Justin Hughes

Feedback discussions - Justin Hughes

a fundamentalist British preacher/pastor, asserts the argument from religious experience, fideism, threats of torture, and how easy it is to answer my questions. I explain the problems I see with his ideas. He refuses to read my final emails and sums up: I condemn and reject your master and all his works in Jesus name. I leave you to your terrible end, very apt for the evil filth you publish against God.

From: Justin Hughes

To: Steve Locks

Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:32 AM

Subject: Hello

Indeed, that was sneaky! It took me a couple of minutes to find the link!

In one way I am pleased that you are doing what you are, and in another I am sad.

Let me introduce myself first; I am a preacher/pastor, and I suppose you would label me a 'fundamentalist'. I live in Somerset, and I think you are in the UK, so you would know where that is.

One of the curses of the modern day is nominal Christianity, and you are doing things which I hope will remove them from the scene. For this I am grateful, in a mild form. About 80 - 85% of regular churchgoing 'Christians' are no such thing. They have never met, and do not know the Lord Jesus Christ. If you ask them if they have ever heard Him speak to them they look at you as if you are some sort of crank. All the merely religious folks, whether or not they hold 'fundamentalist' beliefs, have never heard 'That Voice', and have no relationship with God, as they do not know Him. Sadly, that is what Jesus gave His life for on the Cross, that men, those He chose and called, could know Him.

Much of evangelism today is concentrated on 'getting people in'. They are wholly ignorant of what God means by evangelism, and what true conversion is, by and large, and equate people being in church with people being in Christ. Then, by some of the methods you rightly point out on your site, they manipulate people into holding beliefs which are held by 'their church'. Those beliefs are taught and insisted upon, and dearly and sincerely held, as you point out. They are, however, not part of them; those who hold the beliefs.

Then there are the real Christians, whom I would put at around 1% of the British people, who have come to real repentance, and have heard the Lord Jesus speak to them. They have been born again of the Spirit, not just notionally so as in so many circles, as you point out, but actually, really, and experientially. They are so changed that their friends are shocked by the difference in them, and they hardly know themselves. By contrast, the ones previously mentioned, the nominals, have gone through the motions taught them by 'pastor', and have been baptised in water too usually, and are told, "You are now born again of the Holy Spirit." There is no change in their lives, they do not know God, and have never heard Him speak to them. All they have is religion about Him, often dearly and sincerely held. But they are still cut off from God by sin, which they are unable to control, and which rules them.

Those are the two camps, and it appears to me that you are drawing off the nominals. In that I would say you are a tool of God, you are being used of Him to sort the sheep from the goats. And I would say that that is a very useful function as far as we are concerned.

The only reserve I would have is that there are the new, genuinely born again, real Christians, whose new and vulnerable faith and knowledge of God you may stumble, or overthrow, causing them to join you again on the road of independence from God, and death. I would be very unhappy indeed if you did that.

All human beings instinctively know that there is a God, and they all fear death. They may be quite good at covering up that fear, or putting it out of their mind, particularly when they are young. However, no one gets off this planet alive, (unless they are caught up by God of course). Almighty God has said that,"It is appointed unto men once to die, and then the judgement." You are gambling that He is a liar, or that He does not exist. Like all unbelievers, you will be instantly converted immediately after your death. No one who dies is an unbeliever, and if your dead friends and relatives could get back and knock some sense into you by whatever means they could they would do so. But God has ordained that it is all by faith. That is not the sort of faith which man can work up of himself, which results is the ubiquitous nominalism we see everywhere, but that which God authors Himself in someone's heart by the Word of God, spoken by Him into that heart.

In one sense I wish you success, in removing the nominals. I would much rather you were genuinely saved and came into a personal knowledge of Him. He is so wonderful I could not begin to describe it. And He is deeply offended by your calling Him a liar. He will deal with you on this matter and others when you meet Him; an even from which there is no escape.

Yours, Justin Hughes.

From: Steve Locks

To: Justin Hughes

Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:46 AM

Subject: Re: Hello

Hello Justin,

<< In one way I am pleased that you are doing what you are, and in another I am sad. >>

You are not the first Christian who has expressed such sentiments! See /feedback/jerry and /feedback/a-priest

<< One of the curses of the modern day is nominal Christianity, and you are doing things which I hope will remove them from the scene. For this I am grateful, in a mild form. About 80 - 85% of regular churchgoing 'Christians' are no such thing. They have never met, and do not know the Lord Jesus Christ. If you ask them if they have ever heard Him speak to them they look at you as if you are some sort of crank. >>

Jesus prayed that all his followers would be as one, but the power of prayer is unimpressive, even for Jesus, as I continually see that Christians call most other Christians "false" in a circle of complete mutual condemnation.

You all condemn each other as "false Christians" and there is no agreement on what Christianity actually is! Jesus prayer is thwarted and the "clear message" that Christians claim they are preaching is a confused mess! Christians are no different in this regard to other religions which also split into factions accusing all the other sects that they are false, ones own sect being the only one who has the correct interpretation. Sunni vs. Shi'ite Muslims etc.

<< All the merely religious folks, whether or not they hold 'fundamentalist' beliefs, have never heard 'That Voice', and have no relationship with God, as they do not know Him. >>

I have plenty of deconversion stories from previous Christians, who, like you, were utterly convinced they had a vibrant relationship with the living Christ. Likewise, if you read Steve Hassan's book (see my site) you will see that he felt deeply loved and in a vibrant relationship with the Reverend Moon.

<< Sadly, that is what Jesus gave His life for on the Cross, that men, those He chose and called, could know Him. >>

So has Jesus' sacrifice been largely a failure in your view?

<< Then there are the real Christians, whom I would put at around 1% of the British people >>

Where did you get that statistic from? The Archbishop of Canterbury likewise said that he thought Christianity would be a dead religion in the UK within a generation.

<<, who have come to real repentance, and have heard the Lord Jesus speak to them. They have been born again of the Spirit, not just notionally so as in so many circles, as you point out, but actually, really, and experientially. They are so changed that their friends are shocked by the difference in them, and they hardly know themselves. By contrast, the ones previously mentioned, the nominals, have gone through the motions taught them by 'pastor', and have been baptised in water too usually, and are told, "You are now born again of the Holy Spirit." There is no change in their lives, they do not know God, and have never heard Him speak to them. All they have is religion about Him, often dearly and sincerely held. But they are still cut off from God by sin, which they are unable to control, and which rules them. >>

You should visit

Leaving Born Again Fundamentalist Christianity E-Mail List

XCharismatics

Exit Fundyism

There are plenty of people who were previously as convinced as yourself who later concluded they were quite wrong. You can find them on the Leaving Born Again Fundamentalist Christianity E-Mail List and the List of Leaving Born Again Fundamentalist Christianity Webring sites for instance.

You will find plenty of people there who once would have agreed with you.

<< Those are the two camps, and it appears to me that you are drawing off the nominals. In that I would say you are a tool of God, you are being used of Him to sort the sheep from the goats. And I would say that that is a very useful function as far as we are concerned.

I am unaware of having deconverted any Christians. Instead I know that I have helped plenty who had already left Christianity and were looking for "exit counselling." See /feedback/ashley_coogan

<< All human beings instinctively know that there is a God, and they all fear death. >>

If you really know there is a god and you are going to heaven then why do you fear death? (You said "all" humans fear death.)

As for "All human beings instinctively know that there is a God" consider this:

Louis XIV's envoy to "Siam", de la

Loubre, reported the inhabitants as having no belief in a god or in the

immortality of the soul, although some added that they did have a god once

but he had since disappeared, but they didn't know where! However for many

people it's not so much that God (which god?) does indeed go away but that

he doesn't even turn up in the first place.

Although it does appear that numinous/oceanic etc. experiences happen

to a range of people (and certainly not just religious types, let alone

just Christians!) it is also the case that such things are far more

culturally conditioned than might be obvious. In The Philosophers

Magazine, Issue 10, Spring 2000, Anthony Flew made the following

observation:

*******Begin quote********

In considering the search for evidence of the existence of God it is as

difficult as it is necessary for those of us who have been raised in

theist or post-theist societies to free ourselves from the prejudices of

such upbringings. I confess that I myself really began to do this only in

consequence of visiting the institute of Foreign Philosophy in Peking

University, Beijing.

There I was able to enjoy much philosophical talk with my graduate student

'minder'. He was of course acquainted with the concept of the theist God.

But he had met it only as today any of us might happen to come upon the

notions of Aphrodite or Poseidon. He had never had any occasion to

confront it as what William James called a 'live option' - any more than,

for any of our contemporaries anywhere, belief in the real existence of

the Olympians constitutes such an option.

So he did not know whether to be more amused or more indignant when he

first learnt from Descartes that our Maker has imprinted upon every human

soul - as his trademark, as it were - the (authentic) idea of God, a

concept that supposedly is too splendid to have been shaped by merely

human agency, and from which it is allegedly possible immediately to infer

the existence of the corresponding object God. For were not his

compatriots also supposed to be God's creatures; and, if so, how had God

failed to imprint his trademark upon their souls?

******End quote********

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/psychology/commentry_wgwga.html

<< They may be quite good at covering up that fear, or putting it out of their mind, particularly when they are young. >>

I'm afraid that's wishful thinking.

See http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/george_foote/infidel_deathbeds.html

<< However, no one gets off this planet alive, (unless they are caught up by God of course). Almighty God has said that,"It is appointed unto men once to die, and then the judgement." You are gambling that He is a liar, or that He does not exist. >>

Pascal's wager!

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Likewise, you are gambling that Islam is not true:

"Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The

Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my

Lord* and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has

forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no

helpers. Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity.

There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this,

those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution.

[Koran 005:072-73]

I hope you won't find it unjust when after death you find yourself and all

those you helped to Christ are roasting in Allah's hell. He made you and

can do what he wants with you, so don't complain! Also do not presume that

you can judge Allah, the Koran explains that you must submit to his will.

Like Christians, those of other religions can quote their holy books to

prove their beliefs are true. Christians did not invent special pleading

although they have made it into an art form!

To paraphrase you further:

You are gambling that He (Krishna) is a liar, or that He (Krishna) does not exist:-

"He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees, wherever

this man may live, in truth this man lives in me...I am from everlasting

the seed of eternal life...in its delusion the world knows me not...all

beings have their rest in me...I am the way...he who loves me shall not

perish...only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto

me...malignant men hate me...they come not to me, but they go down the

path of hell." Krishna - the Bhagavad Gita (c. 500 B.C.)

Is it therefore a terrible thing that Christians work to prevent people from

coming to Krishna?

Krishna made us, so by failing to come to him, you and I will rightfully

and justly be tortured forever.

Worse still you are gambling your whole life on what I think is a mistaken view of the world

1 Cor 15:19 "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of men the most miserable."

As ex-Christians so frequently find, life after Christianity is far richer and more interesting, even spiritually so, no matter how real and vibrant they previously thought their "relationship with Jesus" was before.

I have many stories from ex-Christians who previously were convinced that they had a "vibrant and deep relationship with the living Christ." Likewise Moonies believe they have a deep relationship with the Reverend Moon. The power of a love feeling is no guarantee that you are loved back let alone that the beloved even exists, otherwise you will have to admit that Hare Krishna exists as there are plenty of his devoted followers in a loving relationship with him too. It is a manufactured relationship. No one ever heard of "having a personal relationship with Christ" and "inviting him into your heart" until the German Pietist movement of the Eighteenth Century. See if you can find those phrases taken to be so central for Christians these days in earlier writings then the 18th Century.

<< Like all unbelievers, you will be instantly converted immediately after your death. >>

I can equally assert that you will be instantly converted to Islam after your death.

<< No one who dies is an unbeliever, and if your dead friends and relatives could get back and knock some sense into you by whatever means they could they would do so. >>

and yours could "knock some sense into you" that Islam is the one true religion.

Former Christian Priests and Missionaries who have Embraced Islam.

<< But God has ordained that it is all by faith. >>

If "all" is by faith, how can my arguments or yours make any difference? How can I be persuading anyone? See my discussions on Apologetics and Christianity may be of interest on this mater of faith (i.e. "fideism") or apologetics (arguments) - i.e. see http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/feedback/mark-mcfall/commentary-on-the-need-for-quality-apologetics

The obvious problem is why *Christian* faith? As soon as a believer gives a reason then one is back to apologetics. Indeed, unless one merely continues as a Christian unthinkingly from a childhood upbringing then something must have convinced you to remain, or become, a Christian. Even if this was a religious experience you will have believed this to be veridical enough to have faith in, rather than it being some idle thought. Moreover you will have to claim that your religious experience is veridical whereas a Buddhist or Daoist's (or even an atheist's) religious and spiritual experience is not. Yet again fideism intrinsically contains apologetics if it is to be anything other than purely arbitrary. So I do not believe fideism is an honest statement of anyone's approach to Christianity.

I do not find that "faith" is responsible or virtuous. More honest - and powerful for finding things out - are working hypotheses about life, always open to refutation. I find a strong bedrock of religious faith is dangerous and stultifies examination of one's beliefs and experiences. The men who flew into the WTC and the suicide victims of the heaven's gate cult all had faith in abundance. The dishonesty of faith was made explicit by William Craig when he wrote: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." [Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 1994].

Honest belief is something that happens to a person based largely on the knowledge and understanding they have and how they perceive the world. If that is the kind of faith a Christian has then that's fair enough in my opinion. However, the very notion of needing apologetics makes me suspicious. Why apologetics rather than open research? It looks like an attempt to buttress a belief system rather than honest examination - a desire for dogma greater than a desire for truth. I also guess that there is some fear at work, maybe based on the common false idea that life without Christianity (or without religion at all) is likely to be empty and nihilistic. The great surprise for those of us who loose faith is that once the shock is over our lives do not become spiritually empty. Ex-Christians frequently describe an enormous life affirming nature to the discovery that their beliefs were false, even if the initial discovery was traumatic. Reports from deconverts are of a life of honesty, free, and more loving, and often a passion for knowledge and interest in the world. No divine judgementalness, spiritual separation from others or easy condemnation of different lifestyles. Instead the discovery of the poignancy and vulnerability of life. The desire to be moral because we can truly empathise with others in their messy humanity. Connection with the world rather than running against it.

