"I decided to challenge the God of the Bible."

I received a recent email from a lady who has begun to seriously question her faith. She asks many good questions, and brings an interesting perspective to the debate. I share it with you here.

I am a christian who has been struggling with my faith lately. Many of the things mentioned in your site are in some ways similar to what I am going through. First I'd like to say that I have not and will not question the born-again experience that you claim to have had. I know of a few people who were at one time born-again but are no longer. Christians have to come to understand that one can indeed have been on fire for Christ to later no longer believe in what they used to. I think the root of that belief is fear that one can lose their salvation. That is why some believe in the once saved always saved doctrine; which is based on fear. I know of a current pagan who described himself at one time as being a very spiritual christian. So it is indeed
possible to no longer believe.

I started out in a very strict pentecostal church-- no pants, make-up, movies, secular music, etc. I became disillusioned with that group and moved on to another which is much better. What really caused me to begin questioning was not science or the so called pagan influences of christianity (which after personal study, I find to be false), but this whole issue of faith. I just can't take any more of being told to believe for things that aren't going to happen. I'll give you an example: I met a woman whose son was killed in Iraq. She did so much praying for him to come home alive. Unfortunately, he died there. I had a brother who was there twice, and I did not want to "step out on faith", as many christians put it. I'd rather not believe for something and end up disappointed. As it turned out, my brother came back alive. My point is, I had no faith, and I had a great outcome. This woman had faith and her son died.

That isn't the only problem. Just about every woman has a desire to parent. However, I've spoken to many married christian women who have fertility problems. Yet, being a teacher, I see teen girls getting pregnant all the time. I also know of single church going women who have children without being married. Something is wrong with this picture, [quotes Psalm 127:3, "children are an heritage of the LORD"] My point is if children are a reward from God, then why are those who commit fornication rewarded with children while so many who are married do not get such a reward? I thought the wages of sin was death, not a reward. I have also heard about a British study which shows that a woman is more likely to become pregnant by a man who isn't her husband. So if that study is true, a woman is more likely to be rewarded if she commits adultery, another sin. This makes no sense at all. I want to make it clear, that I have not read the study. I have only heard about it on a medical documentary (the Discovery channel).

There is also the issue of tithing. Most churches teach that we will be cursed if we don't tithe. Yet, I have yet to see the windows of heaven open after giving so much to the church (as claimed). I'd have to admit that most people do not know of my feelings. I am known as a good christian woman and others would be shattered to know that I have such questions. I have even had others tell me that they admire my faith and have been led to Christ by my witness. Again, these people do not know that I have been questioning lately. This is only half of my story.

In all honesty, I am not sure where all of this will lead me. I wonder if I simply need a new denomination or a new outlook all together. With that said, I have decided to weigh all of my options. I will study more of the bible "contradictions" as well as other faiths more closely than I have. I even decided to challenge the God of the Bible. If he and his word are all they are claimed to be, it is up to him to prove it. No one should have to spend time debating or proving God. We are only human so it is up to God to prove who he is, not us. My study will lead me one of two ways. Either I'll find that the God of the Bible is a hoax, or my relationship with God will be stronger than ever after my study is over. In fact, all faiths and atheists have to prove their cases. Others may disagree, but I could never align myself with any group without evidence/credibility (whether believers or those who do not believe). Whatever the case, this is something I need to do.

I hope that my email did not bore or confuse you. I just needed to speak about this with someone who will hopefully not be judgmental or harsh.

Thanks for listening.

Yes, it could well be that many refuse to think that a Christian could stop believing, because that would then mean that they too could someday stop believing. If they think that the result of not believing will be horrible torment in hell, then it is hard to bear the thought that they too might someday not believe. So many refuse to think that it can happen.

Many 0f us have found that our observations of the world do not match what faith says it should be. There comes a time when we realize that our observations are not deceiving us, and that faith really does not work as claimed.

It is good that this lady began to study and question. She is on the right track, and can expect an exciting adventure of discovery ahead if she continues this course. I wish her well.

Questions About my Born-Again Experience.

A reader writes with questions about my born-again experience. He writes that he is not "trying to argue the truth of the Christian world view" but is rather trying to see if Christianity is "coherent and predictive with respect to your experiences."

His questions are shown in bold.

First, you state you were "born again". Would you describe what that meant to you?

When I was a fundamentalist, being born-again meant that I had put my faith in Christ alone for salvation. Before that I had lived with a horrible fear of hell which dominated my life. I was constantly accepting Christ into my heart, begging for forgiveness, confessing my sin and my faith in Christ, etc., but never quite sure if I had done it right. After reading the tract What Must I do to be Saved I determined that faith alone was sufficient, and put my faith in Christ alone. This greatly relieved the fear of hell, for I now believed that I was safe from the torment.

Later, after fundamentalism had failed me and I had spent years in apathy, I had a second experience in which I determined that I needed the help of God, and set out once more to live in fellowship with him in a close relationship with Jesus Christ. I thought that the God of the universe was now with me, guiding me and talking to me on my way.

Second, in light of your answer and in conjunction with your "change of mind", how did that change your concept of being "born again"?

I now see the first experience as a natural result of the relief from the immense fear of hell that I had experienced in early life. Having lived with that fear, and then later finding relief, it gave me a tremendous boast in life. I now see that this experience was nothing more than a relief from artificial fears.

The second experience is harder to explain. I was in despair before my "walk with God", and had great hope afterward. I now see that the reason for that hope is because I was committing myself to something, and was working to make a better world. I now think that I could have had the same experience by committing myself to many other views. I tell more about my story here.

Third, you obviously have a reasonable grasp of the Christian worldview. Do you believe that within that view, there is an explanation for your experiences?

Christians have a wide range of views about my experiences. I have had many people express their opinions about my experiences in my past debates. And they can't seem to agree.

Some think my experiences were bogus because the true Christian experience comes from the Catholic church, and I was not there. Others think my fundamentalist experience was the correct one, and that since one cannot lose salvation, I am still saved. Others think my fundamentalist experience would have been correct, but they will tell me I never really believed (even though I know I once sincerely believed). Others would think my fundamentalist experience was bogus, but that my later evangelical experience was real, and that I was therefore a child of God and am still a child of God (but backslidden). Others think my evangelical experience was real, but they think one can lose salvation, so they think I lost mine. Still others think my evangelical experience was an ersatz replica of true evangelical experience, and never valid. And some think that neither the fundamentalist nor the later evangelical experience were valid, but that Christianity is instead about following the Sermon on the Mount, and not about born-again experiences. One Christian even told me I was not "saved" back in my Christian days, but I am now! (see this thread, post 294).

So are one of these Christian views the "coherent and predictive" truth about my experiences? If so, which one?

To see more of the confusion about what is required for heaven, see Requirements for Heaven.

Why I am a Humanist

I am a humanist. By this I mean that I accept and promote the values and principles traditionally accepted by humanists. Here I will list some of the more important of those values, and explain why they are important to me. (Click here to see more.)

Why no Bible stories about China or America?

A reader writes with another deconversion story:

Thank you for making this great website in a clearly organized and greatly analyzed way. I accepted Jesus Christ in 1999 after seeing how happy Christians' lives can be and after learning the story that Jesus had died on the cross for my sins as preached by an evangelist. Soon after that, I joined bible study groups and church regularly, where we were taught many miracles that Jesus has performed. However, since I was not a Christian (sorta Buddhists/Taoist) before this and I have many Muslim friends, I questioned my group leader and more experienced Christian friends about the story of evolution, why the earth is much older than the bible said, and why do we have to believe the Bible when Muslims claimed Quran contains God's true words and Bible incomplete. Also, I asked them why can't the bible be a fictional story written by the people that live in the old days? I am sad to say, I did not get convincing answers and most of the time, the discussion will end abruptly when my Christian friends could no longer answer my doubts. They will usually tell me that I do not have to see to believe. All I need is to believe by FAITH. Slowly, my faith decreased and I stopped attending church or bible study.

Also, each time I read the bible, I thought that if God had created the world and humans, surely he must have known that the Chinese people exist too. However, the stories written in the bible only revolves around people in Egypt and places surrounding it. Why is there no mention of the Red Indian tribes in America? The only reason that could answer this is that, those people who wrote the stories in the bible did not know that "outside" world exist at that time. Although I have this conjecture in my mind, I still thought, NO WAY, I have to believe by faith because I want to go to Heaven!

After reading the Da Vinci Code, and The Last Templar, I had actually made up my mind that even if in the future Jesus is proven to be not godly and is merely a mortal, I am open to it and will accept it. But I still believed on certain things Jesus taught which I learnt from bible study and sermons.

