convenient way to ignore that which is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to look: the Church is one of the main reasons why Christianity should be debunked.

My Beloved's Garden

2007-01-30T12:31:00.000+08:00

I remember a friend of mine in ministry once confessed to me that his youth pastor wife liked to talk dirty in bed. I was shocked! She what? Wasn't she in full-time ministry?

Well, it seems my friends were not alone in their need to play it up in bed. Yes, the Jesus merchandising industry has finally gone porno! Thank God for the Internet huh? Now all those Christian deviants like my friends can finally get all their kinky shit online from Christian Adult Bookstores.

My Beloved's Garden describes itself as:

Providing a safe, non-pornographic place to shop. For all your Christian Sex
and Romance needs,. While keeping Christ at the center of your marriage.

Now Christians can get Christian books about sex, Christian lingerie, oils and lubes, sex toys and for those disciples of Christ who like it up the ass, anal beads, the anal pleaser and something called the Purple Tush Teaser (shown here). No more having to walk shyly into an Adult Bookstore. You can now get all you desire with not an ounce of guilt.

And no, I swear I am not making any of this up.

Sex? Who Had sex? a.k.a. The First Time I Met Pastor Tom

2007-01-30T09:24:00.000+08:00

Pastor Tom (not his real name) was easily the most screwed up individual I met during my time as a Christian. That guy had more issues than anyone else I knew both in and out of the church. Let me tell you about the day I first met him.

Not long after I joined Richmond AOG, I started dating a girl who was very shortly after to leave the church. I was trying to be a good Christian but she wasn't. She had just come out of a sexually active relationship with another guy in the church and was looking, I suppose, for someone to continue exploring her sexuality with. We ended up sleeping together twice. I was racked with guilt but she wasn't. To be honest, I was really surprised by her lack of remorse and, realising she wasn't the kind of girl I should be with if I wanted to try and live some semblance of 'holiness', we broke up.

A few weeks later, Pastor Tom , who was then one of the youth pastors, called me and said he wanted to meet, get to know me and have a chat. He came by in his car and picked me up and we went for a drive. For a few minutes we talked about my Christian conversion, my background, and a few other things of a similar topic. He then asked me about the girl and if I had been seeing her. I said that I had but that we had broken up. He then asked a few benign questions before finally getting the crux of the matter, the real reason why we were on that drive. He asked me if I had slept with her. Now I was new to the church and didn't know this pastor at all. I also didn't understand how it was any of his business and figured it was a moot point anyway as she and I had stopped seeing each other. So I lied and told him we had never had sex. He asked me if I was sure. I said I was. He then headed the car back to my house and the drive was over only a few minutes later. I got out of the car a little shaken having not expected the interrogation. Sure I was upset with myself on one hand for having lied, but at the same time I glad to have deflected whatever would have come had I admitted to the sexual realtionship.

Many years later I reflected on this episode and realised that Pastor Tom was not interested in me as a parishioner or getting to know me as a new member of his youth group. Rather, he was solely interested in the sexual nature of my relationship with the girl. Who knows how he had even heard about me having had sex with this girl. I guess the rumour finally reached his ears, or maybe some well meaning parishioner reported the rumour to him. However he found out, he took it upon himself to get to the bottom of it. Pastor Tom made an appointment with me, drove to my house, feigned interest in my story...all to find out where my penis had been.

All this makes me wonder, why did he need to know or even ask any questions? Was he trying to keep his youth group 'clean' of sexual immorality and thus preventing Satan from getting a 'foothold' in his group? This doesn't make too much sense as he already knew the relationship was over. Was he somehow titillated by thinking about a young girl (or boy) in his youth group 'doing the do'? Was he concerned about someone in his flock having broken the rules? After all, nothing is of greater importance than the breaking of the rules, and nothing is of greater importance than the breaking of the sexual rules.

I was only 20 years old when this happened and I handled it the best I could at the time. I now wish I had simply said, "That is defintiely none of your business. Thanks for the drive Tom but how about you drop me home now and piss off!"

Creation Ex Nihilo

2007-01-25T08:16:00.000+08:00

At Ed Babinski's recommendation, I got on to some of The Teaching Company's excellent Religion courses. They have a host of courses on some wonderful topics. I figured I would start at the start and so downloaded Dr Gary Rendsberg's (Rutgers) Book of Genesis 24 lecture course.

In this course, Rendsberg recommends and uses the New JPS Translation of Genesis. The text of this newer translation is not available online (although the older 1917 version is) so forgive me if I refer to it but do not quote from it as I am in China and it isn't easy to come by here.

Rendsberg notes that,

The first thing we notice about Genesis 1 is that, contrary to what most people might assume or believe, the world is not created ex nihilo, that is, “out of nothing.”

By using the JPS translation, he makes the assertion that according to the syntax of the Hebrew text, Genesis 1:1 is actually a dependant clause, dependant on Gen 1:2-3. That is the earth is in a state of preexistent matter and then God creates the world. He asserts that creation ex nihilo is a later theological development that was then read back into the Hebrew text, but which is not supported by the Hebrew text.

Of course he said a lot more, but I thought this is of note to those of the Christian faith.

Reading: The Battle for God

2007-01-22T09:33:00.000+08:00

I read this book while still calling myself a Xian but also seeing fundamentalism and Evangelicalism as things that restricted me and that I wanted to be free of. I think I suspected shaking fundamentalism was the first step toward being totally free of the faith, but I had to take things one step at a time. To be honest, I would recommend anything by Karen Armstrong. She has a style of writing that draws me in. Reading her books is like sitting at the feet of someone wise and informed.

Amazon.com review: About 40 years ago popular opinion assumed that religion would become a weaker force and people would certainly become less zealous as the world became more modern and morals more relaxed. But the opposite has proven true, according to theologian and author Karen Armstrong, who documents how fundamentalism has taken root and grown in many of the world's major religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Even Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism have developed fundamentalist factions. Reacting to a technologically driven world with liberal Western values, fundamentalists have not only increased in numbers, they have become more desperate, claims Armstrong, who points to the Oklahoma City bombing, violent anti-abortion crusades, and the assassination of President Yitzak Rabin as evidence of dangerous extremes. Yet she also acknowledges the irony of how fundamentalism and Western materialism seem to urge each other on to greater excesses. To "prevent an escalation of the conflict, we must try and understand the pain and perception of the other side," she pleads. With her gift for clear, engaging writing and her integrity as a thorough researcher, Armstrong delivers a powerful discussion of a globally heated issue. Part history lesson, part wake-up call, and mostly a plea for healing, Armstrong's writing continues to offer a religious mirror and a cultural vision. --Gail Hudson --

Reading: The Case Against Christianity

2007-01-22T09:15:00.000+08:00

I wouldn't have absorbed the material in this book had I read it while still a Xian. I expect most of it would have either gone over my head or I would have shut a lot of the arguments out. Nevertheless, I read it on 'the other side' of faith and found a lot of it quite convincing. I especially liked his arguments against the possibility of the incarnation. Where Xians call it 'paradoxical' and 'a mystery', Martin calls it 'irrational', 'illogical' and 'impossible'.

From the publisher: In this systematic philosophical critique of the major tenets of Christianity, Michael Martin examines the semantic and epistemological bases of religious claims and beliefs. Beginning with a comparison and evaluation of the Apostles’ Creed, the Niceno-Chalcedonian Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, Martin discusses the principal theological, historical, and eschatological assumptions of Christianity. These include the historicity of Jesus, the Incarnation, the Second Coming, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Salvation through faith in Jesus, and Jesus as a model of ethical behavior. Until now, an adequately convincing criticism of Christianity did not exist. Martin’s use of historical evidence, textual analysis, and interpretations by philosophers and theologians provides the strongest case made to date against the rational justification of Christian doctrines.