I would be surprised if a new apologetic angle comes along, given the quality and range of ex-Christians out there, and the asymmetry of their counterparts given the lack of well-read critics of Christianity who subsequently become Christians. As you know, the frequently touted ex-atheist Josh McDowell is not up to the mark! If the evidence for Christianity is so good then priests, missionaries and hosts of well-churched Christians would not be deconverting. Apologist Matt Bell writes: "the Christian religion is ultimately a matter of having faith and not empirical evidence strong enough to convince the sceptical unbeliever." The lesson to learn from ex-Christians is that the "empirical evidence" is also not enough to keep many Christians in their faith. It was not through lack of apologetics that we lost faith - but the paucity of the reasons for remaining Christian in the face of the problems with Christian belief.

Also, if evidence was important for convincing ex and non-Christians then a God could obviously convince them very easily. However, in response to confirmation candidates asking "why faith not evidence?" the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said "to ask for faith in the way that many people do is to ask for a prouder God than He who became our brother in the cradle and on the cross." As such I think pounding ancient history, desperately trying to find flaws in evolution and all the other behaviour of demanding evangelists are way off even the religious mark. I fail to see how Christians can be doing "God's work" by taking up the task of trying to convince us when the Christian God himself (or Allah, Krishna etc.) does not seem too concerned about doing this. Frequently we poor atheists watch in bewilderment as some Christians strenuously try to shore their God up, like abused wives making excuses for their negligent (e.g. the holocaust) and violent (e.g. hell) husbands, all the time convincing themselves that it is they, who are at fault in the relationship - unworthy sinners, estranged from God, deserving of unrelenting torture unless they accept the "damnable syllogism" of the atonement http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html#phil.

<< That is not the sort of faith which man can work up of himself, which results is the ubiquitous nominalism we see everywhere, but that which God authors Himself in someone's heart by the Word of God, spoken by Him into that heart. >>

Then why preach if God is the author who speaks to the heart? Are you arrogantly claiming you can open hearts that God cannot open himself?

<< In one sense I wish you success, in removing the nominals. I would much rather you were genuinely saved and came into a personal knowledge of Him. He is so wonderful I could not begin to describe it. >>

That's what Steve Hassan thought about the Reverend Moon.

Why have you judged other Christians as "nominals." Do you believe Jesus was wrong to say "judge not lest you be judged"? How do you "know" you are a real Christian and have not been sent by God to me so that I can "remove" *you* from the true flock? All other Christians are equally convinced that it is they who are the "true" Christians and it is the other "so-called" Christians who are not like them who have got it wrong.

<< And He is deeply offended by your calling Him a liar. >>

Then tell me how Crazy stuff from the bible can be harmonised. If not then, as Thomas Paine pointed out, it is actually those who hold the bible as the "word of God" who are calling God a liar, as clearly contradictory statements cannot be from a real god. Paine was a deist, but held that the bible is a travesty of the God he believed in.

So the irony is that it is inerrantists who make the Christian God out to be a liar. e.g. they believe both that Jesus told us to forgive those who trespass against us and "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee ... tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." [Matt. xviii, 15-17.]

Inerrantists also believe the following contradictory statements:

"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)

"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)

"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)

"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)

"the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

And Jesus said, "For judgment I am come into this world." (John 9:39)

"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)

I however do not believe that a real god can make contradictory statements, and so I do not believe that the bible is an inerrant work of a god. Likewise I do not find that my historical researches point to the Jesus of history being the Jesus of faith (see http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html). This does not mean I think Jesus is a "liar" rather I disagree that Jesus is who you think he is (was). Do you think Zeus is a liar or not the god the ancients thought he was?

<< He will deal with you on this matter and others when you meet Him; an even from which there is no escape. >>

Christian threats - it doesn't take long to see that yours is not a religion of love. Your god will hurt me, and I like an abused wife should believe that I deserve it.

"Love me or I'll hurt you."

That is the most disturbing aspect for me about Christianity - its

similarity to an abusive relationship. Some apologists expend enormous

amounts of energy attempting to convince others (and themselves) that the

God of their bible who orders baby massacre (1 Samuel 15:2-3) and

pronounces on damnation (Mark 16:16) is a divine, loving and just being.

"My husband hits me because I deserve it, he only does it because he loves

me and my behaviour is so poor. He does so much for me - I owe him

everything and would be nothing without his care." He is perceived as

having complete power whilst demonstrating both kindness and cruelty. But

it can't *really* be cruel - where would I go! We must deserve it. And so

God stood by during the holocaust because of a "higher purpose." It just

has to be so! When Mother Julian of Norwich had her "Revelations of Divine

Love", she asked during her 13th revelation why the origin of sin had not

been prevented (she remarks that she senselessly and stupidly fretted and

upset herself over it!) In her "revelation" Jesus says "sin is necessary,

but all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will

be well". This sort of non-answer is quite like the "we shall see that it

is right that people get tortured for ever when we have God's perspective"

answer that Christians have given me about hell justification. i.e. it is

dishonest and claims you understand something horrific that you really

don't understand. Even Julian of Norwich had Jesus say it 3 times to her,

as if it wouldn't be convincing just once from a deity - I suspect she

felt dissatisfied with this answer herself. Indeed she asks a similar

question shortly after and receives the same answer another 3 times. No

real explanation for His creatures in mental anguish from the Christian

god.

What exactly can a Christian know that the god they believe in has done to

deserve their love when the evidence from the bible, human atrocities and

terrible natural disasters of the world speak so loudly against a

benevolent deity? Just what should an abusive husband do to his wife

before she stops loving him, and what worldly negligence or biblical

cruelty would the Christian God have to commit before it became obvious

that Christianity is a set of confused beliefs constructed by humans and

built on a foundation of a very primitive war like god?

See http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/why/seek#stockholm

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/abuse.htm

http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/abuse.html

As for us "knowing that God is there" - doesn't this make a nonsense of Jesus' purported sacrifice? Imagine - that Jesus knew his divine status and that he was going to "sit at the right hand of the Father," as it says in the NT. If he knew his divine status that would have been a great strength to him in misfortune, just as Bill Gates' millions would be a strength to him if he lost a dollar. Do you believe Jesus did *not* know he was the son of God and was going to sit at the right hand of the Father after his crucifixion? Do you believe that Jesus might have thought earthly kingdoms are worth more than heavenly ones? If he valued the heavenly kingdom greater, then how could he have been "tempted" by the devil? So how exactly could any offer to Jesus have been a "temptation?" Why would a deity be tempted to give up all of eternity and the most exalted state of all for worldly kingdoms/bread etc? Didn't your god make the world anyway? Would Bill Gates be tempted to give up Microsoft by someone offering a CD containing a copy of windows 3.1?

How is a death, no matter how unpleasant (could have been worse than crucifixion - how about being hung, drawn and quartered, how about being in hell for all eternity) have been a big deal if Jesus knew he was God? Hadn't he just said that he is going to be in paradise ("that day") to one of the other crucified men? Do you think Jesus would have been in doubt of his divine status or his exalted state in heaven awaiting him? Did Jesus not know that he was going to be sitting at the right hand of the Father?

Was this death not the purpose of his coming and his saving death exactly what the whole of creation needed? How could he possibly have felt unwanted or unpurposeful, knowing the incredible importance of his death? Isn't a rejection and death exactly what he wanted? Everything was going according to plan. Jesus had been followed by disciples and was soon to be worshipped by hundreds of millions and to be the king of heaven. Do you not think that would have counteracted a few hours rejection - and rejection that was part of his divine plan at that!

Tell me how Jesus could possibly have been tempted by the devil given that Jesus is equal with God who created everything and was also the king of heaven, and how any earthly suffering could have meant more than a parking fine to Bill Gates given that Jesus knew his divine status, past heavenly eternity and future eternal glory?

How could God be tempted? How could God be a man with the consciousness that he was divine and perfect? That is an infinite source of strength that mere humans do not have. How could Christ have felt abandoned when he knew he was to be resurrected in 3 days time, go to the right hand of the Father, be worshipped by hundreds of millions and return in glory? How does that compare to the suffering of children at the hands of abusive parents, those who were slain by Moses' warriors under divine instructions and the children who your god held the coming of Herod's troops from? And so on.

BTW, why did you write to me?

You will have to read the links I give if you want to convince me of anything as otherwise you will not be addressing the responses I have already made to your points.

I'd be happy to debate you if you wish, but you might be advised to read my other feedback first to see what is likely to happen.

Best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity

From: Justin Hughes

To: Steve Locks

Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:03 AM

Subject: Re: Hello

Steve Locks,

Thank yor for your very long response to mine about your site. I would agree with much of what you say, but not for the same reasons.

I could not really engage in debate with you as that is not how God works. There are many who think, as you appear to do that 'Christianity' is an intellectually assembled religion, it isn't. There are umpteen people who are in 'Christianity' who do have such, but we do not. Christians know the Lord Jesus Himself, they do not just have an intellectual held set of beliefs and values, like the nominal Christians.

You are right of course in what you say about so many people who accuse others of being 'false Christians'. But you must not assume that all that calls itself 'Christian' is Christian. There are many reasons why this happens, the accusers are only babes in Christ, or have only intellectual religion, or have fallen, etc., but you must not blasphemously claim that the prayer of the Lord Jesus was not answered. I know people who are in all sorts of churches who are genuinely the Lord's, but stay in such things like the C of E. Don't ask me how or why they do it, but they do. The issue is nothing to do with what doctrine someone holds, in the first place, but whether they are filled with the Holy Spirit or not. There is instant fellowship between all who are geuinely saved no matter what church they attend. There is no fellowship possible between those who are saved and those who are not. Jesus' prayer was answered, and is effectual.

Your problem lies in that you are confusing nominal Christians with the genuine. The nominals outnumber the 'reals' by probably 12:1. By nominal I mean regular churchgoing professing Christian.

As I said, you may have some effect on churches but you will not have any effect on The Church, they are with Christ, know Him, and hear Him speak to them. You do, in the depths of your being, know that there is a God, and that it is all true. And you will believe openly one day, though probably not until you die, are separated from your body, and go to await Judgement Day before Christ. As I said, there are no unbelievers the other side of death's door.

I appreciate you are probably busy, so you do not have to answer this.

Yours, Justin Hughes.

From: Steve Locks

To: Justin Hughes

Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 5:13 PM

Subject: Re: Hello

Hello Justin,

Thanks for your email. I'd quite like to answer your email and continue our discussion.

<>

I was interested to hear that you largely agree with me. What precisely did you agree with, and how were your reasons for agreeing different?

Also I'm glad to see you have reasons for agreeing with much of what I say. Previously I was getting the idea that your beliefs were pretty much implanted in you by your god, but I see that you don't wholly think that - rather some of your views are reasoned out. I would like to discuss your reasons with you, since you have opened conversation with me I think you should answer my responses.

Generally though, in your reply I think you've misunderstood me. Maybe you didn't read my links? People who leave Christianity include those who were previously convinced that they, like you, had a vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. As I pointed out though, this relationship you feel so strongly is a doctrine that was invented by the German Pietist movement of the Eighteenth Century. Catholics feel strong emotions for the Virgin Mary, something many Protestants would balk at. The emotions felt are appropriate to the doctrines of one's sect. Moonies and Hare Krishnas feel strong emotions for their religious figure. So why should I consider your religious figure is any different?

<>

Why can I not equally claim "that is not how Allah works"? Why don't you just submit to Allah's will and praise Mohammed and recognise as the Angel Gabriel said, that Jesus was a prophet, not God in human form? Allah simply demands your submission, He does not regale you with intellectual arguments, that is not how He works.

So again, why should I see your religion as deserving of people's assent when other religions make the same claim? What did Krishna say in the quotes I gave you in my last email? Did he ask for your intellect or your heart?

<>

I asked why preach if God is the author who speaks to the heart? Are you arrogantly claiming you can open hearts that God cannot open himself? What is the point in you being a preacher and pastor? Are you not allowed to answer questions? Are you allowed to ask questions as a Christian? If not then does being a Christian mean committing intellectual suicide? If Christianity is coherent, then shouldn't it stand up to scrutiny?

<< You are right of course in what you say about so many people who accuse others of being 'false Christians'. But you must not assume that all that calls itself 'Christian' is Christian. >>

Isn't that calling some people who claim to be Christians "false." What is the difference?

The "you were not true Christians" claim. Given all I have said so far and the evidence available via my website, this really is clutching at non-existent straws. Why would God go to the trouble of incarnation and crucifixion only to allow Christians to find Christianity untenable, or give "spurious" experiences and "incorrect" interpretation to those who spend so many years trying to live the Christian life?

Jesus Christ has been invited as many a personal saviour by multitudes of ex-Christians, who once felt, as you probably do, that they had a vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. Christianity was once the centre of the universe for many of us. Lived it, thought it, felt it, preached it, discussed it, prayed privately and publicly, taken religious groups and been thanked for encouraging other Christians and helping them in their walk with Christ. Felt moved by religious experience and lost in numinous feeling of connection with God. Taken holy communion, partaken of agape's, retreats, missions and ordination classes. Written many books of Christian thoughts. I think it's fair to say we have sought and experienced.

How do you know that others have not had the correct experiences or that you have not had incorrect experiences but are not aware of it? How do you know that your experiences are of the "Holy Spirit?" How do you know that it is not Muslims, Buddhists or atheists who are having the "correct" mystical experiences? Do Moonies think they are in a cult or do they think they are having the correct experiences of the true Messiah? How do you know that others have not had the same experiences you have had (or better)? If you appeal to the bible, then why is the bible to be believed rather than another religious book? I have already given links to plentiful stories from ex-Christians with similar backgrounds and reported experiences to you. This is a ludicrous claim of yours given the wealth and diversity of experience of ex-Christians and the complete inability of their fellow Christians to tell that they were not having the "correct" experience whilst they were Christians, so putting the lie to Jesus claim that Christians can tell a tree by its fruit. Rather you *have* to believe we were not "true Christians" or otherwise your faith is in danger - if they could deconvert, then so could you. That is unthinkable "therefore" they could not have been having your experience. I have already had this debate at length here.

<< you must not blasphemously claim that the prayer of the Lord Jesus was not answered. >>

Then I take it I must disagree with the bible in order not to be "blasphemous." Note the following:

Luke 22:31 - 32

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:

So what happened after Jesus' prayer?

Matthew 26:69 - 70

69. Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

70 But he denied before [them] all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

So was Jesus' prayer answered or did Peter's faith fail?

<<The issue is nothing to do with what doctrine someone holds, in the first place, but whether they are filled with the Holy Spirit or not. >>

Like you I also held denomination etc. to be unimportant when I was a Christian.

<< There is no fellowship possible between those who are saved and those who are not. >>

You have pointed out a very important reason why people should not be Christians. Exactly what I said at Why I left Christianity "I had been taught that you can only love God if you love your neighbour. It is ironic that I found I could only love my neighbour if I didn't love God."

<< Jesus' prayer was answered, and is effectual. >>

Referring to his disciples etc. at John 17:15 Jesus prayed: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them out of evil."

So where the disciples "kept out of evil" or do Christians believe that they met grizzly deaths?

Jesus also said Seek and ye shall find.

<< Your problem lies in that you are confusing nominal Christians with the genuine. >>

I don't have a problem. I see Christians like you tell me that others are false. I also see Christians like you deconvert, despite previous complete conviction that they were having a "dynamic relationship with the living Christ." I gave you the references to see this yourself last time. All Christian types claim that it is their type who is the genuine variety. Why should I believe you rather than the others who contradict you? By next week I will have a few more emails from different kinds of Christians telling me "no, no - it is *my* brand of Christianity that is correct - the *others* have got it wrong." Rather than just assert that you are right and others are wrong, or quote from the bible when I can quote from the Koran, give me some reasons why you are right, otherwise you are making your religion look ridiculous. Make sure you read http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/mcfall/1.html

<< The nominals outnumber the 'reals' by probably 12:1. >>

Again, if someone is not 'real' then aren't you saying they are false and hence thwarting Jesus prayer? Also again, how do you arrive at your statistics?

<< As I said, you may have some effect on churches but you will not have any effect on The Church, they are with Christ, know Him, and hear Him speak to them. >>

Another mere assertion. However, it's not me who's deconverting people, rather Christians tend to discover Christianity is false through their own discoveries. Usually it is a very lonely road out until people discover so many have gone before them. If the churches are safe, why did the Archbishop of Canterbury say that Christianity would be a dead religion in the UK within a generation? How is 1% of Brits a "safe" number? Isn't Christian belief still on the decline? Do you know that the worlds fastest growing religion is Islam? How about a test. Write down all the Christians you know who are "real" Christians by your definition. Keep that list in a safe place. Ten years later check your list to see how many are no longer Christians.

<< You do, in the depths of your being, know that there is a God, and that it is all true. >>

These are just assertions to convince yourself. Are you at all impressed if I write "You do, in the depths of your being, know that Allah is God, and that the Koran is all true"? Does that sound ridiculous? So why should I feel your religion in my depths and not someone else's? Actually, precisely because you do not want to debate me I think that "You do, in the depths of your being, know that Christianity is a mistake, and that it will all unravel if critically examined. " If I am wrong about your secret fears, then have the courage to read the links I give and take up my challenge and have an open ended discussion with me. Do you feel at all uncomfortable about reading my links? How can that be if Christianity is coherent and your faith is secure? If it is a fact that Christianity is a false religion, would you want to be a Christian?

<< And you will believe openly one day, though probably not until you die, are separated from your body, and go to await Judgement Day before Christ. As I said, there are no unbelievers the other side of death's door. >>

Is this really Christianity - assertions and threats of torture? Why have you repeated this assertion when I have already shown it is special pleading? From "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert H. Thouless:- "There is a common fault in argument arising from the influence of prejudice which may be employed deliberately as a dishonest trick but which is more commonly used unwittingly by a speaker who is mislead by his prejudices. This is the use in one context of an argument which would not be admitted in another context where it would lead to the opposite conclusion. This is special pleading." Many Christian claims are special pleading and therefore at fault. To claim something for Christianity (e.g. the veridical nature of mystical experience) that you would not accept for another religion (e.g. the very different mystical experience of Buddhists and Daoists demonstrating their veracity rather than Christianity's) is a fallacious argument. Therefore such arguments carry no weight.

And as I said:

"I hope you won't find it unjust when after death you find yourself and all

those you helped to Christ are roasting in Allah's hell. He made you and

can do what he wants with you, so don't complain! Also do not presume that

you can judge Allah, the Koran explains that you must submit to his will."

Krishna made us, so by failing to come to him, you and I will rightfully

and justly be tortured forever.

Worse still you are gambling your whole life on what I think is a mistaken view of the world

1 Cor 15:19 "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of men the most miserable."

<>

I think you just want to have the last word. I'm afraid that won't do. You wrote to tell me something, and so you should respond to my responses. Either that or you must believe the following verses are false:

1 Peter 3:15 "... be ready always to give an answer to every man that

asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Critically examine everything: hold on to the good."

So, you exhort me to believe that fideism is the correct approach. Why then should it be faith in the *Christian* god, and not another god?

<< All human beings instinctively know that there is a God, and they all fear death. >>

If you really know there is a god and you are going to heaven then why do you fear death? (You said "all" humans fear death). What is your response to my quote?

*******Begin quote********

In considering the search for evidence of the existence of God it is as

difficult as it is necessary for those of us who have been raised in

theist or post-theist societies to free ourselves from the prejudices of

such upbringings. I confess that I myself really began to do this only in

consequence of visiting the institute of Foreign Philosophy in Peking

University, Beijing.

There I was able to enjoy much philosophical talk with my graduate student

'minder'. He was of course acquainted with the concept of the theist God.

But he had met it only as today any of us might happen to come upon the

notions of Aphrodite or Poseidon. He had never had any occasion to

confront it as what William James called a 'live option' - any more than,

for any of our contemporaries anywhere, belief in the real existence of

the Olympians constitutes such an option.

So he did not know whether to be more amused or more indignant when he

first learnt from Descartes that our Maker has imprinted upon every human

soul - as his trademark, as it were - the (authentic) idea of God, a

concept that supposedly is too splendid to have been shaped by merely

human agency, and from which it is allegedly possible immediately to infer

the existence of the corresponding object God. For were not his

compatriots also supposed to be God's creatures; and, if so, how had God

failed to imprint his trademark upon their souls?

******End quote********

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/psychology/commentry_wgwga.html

Best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity

From: Justin Hughes

To: Steve Locks

Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 2:55 PM

Subject: Re: Hello

Steve,

If that is not the longest e-mail I have ever received it must be on a par with it. Where do you find the time?! I assume you are cutting and pasting from previous letters to people. I will try and answer you.

I acknowledge freely that there are numerous people who have dearly and sincerely held belief systems who would claim as you say. I know that the Muslim religion's adherents do just that. There is however one difference.

Can I just ask you one question, because, having given this some thought, I think you cannot have had this. Have you heard 'That Voice'? Have you heard Him speak to you personally? I have, and so have all genuine Christians. In fact on one occaision He told me off for being critical, directly, while I was sat in a meeting. Do you know what I as speaking about? Do you remember a time when 'That Voice' melted your heart, and took away your doubts and fears, and stopped the words in your mouth, and humbled you? If not you never were a real Christian, you were just in Christianity, like the vast majority of professing Christians. That is you had a learned set of rules and beliefs.

All mere religion has that in common, but all real Christians do actually know Christ, praise God! They do not just have a religion about Him, and notionally know Him.

I have been engaging on the BBC messageboards, and have come across two folks just like you. One used to be a preacher indeed, saw miracles happen at his hands. He is now a pagan, following Satan's lies, and he's happy. The other definitely heard Him speak to her once. But she fell away for various reasons and is a pagan too.

There are many people like it, and you know several it seems. God says that it would be like that did He not. He said that the end would not come unless there be a great falling away first. He said that not all who called on His name and did miracles etc., were His, Mt.7:21-23. The fact that there are several people in the category you mention is neither here nor there. In fact I would say that, whilst I am sad for you, and sorry for your end, which did not need to be as it will be, that I am somewhat encouraged, as Jesus is not far away.

As for your point about being able to love your neighbour, you are right to some degree, in an oblique way. This is not grounds for not being a Christian as you suggest, as seperation from the world is the norm for us. What is the point of not being a Christian and being in seperation from God? I want Him. I am not interested in church, and the world per se. But I do love Him, and I will serve and follow Him whatever the price. I do love my neighbour, and help them out. They do not always want me to, but I do it. I am surprised you did not.

Peter's faith did not fail. He was still there at Pentecost was he not. Sure it took a beating when he found that he could not stand in the flesh for Jesus, but look at the man post new birth at Pentecost! Such things are only contradictions to those who do not know the Lord, and do not have the Spirit of Truth, therefore.

Contrary to your views, I do not spend any time telling others they are wrong. I leave that to those religious folks who, as they only have book learned/taught religion need to think that they have all the correct understanding there is. I simply follow Him who is the Truth, and I do not know everything. Many like to fight over doctrinal points, I do not bother.

The whole reason why you, and those you know are where you are is that you never heard Jesus speak to you directly, and you never really knew Him. You were, I am sure, sincere and diligent in religion, but you never knew Him, but you can. He is waiting for you to stop your rebellion and seek Him out; Him Himself, until you find Him.

Yours, Justin

From: Steve Locks

To: Justin Hughes

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:45 PM

Subject: Re: Hello

Hello Justin,

Thanks for writing back, although I was disappointed to see that you answered very little of what I asked. But that is normal, as Christians cannot answer these questions, and so they shirk them. These sort of conversations help to show both ex-Christians and those with questions about Christianity that Christianity is big on assertions and weak on answering questions that matter to people. If you take the time to read some of the deconversion stories via my site, you will see that it is frequently such shirking of troubling questions by senior figures in a person's church that is a significant factor on their road out of Christianity. So you should be aware that shirking questions is anti-evangelical and you will be helping thinking people to see their way out of Christianity. If you don't believe me, then read some of the stories via my site.

<< If that is not the longest e-mail I have ever received it must be on a par with it. Where do you find the time?! >>

I don't have the time and it is a struggle to keep up with my emails. However I think it is important to examine weighty claims people make and the demands that they make of us. So I respond to a representative few carefully, but to answer everyone in depth is impossible. Even so there is much I have to put on hold whilst I write these emails. As such I think that you should have the decency to respond to my responses. You wrote to me to tell me something, I raised objections which I believe are legitimate and very damaging to Christianity and then you have ignored virtually all my responses. That is time-wasting, and I would appreciate it if you took the time to actually consider what I write back and tell me what you honestly think. You don't have to write back straight away, in fact I would much rather you did not. Conversations where both take the time to consider each other's points and give measured responses are much more interesting. So far all you have given me are repeated assertions that any other religionist from another religion could make about their religious life. If you want to have anything other than a negative impact then you will have to engage with me properly and do what the bible says:-

1 Peter 3:15 "... be ready always to give an answer to every man that

asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Critically examine everything: hold on to the good."

So engage with me in critical examination and answer my questions. Please go back through my emails and answer the objections I have so far given. If you refuse to do this then I can only conclude that you think the above verses are false and hence you are not a real Christian.

<>

A bit, but I try to not do it too much as it makes conversations too impersonal.

<>

Good, then please be true to your promise and go through my emails again carefully and actually respond to my points this time. Take as long as you need. Never respond the same day!

<< I acknowledge freely that there are numerous people who have dearly and sincerely held belief systems who would claim as you say. I know that the Muslim religion's adherents do just that. There is however one difference. >>

And that difference is as you say...

<< Have you heard 'That Voice'? >>

As I said, all types leave Christianity, and you shoot yourself in the foot later by admitting that even you know at least one person who "definitely heard Him speak to her once. But she fell away for various reasons.."

So can you see that I was right now? It even appears that you have already done the experiment I asked you to do in my last email and have proved me right! If the difference between a "true Christian" and a "false Christian" is that the "true" ones "hear That Voice" then even by your own admission such people can conclude that they were mistaken after all. I could show you hundreds more who were previously like you and yet concluded Christianity is a mistake. What is more you still have not addressed the point I made about special pleading. Have you heard the voice of Allah?

So, answer this. If a Hare Krishna wrote an email to you and told you that you have never known the real Lord (Krishna) because you have not attained "Krishna Consciousness" (have you attained "That Consciousness?") and you secretly know in your heart that Krishna is the Lord and nobody who dies is in any doubt of that, then what would you think? Would you be the least impressed? What if you once were a member of the Hare Krishna's and knew hundreds of other former members including those who attained Krishna consciousness and were recognised as such by their Hare Krishna peers. And yet these people through study and reflection subsequently came to the conclusion that they were mistaking human feelings for divine ones and what is more discovered that the historical background to their faith was riddled with holes, their doctrines were quite morally abhorrent when critically examined and a far better spiritual life and mental health was found when they left their cult, despite their complete conviction of Krishna's divine status and presence in their hearts whilst they were Hare Krisnhas.

So, what do you think a Hare Krishna would look like to these people if he merely repeatedly asserted to them that they had never known "true Krishna Consciousness" and that they were going to be judged by Krishna, which they secretly knew etc.? Don't you think it would look pretty empty and a sad remembrance of the confused ignorance that they once were cocksure of too? Indeed, no Christian knows real humility like an ex-Christian.

<< ...That is you had a learned set of rules and beliefs. >>

Did you come to your beliefs without being told about Christianity by other Christians, or did you learn beliefs from other people? Why are you so convinced that you are so unlike those who become ex-Christians and are still repeating these assertions when I have already told you that ex-Christians come from all ranges of experiences including those who previously claimed your experiences? Did you look into the resources I gave you? Christians tend to focus on me personally - to try and find some perceived weakness, and so miss the larger picture of the broad range of ex-Christians who are out there. I'm afraid that contrary to your opinion I did feel I heard and knew God in a very deep way. Deeper than deep - I've already told you that. Even if I hadn't, there are plenty of Christians who purport your experience, and plenty of people from other religions etc. who claim experiences that you should be having.

So, as I asked repeatedly, why is *your experience* of *your god* the correct one? Don't Moonies, Muslims, Hindus, etc. etc. all make the same claim?

Why did you not answer my point about special pleading? Answer it now - how do you know that it is your experience that is the correct one and not a Muslim's, atheist's etc.?

Tell me where the Christians were exhorting us to invite Jesus into our hearts as our personal saviour before the German Pietist movement.

<< God says that it would be like that did He not. >>

No he didn't. Rather there are verses in the bible that you have interpreted in that way. Others claim that God said different things in the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita etc. So why is your holy book the one to believe in? You are begging the question in assuming that what is in the Bible comes from a god.

Would you believe the following?

I am God.

How do you know?

Because I said so in verse 1 and God wouldn't lie.

That is basically what you are claiming for your bible. The bible claims it is the word of God - but why should anyone believe that? It is just because they are repeatedly told so by others that they eventually swallow it and start having experiences to suit. Just as followers of

Shabbetai Zevi wandered through the streets describing visions in which they had seen Shabbetai seated upon a throne.

<< He said that the end would not come unless there be a great falling away first. >>

The Buddha also predicted a time when Buddhism would diminish. So is he right? Mohammed prophesied a great turning to Islam, and that is happening, so is he right?

The Great Prophecy

Quran 048:028 He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all other religions. GOD suffices as a witness.

This is coming to pass as Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. http://204.202.137.112/sections/world/islam/islam.html So do you see this as evidence for Islam? If not then why do you hold Jesus purported prophesy as worth anything?

Another reason for a great falling away is that Christianity is false and as people become more educated they come to realise this. You didn't answer before, and since you told me that you will try to answer me, please do so now. If Christianity is not true, would you like to know that? If you are mistaking the human and natural for the divine and supernatural, then would you like to continue believing in a false supernatural view? If life and spirituality was more honest, true and generous outside of Christianity, and Jesus did not rise from a tomb, then would you want to know?

<< He said that not all who called on His name and did miracles etc., were His, Mt.7:21-23. >>

So was he lying then when he said "Knock and the Door shall be opened" Seek and ye shall find.?

And of course this one:-

"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you"--John 16:23"

How we can testify to pouring over books of apologetics and asking in prayer for guidance as our faith was crumbling! It is a gut-wrenching discovery that Christianity is untenable. Current Christians have enormous difficulty understanding this. Most people become ex-Christians because their closer examination of Christian claims show supernatural Christianity to be unwarranted. How many Christians do you think have asked for faith in the spirit of John 16:23 and yet after a long struggle have concluded that Christianity is false? Given this, Jesus promises are patently false.

So, on receiving this email, ask the Father in Jesus name that I may become a "true Christian" immediately. When you write back find out if I did and if I didn't you'll know that Jesus was not telling the truth and hence is not divine. Of course, you won't do this because you do not have faith that God would answer your prayer said in Jesus name. Instead you will ignore this or make up a rationalisation to explain why you cannot do this or why it won't work. What you will not do is take Jesus on his word. If you don't take Jesus on his word, then why should anyone think you are a "true Christian?" Why, indeed, should you believe yourself to be a "true Christian?"

You previously exhorted me to believe that people will justly go to hell. It seems very ironic to me that the cruel biblical passages are so vigorously admired by some evangelical Christians whilst it is also scriptural for Christians to sell all they have to the poor or else they are lacking something according to Luke 18:22. "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." Only a minuscule proportion of Christians actually take this important advice. Personally it didn't even occur to me when I was a Christian, but now I have brought it to your attention do you really believe God so approves of this that he told us in human form that we should sell *all* to obtain riches in heaven? If so, then why are you not doing it? I wonder if this indicates that there is always some doubt in most Christians about Christianity. Something that hints that it doesn't really ring true with reality. So few who claim to be "true Christians" take Jesus seriously enough to give all their money away.

<< The fact that there are several people in the category you mention is neither here nor there. >>

It is very relevant. As explained above, the crux of your argument seems to be "have you (or others) had such-a-such experience." Since the answer is yes (and even you know of some such person), then the relevance of your experience for faith (let alone the certain knowledge) that Christianity is true falls completely flat.

<< In fact I would say that, whilst I am sad for you, and sorry for your end, >>

Appalling, belief in hell. I believe the holocaust is a fact. I also believe it is an insult to Jews to say that they deserved their fate, just as it is a dreadful insult to any human being to say that hell is their just deserts. Why can you not see that this is the same category? If I said I believe the holocaust happened and that the Jews deserved what they got, would you be alarmed at my statement, or think I believe a fact? Just think about what you are justifying for billions of humans. How the holocaust pales into insignificance compared to the moral horror of what you are standing up for.

<< which did not need to be as it will be, that I am somewhat encouraged, as Jesus is not far away. >>

What have you found encouraging in our discourse? How do you know that "Jesus is not far away" and what do you mean by that?

<< As for your point about being able to love your neighbour, you are right to some degree, in an oblique way. >>

Could you clarify the "oblique way" you are referring to?

<< This is not grounds for not being a Christian as you suggest, as seperation from the world is the norm for us. >>

That separation is exactly why someone should not be a Christian on moral grounds alone. The very heart of the Christian message is to tell you that there is something fundamentally wrong with humanity and the world. It is difficult to truly embrace life when it is seen as spiritually broken in some way, especially when so many of us are maddeningly hard to turn into Christians. I think that Christianity runs against the world and I have noticed the frequency with which ex-Christians report their surprise at the joy of life they discover when they leave Christianity, no matter how good they thought Christianity, their "relationship with Jesus" etc. was whilst Christian. So I'm afraid that Christianity sets you apart from those you perceive to be "of the world." Hence it is impossible to properly love others. This is so extreme that you feel comfortable with the idea of your fellow man "justly" roasting in hell whilst you bask in the beatific vision. How many billions roasting for eternity are you going to approve? Auschwitz was as nothing compared to that. Hell-believing Christianity is a moral monstrosity.

<< What is the point of not being a Christian and being in seperation from God? >>

There is no god to be separated from. What is the point of not being a Moonie and being separated from the Reverend Moon? What about not being a Hindu and being separated from Krishna? When will you answer your special pleading!

The point of not being a Christian is connection with the world rather than running against it, ability to spiritually emphasise with your fellow man, rather than seeing him as someone walking in darkness. Most of all it is to no longer living an illusion. I am no more "separated from God" than you are. Both you and I are as "separated from God" in the same way that we are "separated from Zeus." If someone believed in Zeus then it would help them to realise that there is no Zeus, never has been and never will be, and they would be much better attuned to the world, other people and themselves, if they critically examined why they believed in Zeus, what their "relationship with Zeus" really was and saw why their religion was a mistaken view of the world.

As I said at Why I left Christianity

"The greatest benefit I discovered was the disappearance of a spiritual barrier for me between people. When I had strong religion, my feeling was that if someone did not know God, then they where "not yet fully human" (though I did the best to not think this, it was there). A "non-Christian" was "spiritually misguided" and it was impossible to properly relate to or feel for such a person. I was in a "spiritually superior state". Now I see Christians just as people but with a mistaken belief, just like I may disagree with someone's politics, in that it doesn't mean I am in a different relationship to God (or Jesus) than them! There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and thinking your relationship with a deity is different. I now see us all as vulnerable human beings full of hopes and fears and psychological tangle. The relief from religious problems and the fresh perception of a world I had hardly seen before, and the real ability to accept people deep down has made me very happy. For me there came a feeling of all people and nature being in the same boat together, a feeling deep down of "brotherliness" and most of all a sense of complete understanding and acceptance of life. From all this came great compassion for our messy human situation and remarkable connection with a world that I finally felt I understood. None of this is what I had expected to find and I was completely shocked to find so much spiritual love outside of religion. (Karen Armstrong points out that nontheistic Buddhists describe belief in God as "unskilful," as it can actually harm the spiritual life of a person). "

All this was a discovery, and nothing that I had expected or even thought of before I found Christianity to be untenable.

A Muslim would ask you what is the point of Christianity. As it says at Former Christian Priests and Missionaries who have Embraced Islam "I knew why Muslims are the hardest people in the world to convert to Christianity. Why? Because there is nothing to offer them!! In Islam there is a relationship with Allah, forgiveness of sins, salvation and promise of Eternal Life." ... "I also like very much the rule of forgiveness in Islam and the direct relationship between God and His servants."

<>

It is a manufactured relationship. What is your answer to the Chinese student? If you want to convince me of anything you have to answer my questions.

<>

Just like Steve Hassan said about the Reverend Moon before he was deprogrammed.

<>

I did love my neighbour too, which is one of the reasons I wondered what was wrong with Christianity, as it was a force for attempting to thwart that love. However I did not let it - I saw something was up and was too curious and desiring of a deeper relationship with others. You however are content to be spiritually divided from those "in the world" even to the extent of approving of their eternal damnation. Maybe you too will one day find out how the love that Christians attempt to have for their neighbour is actually a travesty of what we really can have and give. It depends on how much you care about being honest to yourself and face up to the kinds of questions I'm asking.

<< Peter's faith did not fail. He was still there at Pentecost was he not. >>

It did fail. Jesus prayed that it wouldn't, then it did. Whatever the final outcome (all just according to the bible) would you not expect Jesus' prayer to work straight away? Do you really think that Jesus' prayer would fail at all?

<< Sure it took a beating when he found that he could not stand in the flesh for Jesus >>

So you agree with me that his faith failed after Jesus prayed that it would not.

<< but look at the man post new birth at Pentecost! >>

All you have for this is the NT which is full of holes. The Jerusalem church was very different from the church that prevailed with Paul's view. It seems that the "apostles" held very different views than you do about Jesus. I have written about this at length on my debate on the resurrection. I doubt you will read it, as from your comments it looks like you are avoiding my links. That is why I have been pasting the little I have - it is the only way to get you to read what I have already written. Also see Jesus before Christ and The Real Jesus.

<< Such things are only contradictions to those who do not know the Lord, and do not have the Spirit of Truth, therefore. >>

How much credence would you give a Muslim who said that the contradictions in the Koran are only contradictions to those who do not know Allah, and do not have the Spirit of Truth, therefore?

If the bible was a work of bronze age humans, how different do you think it would look from the cruel and contradictory collection that it actually contains?

"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)

"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

And Jesus said, "For judgment I am come into this world." (John 9:39)

"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)

"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!

A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)

Is this the word of the loving and just God of the universe or the writings of bronze age warriors?

Your god (or bronze age warriors):

Deuteronomy 15:17 "Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it

through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever.

And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise."

versus

The UN council Declaration of Human Rights:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment."

<< Contrary to your views, I do not spend any time telling others they are wrong. I leave that to those religious folks who, as they only have book learned/taught religion need to think that they have all the correct understanding there is. I simply follow Him who is the Truth, and I do not know everything. Many like to fight over doctrinal points, I do not bother. >>

There is a good chance your religion would fall apart if you did bother. It is common for deconversion to happen in the seminary/theological college. So ignorance is safer.

Few Christians take Christianity so seriously that they are willing to get

to the heart of it. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Critically examine everything:

hold on to the good." However for the noble few who do take their beliefs

so seriously that they think they can survive scrutiny, as can be seen from

my site, this leads them to discovering how wrong they were and they

often become ex-Christians. It is such a common story that a

serious Christian decides to get to the bottom of their apologetic

arguments in order to refute critics but finds it can't be done and slowly

come to realise that Christianity is untenable. So to remain a Christian

you will have to stay "general" and vague with your apologetics - never

pursue my questions to the end, rather refer me to somewhere else. You

will have faith that someone can answer me but like every other Christian

it will not be you! Indeed no Christian can.

Consider this from the German Theologian Gerd Lüdemann :

"I see myself as being in the tradition of this school and practice a strictly historical exegesis of the New Testament in the framework of the religions of the Hellenistic period. My monographs on Simon Magus,⁹ the chronology of Paul,¹⁰ and anti-Paulinism in early Christianity,¹¹ and a commentary on the historical value of the Acts of the Apostles,¹² are evidence of this and have brought me international recognition. But in the course of my investigation of the resurrection of Jesus,¹³ of the heretics in early Christianity,¹⁴ of the unholy in Holy Scripture,¹⁵ of the virgin birth¹⁶ and finally, in the present book, of the many words and actions of Jesus which have been put into his mouth or attributed to him only at a later stage, I have come to the following conclusion. My previous faith, related to the biblical message, has become impossible, because its points of reference, above all the resurrection of Jesus, have proved invalid and because the person of Jesus himself is insufficient as a foundation of faith once most of the New Testament statements about him have proved to be later interpretations by the community. Jesus deceived himself in expecting the kingdom of God. Instead, the church came; it recklessly changed the message of Jesus and in numerous cases turned it against the mother religion of Judaism. "

<< The whole reason why you, and those you know are where you are is that you never heard Jesus speak to you directly, and you never really knew Him. You were, I am sure, sincere and diligent in religion, but you never knew Him, but you can. He is waiting for you to stop your rebellion and seek Him out; Him Himself, until you find Him. >>

How many times are you going to make the same refuted assertion? You yourself said, that you know at least one person who "definitely heard Him speak to her once. But she fell away for various reasons.." So even you have refuted yourself, and I am painfully aware of so many other examples and even gave you the URLs to check up on this. So you are completely wrong in your claim. Now are you going to stop your rebellion against Allah and submit to his will? Just yesterday I got another email from a Muslim exhorting me in the same way you do. As I said before, the most common reason for deconversion appears to be that through research and thinking, many Christians come to honestly believe supernatural Christianity is untenable. This is seldom confronted as possibly being the real reason by Christians. Christians do not believe Christianity is untenable and many have a hard time accepting that anyone who has really experienced Jesus/God can abandon their faith ("it could never happen to me"). Therefore our problem with it "must have been" due to a bad experience etc. or that we were never "true Christians" in the first place (just as ex-Muslims are accused of never having been "real Muslims" http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm). If we have really all been unable to find the "real thing" then it conflicts with Jesus' purported claim that those who seek will find. So instead ex-Christians get diagnosed all kinds of spurious flaws. However, it is not because the churches are corrupt, wishy-washy, we missed a certain book recommendation/website, were sucked into a "false Christianity" or anything else, but rather that honest thought into religious beliefs often leads people out of that belief much to their surprise and indeed frequently shock. Our Christian backgrounds are too diverse and too educated for it to be likely that there is an apologetic or experience we have missed.

Examine your assertions that we are "rebelling" against the Christian God. I don't think you've appreciated that we had views and experiences like yours and the whole of the rest of the Christian spectrum, and our researches demolished those views! Hence it is not fair to appear to lay some sort of moral blame on us and write that we are "rebelling" as if we had decided to try a new philosophy or something. Rather the evidence against Christianity is what causes our Christian view to be demolished. Some go quietly, others go kicking and screaming, but it is grossly misrepresentative to imply that in anyway we have chosen or decided to try apostasy. Loosing faith is something that happens to a person, and not a deliberate "choice" despite what Christians are frequently told at church. Unfortunately for Christians they often have to believe that we are deliberately choosing unbelief. If not then it makes the justice of hell look dubious, and heaven rather disturbing. Therefore it "must be" our fault for so "radically and wilfully" changing our views.

That's it for now.

Here's some incentive for you to sit down and carefully answer all my replies to your statements.

If you go through my emails and take your time to give me a considered reply to every response I have made, then I will with an open heart and mind carefully recite any prayer you care to write at the end of your full reply email. You have until the end of 2002 to write me such a reply (if you need longer, then let me know before the end of 2002). If you either write back straight away (i.e. the next day or two) or take longer than the end of the year (or an extension), or even worse merely repeat the same assertions about what you believe I and no other ex-Christian could not have experienced, despite all I have told you, then I will blaspheme the Holy Spirit. I am not asking for a scholarly response, merely a considered and careful response as best you can to all the points I have made in response to you. Remember you wrote to me first, so you should stand up for the statements you make, or else risk making Christianity look weak indeed in the eyes of the curious (much of the material from my email conversations eventually gets incorporated into my website).

Thanks for your time, and I hope you will be willing to engage with me. If "true Christians" are as rare as you say, and you are one of them, then you may be a rare chance for me to really know where I've gone wrong if indeed I have. Likewise if you are wrong, I hope you would have the integrity to want to know that. If you want me to take you seriously, then you will have to take me seriously too.

Best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity

From: Justin Hughes

To: Steve Locks

Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 5:18 PM

Subject: Your mega e-mail

Steve,

You have exceeded yourself again. I printed off your message so that I could more easily read it, and make notes. It is ten pages long! Boy you really are against Jesus aren't you! Well I am sorry Christendom hurt you so badly that you feel you need to spend so much time attacking the gospel. I will answer your points such as I can to an outsider who cannot understand spiritual things.

I did answer your points last time, I told you that the reason why you fell away from Christendom as you never knew Christ. You never heard Him speak to you, and you never had a relationship with Him, you only had, as the majority do, religion about Him. That is the answer to all your questions. If you knew Him you would not be where you are. It is not a case of being a real Christian or not. This is nothing to do with how much doctrine you know and believe, but who you have an actual relationship with.

The gospel is very simple. Man lost His relationship with God through sin, Christ came to deal with sin in man so that he may be restored into fellowship with God. Jesus did not come to start a religion.

I have seen your 'Why I left Christianity' article. It proves my point. You left Christianity, and for that I am thankful indeed, but you did not leave Christ as you never knew Him in the first place. You are not an ex-Christian, you are an ex-churchman. I do not have any fears for you such as I would have for someone who left Christ, and signed their own death warrant. You never knew Christ, only about Him. Sure, it sounds cheap to say that, and indeed pagans do say that as well of those who leave pagan religion, but in this case it is real.

Seeing as you say I did not answer your questions, I should point out that you did not answer mine. I asked you if you had heard 'That Voice', if you knew Him and walked with Jesus Himself, yourself. You did not answer, and I know that the answer to that is 'no'. There is no mention on your site that you ever heard Him or knew Him, you just adopted what you thought was 'Christianity', but it was only church religion about Christ. I know 'That Voice', and there is no mistaking it when you hear it. On one occasion indeed He rebuked me. When He does that it stops your nonsense let me tell you!

I do not shirk the answering of questions, I did answer you completely by pointing out the cause of your problem. If you put the cause right all your questions would evaporate.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not an intellectually assembled belief system. It cannot be understood by mere intellect, reason, debate, theology, etc. If I just use a lose analogy; I could tell you all about my mother, and you could believe my testimony or deny it. Let's say you believed me and held a strong belief in the existence of my mother. Perhaps I produced some letters written by her for you to see, and you firmly believed these to be the 'word' of my mother. You could say that you had strong faith in my mother. Then one day some shock comes along and your faith is shaken. The person attacking you for faith in my mother says to you, "O, no one believes that any more. That is just myth, and it is all a creation of Justin's overactive mind." You would be knocked down, but I would not. What you needed was to know my mother for yourself. You would not then be so knocked down.

That is the difference. I know Jesus Christ, and He lives in me by His Spirit. I know His voice, and I have glimpsed Him spiritually. You never did.

Your point about the example I gave you; the woman involved did hear Him speak to her once but she never established that relationship in which she heard Him regularly, but was diverted into 'church', i.e. corporate religion, and when push came to shove she could not stand. What I said does not prove your point, though it is quite possible for someone to fall away after they are saved, (the parable of the seed and sower). We must be tried, and some do not stand the test.

I would say your point about true humility does not stand, as it is not humility at all but desolation, that that in which they had invested so much proved false, their false religion of 'Krishna', and your false religion of 'Christianity' (without Christ).

I did not come to my beliefs by being drilled to a set of rules. Like all Christians I came to Christ the author of the Bible, (through men), and then to the Word of God. In knowing the Author of the Book I could see what the Book was. You came to a belief system which you were taught, and no doubt sincerely believed, but you still missed the gospel, and you never were filled with Spirit.

The reason why all Christians have the genuine thing is because it works, if I can put it like that. The power of sin is broken in their lives, and they are brought into living communion with Christ, and God the Father. They do not have to sin any more, but can do so if they choose. I know people who have been miraculously healed, and some that I have prayed for have too.

The reception of Christ into the heart is all through the Scripture, never mind any pietist movement.

How do Christians know that God, Jehovah, is the real one? They know Him, and He has saved them from the power of sin and death. That is not invalidated just because some go back to sin.

Muhammed was taught some of the Bible by RC missionaries, that is where he got his jumbled idea of what Scripture says.

Christ did rise from the tomb, I know Him.

I have seen and experienced supernatural Christianity, and you will not by mere intellect be able to overthrow that.

I could go on, but I am very tired due to being at Heathrow at 6.30 this morning.

All I can say to you is that you will never come to understand the things of God until you are prepared to leave your insulting God by not believing Him and come to Him, humbly. Salvation is 'by grace, through faith, and that not of yourself it is the gift of God.' Jesus said, "No man can come to me except my Father draw them." I have been drawn by His grace, and so must you be. There is no point continuing to converse as you will not get me to leave my Lord, and I could not convince you intellectually of your folly as normal spiritual Christianity is not intellectual but by faith, which is authored in us when God speaks to us. Until that happens to you you cannot see or understand spiritual things, and you will fail, both in your purpose of destroying the gospel, and of saving your own life from what follows after your death.

I leave you to your path. You will believe post your death, either because you were properly saved you died, or you are in Hell. There are no unbelievers the other side of death's door. When you know Jesus (Jn.17:3) you will understand.

Yours, Justin

From: Steve Locks

To: Justin Hughes

Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:13 PM

Subject: Re: Your mega e-mail

Hello Justin,

I have been busy with work, but would like to continue our discussion now, since you make some very important claims.

You have claimed that you have addressed the problems I have raised by stating that I am missing "That voice." Once that is heard all will be clear, so you claim.

How does that answer my question - i.e. how do you know that your "certain spiritual insight" is the correct one, when people of other religions make exactly the same claim for their "certain religious insight"? What's more, this is an "insight" that conflicts with yours.

As I said, all religious experience feels absolutely authoritative (veridical). That is one of the hallmarks of religious experience whether one has Christian religious experience, heretical Christian experience or religious experience of another religion, or even secular spiritual experience. It all feels absolutely authoritative. Since they disagree, mere feelings of certainty that ones own experience points to reality are of no use. They all point with feelings of absolute certainty to different understandings! Since the conclusions of religious experience (e.g. Jesus/Krishna/Allah is God etc.) are mutually incompatible, then religious experience is proved to be an unreliable indicator of supernatural truth. That is the main question I think you really have avoided. Is the reason you are not confronting it is because it makes you nervous? To confront it would make that which gives you a feeling of absolute certainty look uncertain after all. However, there is no reason to be so afraid - uncertainty is an underrated state of mind and a pathway to discovery.

One irony of your question "where do you find the time" is that one of the things I have on the back burner is an attempt to describe the searing religious experiences that we had as Christians and continue to have as ex-Christians. Contrary to your opinion, as I mention again later, I believe I did have your experience at the very least - indeed, judging from the way you have described your experience and how you see your god, a far greater and more numinous and constant experience than yourself. I have been and still am, almost "plagued" by what is commonly described as religious experience. For that reason I have spent some effort in attempting to understand these experiences both in myself and others and have learnt a lot from reading up on comparative religion and the psychology of religious experiences.

As you may know it is very difficult (if not impossible) to put the profundity of these experiences into words, and that is why I have been so slow in putting this on my website in the detailed account I wish to give. Instead I have mostly just given some pointers to the work others have ready done. /leavingxtianity/why#n8 and The psychology of religion. The important point I would like you to address is that religious psychology has long known that religious experience feels veridical, and that this completely authoritative feeling is always the case regardless of the religious beliefs that are ascribed to the experience. So you can have no confidence that your religious experience is veridical when other people have just as veridical religious experience about other religious figures, and indeed surprisingly even can have veridical mystical religious experiences about the absolute secularity of the universe. I know that such conflicting and yet absolutely veridical feeling experiences are possible because I have had both extreme divine experiences of Jesus/God, the Buddha and of the astonishing gratuity of the beautiful natural "god-less" universe. This is not desolation as you like to assume, but overarching, painful beauty. I remember at the time I first started having "atheistic" mystical experiences writing the question "what is more beautiful, St. John of the cross in communion with the love of God or a conscious being singing out at the pure gratuity of existence?"

You probably won't be able to relate to my experiences, but that is only because I think you have had what amounts to an immature form of religious experience, whereas I have had both yours and have gone much further in my religious life and secular life. Mine was constant and deeper than deep and full of the boundless love of God. Your most striking feature that you felt worth remarking on was being rebuked! And what is more, for me these feelings have continued. Not only in secular religious experience, but also in Christian religious experience. If I want I can still conjure up feelings of the bountiful love and presence of God, have him speak to me, and whatever. It's pure psychology, that's how I can do it. All it takes is practice and a quiet mind.

You claimed I am "against Jesus." I am no more "against Jesus" than you are "against the moon being made of cheese." Rather I honestly think that you have a mistaken belief and I am against self righteousness that threatens strangers with torture and refuses to be examined.

For your information I did say that yes both I and others had "heard that voice." I did not use your terminology, so maybe you misunderstood me. Read it again and maybe you'll see.

Meanwhile just compare your assertions that I (and no other) ex-believer heard "that voice" with those of another religion. It is you who has not heard the voice of Krishna. I know you can understand this.

No, as I've said many times in my feedback, I was not hurt by Christianity at all. I had a very good time as a Christian etc. etc. I just found out that it is not true. Although the transition is tough, it was far from devastating, rather it was enlightening and a profoundly poignant experience, as I've already explained. It has also happened to people like you. You can assert as much as you like that it has not, but I'm afraid to claim that Christians who have had the deepest religious experience do not deconvert is a naiveté as some time reading the stories via my site would show. I gave you the links and I dare you to see if you are right.

I am not an outsider who cannot understand these things, and neither are countless others. We have been there and you are calling Jesus a liar. He said "judge a tree by its fruit" and yet apparently no other Christian could tell how false our Christianity was. You are also calling Jesus a liar when he said "knock and the door shall be opened" as according to you God has not spoken to so many of us, despite so much knocking! I can tell you that a lot of knocking has gone on from Christians as their faith was being challenged! And yet they deconverted.

You are also calling Jesus a liar when he said "seek and ye shall find." Apparently although I have sought, Jesus did not let me find as you have stated, since you believe I did not hear "That Voice." Therefore Jesus lied both according to you and as is obviously so as attested to by the fact that so many seekers conclude Christianity is false.

Since you claim that "Christ came to deal with sin in man" explain to me how the atonement is meant to work? It is utterly absurd if you think about it /leavingxtianity/why#notes so I'm afraid you are asking me to believe an impossibility. You can believe anything "by faith" or by the power of a particular religious experience (which conflicts with other people's veridical religious experiences), but if something is both a nonsense and immoral, then it cannot be from a deity.

<< I did answer your points last time, I told you that the reason why you fell away from Christendom as you never knew Christ. You never heard Him speak to you, and you never had a relationship with Him, you only had, as the majority do, religion about Him. That is the answer to all your questions. >>

It isn't and you know it. All you have given is a false assertion, and I have explained repeatedly, with backup evidence, why you are wrong about our past experience. We had what you had but we were mistaking human religious psychology for divine influence. It takes a lot of study to find this out and get past the years of self-convincing. But those are the bald facts. If you had the integrity to look into it then you would find that out too, but instead you are hiding behind a defensive wall of mere assertions, that are blatantly false to those of us who have been there before you.

<< The gospel is very simple. Man lost His relationship with God through sin, Christ came to deal with sin in man so that he may be restored into fellowship with God. Jesus did not come to start a religion. >>

Rather the understanding of how the gospels got there is very simplistic in your understanding. The theology you believe in here (despite your claims that you do not have "rules") was invented by St. Paul, not by Jesus. See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html

<< You never knew Christ, only about Him. Sure, it sounds cheap to say that, and indeed pagans do say that as well of those who leave pagan religion, but in this case it is real. >>

It's not that it sounds cheap, but that it is a logical error. Do you understand what special pleading is? "In the case of Krishna consciousness, this is real" Surely you understand!

<< Seeing as you say I did not answer your questions, I should point out that you did not answer mine. I asked you if you had heard 'That Voice', if you knew Him and walked with Jesus Himself, yourself. You did not answer, and I know that the answer to that is 'no'. >>

You misunderstood my answer. Yes I did, profoundly so, and so have many others, and yet we discovered we were wrong. We were mistaking the human and natural for the divine and supernatural.

<< There is no mention on your site that you ever heard Him or knew Him, you just adopted what you thought was 'Christianity', but it was only church religion about Christ. >>

How much of my site have you read? Your interpretation is wishful thinking.

<>

Yes there is. You have mistaken it for Jesus, just like I once did. Will you ever answer my question about special pleading? What do you say to the Hindu or Buddhist who makes the same claim about the unmistakable knowledge of attaining their religious insight? All religious mystical experience has the hallmark of utter authority, that is the classic result of studies in to the psychology of religious experience. Have you read any psychology of religious experience books? If you did you might be surprised at how similar it is across religions and even the experience of those without theistic religion. See /leavingxtianity/why#n8 and The psychology of religion

<< If you put the cause right all your questions would evaporate. >>

How? You told me that I cannot come to God/Jesus, only he can draw me to him. Answer me! How can I have any free will in coming to Jesus/God if your god does not draw me to him? Where is my free will to "put the cause right?" Just what do you think I was trying to do as a Christian? How many times do I need to tell you that we have entreated the Christian god most earnestly, and yet our faith fell apart! Where then is the truth in "seek and ye shall find"?

If you are telling me the answers, where is this most important answer? How can I "put the cause right" when it is apparently impossible for me to be a Christian? Remember, if God doesn't pull the strings I can't do it! What must I do to hear "That Voice" that you claim I have not heard? How have I been "stubborn" in all my years of trying to be a Christian? You yourself accepted that I was diligent and earnest. Tell me what I must do! Don't fob me off with asserting that I am being "stubborn" etc., let alone that I was when I was a Christian when I know full well that I was not and am not now. I am always open to being wrong - are you?

<< The gospel of Jesus Christ is not an intellectually assembled belief system. >>

That's what I believed as a Christian, and if you had read my site you would know that I have already said so.

<< It cannot be understood by mere intellect, reason, debate, theology, etc. If I just use a lose analogy; I could tell you all about my mother, and you could believe my testimony or deny it. Let's say you believed me and held a strong belief in the existence of my mother. Perhaps I produced some letters written by her for you to see, and you firmly believed these to be the 'word' of my mother. You could say that you had strong faith in my mother. Then one day some shock comes along and your faith is shaken. The person attacking you for faith in my mother says to you, "O, no one believes that any more. That is just myth, and it is all a creation of Justin's overactive mind." You would be knocked down, but I would not. What you needed was to know my mother for yourself. You would not then be so knocked down. >>

You state that it cannot be understood by reason and then immediately use an analogy - i.e. a reasoning tool!

Why do you think that is a good analogy? Why should I doubt that you have a mother? Rather I think that it is a necessary fact of your existence! Since you said "It cannot be understood by mere intellect, reason.." I take it you are not arguing that your god is a "necessary being" as the medieval scholastics tried to. How could any "shock" convince me that your mother did not exist? Presumably though you can see that through historical study scholars may discover that King Arthur was very unlikely to have been a real person, or maybe at least some legends grew up around a much more attenuated figure than the stuff of tales of Camelot. That would be quite a "shock" for a committed Arthurian, but it does not mean that "therefore" in anyway that Arthur must have been just who tradition paints him as, no matter how many beautiful feelings some may have had for the him and the Knights of the round table.

<< That is the difference. I know Jesus Christ, and He lives in me by His Spirit. I know His voice, and I have glimpsed Him spiritually. You never did. >>

Or so you can only hope. A give away here is that you say you have only "glimpsed Him." Read on...

<< Your point about the example I gave you; the woman involved did hear Him speak to her once but she never established that relationship in which she heard Him regularly, but was diverted into 'church', i.e. corporate religion, and when push came to shove she could not stand. What I said does not prove your point, though it is quite possible for someone to fall away after they are saved, (the parable of the seed and sower). We must be tried, and some do not stand the test. >>

So how many years of spirit filled life does it take before you will admit you are wrong? Tell me and I'll see how many deconversion stories from such people I can send you.

<< I would say your point about true humility does not stand, as it is not humility at all but desolation, that that in which they had invested so much proved false, their false religion of 'Krishna', and your false religion of 'Christianity' (without Christ). >>

It is humility in that one sees how despite the utter conviction that someone who was once like you had, they realise how wrong they were. It is not desolation, as despite the struggle as a Christian, once it is over the clear air is an emancipation and beautiful revelation.

If Christianity is false then someone who values truth, love, knowledge etc. should not be troubled by finding that out. If Christianity is really not of God and what we really value is the love, fellowship etc. then that was patently of us, not God/Christ, and so it shouldn't upset us to deconvert. Of course there is the psychological change as well, this - I will admit - can come as a real shock, although still something people have been ultimately glad of from every deconvert I have so far heard from. Some have expressed dismay at their "lost years" although they have also discussed how they were not wholly wasted (a lot of inner discovery) and did not ultimately regret deconversion. Remember St. Theresa of Lisieux. See here

I think it is important to realise that Christianity is not wholly a lie, that there are some things of value within it. Indeed, I doubt it would be as successful as it is if it did not contain something of worth. A lie is best hidden sandwiched between two truths - we do not need to give up our feelings for life, the universe and each other when we deconvert.

<>

Then did nobody ever tell you that Jesus died for your sins? I take it you believe that is true. That is one of the rules of modern fundamentalist Christianity.

Rule 1: "Believe in the atonement and accept Christ into your heart as your personal saviour with whom you shall have a dynamic relationship, or roast in hell."

The real sin for Christians is the "sin of disbelief."

<< Like all Christians I came to Christ the author of the Bible, (through men), >>

Exactly. People (men who wrote things) taught you this belief. Are you also being honest in that nobody has preached about Christianity to you? Now will you answer my question about the Chinese student?

<< In knowing the Author of the Book I could see what the Book was. >>

That is both a circular argument and special pleading, as I explained last time. "Knowing who the author of the Bhagavad Gita, I could see what the book was."

<< You came to a belief system which you were taught, and no doubt sincerely believed, but you still missed the gospel, and you never were filled with Spirit. >>

A vain hope. It is no good trying to tell me what I did and did not believe and experience. All you are really doing is attempting to convince yourself that I did not have the "correct" experience, as it is too threatening to imagine that I did. I was there and so I know that you are wrong. If it is "the spirit" telling you these things, then I also know that you are being taught by a false spirit. How can you be sure that it is not a demon convincing you of a false religion, and so keeping you from the Lord Krishna?

<>

Tell me about these healings. By the way did you know that the "pagans" had Asclepius, their own healing saviour, centuries before, and after, the ministry of Christ? From Richard Carrier: Surviving testimonies to his influence and healing power throughout the classical age are common enough to fill a two-volume book (Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, in two volumes, Ayer Company Publishers (Salem, NH), 1945. Reprinted in 1975 and 1988. Entries #423-450 contain the most vivid testimonials). Of greatest interest are the inscriptions set up for those healed at his temples. These give us almost first hand testimony, more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus, of the blind, the lame, the mute, even the victims of kidney stones, paralytics, and one fellow with a spearhead stuck in his jaw (see the work cited above, p. 232.), all being cured by this pagan "saviour." And this testimony goes on for centuries. Inscriptions span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and later, all over the Roman Empire.

I take it that you will admit that these are also divine healings since they are so remarkable and so well attested.

By the way, if it is evidence that is convincing, what has happened to faith?

<< The reception of Christ into the heart is all through the Scripture, never mind any pietist movement. >>

Oh yes, but this is not what the Pietist movement and you say is it? You have told me that one must hear "That Voice" and what's more hear it for years and have a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. What bible verses have you elicited all that from? Curiously, you also let slip that you have merely "glimpsed Him spiritually." Is it really true that all you have had is a glimpse? I and many others were much further along the road than that! We were in intimate communication with the love of God!

<< How do Christians know that God, Jehovah, is the real one? They know Him, and He has saved them from the power of sin and death. >>

"How do they know him? They know him!" Are you serious?! What sort of circular statement is that?! As I said, Steve Hassan felt completely saved by the Reverend Moon. Strength of religious feeling is no testament to its veracity. All mystical experience has that hallmark. Read some psychology of religion - you'll soon see.

<< That is not invalidated just because some go back to sin. >>

How can we "go back" to sin if we were not "true Christians" in the first place?

<< Muhammed was taught some of the Bible by RC missionaries, that is where he got his jumbled idea of what Scripture says. >>

I know. However did you know about the multitude of similar resurrected saviour religions that were around long before and still current at the time the NT was being written? See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html#slocks1 and http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_on_osiris.htm.They were so prevalent that the church fathers "explained" that they were invented by the devil to put people off the "true version" of a resurrected sin redeeming saviour when Jesus came along. Resurrected saviours redeeming us from our sins have been around for longer than Christianity. See the above links.

<< Christ did rise from the tomb, I know Him. >>

I once felt the same way. Unfortunately scholars have found that your faith is not grounded in historical probability (e.g. see http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm), and psychologists have found that your feelings of certainty are shared by believers in religions you consider are the work of demons. Plenty of those believers think the same about you.

<>

You are probably wrong. Stick with me and we will see. Of course if you bow out of our discussions then I will cease to have any influence which is probably what you want - to avoid directly answering and considering my questions. However if you have nothing to fear then stay with me and let's get to the heart of everything and discuss my responses directly, rather than diverting onto your repeated sermon. I know many people who started like you and yet deconverted. It takes a long time, but if you are sure you are the one who is safe, then show me by keeping the discussion going and reading and commenting on my links.

<>

Why do you feel the need to respond immediately?

<< All I can say to you is that you will never come to understand the things of God until you are prepared to leave your insulting God by not believing Him and come to Him, humbly. >>

How am I "insulting God"? Would you accept you have insulted Krishna or Allah? How can I come to him, humbly or otherwise given what you write next... i.e.

<< Salvation is 'by grace, through faith, and that not of yourself it is the gift of God.' >>

So, are you a Calvinist? Where is free will? How can I come to your god, humbly or otherwise as you exhort when you then immediately tell me it is not of my doing!? How can I believe something I don't believe? Was Jesus false then when he said that anyone who asks the Father in Jesus' name will receive his request? If I ask for the Father in Jesus' name would God refuse unless He had decided to give His grace? I have asked, and yet I became an ex-Christian.

<< Jesus said, "No man can come to me except my Father draw them." >>

So, do you really believe that your god creates people and yet leaves them "undrawn" so that they will inevitably go to hell. Are you really prepared to believe that your god therefore creates people for hell? Why do you believe your god is "good." In what twisted way is everlasting torture good or just?

It is absurd to call somebody "good" if he doesn't live up to any of our normal standards of goodness. But it's surely no less absurd to do this when the person under discussion is God.

The nineteenth century English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, was so convinced by this line of argument that he said it was dishonest to call anyone "good" who did not live up to the highest human standards of goodness. With considerable bravado, Mill said that he would prefer to go to hell than to call such a being good.

If, instead of the "glad tidings" that there exists a Being in whom all the excellences which the highest human mind can conceive, exist in a degree inconceivable to us, I am informed that the world is ruled by a being whose attributes are infinite, but what they are we cannot learn, nor what are the principles of his government, except that "the highest human morality which we are capable of conceiving" does not sanction them; convince me of it, and I will bear my fate as I may. But when I am told that I must believe this, and at the same time call this being by the names which express and affirm the highest human morality, I say in plain terms that I will not. Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing he shall not do; he shall not compel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go. [From "Reply to Mr. Mansel", my italics]

Mill's main point is clear. It would indeed be "glad tidings" to learn that God is good in our sense of "good". But if He is good only in some other, mysterious sense, one that does not rule out extreme cruelty toward his creatures, that would not be glad tidings. Mill thought it would be dishonest and cowardly to use the word "good" to describe such a being. http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/judge.html

To which I would add: Those in an abusive relationship, the real victims, often do call the cruel abuser good whilst blinded by the total power they perceive is held over them and the confusing messages of love and cruelty given by this person. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html#stockholm

And once again, if Christianity is a religion of love and it contains extremely unloving elements then it is in trouble. Why should one call God "good" if he is contrary to what we feel good is? Somebody could call rape good but I don't see why we should believe that. The problem of moral values are the same for Christians and atheists. It is we who must judge whether the scriptural god is good. You think he is, I think the evidence is against it. Rather all the evidence points to the idea of the Biblical God as something invented by primitive and warlike people. e.g. your god (or bronze age warriors): 1 Samuel 15:3 etc. "the Lord says ... [lots of killing...babies, animals...]"

<>

So why did you write to me to start with? Why did you use an analogy about your mother - did you fall into the sin of reasoning? Must Christians abandon rational thought?

The real reason you don't want to continue conversing with me is because you are afraid of examining your faith. You believe cruel things about torture and are full of false judgements about the inner lives of other people. You have to believe these things because you have become trapped in an archetypal religious psychology, unaware both of the scholarly problems with your religion, and the similarity of your feelings with those of others. All you can do is flat out deny that other people are like they are and insist that we are the kind of people we "must be" in order to fit into your false belief system.

I ask again, if you are wrong, do you want to know? Have you the integrity to say yes?

<< as normal spiritual Christianity is not intellectual but by faith, which is authored in us when God speaks to us. Until that happens to you you cannot see or understand spiritual things, and you will fail, both in your purpose of destroying the gospel, and of saving your own life from what follows after your death. >>

No, it is the faith in the Lord Krishna that is like this, as He said on the Bhagavad Gita.

Once again, I am not setting out to "destroy the Gospel" rather I am giving a resource to ex-Christians and from my feedback it works very well in that regard. Ironically it is your question evading approach which deconverts people, as I know from testimonies.

<< I leave you to your path. You will believe post your death, either because you were properly saved you died, or you are in Hell. There are no unbelievers the other side of death's door. When you know Jesus (Jn.17:3) you will understand. >>

Just as I predicted. More repeated assertions. Have a read up on thought stopping techniques at the centre for combating cult mind control. http://www.freedomofmind.com/resources/srmind.asp

Don't you think it is rather cruel of your god that he will not draw me to Him in life, but will rather wait until I'm dead to confront me with the awful "hellfire deserving" truth after my death?

I'm sorry if it upsets your worldview but I really do have peace and enjoy the wonders of life. If it turns out I'm wrong and one day Jesus says to me "Depart from me! I never knew you!" as you claim, then to me you will have the worse spiritual consequence of living in heaven whilst I'm roasting in hell. I prefer pain rather than moral atrocity. Don't get me wrong though, this is not a choice - I really don't believe in Christianity for reasons such as this http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html

I also no longer have a big enough ego to worry about my own soul. As Zen Buddhists say, belief in God is not so much merely "wrong" as "unskilful" in that it can actually harm the spiritual life of a person, making them too wrapped up in their own "salvation." The universe is too interesting a place to me for me to be a Christian. To be a Christian requires too much looking inward which is unhealthy and egotistical. "I" don't matter to "me" that much!

