Dialogue Between Two Bible-college Buddies:

[chad]

I'm an ex-Christian of the Fundamentalist, Bible-thumping persuasion. I posted my de-conversion "testimony" approximately two years ago; it is entitled "saved from intellectual suicide" if you want to check it out. Therein, I share my experiences as a student and graduate of an extremely strict Bible-college. In fact, I would argue that it is among the top 10 most legalistic Bible colleges in America; you could say that it is the special forces of ministerial training.

 

Recently, I began to engage in a e-mail exchange with one of my old buddies (Fred) from this particular college. Specifically, I've been attempting to explain why I rejected Christianity and ultimately became an Atheist/agnostic. I love to read discourse between Christians and ex-Christians who once shared a close bond, as such discourse is typically free from the shallow and cliche bullshit that characterizes most of the discourse between Christians and ex-Christians who don't share a personal history. This bond, in many cases, provides a platform to discuss Christian-versus-exChristian issues from a respectful perspective that is conducive to a bit more depth and thought than the disdainful persepctive -- and its disparaging dynamics -- that is the usual mode of communication between random Christians and ex-Christians. Various blogs, chatrooms, and web-forums are a prime example. So I've decided to share our discourse. What follows, then, is my response to Fred's (or his wife's) question concerning why I ultimately de-converted. I'll keep you posted, if interested, on all subsequent exchanges:

 

 

In the interest of answering your wife’s question in a manner that is more complete, apologetics itself was not the initial trigger of my de-conversion process. Actually, reading and studying the bible in order to develop my relationship with God served as the initial trigger. In my studies, I began to encounter what I perceived to be contradictions and inconsistencies. My introduction to these contradictions and inconsistencies did not evoke any sort of doubt at first. After all, my mentality was that of a Christian bumper-sticker: “If the Bible sais it, I believe it, and that settles it.” I was convinced, in other words, that the Bible was both inspired as well as inerrant; and therefore, I fully expected to find adequate answers. Answers from those who possessed much more scriptural erudition than myself, and thus, answers that would cogently explain-away such contradictions/inconsistencies. Unfortunately, however, the proposed answers that I researched struck me as mere sophistry and rhetoric instead of answers that reflected intellectual integrity.

Imagine a presidential candidate, for example, who during a debate, is challenged by a statement or question the exposes an apparent contradiction in his political ideology. Because political candidates are categorically committed to the promotion of their political ideology, they often become so extremely wrapped-up in their cause that they, in turn, become de-sensitized to the logical fallacies of their political positions. Not only do they become de-sensitized, they often have a vested interest in smoothing over such inconsistencies and contradictions when they are brought to attention, inasmuch as failing to do so would reduce pools of potential converts. This reveals that a commitment to their political agenda takes precedence over their commitment to a sense of truth. Consequently, the presidential candidate in question responds to the challenge by attempting to reconcile or avoid the contradiction with some sort of semantic chicanery–hence the phrase “political spin.”

At one point or another, everyone has witnessed a politician squirm his way out of a contradiction by using the tactic of “spin”; and rightfully, these “spin” tactics provoke the disdainful impression that he or she is more concerned about saving face or defending his/her ideology to a fault than the obvious truth of the matter–the truth being that the validity of his/her political position is compromised by substantial contradictions. And this concern for political agenda over truth shows a total lack of intellectual integrity. Similarly, the answers that apologists offer regarding biblical contradictions smack of “political spin”, which provokes the disdainful impression that they are more concerned about promoting a Christian world-view than defending the obvious truth–the truth being that the Bible’s validity is seriously compromised by real and substantial contradictions/inconsistencies. And this concern for religious agenda over truth shows a total lack of intellectual integrity.

In the name of fairness, however, I should mention that some contradictions and inconsistencies were effectively solved, In my estimation, by some of the apologists that I checked-out. And I want to be clear that I’m not accusing apologists of stupidity, because many of them are extremely sharp. But no matter how sharp one is, he is bound to commit logical fallacies if he already decides the answer to a problem or question before actually investigating it. What if all the facts and relevant evidence leads to an answer that is contrary to his preconceived ideas; more specifically, what if an apologist’s investigation of biblical contradictions/inconsistencies, in his attempt to reconcile them and thereby demonstrate the Bible’s inerrancy, instead produces conclusions that are contrary to biblical inerrancy–produces conclusions that confirm the existence of bonafide contradictions/inconsistencies? Simple: if he is more committed to maintaining his pre-conceived ideas – biblical inerrancy in this case – he will manipulate and distort the facts/evidence to fit his preconceive ideas, rather than allowing the facts/evidences to speak for themselves! This kind of intellectual dishonesty is all too often the mode of operation among apologists. I said all that to say this: my attempt to reconcile the biblical contradictions/inconsistencies unearthed during my studies resulted in the conclusion that the Bible is divinely uninspired (a purely human book), and the apologists I turned to for help cemented this conclusion, ironically.

If the Bible is not inerrant and inspired, then, I reasoned, it cannot be a divine revelation from a God that is supposedly all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. A God who is ultimately perfect, by definition, cannot produce a revelation that is imperfect–period! At this point, many Christians concede that the Bible, in its current form, is imperfect and contains some real inconsistencies. But subsequently, they are quick to retort that the original manuscripts were inerrant/perfect–that the flaws of our current manuscripts are a unfortunate but inevitable byproduct of the translation process due to human imperfection. Sounds like political spin!!! Think about it. If God, through divine revelation, acted on the free-will of various men and temporarily suspended their human imperfections in order to author the Bible in its perfect/inerrant form, why did God fail to ensure that His inerrant/perfect revelation would remain as such through years of translation by also acting on the free-will of various men and temporarily suspending their imperfections, particularly the men responsible for translation. If God went through all the trouble of using man to create a perfect and inerrant revelation, why didn’t he also use man to sustain the perfection/inerrancy of His revelation. Doesn’t this strike you as the biggest oversight and failure of follow-through in history! In light of these questions, one is hard-pressed to avoid the clear implication: the Bible, in terms of both its creation and translation, is a mere work of man, not a being that is omni-max and perfect. On that note, have you ever run across what you considered to be problematic passages during your studies? And if so, do you care to share?

You suggested that apologetics usually leads to one of two extremes: it either strengthens or weakens one’s faith. And you expressed some uncertainty as to why it has this kind of polarizing effect. Allow me to offer an explanation. I’ll start by claiming, based on my experience, that studying apologetics more than superficially typically weakens one’s faith, or at least significantly changes the nature of one’s faith (usually from a fundamentalist/evangelical orientation to a moderate/liberal orientation). When I say based on my experience, I’m of course referring to my own de-conversion as well as the de-conversions of many ex-Christians that I’ve come to know via web forums. At face value, such a claim seems sharply contrary to common-sense. Whenever one studies arguments explicitly favoring a certain stance, he usually becomes more convinced of its truth, unless the arguments are really bad–right? In many cases, yes. But the reason apologetics has a tendency to weaken one’s faith is not that most of the arguments are low-quality. In fact, some of them are very high-quality and philosophically solid.

Rather, apologetics has a tendency to weaken one’s faith based on what I’ll call the “exposure effect.” In order to successfully defend the faith, apologists must become intimately familiar with the opposition–with those philosophies and ideas that argue against Christianity. And Apologists must first present their opponents views in a thorough, fair, and accurate fashion (or at least attempt to do so), before they endeavor to discredit those views. Otherwise, their arguments will only resonate with those who already believe, and they won’t be taken seriously by those they are trying to reach and persuade; namely, intellectuals with an agnostic (or on the fence) predisposition and informed Christians seeking to undermine their doubts. After all, the persuasive power of an apologist’s defense often depends on how well he understands the nuances of his opposition. So if I’m an agnostic or “doubting Thomas” looking for a cogent defense of Christianity, I would not be very impressed by a defense that didn’t reflect a deep knowledge and understanding of its opposition.

Hence, studying apologetics exposes Christians in particular – for the first time in many cases – to the secular and generally non-Christian schools of thought that pose powerful arguments against Christianity. Granted, a majority of Christians have been exposed to evolution in school and naturalistic lines of thought by watching shows like the discovery channel, which is a very general and casual type of exposure. Apologetics, on the other hand, exposes them to philosophies that are specifically anti-Christian–hard-core philosophies and arguments that were specifically conceived to repudiate Christianity. Such exposure opens up a whole new intellectual world to Christians, especially in comparison to the fact that Christians are conditioned to contemplate nothing but PRO-Christian philosophies and ideas. A world that poses serious challenges to Christian truth-claims; a world that, dare I say, renders some Christian truth-claims false (or at least places them under serious doubt). Consequently, what starts out at as a mission to starve one’s doubts and feed his faith through studying apologetics. . . numerous times. . . ends in a de-conversion that starved one’s faith and fed his doubts. So the “exposure effect” of apologetics leads to the “reversal effect.”

Why is it that the run-of-the-mill Christian is not familiar with apologetics on an in-depth level? Because if they were, there would be many less Christians due to the “reversal effect.” I’m convinced, accordingly, that the Christian population around the world would significantly dwindle if Christians would begin to simply examine the philosophies and ideas counter to Christianity (the operative word here is examine) instead of eating an exclusive, intellectual diet of Christian ideology. Funny, one would think that those people for whom it is vitally important to champion one single truth would also be those most likely to examine all the options, all perspectives, Christian or otherwise, to ascertain which seem best; but the exact opposite is the case. Faith becomes an excuse and synonym – even a sign of moral nobility – for refusing to fairly examine other-than-Christian ideas. Have you ever studied apologetics besides the Catholic material that you mentioned? And if so, what authors and what books have you explored?

And I thank you for your Honesty as well! Many Christians are incapable of admitting doubt, as doubt is associated with weak, tainted faith, a poor moral/ethical character, and ultimately Satan’s deceptive schemes together with the flames of hell. Therefore, an alarming number of Christians live in a state of denial and intellectual suppression; in that, they refuse to acknowledge their doubts for fear that they will lose faith and burn in hell eternally. Although I understand why this kind of fear is encouraged insofar as it functions to keep people locked into a state of cult-ish belief (to keep people from defecting essentially), I never understood the rationale of it from God’s perspective, assuming that God exits of course. To express this confusion, I’ll quote the words of a master theologian, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if He really exists, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded faith and fear.” That said, what specific doubts have you faced? Why were you almost tempted to throw in the towel? You said that there would be nothing to go back to if you threw in the towel. What do you mean exactly?

I’ve noticed that many Christians refer to their “encounters with the Lord,” spiritual experiences, and how God has changed their life as a final line of defense when all other arguments of a more intellectual or philosophical nature fail–almost as if this serves as some sort of “ace in the hole.” But I find this line of argument, with all due respect, to be extremely flimsy, and I consider it to be an intellectual cop-out. Why? Because myriads of people claim to experience mind-altering and life-changing religious encounters everyday, and a large portion of these encounters conflict with one another in terms of the God or religious truths that they postulate. Are you prepared to say that your experiences, and the God that they represent, are somehow more real or genuine than the experiences of others, and the God that those experiences represent? On what grounds can you claim, without resorting to circular logic, to know that your spiritual experiences (or encounters with the Lord) actually originated from a real Christian God rather than the strength of your own belief and thus a fabrication of your own mind?

Muslims allege that they have undergone life-changing experiences through an encounter with the power of Allah, mystics of all persuasions experience “born-again” transformations as a result of connecting, as they allege, to some sort of higher, spiritual realm, and multitudes of Buddhists have dramatically and positively changed their lives by embracing the Eightfold Path of Buddhism and experiencing the inner-peace that follows. So why are your encounters with the Lord or religious experiences any more authentic or true than these experiences? You might respond, as Christians often do when pressed for an answer, by referring to a profound, mysterious feeling in your gut that convinced you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your spiritual/religious experiences are superior and more real than others. Yet, others from different religious and spiritual traditions refer to the same mysterious feeling–so why is your mysterious, gut feeling superior to their mysterious, gut feeling? That being said, your appeal to “encounters with the Lord” is purely an emotional appeal, and it doesn’t withstand rational scrutiny. I completely understand, however. History has shown that humans are more prone to emotionally centered beliefs than rationally centered beliefs–emotions are much more primitive and powerful.

If God has truly given you a vision to resign from your old church and pioneer your own church, why are you even considering another pastoral position? Has God changed his mind, or are you losing faith in the validity of this vision?

[Eccles]

The OP shows how stupid are these bible colleges. No offence as you attended one, however you woke up to the bullshit. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic meaning I was brainwashed and was not allowed to think or question. I notice that so many Americans find themselves in the same situation: Taught there is a "God/Creator", that the bible is the inerrant "word" of this "god". Therein lies the big problem: accepting a book of fiction as though it is true. Anyone with any sense of logic should see how wrong that is, yet they waste their time, money and lives living under this lie. I recovered from Christianity. I am abhored by the bible. I feel sorry for the poor people who get sucked in by it. II was lucky that I got a good science education, not via Roman Catholic School of course, but under my own steam. I learned Astronomy and Astrophysics. I suppose I am lucky that I live in a country that does not suffer from Christianity like the United States does. Australians can be Christian or Atheist and nobody interferes with that. What is the problem in America, or as it should be called the United Christian States of America. It is becoming a backward country. These bible colleges should be taken over for the teaching of Science: the truth, not lies and bullshit on the basis of the book of bullshit: the "Holey Babble".

[Robbobrob]

This is an excellent way to organize your thoughts and how you now feel about things. Don't try to persuade the others, but use them to hone your own thoughts so you know what you believe and know.

[mick]

Thank You for your post. And I agree that there is something very interesting with seeing a discussion between an Ex-Christian and a current Christian who have a shared past and even friendship. It is almost impossible to get past the "fight" if you are starting from scratch with someone. However, I still think it is imporant to expose especially "baby Christians" to the problems of what they are getting into. A somewhat new Christian who has never looked into the details of the Old Test, may be sufficiently shocked to get out quick, and get spared much pain. I was a Christin for a grand total of 17 years. I was one of the ones who was actually troubled by Hell, and tried to convert people. When I got out of college, and got involved in a church serisoulsy, I was pretty shocked at how little people cared about the people that simply must be going to Hell if this religion was true. I remember realizing that "Noone here cares really, and ultimately that just about every Christian has their own "Christ" and their own personally religion really. (Since it is all false, it really is a collection of people just sharing their own ideas about their imaginary friend that has the same name, and is at least loosely based on the same book none of them has ever really studied.

 

I studied the Bible hard. Admittedly I did not really read the OT until I was 5 or 6 years into my "walk with Christ" and 3 years into a fundamentalist marriage. Shock and Awe described my first tour through the OT. Then I got distracted by life worries, having children, career, provding, etc. I was able to bury my head in the sand for about 10 years. I actually became a deacon, remained addicted to my imaginary friend for a while. I took a second, much harder look at the actions of Jehovah about 4 or 5 years ago. I also pretty much could not concieve of any version of hell anymore. (And I knew that parts of the Bible were utterly rediculous as well) I rejected it completely at that point. At first I did secretly in my heart. I used to debate a friend of mine about Calvanism. Even though I was deconverted, I would try to show him that Calvanism must be true, and that God was really kind of a monster. I even would say to him that if Calvanism is true, then I don't even want to be a Christian. Then I would try to show him that Calvanism was true to see if he would get the hint. (That I don't believe anymore) ONe time he even asked me "what are you trying to say?". Anyway that kid later became an ex-Christian, and he came out and was bold about it. He was an Elder at my church too! Anyway, at that time (about 2 years ago) I decided my apostacy was not going to be a secret anymore.

 

Anyway, all that rambling to say that I liked reading what you guys said to each other. I have a MySpace site that I blog tons of Ex-Christian stuff. I post emails there that I have sent to Christian friends. (I change the names)

 

I'm an ex-Christian of the Fundamentalist, Bible-thumping persuasion. I posted my de-conversion "testimony" approximately two years ago; it is entitled "saved from intellectual suicide" if you want to check it out. Therein, I share my experiences as a student and graduate of an extremely strict Bible-college. In fact, I would argue that it is among the top 10 most legalistic Bible colleges in America; you could say that it is the special forces of ministerial training.

 

Recently, I began to engage in a e-mail exchange with one of my old buddies (Fred) from this particular college. Specifically, I've been attempting to explain why I rejected Christianity and ultimately became an Atheist/agnostic. I love to read discourse between Christians and ex-Christians who once shared a close bond, as such discourse is typically free from the shallow and cliche bullshit that characterizes most of the discourse between Christians and ex-Christians who don't share a personal history. This bond, in many cases, provides a platform to discuss Christian-versus-exChristian issues from a respectful perspective that is conducive to a bit more depth and thought than the disdainful persepctive -- and its disparaging dynamics -- that is the usual mode of communication between random Christians and ex-Christians. Various blogs, chatrooms, and web-forums are a prime example. So I've decided to share our discourse. What follows, then, is my response to Fred's (or his wife's) question concerning why I ultimately de-converted. I'll keep you posted, if interested, on all subsequent exchanges:

 

 

In the interest of answering your wife’s question in a manner that is more complete, apologetics itself was not the initial trigger of my de-conversion process. Actually, reading and studying the bible in order to develop my relationship with God served as the initial trigger. In my studies, I began to encounter what I perceived to be contradictions and inconsistencies. My introduction to these contradictions and inconsistencies did not evoke any sort of doubt at first. After all, my mentality was that of a Christian bumper-sticker: “If the Bible sais it, I believe it, and that settles it.” I was convinced, in other words, that the Bible was both inspired as well as inerrant; and therefore, I fully expected to find adequate answers. Answers from those who possessed much more scriptural erudition than myself, and thus, answers that would cogently explain-away such contradictions/inconsistencies. Unfortunately, however, the proposed answers that I researched struck me as mere sophistry and rhetoric instead of answers that reflected intellectual integrity.

Imagine a presidential candidate, for example, who during a debate, is challenged by a statement or question the exposes an apparent contradiction in his political ideology. Because political candidates are categorically committed to the promotion of their political ideology, they often become so extremely wrapped-up in their cause that they, in turn, become de-sensitized to the logical fallacies of their political positions. Not only do they become de-sensitized, they often have a vested interest in smoothing over such inconsistencies and contradictions when they are brought to attention, inasmuch as failing to do so would reduce pools of potential converts. This reveals that a commitment to their political agenda takes precedence over their commitment to a sense of truth. Consequently, the presidential candidate in question responds to the challenge by attempting to reconcile or avoid the contradiction with some sort of semantic chicanery–hence the phrase “political spin.”

At one point or another, everyone has witnessed a politician squirm his way out of a contradiction by using the tactic of “spin”; and rightfully, these “spin” tactics provoke the disdainful impression that he or she is more concerned about saving face or defending his/her ideology to a fault than the obvious truth of the matter–the truth being that the validity of his/her political position is compromised by substantial contradictions. And this concern for political agenda over truth shows a total lack of intellectual integrity. Similarly, the answers that apologists offer regarding biblical contradictions smack of “political spin”, which provokes the disdainful impression that they are more concerned about promoting a Christian world-view than defending the obvious truth–the truth being that the Bible’s validity is seriously compromised by real and substantial contradictions/inconsistencies. And this concern for religious agenda over truth shows a total lack of intellectual integrity.

In the name of fairness, however, I should mention that some contradictions and inconsistencies were effectively solved, In my estimation, by some of the apologists that I checked-out. And I want to be clear that I’m not accusing apologists of stupidity, because many of them are extremely sharp. But no matter how sharp one is, he is bound to commit logical fallacies if he already decides the answer to a problem or question before actually investigating it. What if all the facts and relevant evidence leads to an answer that is contrary to his preconceived ideas; more specifically, what if an apologist’s investigation of biblical contradictions/inconsistencies, in his attempt to reconcile them and thereby demonstrate the Bible’s inerrancy, instead produces conclusions that are contrary to biblical inerrancy–produces conclusions that confirm the existence of bonafide contradictions/inconsistencies? Simple: if he is more committed to maintaining his pre-conceived ideas – biblical inerrancy in this case – he will manipulate and distort the facts/evidence to fit his preconceive ideas, rather than allowing the facts/evidences to speak for themselves! This kind of intellectual dishonesty is all too often the mode of operation among apologists. I said all that to say this: my attempt to reconcile the biblical contradictions/inconsistencies unearthed during my studies resulted in the conclusion that the Bible is divinely uninspired (a purely human book), and the apologists I turned to for help cemented this conclusion, ironically.

If the Bible is not inerrant and inspired, then, I reasoned, it cannot be a divine revelation from a God that is supposedly all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. A God who is ultimately perfect, by definition, cannot produce a revelation that is imperfect–period! At this point, many Christians concede that the Bible, in its current form, is imperfect and contains some real inconsistencies. But subsequently, they are quick to retort that the original manuscripts were inerrant/perfect–that the flaws of our current manuscripts are a unfortunate but inevitable byproduct of the translation process due to human imperfection. Sounds like political spin!!! Think about it. If God, through divine revelation, acted on the free-will of various men and temporarily suspended their human imperfections in order to author the Bible in its perfect/inerrant form, why did God fail to ensure that His inerrant/perfect revelation would remain as such through years of translation by also acting on the free-will of various men and temporarily suspending their imperfections, particularly the men responsible for translation. If God went through all the trouble of using man to create a perfect and inerrant revelation, why didn’t he also use man to sustain the perfection/inerrancy of His revelation. Doesn’t this strike you as the biggest oversight and failure of follow-through in history! In light of these questions, one is hard-pressed to avoid the clear implication: the Bible, in terms of both its creation and translation, is a mere work of man, not a being that is omni-max and perfect. On that note, have you ever run across what you considered to be problematic passages during your studies? And if so, do you care to share?

You suggested that apologetics usually leads to one of two extremes: it either strengthens or weakens one’s faith. And you expressed some uncertainty as to why it has this kind of polarizing effect. Allow me to offer an explanation. I’ll start by claiming, based on my experience, that studying apologetics more than superficially typically weakens one’s faith, or at least significantly changes the nature of one’s faith (usually from a fundamentalist/evangelical orientation to a moderate/liberal orientation). When I say based on my experience, I’m of course referring to my own de-conversion as well as the de-conversions of many ex-Christians that I’ve come to know via web forums. At face value, such a claim seems sharply contrary to common-sense. Whenever one studies arguments explicitly favoring a certain stance, he usually becomes more convinced of its truth, unless the arguments are really bad–right? In many cases, yes. But the reason apologetics has a tendency to weaken one’s faith is not that most of the arguments are low-quality. In fact, some of them are very high-quality and philosophically solid.

Rather, apologetics has a tendency to weaken one’s faith based on what I’ll call the “exposure effect.” In order to successfully defend the faith, apologists must become intimately familiar with the opposition–with those philosophies and ideas that argue against Christianity. And Apologists must first present their opponents views in a thorough, fair, and accurate fashion (or at least attempt to do so), before they endeavor to discredit those views. Otherwise, their arguments will only resonate with those who already believe, and they won’t be taken seriously by those they are trying to reach and persuade; namely, intellectuals with an agnostic (or on the fence) predisposition and informed Christians seeking to undermine their doubts. After all, the persuasive power of an apologist’s defense often depends on how well he understands the nuances of his opposition. So if I’m an agnostic or “doubting Thomas” looking for a cogent defense of Christianity, I would not be very impressed by a defense that didn’t reflect a deep knowledge and understanding of its opposition.

Hence, studying apologetics exposes Christians in particular – for the first time in many cases – to the secular and generally non-Christian schools of thought that pose powerful arguments against Christianity. Granted, a majority of Christians have been exposed to evolution in school and naturalistic lines of thought by watching shows like the discovery channel, which is a very general and casual type of exposure. Apologetics, on the other hand, exposes them to philosophies that are specifically anti-Christian–hard-core philosophies and arguments that were specifically conceived to repudiate Christianity. Such exposure opens up a whole new intellectual world to Christians, especially in comparison to the fact that Christians are conditioned to contemplate nothing but PRO-Christian philosophies and ideas. A world that poses serious challenges to Christian truth-claims; a world that, dare I say, renders some Christian truth-claims false (or at least places them under serious doubt). Consequently, what starts out at as a mission to starve one’s doubts and feed his faith through studying apologetics. . . numerous times. . . ends in a de-conversion that starved one’s faith and fed his doubts. So the “exposure effect” of apologetics leads to the “reversal effect.”

Why is it that the run-of-the-mill Christian is not familiar with apologetics on an in-depth level? Because if they were, there would be many less Christians due to the “reversal effect.” I’m convinced, accordingly, that the Christian population around the world would significantly dwindle if Christians would begin to simply examine the philosophies and ideas counter to Christianity (the operative word here is examine) instead of eating an exclusive, intellectual diet of Christian ideology. Funny, one would think that those people for whom it is vitally important to champion one single truth would also be those most likely to examine all the options, all perspectives, Christian or otherwise, to ascertain which seem best; but the exact opposite is the case. Faith becomes an excuse and synonym – even a sign of moral nobility – for refusing to fairly examine other-than-Christian ideas. Have you ever studied apologetics besides the Catholic material that you mentioned? And if so, what authors and what books have you explored?

And I thank you for your Honesty as well! Many Christians are incapable of admitting doubt, as doubt is associated with weak, tainted faith, a poor moral/ethical character, and ultimately Satan’s deceptive schemes together with the flames of hell. Therefore, an alarming number of Christians live in a state of denial and intellectual suppression; in that, they refuse to acknowledge their doubts for fear that they will lose faith and burn in hell eternally. Although I understand why this kind of fear is encouraged insofar as it functions to keep people locked into a state of cult-ish belief (to keep people from defecting essentially), I never understood the rationale of it from God’s perspective, assuming that God exits of course. To express this confusion, I’ll quote the words of a master theologian, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if He really exists, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded faith and fear.” That said, what specific doubts have you faced? Why were you almost tempted to throw in the towel? You said that there would be nothing to go back to if you threw in the towel. What do you mean exactly?

I’ve noticed that many Christians refer to their “encounters with the Lord,” spiritual experiences, and how God has changed their life as a final line of defense when all other arguments of a more intellectual or philosophical nature fail–almost as if this serves as some sort of “ace in the hole.” But I find this line of argument, with all due respect, to be extremely flimsy, and I consider it to be an intellectual cop-out. Why? Because myriads of people claim to experience mind-altering and life-changing religious encounters everyday, and a large portion of these encounters conflict with one another in terms of the God or religious truths that they postulate. Are you prepared to say that your experiences, and the God that they represent, are somehow more real or genuine than the experiences of others, and the God that those experiences represent? On what grounds can you claim, without resorting to circular logic, to know that your spiritual experiences (or encounters with the Lord) actually originated from a real Christian God rather than the strength of your own belief and thus a fabrication of your own mind?

Muslims allege that they have undergone life-changing experiences through an encounter with the power of Allah, mystics of all persuasions experience “born-again” transformations as a result of connecting, as they allege, to some sort of higher, spiritual realm, and multitudes of Buddhists have dramatically and positively changed their lives by embracing the Eightfold Path of Buddhism and experiencing the inner-peace that follows. So why are your encounters with the Lord or religious experiences any more authentic or true than these experiences? You might respond, as Christians often do when pressed for an answer, by referring to a profound, mysterious feeling in your gut that convinced you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your spiritual/religious experiences are superior and more real than others. Yet, others from different religious and spiritual traditions refer to the same mysterious feeling–so why is your mysterious, gut feeling superior to their mysterious, gut feeling? That being said, your appeal to “encounters with the Lord” is purely an emotional appeal, and it doesn’t withstand rational scrutiny. I completely understand, however. History has shown that humans are more prone to emotionally centered beliefs than rationally centered beliefs–emotions are much more primitive and powerful.

If God has truly given you a vision to resign from your old church and pioneer your own church, why are you even considering another pastoral position? Has God changed his mind, or are you losing faith in the validity of this vision?