Any re-converts here?

[The Midge]

thanks for the link....I am reading it now.

And so am I.

 

[The Midge]

And so am I.

I have taken the liberty of critiqueing you piece. I hope you do not mind.

sent in by Rob from the Netherlands

I was born and raised in Suriname (South America). My father was an inactive Catholic who experimented with different kinds of spirituality (or so he told me) and my mother was Lutherian. I have one brother who I grew up with (I have 2 more half sisters and a half brother, but I wasn't raised with them). We grew up as Catholics, went to church every Sunday but at home we weren't very active w.r.t. religion. We also went to Catholic primary and secondary schools. While in primary school (up to the age of 11) I accepted the gospel like hook, line and sinker. Still, it was during this time that the first act which would drive me away from Christianity occurred. At age 10 (1972) I got myself a kids book about astronomy and space travel. The sheer beauty of the Universe got a hold on me then and never again left me to this day. I remember most fondly that that book described Halley's comet and that it would return in 1986. I promised myself I would see it and I did

Personally, the size and grandeur of the universe tells me more about God.

While growing up as a teenager I stopped believing in the creation myth, but I considered it a means to an end. In my opinion back then, if Mozes would have told the ancient Jews of evolution and the size of the Universe, he would be stoned to death. I still considered myself a Christian without actually considering what that meant. I was as dead a Catholic as my father was. My mother still went to the Lutherian church but religion wasn't really a topic of discussion at home. Aside from her Christianty she was (is) also a firm believer in astrology and loads of cultural based superstitions. I never really bought those, but as a young teen I did believe in astrology. If my mom said it's true it should be, shouldn't it? After I studied more astronomy as an older teen I disregarded astrology as anything viable. By the end of my teen years my parents went into a very ugly divorce and they are still not on speaking terms after appr. 25 years. I kinda flunked school in this period but I still managed to get into a bachelor-level study (4 years) to become a police lieutenant. This is the second event to drive my current opinion about Chritianity. The study included large amounts of penal law, and two of the most basic principles of penal law happen to be the principles of proportionality (punishments should match the crime) and "subsidiarity" (is that the correct English word? I.e. you cannot punish someone for someone else's crimes). In my opinion both are violated by Christianity.

A few points in this paragraph. The example of Christian discipleship set by you family is pretty poor. Participation in the occult and divination (such as astrology) is opposed by Judeo Christian teaching. Unfortunately, that which are parents believe may not be true.

The Levitical law operates on different principle to penal law. The substitution is only one model of the crucifixtion and resurrection of Christ. It is also a defeat of evil/ death/ Satan, and example of love.

During my police study I met my wife to be. She was (still is) a reformed Christian who came from a pretty conservative Christian family. After knowing her for four years I married her. We married in a reformed Christian church but we agreed to have our (then future) children to be baptised Catholic. The reason for that was that in those days there was IMO a pretty big quality gap between Catholic and non-Catholic schools and I didn't mind which Christian believe system they would be thought as long as they would get one. Still religion didn't play a big role in our lives, apart from the occasional church visits on Christmas or for baptism of my first son. One aspect of religion that I had very strong feelings about back then was that I refused every culture-religious act to be used on me or my family. For example, there was this blue stuff that was used in laundry for giving white clothes a "whiter" appeal. In (*****) culture-believes one should apply this stuff visibly on the forehead of babies to keep envy away. When my mother (ethnic mixed but mostly *****) wanted to apply this to my son I freaked out and I think she got the message regarding where I stood on the subject.

Um- I have never heard of this practice. It sounds to have a root in shamanism or witch craft rather than Christianity.

In 1990 I had to flee my home country for political reasons, leaving my pregnant wife and 1.5 year old child behind. I wouldn't see them again for 14 months. After short stays in French Guyana, the U.S. and Canada, I received a visa for the Netherlands and that's where I still am today. Many years passed and my considerations regarding Christianity didn't change. I was still the dead Catholic calling himself a Christian etc. What did change is that in the meantime my brother became a born-again Christian. At first he didn't know where he fitted in, but by now he found his homebase at the Baptist church. I don't really know what drove him, but it wasnt some life-changing event that might bring some people to hold on to Christianity. He slowly grew into it. By now he is a full blown reborn Baptist creationist. Though I personally think he deludes himself, I respect his opinions and I think he respects mine. He would like to talk about his religious convictions. This would make me start to think about the subject a little. I didn't really know the bible back then (I still don't actually) but it seemed clear to me that the creation myth was persented in the bible as a historical fact. Since this was in direct contradiction with what I knew of astronomy, I considered the bible wrong on that account and I started to wonder what else the bible was wrong about. I slowly started drifting away from what I used to believe regarding Christianity and I became something between a deist and an agnostic. I still considered it more likely than not that there should be some "driving force" that kept Nature and the universe from going haywire.

As you know I disagree with the view that creation account is or was ever meant to be considered as historical fact.

About a year ago I was apporached by a few "strongly reformed" Christians (in dutch "gereformeerden" which is a lot more fundie than the reformed Christians which is in dutch "hervormd"). These guys were passing out flyers and I started discussing Christianity with them. I laid out my argument why I considered myself an agnostic and stressed that I knew a bit (hobby-wise) about astronomy but little about evolution. Their arguments were of very mediocre quality and only capable of strengthening the belive of someone who was already convinced of Christianity, not for someone who isn't conviced at all. Still the word of one of the Christians present struck a nerve. He said quite literally: "You claim to know little to nothing of the evolution theory, still you defend it". The guy was right! I had to know more. It was the trigger to start digging on the internet. I discovered sites like TalkOrigins and the Secular Web. I also read much from the Skeptics Annotated Bible and a few articles from the Institute for Creation Research who IMO sometimes at least try to be a bit honest (see e.g. Danny Faulker's "The current state of creation astronomy"). Well, in high school I wasn't very interrested in Biology. During the Computer Science study that I once started I was confronted with elements of evolution in a seminar of Bioinformatics and in classes on Genetic Programming. But it wasn't until reading Chris Colby's "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html) and something as simple as the april 2005 "post of the month" at talk.origins that I was really swept away with the beauty of evolution. A simple conclusion I came to is: if a chimp is a type of an ape, as is a gorilla and an orangutan, then so is man. The chimp has more genetic similariies with humans than it has with the orangutan. For me, this placed the position of humanity in a completely different scope. We are *not* special.

It is a shame that you have not considered some of the alternative Christian view points on evolution. I would recommend that review some of the Introductory works by McGrath and even some encyclopaedias and commentaries such as the Oxford and IVP one volume ones. The 7 day young earth view is actually far less common than it’s volume would suggest.

Like I said, I also stumbled upon the Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) and I learned things about the bible that I really didn't know, e.g. Numbers 31, 2 Kings 2:23-24 and Psalm 137:9 (why didn't Boney M finish the psalm in their song?). I must say I was and still am quite horrified by reading this. Take note that as I child I received quite an anti-islamic upbringing. I read personally the following verse from the Quran: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise." (Sura 5:38). I thought to myself, what terribly cruel religion will want to put something like this in their holy scripture? At least Christianity states: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). I was unpleasantly surprised to read of the terrible cruelties in the holy scripture of the religion that I considered just and loving (sort of) for most of my life.

I trust that you have taken into account that such publications are not intended to bring balanced scholarship to the subject. The biggest problem is that they view the text outside the cultural and historical context in which it is set.

So currently I came to the conclusion that I have a few major hurdles with Christianity, hurdles that I doubt I will ever overcome. First and foremost are the violations of proportionality in the teaching of eternal damnation. Granted, a few Christians believe in annihilation of the damned and if this would be the case I would have a lot less of an issue with it, but a punishment that would last eternal, however light the punishment, is disproportional to whatever temporal sin someone would have commited. Secondly I have issues with the "omnimax" features that are attributed to the Christian God. An omniscient being who creates object of which it foreknows that those beings will act against some rule and punishes those beings for it, is not omnibenevolent. I read a nice discussion between two Philosophers (Dr. Bradley and Dr. Craigh) regarding the compatibility of human free will and devine foreknowledge, and I side with Dr. Bradley that they are not. Thirdly, the more I read about scientific explanations of natural processes that were formerly only explicable by devine intervention, the more I see the unlikeliness of the existence of a God. It seems humans are very eager to want to explain everything and where they fail to do so the invent this unprovable entity to fit the gaps. I find the world around me to make a lot more sense without a God than with one. Lastly there are these specific issues I have with Christianity, some of which I didn't know to exist previously. I already explained the cruelties in the bible, but there's also the many inconsitencies in the bible and the monotheistic nature of the devine trinity. This just doesn't make sense. I read a response on this in "Answering the Atheist" (at lookingintojesus.net) where they compared Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit to be distinct entities but all God to person A, B and C to be differen persons but all being human. This still makes no sense because we don't claim that persons A, B and C are "one human".

Proportionality: Any ‘offence’ can be forgiven. That is because repentance is dependent on direction not distance from God. We are cut off from God by an attitude of rebellion. We cannot make peace with God until we agree to end hostilities. It is not about how much we have hurt God in our fight against him – not that any pain we could inflict could turn God from his will.

Where do I stand now? I would still consider myself an agnost but an atheistic one. I don't think that the existence of a God can be proven or disproven but I see no need for any God. My wife knows that I have lost my faith but still has many difficulties accepting it. She still hangs on to her faith and the fact that her father passed away last year seems to have a lot to do with that. Personally I don't mind that even if she would become a strong believer, as long as we respect each others position. She did request that I "do not influence" our children and I made that promise. If they once decide that the Christian doctrine is not where they are happy they will come to the same conclusion as I did. I think this road should be a personal one. My parents and brother know how I feel and especially my father, the former dead Catholic who is now very involved in the Catholic church, has great difficulties accepting my views. For my in-laws I am still in the closet. They are a lot more conservaive so coming out, especially to my mother-in-law might do more harm than good. They always knew that I did not hold conservative views and that is sufficient for the mean time.

Faith: I refer to my post about knowing God through encounter. I don not see this in what you have written. You have rejected a ‘Christian’ culture. But it is a though the seed has never germinated. (Do you remember the parable of the sower?). That is not to say that the seed may never germinate for that requires air, warmth and water. I would humbly suggest that your seed has lacked one of these elements.

I am very happy to have found this forum. I find that there are many more people that share my views and that strengthens me in it. One thing that caught my attention in this formun but also on iidb.org is that there are many people who were devout Christians and knew the Christian arguments inside and out and still fell out of it, accepting all consequences and social pressure that comes along with that (with Joe Holman's story being a stunning example) while the stories of devout atheists (people who know the arguments against religion) who fall into Christianity are very rare even though the consequences of that road are minimal. Thank you all for sharing your stories, they are very supporting.

Reinforcement of believes by those who agree with you is comforting but does not help you find truth. It is freeze drying and vacuum packing your seed so that it will not grow. I agree with DVDholc- you have not been exposed to a living faith in your own right and have yet to consider answers that others have had to the same questions as you yet their faith has not withered and has even grown to the stature of a great tree.

Many of us here will not spare you the difficult counter questions. We will help you find new avenues to explore. Even if we do not have all the answers.

 

[The Midge]

Double post- looks like a glitch?

 

[The Midge]

Wierd- don't know how a triple happend

 

[dvd_holc]

looks like a triple post...

 

[BlondieLashes]

Hi Sheratan! I must admit I did not read through all the posts on this thread, but I can honestly tell you that I accepted the Lord when I was 19 and fell away vehemently in my 20's. I went so far as becoming a stripper and porn model and got my Master's degree in psychology because I was following the teachings of Carl Jung. By the time I was in my 30's I was so miserable and depressed that I started to explore other avenues of finding peace. In the end I ended up back with Jesus. I don't know how intellectual my experiences are (although I have studied other faiths and beliefs as well as Christianity), but I can tell you from personal experience that the only way to peace in life is through accepting and following Christ.

 

[BlondieLashes]

One more thought- if you are seeking intellectual reasoning about Christianity, you may want to read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. I have found this book to be very honest and real! God bless you in your pursuit for truth my friend! When you honestly seek truth you will find that the only answer is Christ!!!

 

[sheratan]

I have written a critique of your piece. I hope you do not mind. My response is in bold.

I will reply only once, not three times. I hope you don't mind. (Sorry, couldn't resist ) Of course I don't mind your critique, I welcome it.

Personally, the size and grandeur of the universe tells me more about God.

Given the axioms of the existence of a God and him creating the universe, I can come along. That said, the Bible is very earth and human centric, while if you look at the size of the universe and the significance of the earth in it, I can't really connect it with the Judeo-Christian God. In my opinion the earth and humanity, when taken in the context of the universe, are very insignificant.

A few points in this paragraph. The example of Christian discipleship set by you family is pretty poor. Participation in the occult and divination (such as astrology) is opposed by Judeo Christian teaching. Unfortunately, that which are parents believe may not be true.

The purpose of me writin that is to give an impression of my childhood and the role of Christianity in it. That role was small.

The Levitical law operates on different principle to penal law. The substitution is only one model of the crucifixtion and resurrection of Christ. It is also a defeat of evil/ death/ Satan, and example of love.

Maybe it operates on a different level, but if children are punished for the sins of their ancestors whether now or then, I call it unjust. See Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Numbers 14:18. That was what I ment by ''subsidiarity''. The proportionality part is my biggest beef with Christianity, i.e. punishing someone eternal for a temporal sin.

In (*****) culture-believes one should apply this stuff visibly on the forehead of babies to keep envy away. When my mother (ethnic mixed but mostly *****) wanted to apply this to my son I freaked out and I think she got the message regarding where I stood on the subject.

What is this? Am I not allowed to name an ethnic group? It's not that I referred to the deragatory term that you often hear in R&B music, I just wrote that my mom is mostly black. What's wrong with that? I wonder what will happen with the terms chinese, asian and caucasian...
Edit: as I expected those words are perfectly fine. FWIW, the starred-out word is Megro (with the obvious replacement of the first character).

Um- I have never heard of this practice. It sounds to have a root in shamanism or witch craft rather than Christianity.

No, it wasn't a Christian practice but it was or is very common in Suriname mostly by the blacks but not only by them.

As you know I disagree with the view that creation account is or was ever meant to be considered as historical fact.

Yes you mentioned that earlier. My brother OTOH doesn't and with him many other Christians. They may have a point too. Adam is referred to as a historical figure more than once in the New Testament (Luke 3:38, Romans 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:45, Jude 1:14) and even Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as historical persons (Mark 10:6).

It is a shame that you have not considered some of the alternative Christian view points on evolution. I would recommend that review some of the Introductory works by McGrath and even some encyclopaedias and commentaries such as the Oxford and IVP one volume ones. The 7 day young earth view is actually far less common than its volume would suggest.

That sounds interresting. Do you have some online resources for such view points? But if the YEC view is so uncommon among Christians, why is it that so many Christians oppose evolution so vehemently?

I trust that you have taken into account that such publications are not intended to bring balanced scholarship to the subject. The biggest problem is that they view the text outside the cultural and historical context in which it is set.

They admit as much:

The believer's defense of the Bible is assisted by those who publish it. They are invariably believers as well, and are interested in promoting and defending the Bible. They do so in many ways, but their efforts usually include at least some of the following:

• Point out consistencies between the redundant passages, while never mentioning the contradictions.
• Provide explanations and excuses for the absurdities, cruelties, vulgarities, and insults to women -- when they choose not to ignore them entirely.
• Emphasize the relative few passages that present a decent image of God.
• Attach footnotes to explain away any difficulties.

Millions of such Bibles are published and distributed each year by believers in their tireless and tiresome effort to propagate their beliefs. Consequently, nearly everyone, whether believer or skeptic, has at least one copy in his or her possession. Among these Bibles will be found many different versions, but all have one thing in common: all are believer- friendly editions that support, promote, and defend the Bible.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible attempts to remedy this imbalance. It includes the entire text of the King James Version of the Bible, but without the pro-Bible propaganda. Instead, passages are highlighted that are an embarrassment to the Bible-believer, and the parts of the Bible that are never read in any Church, Bible study group, or Sunday School class are emphasized. For it is these passages that test the claims of the Bible-believer. The contradictions and false prophecies show that the Bible is not inerrant; the cruelties, injustices, and insults to women, that it is neither good nor just.

See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/preface.html. SAB is not the only resource I use, my being on this forum has just one purpose, to find resources that represent the Christian view. Pretty recently a modern dutch translation of the Bible has been publishe and I bought one of those (because most other dutch translations are pretty time consuming for someone who isn't well versed in the Bible. One thing I will not do is limit my resources to only Chritian views. BTW, do you have proper explanations for Numbers 31 and 2 Kings 2:23-24 that will not portray God as incredibly cruel and unjust?

So currently I came to the conclusion that I have a few major hurdles with Christianity, hurdles that I doubt I will ever overcome. First and foremost are the violations of proportionality in the teaching of eternal damnation. Granted, a few Christians believe in annihilation of the damned and if this would be the case I would have a lot less of an issue with it, but a punishment that would last eternal, however light the punishment, is disproportional to whatever temporal sin someone would have commited. Secondly I have issues with the "omnimax" features that are attributed to the Christian God. An omniscient being who creates object of which it foreknows that those beings will act against some rule and punishes those beings for it, is not omnibenevolent. I read a nice discussion between two Philosophers (Dr. Bradley and Dr. Craigh) regarding the compatibility of human free will and devine foreknowledge, and I side with Dr. Bradley that they are not. Thirdly, the more I read about scientific explanations of natural processes that were formerly only explicable by devine intervention, the more I see the unlikeliness of the existence of a God. It seems humans are very eager to want to explain everything and where they fail to do so the invent this unprovable entity to fit the gaps. I find the world around me to make a lot more sense without a God than with one. Lastly there are these specific issues I have with Christianity, some of which I didn't know to exist previously. I already explained the cruelties in the bible, but there's also the many inconsitencies in the bible and the monotheistic nature of the devine trinity. This just doesn't make sense. I read a response on this in "Answering the Atheist" (at lookingintojesus.net) where they compared Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit to be distinct entities but all God to person A, B and C to be differen persons but all being human. This still makes no sense because we don't claim that persons A, B and C are "one human".

Proportionality: Any offence can be forgiven. That is because repentance is dependent on direction not distance from God. We are cut off from God by an attitude of rebellion. We cannot make peace with God until we agree to end hostilities. It is not about how much we have hurt God in our fight against him  not that any pain we could inflict could turn God from his will.

But if the direction is away from God than the punishment is eternal, is it not? That's my problem! No temporal sin can ever be proportional to an eternal punishment. BTW, this paragraph is the summary of my critique against Critianity. Do you have a comment on the other remarks in it (omnimax features, monotheism of the devine trinity etc)?
For those of you who haven't read the debate between Craigh and Bradley, I would reccomend it very much. Pretty high-level philosophical stuff (at least from the viewpoint of a non-philosopher like myself) but a very interresting read nonetheless. It's available at Dr. Craigh's site. And if you find that as easy as reading the sports page of the sunday newspaper, you might like Prof. Linda Zagzebski (current chair of the Association of Christian Philosophers).

Faith: I refer to my post about knowing God through encounter. I don not see this in what you have written. You have rejected a Christian culture. But it is a though the seed has never germinated. (Do you remember the parable of the sower?). That is not to say that the seed may never germinate for that requires air, warmth and water. I would humbly suggest that your seed has lacked one of these elements.

You correctly assert that I haven't known God through encounter, but I did not reject Christian culture. The culture I was content with. It is when I started to study the Cristian religion that I deconverted. ''Knowing God'' presupposes that you acknowledge His existence and start a ''relationship''. I can study and reject the Christian religion without doing that just as I can study Hinduism without accepting Krishna and Vishnu. Yes, my Christian seed lacks water but my freethinker seed is growing as we speak. There's place for only one tree. I'd like to have the tree growing that will produce the best fruit.

Reinforcement of believes by those who agree with you is comforting but does not help you find truth. It is freeze drying and vacuum packing your seed so that it will not grow. I agree with DVDholc- you have not been exposed to a living faith in your own right and have yet to consider answers that others have had to the same questions as you yet their faith has not withered and has even grown to the stature of a great tree.

Honestly, doesn't that work both ways?

Many of us here will not spare you the difficult counter questions. We will help you find new avenues to explore. Even if we do not have all the answers.

That's why I'm here. The only thing is that I previously considered the Judeo-Christian God to be real purely based on dogmas. The reasons stated above have caused me to consider that God unlikely and since I don't know the dogmas of other religions I apply the same rules where possible so I consider the non-existence of a God more likely than the existence of one. The reason why I'm here mostly and why I started this thread is that I would like these arguments to be toroughly countered, without presupposing the existence of a God (but of course not ruling it out either). For me to accept Christianity it should be made likely without said presupposition. A statement that I should accept God in my life and then I would see he is for real, just doesn't cut it.

Regards (and thanks for the criticism),
Rob

 

[sheratan]

Hi BlondieLashes,

Hi Sheratan! I must admit I did not read through all the posts on this thread, but I can honestly tell you that I accepted the Lord when I was 19 and fell away vehemently in my 20's. I went so far as becoming a stripper and porn model and got my Master's degree in psychology because I was following the teachings of Carl Jung. By the time I was in my 30's I was so miserable and depressed that I started to explore other avenues of finding peace. In the end I ended up back with Jesus. I don't know how intellectual my experiences are (although I have studied other faiths and beliefs as well as Christianity), but I can tell you from personal experience that the only way to peace in life is through accepting and following Christ.

You got me interrested. I'd really like to know more. Note that I know next to nothing about psychology so I don't know Jung's teachings. What I'd like to know specifically is what your arguments were against Christianity and how you countered those arguments after reconverting. If you'd prever it outside the forum you can mail me at cf@hamal.nl but in the forum is just as well (I estimate that this mail address will last half a year and then I'll disable it again due to spam :-/

Regards,
Rob

 

[sheratan]

One more thought- if you are seeking intellectual reasoning about Christianity, you may want to read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. I have found this book to be very honest and real! God bless you in your pursuit for truth my friend! When you honestly seek truth you will find that the only answer is Christ!!!

One more to put on the list. I'll be looking for ''Surprised by Joy'' in the library tomorrow (also by Lewis).

Thanks,
Rob

 

[sheratan]

Please let me be very clear- it is the system/ worldview of atheism that I consider to be amoral not atheists. It is a contradiction that I feel undermines the argument that there is not God / spiritual realm.

I agree that the worlview is amoral but I see no contradiction. Atheism is only saying ''proposition X is false'' (there is no God), it makes no claims about attributions of ''proposition X''.

We may have to except the extreme Christina right as part of it, but exclude others (JWs deny Christ).

Come again? I just grabbed a booklet that I reaceived from a JW about two weeks ago (Is there a Creator who cares about you? - dutch translation) and Section 9 clearly acknowledges Jezus as Messiah. My translation:
He proved to be even more than the Messiah. A disciple who was aware of the facts came to the conclusion that ``Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God'' -- John 20:31.
The booklet is pubished by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Regards,
Rob

 

[The Midge]

the short one first

I agree that the worlview is amoral but I see no contradiction. Atheism is only saying ''proposition X is false'' (there is no God), it makes no claims about attributions of ''proposition X''.

So whence does morality come? I don't think athiest philosophy has an explantion for sacrificial love for instance- at least not beyond kith and kin.

Come again? I just grabbed a booklet that I reaceived from a JW about two weeks ago (Is there a Creator who cares about you? - dutch translation) and Section 9 clearly acknowledges Jezus as Messiah. My translation:
He proved to be even more than the Messiah. A disciple who was aware of the facts came to the conclusion that ``Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God'' -- John 20:31.
The booklet is pubished by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Regards,
Rob

The JWs ahve exta biblical scripture and have rewritten the bible. They do not hold to the historic creeds of the Christian Church. They are not recognised by most if not all of the mainstream orthodox denominations.

I would be intrgued to read the contect of that tract. Perhaps the the Watch Tower is changing it's position? (Watchtower is the publishing arm of the JWs).

 

[The Midge]

Given the axioms of the existence of a God and him creating the universe, I can come along. That said, the Bible is very earth and human centric, while if you look at the size of the universe and the significance of the earth in it, I can't really connect it with the Judeo-Christian God. In my opinion the earth and humanity, when taken in the context of the universe, are very insignificant.

Of course it is- an author can only convey what they know. But the idea is not unknown by biblical writers:

Ps 8:3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
Ps 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
Ps 8:5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor

The purpose of me writin that is to give an impression of my childhood and the role of Christianity in it. That role was small.

And not a very good base on which to crtique christianity.

Maybe it operates on a different level, but if children are punished for the sins of their ancestors whether now or then, I call it unjust. See Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Numbers 14:18. That was what I ment by ''subsidiarity''. The proportionality part is my biggest beef with Christianity, i.e. punishing someone eternal for a temporal sin.

We are not:

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

The above passages indicate how sin in the world affects those who come after us. Global warming will effect down to the third and fourth generations. sin hurts the innocent. Look at what happened to Jesus!

What is this? Am I not allowed to name an ethnic group? It's not that I referred to the deragatory term that you often hear in R&B music, I just wrote that my mom is mostly black. What's wrong with that? I wonder what will happen with the terms chinese, asian and caucasian...

This is an American centric site where the term is considered to be one of abuse. We have to live by 'local customs'

No, it wasn't a Christian practice but it was or is very common in Suriname mostly by the blacks but not only by them.

Thought as much.

Yes you mentioned that earlier. My brother OTOH doesn't and with him many other Christians. They may have a point too. Adam is referred to as a historical figure more than once in the New Testament (Luke 3:38, Romans 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:45, Jude 1:14) and even Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as historical persons (Mark 10:6).

So would I- because of what they symbolise.

That sounds interresting. Do you have some online resources for such view points? But if the YEC view is so uncommon among Christians, why is it that so many Christians oppose evolution so vehemently?

The view is more common at accademic levels. Unfortunately free sites are often published by the fundamentalist position.

They admit as much:
See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/preface.html. SAB is not the only resource I use, my being on this forum has just one purpose, to find resources that represent the Christian view. Pretty recently a modern dutch translation of the Bible has been publishe and I bought one of those (because most other dutch translations are pretty time consuming for someone who isn't well versed in the Bible. One thing I will not do is limit my resources to only Chritian views. BTW, do you have proper explanations for Numbers 31 and 2 Kings 2:23-24 that will not portray God as incredibly cruel and unjust?

Number 31 was part of a visous war. (this relates to what I said about there could be no prosoners only slaves). The Midianites and Balaam had repeatedly broken treaties and betrayed Isreal even when they had tried to neotiate peacful passage. The account is given ealier in Numbers.

2 Kings 2 23-25 Elisha's sweet memories of Jericho received a souring touch at Bethel. The public insult against Elisha was a mocking caricature of Elijah's going up into heaven, aimed ultimately at the God whom he represented. Indeed, Elisha's whole prophetic ministry was in jeopardy; therefore the youths' taunt had to be dealt with decisively. The sudden arrival of the two bears who mauled forty-two youths to death would serve as both an awful sentence on unbelievers--and thus, too, on Jeroboam's cult city--and a published reminder that blasphemy against the true God and his program would be met with swift and certain consequences. With these two miracles Elisha's position as successor to Elijah as God's chief prophet to Israel was assured.

I have not studied this book as in depth as Numbers- so am not as aware of the context. Thought Elishas ministry was well established at this point.

But if the direction is away from God than the punishment is eternal, is it not? That's my problem! No temporal sin can ever be proportional to an eternal punishment. BTW, this paragraph is the summary of my critique against Critianity. Do you have a comment on the other remarks in it (omnimax features, monotheism of the devine trinity etc)?
For those of you who haven't read the debate between Craigh and Bradley, I would reccomend it very much. Pretty high-level philosophical stuff (at least from the viewpoint of a non-philosopher like myself) but a very interresting read nonetheless. It's available at Dr. Craigh's site. And if you find that as easy as reading the sports page of the sunday newspaper, you might like Prof. Linda Zagzebski (current chair of the Association of Christian Philosophers).

If not for ever when? What is judgement about if not to see if we would be fit; nay happy even to be with God for eternity? Not as prisoners but as lovers? For that is what we are designed to be. Anything else is incomplete- and that is our torment and pain. We are given this life and it is long enough to determine if we want to be obedient or love God or not. If you don't want these things then heaven which is full of God is not for you.

(the references later ok?)

You correctly assert that I haven't known God through encounter, but I did not reject Christian culture. The culture I was content with. It is when I started to study the Cristian religion that I deconverted. ''Knowing God'' presupposes that you acknowledge His existence and start a ''relationship''. I can study and reject the Christian religion without doing that just as I can study Hinduism without accepting Krishna and Vishnu. Yes, my Christian seed lacks water but my freethinker seed is growing as we speak. There's place for only one tree. I'd like to have the tree growing that will produce the best fruit.

The point is we cannot know God until sin is dealt with. We only have to start with that we feel guilt over.

Honestly, doesn't that work both ways?

Of course. I have had more than my share of run ins with fundamentalist pastors who get upset when you question them. Some times the prevail culture has to be challenged christian or otherwise.

That's why I'm here. The only thing is that I previously considered the Judeo-Christian God to be real purely based on dogmas. The reasons stated above have caused me to consider that God unlikely and since I don't know the dogmas of other religions I apply the same rules where possible so I consider the non-existence of a God more likely than the existence of one. The reason why I'm here mostly and why I started this thread is that I would like these arguments to be toroughly countered, without presupposing the existence of a God (but of course not ruling it out either). For me to accept Christianity it should be made likely without said presupposition. A statement that I should accept God in my life and then I would see he is for real, just doesn't cut it.

Regards (and thanks for the criticism),
Rob

This is why many find Christ when they are completly broken in body and spirit. God will call- we can harden our hearts or respond. The call is different for everone, we are all individulas. I think we all ahve a chance to hear it There are many ways to Christ but only one way to the Father.

I still ask the question about the existence of God. So there is a possibility for a change of heart. some times I have nothing other than a memory of an enounter. i think it is God's way of asking me if I love a fantasy or Him. Sometimes hardship is necessary to bring about good in us:

Heb 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
Heb 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Heb 12:3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
Heb 12:4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons:
"My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
Heb 12:6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."
Heb 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
Heb 12:8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Heb 12:9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!
Heb 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. Heb 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. Heb 12:12 Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.
Heb 12:13 "Make level paths for your feet," so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.

 

[BlondieLashes]

Hi Rob! I will have to post here as I no longer use my email (due to personal reasons).

You will have to forgive me as I am not really up to getting into a lot of intellectual reasoning right now. I am 7 months pregnant and my brain is not up for deep thought.

However, I can sum up your questions: I left Chrisitanity after being badly mistreated by other Christians (a pastor in particular). It wasn't really a problem I had with the Christian belief system as much as it was with the people I was around.

I sought the teachings of psychology (Jung in particular) as an attempt to understand human behavior and why we do what we do.

I returned to Christianity after years of studying the human mind and growing weary of trying to make sense of people (myself included) apart from God. I couldn't do it. Without God there is no hope, no peace.

I know my relpy is overly simplified, but I hope it helps some. I really think the way to go is with the writings of C.S. Lewis. Did you know he originally was set out to prove God didn't exist and ended up Christian? His writings are far superior to anything I can offer.

Wishing you the best in your pursuit of truth!

Courtney

 

[sheratan]

So whence does morality come? I don't think athiest philosophy has an explantion for sacrificial love for instance- at least not beyond kith and kin.

Like I said earlier, atheism doesn't concern itself with morality and morality isn't an intrinsic part of theism or religion either. A simple counter example is ancient Greek mythology where guidelines to moral behaviour were not handed down to its believers. In the case of Christianity and other religions like Buddhism, the morality is just an attribute of that specific religion, it is not intrinsic to it being theistic at all. Furthermore, I'd like to argue that religious morality (i.e. morality which finds its base in religious teachings) is selfish rather than altuistic. By acting according to those moral guidelines a believer ''buys his way into heaven'' or ''strengthens her good karma'' or something of the sort. The bottomline is that there is an absolute personal gain for someone to act according to those guidelines which makes it not altruistic. That doesn't mean that every moral act by Christians or Buddhists is selfish, there can be genuine altruism going on there too. Though the research in this field seems far from complete, altruism is a beneficial treat in evolution, not on an individual basis but surely on a group level. There is this nice article on the evolution of altruism here.

The JWs ahve exta biblical scripture and have rewritten the bible. They do not hold to the historic creeds of the Christian Church. They are not recognised by most if not all of the mainstream orthodox denominations.

I would be intrgued to read the contect of that tract. Perhaps the the Watch Tower is changing it's position? (Watchtower is the publishing arm of the JWs).

Is it maybe possible that you've been a little misinformed of JW's? As far as I've been told they have no extra-biblical scripture. They have their own version of the Bible but it seems the differences are no greater than e.g. KJV and NIV but I could be wrong on this. What I do know is that when they did visit me (they don't anymore and yes, I invited them in) they used my bible to read me various verses.

Regards,
Rob

 

[sheratan]

Given the axioms of the existence of a God and him creating the universe, I can come along. That said, the Bible is very earth and human centric, while if you look at the size of the universe and the significance of the earth in it, I can't really connect it with the Judeo-Christian God. In my opinion the earth and humanity, when taken in the context of the universe, are very insignificant.

Of course it is- an author can only convey what they know. But the idea is not unknown by biblical writers:

Ps 8:3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
Ps 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
Ps 8:5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor

Thanks for proving my point. There is a prime example of how earth and human centric the Bible really is. Equating the moon and the stars really narrows the scope of how people looked at the heavens to a geocentric view and saying something along the lines of ''Your creation is so great and still you find it necessary to make mankind so important'' is very human-centric IMO.

We are not:

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

The above passages indicate how sin in the world affects those who come after us. Global warming will effect down to the third and fourth generations. sin hurts the innocent. Look at what happened to Jesus!

You are talking about the effects of someone's acts on others. I am talking about devine punishment of someone for the sinful acts of someone else. Granted, Eze 18:20 sais that doesn't happen, but there are quite a number of bible verses that say it does. See for yourself: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html.

This is an American centric site where the term is considered to be one of abuse. We have to live by 'local customs'

Oh, is it? It surely doesn't say so in the About Christian Forums page. Quite the contrary, it clearly depicts itself as ''the world's largest Christian forums community website''. Now, since my mother is not an American citizen, I can't refer to her as an ''african american'', now can I? I must refer to her as a ''black woman'' which I find a derogatory term even more since her maternal grandmother was red-indian and her peternal great-grandfather (IIRC) a white scottish man. Frankly, I find the belittling of the subscribers to this site quite annoying. It is that there's this big Christian audience on this site that I can query with my questions, otherwise I would have left it a long time ago. It seems I'm not alone in this thinking (look at the very first reply in this thread).

So would I- because of what they symbolise.

How then am I supposed to decide when some text is historical or symbolic? There's no clue to this in the bible except for the parables told by Jesus. Maybe I should consider the whole biblical text as symbolic...

The view is more common at accademic levels. Unfortunately free sites are often published by the fundamentalist position.

I can agree there, the number of agnosts and atheists is also greater at academic levels, especially in beta sciences. Still I think the number of YECs is far greater than you picture here, especially among Protestants. That is at least the impression I get when interacting with Christians around me.

Number 31 was part of a visous war. (this relates to what I said about there could be no prosoners only slaves). The Midianites and Balaam had repeatedly broken treaties and betrayed Isreal even when they had tried to neotiate peacful passage. The account is given ealier in Numbers.

It's not the war I have the biggest problems with, it's the fact that all male and all non-virgin female POWs had to be slaughtered after the fact and all virgin girls (32000 in total) were devided among the Israelites to be raped.

2 Kings 2 23-25 Elisha's sweet memories of Jericho received a souring touch at Bethel. The public insult against Elisha was a mocking caricature of Elijah's going up into heaven, aimed ultimately at the God whom he represented. Indeed, Elisha's whole prophetic ministry was in jeopardy; therefore the youths' taunt had to be dealt with decisively. The sudden arrival of the two bears who mauled forty-two youths to death would serve as both an awful sentence on unbelievers--and thus, too, on Jeroboam's cult city--and a published reminder that blasphemy against the true God and his program would be met with swift and certain consequences. With these two miracles Elisha's position as successor to Elijah as God's chief prophet to Israel was assured.

I have not studied this book as in depth as Numbers- so am not as aware of the context. Thought Elishas ministry was well established at this point.

Elisha's prophetic ministry was in jeopardy because a couple of kids were mocking his baldness? That's a stretch to say the least! So this ''swift dealing'' meant slaughtering 42 of those kids? For mocking?? Will you excude me that I'm not convinced?

If not for ever when? What is judgement about if not to see if we would be fit; nay happy even to be with God for eternity? Not as prisoners but as lovers? For that is what we are designed to be. Anything else is incomplete- and that is our torment and pain. We are given this life and it is long enough to determine if we want to be obedient or love God or not. If you don't want these things then heaven which is full of God is not for you.

(the references later ok?)

OK on the references. When I talk about proportionality, I'm not talking about the ''being happy with God for eternity'', I'm talking about ''being punished for your sins for all eternity''. If you would read the ''Father Furnace'' description of eternity then I wonder if you still think punishing even Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler eternally is proportional to the sins they commited.

The point is we cannot know God until sin is dealt with. We only have to start with that we feel guilt over.

And how do we deal with sin? By asking God or Jesus for forgiveness? But you don't know if they exist! Can you see the circular reasoning here?

This is why many find Christ when they are completly broken in body and spirit. God will call- we can harden our hearts or respond. The call is different for everone, we are all individulas. I think we all ahve a chance to hear it There are many ways to Christ but only one way to the Father.

I still ask the question about the existence of God. So there is a possibility for a change of heart. some times I have nothing other than a memory of an enounter. i think it is God's way of asking me if I love a fantasy or Him. Sometimes hardship is necessary to bring about good in us:

To be honest, I don't feel broken in body or spirit. Since I started to actually view the universe from a perspective without a God, it started to make a lot more sence to me. I might still be wrong, but I need a lot more to be convinced of it.

Regards,
Rob.

 

[sheratan]

Hi Rob! I will have to post here as I no longer use my email (due to personal reasons).

You will have to forgive me as I am not really up to getting into a lot of intellectual reasoning right now. I am 7 months pregnant and my brain is not up for deep thought.

That's totally understandable. I would like to wish you all the strength needed to endure this pregnancy. Though I cannot speak of experience [DUH] I must say that witnessing my wife's pregnancies has caused me to deeply respect women. We're not the srong sex, you are!

However, I can sum up your questions: I left Chrisitanity after being badly mistreated by other Christians (a pastor in particular). It wasn't really a problem I had with the Christian belief system as much as it was with the people I was around.

I sought the teachings of psychology (Jung in particular) as an attempt to understand human behavior and why we do what we do.

I returned to Christianity after years of studying the human mind and growing weary of trying to make sense of people (myself included) apart from God. I couldn't do it. Without God there is no hope, no peace.

OK, thanks for sharing.

I know my relpy is overly simplified, but I hope it helps some. I really think the way to go is with the writings of C.S. Lewis. Did you know he originally was set out to prove God didn't exist and ended up Christian? His writings are far superior to anything I can offer.

Wishing you the best in your pursuit of truth!

Thanks. I didn't know about Lewis' quest to prove the non-existence of God. I did know he was an atheist who converted to Christianity but not to Catholisism as his friend J.R.R. Tolkien had hoped.
I couldn't find the books of interrest at my local library, I think I'll order them at a book store. The only books of Lewis that I found were Narnia novels and the like. He's still high on my list though, you're not the first one to recommend his books.

Regards,
Rob Edit: Quoting changed (Sorry Midge & BlondieLashes)

 

[The Midge]

That's totally understandable. I would like to wish you all the strength needed to endure this pregnancy. Though I cannot speak of experience [DUH] I must say that witnessing my wife's pregnancies has caused me to deeply respect women. We're not the srong sex, you are!

OK, thanks for sharing.

Thanks. I didn't know about Lewis' quest to prove the non-existence of God. I did know he was an atheist who converted to Christianity but not to Catholisism as his friend J.R.R. Tolkien had hoped.
I couldn't find the books of interrest at my local library, I think I'll order them at a book store. The only books of Lewis that I found were Narnia novels and the like. He's still high on my list though, you're not the first one to recommend his books.

Regards,
Rob

Please edit the quotes because I can't take credit for them!

 

[The Midge]

Thanks for proving my point. There is a prime example of how earth and human centric the Bible really is. Equating the moon and the stars really narrows the scope of how people looked at the heavens to a geocentric view and saying something along the lines of ''Your creation is so great and still you find it necessary to make mankind so important'' is very human-centric IMO.

There is no doubt that the bible is written from a human point of view. How elae could an honest account of God be written? I think it is this characteristic that sets the bible apart. It is written for real peoples expereinces and perspectives not delivered in a cloud. Did yourealise that most of the people who brought revelation did not write their books- the books/ The Gospels are about Jesus. Most ofthe prophets accounts are in the third person as are the stories about Moses. Why is that? Why do most other religions ahve direct dictated revelation for the most part like the Qur'an?