The Road I Could Have Travelled.

2007-01-21T12:57:00.000+08:00

I don't know why i am doing this to myself, but I have been trawling (not trolling) another blog written by a guy who was a very dear friend back in my Xian days. The interesting thing about reading his blog is to see a possible path I could have taken. We were very similar and on very similar paths at one stage. We were both Pentecostals with stars in our eyes. By that I mean we were both 'on the road to ministry' and both held not so well hidden secret ambitions to be 'big name preachers'.

I don't say this to patronise him as I am not saying this was necessarily a good thing, but I was always one step ahead of him in waking up to the bullshit of the last Xian fad and hitching my wagon to the next one. Maybe it was because I was a little older or maybe it was because I was existing in the Mecca of our AOG culture while he was usually holding jobs and stuff. Either way, it seemed that he would come to similar conclusions to me and we would eventually be able to talk together and rip the shit out of the Pentecostal illusion around us.

And then one day, my marriage broke down and so did our friendship.

It seemed that he couldn't deal with the fact that I had walked out on my (then) wife. In our church circles, marriage was a sacrament, although we would never have used that word. Quite simply, divorce was never an option, ever! One simply did not divorce. As a matter of fact, I don't know if I even knew anyone who had divorced and remained in the Pentecostal scene. I guess most people knew instinctively that to divorce means you really must leave the AOG, even though this is not a written rule of course. I had left the AOG years before I separated from my ex-wife, but my friend was still in the AOG.

He has long since left the AOG of course and is working for Christian charity, runs his own faith community (i.e. house church) and has his wagon hitched to the postmodern emerging church fad. In fact, one of his mentors now was my mentor back in the day. (That was my last stop before taking the plunge and leaving church and eventually the faith.) Anyway, to his benefit, I am sure he could well handle my divorce were it to happen now.

But reading his blog, getting a feel for where he's at now, I cannot help but see what might have been for me had things gone differently. He is teaching part-time at a local Bible College, working for a charity, speaking at conferences, etc...doing all the things that I would have given my right arm to do at one stage in my life. He has 'arrived' although I am sure he wouldn't see it that way. He is still reading all the latest books, quoting the latest postmodern Xian dude, hanging around the right 'mentors', taking a devotional slant on the things going on around him. As I read his blog I felt a twinge of...I dunno how to define it. I guess this stuff was such a part of my identity for so long, to see someone living it, doing it, stirred old emotions in me.

Does this mean I am jealous for his life? No, of course not. But I sometimes think it must be nice to still believe it all. You know, like that guy in The Matrix who wants to go back into the illusion to escape the hardships of reality? I have said it before and I will say it again, I miss the sense of purpose, the sense of meaning that being a religious zealot gave me. I know it was a false sense of meaning, but it seemed oh so real to me then. But I could never go back even if I wanted to. I simply don't believe it anymore.

I see a lot of what my old friend does as misspent energy (not the charity work of course). All that he does is hinged on a faith in a first century Jew and his band of merry men. For sure, this isn't the only motivation for all he does, but without the Jesus myth his whole world, all he has built and lived for, would come crashing down...as mine did. You know, having gone through it, I wouldn't wish that kind of pain on anyone.

I know my friend would say that he took the better road and I obviously think I did. Our lives are very different now, so perhaps we weren't so similar after all.

The "Left Behind" Video Game

2007-01-20T19:24:00.000+08:00

Yes, the infamous Left Behind series of fear mongering books (and soon a movie?) now has a video game. Apparently you get to kill people, but only in self defence. I wonder if you also get to carry out state sanctioned executions? ;P

A moderately progressive Christian takes the piss out of this game on his blog here.

My Journey

2007-01-19T09:50:00.001+08:00

My backstory as a Christian is probably not too unique or interesting. Although when I was 'walking away' I felt very isolated and thought I was the only one who had ever gone through it. I later found out how wrong that was.

I was from a non-religious family and 'got saved' in 1984 at 13 years old when a travelling group of musicians came through my school and kicked up some religious fervour. I was later recruited into an Australian Pentecostal cult known as the Revival Centres International. They are somewhat similar in belief to the United Pentecostal Church. At 17 I left that group, rather I was kicked out for a time for having premarital sex once (yes, once), but I took it as a chance to leave and so never went back.

After a few years of avoiding religion and getting right into the thriving nightlife of my city, my religious guilt and fear of Hell and the devil caught up with me and I eventually joined the more mainstream Assemblies of God in Australia (AOG) at 20 years old. I was a member of one of the AOG's flagship churches, Richmond AOG. My more mainstream Evangelical church going experience began here.

As I had so many questions regarding my past beliefs and what was being offered by the the AOG, I started classes at Harvest Bible College (AOG) in 1991. This college was very dogmatic in both its course content and delivery. It was not the place for questioning anything. In my church I was a very active member of the youth group, Bible study, street evangelism, welfare outreach and I even sang on stage from time to time.

I started the road to ministry at college and eventually got a position as a youth pastor in the Geelong AOG and applied for ministerial credential (a years long process). That is a post in itself, but let's just say for now that I saw the dirty side of ministry and the AOG institution. I was quite disillusioned so I resigned my position but returned to Richmond AOG.

I eventually married a pastor's daughter, continued with Bible College and started to research the history and beliefs of the Revival Centre cult on my own. As I did this I was able to see not just the history of the cult but the larger history of Pentecostalism in Australia and the world. I guess I believed I would be able to trace this history back to some kind of more pure form of Christianity. However, as I continued my research, I saw that Pentecostalism's history was littered with scandals, wacky beliefs and strange practices. This hardly reflected the AOG party line about the move of God and revival that had supposedly spawned their movement. My disillusionment grew, the 'Pentecostal distinctives' seemed less and less in line with what I felt the Bible taught, and so I retracted my application for ministerial credential and left the AOG.

After a brief stint of pew warming at a Baptist church, I hooked up with the Churches of Christ in Victoria, applied for ministry credential and began a church planting project in the suburbs of Melbourne with my good friend who is now a missionary to northern Asia. This didn't go as well as I had hoped and so we shut down after about a year and incorporated our group into the urban mission focused South Melbourne Church of Christ (now apparently known as Red). It was here that my faith began to be challenged. This church was more progressive than most Evangelical churches and many people there were fed up with Evangelicalism but not ready to step out into Liberalism or leave the church entirely. This church was one of the international epicentres of what has become known as The Emerging Church Movement. We were, to the pastoral team's benefit, free to explore ourselves and the ins and outs of our faith. Well, to a point anyway.

I had continued my exploration of Church history, having delved back beyond Pentecostalism and into The Great Awakening, The Reformation, etc. Though I couldn't have put it into words at the time, I was searching for some point in history where I could say, "Here it is. Here is a pure form of the faith I can emulate." By this point I had friends who were Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran and other more traditional forms of Christianity, who were on a similar journey and trying to find and live what one of them had called 'Classical Christianity'.

Now most importantly, this whole time, I was still exploring aspects of cults and why seemingly intelligent people do the most horrific or even stupid things in the name of religion or at the whim of the cult leader(s). I was also very interested in why people joined and stayed in pseudo-Christian groups like the Mormons and The Jehovah's Witnesses. I began to study these groups in depth, meet with their missionaries, visit their services and even tried my hand at de-converting members. I spent a lot of money on books, tapes and videos, not all of which were hostile to the groups. I figured the best way to know them was through primary source material. In other words, their own publications. As I came to understand what these groups believed and the worldview they had to adopt in order to remain as believers, I began to see the striking similarities between 'them' and 'us'. I recall consciously making the decision not to think about this too much as it made me more than uncomfortable. Eventually, I was forced to be more honest with myself than this as the cognitive dissonance began to take its toll.

I enrolled in a post graduate Religion and Theology degree at Monash University with the intent of bettering myself for ministry. It was a secular course but I chose only courses that had a Christian emphasis. After reading the course outlines, my wife commented that I was probably going to lose my faith if I did these subjects. My then mentor, Alan Hirsch, also suggested I not do the course seeing as I was having trouble finding any relevance in my church experience. His concern for me was genuine but I didn't buy the logic. Surely the truth was not that 'fragile'. Surely the Holy Spirit within me was not so easily spooked.

I was exposed to lecturers who held a more liberal view of Christianity. Some still attended church, others had long since given it up. All impacted me with what they had to say. My Hermeneutics subject did not parrot the dogmatic Evangelical 'rules' of Hermeneutics but rather looked back through history at different ways key figures in church history had interpreted the Bible. We also looked at postmodernism and its philosophical objections to inerrancy. For assessment in that subject, I wrote a paper that 'debunked' the AOG in Australia's statement of faith concerning inerrancy. That was it for me. I no longer held a fundamentalist theology of the Bible. In 1999, four years of Bible college indoctrination came crashing down after just one semester at a secular university.

I didn't totally abandon the faith for another six years after that. I tried to flirt with Liberal Christianity for a while by reading Marcus Borg, John Spong and briefly attended a Liberal Catholic parish. Nothing seemed to gel with me. It all seemed so hollow, so empty, so meaningless. I eventually started a brief dialogue with Robert M. Price who really helped me with some of my less rational fears about 'walking away'. Bob said something like, "If God really existed then he wouldn't be fooled. If you don't believe then you don't believe. Admit it and get on with your life." So, in 2005, I came to a place where I was finally able to say I did not believe anymore. I was also able to say that I had, in fact, not believed for years and had been kidding myself. Like I said earlier, the cognitive dissonance was a bitch.

I am now a teacher and have remarried. I know this is going to sound trite, but I am truly the happiest I have ever been since my teens. I have reestablished meaningful relationships with my non-Christian family, assigned meaning to the everyday and began to live life in the here and now and not for some 'pie in the sky when you die'.

Modernism, Post-Modernism, Christianism

2007-01-17T13:35:00.000+08:00

It annoys me the way some Christians (usually the more left-wing variety) throw 'post-modernism' around as it means they do not have to hold legitimate reasons for their beliefs. What they don't seem to understand is that same post-modern philosophy that tells them they are free to believe as they want to, also tells them their 'truth' is entirely subjective and just as valid as the 'truth' of other, competing religions. These Christians tend not to notice the latter edge of the two-edged post-modern sword. More right-wing Christians tend to realise this and thus hold post-modernism as yet another attack of that dirty philosopher Satan.

Post-modernists like Jacques Derrida say that language is an imperfect form of communication due to the constant shift of meaning. Context, time, place, variations of meaning, even the experiences and emotions of the reader or hearer all play a part in how meaning is conveyed and received. This means that truth communicated via language is always subjective and relative, never absolute. This flies in the face of many premises of modernism, but it also flies in the face of the absolute truth and therefore exclusiveness of Christianity.

Post-modernism also challenges the Bible as 'the word of God'. As language is such an imperfect form of communication, how can the Bible even claim perfection seeing as it uses language? More so, the reader's use of language and all its imperfections make a perfect or inspired book a moot point. How can perfection be be received through such an imperfect means, let alone be given? It can't.

Post-modernism may let the Christian off the hook for defending their beliefs but they must also accept that their beliefs are therefore relative, subjective and just as valid as those of any other belief or philosophy...including Islam, Hinduism and even...*gasp*...Atheism.

Reading: The Lowdown on God's Showdown

2007-01-14T21:31:00.000+08:00

As a Christian I didn't think I was too phased by the 'end times' bullshit, but it it wasn't until I walked away from Christianity that I realised how much fear-mongering I had bought into. As it turned out, while I didn't give it much thought, I actually believed a lot of it. I will try to write something to show the folly of the whole thing later.

I read an article some time ago and I guess it is fair to say that it made some serious points that were pivotal in my de-conversion. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't the reason, but it resonated with a lot of thoughts and doubts I had as a Christian. These kinds of doubts were certainly ones I would just shove to the side and not allow myself to delve too deeply into.

I asked a few believing friends (and enemies) to get stuck into the content of this article with me and have yet to get a single decent response. Most didn't even reply. I now believe this is because there really is nothing they can say.

Be warned, it's long. But here it is...

The Lowdown on God's Showdown
by Ed Babinski

If that link doesn't work then try here or here.

The Pagan Origins of the Jesus-Myth

2007-01-08T12:14:00.000+08:00

When I was still a Christian, there was a series of anti-Catholic books around most of which drew their material from a 19th century book called, The Two Babylons. Written from a place of Protestant belief, it's basic premise was that Catholicism was actually an amalgamation of Paganism and Christianity to the point that Catholicism is more Pagan than Christian. Anyway, these books all argued that their branch of Protestantism was the true, pure form of Christianity and Catholics should be rejected as pagans.

Most groups who subscribe to Hislop's book tend to be Christian extremists or blatant cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Worldwide Church of God and my own favourite, the Revival Centres. This made me skeptical of the book of course and I later discovered that a lot of that material was based on poor scholarship, myths and half-truths.

Anyway, it seems that there may be some kernel of truth in all this after all, but not in the way that those who subscribe to the book might have expected.

There is no doubt that many Pagan practices were amalgamated into the practices of the Church but we were always taught that it crept in slowly and much later than the time of Jesus and the Apostles. But it appears that Paganism's influence of Christianity goes back further than and even predates Christianity. In other words, the Christian story itself (Jesus, the Apostles) has pagan origins.

As one website put it:

By the time of Jesus of Nazareth, as for centuries before, the Mediterranean world roiled with a happy diversity of creeds and rituals. Details varied according to location and culture, but the general outlines of these faiths were astonishingly similar. Roughly speaking the ancients' gods:Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
Were born of a Virgin-Mother
Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
Led a life of toil for Mankind.
Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.
Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.
Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism. source

So it seems that there are many stories that mirror the Jesus story but that pre-date the Jesus story. Better said, there ain't nothin' original about the Jesus story.

A favourite amongst critics of Christianity is Mithras (or Mithra) the Persian, later Roman, god-man who bears the most striking resemblance to Jesus.

Originally Persian
Before Rome. When the Christ myth was new Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Worshiped for centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, Mithras was long revered by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic literature).
Dating Mithras in Rome. Plutarch (Pompey, 24, 7) and Servilius (Georgics, 4, 127) say Pompey imported Mithraism into Rome after defeating the Cilician pirates around 70 BC. Mithras appears epigraphically in the circles of the Roman emperor in the first century AD -- around the time the canonical Christian Gospels were written (Corpus Incscriptionum Latinarum, 6, 732), and statues of the God were present by 101 AD (Corpus Incscriptionum Latinarum, 6, 718). As with Attis, Christian apologist Justin (1 Apologia, 66, 4) denounces the devil for having sent a God so similar to Jesus -- yet preceding him.

Sadly there's a lot we don't know about this faith that comforted million of souls. Early Christians established the dominance of their religion by exterminating Mithras' faithful, razing His temples, burning His sacred texts.

We do know this:

With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men.

He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing.

Every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, the Son of God was born one more, putting an end to darkness. Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God."

His followers kept the Sabbath holy, eating sacramental meals in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolum) -- early
Baptism "washed in the blood of the Lamb" -- late
Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian]

Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation and Salvation of His adherents -- an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the divine. From the wall of a Mithraic temple in Rome: "And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood."

The great Mithraic festivals celebrated his birth (at the winter solstice) and his death and resurrection (at the spring solstice)

source

Further reading:
How Jesus Got a Life
Pagan Christs
Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth