de-conversion

61 Comments Add your own

• 1. roopster  |  August 21, 2007 at 7:57 am

  HIS,

  This is a bit off-topic but your post triggered this question for me.

  You described two distinct world views where the “other side” makes no sense to either group.

  As a Christian, I felt exactly as you did and as I discuss these topics with Christians today, I know where they’re coming from.

  Do you believe there has to be a ‘crisis’ (not sure if that’s the right word) in order for a Christian to remove the what we would now refer to as “blinders” but what a Christian would view as “obvious truth?”

  In other words, how does one move from one world view to another?

  Paul

• 2. Zoe  |  August 21, 2007 at 8:04 am

  A great post HIS.

• 3. Heather  |  August 21, 2007 at 8:14 am

  People who rejected Christianity did so, not as a matter of logic, but as a matter of will. They refused to believe, even with the Truth staring them in the face.

  This is an ironic statement, because Christianity is presented as a religion full of forgiveness and compassion — both of which require the ability to understand and listen. Yet if the Christian holds that the person knows the truth and yet willfully rejects it, is the Christian actually listening to the non-Christian?

  However, I do thank you for this post, as it gives me a better understanding as to why my friends have used the argument of people willfully send themselves to hell. From their perspective, people do because they feel people know the truth, they simply reject that truth. Whereas from my perspective, it’s not the truth, so how can I willfully send myself to hell if I don’t know it as the truth? But this is very convenient, because it’s assuming that everyone knows the truth, and only a few act on that truth. And thus, by sending one to hell, God is in fact giving that person their heart’s desire. Which also absolves God of being a monster or of any responsiblity for the person’s final destination.

  But I’m wondering if Christians need perspectives like this, in order to keep their faith and worldview. After all, if you’re convinced that a person knows the truth but simply rejects it, things are a lot simpler. If you start trying to see why another person honestly and logically believes that your worldview is faulty, that can lead to cracks. So to answer Paul’s question, in order to move from one worldview to another, I think you have to be willing to honestly see if there are any flaws/faults in your own worldview, first.

• 4. writerdd  |  August 21, 2007 at 8:28 am

  Great post, thanks. I am always amazed that so many Christians are interested in apologetics for the very reasons that you explain. I was not saved because of apologetics and I didn’t leave my faith behind because of anti-apologetics. I grew up as a Christian, with assumptions about the universe and humanity that were all colored with Biblical glasses. I quit high school because I thought it was so much more important to further my spiritual eductaion, and I went to Bible school in stead of college, so my academic education was cut short.

  My understanding of the universe and of humanity changed drastically when I read a bunch of books about cosmology and cognitive science, and I realized that the God I had believed in for all of my life was nowhere near big enough to have created the universe in it’s vastness, and that the human psyche, or soul, did not require a supernatural existence or source for its explanation.

  One day I just realized I was no longer a believer, no longer a Christian. But it wasn’t logical arguments about the Bible or Christianity that convinced me either way.

• 5. Epiphanist  |  August 21, 2007 at 8:37 am

  Thanks for a very mature post. The level of energy which is needed to sustain some versions of faith is clearly not sustainable and people inevitably burn out. An old, jaded Christian like me is not interested in snappy rhetoric or tedious debate either. I haven’t found much obvious truth in the Gospels, it is more like I am gently led and sustained by them. I like to read what atheists have to say about faith because it challenges my preconceptions. Blind faith seems unnecessary and pointless.

• 6. masechaba  |  August 21, 2007 at 8:54 am

  1Corinthians2:14 “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

• 7. Shannon Lewis  |  August 21, 2007 at 9:00 am

  Very good post.

  As a ‘Reformed Christian’ I’ve always found that the traditional models of apologetics - though occasionally helpful - seemed to ignore some pretty significant Biblical concepts, such as the fact that the Gospel - apart from a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit - is nonsense to non-believers.

  I believe that God ’saves’ - that though He uses ‘means’, that the work of saving the lost is not ultimately mine. The Christian witnesses to what he/she believes by their life and actions, and when necessary, words, but the weight of saving another sole rest soley on God. This seems not only Biblical to me, but means that I can live like a sane person, and not live every moment like a used-car salesman, hassling non-believers into the kingdom.

  I can imagine the weight of that responsibility was unbearable.

  Thanks for the post.

• 8. Robert  |  August 21, 2007 at 1:33 pm

  Which brings me back to the question of apologetics. If Christians truly believe that the World, meaning all people of all non-Christian faiths and religions, are willfully rejecting the obvious truth of Jesus Christ, then what is the point of trying to formulate arguments and gather evidences to convince us otherwise?

  My view of the apologist is a bit different. Their role is to insulate the believer in her belief, not to act as its advocate to unbelievers. Apologists are there to make any sort of argument or explanation for difficulties in the doctrine, to “shore up” belief, and to ridicule opposing belief-systems. In other words, the apologist creates a bubble around the believer with a veneer of rationality, helping that believer sustain her faith in the face of discomforting evidence or questions.

• 9. Jim  |  August 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  Hi HelsSailing,

  Yeah. I am a Christian, and big on some apologetics. But I feel and sympathize with the heaviness I think I perceive of your writing. Sometimes I feel about apologetics what someone once said about politics in an RFK biography: “It can busy idle hands, but it doesn’t help the heart.” The quote isn’t exact, but you catch my drift.

  Before I get much further, let me say this: I love what you’ve written, and your writing in general. Very sound. Refreshingly honest. Quite profound. Thank you for widening my perspective. You really did do that.

  Apologetics (defense of the faith) is largely spurred on by 1 Peter 3:15, among other verses: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”

  Now I’ll be the first to admit that Christians too often emphasize the first part (give a defense) without catching that second part (with gentleness and respect!). Guilty as charged. It does so much harm when one is done without the other. You no doubt understand this better than I do.

  I’ve been told with respect to my faith that apologetics is one tool in the toolbox, and there are others. I like that analogy on some levels. A lot of Christians probably use that tool way too often. Fewer use it not enough. But as Jesus taught, the Christian life should center on a) loving God, and b) loving people. That should be the tool we reach for the most.

  I’ve personally found that apologetics does help some instances. I’m really not the personality type to evangelize to strangers, I’d rather have a beer with them and listen to them talk about their life, job and families. But when I’ve found myself in discussions regarding apologetics with non-believers who are questioning me, I notice that those apologetic questions are the surface stuff. Their actual problems with the faith, Jesus or Christians (moreso the latter, it seems) are more often heart issues, the soft, messy and complicated stuff. At those times, apologetics is NOT the answer. Talking about Calvin doesn’t help the person who’s struggling through college, or a divorce. I wish more Christians knew that, and I hope that I never forget it.

  You said: “So which is it? Is the truth of the Gospel obvious and my rejection of it willful disobedience? Or does eternal salvation come by trusting the apologist with the better argument and snappiest rhetoric? Neither choice makes much sense to me.”

  My hopefully humble response would be that I’m not sure these are the only two options to choose from. Also, I’m not certain those two options are mutually exclusive. They could be, but I’m just not sure of that. I’ll try to think more about it though.

  But then you said something else: “I have since learned that there are many, many reasons to believe, or not to believe, and it has nothing to do with willful rejection of Truth.”

  I agree with you. I do. I would add that there are may be some out there who willfully reject truth, but for many many more people, it’s not that cut and dry. These are individual people! Nothing about our lives is that cut and dry, it’s a lot more complicated.

  Apologetics has its place in the faith. It’s probably too high of a priority here in America, where we argue about everything. But there are people who try to dispute the validity of what Jesus said and other aspects of Christianity. But apologetics is a defense by definition. Meaning, it should primarily be in response, and always always with gentleness and respect. Ready if needed, but probably not as needed as we think.

  Loving God. Loving People. That’s needed a whole lot more.

  Again, thank you for writing. I’ll be chewing on this for awhile. I hope this finds you doing well.

• 10. HeIsSailing  |  August 21, 2007 at 6:41 pm

  Jim sez:

  I’ve personally found that apologetics does help some instances…

  Oh yeah, I understand what you are talking about. A sound defense of your beliefs is not what I am talking about in this article. Don’t worry, I am not trying to take that away from Christians! Rather, I don’t understand the Christian rationale for using apologetics as an evangelistic tool. I also did it as a Christian, but looking back from the other side, I really don’t see much sense in it. I do believe that it is best, Christian or not, to know exactly why you have the beliefs that you do, and to discuss them if somebody asks about them.

  And yes, I meant what I said about reasons for belief. Even as an apostate Christian who completely rejects the reliability of that Faith System, I still maintain that there are plenty of good reasons to believe in Christianity, but I extend that to most any Faith System for that matter. It just depends on the experience and exposure of the person involved. What is it that makes it sensible for some people to believe in Jesus and not to others? Blast, I have no idea! But I cannot imagine a God who judges us based on which belief system we happen to choose in life, because the Truth, in the sense of the Gospel, is not at all evident or axiomatic. The Bible is dead wrong about that. We are all individuals, after all. And God, if there is one, made us that way.

  Their actual problems with the faith, Jesus or Christians (moreso the latter, it seems) are more often heart issues, the soft, messy and complicated stuff. At those times, apologetics is NOT the answer.

  I think you are right here. From what I have observed, conversions into Christianity are highly emotional affairs, usually by a person who has hit rock bottom in their life. You know, the highly charged alter calls we see so often in tent revivals and what have you. Of the few de-conversions that I am really familiar with, at least that in my own case, it is from examining their faith, their Scriptures, if they make any sense and if they have any relevance in their own world. They are both very different processes from each other.

  You said: “So which is it? Is the truth of the Gospel obvious and my rejection of it willful disobedience? Or does eternal salvation come by trusting the apologist with the better argument and snappiest rhetoric? Neither choice makes much sense to me.” My hopefully humble response would be that I’m not sure these are the only two options to choose from. Also, I’m not certain those two options are mutually exclusive.

  I don’t know, I have thought about this pretty hard, and those two seem like the only options available, although you are right about them not being mutually exclusive. If you have any other options which may apply, then fill me in. But I think Scripture is pretty clear in this regard, based in part on passages I have quoted in this article, and your own reference to 1 Peter.

• 11. HeIsSailing  |  August 21, 2007 at 6:57 pm

  Robert says:

  In other words, the apologist creates a bubble around the believer with a veneer of rationality, helping that believer sustain her faith in the face of discomforting evidence or questions.

  I just finished telling Jim that it is a good thing to be able to defend one’s beliefs, no matter what they are, but I have to take exception to your comment, Robert. I do not think it is a good idea to insulate, or bubble off one’s faith in the ‘face of discomforting evidence or questions’. Although I have no doubt you are correct, I do not think this is wise.

  Thinking Ape made the comment recently - something to the effect of only reading one’s favorite scholar, or only reading stuff that fits into a pet doctrinal view. Huh? The Ape is absolutely correct here, whether we are talking religion, politics, or Christian apologetics. You cannot insulate yourself from opposing viewpoints and only read stuff that you know you will agree with. You cannot learn that way, you cannot grow that way - at least i don’t see how.

  I am referring specifically to Christian apologetics here. If a Christian only reads McDowell, Missler, Zacharias, Lewis, Stroubel and the like, that Christian will be insulated for sure, but will never really learn anything. Go ahead and read opposing viewpoints! If you don’t agree, formulate reasons why, and your faith will be that much stronger. If you find the opposing arguments persuasive, then don’t be afraid to investigate further and learn from it - it is a win-win proposition that many are afraid to take on!

  And by the way, this applies to non-Christians as well…..

• 12. Jon Featherstone  |  August 21, 2007 at 7:07 pm

  You write “I guess this is why I weary of debate on this website”

  I can so relate to that. I feel like I spent years going and around and around and around the same old christian circles again and again and after a while you just get sick of it. One day all the lights came on and I just decided it was time to move on! In my case, the next step is to explore the Trilogy “Conversations with God” (which is a new age-type teaching). Others choose Athiesm. My point is, there comes a point when it is better to just stop flogging a dead horse and move on!
  Jon

• 13. Jim  |  August 21, 2007 at 7:32 pm

  HelsSailing,

  Hey. Thank you for clarifying your point in your original post, though you probably didn’t need to clarify, I just needed to read it a little slower. As I re-consider the 1 Peter 3:15 passage, the ‘gentleness’ and ‘respect’ issue stops me cold every time. As well it should. Apologetics without that, I would say, becomes a cold manner of evangelism, and often much worse. Sort of like driving to drive a car in the snow with huge gloves on. Good luck not getting into an accident.

  I agree with you, I’ve seen some highly emotional “conversions” to Christianity. I’ve seen others that didn’t fit that description at all as well.

  I think I want to take a stumbling shot at one of your questions, now that I’ve considered it further. (here goes!) You asked: “Or does eternal salvation come by trusting the apologist with the better argument and snappiest rhetoric?”

  I would say no, that is not how eternal salvation comes. Gosh, I hope not.

  I have much to learn on this, but I base this answer on what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians. He seems set on reorienting their thinking of how much they value rhetoric. They thought too highly of a lot of things, namely themselves. He doesn’t find rhetoric as impressive as they do.

  1:17. “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”

  In case they didn’t get the hint, he retreads the same path in chapter 2:1-4

  Anyway, does this match much of the church today? No way. We depend way too much on rhetoric, to sad results. It’s no good.

  Man, I hope that helps some? I guess I identified the ideal in the Bible, and confirmed that the church is from the ideal. But I have a sneaky suspicion that I just used some apologetics! Damn it. But I swear (literally) it wasn’t to evangelize, but to hopefully provide some background of why I answered the way I did.

  As for your first question … whew. I need to continue to think about it. It’s pretty steep, and deserving of more time.

  BTW, I liked what you had to say regarding reading opposing viewpoints.

  Thank you for replying to my comment.

• 14. HeIsSailing  |  August 21, 2007 at 7:33 pm

  Jon Featherstone sez:

  the next step is to explore the Trilogy “Conversations with God” (which is a new age-type teaching).

  No way! My wife wants me to read one of those books. She doesn’t buy the New Agey stuff, but says there is in fact wisdom to be gleaned from it, and she enjoyed them. What the heck, I’ll give it a go!!

• 15. Heather  |  August 21, 2007 at 7:35 pm

  Random thought –

  a Christian only reads McDowell, Missler, Zacharias, Lewis, Stroubel and the like, that Christian will be insulated for sure, but will never really learn anything.

  I do agree that it’s important to read all sides. I think the only catch would be to make sure that the arguments from both sides are … well, for lack of a better word, intelligent and demonstrate a clear understanding of the opposing side.

• 16. HeIsSailing  |  August 21, 2007 at 7:40 pm

  Jim sez:

  But I have a sneaky suspicion that I just used some apologetics! Damn it. But I swear (literally) it wasn’t to evangelize, but to hopefully provide some background of why I answered the way I did.

  HaHa - it’s okay. Don’t sweat it, dude.

• 17. HeIsSailing  |  August 21, 2007 at 7:46 pm

  Heather sez:

  I do agree that it’s important to read all sides. I think the only catch would be to make sure that the arguments from both sides are … well, for lack of a better word, intelligent and demonstrate a clear understanding of the opposing side.

  Oh yeah, absolutely. You would be surprised how many Christians *cough* *Chuck* *cough* *Missler* *cough cough** teach garbage from the pulpit inspired by such shucksters and unreliable sources as Ivan Panin, Emmanuel Velikovsky and Charles Berlitz.

• 18. Jon Featherstone  |  August 21, 2007 at 11:18 pm

  HeIsSailing,
  I don’t buy most of the new-agey stuff either! But I do think there is some neat “big-picture” stuff in the “Conversations with God” books that are a great catalyst to helping you move forward in your thinking rather than just spinning your wheels in the same old mud.
  Jon

• 19. Heather  |  August 22, 2007 at 11:33 am

  HIS,

  You would be surprised how many Christians *cough* *Chuck* *cough* *Missler* *cough cough** teach garbage from the pulpit inspired by such shucksters and unreliable sources as Ivan Panin, Emmanuel Velikovsky and Charles Berlitz.

  You want to know the sad part? I don’t think I would be surprised. I mean, even if I take a look at theists who post here. Maybe I have blinders on, but it seems the majority who post use shallow arguments, such as McDowell, compared to those who actually demonstrate an understanding of all theological sides, as well as a sense of the history behind Christianity.

• 20. Mike  |  August 22, 2007 at 12:12 pm

  Heather, could you give an example of a shallow argument? If I have been guilty of that I would want to know so that I could make an effort to go deeper.

  Also, do you think this is purely a Christian/theist problem? I dont think you are saying that it is, but from reading your response it is possible to get that impression.

• 21. Heather  |  August 22, 2007 at 1:09 pm

  Mike,

  I find shallow arguments along a few lines. One is “Drive by Quoting,” in which there will be some random person who provides a biblical quote as to why we don’t get the Bible, and only provides the quote. The person also never comments again. This would be a quote as to we don’t have the spirit of God, so the Bible is nonsense/we don’t get it.

  Another is the we’re all going to hell, if we don’t repent right now. Some of these people also express enjoyment at seeing the lot of us in hell, and will rejoice on that day. It’s alos the same people who say we’re prideful and willfully rebelling against God — that’s shallow because it doesn’t show any understanding for why we think the way we do. It also gives the impression that we all wake up and go, “Gosh, how can I rebel against God today?”

  Another is using McDowell or Stroubel, and saying that if we only read those books, we’ll be convinced. Their books seem to be, and I don’t mean this to be insulting, but almost pre-school Christianity. It’s written for those who already believe, and kind of simplistic at that. so when someone says that we should read those books, I have a really hard time taking that person seriously. I know Stroubel interviewed people such as William Lane Craig, but he also only presented one side of the discussion, and didn’t let the opposing side say why they believed what they did. He was interpreting those arguments, instead.

  I’d also include Ravi Zacharias in this category, to some extent, but that’s more of a personal preference. Zacharias was listed as an editor on a book I saw that dealt with Christian “cults” (as in, those that went against orthodox Christianity). I’m very familiar with one of the religions in that book, and the section on that religion was flat-out incorrect in places. The author himself took information or quotes out of context, and didn’t really demonstrate an understanding of why the religion believed the way it did. Now, Zacharias didn’t write that, but his name was associated with it, and so I have a difficult time taking him seriously. But like I said, it’s a personal preference.

  Another example I have of shallow arguments is a bit tricky. Now, this example isn’t meant to be insulting to Brad nor saying that his input was shallow It’s just the most recent one I have. But in regards to the first five books of the Tanakh, and whether Moses wrote them. If someone says that there’s clear evidence that Moses did write them, I would find that shallow under one particular circumstance: if the person stating this had no knowledge of the other side, or why scholars say it wasn’t written in the same time frame. If someone just says we know Moses wrote these books because the Bible says so, that’s shallow. If someone says Moses wrote it because this scholar says so, I kind of find that shallow. If someone says we know Moses wrote this based on this evidence and this evidence and this evidence, then it demonstrates knowledge (which can also be because a scholar says so — but the difference is someone investigated why the scholar says what s/he said, followed the evidence and didn’t just take it on the scholar’s say-so). But as I said, this one can be tricky, because someone could say Moses wrote the Torah because their pastor told them, or say it because of an in-depth study of all sides. So the shallowness would depend on the context here. And again, I’m not saying that Brad introduced a shallow argument, just that without proper background, statements such as that can come across as shallow.

  I hope this answers your question.

  do you think this is purely a Christian/theist problem? I dont think you are saying that it is, but from reading your response it is possible to get that impression.

  In thinking about this, I find that to be an interesting question. We could get the impression that I’m only referring to Christianity because that’s what I’m most familiar with, in terms of upbringing and most of the people I know. Some of my good friends are evangelicals, so it’s something I’m exposed to a lot.

  However, I think the shallow argument is something we can find in all systems, from theist to atheist. Some atheists are atheists “just because.” I’d probably focus more on theisim though, because with some there are eternal consequences with not following them, as opposed to atheism.

• 22. Brad  |  August 22, 2007 at 2:17 pm

  “And again, I’m not saying that Brad introduced a shallow argument, just that without proper background, statements such as that can come across as shallow.”

  Oh no problem… I’ll just… take… that dagger… out of my… back….

  AHHH…. much better! (Totally kidding, trying to introduce humor, no offense taken)

  Anyway… You raise a good point. Having an informed opinion is very much the difference between an engaging argument and a shallow “drive by quoting” as you put it.

  It saddens me to see fellow Christians take “evangelism” in this way. I just wrote a post about how wrong this is here:

  http://seminarianblog.com/2007/08/15/what-in-the-world-does-missional-even-mean/

  … so I won’t go into huge detail. (And I think you would really appreciate it considering the path this conversation has taken)

  I have heard that the problem with this kind of “evangelism” is due to the Church’s wholesale adoption of Modernity (purely objective communication of the Gospel, and what has been popularly called “Fundamentalist” Christianity), with nary a critical eye to the negative aspects of that cultural trend (I really wish I could remember where I heard this… may have been one of my professors). Which is why the postmodern style in churches are so attractive to the younger generations: it renews emphasis on personal relationship and experience, which is how the gospel was meant to be communicated.

  There are a lot of positive things that can be gleaned from modernity’s influence in the church (appreciation for science, for example), but this is NOT one of them. Christians need to be critical (discerning) of culture and sort through what is helpful and what can be harmful.

  And I was looking in the Bible… and I couldn’t find a single place where Jesus handed out tracts… nuts.

• 23. Yueheng  |  August 22, 2007 at 9:30 pm

  Speaking of Ravi Zacharias, I saw him deliver a lecture during my undergraduate years at the National University of Singapore. It was during a time when I was giving Christianity a last shot and at the risk of offending any Ravi Zacharias fans here, he sounded pompous and condesceding, especially during the Q and A session. I left the talk feeling disillusioned. If this man represents Christianity, I wanted to have nothing to do with it.

  Years later, as a Buddhist, I purchased Zacharias’ book “The Lotus And The Cross”, which was supposed to be an imaginary conversation between Christ and Buddha. It was awful. The Buddha was made to sound like a caricature of a narrow-minded and self-absorbed ascetic and the author demonstrated a misunderstanding of some of the basic teachings of Buddhism. One part of the dialogue has Christ and Buddha meeting a HIV-infected prostitute and Jesus is presented as the all-loving son of God while the Buddha was made to say that it was because of the prostitute’s karma that she was afflicted with HIV and she basically got what she deserved. Jesus quoted tons of scripture while I don’t remember seeing any references from Buddhist sutras.

  It was a shallow argument in the form of a book.

• 24. HeIsSailing  |  August 22, 2007 at 10:13 pm

  Yueheng sez:

  as a Buddhist, I purchased Zacharias’ book “The Lotus And The Cross”, …….

  No kidding! In other words, it sounds like Ravi wrote a book Jesus and Buddha specifically for Christians who knew nothing about Buddhism. Wow. What is the point of that?? Very interersting and also telling that he would not quote any of the sutras, isn’t it?

  In fairness though, I know next to nothing about about Ravi other than when I heard him speak, he was a little condescending to non-believers. But it was really pretty mild. My biggest beefs are with J Vernon McGee, Gene Scott and Walter Martin - but I guess I am showing my age since all three of them are dead. They still infuriate me when I listen to old cassettes though, and Gene Scott I think can still be found on late night TV.

  In leau of them though, I need to write an article about my thoughts on the man who gives me the worst case of hives this side of Dave Hunt - I am speaking about *cough* Chuck Missler *cough* of Peanut Butter evolution fame. He has hundreds of his messages available online through his website and blueletterbible.org, and I have listened to quite a few of them. whoa. That man has to be the biggest con-job in Evangelical Christianity today.

• 25. karen  |  August 22, 2007 at 10:27 pm

  My biggest beefs are with J Vernon McGee, Gene Scott and Walter Martin - but I guess I am showing my age since all three of them are dead. They still infuriate me when I listen to old cassettes though, and Gene Scott I think can still be found on late night TV.

  Oh boy, those names bring back memories! Walter Martin - wasn’t he the Bible Answer Man? Or was that McGee? One of them wrote “Kingdom of the Cults” and was forever warning about the dangers of Mormonism, JWs, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.

  Gene Scott is still on cable here in Southern California just about every night, spouting nonsense and smoking his big old stogies.

  In leau of them though, I need to write an article about my thoughts on the man who gives me the worst case of hives this side of Dave Hunt - I am speaking about *cough* Chuck Missler *cough* of Peanut Butter evolution fame. He has hundreds of his messages available online through his website and blueletterbible.org, and I have listened to quite a few of them. whoa. That man has to be the biggest con-job in Evangelical Christianity today.

  I believe Chuck was at Big Calvary when I was there. I don’t remember him much, but I think he lead a popular weeknight Bible Study group.

• 26. HeIsSailing  |  August 22, 2007 at 10:44 pm

  Karen waxes nostalgic:

  Walter Martin - wasn’t he the Bible Answer Man? Or was that McGee?

  Walter Martin was the Bible answer man. He also wrote Kingdom of the Cults, a book which explained why everybody outside of his immediate family was in a cult that sacrificed chidren to Behemot. Which reminds me, I also used to get a kick out of Bob Larson when he did live exorcisms on his radio show, but he was more hilarious than infuriating. J Vernon McGee had a 15 minute radio program where you “Board the Bible Bus’ and go through the Bible with him. The original show went through the Bible in 5 years worth of broadcasts, but it is still playing in re-runs over 100 years after our Bible Bus driver kicked the bucket. And I am not surprised Scott is still on TV after he died a few years back. Last I heard, his porn star wife began dressing in an ecumenical habit, began claiming she could speak 10 ancient languages and took over the Gene Scott teaching ministry. I have not seen her on TV, but I can’t imagine she can stare in the camera, cigar clamped in her teeth and yell, “NOW GET ONNA PHONE!!” the way the old man did.

  I believe Chuck was at Big Calvary when I was there. I don’t remember him much, but I think he lead a popular weeknight Bible Study group.

  Chuck Missler… chuck chuck chuck… oh my.. .what a piece of work that guy is. We go back a long way, Chuck and I. He used to visit our Calvary Chapel too. I have seen him perhaps a dozen times over the years - the last time about 10 years ago. The thing that infuriates me about him is that I bought his shpiel. Yup - hook line and sinker. Don’t worry, it is not like I got caught up in a cult program or anything, but.. he is definitely a charismatic and persuasive teacher. Fool me once though, right? I think I have to write an article about that guy, and get that skeleton out of my closet.

• 27. joshm  |  August 22, 2007 at 11:35 pm

  “If Christians truly believe that the World, meaning all people of all non-Christian faiths and religions, are willfully rejecting the obvious truth of Jesus Christ, then what is the point of trying to formulate arguments and gather evidences to convince us otherwise?”

  “You may give credit to the Holy Spirit, but ultimately, my salvation is in your hands.”

  I like these two pieces because they encapsulate the problem with many Christian approaches to apologetics, and Christian approaches to non-Christians. I have run into so many people who were fighting for Christianity, knew all the “right answers” from listening to apologetic mp3s, but eventually realized that none of it was real to them.

  I’m not sure Jesus Christ is obvious as much as there being a God. Paul calls the cross a stubbling block to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles. I think the obvious is more in the ontological existence of God, and there are apologests who take this into consideration (like Cornelius Van Til and John Frame).

  “Christian, if this is what you think of the nonbeliever, that the Mormon like my dad, or the Jehovah Witness, or the Muslim, or the Jew or the Atheist, or anybody else who does not share your Christian belief, is because they are consciously staring Truth in the face, spitting on the Cross of Jesus and pridefully following their own path, you are woefully mistaken.”

  As a Christian, I do not believe most non-Christians are staring at the explicite gospel and spiting on it. Common grace does not contain a full understanding of what it means to be a Christian. What Paul is getting at in Romans is that everyone has an understanding- yes that God exists- but moreso in the context of moral law.

• 28. HeIsSailing  |  August 23, 2007 at 12:41 am

  joshm sez:

  Paul calls the cross a stubbling block to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles.

  Josh, you are right, and I think this is one of those places where the Bible gives mixed messages. Most of Romans 9 basically says that God will have mercy on whom he pleases, and the Jews disbelive out of ignorance. At the same time, chapter 10:18ff seems to indicate that, quoting Deut, the Law did in fact travel throught the world, yet people heard that message and still did not believe. So it seems to me you can read it either way. THen again, it IS past my bedtime and I am not thinking too clearly.

  When Paul says the Jews stumbled over a block (Romans 9:32), what do you suppose he is referring to?

• 29. joshm  |  August 24, 2007 at 1:41 am

  I’m not sure the Jews “disbelieve out of ignorance,” as much as they disbelieve because the messiah did not look like what they had hoped (a political savior).

  I believe the stumbling block refered to in Romans 9 is the cross. The cross is something the Jews who did not believe could not get over.

• 30. chuck  |  August 26, 2007 at 3:21 am

  I’m a Christian, and I think McGee was ridiculous. His voice alone drives me nuts! But Martin? He’s a lot better then his successor.
  I found the critique of Zacharias because there was incorrect info in a book he edited a bit shallow. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t like a lot of what he says, but I enjoy thinking through his presentations.

  I think one of the misdeeds of evangelicalism, particularly of the Americanized flavor, has been to warp the conceptions of sin and salvation. Growing up, I always assumed that hell was the necessary consequence of rejecting the Gospel; hence, the basis of condemnation is solely that rejection. I’m not certain that this is the case. The Gospel message is framed in such a way that is deliverance from both the power and penalty of sin. This ‘power’ and ‘penalty’ are inseparable. All people are under the penalty because they are under the power. This is clear as mud, but bear with me for a moment. Hell is the necessary punishment for all sin, of which rejecting Christ is but one. It is of utmost importance, yes; but it must be seen as one of many.
  What does this have to do with the thread? I think that passages such as Romans 1 make much more sense when approached this way (at least they do to me). When Paul begins speaking God’s eternal attributes, goodness, etc., he is stating that in the most general things of God humanity is sinful and thus deserving of His wrath. So I don’t believe that every non-Christian sees the Gospel clearly and rejects it as much as every person from birth, no matter what religion they espouse (even, unfortunately, many ‘Christians’ or what they claim they believe, has denied those things that actually are clear. Before the (more) specific details of the Gospel are even unfolded the train is derailed.
  Of course, much of my thoughts on this hinge on my stance on faith/knowing/belief, etc.

• 31. karen  |  August 26, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  Walter Martin was the Bible answer man. He also wrote Kingdom of the Cults, a book which explained why everybody outside of his immediate family was in a cult that sacrificed chidren to Behemot.

  ROTFLMAO!!! Oh, ain’t that the truth. My gosh…

  And old man Scott, what a con man that guy was. I briefly attended a church that had the misfortune of getting into a legal battle with him over a real estate deal. Wow. He pulled every delaying tactic and dirty trick in the book in order to make a financial killing on that one. So much for “unity” among believers.

  At least he was consistently entertaining, we can say that much about him: He used to pull out the racing forum and make calls to his bookie to place bets (probably illegal) during his show! Hmmm … he must’ve been one of those “carnal” Christians we got so many warnings about.

  I’d love to hear more about Chuck Missler. As I said, I know the name but never actually attended his bible studies or met him in person. I was more a fan of Greg Laurie and Jim … somebody (can’t recall his last name) who put on a great weeknight bible study at Calvary during the 80s but never became a “household name” like Missler did.

• 32. Why do Christians reject &hellip  |  August 29, 2007 at 12:08 am

  [...] 29, 2007 In response to my previous post “Rejecting the Obvious Truth of the Gospel,” pj11 said: Words such as “believe,” “submit,” and “bow” indicate to me that an [...]

• 33. Dale Husband  |  September 14, 2007 at 1:36 am

  As a former Christian as well, I too was brainwashed into thinking that anything written by a Christian either had to be true or that the Christian was being sincere in his statements. Now that I have freed myself from that misconception, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would “defend” the faith the way most apologists do, by all sorts of lying and philosophical nitpicking. They are either idiots, corrupt, or just plain ignorant. Why trust such people in any way?

• 34. HeIsSailing  |  September 14, 2007 at 12:53 pm

  Dale says:

  Now that I have freed myself from that misconception, I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would “defend” the faith the way most apologists do, by all sorts of lying and philosophical nitpicking.

  I have to admit, that as I get further away from my own Christian beliefs, I have to wonder just how much of the apologist rhetoric that we hear from the pulpit comes from honest ignorance of the facts, or if at least some of it is willful deception.

  I hate to say it, but in the case of my arch-nemesis Chuck Missler, I think some of it is willfull deception. I guess my cynicism towards these shenanigans is growing.

  Peanut Butter evolution? Cmon, he is smarter than that…

• 35. heatlight  |  October 22, 2007 at 11:34 am

  Maybe you’re familiar with a different sect of Buddhism that the one Ravi addressed - to research for ‘the Lotus and the Cross’ he actually lived with a group of Buddhist monks in China for several months, engaging in regular conversations, from which came the ‘Buddhist’ side of those imaginary conversations in that book.

  As far as Ravi being arrogant, my experience has been QUITE the opposite: I’ve seen him multiple times in debate situations (one time, in particular, was with Massimo Pigliucci (I think?) and he was so kind and generous - and his opponent NOT - that afterwards many of the Atheists present admitted to me that they were embarrassed by their side of the debate, even thought they hadn’t changed their minds.

• 36. JackD  |  April 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  In reading the various comments, I definitely identify with several of the thoughts as a person attempting to follow Christ. One is that other’s conversions to Christ will somehow come from being out-reasoned or out-thought so they will give in to the amazing obvious truth of the Gospel. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen in reality - though someone may appreciate there being some foundation to the Gospel historically, it usually isn’t the real reason they “come to Christ”. Instead, it is actually due to purposelessness, hopelessness, unrealized life expectations, fear of death (though I think perhaps rare outside the battle field), etc. The Apostle Paul certainly had no one “convincing” him, but his was all about being confronted by the One he was trying to eradicate from people’s minds.

  So - if someone doesn’t either purposely pursue and actually find that reality of relationship with Christ or if they don’t get knocked off their saddle by the presence of Christ - there really isn’t much of an experiential reality to their Christian faith. Like folks writing on this site, I’m sure we have met people like this. For them, their faith lacks the passion of authentic relationship. The troubling part for people like myself who want others to experience what I have in Christ is that I can’t control that at all. It is something God has to do completely outside of my abilities. The authors and speakers mentioned above, I fear ARE trying to control that from their truth (or pseudo-truth) bully pulpits - and sometimes (and perhaps even worse) some try to fake if from their emotion-packed “worship” services. This is sad, because it creates a whole version of Christian experience that is built on something other than an authentic personal encounter with the living, loving God of the universe.

  For the apostates in the group - I’m curious - and I’m sure you’ll set me “straight” - what other choice is there? I’ve read most of the other religious choices and they just don’t have much substance to them. I’d have to create a cafeteria plan religion or philosophy to suit my needs, but I’d know that I made it up. I just don’t see any other choices but in what Jesus is all about. I have many investment options for my retirement plan here on earth - but at some point I have to actually put my money on the stock I think has the best results. There have been lots of Christian fakes out there, there are enough great results in my life personally and in many of those around me who are Christians that I have to say that it represents my best eternal investment. Peter was quoted as saying, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Where else is there, really? Someone above quoted Buddha - what version of Buddha? He didn’t seem to give that reason for his life work - except for life enlightenment for temporal living. Someone might say Mohammed - but he was just a politician trying to unite his country (quite effective in doing so as a result, until these days). Any thoughts?

• 37. LeoPardus  |  April 28, 2008 at 3:08 pm

  JackD:

  Some responses to what you brought up.

  The Apostle Paul certainly had no one “convincing” him, but his was all about being confronted by the One he was trying to eradicate from people’s minds.

  A confrontation the like of which I would very much want. A real God who tells one in no uncertain terms, who he is and what he wants, and backs it up with a 3-day blindness followed by a miraculous healing.

  For them, their faith lacks the passion of authentic relationship. …. a whole version of Christian experience that is built on something other than an authentic personal encounter with the living, loving God of the universe.

  Look in the archives for the article “A Personal Relationship with Jesus?”

  some try to fake if from their emotion-packed “worship” services.

  Yep. Seen that. Made me wanna vomit.

  I’d have to create a cafeteria plan religion or philosophy to suit my needs, but I’d know that I made it up.

  So? You have a cafeteria plan religion anyway. With 30,000 christian denominations to choose from, and even more doctrines and combinations of doctrines, (all from the Bible) a cafeteria religion is all you can ever get. Unless perhaps you get a booming voice on a mountain, or an angelic visit, or knocked off your donkey and told what’s what directly.

  I just don’t see any other choices but in what Jesus is all about.

  Which is? I can give you a lot of answers. All of them held with fervor by people who go to church and read their Bibles, and many of which are diametrically contradictory.

  there are enough great results in my life personally and in many of those around me who are Christians.

  Look in the archives for “Reasons I can no longer believe: Unchanged lives”. You cite some changed lives, I’ll cite 110 times as many unchanged ones. Looks like the weight of evidence is on my side. (Of course you’ll then tell me that ALL the unchanged folks “don’t really know/have a relationship with Jesus”, thus generating a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.)

  Peter was quoted as saying, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Where else is there, really?

  As a former Christian, I know how horrible this sounds to you from your current viewpoint but the answer is, “only temporal life”.

  what version of Buddha?

  What version of Jesus?

  Mohammed - but he was just a politician trying to unite his country

  Try telling that to a Muslim and see if he agrees with you. Don’t surprised if he starts quoting a bunch of verses from his holy book and tells you your holy book is corrupt.

• 38. JackD  |  April 29, 2008 at 9:53 am

  LeoPardus,

  I agree that there is a cafeteria plan possibility in Christendom to those who want to follow someone else’s teaching. However, I’ve had many people in just a simple reading and discussing format of Bible investigation not of the same denomination (Catholic, Episcople, etc.) and not of any Christian background and I’m constantly amazed at how they agree with the consistency of concepts in the Bible. They seem to see more clearly than churched folks do. I don’t feel compelled to have everyone agree with everything, or especially me (what do I really know for sure except that man blew it, God sent His Son and He actually rose from the grave and is alive today). All that to say that in most cases, there is an obvious reading to most coherent people of the core issues in the Bible. I have had a few cases for whom it wasn’t obvious - but that was true for those folks whether you were reading the Bible or the newspaper. The rest is stuff no one should be have ever been divisive about - but then, that’s not really about God, it’s just using God as an excuse to get unbridled needs met of passion, power and pleasure. Those agendas comes by way of many vehicles - religion, politics, business, etc. I don’t feel the need to apologize to others for the base nature of people.

  On changed lives… please excuse my brevity in this area - as what I meant by this was not that my character is now wonderful and happy and holy - ain’t so, actually. However, I have to say that I’ve seen enough answered prayer, “circumstances” working out and odd turns of events to know that God is at work and with a direct correlation to my requests - and that gives me huge hope and a patience for people due to understanding my own frail and, too many times, weak character. I don’t get a lot of my prayers answered - but there is enough, in such a way that I have to say I know too much to ever renounce God’s work. Do I want more - you bet! Do I deserve it in some way? Nope. Do I even have an inkling of what is really best for me in the long run? Nope. I’ll let God run the universe. By the way, I’m not going to be so weird as to say that people not of my faith don’t experience things coming together in odd ways for them - but I think this is God’s love as reminders that He is there for them.

  Have you read the Koran? I’ll assume you have - don’t you think it reads like a diatribe against Judaism and Christianity and advocating for a unity of faith with some unifying principles for the culture of the time? I like some of the thoughts in the Koran as I appreciate what Mohammad had to do and why he did it. My point is that it was meant to be a religion for that country, so I agree - Islamic folks would come at me with some verses from their book. By the way, they would indeed tell me the Bible is corrupt, because they are now armed with the late 1900’s to present versions of things coming out of so-called Christian seminaries. This is a joke - as if you keep up with these articles (I try to keep up with only some - who has that kind of time?), they are all based on speculation and extended arguments from some degree of speculation. This is an area I do agree with Josh McDowell on - that if you start with the assumption God will never intervene personally into human affairs, you’ll find all kinds of speculations to create. Islam has wonderfully woven those speculations together to argue against Christianity… a brilliant tactic.

  By the way, what if God did push you off your horse? Or your Chevy (or whatever you drive) - would you want to hear whatever He had for you to do? Do you think we’re (myself included) so immune to this type of event that we’d dismiss it over time? What would it really take? I ask this question honestly in terms of other directions in my own life.
  Am I really willing to absorb what happens should there be a this type of intimate and powerful encounter with God? Just interested in your thoughts. Perhaps we’ve so many Star Trek and Star Wars, etc movies that we’d think we’d encountered an alien!

  If you want to start another thought line - what is it that will hold civilization together, if not the quest for God and the moral fiber that creates? The world experimented with atheism and that was a dismal failure. The U.S. has generally been able to pull off pluralism, with some outbreaks, but surely not on the order of Islamic or Communist countries. We had to grow through some blinded thinking (slavery), but we’re moving out of that one - though that was an economic issue, again, using religion (though many saw through that one at the time). I’ll share a fear I have - you tell me whether it is legit - that there will be a spiritual vacuum created by non-religion (not atheists, not really anti-Christian - just undecideds) that will be filled by Islam due to how it is “sold” in the beginning stages. Then the legalistic noose will tighten - but unlike any legalism Christianity has imposed. Could that happen? Could the masses go for it in the U.S. as they are world-wide? Ok, I’m not trying to me a Islamic basher, but no one can avoid seeing what is happening in the rest of the world without being concerned.

  Thanks,
  -Jack

• 39. Slapdash  |  April 29, 2008 at 10:53 am

  JackD: “I have to say that I’ve seen enough answered prayer…”

  Later in the same paragraph: “I don’t get a lot of my prayers answered -”

  Which is it?

  For me, the issue of (unanswered) prayer was the first, primary, and most important thing that unraveled my faith.

  Christianity is completely schizophrenic when it comes to prayer. On the one hand you have loads of scriptures inviting us to pray - to pray about everything, to pray without ceasing, to pray boldly, to pray specifically, to pray with the faith of a mustard seed - and our prayers will be answered.

  On the other hand, based as far as I can tell only on the Lord’s prayer, Christians insist that you add “not my will be done, but yours” to every prayer, thus effectively giving God an ‘out’ any and every time your original desire doesn’t come to pass.

  Therefore Christians can always claim that God answered their prayer - just sometimes not in the way they wanted! heh heh, God’s so much wiser, he didn’t give me any of the jobs I prayed for, instead he had me on unemployment for five months so I could learn more reliance on him. Praise God for answering prayer!!!

  The more sophisticated Christians I’ve known have started saying that prayer is primarily a discipline for our own edification/learning - prayer’s not for God, it’s for us, and the outcomes of our prayers are much less important than the fact that it brings us into communion with God.

  That’s an elegant way to explain away the many scriptures in the new testament that command us to pray, and promise that we can move mountains if we do.

• 40. LeoPardus  |  April 29, 2008 at 11:47 am

  Jack D:

  there is a cafeteria plan possibility in Christendom

  That’s an understatement. There’s no possibility of anything else. Everyone chooses which doctrines and details they want. That’s why you have 30,000+ denominations, plus independents and house churches.

  I’m constantly amazed at how they agree with the consistency of concepts in the Bible.

  Depends on what concepts. I’m constantly amazed at the ability of people to pretend that there is some sort of “invisibly unified church” in the face of universal disagreement.

  answered prayer, “circumstances” working out and odd turns of events to know that God is at work and with a direct correlation to my requests

  You’re playing the game I call “Where’ Goddo?” If you want to see it, and if you are selective in how you view things, and if you buy into the “sometime Gods says yes/no/maybe” silliness, then you can convince yourself. But if you honestly look at the fact that praying to God gives you the same results as praying to a pet hamster, you get a different conclusion. Sorry man, but “circumstances” and “odd turns of events” happen to everyone.

  My years as a Christian, and my new perspective, allow me to clearly see how everyone is making it up as they go along; and to see how much the desire for what you want to be true warps your ability to see reality for what it is.

  I’m not going to be so weird as to say that people not of my faith don’t experience things coming together in odd ways for them - but I think this is God’s love as reminders that He is there for them.

  You have to deal with the flip side of this; the experience of thing NOT coming together. To use your logic this is God’s reminding them that He’s ….. not there for them? ….. still pissed at them for their sins? ….. capricious? …..

  Re the Koran: It reads like a product of a male dominated, warlike people, and an apologetic for unitarianism. Rather entirely like the OT.

  And the Muslims have been saying the Bible is corrupt long before the 19th century. They’ve been saying it since the 7th.

  On your query re God pushing me off my horse: I imagine that an all-knowing, all-powerful being can effortlessly come up with a way to get through to me unequivocally. And an omnibenevolent being should want to do so.

  what is it that will hold civilization together, if not the quest for God and the moral fiber that creates?

  I think that religions have contributed to morality. Sometimes negatively, sometimes positively. I can’t begin to calculate how the balance of those two comes out.

  The world experimented with atheism and that was a dismal failure.

  Uhmmmm…. Huh? The USSR was the world? Even if we stick with the USSR, you have to deal with the reality that they based their system not only in atheism, but also based their whole economy in an essentially flawed ideology. In the end, the USSR fell apart due to economic failure.

  a fear I have - you tell me whether it is legit - that there will be a spiritual vacuum created by non-religion (not atheists, not really anti-Christian - just undecideds)

  Not likely. Religion will be around forever. Will it’s influence diminish? I don’t think so, but it has diminished in a lot of European countries, so maybe.

  that will be filled by Islam due to how it is “sold” in the beginning stages.

  Islam? I don’t think so. It’s such a misogynistic religion and the western world has made too much progress in equal rights. I don’t think enough people would put up with the oppression again.

  Then the legalistic noose will tighten - but unlike any legalism Christianity has imposed.

  Why would it be unlike? Both have similar records for legalism, both have similar records for consigning women to third-class citizenship, etc. Heck they both come from the same region of the world, and the same background religion.

• 41. Slapdash  |  April 29, 2008 at 12:42 pm

  “Islam? I don’t think so. It’s such a misogynistic religion and the western world has made too much progress in equal rights. I don’t think enough people would put up with the oppression again.”

  I think you underestimate Islam. Wahhabi Muslims are prostheletizing big time in sub-saharan Africa. I lived in Cameroon one summer and did research in a mixed Muslim & Christian community. The big conflict wasn’t between Christians & Muslims - they got along fine. The big conflict was between the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabis and the more moderate local Muslims. The Wahhabis were new to the area and were busy buying/bribing their way into the community, and then telling all the other Muslims how wrong (ie. not fundamentalist) their worship practices were. From what I heard at the time, Wahhabis were (and presumably still are) busy building mosques all over Africa.

  I think the economic downtrodden are especially vulnerable to religious prostheletizing. It’s a message of hope, and who doesn’t like hope? The World Bank estimated, using 2001 data, that 1.1 billion people live on $1 a day or less and that another 2.7 billion live on $2 or less per day. That’s 3.8 billion people. I therefore think there’s quite fertile ground for Christians - or Muslims - to cultivate followers.

• 42. JackD  |  April 30, 2008 at 8:58 am

  I do think you’re way underestimating what is going on with Islam and how a critical mass can develop, and is developing, that can cause the agnostic/atheist/Christian/other great pain. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened in the Christian political world in the past. Islam is would have taken over Europe had it not been for the economic revival in the West (the Crusades wore them down a bit, but were not as effective as the west’s economic advances - a good model for defeating any terrorists as well??). At any rate, no one would expect that London would become a place of such great Islamic expansion, but they are.

  On your concept of “Where’s Goddo” - I can see where you’re coming from on that and it is certainly almost impossible to site non-refutable instances of God’s handiwork, as there is always a flip-side argument of “it just was random chance”. My take on that is that sometimes I’ve thought that too - as I’m a huge skeptic at heart… but no, for too many specific instances that just doesn’t line up with a form of reason outside of willful decisions to declare it ain’t so. Chance occurrence isn’t reasonable for too many cases. But I do understand the logic, and I also understand there is faith on both sides - for one, “Praise God!”, for the other, “Isn’t that amazing the way things work out [so randomly]!” The experience of seeing things come to pass, together with the historical evidences, together with the truths about life are what help me see the hand of God in my history and the history of the world. But, all three are important - and all three depend on some type of experience which starts the process where one gives God the benefit of the doubt vs mere chance.

  That leads me back to the Paul experience - perhaps God will knock you off your Chevy, blind you and then heal you. As you know - and as you would anticipate my saying - you don’t deserve God’s attention that way. BUT, if that’s what you need, I think that’s what you’ll get. I’d put some glue on my saddle from here on in perhaps

  On the failure of atheism and the need for a reason to be good - I think both the USSR and China are indeed good examples. I doubt you can dismiss the failures as due to just political and ecomomic issues either, as there is a relationship between those political processes and atheism (world-view) that caused those systems to falter where morality is so bad even now that bribery is a way of life (just visit Russia for a couple of weeks and you’ll discover a whole new way of bartering for even the stuff you already own).

  Legalism - Christian legalism doesn’t even begin to compare with that of Islam. Islam’s legalism is grounded at it’s root - right in it’s scriptures. That is not true for Christianity - someone has to avoid Galatians and Romans and make up some interpretive rules about the rest to arrive at where the Church of England and the Catholic church and various conservative cult type churches are today. Hey, I’m probably on your side on this one - although I may care for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, I definitely am in huge disagreement with anyone who tries to set up a type of New Testament law (outside of the law of love). It just doesn’t square with the whole thing. The instances where the Apostle Paul laid out “rules” for the church were where he didn’t want them to far ahead of their culture, so as to negate the spread of the Gospel through confusing it with politics. However, when culture changes, that should be an opportunity for Christians to re-evaluate the next step to see where freedom and grace can expand. Too bad the latter usually come so far after the fact. That has been a very bad thing through the years - women’s rights, slavery, evolution, etc - although in all those instances it was Christians who started the movements (yes, for even evolution) and Christians who bitterly opposed them - ah, some of us just don’t want to think about change.

  Ok, sorry for rambling on - I know this forum looks quite positive in it’s overall writing, so I hope I haven’t been preachy or negative sounding.

• 43. Slapdash  |  April 30, 2008 at 9:21 am

  “On the failure of atheism and the need for a reason to be good - I think both the USSR and China are indeed good examples.”

  I don’t know whether they’re good examples or not, but a data pool of 2 doesn’t prove your point. If you look up the ranked list of corrupt countries in the world (see Transparency International) I doubt you could correlate level of corruption with the level of atheism. In fact, 3 of the 10 least corrupt countries in 2007 were Finland, Sweden, and Denmark - all fairly a-religious countries as far as I understand it. There, does that now prove the opposite?

• 44. Slapdash  |  April 30, 2008 at 9:27 am

  “That leads me back to the Paul experience - perhaps God will knock you off your Chevy, blind you and then heal you. As you know - and as you would anticipate my saying - you don’t deserve God’s attention that way. BUT, if that’s what you need, I think that’s what you’ll get. I’d put some glue on my saddle from here on in perhaps.”

  What faith you have! The thing is, I highly doubt you believe God will literally knock Leo off his Chevy, blind him, and then heal him. Let’s say that’s exactly what Leo asks God to do. I would bet a lot of money that the Chevy thing never happens, but in a close examination of Leo’s life, some other unrelated set of events will be interpreted by you, or others sharing your perspective, as being the “Chevy event” and therefore proving God’s existence.

  Why Christians keep insisting that God acts only in mysterious ways, pretty much only through natural physical events and human relationships, and rarely in direct, exact correlation to what we’ve asked for - and yet they never see how frail and non-evidentiary that is to those who really need explicit, direct, miraculous answers - is a continuing mystery to *me*.

  I have needed, and asked for, my version of the “Chevy event”. And God didn’t show up.

• 45. karen  |  April 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  If you look up the ranked list of corrupt countries in the world (see Transparency International) I doubt you could correlate level of corruption with the level of atheism.

  Not hardly. For instance, see Mexico and Central America. Highly religious countries - mostly Catholic and Pentecostal protestants - and highly corrupt, unjust systems in place.

  I have needed, and asked for, my version of the “Chevy event”. And God didn’t show up.

  All I wanted was an unambiguous confirmation of god’s presence - a whisper, an obvious answer to prayer, heck - even an undeniable feeling would have done it for me. Didn’t happen, despite prayers and tears and anguish on my part.

• 46. LeoPardus  |  April 30, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  USSR and China are indeed good examples. I doubt you can dismiss the failures as due to just political and ecomomic issues either, as there is a relationship between those political processes and atheism (world-view) that caused those systems to falter

  Actually I can rack their failures up to largely economic stupidity. Of course they had/have a complex set of economic, moral, and ideological bankruptcies. Frankly I’ve always been amazed that the Soviet system lasted as long as it did. But overall, I give economics the biggest part in their downfall. It’s a well known facet of human nature that folks will put up with almost anything if they have full pocketbooks, and with almost nothing, if their pocketbooks are hurting.

  Christian legalism doesn’t even begin to compare with that of Islam. Islam’s legalism is grounded at it’s root - right in it’s scriptures.

  “As in all the churches, I do not permit a woman to speak”
  “Do not suffer a witch to live”
  “With such a man do not even eat”
  There are beaucoup verses to cite showing a great basis for legalism in the Bible.
  And there are verses expressing graciousness in the Koran.
  I won’t even try to figure out which one comes out more/less gracious/legalistic.

  The instances where the Apostle Paul laid out “rules” for the church were where he didn’t want them to far ahead of their culture, so as to negate the spread of the Gospel through confusing it with politics. However, when culture changes, that should be an opportunity for Christians to re-evaluate the next step to see where freedom and grace can expand.

  The eternal truth has to adapt to earthly cultures???

  Interesting and novel interpretations. But interpretations none the less. Which is all you can ever get. Too bad there isn’t a god who could communicate clearly and unequivocally.

  BTW, I won’t be knocked off my Chevy. I drive a Honda.

• 47. Cthulhu  |  April 30, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  BTW, I won’t be knocked off my Chevy. I drive a Honda.

  Ha! Me too…

• 48. JackD  |  May 2, 2008 at 10:16 am

  The Transparency International site is actually quite interesting, I haven’t seen that one before - isn’t it interesting that the post or on the outside edge of near-post Christian countries are all in some degree of red? On Denmark - most of the population, over 80% has ties to the official state Luthern church - they may not be immersed in their faith, but they are living on the Christian side of the post-Christian era in that country. Sweden is in a similar situation, as is the US and Canada, by the way. Other countries are further down the road and their lower marks reflect that as their leaders stray from godliness themselves. Indeed, considering the yellow countries on their Barometer, it does prove my point quite well.

  On countries like Mexico and Central America - don’t get confused between religious countries and something I call godly counties - huge difference. In Columbia it is quite acceptable to many to have another woman outside of marriage. That is their cultural, ungodly, practice. It is an area where godlessness has grown through the absence of personal faith in a God who calls them to truly love their wives. A good example of the leavening process. Their passions rule as a result - which is what happens in the void of godlessness. Everybody struggles with their silly passions, but should be held in check by a larger purpose - God. All other reasons are temporal, so the thinking person can find excuses around them.

  On the following:
  “As in all the churches, I do not permit a woman to speak”
  “Do not suffer a witch to live”
  “With such a man do not even eat”
  There are beaucoup verses to cite showing a great basis for legalism in the Bible.
  And there are verses expressing graciousness in the Koran.
  I won’t even try to figure out which one comes out more/less gracious/legalistic.

  I agree with you, that you can extract these verses wholesale and use them against society as some type of legalism. However, I don’t care what others may be doing, I have to look at what the Scriptures say and what the intent is, which I have already stated. The Apostle Paul would be horrified by how these have come forward into a very different world, where grace CAN abound. The exception is “with such a man do not even eat” - actually, to be honest, I’ve tried to figure that one out - at what point is someone so bad that you should dis-associate with him or her? Well, actually, it’s the same with your friends - if they choose to do drugs and hurt themselves and try to lure you into that trap what do you do? You put some distance between them and you - though you still love your friend (which is what the apostle said to do).

  Eternal truth adapting to different cultures - this is not a realistic statement - there is a difference between universal principles and local applications. That’s the job of the thinker - you and me - to figure out which is which. That’s the reason the word “consider” is used repeatedly in the NT. But there is a difference between them. Righteousness, justice and love are eternal truths - wearing veils is obviously not. As you know, people make a choice to not think. That will be true for all belief and political systems - unfortunately it gets all of us on this globe in all kinds of jams.

  God working in mysterious ways. I’m not advocating that God’s working in mysterious ways - I’m advocating that someone get knocked off their Honda seat. That is not mysterious. However, that may not be the issue here. There may be a much deeper issue that God will deal with in a person’s life - like rebellion against God, versus rebellion against some form of religion/church. My point is this - and I think we agree - when God nudges/pushes/shoves - it will be obvious to that person. Others may wonder why that is so obvious - but it is somehow obvious to that person. For that person to describe why would be like trying to describe the color blue to a person born blind. God’s ways are indeed overall unfathomable - if I could figure them out I’d be a god - but when He deals with the individual, no, not mysterious, obvious to him/her. So why do so many long for that obvious gesture by God and not see it? I really wish I had an answer for all here - I suppose it was like Simeon waiting for the Messiah (Luke 2) - he waited for a looooong time. Or Israel waiting for freedom from bondage (that was a long 400 years - I mean people died in bondage). I’ve waited for years for things from God too. Do I get disappointed? YES! I can understand your disappoint too - been there and sometimes go back there. But, again, I do have too much to look back on and too many things that do happen not to recognize another hand in my little pie. Karen, I don’t know you or your situation at all - I don’t even know if I can provide any answers to why you didn’t experience anything as yet, at your great consternation. But I can say that if a person opens themselves up to God and just accepts His love and grace for them as a “given” and leaves expectations behind (extremely important) - I would say things do happen. I guess it’s like when I was young and my dad would go for one of his many-hour Sunday drives. We didn’t know where we’d end up, but we looked forward to even the possibility of discovery. Every now and then we’d find an unexpected gem of a placed, but usually in a place we’d never anticipate. Personnally, I think this should be done on an inward and intimate basis - stay away from other formal Christian systems. I’d have to say, probably with the rest of you, that they would be faith-killers by imposing their little axioms and expectations. I’m not against churches (well, maybe many - but not all) - but, for most thinking people, they have to be approached AFTER thinking, experiencing, deciding. Many, unfortunately, are down-right dangerous places to be from the perspective of faith and intellect. No apologies are needed for them - they’s just people and I, unfortunately also have my own stupidities (of which I’m sure folks here can attest already).

  -Jack

• 49. LeoPardus  |  May 2, 2008 at 11:23 am

  On Denmark - most of the population, over 80% has ties to the official state Luthern church - they may not be immersed in their faith, but they are living on the Christian side of the post-Christian era in that country. Sweden is in a similar situation, as is the US and Canada, by the way.

  Uhm Jack, in Denmark you are registered with the state church when you’re born unless your parents take specific steps to avoid it. You can unregister with the state church later in life if you want to. Most people just don’t care. Church attendance there is between 5%-15% depending on just where in the country you look. Sweden has the same situation. The countries are only “Christian” in a “background culture” sense. Forstaad du mig?

  don’t get confused between religious countries and something I call godly counties

  Any country happen to fit into that latter category?

  You seem to be quite immersed in international misinformation. You read about the 80% in Denmark but had zero knowledge of what it actually meant. You read that a lot of Columbians keep mistresses, but don’t know the economic qualifiers that accompany the statement. You’ve got a lot of the isolated, misinformed, conservative, religious American thing going there.

  I have to look at what the Scriptures say and what the intent is, which I have already stated

  In other words, you have to look at what it plainly says, and try to figure out if you want to take it literally, figuratively, or ignore it. And if someone else takes it differently, you have no leg to stand on.

  I’ve tried to figure that one out - at what point is someone so bad that you should dis-associate with him or her

  Well fer cryin’ out loud, how tough can it be? Here it is:
  I Cor 5:11 - “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.”

  That’s bloody simple.
  Are they screwing around? Shun them.
  Do they get drunk? Shun them.
  And so on. Glad I could clear that incredibly clear command up for you. Now start obeying the WORD OF GOD!

  there is a difference between universal principles and local applications. That’s the job of the thinker - you and me - to figure out which is which.

  And what of the poor simpleton? How’s he gonna figure this out? Does he just have to hope that some “thinker” will explain it for him? And hope that “thinker” isn’t me, ’cause I’d tell him it’s just a fantasy piece?

  About your “me only” approach to scripture, truth, etc. Once again, you need to obey scripture. You can’t stay away from church, and the church is there to give you truth, and it gave you the Bible, and you’re supposed to obey it. Voila les scriptures:

  “so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.” Ephesians 3:10
  “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15
  “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.” Romans 13:1-2
  “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews 13:17

  So there you are; off on your own; choosing your own way (did you know that the Greek root ‘heraticos’ means “to make one’s own choice”?); out of sync with THE WORD.

  You need to get in line before GOD gets mad.
  Fortunately for you there is no such being, and the Bible is just a collection of myths written by primitive people.

• 50. JackD  |  May 5, 2008 at 10:01 am

  I can tell you folks are going to miss me someday - you’re having too much fun.

  I’m going to work up on this note -

  First - on staying away from church. I’m not being out of synch - I’m saying that in today’s culture, for the non- or new-believer, it can be a dangerous place. It will suck them in to their vortex of activity and perhaps legalism. Hopefully, they’ll have someone to help them through this process, but if not, they need a Paul experience when he went to Arabia to put it all together (of course, for most, 13 years would be quite excessive). Leo, I’m afraid you’ve been steeped in a church culture from your past. At the very least, the person should choose a “church” (that is an assembly of Christians, not the meaning of what church is in many minds today (a building, a large mass of people listening to a man/woman up front).

  Ok, don’t be shallow on the issue of when to stay away from a Christian in sin. How deep do they need to be in it? If a person is a new Christian and dealing with his/her past, how long do you wait until you practice dis-association? How do you know there’s not a deeper issue than what the surface portrays? Is it rebellion or that deeper issue? Guess why this isn’t practiced much these days? Because people don’t want to have to get involved enough to answer these questions at an intimate level. Or, even worse, they want to practice them as some type of rule - and I’ve already discussed where I stand on those types of rule-practices (as in, there is NO New Testament law).

  That “where’s goddo” thing again - come on, I can have 200 unanswered prayers and one that is so obvious that it completely overshadows all others. Let’s be honest, we have no clue what is best for us. We have no clue where we fit in the scheme of things. We have no clue how a sinful world and a holy God interact with each other in the realm of events and circumstances. That is, what do I need to accept on the basis of a world steeped in sin versus what can I have hope in that God will shield or otherwise sidestep me from enduring consequences of my own behavior, that of others or just plain “nature”? I have never seen anyone answer those questions clearly. So, we pray, knowing we don’t have those questions, seeking God in the process and (as you mentioned about someone’s opinion of prayer which is only partly correct) using prayer to keep our focus on the One who is sovereign “somehow” in the world. HOWEVER, we are indeed to pray expectantly, expecting God to work in EITHER us or the circumstances. We have to be content with either possibility. What’s the option, everyone gets what they want or gets it their way? That would be ridiculous, and even harmful to one another. Kind of a prayer anarchy.

  On those countries - didn’t your read what I said? They are benefiting from their generational ties to their past religious underpinnings - just as the U.S. is today. They are in the humanitarian stage of life thought and practice, just as we are - but it won’t last long, because people’s quest for passion and power at the leadership level is too strong to be held back by false religion (Christian versions or other philosophies).

  No country fits into the latter category of “godly”, but some leaders do. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily successful. Jimmy Carter, I think, is a godly man. A very close relative worked with him - he was regarded by his associates as an incredibly honest and good person… which got him in all kinds of political pickles. I don’t know about the rest, as I don’t have those contacts with them. Suffice to say, there have been, through the years, godly people leading countries, either directly or indirectly by influence (William Wilberforce is a great example from as a subject of a contemporary movie).

  On interpretation of the Scriptures - let’s see, what mainline Christian denomination doesn’t believe the Scriptures the same in regards to: Man blew it, God sent His Son to die for it, and Jesus rose from the grave to help us live through it, and to bring us to heaven through much trial and difficulty.

  The rest is up for grabs, though I agree, some place such emphasis on the trivial that it gets so wildly blown out of proportion (like church politics - Catholics with the Pope, Evangelicals with their Elders/Deacons, etc.). No where is form commanded in the New Testament - though function (via principles) is talked about a lot. Some do disagree that Christians should have wealth and no difficulty - but those are ludicrous church branches so I won’t even put them in the category of the Christian mainstream.

  Columbia immorality guided by economics? What? I have a friend very influential in that country - it is guided by passion, period.

  Mis-information about countries - I guess I have to plead guilty to not knowing everything, but I’ve traveled extensively and seen it personally. I will plead quite guilty about Islamic countries though - I’ve never visited any of the Near East countries. You can verbally assault me there as much as you want - I just know that extremely few Americans or Europeans are traveling over there as illegal immigrants because they want to be a part of their political and economic systems. Hmmm, maybe that should tell us something about how well they are actually “playing together” under Islam and the rest of their cultural/political structures?

  What about the simpleton - simple… God makes wise the foolish. I’ve seen it happen and you probably have as well, whether at church, work or wherever. If you’re talking about a truly mentally challenged person (like, from birth issue) - they need assistance no matter what the topic.

  On heresy…the Apostle Paul was called a heretic by the Jews. Martin Luther was a heretic according to the Catholic church. Gee, I guess you can’t just throw the term around to mean that someone shouldn’t take the time to work through the Scriptures themselves. As a matter of fact, we are each told to “consider” what is being said - that is our responsibility. A heretic is someone who says they are a Christian who denies Christ came in the flesh and died for sin and rose again bodily. That is a denial of the clear New Testament message. The word was most recently widely used in the Catholic church and church of England to denote anyone straying from their doctrine - which was really meant to keep people under their power structures. As a result, that’s the caricature attached to that word. I would have to say, you simply responded based upon that caricature.

  Have to go now - thought of a verse for you on this site…

  From David… “I have strayed like a lost sheep. Seek your servant…” After a beautiful Psalm displaying the benefits of God’s word, this is so unexpected. It seems like David also needed more assurance that God was there for him, even after he seemed to see some amazing events transpire in his life. The reality is, unless God does reveal Himself at some level to us as individuals that truly communicates His reality, then yes, we are left with an overwhelming room full of question marks and disappointments.

  I don’t want to be pain for folks here - would you rather I move on?

  -Jack

• 51. Cthulhu  |  May 5, 2008 at 10:46 am

  JackD,

  As long as your discourses are civil and you accept constructive critique - I see now reason for you to leave. Stick around, but be careful - some of this might rub off on you

• 52. JackD  |  May 7, 2008 at 1:52 pm

  Ok - and yes, you are rubbing off on me in a positive way. Let me give an example. The issue of prayer. In considering this, two thoughts came to mind of late - still thinking them through, but here’s the non-fully digested version.

  One - in the U.S. we have some obviously strange concepts about prayer and expectations. I asked my family the other day what would Christians pray for in the earlier centuries? Most wouldn’t pray for castles, carriages, cuties, cash, commerce (our equivalents of cars, cash, cuties, careers - though we also now add computers and cell phones). I think they would pray to make it through the day in peace and to have their basic supplies met. I’m looking forward to going back into Scripture and really digging into context for verses like “Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.” - Jn 16:24. The reality is, God probably doesn’t care so much about, for example, what career we choose, but who we are in it. However, asking for a job because we need money to support our family - basic needs. So many times Christians ask God what to do next and He’s asking them back, “What do you want to do? (I’ll be with you and strengthen you through that pursuit.” Peace in the midst of conflict, courage in the midst of fear, strength in the midst of weakness - that’s the core of life, and what the early church actually experienced through their persecution and daily life struggles. That was their reality - and what Christ shared they would experience, not things like, should I buy a Honda or a Nissan? They needed hope more than anything - not a tangible - because their lives were so tenuous. Jesus may not give me much cash, but He certainly provides hope.

  Some here probably will say a false hope, due to issues with the “facts” of the evidence - but the evidence is appropriate for what we could know 2000 years later from the events. Of course, today’s current theatrical version of research (aka things like The Da Vinci Code) completely distort any ground in reality for way too many people.

  Secondly, on the concept of “where’s goddo” - actually, that is exactly what we want to do, but not finding God in some supernatural event. The separation between the supernatural and the natural is artificial. We should indeed look for God in the daily life processes. If a person is looking, they see God, but they are looking from the inside out. If a person is searching, they are looking from the outside in - they want circumstance that will help them see God. Not bad to to do, but shouldn’t be the focus. If a person is mad at God, or the concept thereof, they are looking for reasons not to see, but still searching for peace and courage and strength. Actually, Jesus warned about Gentiles seeking wisdom and Jews seeking signs.

  Another area - by the way, though Islam cast their arguments against the Bible all the back to actually, the Koran, the major changes to that debate came with the advent of so-called “higher criticism” and the works of those who attempted to apply scientific theory to the Scriptures, reducing them to mere shards of thought, not cohesive works. Whatever one may say about that effort, it gave the Islamic world all the ammo it needed to back up their claims that the Koran is the accurate document, since the Bible was in their view so error prone. I’d have to say, that was indeed a pretty smart move on their part - they found a way to throw our own book at us.

• 53. Slapdash  |  May 7, 2008 at 5:10 pm

  “The separation between the supernatural and the natural is artificial.”

  How so? The Bible is full of stories showing how God is so completely “Other” than us, and that the spiritual realm is completely different from, separate, from the physical realm. If anything makes a separation between the two, the Bible does.

  “We should indeed look for God in the daily life processes.”

  Are you saying we should NOT look for God, expect God, in the supernatural? If not, I don’t see why I should believe God exists at all. If God is indistinguishable from natural life processes, what’s the point? Might as well say that we should look for the flying spaghetti monster in daily life processes.

  “If a person is looking, they see God, but they are looking from the inside out. If a person is searching, they are looking from the outside in - they want circumstance that will help them see God.”

  I don’t understand this.

• 54. LeoPardus  |  May 7, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  Jack:

  You are steeped in an anti-church culture from your past and present. What makes you think your steeping is superior to anyone else’s?

  Like I said, the Greek root ‘heraticos’ means “to make one’s own choice”. You’re just one more guy, running around making his own choices. You have nothing to back you but your own opinion of what God is like, or what the Bible means. You have nowhere to turn and no leg to stand on if someone else interprets the Bible to mean something diametrically opposed to your interpretation.

  Why should anyone listen to some guy spouting nothing but his opinions? Why should you even listen to yourself? ……. I know, I know; you’re listening to God and so should we. Sorry to break it to you, but you’re just listening to yourself. That thing you refer to as God is just a creation of your own imagination.

  BTW you still haven’t even tried to deal with those Bible verses I handed you that say the Church is authoritative and expounds the word of God to the world. You’re gonna have to get around those, and deal with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians on Earth would take them to mean just what they seem to mean on first reading.

  Oh and you’re also going to have to deal with the reality of the first few centuries of the Church. When there was no scripture. The books were around, but any given, local body might have almost any odd collection of “scriptures”. There was no 66 books in a binding. And then most folks couldn’t read anyway. So how were they going to do what you think is “the only way”? They had to learn from authorities.

• 55. LeoPardus  |  May 7, 2008 at 6:50 pm

  Jack:

  on the issue of when to stay away from a Christian in sin. How deep do they need to be in it?

  Bah. You’re just trying to avoid doing what the WORD tells you to do. If they sin, don’t associate with them. And there’s a specific list of sins too. So for example, if they did adultery, shun them. It’s really simple. And it won’t take long before you have a perfect church; or an empty one. But then that’s what you’ve got right? A church of one. The first, and only, independent, church of Jack D.

• 56. The Apostate  |  May 7, 2008 at 10:25 pm

  JackD,

  On those countries - didn’t your read what I said? They are benefiting from their generational ties to their past religious underpinnings - just as the U.S. is today. They are in the humanitarian stage of life thought and practice, just as we are - but it won’t last long, because people’s quest for passion and power at the leadership level is too strong to be held back by false religion (Christian versions or other philosophies).

  I really wish I had the time to reply to your the entirety of your responses, as I do think you bring some solid discussion to the table. As someone who is deeply concerned, both when I was an evangelical and now that I am an apostate, about the influence of religion on the state, I must question some of the assumptions and claims in the above cited passage.

  Don’t you think it is somewhat presumptuous to state that secularized European states are “benefiting from their generational ties to their past religious underpinnings - just as the U.S. is today”? Taking this at face value, this doesn’t mean much to me. Looking at the reality of the “religious underpinnings” in Europe does not seem to fair much better - in fact, I think history works against this statement. But then again, it all depends what “religious underpinnings” we are speaking of. Is this the thousand years of Roman Catholic rule or the two to three hundred years of Protestant turmoil that followed? Do we include the burning of witches and Anabaptists, or do we set that aside? Do we look for our “family values” in the Scriptures - or do we ignore the teachings of Jesus and focus on the tense history of the institution of the family within Christendom? I simply ask for some clarification, because I find it erroneous to credit the horrendous history of Christendom with today’s relative humanitarianism.

  The second half of the cited statement seems to imply that people in power have not always had a corruptible tendency. Could you name the good Christian leaders of the past that were so wholesome? Is there a history of Christian leadership that was so benevolent? Granted, we are all human and bound for failures, but the record of Christian, Muslim, and Pagan leaders are all pretty much the same throughout history. We whine and complain about our political leaders, but at least nowadays we take it to be an abomination when someone wipes out whole villages in the nam