Minus 196 Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Like Waynus and Saviormachine, I enjoyed reading this article overall. At least he was honest and thorough enough to specifically cite the web sites and books he was referencing. So the few inquisitive Christians who read it can come here or read Dan Barker's book (excellent book btw) for themselves. I definitely place myself in the "Intellectual Objections" crowd, though, to which he simply refers the reader to his body of Christian aplogetics: In one sense, therefore, preparation for encounters with those who have fallen from faith is no different than preparation for those who have never professed Christ. The intellectual objections we encounter will usually be the same. . . Well I for one have been devouring Christian apologetics more than ever since my deconversion just to see what's there, and have not been surprised to learn that there's nothing the surprises me (or makes me question my decision to deconvert). Quite the contrary, it only solidifies my anti-Christian position. They may assume that their “liberation” is a sign of advanced reasoning skills, and thus presume themselves to be the intellectual superior of any person still in faith; thus, they automatically think a Christian will have nothing of value to say to them. For such persons, the years that they spent as Christians are looked on as time wasted going in the wrong direction, and evangelists are merely perpetrators of the lie that originally ensnared them. Well, I'm guilty as charged here. Ex-Christians may cite differing views of various Christian denominations as a reason for their dissatisfaction, reasoning that a body that does not have its own house in order certainly cannot be trusted to put others’ houses in order. Denominationalism is not a problem for me because Christian sects don't "have their house in order." It's a problem for me because if the Bible is an enerrant monolithic revelation of truth, it should be a catalyst for unification, not division, in spite of human fallibility. This is, in fact, one of the biggest realizations that led to my own deconversion, so I discussed in a bit of detail elsewhere. This, of course, goes hand in hand with the fact that Christians deny - that the Bible is not, in fact a consistent revelation of truth. It's, rather, just the opposite, and denominations are just more blatant evidence of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 ... Ex-Christians may cite differing views of various Christian denominations as a reason for their dissatisfaction, reasoning that a body that does not have its own house in order certainly cannot be trusted to put others’ houses in order. Denominationalism is not a problem for me because Christian sects don't "have their house in order." It's a problem for me because if the Bible is an enerrant monolithic revelation of truth, it should be a catalyst for unification, not division, in spite of human fallibility. ... And the Bible, supposedly Jesus, even say that the unity and love between them is the proof that they are from God. So by Jesus' own words, Christianity is not from God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 I actually thought that was a pretty well written article considering the source and relative to the typical Christian responses to the idea of ex-Christianity. He missed my main reason to deconvert, though; I realized that I had never had a good reason to be a Christian in the first place. That's a very important argument against Christianity, IMO. For Christianity and the Bible to make sense would be only the first step in giving Christianity any credibility at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 This is interesting: http://www.equip.org/free/JAW220.htm JP holding again!?? Isn't he dead yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sas Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Have pity guys. J P Holding (or whatever he likes to call himself) has a Masters degree as a Librarian (Oooh! we are not worthy!), therefore he only believes his own selective reading material and has no experience in living his life or finding meaning to it. In all the tomes of literature he has come across, he has not managed to grasp the simple concept, Man created God in his own image. So lets boost his ego, and write to him and tell him that we are Ex-Ex-Christians, Born Again through enlightenment of his great words of wisdom, therefore have restored our 'faith' to become 'one body' in Christ. Playing at being a Truly Pious Christian is more fun than having a go and disputing their claims. Remember no swearing! Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Isn't JP Holding the moron who jumps into each and every thread over at some theological site? The moniker seems familiar. But as far as CRI goes, and the Bible Answer Man, this guy is fleecing the flock! Evidently he can barely make ends meet with his $400K annual salary! Bill Alnor documents the hypocrisy Mail and Wire Fraud investigation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 To quote the article: Those persons who wear their “ex-Christianity” on their sleeve pose a serious challenge to Christian evangelists. If we present the truth in love, and it is rejected with open hostility or even profane derision, there will come a point after which we are obliged to heed Jesus’ counsel to shake the dust from our feet and move on (Mark 6:11). It is comforting to know that christianity does, in fact, have a limit for effectiveness in converting non-believers, in spite of having an all-powerful god leading them. I wonder if this pained JP to admit this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 I think this should serve as evidence that the 'once saved always saved' argument is false by necessity of having to write about witnessing to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts