Former evangelical minister, now atheist

[Jedidiah]

Dan and Doubting John were pastors for many years. They both, no doubt, had a profound impact on many lives in their church and travels. I'm certain over those many years, many folks came to know Christ through their ministry, song, and teaching. Does that mean the new christians they cultivated over the years are not true christians either?

Christianity is based upon being convinced that the gospel of Christ is indeed true. So our two expastors were convinced for many years of something that they are now convinced is false. Why should I give any more credence to their second 'conviction' than to their first? If they were so easily deceived the first time, why would I place any confidence in the second deception?

And, if a few confessing Christians recant their confession, why would I believe them any more than doubters who come to believe. I am aware of a man who was a pastor for many years. He ulimately retired from the pastorate, later became a Christian. He realized after all these years that he had not really been a Christian during the years he was a pastor. Since he was indeed in error, and later was convinced of the reality of the gospel of Christ, we have positive evidence that many (his is not the only such story) men have believed themselves to be Christians. These men later learned that they had been in error.

Jedidiah

[Jayrok]

Christianity is based upon being convinced that the gospel of Christ is indeed true. So our two expastors were convinced for many years of something that they are now convinced is false. Why should I give any more credence to their second 'conviction' than to their first? If they were so easily deceived the first time, why would I place any confidence in the second deception?

So they were deceived in all accounts? They were deceived when they thought the gospel was truth, and now they are deceived because they think the gospel is false.. it's either true or it is false.. it can't be both.

we have positive evidence that many (his is not the only such story) men have believed themselves to be Christians. These men later learned that they had been in error.

Jedidiah

Let me ask you.. If I were to walk to the front of my church congregation, during a time of invitation in the service, fall on my knees and suddenly realize I was a hopeless sinner destined for eternal separation from God.. begin to cry thinking of how empty my life was and how I wanted Jesus to lift me up and take control of my life.. then when I go to get up I turn around and notice 14 others kneeling all around me in synchronized prayer for my support.. knowing at that moment, I asked Jesus to be Lord in my life forever.. I then begin a journey with him that sees my life revolve around his house and his service.. I know without a shadow of a doubt that I am saved by his grace and secure in the knowledge that he will never leave or foresake me.. nor will he allow anything or anyone to snatch me out of his hands..

And you tell me that this experience wasn't real, or authentic.. or really accepted by God?

I understand there are "christians" that simply grew up in church so they think they are "in" by association. I know some like that today. I wasn't one of them, and I don't believe these two "ex-pastors" were among them either.

If what I did wasn't authentic or accepted by God, then where did things go wrong? His salvation is a free gift. All we need do is accept it. I did. What did I do wrong for this acceptance of Christ not to "take"?

[HRG_new]

I am talking about the Law of Noncontradiction of course and the other two. Still, where do they come from? Are they material or immaterial? If immaterial, how do we explain their existence if matter is all there is?

They are abstract concepts, formed by intelligent beings, humans in this case. No materialist (I prefer the term "naturalist") ever claimed that abstract concepts have to be formed from tiny little particles (conceptons ? ).

And their existence follows from the semantics of our language, specifically of the logical connectives "and" and "or". Anytime you form a sentence of the form "A and not-A", its truth value is false. This is the Law of non-contradiction.

[Harry Callahan]

I was an ordained evangelical minister who preached for 19 years before learning Christianity is untrue. I became an atheist in 1984 and left the ministry.

I wrote a book about my experiences:

Losing Faith In Faith:
From Preacher To Atheist
by Dan Barker

Harry: Why the emphasis on being a former preacher? Many people walk away from the faith.

There is no evidence for a god. There is no good argument for a god. There is no conerent definition of a god. According to some definitions of a god (including the god of the bible), there are many positive disproofs of its existence.

And there is no need for a god. God belief does not result in higher morality or knowledge. The world is much better off without theology, using reason and kindness to help solve the world's problems rather than faith or dogma, which have led to divisiveness and cruelty.

Harry: That's your atheism talking. I think the evidence of God is so plain that to deny Him is irrational.

One of the main reasons I reject Christianity and theism is because there is a BETTER way . . . a HIGHER moral ground.

I think most believers are good people, in spite of the errors of their teachings. People should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs.

Harry: Why bring teleology into this discussion? If atheism is true, then there is no purpose, meaning, or truth apart from your own personal sentiments. Given atheism, it is hard to take seriously, any moral objections that you may have.

[Jedidiah]

So they were deceived in all accounts? They were deceived when they thought the gospel was truth, and now they are deceived because they think the gospel is false.. it's either true or it is false.. it can't be both.

The point is simply that I can not trust that they were not deceived when they thought (and when you thought) they were Christians. If you trust them, or if I trust your story, then you must see my story as equally valid when I became convinced that Jesus was indeed the Truth. You are selecting which sort of testimony you will trust. Thus, these examples, including your example, are of no value in demonstrating anything.

Let me ask you.. If I were to walk to the front of my church congregation, during a time of invitation in the service, fall on my knees and suddenly realize I was a hopeless sinner destined for eternal separation from God.. begin to cry thinking of how empty my life was and how I wanted Jesus to lift me up and take control of my life.. then when I go to get up I turn around and notice 14 others kneeling all around me in synchronized prayer for my support.. knowing at that moment, I asked Jesus to be Lord in my life forever.. I then begin a journey with him that sees my life revolve around his house and his service.. I know without a shadow of a doubt that I am saved by his grace and secure in the knowledge that he will never leave or foresake me.. nor will he allow anything or anyone to snatch me out of his hands..

And you tell me that this experience wasn't real, or authentic.. or really accepted by God?

I understand there are "christians" that simply grew up in church so they think they are "in" by association. I know some like that today. I wasn't one of them, and I don't believe these two "ex-pastors" were among them either.

If what I did wasn't authentic or accepted by God, then where did things go wrong? His salvation is a free gift. All we need do is accept it. I did. What did I do wrong for this acceptance of Christ not to "take"?

Being a Christian is not related to walking forward during invitation, having a powerful emotional experience, spending time in the church building and involved in the church programs. If error can go one way, it can equally be said to go the other way. Your experience is not evidence of anything.

Jedidiah

[Lazy Agnostic]

Better make sure you find some who I haven't reamed yet, DJ. Danny Boy is old news to me, and he's even dumber than you.

It doesn't matter who's wearing the shoe, DJ, as long as I already kicked their rears.

Yea, then go read all my articles about his nonsense.

Note to Dan Barker:
You may be "old news" to JP but you may not have heard about him, despite his articles about you. He typically does not notify an author about an attempted rebuttal---in fact, he has a reputation for refusing to supply his choir a link to the material, or sometimes, to even identify the skeptic he's "reaming".

He's really a special case. I would suggest a Google search on him. You'll note he is an obfuscator extraordinaire, with a penchant for schoolgirl snottiness. If you choose to engage him in debate, I recommend some strict guidelines; even then he will become tiresome in his captious ploys and spurious canards.

I really recommend a telephone debate. If you have plans to be in the Tampa area (where he and I reside), I'll arrange a live debate at USF which can be taped for television. Challenge him to a live debate; he will refuse because he will lose.

[Lazy Agnostic]

.

[attachment]
CLICK TO ENLARGE

Sorry, don't know how to transnfer the image. From post #69 on page 5.


.

Is he juggling what I think?

[stevencarrwork]

I don't know what's so hard to get about this. It's a relationship that's personal -- in many ways more personal than I have with any other person. I can be honest with Him, have fun with Him, cry with Him, learn from Him, and just bask in His presence.

Impossible, unless you are one of these people who think that Jesus became an immaterial spirit after the resurrection.

I thought the theory was that Jesus had a glorious, imperishable , flesh-and-bones body.

A physical body cannot be everywhere at once, and you cannot bask in his prescence if his phyiscal body is not present.

Unless Jesus did *not* have a physical body after the resurrection, or for some reason he has discarded his imperishable, incorruptible physical body.....

One of the best and most misunderstood passages in the Bible. People often assume that God only asks what we can actually do from us(in fact, one relgion -- Mormonism -- is built around this assumption), but that's not true. He asks what's right, even when it's beyond us.

One minute we are told God says 'try your best', now we are told God says 'try your best,even if it's beyond you'.

God gave us impossible commands in the New Testament.

At least , under the law, people like Paul and Mary and Joseph coud acheive righteousness and be blameless. That is impossible with the new demands Jesus placed on you, which you yourself say are beyond you.

[stevencarrwork]

A little context would be nice.

Matthew 5:43-48

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Should we agape the world, even those bits of the world that persecute Christians?

Had Jesus never read John 1:15 " Do not love the world or anything in the world.'?


Presumably when John wrote do not love anything in the world he meant that you should love your fellow-Christians and your enemies and the unrighteous and tax-collectors, in fact love pretty much everything in the world.

No wonder some Christians on this thread say the demands of the NT are beyond them and we can only try our best.

Not even Ned Flanders could obey the commands 'Do not not love anything in the world', and 'Love your enemies', and he made special efforts even to obey the bits of the Bible which contradicted the other bits.

'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.'

Presumably not all of us are children of God. That has to be earned.

A loving human father does not make his children earn the right to be called his son.

[Moose Matrixed]

Thanks for posting your story Dan. To free yourself of religion after 19 years is amazing! There's hope for the world yet. Have you ever been to the infidelguy.com website? I'm sure they'd love to hear your stary as well. Thanks again and congrats and freeing yourself.

[Little Shepherd]

A physical body cannot be everywhere at once, and you cannot bask in his prescence if his phyiscal body is not present.

Unless Jesus did *not* have a physical body after the resurrection, or for some reason he has discarded his imperishable, incorruptible physical body.....

He has a body, and He has not discarded it. He is both fully God and fully man. He has a body, but is not restricted by it. He is present in His body, and everywhere at the same time. Even if His body did somehow restrict Him, however, He resides outside of time and can therefore flick through time like the pages in a book, and would therefore still be "everywhere" as far as we're concerned.

God gave us impossible commands in the New Testament.

Yes. The same impossible set of commands that were set forth in the Old Testament. He simply expounded on them and made clarifictions, the way preachers tend to do.

At least , under the law, people like Paul and Mary and Joseph coud acheive righteousness and be blameless. That is impossible with the new demands Jesus placed on you, which you yourself say are beyond you.

No, actually, the law never had the power to justify -- only to condemn. That's why there was a system of sacrifices in place, all symbolic of the great Sacrifice to come. Even with such comments as "Hatred is murder" and "Lust is adultery," Jesus had already declared that everyone was guilty under the "old law." Not that there's a difference giving us an old and new law -- Jesus used the very same law that was already in place to make His points. The final statement, "Be ye perfect," simply served to drive the point home. That even the Pharisees had missed the point of the law, and had committed sins condemned by the law, and that none were justified by the law.

[stevencarrwork]

He has a body, and He has not discarded it. He is both fully God and fully man. He has a body, but is not restricted by it. He is present in His body, and everywhere at the same time.


Even if His body did somehow restrict Him, however, He resides outside of time and can therefore flick through time like the pages in a book, and would therefore still be "everywhere" as far as we're concerned.

Only if he is physically present. That is one restriction of having a physical body. Does Jesus have out-of-body experiences?

Still, the idea that early Christians believed Jesus had a physical body after the resurrection,and yet could have had encounters with a non-physical Jesus is an intriguing one.

No, actually, the law never had the power to justify -- only to condemn.

Luke 1
5In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

I don't know what upright (which means righteous), or 'blameless' mean to you. But how did you get from 'blameless' to 'Jesus had already declared that everyone was guilty under the "old law."?

Surely if they obeyed all the old law and were blameless, then God did not blame them.

I guess it is just another one of those Biblical contradictions, which atheists cannot understand.

Luke 1 says that Zechariah and Elizabeth were blameless under the old law, which means that they were guilty under the old law.

[Furor]

That’s your definition of being a Scotsman.

Perhaps you could demonstrate why this definition is incorrect? I maintain that, for a man to be a Scotsman, he need only be born in Scotland. I do not reject the concept of patriotic identity (in fact, I embrace it wholeheartedly), but as theology seems to often come down to asinine technicalities, I feel I might as well play ball in that regard.

Not the definition of the person saying that a Scotsman is one who does not put sugar on his porridge. The point has nothing to do with whether action is required or not. It has to do, as the link says, with shifting the definitions and with ad hoc support.

The only person shifting definitions is the person who insists that to be a Christian is simply to call yourself one. Last I checked, one has not actually adopted a code of ethics simply because one says one has.

The definitions of "Scotsman" and "Christian" need not be shifted; they are already ages apart.

[Little Shepherd]

Should we agape the world, even those bits of the world that persecute Christians?

Had Jesus never read John 1:15 " Do not love the world or anything in the world.'?


Presumably when John wrote do not love anything in the world he meant that you should love your fellow-Christians and your enemies and the unrighteous and tax-collectors, in fact love pretty much everything in the world.

Everyone, not everything. Big difference between loving other people and having too much attachment to stuff. And it's II John 2:15, not John 1:15.

No wonder some Christians on this thread say the demands of the NT are beyond them and we can only try our best.

The demand is impossible for us to do perfectly, but not for the reason you suggest. The above commands aren't contradictory in the least if you apply a little common sense to them. One says love people even when they don't love you. The other says don't grow too fond of material stuff that'll pass away.

Not even Ned Flanders could obey the commands 'Do not not love anything in the world', and 'Love your enemies', and he made special efforts even to obey the bits of the Bible which contradicted the other bits.

Ned Flanders is a cartoon character who's made out to be stupid on purpose. You can hardly judge how Christians are supposed to act by the way Ned Flanders acts.

'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.'

Presumably not all of us are children of God. That has to be earned.

A loving human father does not make his children earn the right to be called his son.

You should read a less antiquated version of the Bible. Yes, we have old versions that aren't 100% perfect in the translation department, written by people who did the best they could with the resources they had, and they've served us well. With so many resources available today, though, we now have much better translations to refer to.

The Message, the Amplified Bible, the New Living Translation, and the Contemporary English Version, among others, makes it clear that loving our enemies and praying for them doesn't make us sons of God, but rather shows that we are already sons of God.

Also, before we come to God, He doesn't call us His sons for a good reason -- we aren't. To call us His children would be to tell a lie. Only after coming to Christ do we become transformed into His children. Adopted, in a sense. Then He calls us His children, and speaks the truth in doing so. And at no point is it implied that we must earn the right -- it's made obvious that we can't, and that it's Jesus who earns it for us.

Only if he is physically present. That is one restriction of having a physical body.

Who says that Jesus is held to the same restrictions that we are? Even if He were, there are still two other persons of the godhead Who aren't restricted to a body. And since they're all the same God, that makes Jesus omnipresent as well.

Luke 1
5In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

They observed the law to the best of their ability, and their sacrifices allowed them to do so blamelessly. Of course, this verse implies that they did so with a proper attitude -- the Pharisees who upheld the law to the letter and ignored its spirit were rebuked.

I don't know what upright (which means righteous), or 'blameless' mean to you. But how did you get from 'blameless' to 'Jesus had already declared that everyone was guilty under the "old law."?

Because the verse doesn't say what you want it to. It says their upholding of the law was without blame, not without any error. Observing the proper sacrifices with the proper attitude allowed you to remain blameless even when you fell.

Surely if they obeyed all the old law and were blameless, then God did not blame them.

Right.

I guess it is just another one of those Biblical contradictions, which atheists cannot understand.

I think you could understand it if you tried.

Luke 1 says that Zechariah and Elizabeth were blameless under the old law, which means that they were guilty under the old law.

No, it says they observed the law without blame, not perfectly. Big difference.

[LGM]

I don't know what's so hard to get about this.

There’s nothing hard to get, you simply have an imaginary friend. It’s a very common human delusion.

When I was growing up, I knew this girl who was a huge Monkees and Davey Jones fan, and she idolatrized this man so much, she would pretend that he was right there with her, all the time, and she would even talk to him out loud in front of us, and pretend she could hear his replies. When we made fun of her, she said we just couldn’t see him and hear him like she could.

I see no difference between what you are describing and her condition. Your idolatry of this man called “Jesus”, a man you really only “know” as a character from a collection of ancient writings, has led to your delusion that he is your imaginary friend.

It's a relationship that's personal -- in many ways more personal than I have with any other person.

Of course, it must be. Relationships with other real people are always going to be more limited, and require real interpersonal contact and compromise, then a relationship with an imaginary friend, that amounts to you basically talking to yourself.

I can be honest with Him, have fun with Him, cry with Him, learn from Him, and just bask in His presence.

I guess I’m still not sure how delusional you are.

Do you imagine you actually “see” a physical manifestation of “Jesus” and “hear” his audible voice just like you would a normal person? And you “bask” in his physical presence? Can he show you the marks on his palms, and the hole in his side like he did for Thomas in the gospel story?
How do you know its Jesus and not a demon or telepathic alien playing a trick on you?

If you are too embarrassed to admit that you actually physically “see” and “hear” Jesus, even though other people in your presence can’t do these things, it’s a good sign that your delusion has not reached a delirious and dangerous stage.

Most Christians will play this game of “I have a relationship with Jesus”, right up to the point that they don’t want to appear completely insane to others, by claiming they REALLY “see” or “hear” Jesus, when other people can't.
But rather they'll claim it’s all really just happening in their “mind”. And of course that's how we end up with millions of different Jesus's telling people conflicting things...it's quite amusing.

But many zealots do cross that line, and I’m just trying to figure out where you are in this continuum of insanity. Do you really "see" Jesus standing before you right now? Can you "ask" him a specific question for me?

Please ask him to reveal the identies of the people that planned and comitted the London bombings, and where they are currently hiding. This will be very helpful in preventing more innocent Christian life from being shed. I'm sure he would want to help you in such a worthy cause.

Or is your “personal relationship” with "Jesus" delusion of the more ordinary, garden variety? And all you really mean by all of this babble, is that there are times when you think to yourself silently, and then imagine that you are channeling the thoughts of "Jesus" inside your brain, via some kind of divine telepathy? And in that case, Jesus can't really tell you anything that you don't already know, so he can't really tell you about the London bombers...can he? Because you don't know..."imaginary Jesus" doesn't know.
Because its all just "you", talking to yourself inside your head.

This is the most simple way to prove you are delusional. If it was real, you could tell us things beyond your knowledge, because Jesus would have the knowledge, but you can't do that...can you? It seems clear to me why you can't.

Our society has been conditioned to accept a mild form of this insanity, when people claim it about their gods, as long as they don’t get too specific, too personal, too political, or too passionate about what their god is telling them.

However if you cross the line too far, and claim you are “hearing the voice of god” and he is telling you to “kill abortionists” or “hate fags”, or that we should invade Iraq and kill all the Muslims, people will quickly withdraw their support for this form of the delusion. It seems we don’t mind a generic god you claim you are “having fun with” or “learning from”, as long as you don’t say anything real specific. Just keep the claims generic.

Its interesting that if you make the claim that you are having a “personal relationship” with other dead people, say Napoleon, and you are “crying with him, learning from him, etc…”, people will quickly label you insane without any leeway.

He's given me a place to call home, with people who share many of His qualities(though not to the same degree, obviously) and whom I have come to consider family. He's transformed my life and the life of two of my friends to the point that we're barely recognizable as the same people, and we all now have a hope for the future we didn't have before.

Well, I’m happy your life is “transformed”, but I’m guessing this is just more hyperbole. Were you a drug addict, and violent criminal, and now you’re a pacifist monk as a result of an encounter with a physical Jesus in an alleyway one night?

No, probably not. More likely you are just a maturing young person, deeply involved in a religion, and your religion gives you a deeper sense of purpose and satisfaction about your behaviors and activities.

People go to College and study business, medicine, music or art and also become “transformed” in much the same way. People join the military and are “transformed” in much the same way.

So I think what you really mean is that you’ve made some changes in your behavior, and you accredit all that change to your imaginary friend. Just like when a Scientologist claims that his life has been transformed by his religion and the power and teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. It’s the same thing you both are claiming.

An atheist can read the books of Nietzsche or Ayn Rand and claim the same thing.

No difference really.

He's quickly become the number one priority, proving time and time again that if I put Him first that the rest of my life will fall into place.

I’m never sure what this means either. I can only surmise you mean you put conversing with your imaginary friend ahead of personal hygiene, work, family obligations and other commitments. But usually I find this is just more babble and hyperbole. People schedule their religious activities if they are leading normal, balanced lives. You can’t skip work and school and keep using the excuse; ‘Sorry, I was putting my relationship with Jesus first”. That’s another of those lines that society will not tolerate in your delusion.

He's with me at the restaurant, on the golf course(not that I play golf -- yuck!), and all that, but I can say that my relationship with Him is much deeper than that, and He gets into areas of my life I don't let anyone else see. This doesn't really do it justice, but that's roughly what I mean by personal relationship.

Again…unless you correct me and claim you see a physical manifestation, since your imaginary friend “Jesus” is simply in your brain, he’s pretty much “with you”, anywhere you are. And since “you” are your brain, of course your brain sees and “knows” things about “you” that other people don’t.