Then, today, I finally chance upon your website. And guess what? I am quite surprised that even the church chose to use only the "good" stories to teach us of a loving God. Not a God who is irrational and killed babies. I am really greatful that you wrote in detail how we should believe in scientific facts. Thank you and now I am convinced and no longer believe in Christianity

Yes, why would a God of the universe be so intensely interested in several tribes along the Mediterranean Sea, while making no mention of the rest of the world? Did he have no message for the people of China or America? Why do the Old Testament writings look so much like the egocentric tribal rantings of the other nearby tribes? Surely an Omnipotent God would see beyond the next hilltop in Israel.

The writer of this email has asked good questions, and is on the right path.

The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Sam Harris wrote an interesting article entitled, The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos. Harris answers the common claim that, without the Bible, moral chaos would ensue. Harris shows that this is not true, for the Bible is far from the best moral guide. Further, there is no good evidence that Christianity produces better morals, and there is indeed a solid basis for morals from a secular starting point. Harris states:

According to the United Nations Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.

Harris is quick to point out that such correlational data does not prove that atheism is better, but it does show that it is indeed possible to build moral societies without relying on faith.

This article is a good response to the claim of Jeffrey Wilson in the debate I had with him. Wilson criticized my claim that secular humanists have good priniciples. Wilson wrote:

Good principles?!? You’re not even fooling the humanists here. Even they say that the Christian religion has a purpose in curbing total moral chaos in that if everyone believed that they were accountable to no one then everyone would do whatever it took to “get yours” and take and do whatever it is to maintain that fleeting high of happiness, such as, drugs, rape, murder, theft, etc.

But, of course, Wilson did not mention one humanist who believed that Christianity is necessary to curb moral chaos. We humanists teach that our message is a message of hope.

Why Care?

A reader writes, asking why we should care about others:

How would I go about determining whether to abandon the religious philosophies of my youth for 1) a greater personal freedom and happiness, such as you have found, or, 2) a violent, f--- the world and anybody who gets in my way philosophy?

I mean, I'm not sure why I should care about the propagation of the species or any kind of possibly "made-up reason" to love or be kind to others.

I know I don't believe in God like you used to but, it seems that if I am here by accident, why try to make up some ridiculous and temporary notion that life matters...... mine or anyone elses?

[A] few years ago I sent money to one of those starving children places, I quit after a few months because I needed the money myself. Now, I kinda feel like if people are sick or starving, why not let them die to the benefit of the rest of the evolving species. And, if the idea to care for them in the first place is a part of evolution anyway?????.... know what I mean?

Just wondered how you acheived your freedom and personal happiness with regard to this simple intellectual dilemma. I guess I'm saying it doesn't appear that I can learn from you either since it seems you are walking in faith with your own set of
inconsistencies that starve for intellectual integrity. Then again, what is integrity and why care anyway?

I would need to begin by asking this writer if he cares about his own happiness and personal well-being. I assume he does. For, if he did not care about his well-being, why does he eat? If he does not care about his happiness, why does he write and ask about happiness?

So if his personal happiness and sense of well-being are important to him, we must then ask how he can best get what he wants. The writer suggests that taking advantage of others might be one way to achieve his goals. But I think he is sadly mistaken. Humans are social creatures who depend on other people for their survival. It has always been the nature of humans--and many other animals--to form families and groups that support each other for the common good. Without this support, few people could survive long, and few would find happiness.

If the writer were to choose to get what he wants by selfishly taking from others, he will find little support from others. If he hurts others, hates them, and takes from them, they will be opposed to him. And he will not find happiness.

The writer suggests that evolution is all about competing with others. But evolution is not necessarily about defeating others. It is about promoting self-survival, yes, but that survival is often best accomplished by learning to build mutual cooperation and trust with others of the same species or even of other species. And so evolution encourages cooperation.

The writer asks that I offer him something more than a ridiculous and temporary notion that life matters. And I will not make up such vacuous reasons.

I cannot prove to anybody that life matters. We are the accidental product of natural forces. I cannot prove that we should care about life or that we should want our own well-being. But I do know this, that my happiness matters to me. And I suppose that the writer's happiness matters to him. If that is so, then let us both seek to find happiness. And I think that he, and I, and all other readers, will best find the happiness we desire if we set out to build mutually helpful relationships with others. We will best find happiness if we work together for the common good.

Some people help others because they believe that God will punish them if they don't. What a sad motivation that is! The result is a legalistic serving of others in an attempt to avoid punishment. Some who have this fear as their only motivation cannot imagine a world of love and cooperation if that fear of hell did not exist. But they are wrong. There is a natural need in all of us for each other. If we recognize our need of others, and recognize that caring for others is the best way to win the friendship of others, spontaneous outbreaks of good come from the human spirit.

Faith and Reason

A recent editiorial in the London(Ontario) Free Press says that I have gotten it wrong regarding the Bible and morality. (see Christianity melds reason with faith) In response I sent the following letter to the editor:


----------------------------------------------------------

I read Rory Leishman’s editorial, “Christianity melds reason with faith” with great interest. Leishman quotes from my website (www.geocities.com/questioningpage) and announces that I have “got it wrong.” Well I don’t know, but maybe I must take a closer look to see if I indeed have gotten it wrong.

Leishman criticizes a recent Supreme Court decision, and complains that many Canadians fall into grievous error because they “rely on reason alone as a guide for moral judgment.” But reason has long been the standard by which democratic governments strive to govern. Shall we turn away from reason?

Leishman says that, for many, “Holy Scripture is the ultimate authority on all questions of faith and morality.” But what of Deut. 22:11 which forbids wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? Is this verse the ultimate answer to that question? Leishman mentions that verse, and infers that it is an obsolete ceremonial law. But how would one know this is an obsolete law? The New Testament is not at all clear on that.

But even if we judge this law obsolete, that does not clear up the problem. For that law is in the early scripture. At one time, this was the only scripture people knew. And the same scripture allowed slavery. That is the problem. Are we really to believe there was a time in which slavery was right but wearing mixed fabrics was wrong? Those who followed the books of Moses at that time would have thought so. But reason would disagree. Would not a literal following of scriptures in those days have yielded a wrong morality? We cannot ignore this problem by saying the commands are now obsolete. What about the time in which they were taken as relevant? If scripture was wrong back then, how can one be sure that following the updated scriptures is the best way to morality now?

Leishman declares that “The moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments is universally binding and true.” But what about the fourth commandment, which says to keep the Sabbath holy? In its original context, this command meant no work was allowed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, with the death penalty for violators. Many now interpret this commandment to mean Sunday worship. But that is not what the original commandment meant. If we are allowed to change the meaning of the original word “Sabbath”, can we also change the meanings of “kill”, “steal”, and “adultery’? How can the Ten Commandments be said to be universally binding if Christians are free to change the meaning of the fourth commandment?

Leishman turns not only to scripture, but also to church traditions, which we are told “essentially concur on the substance of the moral law.” But I have found that church traditions differ widely. There are huge differences on the perceived morality on issues such as alcohol, gambling, divorce, and military service. The Amish even declare electricity immoral. How can one possibly say that all these traditions agree on the substance of morality? When we encounter the differences, should we not turn to reason to resolve the conflicts?

Leishman chooses the example of condemning “unchaste thoughts” of adultery as an example of unity in Christian tradition. But I know many Christians who do not think such sexual thoughts are immoral. Such “unchaste” thoughts come naturally to males. Sometimes men think and feel in certain ways. It just happens. And many Christians will tell me it is not immoral to experience such thoughts, provided one maintains a rational view of the other priorities in life, and does not act in an immoral way. So where is the unity that condemns these thoughts? Unless we exclude these Christians that differ, the claimed unity disappears. And if we must exclude some so we can claim unity, who gets to decide whom is excluded?

What we share, both Christians and non-Christians alike, is a common set of values and principles, such as the value of respecting the property of others, and the value of not killing. From these values, we can use reason to establish laws and moral decisions that best help us all reach our goals.


So I find that neither scripture nor church tradition is a good alternative to making moral decisions based on shared principles and sound reason.

All of this brings us to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Many see this decision as unreasonable. The answer is not in condemning reason, or in demanding blind obedience to church tradition. The answer is to show why reason might lead to a different decision. The answer is in open democracy, not in theocracy

Global Collapse

Years ago a group of Polynesians sailed to one of the most remote places on earth, Easter Island. Here they found a fertile island far from any other land, and started a prosperous society. They developed the technology to create and erect great statutes. But in the process they destroyed their civilization. They cut down every single tree, and ruined their economy. What did the man think that cut down the last tree? We don't know. But we know that the people sealed their own doom.

Similar stories have happened at other places. In the book Collapse Jared Diamond examine societies that have experienced collapse, and looks at the causes. He finds that the destruction of the environment as well as other factors lead to these collapses.

Diamond warns that a similar fate could await the global community today unless something is done about it. Overpopulation, diminishing resources, global warming, and pollution are just a few of the problems we face. Diamond calls us to seriously consider what we are doing to our world. He warns that a collapse could occur this century if we ignore the problems.

Think about it. You and I may not be alive that long, but what about our children and grandchildren? Many of us invest considerable time and energy into seeing that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy a good life. But what if the world does not address these problems, and our children find themselves in a desolate world?

All thinking people should listen to Diamond's warning. This is the only world we have. Let us make the most of it. Let us work together to protect the earth's resources to provide the best for humanity for many generations to come.

(Click here to see more about the book)

Questions about evolution

A reader writes with questions about evolution.

What makes things evolve?

Animals and plants evolve because their bodies are controlled by genes which occasionally experience random changes known as mutations. Some of these changes are good for survival, some are not. The creatures that have the most favorable genes are more likely to survive and pass their genes to the next generation. This causes creatures to gradually change into a form that best allows them to survive in their environment.

Why did man develop, and yet monkeys still exist? Did the monkeys who did evolve into men, simply have different environmental conditions than the monkeys who didn't?

Well, we really didn't come from monkeys. Rather, monkeys, apes, and humans all descended from a common ancestor (which, incidentally, was probably close to modern monkeys). The various offspring of this ancestor ended up exploiting various niches of nature to earn their survival. And so they diversified into many species, each with its own niche. Monkeys continue to survive in the tops of the jungles, finding plenty of food up there and quickly scrambling from tree to tree to escape predators. Humans would not do good in that enviroment.So we have both humans and monkeys, each surviving in a different way in a different environment.

Are we really just an accidental mutation, or do other forces cause such changes?

The mutations are random. However the forces of selection for survival drive the creatures to survive in their niche.

Why do some animals like crocodiles stay the same for hunderds of thousands of years?

Once an animal has become well established in a large niche, if that environment remains stable, the physical changes to that creature often become small. Thus since sharks and crocodiles have evolved to be well adapted to particular stable roles in the environment, they have little need of further change. There genes continue to mutate, but the forces of natural selection hold the physical forms ofthe creautres stable with time.

Scientists do admit that it seems there were evolutionary jumps from one species to another, so what makes this happen?

Jumps occur when isolated populations find themselves in a different environment. Creatures sometimes change "rapidly" to meet the new requirments. These changes actually take thousands of years, but compared to the age of the earth, the change is relatively rapid. A good picture of how this happens can be seen in the various dog breeds. Most of these breeds developed in the last several thousand years as humans guided their environment and selected those that they wanted to breed. Thus in a few thousand years, we see great differences in the dogs. Should this breeding continue, we will one day have many different species of dogs with different characteristics.

Will we humans evolve into something else in a million years, and if so what drives it exactlly?

Certainly human genes will be different in a million years. The extent and direction of the changes depend on the environment. Interestingly, we as humans can affect our environment, and thus can influence the future or our species.
Is there one or two books that could explain evolution for me, in simple terms?

I would begin at the Talk.Origins Archive. Also, many have found The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins to be good introductory books to the mechanisms of evolution.

Updates

There have been a few recent updates to my site:

Are the Gospels Historical? : I added a paragraph addressing the frequent claim that thousands of manuscripts (from the Middle Ages) validate the historicity of the Bible.

Is there Life after Death? I rewrote the section on consciousness to better develop my point.

How Old is the Earth? I rewrote the section on the distance to the stars, taking out redundancies and further developing my point.

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

The latest addition to my site is a page called Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Formerly this page had been combined with the page on the gospels. I have seperated out the resurrection question, and have expanded it to better address this important issue. I hope you find this helpful. I may come back and edit this page later, so let me know if you have any comments on it.

Defending My Story

You can read a challenge to my deconversion story and my response here.

Have you read the Bible?

In a recent survey, I asked people at the Christian Forums, "Have you read the Bible?". I found that the non-Christians have read the Bible about as much as the Christians there. Several said that it was reading the Bible that convinced them to leave the faith. This is the same experience I have had. When I sat down to read the Bible, it was obvious something was wrong.

Christian friend, if you would like to resolve this issue, then may I suggest you read the Bible this year? I think you will see the problem for yourself.

Prove Christ exists

In an interesting court case, a judge has ordered a priest to prove that Christ exists. This should be a most interesting case. The priest certainly has his work cut out for him.

See Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest - World - Times Online

Do babies burn in Hell?

Do Babies burn in hell?

Recently I found a webpage that all believers in salvation-through-faith should read. It is entitled Do Babies Automatically go to Heaven? The author, K. B. Napier, argues they do not. His argument is simple: One must be born again to go to heaven; babies cannot be born again; therefore babies are doomed.

The implications of his argument are so horrible that most Christians will immediately turn from the suggestion. How could God burn a baby in hell forever for not believing, even though the baby had never reached an age where he could understand? What would one ever say to a grieving mother whose infant was in hell? Napier confronts that problem:

I can partially understand the desire not to increase the burden of a bereaved parent, by saying something soothing...but to claim it to be a part of scriptural teaching is yet another matter, of gravest importance, because it totally undermines the true gospel...In an effort to comfort the bereaved they often say things that are unscriptural. This is particularly so if the dead person is an unborn or young child. What minister has the courage to teach what scripture says in such circumstances? I know of none!

I struggle to think how Napier might comfort the grieving mother whose infant is supposedly screaming in hell.

Napier is quick to point out that babies are sinners and that sinners go to hell. But even he cannot seem to find the words to declare that babies go to hell. He chooses to concentrate on his conclusion that they don't go to heaven. But he clearly infers where infants go: They all burn in eternal conscious torment in hell forever.

But if you reject Napier's teaching, and find that the rule requiring new birth has an exception in the case of infants--and most Christians think it does--are there other exceptions? Are the mentally handicapped also exempted? What about those who haven't heard? What about those who have reviewed the facts, and decided they cannot believe? If babies can be exempted from the curse without a new birth, why can't others enjoy the same exemption? And then why would faith even matter?

If one truly thought that one must believe certain assertions to escape hell, it seems to me he would end up at the barbaric conclusion that Napier reaches.

For a discussion of this topic, see the thread http://www.christianforums.com/t2297811-do-babies-burn-in-hell.html&page=1&pp=20.

Katrina’s America: Failure, Racism, and Profiteering

For an eye-opening analysis of the disastrous response of the government to Katrina, read Katrina’s America: Failure, Racism, and Profiteering.

When You Feel Like a Loser

Ever feel like your life was wasted, that you have lived your life for a scam? This is a common feeling for someone who has been a victim of a repressive religion. But one can move on, and find a wonderful life. I offer some tips at When You Feel Like a Loser

Excuse Me, Can You Tell Me How to Get to Heaven?

Recently I asked Christians at the Christian Forums website to fill in a checklist of all the requirements for heaven. The results show the great confusion on this issue. No answer was checked by more than 64% of the Christians. That answer, "Accept Jesus as personal saviour" is a very vague statement, with varying definitions of what it means, but still only 64% of the respondents think it is required. 58% said you need to believe in God, 42% said you need to confess Jesus with your mouth, and 50% said you need to accept Jesus as the Lord of your life. All of this from Christians who follow the same book! This is vivid testimony of the problems of living your life from a contradictory book like the Bible.

You can see the poll results at Christian Forums - View Poll Results. A discussion of the results is at this thread.

"Have Fun in Hell, you Fruitcake"

Occasionally I get a letter expressing intolerance and hatred. Let me post one of those for you:

My name is dave, i am 18 years old, and i am commenting about your fruitcake website. You must feel real proud that your turning God-believers into non-God believers. Regardless, those people probably didnt have a strong belief in Jesus, for them to just denounce him all for your screwed up beliefs. All I'm saying is.... I am gonna enjoy watching you get judged by God himself and get cast into hell. Because if you dont get over yourself and if you dont humble yourself and accept jesus as your personal saviour, then your going to hell. And im just tryin to imagine the look thats gonna be on your ugly mug when Jesus says "Depart from me, I never knew you". Have fun in Hell you fruitcake.

(P.S.) Post this on your web-site, so others will see it and maybe inspire them to write back to shut down your tasteless website. Because if i had the power i would shut it down in a heartbeat.

Dave may relish the thought that, if he is right and I am wrong, my ugly mug will face eternal torture. Let me assure Dave, that, if it turns out that some other religion is right, and that he is the one facing eternal torture, I would plead for his life, and feel nothing but horror about a person being placed into such agony. And I think somewhere deep inside, Dave may have similar feelings too.

Interestingly, I asked Dave if I could use his full name and publish one of his comments on the front page of my website. He did not respond. I think that Dave himself may feel some shame for what his religion has caused him to say. Perhaps deep inside, he does not want to be identified with what his words say.

But This Pilgrim Is Making Progress

Let me share another letter. JB writes:

Please accept the following comments in the spirit in which they are sent. Not anger, just an interest in another human being, who seems to be bewildered: so many questions. Where will they end? One just seems to lead to another.......ad infinitum. (home-made Latin

I am sorry if my site leaves the impression I am bewildered. For I have found a wonderful life, and I love to share at my site what happened to me. Perhaps JB should read my site again. Perhaps he would get a sense of the purpose I find in life and in my writings.

He continues:

May I suggest you are a person that falls into one of two categories.
1. If you are a Christian, you may have, like Christian of Pilgrim's Progress, relied so much upon your own observations, that you have been lured into Doubting Castle, and are the prisoner of Giant Despair.
2. That you have never known forgiveness of sin, and Christ as personal savior.

"A prisoner of great despair"? Gosh, no. What would ever make JB think that? My mind has been set free. Why would that lead to despair? Has JB even been reading my site?

Also, may I assure JB that there was indeed a time in which I had accepted Christ as my personal savior, was born again by his grace, and had set out daily to live for him. But I have had a change of mind.

He continues:

It would appear, from the size of your website, that almost every waking moment is now centered upon bringing down faith in God. While yours is a most sophisticated program, it really has no better purpose than to destroy faith, which of course cannot be destroyed, as is evident by looking at the history of the "Covenanters" of Scotland. If you fall into the second category, it is impossible for you to believe Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If a true Christian cannot explain such a seemingly incomprehensible statement, how can an unbeliever possibly hope to get a grasp of it? You will always see it as just another inconsistency in the Scriptures, as do most of your bservations.

No, of course I do not spend every waking moment working on my site. In fact, in the past few months, I have done very little on this project, basically just a few comments here on the blog.

And, no, my purpose is not to destroy faith. My purpose is to explain to other people why I have changed my mind. If JB would read the introduction, he would see what my purpose is.

I am not telling people they must leave their faith and follow me. But, if anyone is interested, I share with them why I have changed my mind. If JB is not interested, he may surf on to another site.

He continues:

Have you heard of the old blind lay[sic] who remarked on how brightly the sun was, that day? When asked how could she possibly know, as she was completely blind, and therefore was not able to see it, she replied; "Ah but I feel its warmth." Perhaps faith is a little like that.

Okay, so JB has tried faith and felt the warmth. I too had tried faith and felt the warmth. In fact, I had used this same argument when I was a Christian--"I 'feel its warmth', therefore it must be true." Later, I would find that many other people had tried many other faith systems, and each of them had "felt the warmth" of their system. Did this prove that they are right? Of course not. So I could not say that the warmth I found proves that I am right.

Recently, I have felt the warmth of secular humanism. Does this prove that I am right and JB is wrong? I would guess that JB can see right through that argument. Just because someone "feels the warmth" of a religion, it does not prove that the religion is true. So why does JB use this argument?

He continues:

BTW. I once read that Darwin attended an evangelical Sunday School when he was young. Perhaps the truth of HIS sin did penetrate his mind, and was the reason for his search to find a supposed reasonable alternative.

Evolution as "a supposed reasonable alternative"? Goodness, has JB ever read Darwin's book? The Origin of the Species presents the data and shows the reasons for his conclusion. The book has nothing to do with wanting to find a way to get away with sin. It does not involve "supposed" reasoning. It involves solid reasoning. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.

I think JB would search long and hard to find a better explanation for the available data then the Theory of Evolution.

He continues:

If you have a few moments, take a look near the beginning of Pilgrim's Progress, where the pilgrim is in contact with the man in the iron cage. Very sobering.

But I am not in an iron cage. I have been set free. Why does JB think I should read this?



--------------------

I have received the following relpy from JB. His message practically oozes with the thought of hell. Has it not occurred to JB that there may be no life after death, no hell, and no future benefit to a particular belief system? Is he sure that his worries are justified? I will post his reply in full and then respond:

This will possibly be the last communication I have with you, but please let me make you aware of a few considerations.

Your utter refusal to believe that you are in any despair, makes me understand that the possible # 1 category, (a Christian who has gone astray,) definitely does not apply to you. You plainly stated that you at one time took Christ as Saviour, but have since changed your mind. Well, as you feel free to use Bible quotations sometimes, I claim the same liberty.

There is a vast difference between believing that Christ died for sinners, and believing that one IS a sinner, and accepting that death in place of one's own. If a man who is a fair swimmer has a life buoy tossed to him, while he is in a pool, or close to shore, he may accept the ring to please the person who threw it out, but soon finds it impedes his swimming, chafes under his arms, and restricts his view of the beautiful shells on the bottom. In short, it is a hindrance to what he wants to do: enjoy himself. IF, however, this man realizes that he is miles from shore, the chaffing would not be an issue, nor would any other inconvenience. That ring would mean LIFE. He would not trade it for a billion dollars.

Just consider, Merle. Is it possible you never really understood what you are in God's sight? If this is so, I can certainly understand what an absolute bother all this "Christian living " would be to you. What a sham to try to live something that, (like the writer in your website said, "There was a part of me that never really believed.")
Romans 10:10 says "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." It would seem plain that at one time you made a great deal of the second part of the verse, but without the heart-change that the first part brings. Thus, the second part chafes and is not acceptable to the mind, because it, by itself, is a lie in your life.

Your observation that many beliefs have felt the "warmth" that I used in an illustration, is simply not true. No religion that I know of can spawn a hymn like "safe in the arms of Jesus." Only an eye-opened understanding that "Jesus LOVES me," would cause such a response from a heart set free.

"Islam is a religion in which God requires you
to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in
which God sends His Son to die for you."
Former US Attorney General John Ashcroft

I certainly fail to detect any "warmth" in the hearts of adherents to the first group mentioned. Just a terror that one is perhaps not pleasing his god: (whatever god that may be.)

Thank you for the courteous treatment of my first letter to you.

First I find it quite odd that he accuses me of having an utter refusal to believe that I am in despair. Can he not see how ridiculous his argument sounds from the outside? Here I am living a happy, fulfilling life and am thrilled to share it on the internet. Along comes a perfect stranger who knows nothing about my inner feelings who announces I am in despair! When I inform him that I have a wonderful life he accuses me of an utter refusal to believe him! Can he possibly be serious? If he wants me to believe I am in despair, then doesn't he need to give me a reason for believing him?

Next he proceeds to attack the sincerity of my former faith. Once again, let me assure JB that, in the past, I believed in Jesus with all my heart. Let me assure him that I was mortally afraid of hell. Let me assure him that I spent many hours crying out to God that I was a poor lost unworthy hell-deserving sinner needing his grace to deliver me from hell. Let me assure him that I pleaded for the blood of Christ to save me from the horrible stench of my sin, and the hell I thought I so fully deserved. Let me assure him that I turned to Christ and was born again just like others have done.

But I later changed my mind. This is what JB is apparently having difficulty understanding. I changed my mind. There was a time when my mind was dominated by what I thought was the reality of hell. Now I no longer believe in hell. And I have found a much better life.

But JB informs me that the possibility of having been a Christian in the past "definitely does not apply" to me. Why not? Muslims and Jews can change their minds, can't they? Why can't a fundamentalist change his mind? Surely JB must understand that some people change their minds when they get new information. Why is he having trouble understanding that I changed my mind?

Jb speaks of a swimmer who would never let go of the life buoy, for he knows the water is deep and he knows he would drown. JB seems to say that the buoy represents salvation, and nobody would ever let go of salvation, for he would surely know he would drown. But what if the swimmer gets new information? What if he found out the water was only 4 feet deep and the shore was not far away? Though he had clung desperately for safey when he thought there was danger, he would let go when he saw he was safe. Can not JB see that the same thing happened to me? Can he not understand that I once feared a danger that I now think is non-existent? And can he not understand that I left fundamentalism and found a new and better life?

JB says that God sent his son to die for us. Why would God need to do that? Why would he not simply forgive us? I can forgive. Why can't God? How can the dead body of his son possibly make forgiveness easier for him? Wouldn't that make it harder?

JB speaks of Islam and informs us he fails to detect any warmth in the hearts of adherents to that group. I find that sad. True, some Moslems may have little warmth is their hearts, and be filled with horrible desires. But others have found a warmth in their religion. I am sorry if JB cannot recognize that some have a sincere comfort in aspects of Islam.

I wonder what JB would do if they had diversity training at his workplace. Would he object and state that his coworkers of another religion find no warmth in their religion? Would he state that these coworkers deserve to go to hell? If he believes they deserve hell, how can he possibly show respect to coworkers of another faith? How could he respect someone who is so horrible that he deserves to be rejected and abandoned to the tortures of hell forever?

Some of my readers may find JB's writings refreshing. But my guess is that many Christians are embarrassed at what he writes.