You are talking about the effects of someone's acts on others. I am talking about devine punishment of someone for the sinful acts of someone else. Granted, Eze 18:20 sais that doesn't happen, but there are quite a number of bible verses that say it does. See for yourself: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html.

It is exactly the effect our sin has on others that mmost of thee passages cited are talking about. Or the SAB authors have failed to take the cultural contexts into account. Ham shamed his father- which was disgraceful in the ancient orient. The list does not tell us what the verses actually mean or the point of the reference in which they are contained.

The SAB is written to make a point not to search out the meaning of the bible which is why you have to approach it carefully. It sets out to partizan rather than neutral of scholarly. The results reflect this.

Oh, is it? It surely doesn't say so in the About Christian Forums page. Quite the contrary, it clearly depicts itself as ''the world's largest Christian forums community website''. Now, since my mother is not an American citizen, I can't refer to her as an ''african american'', now can I? I must refer to her as a ''black woman'' which I find a derogatory term even more since her maternal grandmother was red-indian and her peternal great-grandfather (IIRC) a white scottish man. Frankly, I find the belittling of the subscribers to this site quite annoying. It is that there's this big Christian audience on this site that I can query with my questions, otherwise I would have left it a long time ago. It seems I'm not alone in this thinking (look at the very first reply in this thread).

Just count the flags. needless to say I don't agree with all the policies on the board. But I am not the owner.

How then am I supposed to decide when some text is historical or symbolic? There's no clue to this in the bible except for the parables told by Jesus. Maybe I should consider the whole biblical text as symbolic...

In part it is symbolic. You ahve to study the context. There a diverse range of literature types. I would recommend fee & Stuart "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" as a guide to determining what type of literature and context of a passage. We call this Exegesis. It is hard work sometimes. The objective of the Bible student is to understand what the authr orgininally meant. Which is where the SAB is falling down- they are applying meanings from our own culture which are not shared by the author. The art of apply the bible (or other text) to our culture and times is hermaneutics. You could try a google on those two words?

I can agree there, the number of agnosts and atheists is also greater at academic levels, especially in beta sciences. Still I think the number of YECs is far greater than you picture here, especially among Protestants. That is at least the impression I get when interacting with Christians around me.

The search for truth is not a numbers game. It is understanding what the text is saying to us. The argument about proof is blinding many of us. How God created the universe has little bearing on the redemption plan- which is the heart of Christianity. I think it is better for you to focus your enquiry on the life death and resurrection of Jesus- not that the Gospel texts are without their cahllenges.

It's not the war I have the biggest problems with, it's the fact that all male and all non-virgin female POWs had to be slaughtered after the fact and all virgin girls (32000 in total) were devided among the Israelites to be raped.

Again- it is ancient custom we are dealing with. I think you are reading in rape. It was more like arranged marriage of servitude.

Elisha's prophetic ministry was in jeopardy because a couple of kids were mocking his baldness? That's a stretch to say the least! So this ''swift dealing'' meant slaughtering 42 of those kids? For mocking?? Will you excude me that I'm not convinced?

The author tells it as it is. Now if a curse had no power to it or nothing behind it... Or does it say something about the holiness of God and the respect that is due to the person? To slight a kings messenger or ambassador was akin to personally insulting the king. That is the message of the text. You and I may not like it- but the author saw it as just. Does a cleaned up acount of a God who never reacts to wrong and defamation really tell us the need for us to repent if the consequences are so drastic?

OK on the references. When I talk about proportionality, I'm not talking about the ''being happy with God for eternity'', I'm talking about ''being punished for your sins for all eternity''. If you would read the ''Father Furnace'' description of eternity then I wonder if you still think punishing even Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler eternally is proportional to the sins they commited.

I persnally believe in hell as oblivion. Such passages refer to the waste tip where the unclean parts/ sin bearing parts of the sacrifice remove and disposed of sin (symbolicaly). These images of hell only occure in apocolyptic literature and references.

Again we must tell it as it is. The consequences for our sin are eternal. God's solutions is eternal. We have are mortal time to come to terms with it. Or should God suffer that evil should continue for eternity?

We shoud also not prejudge God. Judgement is personal and case by case. It is by a God who sees and knows everything so we cannot hide. It is by what we know for to those who have been given much much will be expected.

And how do we deal with sin? By asking God or Jesus for forgiveness? But you don't know if they exist! Can you see the circular reasoning here?

First we have to honest about our sin. Confess. You don't need to believe in God to see the human condition for what it is. I never said it was proof for God

To be honest, I don't feel broken in body or spirit. Since I started to actually view the universe from a perspective without a God, it started to make a lot more sence to me. I might still be wrong, but I need a lot more to be convinced of it.

Regards,
Rob.

The time may come.

To be honest it is not for me to convince you- only to point out other frames of reference and avenues for you to explore. I might still be wrong, and acknowledge that.

Please excuse the typos and mistakes I'm not feeling very well today.

 

[exwitchoz]

Hi,

My name is Rob. I am an atheistic agnost (i.e. I don't know if a god exists but I consider it unlikely). I found this site via a link at ex-christians [TLD removed to comply with rules] where I am a recent subscriber.

While searching the web for information I got the impression that there are more people who are knowledgable of the Christian faith that left it than there are people knowledgable of the objections against Christianity and converted to it. So my question is, is there anyone here who deconverted from Christianity based on reason or someone who was an atheist or agnost based on problems with the Christian faith ans still converted to Christianity? I'd really like to read some of those testimonies. URLs are welcome too.

Well I dunno if i fit your definition exactly Rob... but I was a Christian (even wrote a series of booklets on doctrine in the mid-late 1980's), became involved in the occult (ended up as the High priest of a Neo-Pagan Coven) and am now a Christian again...

The full story is too long to relate here but here;s a link to my Testimony...

There's two versions - one is about 1100 words the other more than 7000... the later will give you a better idea of the full story of my conversion and "re-conversion"...

http://exwitchaustralia.com/About_Me.html