I ask again, if you are wrong, do you want to know? Have you the integrity to say yes?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Critically examine everything: hold on to the good."

Do you agree with that statement?

Best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity

From: Justin Hughes

To: Steve Locks

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:10 AM

Subject: Re: Your mega e-mail

Steve,

I could sit down and go through your points and point out the stupidity of them all, but I really do not have time, and as you are not going to convert me, or I you, I do not see any point in debate, or continuing a discussion with you.

I would make one point though, that about the sad case of the philosopher you mentioned, Mill, who, if he continued on the path he appears to have been on, is in Hell. I am very sorry that he did not have the least idea of God, the Law, Sin, the righteous judgement of God against sin, etc. He is a believer now, and now wishes he had not been so foolish, and sought Christ while he could.

You must remember from your former church days, even though you were never really in anything of God, that God reveals exactly how Satan works in Scripture. And you are doing exactly that; 'hath God said?'

I leave you to your path. If you do not cease from calling Almighty God who is the very embodiment of holiness and righteousness, a liar you will join Mill. In between screams of anguish you will be able to compare notes with him on how blind, wicked and stupid you both were in not accepting God's free gift of salvation, while it was on offer to you, simply because you thought sin was OK, and to punish it was wrong.

Justin

From: Steve Locks

To: Justin Hughes

Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:18 PM

Subject: Re: Your mega e-mail

Hello Justin,

<< I could sit down and go through your points and point out the stupidity

of them all, but I really do not have time >>

Well, that's a great shame. I would have thought that if you were able to

point out why my questions are stupid then you would have done so. Are you

sure that you don't mean that you are not able to answer my questions?

Actually did you even read my email? I see your answers are very odd if

you did. If you didn't even read it, then how can you tell that my

questions are "stupid?"

Don't worry about your time, you can take as much time as you want.

Remember what the bible tells you:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Critically examine everything: hold on to the good."

and

1 Peter 3:15 "... be ready always to give an answer to every man that

asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

So don't be unscriptural, tell me why I am wrong - go through my email and

take as much time as you want. If I am being stupid then I really do want

to have it explained to me. I don't see how merely repeating hell

threats - something Muslims also do - is taking my questions seriously.

When Jesus asks you if you gave water to the thirsty, what will you say to

him about your attempts with me? You say you are able to point out the

stupidity of all my points. If you can do this, but are unwilling, then I

will be lost to hell because you are too busy. What would Jesus say to

that? Doesn't he say that masses of energy is spent on finding the "lost

sheep?"

<< and as you are not going to convert me, or I you, I do not see any

point in debate, or continuing a discussion with you. >>

From much past experience this is unlikely to be correct. If we keep at it

and both of us value integrity and truth then after some years it is quite

likely that one of us will reap rich rewards of finding out they were

wrong. I asked you if you are wrong then would you like to know that. Once

again you avoid my question - have you the integrity to say yes?

<< I would make one point though, that about the sad case of the

philosopher you mentioned, Mill, who, if he continued on the path he

appears to have been on, is in Hell. I am very sorry that he did not have

the least idea of God, the Law, Sin, the righteous judgement of God

against sin, etc. He is a believer now, and now wishes he had not been so

foolish, and sought Christ while he could. >>

Okay, how do you know that? Remember that fundamentalist Muslims say the

same about you being in hell after your death, and remember what I said

about the veridical feeling of religious experience being common across

religions and even for those without religion.

<< You must remember from your former church days, even though you were

never really in anything of God, >>

If I was "never really in anything of God" then why could my fellow

Christians not "tell a tree by its fruit?" Was Jesus mistaken?

Why is it you merely say you have "glimpsed" God, whereas I was in

constant numinous communion with the love of God, and can even bring the

feeling back now with a little reflection (I did it again last night as an

exercise). As I explained last time, it is a common finding of religious

psychology that these feelings are common across religions, and are no

indicator of which religion is "correct" or which deity the "real one."

<< that God reveals exactly how Satan works in Scripture. And you are

doing exactly that; 'hath God said?' >>

Can you explain what you mean here please? How do you know that Satan has

not been keeping you from the true God, Allah?

<< I leave you to your path. If you do not cease from calling Almighty

God who is the very embodiment of holiness and righteousness, a liar you

will join Mill. >>

I can't call "Almighty God" a liar if I don't even believe in his

existence! Are you calling Krishna a liar? What about Santa do you

think he is a liar or do you just not believe in his existence and the

stories about him are made up? Some gullible children really believe

he exists. Are they liars?

Tell me just how I am meant to believe in your god, given all that I have

raised in objection. All you need to do is point out my stupidities, which

is something you said you were able to do. "I could sit down and go

through your points and point out the stupidity of them all" as you said.

So please don't let me down, and don't fool yourself in thinking you can

answer questions you can't. The simple fact is that if you attempted to

sit down and "point out the stupidity" of my points, then you would find

that Christianity is untenable. That is why you will not tackle my

questions. However, I want to know if I am wrong, and so I am also

willing to take you seriously and hear what you have to say if you take

my points seriously too. In fact if you do not show me why I am "stupid"

then how am I to find out? You said that Mill (and presumably all of us)

have the opportunity to seek Christ in this life, but after death it will

be too late (why?). But where is my opportunity if when I take questions

to Christians they will not answer them, and show me why my questions

are stupid?

So if you really can go through my points and point out the stupidity of

them all, then please, please do!

<< In between screams of anguish you will be able to compare notes with

him on how blind, wicked and stupid you both were in not accepting God's

free gift of salvation, while it was on offer to you, simply because you

thought sin was OK, and to punish it was wrong. >>

What is the "sin" you are talking about here? I think the only "sin" that

Christians are really worried about is the "sin" of disbelief, just like

Moonies are. But how can disbelief be a sin? I honestly do not believe

Christianity is true, for reasons such as I have given you previously and

others to be found at and via my website. How is somebody meant to

believe something they do not believe? How can it possibly be a "sin"

to not be able to do something that is psychologically impossible - i.e.

to believe what you don't believe! Something has to convince me it is true

first - can't you help me in overcoming my disbelief if it is "stupid?"

Please tell me why my points are stupid, you said you can do this.

Also pray to your god, as if you are right I (and nobody) can do

anything without his help.

I don't think sin is okay, why do you think I do? In fact I think torture

is a sin, and your hell makes Auschwitz pale to nothing in comparison.

Does it ever occur to you that you are not worshipping a god of love, but

rather a demon created by primitive men's minds? All this talk of torture

for those who disagree with you, and yet you are "too busy" to be bothered

to tell me why I am apparently "stupid" and how I can possibly be not

accepting "God's free gift of salvation." Just what do you think all these

ex-Christians were doing during their Christian lives, full of devotion

and numinous feelings of connection with their god? Missionaries,

theologians, pastors, preachers and the common Christian in the pew. You

say that we did not accept "God's gift of salvation" and yet how many of

us have fervently prayed the sinner's prayer! Okay then, what is it we

must do!

You yourself told me that it is up to God to draw us to him, and unless we

hear "That Voice" our efforts are in vain. So how can I find God? What

must I do?

Thanks for your time,

Best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity

From: Justin Hughes

To: Steve Locks

Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: Your mega e-mail

Steve,

Thank you for your long e-mail, again.

Almighty God has ordained that all His things are 'by faith'. He authors the faith in the heart of a man directly, by the Word, which you have obviously, and sadly, never heard, though you seem to have had a lot of theology.

The things of God are NOT by debate/dispute/reason/intellect. It is NOT and intellectually assembled religion which you can go through line by line, point by point, and make a legal case. And there are very good reasons for that.

I could not possibly make you see if I spent hours and hours trying by those things above to get you to see that you are wrong. So I am not even going to attempt it. You are of your father the devil, who's constant line is 'hath God said?'

Jesus does spend time on lost sheep but I am sure you are a fallen away church person and not a sheep at all. It is only those who are soundly born of the Holy Spirit, and who were going on with God in the power of the Spirit, who, if they go off, are lost sheep, not those who had a nasty dose of religion, fell away from it, and now spend their time attacking it, thinking it is what it is not.

If this were not real you would not bother. There are no 'a-pinko's', those who do not believe in pink elephants, why? There are no pink elephants. It is an intellectually bankrupt position to spend time and effort attacking that which does not exist, and those who believe it does. By doing so you show it is real, all you are doing is trying to destroy its reality by attacking it.

The things you ask for answers about are not for your ears. Mt.7:6

You do not want God, you want your own way, to be the Lord of your own life, and captain of your own ship. You wish to set your own standards of what is right and what is wrong, you do not want the problem of obeying or disobeying an Almighty God. I leave you to your path. God will justify Himself, and you will believe one day, everyone does.

J.W.Hughes

From: Steve Locks

To: Justin Hughes

Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 9:53 PM

Subject: Re: Your mega e-mail

Hi Justin,

<< Thank you for your long e-mail, again. >>

Thanks for your thanks!

<< Almighty God has ordained that all His things are 'by faith'. >>

Then can you answer my question I keep asking. Why faith in *your*

religion? In one of my first emails I explained how Allah and Krishna make

the same faith demands. I see you are a fideist, so what would you say to

a Hindu or Muslim who says the same to you and with equal assurance is

also convinced by their religious experiences that they are right and you

have it wrong?

<< He authors the faith in the heart of a man directly, by the Word, which

you have obviously, and sadly, never heard, though you seem to have had a

lot of theology. >>

How can you be sure that I have not heard what you have? I explained 2

emails ago that the magnitude of my and others' religious experience

appear to be greater than yours, so how do you know I have "never heard"?

Remember if I have "never heard" then what does this do to Jesus' claim

that all those who seek will find?

<< The things of God are NOT by debate/dispute/reason/intellect. It is

NOT and intellectually assembled religion which you can go through line by

line, point by point, and make a legal case. And there are very good

reasons for that. >>

How odd! You say that these things are not by

"debate/dispute/reason/intellect" and then immediately follow this up with

"there are very good reasons for that." What do you think "reasons" means?

Is a "reason" not something "reasonable" that one can "reason" about? What

do you think you mean?

Again, if a Muslim tells you that you must submit to Allah and these

things can not be debated, then what would you say?

Many Christians claim that the bottom line is faith (fideism). The obvious

problem is why *Christian* faith? As soon as a believer gives a reason

then one is back to apologetics. Indeed, unless one merely continues as a

Christian unthinkingly from a childhood upbringing then something must

have convinced you to remain, or become, a Christian. Even if this was a

religious experience you will have believed this to be veridical enough to

have faith in, rather than it being some idle thought. Moreover you will

have to claim that your religious experience is veridical whereas a

Buddhist or Daoist's (or even an atheist's) religious and spiritual

experience is not. Yet again fideism intrinsically contains apologetics if

it is to be anything other than purely arbitrary. So I do not believe

fideism is an honest statement of anyone's approach to Christianity.

<< I could not possibly make you see if I spent hours and hours trying by

those things above to get you to see that you are wrong. So I am not even

going to attempt it. >>

Why do you say you are not going to attempt it? You told me last time that

you could point out the stupidity of what I wrote. Doesn't that mean you

already know what to say? Rather than spend your time in your next email

repeatedly telling me I am going to hell, I'll believe after I'm dead etc.

(I already know that's what you think, so you can save yourself time

by not telling me yet again) why don't you use that saved time to tell me

one of my stupidities. Tell me why this is stupid:-

All religious experience feels absolutely authoritative (veridical). That

is one of the hallmarks of religious experience whether one has Christian

religious experience, heretical Christian experience or religious

experience of another religion, or even secular spiritual experience. It

all feels absolutely authoritative. Since they disagree, mere feelings of

certainty that ones own experience points to reality are of no use. They

all point with feelings of absolute certainty to different understandings!

Since the conclusions of religious experience (e.g. Jesus/Krishna/Allah is

God etc.) are mutually incompatible, then religious experience is proved

to be an unreliable indicator of supernatural truth.

Can you therefore answer why you are so sure that *your* religious

experience and *your* religious book are correct, when others make the

same claim for their religious experiences and religious books?

<< You are of your father the devil, who's constant line is 'hath God

said?' >>

That's what Moonies say about ex-Moonies. If you are wrong, and I am just

a human being like you, but one who has discovered that their former

beliefs were based on a mistaken view of the world, would you like to know

that?

<< Jesus does spend time on lost sheep but I am sure you are a fallen away

church person and not a sheep at all. It is only those who are soundly

born of the Holy Spirit, and who were going on with God in the power of

the Spirit, who, if they go off, are lost sheep, not those who had a nasty

dose of religion, fell away from it, and now spend their time attacking

it, thinking it is what it is not. >>

How did you glean that belief from the bible? Could you give me some

verses? Are you a Calvinist?

I didn't have a "nasty dose of religion." I think I've already explained

that to you. If you read my site carefully you will see that I did not

have any significant bad experiences of Christianity when I was a

Christian. I think that is an important point that I make a few times in

my site. I have only a few stories from people who did have really bad

experiences. There was a message on the "ex-tian" (i.e. ex-Christian)

mailing list from someone who was surprised that so many of us had

good experiences, as she didn't. So I think leaving Christianity due to

a bad experience or disgust at a certain preacher etc., although it

happens, is relatively rare. It is certainly not why I left, too.

I have many Christian friends who I get on with very well and like

immensely. I certainly hope I am not a religious "racist". I go to dinner

with my Christian friends and we play with each others' children, exchange

gifts, go to the pub etc., all the usual friendly stuff. You will see that

the first site I link to in my main links section is the Ontario

Consultants on religious tolerance. I also still occasionally read the

likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Thomas Merton for their general thoughts

and thoughtfulness.

On my site, I am not trying to upset Christians, although I will engage in

dialogue if asked and speak frankly because otherwise it seems like

censorship of thought. Mostly though, I am trying to describe what it is

like to leave Christianity and why people do. I'm sure if you read my

writings you will get a better impression of my true feelings which are

not the way you have characterised them.

In summary, it was mainly reading of psychology, comparative religion,

history and thinking through some knotty problems that lead to my

deconversion, not a bad experience.

If one abandons rationality, which god (or even a god at all) does one

open oneself up to belief in? I hope the poverty of claiming we have to

stop being rational before belief is possible is becoming obvious. Not

only is it special pleading for Christianity but how do you know that

abandoning rationality lays one open to greater spiritual insight? Having

been a Christian who had (and still does have) religious and spiritual

feelings and who has spoken to many similar people, the claim that

rational non-believers now lack something in the spirituality department

does not bare up to examination. For some Christians the idea that we

might really know what it is like to be a Christian and yet not find that

our "true Christian experience" maintained us in belief is unthinkable, so

we are frequently told that we can't therefore ever have been "real

Christians" in the first place. For that I wrote this.

<< If this were not real you would not bother. There are no 'a-pinko's',

those who do not believe in pink elephants, why? There are no pink

elephants. It is an intellectually bankrupt position to spend time and

effort attacking that which does not exist, and those who believe it does.

By doing so you show it is real, all you are doing is trying to destroy

its reality by attacking it. >>

Do you see that you are using reason here? You have even said my

position is "intellectually bankrupt." So should we use reason and

intellect or not? You appear to keep changing your mind even within

an email. That is very odd if you have an insight I do not.

Now, I take it you do not think the Reverend Moon is the Messiah, and yet

would not balk at ex-Moonies setting up support groups for other

ex-Moonies, discussing their experiences, how they left and explaining

what is wrong with the ideas of the unification church? Would such a

website make you claim that they are "intellectually bankrupt" in claiming

that Moon is not the Messiah? Why, they protest too much - he must be the

Messiah!

I would only not bother about pinokism if I was not an ex-pinkoist and if

pinkoism was not a force for so much confusion in the world. If there were

a lot of "pinko's" in our culture making a big fuss about it and tagging

strange doctrines to it and criticising me and attempting to scare

people (even children) with torture for not believing their doctrines,

then I might be tempted to make a stand and say "okay, I'm an "a-pinkoist"

and maybe I'd have a website for people who were former pinkoists and

would discuss pinkoism with pinkoists who write to me. You will notice

that because pinkoism is not a world issue and I am not an expinkoist

that you are right, I do not spend much time discussing it. However,

I hope you can appreciate now that Christianity is in the world and

my past, and the past of others like me, hence I see fit to discuss it.

Although from my discussions some do indeed abandon their beliefs without

much fuss, depending on their temperament, plenty of others don't have an

easy time. When one's whole world view and picture of reality changes this

can be very shocking indeed and take a lot of talking through. As I

recounted here:

"I spent a while going out with a girl whose father was the principal of a

liberal English theological college. The first time I met him I was taken

to a service where they were saying goodbye to the vice-principal who was

leaving the college to get a job "in the world." The story about her I was

given at first was that she "had enough of religion" and was just off to

do something different for a change. Later I got to know her quite well

and soon found out that after years of theology and a PhD on the

Christology of some obscure church father, she had come to the conclusion

that xtianity was a big mistake. Not only did I learn that but also that

many people at that college came to the same conclusions in the course of

their studies....I also heard that those who did "lose faith" took it in

many different ways (according to the principal). I was told that some

found it liberating whereas others were pretty devastated by the

discovery. After all, apart from the obvious shock of having one's whole

world rewritten, many were in their 40's or 50's and had devoted a large

part of their personal and professional lives to religion and were

(apparently) bewildered as to how to start again."

Do you really think that it is likely such people would not want to talk

about it and share their experiences? For example, recently I had an email

from a former Eastern Orthodox Christian Priest who felt quite alone in

his predicament and was very keen on finding others he could talk to. I

would consider it a great pity if such people were told there are no

resources for them as the best approach is to keep quiet. As I say there

is no "exit counselling" from the church and I receive plenty of emails

from ex-Christians ranging from the average lay ex-Christian in the pew to

the ex-missionary, ex-apologist and ex-priest. Some say that this sort of

ex-Christian material is a fascinating lifeline - one of the few things

that help them keep their sanity and realise they are normal. I also get

some appreciative emails from Christians who say it has made them think.

Some of our American ex-Christian friends do not know any non-Christians

other than via the Internet. Often the Christians around them assure them

that apostates are very wicked and have something terribly wrong with

them. To find so much sanity and mental health outside of religion rather

than the slough of despond their Christian background has prepared them

for is a great relief. So I don't think I should keep quiet about what I

and others have found and our experiences out of Christianity.

Many people feel they must have been stupid for being "duped" for so long,

some getting quite depressed about it (see the quote beginning "I had a

rather abrupt intellectual crisis my last year of college" at

feedback/henry_quon.

However there doesn't seem to be much limit to the intelligence of the

people who are duped for a while, so I encourage people not to feel so bad

about what many feel were wasted years. Just consider the likes of

ex-Christians like Don Cupitt, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Lüdemann,

Michael Goulder etc. (available via my site) all of whom are top brains

and yet were very committed (supernatural believing) Christians for a

large part of their professional lives before they deconverted. Also, as

you can see from my site, a major change of world view gives an enormous

drive for research and a fascination with what is going on, and it is not

unusual for a new deconvert's personal library to quickly double in size!

However, when the dust settles there is indeed often a much more laid back

attitude and less of a desire to talk about it so much. Personally, this

is not my only web activity and I spend far more time on music and

astronomy both of which feature on another website that I keep separate

from the "Leaving Christianity" one. Also my non-Internet life gets far

more of my time and most of that is spent playing with my daughter and

pursuing interests quite other than any thoughts on religion.

Maybe my site gives the impression of more hours spent than it really

takes. It is actually quite easy to get a large looking website up in a

couple of years merely by tinkering with it every few days. Most of the

substance of my website is just email conversations I have had and the

putting up of my bookmarks - something that soon accumulates in volume

quite impressively over the years! In fact it is often the opposite of

"protesting too much" that is the problem. I have a number of emails from

ex-Priests whom I have not been able to tease out the stories from,

principally because they do not wish to upset their peers and so just

slink away, the public seldom knowing the depths of the soul searching

they went through. For instance, Dr. Michael Goulder said "So of course

it's a sad blow to them to find I've betrayed the cause. And it's a sad

blow to me, too. The communion of saints has meant a lot to me. And I find

it very hard to say my old bishop - Bishop Hall - who ordained me in Hong

Kong, an extremely devoted and saintly man, or my old tutor, Austin

Farrer, whom I respected enormously - to think that they are wrong; I

don't think anybody finds it easy to leave a community where he's revered

its members not only for their intellectual power but also for their

sanctity."

I think that is a terrible loss, as the stories from such people that one

can find are a fascinating read.

Others have also claimed that those critical of Christianity "protest too

much." Some claim that this is because the Christian God must still be

working in the protesters. Special pleading is the most common logical

error in Christian apologetics though. There are also a few brave souls

who have websites about their and other's experiences with other religions

they are now ex-members of, such as ex-Muslims, ex-Mormons (see

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/), not to mention ex-cult

members at http://www.freedomofmind.com/

In summary, I don't really think I (or any ex-Christian) is protesting too

much, just as the ex-Muslims and ex-Mormons and ex-Moonies are not. I

don't think you realise the impact that a major change in world view can

have when one previously took their religion as being what the universe is

all about - taking our religious beliefs most ardently, basing our

personal, interpersonal and sometimes professional lives on this. It

should not be a surprise that ex-Christians want to talk about their

deconversion and neither should it be a surprise that we also move on to

fresher pastures as the years go by. My website looks as fresh as when I

wrote it, even if I haven't been mulling religious thoughts over for a few

months. So it can be misleading - looking as if I'm constantly on a

soapbox about religion, whereas if you knew me in real life you might not

even suspect that I have any interests in religious matters.

<< You do not want God, you want your own way, to be the Lord of your own

life, and captain of your own ship. You wish to set your own standards of

what is right and what is wrong, you do not want the problem of obeying or

disobeying an Almighty God. >>

This is just Christian propaganda that Christians keep telling each other,

in order to make yourselves feel secure. You should stop to think about

why people leave Christianity and all I have told you so far about how

they strive to hang onto it as the evidence mounts against it. To claim

that we have somehow wilfully given up faith because we want to do

our own thing is a gross naiveté - something easily cured by reading

some deconversion stories! I still don't think you've appreciated, Justin,

that we had views in favour of biblical authority first and our researches

demolished that view! Hence it is not fair to appear to lay some sort of

moral blame on us and write that it is more than just evidence as if we

had decided to try a new philosophy, wanted to go sinning, do our own

thing etc. or something. These are false views of people you are given

at church - see for yourself, read what we have said! Rather the evidence

against Christianity is what causes our Christian view to be demolished.

Some go quietly, others go kicking and screaming, but it is grossly

misrepresentative to imply that in anyway we have chosen or decided

to try apostasy. Loosing faith is something that happens to a person,

and not a deliberate "choice" despite what Christians are frequently

told at church. Unfortunately for Christians they often have to believe

that we are deliberately choosing unbelief. If not then it makes the

justice of hell look dubious, and heaven rather disturbing. Therefore

it "must be" our fault for so "radically and wilfully" changing our views.

Also would you feel morally admonished if a Muslim accused you of having a

drastically different attitude towards the Koran and its underlining

authority? Does this also mean you don't have the necessary spiritual eyes

to understand the Koran?

<>

So you keep saying. That is a real shame for a preacher to give up so

easily, especially one who claims he can point out the stupidities of what

I write. Even if you don't convince me I'll put our correspondence up

on my website for you if you want. By doing so you will have the fantastic

opportunity of helping "true Christians" to see my "stupidities" so they

will not be mislead by me, as was the fear you mentioned in your first

email. So please do point out how I am wrong, even if I am never

convinced, think of what a service you will be doing for "true Christians"

and I know from a poll I did a while ago that there are plenty of those

you wish to protect who read my site.

<< God will justify Himself, and you will believe one day, everyone does.

So you keep asserting, just as Muslims do. What will really happen is

that after your death it will be like before your birth - like nothing,

and also nothing to worry about or anything that caused you any anxiety

before. Unfortunately by refusing to examine your assertions you are

missing out on the few decades of real discovery you can have. So

once again I ask, if you are wrong about Christianity, would you like

to know? Have you the integrity to say yes?

Thanks for your attention,

best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity

From: Justin Hughes

To: Steve Locks

Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:28 AM

Subject: Re: Your mega e-mail

Steve,

I have not read your e-mail, it is very long, and I am too busy. I do not wish to listen to your blasphemy, and, I also know exactly what you are up to. One of your own made a bit of a blunder in putting on a site your master's technique, not unknown to us anyway, which is simply 'hath God said'? The continuous and insidious effort to plant doubts, and pick off the weak ones. Well I am far too strong for you.

If you are interested perhaps you would like to search for a document called 'How to kill god', by a young fool by the name of 'Vexen Crabtree'. You will find your technique delineated in that essay, and you will not doubt find yourself very much at home on the site.

I know Almighty God through Jesus Christ, and I am with Him for all eternity, though I could leave Him if I chose, but no one leaves Him for what you have. You on the other hand are gambling that God is a liar, and that you, a mere creation of His that got corrupted by sin, is superior to Him, and that you can make Him go away by the power of your intellect. One second after your death you will know the truth, and so will I.

I condemn and reject your master and all his works in Jesus name. I leave you to your terrible end, very apt for the evil filth you publish against God.

Justin

From: Steve Locks

To: Justin Hughes

Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 11:20 PM

Subject: If you are "far too strong" then you have nothing to fear in reading this.

Hello Justin,

I'm sorry you are so upset, but you really have it wrong about me. Before

telling me off, remember that *you* initially wrote to me and all my

replies have been in response to your points. If you don't like that then

you should not evangelise, as in a free society people are allowed to

respond. Also by you ignoring my points, you are missing the chance

to protect "true Christians" from my influence by showing why my

points are "stupid," as I have offered to put our emails on my website

as I mentioned in the previous email (see what you missed by not reading

it!)

That's right, this is your chance to show the "True Christians," who visit

my website and you expressed concern for, why I am wrong - something

you said you could do, and whatever I or others like me think, at least

those with "spiritual eyes" will understand your response if you are

right and I am wrong! According to your initial email that was the

whole reason for you writing in the first place, so don't loose the

chance.

If you are "far too strong" for any supposed efforts you believe I have to

plant doubts, then you have nothing to fear from reading my emails and

answering my points. The very fact that you keep replying shows that

you have at least time for a short response. I'll keep this one short for

you because of your time constraints.

I had a look at Crabtree's site and found it ridiculous - you certainly

have a low opinion of me! No, I am not a satanist and have no interest

in such ideas. I have no interest in "killing God" and if you read my

previous email you would see that I get along with Christians very well.

All I do with evangelists who write to me is to answer their points. Other

than that I live and let live. Rather than "killing God" I just genuinely

do not believe the claims Christians make. I am willing to subject my

views to scrutiny though and to be convinced otherwise, whether that

is by rational argument, divine revelation, some combination of the

two, or whatever it takes. I want to believe what is true.

Your efforts to demonise me are not warranted, rather I am trying to find

avenues that will get Christians to speak. Unfortunately they frequently

(not always) clam up once they find the questions go deeper than they

feel comfortable with. You know if my emails make you feel uncomfortable.

If they do then you know the real reason you are not replying!

I am not making any gamble, that is Pascal's wager, which is a false

wager. How can someone gamble on something they do not believe? Are you

gambling that Allah is not God?

By, the way, I finally realised what you are talking about when you said

"hath God said?" You're referring to the temptation stories - is that

right? Do you really mean that no critic is allowed to quote or examine

the bible? Would you likewise forbid yourself from criticising any other

religion, or must you just accept any Koranic verses that are quoted at

you?

As for Jesus being tempted, how could that be? Do you believe that Jesus

might have thought earthly kingdoms are worth more than heavenly ones? If

he valued the heavenly kingdom greater, then how could he have been

"tempted" by the devil? So how exactly could any offer to Jesus have been

a "temptation?" Why would a deity be tempted to give up all of eternity

and the most exalted state of all for worldly kingdoms/bread etc.? Didn't

your god make the world anyway? Would Bill Gates be tempted to give up

Microsoft by someone offering a CD containing a copy of windows 3.1?

Likewise, you wrote:

<>

How is that possible? If you have really "heard that voice" how could

anything make you choose to leave God? Either you have free will and "that

voice" is not the most powerful event possible in a life (something could

influence you to "choose to leave") or you do not have free will, because

God has revealed himself to you and nothing can be more influential than

that!

So what is it, free will or not?

Best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity