"A Sabbatical?" or "My Anti-Testimony" - ExChristian.Net

Amazon.com Widgets

"A Sabbatical?" or "My Anti-Testimony"

.: posted 4/18/2002 ::: by webmdave :::

I first posted this "testimony" to the web on July 27, 2001. If you too have found Christianity specifically, or religion generally, to be less than satisfying for any reason, please consider posting your own "testimony" to this site by clicking here, or message me by clicking here.

It is invariably a shock to Evangelical Christians to come across someone who has turned his or her back on the “faith was once delivered unto the saints.” Most believers will quickly dismiss an ex-Christian by piously pointing out that anyone who turns away from Christ was never a real believer. Or, as an insider might say it, “They were never born again.” There is Biblical support for the assertion. 1 John 2:19, which addressed the problem of First Century apostates, states that: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (KJV) (I’d like to point out here that the previous verse, verse 18, suggests that the writer also believed it was the end of history and that the Antichrist was about to appear. It seems that whoever penned 1 John was premature in announcing it to be the “last time.” He may have been mistaken in his quick judgments against those ancient infidels as well.)

For those from a Calvinistic background, the fifth petal of TULIP uncompromisingly declares that those truly chosen by God for salvation will persevere in the faith. They will persevere in the faith because God will preserve them in the faith. Or, as a Baptist fundamentalist might express it: “Once saved always saved.” For fundies, a believer gone bad was just faking salvation or is presently backslidden and will eventually return to the fold, with his or her tail between his or her legs. There are also a plethora of competing denominations that teach people can lose their salvation. To members of those denominations, a fellow believer who has fallen away might have really been saved at one time, but is now lost again. They believe it is possible to get saved, and lost, and saved again, many times, before a person's allotted lifespan runs out.

The reason for this brief essay is to share my testimony about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and my repentance from that relationship. What follows may unnerve some of my closer associates and will likely alienate some of my good friends. I have absolutely no desire to alienate anyone since I have already spent years as a zealous evangelical Christian, alienating dozens and dozens of people in the name of Christ. However, it is only fair to those who know me to allow them a glimpse into where I am coming from, now.

When I was very young, my parents attended a Presbyterian Church. I used to watch my father pray during the service. His eyes would close and his chin would rest against his chest. I wondered if he was asleep. At home, my mother would tell my brother and I Bible stories. I always had questions for her: “Why did God put the tree of knowledge in the garden since he knew what would happen?” I also wondered whom Cain married, if dinosaurs were taken on the ark, and all kinds of things my mother could not answer. My parents stopped regularly attending church when I was nine, but still sent my brother and me to Vacation Bible School during the summer. I was diligent to learn all the Bible lessons, stories and doctrines, earning multiple gold stars in each class. Though I do not remember it, my mother likes to tell a story that even when I was 5 years old, I would come home from Sunday School, gather the un-churched neighborhood kids together on our porch, and parrot all I had been taught that morning.

I was eleven years old in 1969. My grandmother was a staunch Baptist. In fact, she was one of the founding members of the First Baptist Church in Ashtabula Ohio, and was absolutely devoted to the place. The Church had hired an aggressive youth minister who wanted to see more young people attending services. His name was Norm, and he organized a youth rally which featured a movie produced by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The movie's aim was the conversion of young people. My grandmother invited me to the meeting and of course I loved my Grandma, so I got a ride from my Dad and sat with her to watch the show. I don’t remember the title of the movie, but the basic plot centered on one of the male characters who accepts Christ and starts to tell his friends about it. One of his unbelieving friends makes terrible fun of the whole thing, mocks Christ, and mocks the threat of going to hell. The unbelieving friend ends up accidentally trapped in a burning barn toward the end of the film and dies horrifically, going straight to a Christless grave.

I am not sure how powerful of a flick it was, but it got to me. Before that movie, I knew about God and the Bible and Jesus, but now I realized I had no personal relationship with Christ, and I needed one. When the altar call was given to come forward and accept Christ, I did not go forward, but listened intently, memorizing the “sinner’s prayer.” Later that night, in the dark and quiet of my room, I got down on my knees confessed my sins, repented as much as I knew how, and accepted Christ into my heart. It was a mind-altering experience for me. In my mind’s eye I visualized the Creator of all physically with me in the room. I felt overwhelmed with what I believed was a personal and direct manifestation of the LORD. I cried and cried. The emotional cleansing and reality of that moment has never left me, and as I write about it now, it comes alive once again.

The very next morning, I started carrying a small New Testament to school with me. I was in the sixth grade, reading a KJV, and doing my best to understand what I could from its inspired pages. I began attending church that week, and became a regular customer at the local Christian Book Store. My paper route wages and tips found investment in books and comic book tracts by Jack Chick, which I read and distributed zealously.

After my twelfth birthday I was asked if I would like to be trained as a counselor for the new Billy Graham evangelistic movie entitled “For Pete’s Sake,” which was being sponsored by several local churches. The showings were to be at Shea’s Theater in downtown Ashtabula. I eagerly agreed and dutifully submitted myself to the counselor training by memorizing the required verses and receiving a certificate as a bona fide counselor. At the end of each night, a short salvation message was shared by one of the local pastors, followed by the traditional Billy Graham style altar call. During the course of the weekend, I was able to assist several young people from my own age group as they came forward to make decisions for Christ. Following that crusade, I was excited. I began to do street evangelism on my own. I witnessed to other kids at school, and even led a fellow Boy Scout to the lord while on a week long Boy Scout camp. His name is Phil and is presently a pastor at an American Baptist Church outside of Youngstown Ohio. I started a junior high school Bible study group, and taught the others who joined how to lead others to Christ ala Billy Graham. (“The Romans Road” with some small variations, was what Billy recommended back then.) The early 1970’s saw the height of the Jesus People Movement in the US, so naturally I became involved with other non-denominational youth study groups held at various houses around town. I was introduced to CS Lewis, Watchman Nee and other famous Christian authors during this time. I drank every word written in those books like it was water. A prolific reader even in junior high I was insatiable for more and more information.

Reggie Kirk, my Boy Scout Master, recognized my thirst for more spiritual enlightenment and invited me to his church, the local Assembly of God, where I learned I needed the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to be a complete Christian. I attended one Sunday night when, providentially, the topic being discussed was that very doctrine. I went forward during the altar call to receive the “Baptism” and kept those poor people there long after the service ended as I pleaded with the Almighty to grace me with the Holy Ghost and tongues. Finally, after two hours of eye watering, knee hardening prayer, and some helpful coaching from a woman who stood with me, I babbled a few syllables. Everyone pronounced proudly that I had indeed received the Holy Spirit. Now, as a full-fledged tongue-talking Jesus person, I went full steam into making a difference in the world for Christ.

My parents, who at best were only nominally religious, viewed my obsessive enthrallment with church-stuff as disconcerting and worrisome. My mother, knowing I loved to read, decided to introduce me to her understanding of reality which was embodied in the writings of Edgar Cayce. My mother was a Reincarnationist. I rejected her teaching, witnessed to her unceasingly for the next 25 years about the love of Christ, and read everything published concerning the psychic Cayce. My grades suffered terribly in junior high, as I could not see any value to secular learning. I viewed the world as passing away, valueless compared with heavenly knowledge with eternal relevance.

As puberty became more influential in my thought processes, I struggled terribly with the hormonal demands of my body verses the tenets of the Church concerning any sort of sensual pleasure. Jesus taught that it is just as sinful to have any sort of lustful thought, as to actually act on any of them. I found adolescence very difficult on my thought life, finding myself in a perpetual war with guilt. I agonized over my sexuality, begging God to deliver me from temptation, to no avail. It was depressing.
I began to distinguish myself in music during this time, receiving nothing but positive feedback on my performance. By the time I was 14, I was being hired to play trombone semi-professionally. It was fun. I had begun finding inconsistencies in the Bible when I noticed numerous contradictions between various number citations in the Old Testament. Then I was confused by the multiple conflicting details in the resurrection stories in the Gospels, as well as in Paul’s version. One of the biggest contradictions I could not rectify was whether or not Judas threw his money into the temple and hanged himself or bought a field and fell headlong into it. I wrote to an evangelistic radio ministry out of Richmond Virginia, asking for direction about these apparent problems. I was only thirteen and they responded to my cry for help with a short note. Instead of an intellectually satisfying apologetic, they merely admonished that some things could only be answered through the eyes of faith. I pretty much got the same answer everywhere I went. Regardless, I continued to attend Baptist Church on Sunday mornings, Assembly of God on Sunday nights, and various home study groups during the week. Then, the summer before entering High School, the Baptist church hierarchy decided to fire the youth minister. He had held an all night youth rally event at the church. The geriatric power people in the church thought his tactics to lure young people to church were inappropriate, so they brought the issue to vote and that settled the matter. He was there one week and gone the next. During the same time period, the Pastor of the Assembly of God church was caught having an affair with one of the lady members. Both he and the woman were married to other people, so when the affair was discovered, he resigned and left the church. I still wonder how long that had been going on. My growing dissatisfaction with the church’s inability to answer my Biblical questions, my budding musical career and the hypocritical church politics worked together to help me fall away from Christianity for a time. My grades in school improved immensely. I finished High School early, in the top 10% of the class. I auditioned for the Air Force Band, was accepted, and as soon as I turned seventeen, I left for basic training in San Antonio.

As the years went by, I continued to have an interest in the Bible, studying textual variants and translation problems. I had several years of revival, when I buried my questioning and simply emulated the faith of a little child, trusting that though I could not understand many things, God knew what he was doing. Eventually, I would get a headache from such pious mind games and find myself drifting again. I spent years in and out of Charismatic meetings where healings were performed as well as Words of Knowledge, messages from God, and rousing sermons proclaiming the imminent return of Christ. The emotional feeling of those early charismatic events was like a drug high.

During these up and down spiritual times, I swung between being fanatically zealous, to totally apostate. I comforted myself on my lack of consistency by reasoning that at least I was not lukewarm. In the next few years I belonged to several different Baptist Churches and several different Charismatic Churches in succession. I was married, had a son, got divorced, remarried and had two more children. In my thirties, I finally hit bottom and decided I would simply dig in, buy books like crazy, and study until I got all my answers.

My second wife and I were deeply involved in an English speaking Assembly of God church while living in Japan. We ran the music ministry, the bookstore and participated in English evangelism at a local Japanese speaking Assembly of God. Once again, my inquiring mind reared its ugly head and put me at odds with the church. For years I had accepted the Pentecostal teaching that all Christians must speak in tongues to demonstrate they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. I had also accepted the harsh Arminianism preached there. As I began to study John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Bunyan, Matthew Poole, Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther and a host of other teachers from the past, I began to realize that there was a whole other gospel of which I was completely ignorant. I questioned the pastor of our AG church on some of these matters. He did not answer any of my questions, assuring me that God would comfort my heart as to the truth of the Assemblies’ teachings in time. He responded to my inquiry by removing my wife and I from all our leadership responsibilities until such time as we came to peace with the issues I brought up. He said if I were to remain in leadership with doubts on various Pentecostal doctrines, it would cause confusion for the congregation. Of course we were welcome to stay and attend the services, he said. We left the church that day. I started a home Bible study where we studied such things as Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and other strikingly Calvinistic chapters, without forcing any dogmatic conclusions. It was well attended. I led that group into street evangelism in Japan, passing out tracts at train stations and other public areas. I wrote letters to Christian leaders all over the world, soliciting their input on various doctrinal issues and spent a small fortune on books, studying the reformed theologians who lived prior to this century’s “charismania”.

I retired from the Air Force, left Japan and started over again in the town where I grew up. My parents and other relatives were apprehensive of my resettling near them, since they knew I was a religious fanatic. We attended, and even joined, several churches over the next few years, trying to settle in with the local evangelical, non-charismatic Christians. We wanted to find acceptance, and learn sound doctrine. As I learned more, and leaned more toward the Reformed Faith, I was made aware that I was living in adultery with my present wife. This was because my previous marriage did not end with a scriptural divorce. One counselor advised me that I should leave my present wife and live celibate in order to obey Christ’s commands. Failure to leave my present wife was considered continuous adultery in this Reformed denomination. This made no sense to me. Can one grievous sin be offset by committing another, I wondered? Should I really abandon my wife and two children because I blew it on my first marriage? I also discovered that any illusions I might have of ever being in any kind of leadership in any Reformed church, was out of the question. Divorce and remarriage was treated, except under the narrowest of scriptural scrutiny, as if it were more unforgivable than murder. The husband of one wife was the badge of acceptance required above all. Of course I still had questions. That, apparently, is a bad thing, as it did nothing but set me at odds with pastors and congregants alike. We finally found a Reformed Baptist Church in Pennsylvania, which accepted my past miscarriage of wedlock and we attended for several months. Originally the church had been an Independent Baptist Church and quite Arminian in theology. They had made the switch to Calvinism in soteriology, but remained Darbyite in eschatology. The primary preoccupation they seemed to have was with such important topics as head coverings for women and hating homosexuals. If the pastor was questioned in private concerning even the smallest detail of his teaching, the next service would be laced with personalized rebuke and condemnation pointedly aimed at the doubting inquiries and directly at those mouthing them. We left that church too.

We found another church some 35 miles away from our house that seemed promising. This church had been very charismatic originally, but had found deeper meaning in the teachings of R.J. Rushdooney. They had made a complete 180-degree turn toward Reconstructionism. I was totally unfamiliar with this brand of Christianity, so we stayed there for over three years. In that time we experienced and were taught a whole new brand of Christianity. Waving the Westminster Confession as the flag of truth we were encouraged to be filled with anger against sin, against worldly politicians, and to be fiercely aggressive political activists, so we might gain temporal power and obey Christ’s command to go into the entire world. “Discipling the Nations” was their clarion call. When the assistant pastor raised money to go and publicly support a civil war in a small African country, in the name of Christ, we finally knew it was time to leave that arena too. During the three years we were there, not one person became our friend. Everyone was too busy condemning pietism, marching and campaigning, and supposedly changing the world for Jesus.

Since leaving that church, I have spent the last couple of years reading other materials. Books by disillusioned Christians, pastors and others who find religion generally, and Christianity specifically, lacking in truth has become my books of choice. I have come to accept my initial adolescent doubts about the Bible. It was not simply rebellion, but the seed of good common logic and sense. I no longer claim to have all, or many, of the answers to life as I once claimed when my fanaticism expanded to full bloom. Since I have had to accept the fact that my theology has been wrong time and again, even though I supposedly had the Holy Spirit guiding me, it is quite unlikely that I have ever been totally right on much. I have changed my foundational beliefs several times as my religious self-education has evolved. I can’t say that I am content to be stagnant even at this juncture of spiritual understanding – I reserve the right to once again change my mind. Surely, if God could make a mistake and repent of making man, I can acknowledge error and repent of making a god and any decisions about my belief in it.

What do I believe now? Like I said, I am not sure. I suppose that makes me an agnostic. At this point, that is the most intellectually appealing position for my tortured thought processes. It allows me the freedom to keep an open mind while absorbing all the viewpoints without completely immersing myself in any of them. You might consider it an R&R from mind control, or perhaps I simply want …………, a sabbatical.

Dave

That is what I said then, and for the most part I would not change a thing. However, as my mind has cleared from the constant programming or self brainwashing I willingly subjected myself to, I have upped the "Anti", you might say. While I really cannot credit or blame anyone else for the positions on religion I have held, I find that much of the feedback I am receiving from this site implies that I have rejected Christ because of how people treated me. I regret I have written in such a way so as to mislead some on this point. Though I indeed was treated poorly by the bulk of Christians I know, I do not hate or dislike any of them. Neither did I leave the faith solely because of their behavior. I endured trials like that for nearly 30 years, and though unpleasant, it did not discourage me from my commitment to Christ. I remained stalwart for years, reasoning, as many of the people who write me, that Christians may be imperfect, but they are forgiven, and Christ is not like them, and so on. The main point I had hoped to accomplish in reiterating a few of the unpleasant experiences I had with the "chosen few" was to show that there is nothing supernatural going on in the lives of Christians. We are taught that the Holy Spirit is within us, transforming us, quickening us, destroying our sin nature, putting to death the "old man" and on and on ad-nauseam. The simple truth is: it is not true. Christians are absolutely no different than any one else. They do not have GOD ALMIGHTY in their bodies, making them into new creatures. Oh, sure, many resist temptation and endeavor to live a pure, moral life, but their thoughts continue to trouble them, and have to be resisted until death. Anyone who claims otherwise is a lying fool.

Now, of course someone is going to give me one of the stock theological answers to this puzzle, such as, the sin nature will never be destroyed until death. Or they might say that we are never perfectly sanctified in this life. There are plenty of well-rehearsed answers, all with supporting Bible verses, and interestingly, many of those bland explanations contradict one another, depending on the denominational bent of the various unharmonious voices. I readily admit that I have never been anything more than a layman. I have no official seminary or theological schooling to adorn my walls. I have, however, read extensively from the writings of Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Martin Luther, John Calvin, R.C. Sproul, the historic Confessions of Faith, commentaries without number, The Sword of the Lord, Charisma Magazine, Bill Bright, Frank Morrison, Hendricks, etc.

Listing all my reading is possible, but I only mention the books I can see from my computer desk. If I were to go to the basement, I would recite dozens of other well known authors in Christendom. I owned a Dake Bible and I own an old Geneva Bible. I have a reprint of Tyndale's original English New Testament. I was, and am, highly interested in the Christian faith. Does all this reading make me the authority? No of course not, but it was not only emotional dissatisfaction which led me to my present position. The more I studied the Christian faith, its history, how it has mutated and evolved over time, I began to realize that I was not being intellectually honest with myself. How can “the truth once delivered” change so much over the course of 2000 years if GOD ALMIGHTY was running the show? For example, Arminianism was heresy to Protestants when the Bible was published in English. Now it is the Calvinists who are held in disrepute.

Chances are that many of the Christians who read the mentions of Calvinism, eschatology, soteriology, etc., have no idea what I am talking about. That is another topic that contributed to my first suspicions that Xtianity is a false lie: the striking ignorance and loathing for learning that is rife in the Christian community. Claiming to love god with all their hearts and souls, yet reading His Word, memorizing it, studying theology to better understand HIM, is quite beyond most, if not nearly all Christians. Finding anyone who understands the history of Christianity prior to Darby's Dispensational gospel is nearly impossible. I would try to strike up conversations about theological and historical topics that were churning in my mind only to find blank stares in the Christian's faces to whom I would address myself. Now, that would be understandable if I were addressing novices, or baby believers, but the blankest stares would come from the pastors themselves. One pastor actually admitted to me that he found if very difficult to study the Word of God. He found study of theology very dry and boring and emphasized to me that Christ was relational, seeking a living relationship with his children, not living in dry books but living in beating hearts. Oh, how pious sounding! No doubt some reading this now have heard such tripe, and maybe some even heard their spirit bear witness to them that, yes that is true, Christ desires a relationship with us. To this nonsense I say that since Christ and his Dad are not talking in any other conventional way except through the words of Scripture in these last days, how is it I can hear His voice, unless I immerse myself in His WORDS? How is it I can say I am filled with the Holy Spirit, I love GOD more than all, I am being made into a new creation, and yet still find studying Christianity to be dull? The answer is simple of course. It is dull, and it is dead. There is no living Spirit indwelling believers, and only the compulsive, people like me, have the natural drive to totally focus on boring stuff.

Finally, finding no answers to my questions, I read the books of such people as Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Dan Barker, Charles Templeton, Austin Mills, James Randi, Richard Dawkins, and a host of others. I began to see that there was a whole world of Freethinking Ex-Christians, and NON-Christians out there, people who were fairly invisible to the general public, especially the Christian general public. My mind was opened to reality, and is continuing to be opened to reality, as the myths and gods of my youth are abandoned to be replaced by reason.

I do not consider myself an agnostic anymore, finding fence sitting untenable. I could say I am now an evil Atheist, or I could use the softer sounding title of Freethinker. For now I will simply call myself an Ex-Christian, though there is more to it than being an ex something or another. I no longer believe in any gods or goddesses, they are all primitive imaginings reflecting an escape from fear and ignorance. There are many things we do not know about the world and the universe at large, but not knowing the how’s or why’s of things does not predispose us to believing in a giant Sky Daddy, or Tri-Daddy, or whatever.

None of this proves or disproves Christianity, I realize, but the purpose of this paper is to show the thinking processes that led to my de-conversion.

Add this page to:

524 Comments:

Rick wrote:

Web Master,

I stumbled across your site and, please forgive me - but I just don't get it (the purpose of your site).

The site purpose is clearly defined as "This forum exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind." But again, I just don't get it.

Why do people need to be "encouraged" to leave religion behind? Why do you really care or matter to you? What is your underlying purpose for this encouragement?

Would the world be a better place if all Christians stopped believing in Christ as our Savior? Are more people, in your opinion, harmed by a true belief in Christ than by folks who don't believe in God? Would crime go down and charitable donations go up if atheism became the norm? Would world peace immediately break out if the last Christian goes to his or her grave? Does it make you feel better when you hear someone say "I believed in Christ all my life but you convinced me - my Christian beliefs are for the birds." I need some "honest from the heart" factual answers to these questions.

I am obviously being provocative but sincere in asking you to explain your real reason for encouraging folks to become ex-Christians. Again I just don't get it...

Sincerely,

Rick

PS: As a Christian, I do care about you. I have an interest in your well-being both physically and spiritually.

posted: November 25, 2005 EST

.:webmaster:. wrote:

It's simple Rick, Christianity is just another man-made, phony cult - that's all.

While touting itself as the answer to man's ultimate questions, all it really does is enslave the mind.

If you are trying to say there are good people who happen to be Christians, well then I completely agree. If what you are trying to say is that because there are good people who are Christians that Christianity is true, then I disagree.

Every person who for one reason or another finds themselves captured by a religious cult, finds it very difficult to escape the clutches of that cult. If they ever do escape, they desperately need encouragement.

This site is for those who have escaped or are escaping from the cult known as Christianity.

Now do you get it?

posted: November 25, 2005 EST

Ben Cathey wrote:

Resources every searcher should read/watch before making up thier mind:

DON MILLER - Blue Like Jazz

ROB BELL - Nooma videos, Velvet Elvis

BRIAN MCLAREN - A new kind of Christian, almost any other book.

If you have been dissappointed by fundamentalist or insensitive Christians then try these books. They represent an emerging Christian movement that is attempting to repair some of the brain dead mistakes of the past. This resources represent an emerging movement as followers of Jesus move bravely forward into the new post-modern era.

Dare ya... :-)

A follower of Jesus,
Ben Cathey

posted: November 26, 2005 EST

Dave8 wrote:

Rick, religion isn't the answer for humanitarian need, people are the answer working together... Religions, create division among their own denominations, and within society, except when trying to further its own needs...

That's not an altruistic cause, per doctrine, that's a selfish desire...

Don't believe me? When is the last time a religion has totally donated money to a charity, and refused to have its name associated to the donation... When is the last time, a religion has pushed for a cause, and not plastered its name everywhere for recognition... Religion markets itself for its own purposes, and typically requires someone to give up something in order to receive something, i.e., one gives up their natural reasoning ability, to receive help from the church... Religions are co-dependent institutions by and far exceeding the rare ones that are truly in the background and not pounding the drum of "You're all going to pay, if you don't do it our way."...

What's wrong with encouraging people to do it alone, and ask for help from friends who don't require something in return, except honesty... Fanatic Religious underpinnings would be gone long ago, if the marketers for these religious beliefs, didn't exist in a democracy, with "enterprise"...

I have to accept the BS of enterprising co-dependent religions because I live in a democracy, however, as an educated consumer, I get the choice to call it BS and not buy into the madness...

The BS is spreading from this nation accross the globe, and competing with other BS religions... where the demographic targets, are the poor and uneducated... I suppose there must exist a comforting body, for those who have no "hope" that they will do anything in life, and therefore need to look beyond this reality... Point is, why not give "hope" in the here and now, instead of focusing on the afterlife...

Oh, and Abrahamic religions are death cults... There is more Value in death, and the rewards immediately following death, than there is in "Life"...

And regarding recreation of religious views, in order to bring Christianity into the modern-era... That in itself is admission, that Christianity was BS from the beginning, and needs to be overhauled... I suppose there will be a marketing campaign for the next few hundred years, addressing the billions of people who have been lied to, and many butchered mistakenly...

Oh, perhaps not, that would undermine the credibility of those who are creating some "new" and "improved" religion, using the same unprovable icon, Jesus, who by all accounts in the bible, was a coward, liar, blasphemer, etc...

Why not drop the whole "Jesus" precept, and start with Values... oh, that's right, then one religion would have nothing more to offer than the next, and its hard to compete without a unique twist and beneficial reward... Religions are nothing but businesses selling propaganda to the masses, in order to gain power and influence...

posted: November 26, 2005 EST

Bryan Stevens wrote:

Dave,
I was looking for info on candy canes and wound up here. I am a "believer" and I agree with you about religion. I predictably don't, however, agree with most of the rest. You make a lot of references to things written ABOUT the Bible as a source of your disillusionment. That's too bad. I'll try not to irritate you with the stock Scripture references and religious sayings. I just have a couple of questions.
Isn't it contradictory on the one hand to say that you have very few absolute answers and then on the other to say that you are an Athiest? In order to be an actual Athiest you have to profess that you are sure that there is no God and to do so requires absolute knowledge. If there is the slightest chance that anywhere in the vast body of knowledge that you don't possess there could be absolute proof of God's existence, then an intellectually honest person cannot be an Athiest, only an Agnostic. Possibly a subtle distinction but words are the means we define our thoughts.
Also, you characterized all "Abrahamic" religions as cults of Death. The topic of "religions" aside, my Bible says that Jesus came that we might have life abundantly. I also don't know, nor do I feel the need to know, about Arminianism, Calvinism, Darbyite or any other of the intellectual tags MEN have put on their particuler brand of Biblical interpretation. I find it is challenging enough to know Christ and Him crucified.
Dave, I pray that God will reveal the Truth to you.
May God Bless You and Your Family

Bryan Stevens

posted: November 27, 2005 EST

.:webmaster:. wrote:

Actually, proclaiming myself an atheist, all I am saying is that I do not believe in the claims of Christianity.

I do not believe is a negative proposition. I am NOT saying I believe there is no god, I am simply stating that it is up to the theist to provide evidence that their particular god is real.

Ultimately everyone is born an atheist - no one has a built in belief in any religion, god, myth, etc. All people are taught about religion, god, myth, etc., by their parents, neighbors, culture, upbringing, and so on.

For example, if you were born in a Muslim country, it is quite likely that you would be praying to Allah. Since you were born in a Christian nation (my assumption here - please correct me if I'm wrong), then you would likely believe that Christianity is the correct religion and that your "god" (the one you've crafted in your mind) is "the god."

Feel free to keep praying for me but I think you're wasting your time. If your God truly has "unconditional love" for me and those like me who do not believe in him/her/it, then I don't have a thing to worry about. Unconditional love is, after all, UNCONDITIONAL, right?

posted: November 27, 2005 EST

Dave8 wrote:

Bryan: "Isn't it contradictory on the one hand to say that you have very few absolute answers and then on the other to say that you are an Athiest? In order to be an actual Athiest you have to profess that you are sure that there is no God and to do so requires absolute knowledge."

Since I don't know if you were referring to Dave8 or WM Dave, I'll just throw my two cents in :-) There is only "one" Universal absolute I know of, and its called "Change"... Beyond that, there is the external "Atheist" factor and the "Intrinsic" Atheist factor...

I am "Called" and "Labelled" an Atheist from those of religion, because I am more of a "methodological naturalist", even though I don't proclaim a Universal Absolute... Its not my doing, blame those who feel the need to point fingers at those who are different for that title...

Now, Intrinsically what do I believe as a methodological naturalist... Only what I can empirically measure naturally, now, wait... doesn't that mean that in a sense there isn't a supernatural force? No, I didn't say that, I said... I will test all information provided me, using my faculties, tools, and all assetts available, however, all of these tools to my "natural" knowledge, reside in this Natural reality... and, since I don't have access to a metaphysical meter, I'll have to accept by default that I currently have "zero" knowledge of a supernatural entity... That's a Personal Absolute Truth... based on first hand experience...

I'm willing for you to provide me information however, that I can measure metaphysically... is that possible? So, its not that I claim a Supernatural entity doesn't exist... its... at this time, I have been provided nothing metaphysical as proof, and am not willing to blindly follow those who have placed their "faith" in another person whom they trusted... I trust my Self, and I want "first" hand experience, if that isn't forthcoming, then, at this point in time... it doesn't exist... I don't rule out the future, who knows what the future holds... If someone has Evidence for the future, in this life, or beyond, I'm listening... until then... I'm just content with this Natural reality... and not making it more than it is... I mean, I look out at the stars with awe, and feel great that I am part of the bigger whole of the Natural Universe... Its my family... I experience it daily, and its tangible...

Bryan: "If there is the slightest chance that anywhere in the vast body of knowledge that you don't possess there could be absolute proof of God's existence, then an intellectually honest person cannot be an Athiest, only an Agnostic. Possibly a subtle distinction but words are the means we define our thoughts."

Again, I don't label my Self as an Atheist, the less educated do that for me... Personally, I agree, I don't have all the knowledge in the Universe, however, I am willing to continue the search... the Religious believe they already hold their Universal Absolute Truth... i.e., a SuperNatural God does in "Fact" exist... If one wants to crush the illiterate cause, then religion is going to be in for a rude awakening...

Being a Methodological Naturalist, again, I don't presuppose anything... Presuppositions are assumed by most "all" religions, and Other philosophical belief systems which hold Universal Absolute Truths... True, our language is our means of communication, and tis why, I wait for personal experience, it reduces the likelihood of transferrance error when commuting thoughts or ideas...

Is a Methodological Naturalist akin to an Agnostic? Well... not from my humble perspective... An Agnostic makes the "claim" that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive at some point in time. I tend view my belief on the spectrum, to be between Agnosticism and Ontological Naturalism (Atheism)... Because, I actually don't just leave it as "inconclusive" evidence for or against... I am willing to state there is total conclusive "evidence" for me, at this point in my "life" that a supernatural god doesn't exist... What separates the Methodological Naturalist and Ontological Naturalist is the Ontological Naturalist claims, that there will "never" be, in the future, evidence for or against a supernatural/metaphysical entity...

Some don't know philosophy in depth, and are content to making statements of "soft" or "hard" Atheism... however, those terms seems to be a measure of "Conviction", and I just assume that everyone should be totally convinced of their beliefs, one way or another... If someone is "soft" in their beliefs, then they are not quite settled on a belief system, and are still searching...

Currently, I have disavowed hate groups, and intolerant belief systems, and so, have become a Hard-core Methodological Naturalist... If you want to label me an Atheist, I suppose its your choice, but... your label, doesn't presuppose me to a belief system based on "Universal Absolutes"...

Bryan: "Also, you characterized all "Abrahamic" religions as cults of Death. The topic of "religions" aside, my Bible says that Jesus came that we might have life abundantly."

Bryan, I am well versed, no pun intended, on the bible... historically between socio-political and cultural influence, to linguistical inerpretation using exegisis and eisegesis... I have looked up more Hebrew after leaving the University than I did, while attending a four year Southern Baptist University...

Literally speaking, Jesus committed suicide in order to help out humanity... If Jesus were considered one of the Godhood, then he omnisciently murdered himself in a premeditated manner, becuase he had to power to absolve himself... Jesus came to "die" so that "others" may "benefit"..., he martyred himself, to himself, to absolve himself, for his own mistake... The "Value" of Death and Martyrdom, is quite well documented throughout history and the bible...

One had to die, so that they may live... This elevates "death" above "life"... Such would be the agenda for a Roman Emperor and Roman Church, who needed to sway their citizens to ponder death as heralding some Value, in order to get them to march on to the Crusades... The desire for everlasting "glory", and reward for death, was enough to persuade average citizens to drop their farming tools, and join in the Crusades...

If one cared to look briefly at Adam and Eve's scenario, they were portrayed by the early Roman Church as "Dying" a spiritual death in the garden of Eden... The "spiritual Death" of humanity for all eternity, was overcome, by the "Death" of the creator... One Death was overcome by Another Death... Death, is throughout the bible, and the Jewish God is at the helm in the TaNaKh (Hebrew OT), most times... The Slaughter of innocents, to Glorify God, i.e., Death is Valuable...

Bryan: "I find it is challenging enough to know Christ and Him crucified."

I find it challenging to believe Christ crucified himself as an omniscient deity... Perhaps, the Jews were correct, that Jesus not The Jewish Messiah, and is why the Hebrew OT messianic prophesies were never fulfilled, i.e., the establishment of the Third Temple, the Messiah being of the house of David (Jesus was born of a Spirit, with no biological father), etc., etc...

Bryan, I believe everyone has the right to their beliefs, as Personal Truth... In the end, when someone pushes a religious Universal Absolute as a fact to the masses to persuade, I tend to just ask for evidence of such claims, not that I have a need to take someone elses' beliefs away... I personally want to see the evidence, as... I am a methodological naturalist, looking for information that I might have overlooked... So, far, from what I have learned... metaphysical/supernatural beliefs, are totally based on Rationalized Metaphysical Presuppositions, and thus, must be based on 'hope' which extends beyond "Reason"...

I "hope" you and your family are well, and that comes from me, personally... take care...

posted: November 28, 2005 EST

got over it wrote:

Web Master Dave,
What exactly are you trying to prove.? unfortunately you are being equally successfull at wasting your time as those who you now oppose.
Lighten up buddy - turn on the tunes.
specifically try "get over it" by the Eagles. that really sums it up

posted: December 03, 2005 EST

Ric wrote:

Dave,

I'm glad I found your site. I too am an atheist, particularly a secular humanist. If I may answer some other people's questions to you, in my opinion, the reason to encourage people to leave religion is that religion causes more harm than good. It breeds hatred, intolerance and intolerance while preaching love-- but in practice it is only love if you tow the line. Keep up the good work, Dave.

posted: December 04, 2005 EST

Anonymous wrote:

Every arguement posted on this silly page are statements of faith. I am a Christian based purely on scientific and intrensic evidence. As we move forward into both macro and micro cosmology we find the overwhelming evidence of some sort of cosmic design. For instance we know that there is a beginning to time and all universes, solar systems, drians, DNA etc... spin at the same constant geometric angle - there is no "scientific" explanation for this phenomenon. Nature or physics holds no answer, it is simply a common trait. If looked at objectively one can only identify these traits as evidence of common design such as the brush strokes of a master painter. There are also the scientific laws of probability when applied to infinite space/time and the finite amount of mass or particles that exist at any one time - they tell us that the primordial soup theory for the beginning of life is in fact impossible. The very proof of the existence of many different planes on which time and space exist now tell us what we thought we knew as scientists have all changed. We have recently found out that we share almost all of our DNA with dogs! That is not an amazing coincidence it is proof of a common design philosophy - when looked at purely objectively. Did you know that the law of probability prove you have a better chance of digging up a fully functioning B-2 bomber that just fell together than even the simplest single cell organism? It is a matter of complexity and chemical/elemental availability. Yet if you did discover sucha jet you would never wonder how it evolved naturally from other earlier forms of aviation, you would assume it had been designed and built. Who is making the "great leap of faith" now? True science and historical data have only proven to man how wrong he can be over and over again. Just look at the archeological discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah, thought only to be a cautionary moral fabal in the old testament, they were found right where they should have been and to have been destroyed exactly the way it said they were... Historical accuracy from a book of lies? I think not. I we examine the facts of science and history objectively we can only discover that there was a designer and that there is an accurate record of his dealings with humans. There are thousands of examples more but I have not the time. I encourage you all to be honest with yourselves in your evaluation. I am not telling you how to live or believe but I am making a statement that it takes much more time and enrgy to try and disprove the existance of a God and only very little "faith" to belive in a God (perhaps as small as a mustard seed) - if we strictly look at the FACTS not the theories. Theories and minutes my how they fall...
A good honest resource is www.doesgodexist.com
A scientist and former Athiest - perhaps from birth
Christopher

posted: December 23, 2005 EST

Jason wrote:

I understand your "anti-testimony" completely. Thanks for having the guts to put it out there. I would consider myself an hesitant, agnostic-feeling, constantly-reminded-of-God's-goodness, former evangelical Catholic with obedience problems. That is to say, I still profess the faith, but often wonder if I've got any left in me. Until it shows up.

Feel free to post on my blog. Sometimes my faithdoubt shows up there. I wish you the best in the journey.

posted: December 24, 2005 EST

Elaine, a very concerned mother wrote:

I find your commentary disturbing. My daughter is currently having difficulties with belief and non-belief. I believe you are only complicating things more. Life is simple. God exists, christ exists, and my daughter and I exist. God is a forgiving God. You do not have to be hell-bent in either direction. To believe without doubt in your heart would be difficult. But the more I learn from my daughter the more I believe this: live life honestly, treat others with respect, do not expect to find all the answers, they are not there. What is there is FAITH. You believe because you choose to believe. You can read book after book, you can proclaim to be a non-believer, it is our right god given right to choose and believe or not believe. I choose to believe and I pray my daughter does to. Maybe I am a sheep as you say, but I am a happy sheep because I believe in heaven and hell and if I am forgiven for all my sins then I will go to heaven and someday meet my daughter there. Remember god is a forgiving god. You do not have to be a fanatical believer or non believer. Your ideas are disturbing and terrifying. I truely hope that before your physical body dies you allow god to forgive you for trying to lead us sheep into the wrong path. Life does not have to be hard. You however are making it hard for my daughter to stop obesssing over faith and non-faith. Please stop. Allow our children to make up their own minds and not be persuaded by someone who cannot make up his own mind. Sincerely, Elaine

posted: December 28, 2005 EST

.:webmaster:. wrote:

Elaine,

No one is forcing anyone to read the materials on this site.

If you don't want your daughter reading these things, well... then make a parental decision.

If you'll allow me a little observation on raising kids, I am a grandfather and still have teenage children at home. As much as I might I want each of them to think or do certain things, they have a habit of reminding me that they have minds of their own. I'd wager that one day soon you'll find out that your daughter will make many decisions that may very well contradict your own. That's life.

Have a nice day.

posted: December 28, 2005 EST

Onanite wrote:

Elaine (the overprotective mom) said:

"I find your commentary disturbing."

Good, maybe it is making you think. Imagine that!

"My daughter is currently having difficulties with belief and non-belief. I believe you are only complicating things more."

My guess is your daughter is lifting her head out of the sand. Sounds like she is coming to grips with the fact that myth makes for interesting reading at times, but real life is much more to be desired. I hope she is able to free herself from religion and lead a happy life.

"Life is simple."

Well you have that right. We are born, we live and we die, just like everything on the planet. It is simple, and fun, as long as we avoid the trap of religion.

"God exists ... (typical xtian stuff deleted to save space) You do not have to be a fanatical believer or non believer."

Then why are you such a fanatic?

"Your ideas are disturbing and terrifying. I truely hope that before your physical body dies you allow god to forgive you for trying to lead us sheep into the wrong path."

Oh you sad little woman. The ideas here are not what is terrifying you, but the fact that the ideas shake your beliefs and make you think. You have opened your eyes ever so slightly, and the light is blinding you. Don't be afraid; are your beliefs so weak they cannot withstand the light of day?"

"Life does not have to be hard. You however are making it hard for my daughter to stop obesssing over faith and non-faith. Please stop."

Life is not hard dear, you are the one that seems to be making it so for yourself. Your daughter is just thinking for herself. It is part of what makes humans special creatures. We have the ability to seek truth. We have the capacity to reason. Would you really want anything different for your daughter?

"Allow our children to make up their own minds and not be persuaded by someone who cannot make up his own mind. Sincerely, Elaine"

That is exactly what this site and many others do. We post and exist so when people of all ages begin to seek, they will be able to make an informed decision. They will have alternatives to the prison of religion. They will have the ability to be free. Pretty cool huh?

Onanite

posted: December 28, 2005 EST

Jim Arvo wrote:

Christopher,

You end your post by claiming that you a "scientist and former Atheist". I find it exceedingly hard to believe that you are a scientist of any kind, given the form and substance of your arguments, and I suspect that you were a rather ill-informed atheist (which you cannot even spell, by the way). Let's look at some of the things you said.

Christopher: "For instance we know that there is a beginning to time and all universes, solar systems, drians, DNA etc... spin at the same constant geometric angle..."

First, please explain in detail what it means to "spin at the same constant geometric angle". I can assign a fairly obvious meaning to that phrase in the context of galaxies and planetary orbits, but that obvious meaning is clearly contradicted by myriad observations. Moreover, your utterance seems to be completely meaningless when applied to DNA. Therefore, I strongly suspect that you are simply stringing scientific-sounding words together without a clue as to what they actually mean.

Christopher: "- there is no 'scientific' explanation for this phenomenon. Nature or physics holds no answer,..."

No scientist I know would make such a silly statement. How do you know that "Nature or physics holds no answer"? Please explain how you would design an experiment to decide whether or not an answer could (in principle) be forthcoming?

Christopher: "If looked at objectively one can only identify these traits as evidence of common design such as the brush strokes of a master painter."

If one looks "objectively"? Is that what you are doing? All you are doing is making a loose analogy, which proves absolutely nothing (aside from your lack of objectivity, perhaps).

Christopher: "There are also the scientific laws of probability when applied to infinite space/time and the finite amount of mass or particles that exist at any one time - they tell us that the primordial soup theory for the beginning of life is in fact impossible."

What on Earth are you talking about?! You are no scientist. What are your credentials? The above sentence is a complete mishmash of nonsense.

Christopher: "We have recently found out that we share almost all of our DNA with dogs! That is not an amazing coincidence it is proof of a common design philosophy - when looked at purely objectively."

Okay, now it's becoming plainly obvious that you have no scientific background in biology either. If you had even a passing familiarity with the theory of evolution you would know that the enormous amount of genetic information that we share with other organisms (even plants and bacteria) is 100% consistent with, and predicted by, descent from a common ancestor.

Christopher: "Did you know that the law of probability prove you have a better chance of digging up a fully functioning B-2 bomber that just fell together than even the simplest single cell organism?"

Law of probability!? Which law would that be, Christopher? The Law of Large Numbers? The Central Limit Theorem, perhaps? Which? Not only does this show a total lack of mathematical acumen, it also shows a complete lack of critical thinking. It indulges the same shallow and fallacious analogies that creationists have been touting for centuries. If you were any kind of scientist you would realize that you are comparing entirely different phenomena, with wholly different priors.

Christopher: "Yet if you did discover sucha jet you would never wonder how it evolved naturally from other earlier forms of aviation, you would assume it had been designed and built. Who is making the 'great leap of faith' now?"

You are, by assuming that your "jet" is somehow representative of all highly-complex artifacts when in fact it was chosen PRECISELY BECAUSE you *know* that it is both complex AND designed. Moreover, as it belongs to a radically different class of objects (man-made artifacts), it does not allow you to conclude anything at all about the class of living things.

Christopher: "True science and historical data have only proven to man how wrong he can be over and over again."

Any scientist is aware of the fact that ALL scientific conclusions are provisional. It seems that this comes as a revelation to you. Once again, this indicates to me that you are not a scientist.

Christopher: "Just look at the archeological discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah,..."

This is abysmally sloppy thinking. The Bible was written in a historical context, hence it is to be expected that it will refer at times to historically real events and places. Novels are often filled with historically accurate references too. Yet such references in no way validate any incredible claim made in a book.

Christopher: "I[f] we examine the facts of science and history objectively we can only discover that there was a designer and that there is an accurate record of his dealings with humans."

Again, you smugly imply that you are capable of this "objective" inquiry while, presumably, those who disagree with you are not. Your entire attitude is at odds with a scientific approach, which eschews any such boasting of objectivity, and simply strives to ATTAIN as much objectivity as humanly possible. Moreover, it strives to do so in as transparent a manner as possible. Your prose is the very antithesis of that. It is mere dogma, or hearsay at best.

Christopher: "There are thousands of examples more but I have not the time."

Right...

Christopher: "I encourage you all to be honest with yourselves in your evaluation."

Have you been honest? You claim to be a scientist. On what grounds?

Christopher: "...it takes much more time and enrgy to try and disprove the existance of a God and only very little 'faith' to belive in a God...."

Logic is apparently not your forte either. If you were a scientist of any variety, you would realize that one cannot disprove any proposition involving supernatural entities. Hence, following the vast majority of Christian apologists, you have it quite backwards. Yet more evidence that you have no scientific background at all.

Christopher: "...if we strictly look at the FACTS not the theories. Theories and minutes my how they fall..."

How profound. I guess as a "scientist" you have learned to ignore all those ephemeral theories and just stick with the "facts", right? Geeesh.

Christopher: "A scientist and former Athiest [sic]..."

There is not a single syllable in your post that indicates you have any background in science or mathematics at all. I've seen other frauds here, masquerading as mathematicians and scientists. They are easy to spot. They give themselves away because they confuse mere terminology with scientific reasoning.

Christopher, I think you too are a fraud. Every sentence gives it away.

posted: December 28, 2005 EST

jose Sal wrote:

Everything you say is correct if you look God through the lens of religion. Religion is an attempt to reach "GOD" and I really think and know that religion is man made and is a waste of time for i have tried it myself and found almost 100% of what you've said to be true. Although I am a beliver I believe in Jesus and in the Bible as the truth.... what I do not believe is all the organizational structures of leadership or hierarchy that denominations and religions, they make the source dirty and filthy by adding or taking what they don't need or is contrary to their "holy masked" evil goals some leaders are sincere but still incorrect because they are dividing in classes... and believe me I hate denominations and religions but at the end who am i to judge them. The only thing I can say for sure is that Jesus is God and the Bible is true... i cannot tell you believe what i believe because i do not pretend to know everything but i can tell you the same thing that i say to myself good luck in your search for the truth because that is basically what it is a search... as the bible says only the father can show you the son... we are together in this!!! let's go forward!!

posted: January 15, 2006 EST

jose sal wrote:

webmaster:
"on some aspect of relgion that seperates them from the others? You do not
like one aspect so turn your back to it and place your focus in another
aspect."
I understand what you are saying... but what i wanted to say with that is that denomiations, etc... does not belong to what jesus taught 'cause even jesus was not a religious leader nor a priest in human terms.... there are many things that can be discussed about the contradictions in the bible and it may even be possible that there are mistakes in the translations but in the worst of the cases is just a matter of believing a matter of faith. because even for me there is a possibility of 50 and 50 that God is real i guess i prefer to believe... Anyway changing the subject after all this nonsense, my point is that i can be a believer and be in disagreement with the denominational ideas and the clergy and i understand what you say that by being against denominations I am creating another one ... but i am saying denominations do not belong to the truth why instead can't they join the best of each other and be one i guess because of the leadership... but i guess that is an utopia too!!! so the only thing i can do is believe in jesus and his teachings and do good to our neighbor. the fist is my decision of faith without following any ideological standard and the second is a universal rule, call it morality if you want

posted: January 15, 2006 EST

Just Rick wrote:

Sal said : > "what I do not believe is all the organizational structures of
leadership or hierarchy that denominations and religions, they make the
source dirty and filthy by adding or taking what they don't need "

Sal also said : > "The only thing I can say for sure is that Jesus is God
and the Bible is true..."

Where to start on this ... I guess the "truth" of the bible. Sal, anyone
that opens their eyes and simply looks at the information available cannot
hold that the bible is true. First is the contradictions in the bible. It
simply amazes me that xians still claim there are no contradictions. Do a
google search of "Bible contradictions" and you will get an eyeful. You
cannot deny this because the contradicting passages are described and you
can look them up yourself.

Next is the bible's authenticity. Again, search the internet and there is so
much proof that much of the bible has been changed over the years due to bad
copying, mistranslation, or purposeful alterations. As an example, the story
of "he who hath no sin, cast the first stone" does not even appear in the
earliest translations of the bible and were added in much later.

Next is the bible's plagerism of other religions. Many of the stories and
events of the bible can be found to predate the bible and their sources can
be traced to other civilizations that existed prior to the writing of the
bible. In many cases these stories have been hijacked and outright stolen
from others. The story of Noah, the story of adam and eve. Again, the
information highway can provide much to anyone willing to search for truth.

The bible simply is not a book of truth. A collaberation of stories trying
to pass off various moral tales would be more accurate, but then again,
there are just as much immoral works in the bible as well (killing babies,
intollerance of others, murder, rape, incest, etc).

I applaud you for recognizing that the institution of religion is corrupt
and that each and every denomination was created to fulfill the ideal of
specific individuals, and that for much of it the corruption is based in
individual desires and greeds. Organized religion is simply a tool to
control the masses and make easy money. However I would point out that what
you do is very similar to the very same claims you make against them.

You have chosen portions of religion (Jesus, God, the Bible) that you like
and focus your belief on those while denying other aspects of religion that
you do not like. Is this not what they have done? Each denomination focusing
on some aspect of relgion that seperates them from the others? You do not
like one aspect so turn your back to it and place your focus in another
aspect.

It's a game of pick and choose, even on an individual level. Do you not see
the contradictions in that?

posted: January 15, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

Hello,
i have been reading your anti-testimony and pondering on it for a good hour or so and was just overcome by a great sadness because, unfortunately, some of the things you said were true.
When a person professes to be a christian they are now under a microscope. And when their lives are marred by foolish decisions, ignorance and hatred, well, the world notices. You certainly did.

Why aren't christians' lives any different than the rest of the worlds? that is such a good question. You have challenged me, a follower of Jesus, to take a closer look at myself.

posted: January 16, 2006 EST

.:webmaster:. wrote:

When you have the answer to the challenge, come back and share it.

posted: January 16, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

Hello again webmaster,
I re-read you anti-testimony for a second time. You wrote that you cried and cried the night you prayed the "prayer" in your room those many years ago. Why were you crying? was it out of fear? or something else?

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

.:webmaster:. wrote:

I cried becuase I felt I was in direct contact with the creator of the Universe and that HE was really present in the room. It was a very emotional and powerful experience - one that I often hungered to have repeated.

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for answering my questions. I have more..i hope you don't mind but i am trying to understand your situation better. In your anti-testimony you wrote: “We are taught that the Holy Spirit is within us, transforming us, quickening us, destroying our sin nature, putting to death the "old man" and on ad-nauseam.” I think you are referring to the sin issue that christianity tries to tackle. How did you view the idea of sin before and after your emotional conversion experience? Did this change after your deconversion?

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

Webmaster, I don’t know if you were still wondering about this:

You wrote: “One of the biggest newly discovered contradictions I could not rectify was whether or not Judas threw his money into the temple and hanged himself or bought a field and fell headlong into it.”

Matthew records that Judas threw the money into the temple and hung himself. The chief priests then used the “blood money” to buy a plot of land (Matt 27:2-4); Luke, the writer of Acts, records that Judas acquired (the NIV renders the original greek word ktah'-om-ahee as “bought” rather than the more appropriate “acquired”) a plot of land and fell head long into it (Acts 1:18).

By definition, for two statements to be a contradiction, both cannot be true at the same time. But you see, this is why this isn’t a contradiction.

These two statements are eyewitness accounts. If you ask a person investigating a crime scene, he or she will tell you that no two eyewitness accounts are ever exactly identical. If they WERE this actually lowers the credibility of the statements! That is what makes the Judas account even more likely to be true. This is how you can piece both events together:

Judas threw the money at the chief priests, went away and hung himself, the rope broke around his neck and he then fell headlong on the plot of land below, splitting his insides open (Acts 1:18). You could just imagine the horror of those who discovered his body this way. The chief priests bought this plot of land and was later named the Field of Blood by the people in Jerusalem. Judas acquired this land because it was bought primarily as a burial site for strangers (Matt 27:7) and he was probably the first to be buried there.

p.s. You can check the original greek for yourself at www.greekbible.com which has the original language the NT was written in.

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Jim Arvo wrote:

Concerning the two different accounts of the death of Judas, Anonymous said "If they WERE [the same] this actually lowers the credibility of the statements! That is what makes the Judas account even more likely to be true...."

So if the Bible said Judas was torn to pieces by wolves in one place, and that he fell into a volcano in another place, then those two testimonies would just HAVE to be true, right?

Anonymous: "This is how you can piece both events together...the rope broke around his neck and he then fell headlong on the plot of land below, splitting his insides open (Acts 1:18)."

I can also harmonize the above two scenarios: Judas was standing on the side of an active volcano crater when he was attacked by wolves. Just as they tore his arms off, he fell into the volcano. See? No contradiction.

Of course, it would be quite odd for one witness to fail to mention the volcano, and the other witness to fail to mention the wolves. Just like it would be odd for one of your so-called witnesses to fail to mention the noose, and the other to fail to mention the ghastly spilling of guts.

You also conveniently overlook the fact that one account says that he *hanged* himself, which suggests that he succeeded. In your scenario it would have been more accurate to say that he had *attempted* to hang himself, would it not? Oh wait... We can still get this to work. The rope broke after he was actually dead! Only THEN did his guts spill on the ground! Right?

Good grief. What would the Bible have to say in order for you to conclude that it's not reliable?

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

In any eyewitness account you have to consider the time in which they saw the event. My question for you is this: are you telling me that it is completely unreasonable and unintelligent to conclude that one person saw the hanging and another person saw the body after it has fallen?

Now we can speculate lots of reasons on why it fell; maybe it fell because of decay or someone cut it down and by that time the body was in a decomposed position. We do not know that part for sure.

But we do know that BOTH accounts say that the field was later called the Field of Blood (Matt 27:8, Acts 1:19). Now I haven’t seen too many hangings myself, but doesn’t death result from strangulation or lack of air on the part of the victim? Why would they call it Field of Blood?

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

Hello Jim. You wrote, "You also conveniently overlook the fact that one account says that he "hanged" himself, which suggests that he succeeded. In your scenario it would have been more accurate to say that he had "attempted" to hang himself, would it not?"

No because then I would not be relying on the accounts themselves, now would I?

Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Luke does not assert that Judas did not hang himself prior to his fall” Therefore, the verses actually supplement, rather than contradict, each other. Matthew gives the METHOD by which Judas carried out his own death, while Luke reports the END RESULT.

But thanks for the "volcano" examples. They were humorous:)

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

"You also conveniently overlook the fact that one account says that he *hanged* himself, which suggests that he succeeded. In your scenario it would have been more accurate to say that he had *attempted* to hang himself, would it not?"

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the fall was the reason for his death. He did succeed in hanging himself.

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

.:webmaster:. wrote:

Well, I think the real point is that neither the writer of Matthew nor the writer of Luck actually saw any of it - it was all hearsay. It seems obvious that each writer merely tailored the details of the fable in order to demonize either the Jewish leaders or Judas, depending on the writer's personal motive.

Besides, I've heard that worn out apologetic a hundred times, and for many a year I even tried to believe it. I'm ashamed to say I even preached it to others.

However, both stories cannot be true - period. Since there is some measure of inaccuracy in at least one of the stories, that would suggest that the Bible is not inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant in even one sentence, then there is error, and that means it is NOT the word of a god.

Case closed.

And would you please post under some pseudonym besides anonymous. Trying to answer a half-dozen anonymous posters, who may or may not be the same person, is annoying.

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

.:webmaster:. wrote:

Concerning the two different accounts of the death of Judas, Anonymous said "If they WERE [the same] this actually lowers the credibility of the statements! That is what makes the Judas account even more likely to be true...."

Ah, no, such inconsistencies do not make the stories true. Inconsistencies just make the stories inconsistent. The TRUTH is unknown.

You say the stories compliment each other - each being completely true, with some details left out.

And how do you know that this is what the writers of Matthew and Luke intended? Having a hypothesis that somehow justifies your belief is fine and dandy, but it is a far cry from truth.

Or how about this scenario: My wife said she spent the evening with friends, which was true. What she failed to mention was that she also slept with a lover. Now, since she left out an important part of the story, did she tell the truth?

OK, maybe that's not a perfect example, but the evidence remains that Judas either hanged himself in a field he purchased, or he had a nasty fall in a field that someone else purchased. More than likely, neither story has a shred of truth in it and the writers of the two gospels simply felt that Judas needed to end up dead after his horrible "mortal" sin of kissing God on the lips.

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Dave8 wrote:

On Judas:

"The Betrayal of Jesus - Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated and despised character in the Bible with the possible exception of Satan. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts all of which were written long after the events allegedly took place. He receives not a single mention mention in the writings of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, the reconstructed document, Quelle (Q) or the Didache.

Judas first appears in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, where he is appointed by Jesus as one of the twelve apostles. In this passage we are tipped off in advance of Judas’ treachery. Matthew and Luke repeat Mark almost verbatim, however, the author of John adds something. In John 6:70-71 Jesus announces that one of the twelve, Judas, is a devil. In John 12:4-6 we learn of another of Judas’ character flaws. He was also a thief.

As was predicted, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus. They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, yet ye laid no hold on me."

Judas proceeds to identify Jesus by way of that infamous kiss, and that’s the last we hear of him in the gospels of Mark, Luke and John. However, the author of Matthew doesn’t let it drop there. Apparently Judas’ conscience got the better of him because according to Matthew 27:3-5 he made a sincere attempt to repent but was denied forgiveness. In a gesture of frustration he returned the money and went and hanged himself. Matthew goes on to say that the chief priests and the elders used the money to buy a piece of land. Because it was bought with blood money, the land became known as "The Field of Blood."

In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the son of man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.

Had the Judas story ended with the betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough alone. In 1:15-19 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that Judas didn’t commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two fields of blood? But, it gets worse.

Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the missing apostle was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confound the reader, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection, that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."

Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30. Here Jesus tells his apostles that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before Judas and the betrayal story was invented by the writer of Mark.

For centuries Judas Iscariot has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed when one considers Acts 1:16. Here the apostle Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." So according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas’ contribution as an indispensable element of the passion story.

The story of Judas Iscariot, although obvious fiction, has lead to some tragic consequences. Judas is deliberately portrayed as a caricature intended to confirm the very worst misconceptions about the Jewish people. As a result, for almost two thousand years the Jews have been unjustly persecuted and vilified because their forefathers were accused of slaying Jesus, a mythical god-man whose very existence remains highly questionable. How long must superstition with all its evils rule and curse the modern world? How long must people be held hostage to what is obviously a myth and nothing more?"
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Dave8 wrote:

Mom always said, telling only half the truth, is a lie. Another, favorite fallacious method of argument used by those who "attempt" to bridge the chasm when major contradiction occur:

"Argument By Selective Observation:

Also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent about its serial killers. Or, the claim "Technology brings happiness". (Now, there's something with hits and misses.)

Casinos encourage this human tendency. There are bells and whistles to announce slot machine jackpots, but losing happens silently. This makes it much easier to think that the odds of winning are good."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#half_truth

posted: January 17, 2006 EST

Anonymous wrote:

i was wondering - how would you prove that your senses are reliable?

posted: January 19, 2006 EST

hoof_and_horn30 wrote:

I am so happy I found this sight!It has helped me so much and will continue to help me.COmming out of a cult is hard,Im still dealing with my fear of burning in hell for all eternity.But Im working on it and this site is a Godsend hehe

posted: January 19, 2006 EST