John Richards

From: Steve Locks

To: John Richards

Sent: 17 October 2000 22:17

Subject: Re: Debate

Dear John,

Thank you for your interest. You are the second person to ask and I am glad to

see that people are reading our resurrection articles after all that hard

work!!

I am writing a response to Jordan's latest. It will take some time though

as I had to follow up all Jordan's resources and others carefully. I'm

attempting to write a well-chiselled piece that will hopefully be of interest,

as well as trying to learn something myself! I have some parts finished,

and the rest in note form. At my current rate of writing I think it will be

late November before I'm finished. I only get the odd hour every day or

two and it's not the only thing I'm doing although I certainly do want to

pursue this. I explained that I would be taking a leisurely approach in part 1

- make sure you've read my early correspondence with Jordan

at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/steve1.html to see my

idealistic ideas of an approach and why I'm such a slowcoach!

Since people are asking I have just updated my site to reflect that this is in

progress. You can also refresh

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

from time to time to see if my reply is up yet.

Also, I take it you are referring to Jordan's second page, just incase there's

some confusion. Anyway the discussion goes so far:-

Me http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html

Jordan http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/locks.htm

Me again http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply1.html

Jordan again http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/locks2.htm

Me again, when ready, will be at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html although this will

also have a number of sub-pages - all will become clear.

BTW, are you the John who sent the email Jordan quoted?

Anyway, thanks for your interest and stay tuned....

Regards,

Steve

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

Leaving Christianity

From: John Richards

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 18 October 2000 04:46

Subject: Response

Hi Steve,

It is a pleasure to meet you formally. Thank you for your quick and

courteous response.

Yes, I am the "John" that Jordan referred to.

The reason why I emphasized John Shelby Spong in my e-mail was simply

because I am most familiar with his books here in the States.

I have had skeptics approve of Spong's dismissal of Christianity yet

not address his Paul Tillich's "Ground of Being" substitute. I know

Spong's book is recommended by the Secular Web here in the States

(see http:// www.infidels.org for further reference under "Christianity" and

"books"). I am not familiar with any UK skeptical

sites except for the ones that Jordan passed on. I do not know how

much Spong's views are accepted there in the UK. Please feel free to

give me additional sites if you think it will help get to equal

footing in the discussion between you and Jordan.

Thank you again for your response. I would like to discuss issues with

you if you wish and if your time permits.

Best to you there in the UK, John

___

From: Steve Locks

To: John Richards

Sent: 19 October 2000 19:05

Subject: Re: Response

Hi John,

Thanks for your friendly email.

Regarding Spong - I do not really know exactly how Spong's ideas are accepted

specifically in the UK, so to some extent I can't help you. However I won't be

completely useless... I have read his book on the resurrection and the

articles he has at the Sea of Faith, I link to these from my "Resurrection

part 1" page. I am also aware of UK priests and theological colleges were IMO

Spong would be not out of place. In general the UK and Europe is more liberal

in religious beliefs and attitudes than the USA and fundamentalists are pretty

much a minority here.

From my reading of Spong, his ideas are quite subtle but there are many

passages where he makes it quite clear he intends no glimmer of

supernaturalism. Therefore his understanding of religion as something like

"the ground of being" is similar to the Sea of Faith, in that he seems to be

relating to the "God-idea" as a way of expressing seriousness and depth about

life, whilst pulling no punches that reality is secular, all be it "holy,"

full of numinousness etc. With all that I'd agree although just personally I

no longer find the "god-idea" useful. I do not think that his ideas mean he

believes in any kind of traditional god. If god-talk helps

people to focus their spiritual feelings then I think that is okay and can

work well for some. Many ex-Christians go through a period like this.

Nevertheless, if Spong really meant something radically

different than my understanding and that turns out to be something I

would not agree with, then so what? There can be few people that

another would agree with 100%, there is still plenty of interesting

material to be had.

Some SoF Spong links are:

http://www.sofn.org.uk/jsrelig.html

http://www.sofn.org.uk/nzbr0021.html

As I said on my site, I do admire the Sea of Faith, although after a while for

most ex-Christians it becomes time to move on to "fresher pastures" as it

were. I do still read and thoroughly enjoy Cupitt, etc. but there is much else

I wish to read, do and think about. I have become much more secular over

the years whilst loosing nothing of the spiritual richness I have ever had,

rather they have grown. I don't think not being a Christian (or at least a

religious person of some kind) would have endured for me if this did not

turn out to be the case, as I would have felt I was missing something very

important in life. I guess that is why some Christians write to tell me I

can't have been a "true Christian." However that rings very shallow with

me. http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/why/seek

You asked about UK sites. You guys have a far greater web

presence than we Brits, but anyway these are all interesting UK sites:

http://www.sofn.org.uk/

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/ (which has a resurrection article at

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/resr.htm)

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

http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/

Also there are of course places like

http://www.humanism.org.uk/

http://www.secularism.org.uk/

Michael Goulder is from the UK too and I have transcribed an interview at

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

An excellent British resource is the New Testament Gateway from the Birmingham

University (where I went, but to do physics) theology department. It is at

http://www.ntgateway.com/

Of course, I can plug my own site too since I'm from the UK!

http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/why/seek

http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/feedback

As for other sites regarding what Jordan and I are discussing, I link to them

during my resurrection articles, so you could follow them in as much depth as

you wish.

<< Thank you again for your response. I would like to discuss issues with

you if you wish and if your time permits. >>

Thank you too for your pleasant manner. I am happy to discuss matters further

only on the condition that you read at least the two URL's above. I frequently

ask this of Christians who write to me but they never do, they just write back

quickly with arguments I have already discussed. So if you don't get much of a

reply from me in future it's probably because I've already discussed that

issue there. I really would love to chat at length with everybody who writes,

but it is not possible and so I have to cut out the repetitive ones. However,

if you want to impress me then please do read those URLs :-). I poured a lot

of energy into my feedback and only put a few of them up at the

URL above. Most of the matters that are raised with me by email have already

been discussed at length there and I don't have the time to repeat them,

although I am very happy to take things further than I have already discussed.

The "Seek and ye shall find?" URL was the starting point to my "asymmetry of

conversion" research, which eventually led me to Jordan.

I will discuss your email to Jordan on my website since it is in the public

domain. Unfortunately if I address the "Ground of Being" issue and "show

why it is more rational (provable) than Christianity" (do I really need to or

even have to agree with it?) Jordan will accuse me of "straying" and

probably use it as an excuse to say I'm dodging the resurrection!

Nevermind....

Best wishes and regards,

Steve

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

Leaving Christianity:

From: John Richards

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 18 November 2000 17:21

Subject: Debate with Jordan

Hi Steve,

I read everything on your site per your request. Since you requested that

I only come in to this debate if I can add anything new, I am honoring your

request of simply awaiting your response to

Jordan. I am not a scholar so I can't offer anything original.

I would like to say that I am disappointed by many of the points that are

brought up both in your "Seek" link as well as some of the

others(particularly the Sea of Faith). These issue have been addressed

elsewhere and I do not think have been properly rebutted.

After your discussion with Jordan is over, I would like to discuss

your view of ancient history and recording of incidents(Herod's

Bethlehem Massacre) as well as the "alternative" given by the Sea of

Faith. I have printed that for my own interest and the "alternative"

they give after dropping Christianity has major problems.

I know you are busy so please e-mail when you have a chance. I think the

matters raised are too important to be left alone.

Best wishes to you in the UK, John

From: Steve Locks

To: John Richards

Sent: 22 November 2000 00:36

Subject: Re: Debate with Jordan

Dear John,

<< Since you requested that I only come in to this debate if I can add

anything new, I am honoring your request of simply awaiting your response to

Jordan. >>

Yes, I think since I wish to include much material on those resurrection pages

it is best left there. If Jordan wishes to stop at some point then I am happy

to continue with you there (like a relay race!) Nevertheless I have some book

reviews and further analysis I wish to do there quite apart from discussing

Jordan's points. So there will be a part 4, 5 and who knows what - even if I

get no response to my upcoming part 3.

<< I would like to say that I am disappointed by many of the points that are

brought up both in your "Seek" link as well as some of the

others (particularly the Sea of Faith). >>

It would save me a lot of time if you would be kind enough to deconvert after

reading my essays (that's a joke!) Seriously, if you have something to add to

the "seek and ye shall find" discussion or anything else then please tell me

what's on your mind rather than making vague disapproving comments and we can

discuss it.

<< These issue have been addressed elsewhere and I do not think have been

properly rebutted. >>

Tell me where and I'll look into it (unless it's an expensive book).

<< After your discussion with Jordan is over, I would like to discuss

your view of ancient history and recording of incidents(Herod's

Bethlehem Massacre) as well as the "alternative" given by the Sea of

Faith. >>

My other emails and discussions are not on hold whilst I put my notes

together for my discussion of Jordan's latest reply. Anyway, who

knows when my debate with Jordan will be over, it could go on for

years (it's already been almost 1 year).

The basic problem with the story of the "massacre of the innocents" is that

Herod was widely disliked and contemporary historians were not slow in

pointing out his misdemeanours. Since there is no record outside of Matthew of

such an outrage it is rather unlikely that it happened. Contemporary

historians would have jumped at giving a full account of such an atrocity,

just as Josephus would have reported the multiple dead rising from their

graves had it happened, as I discuss at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply1.html#eye

I won't go into the parallels with the OT as I take it you are familiar with all

that.

For an ancient historian's view of the poverty of the evidence for the

resurrection and other matters (like the massacre of the innocents) see

Richard Carrier's new lecture at

www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

which says very well and succinctly many of the things I am trying to put into

my resurrection pages. I hope you and Jordan will read that link as it

expresses my views so well (you can tell him about it, or wait until my "part

3" is up where I'll recommend it anyway).

<< I think the matters raised are too important to be left alone. >>

That is what you hinted about the resurrection, then Spong's ideas and now the

Massacre of the innocents. Other Christians have variously told me that a host

of other matters are the central issue that I have to face (Adam and Eve, the

origin of the universe, morality, religious experience etc.) If the emphasis is

so varied on what is most important then I doubt that any of it is really so

central.

Personally I see these varied matters as no more important

or interesting then the analysis of various beliefs from any other religion

(other than Christianity is in our culture and personal life-histories of

course). Also I don't think that believing the "massacre of the innocents"

occurred or not would make much difference to one's Christianity

(unless one is personally a staunch inerrantist). I still assumed it happened

when I left Christianity and it wasn't until about a year later that I read

there were historical problems with it. I also think it would be perfectly

possible to believe it never happened and yet be a Christian. So

unfortunately whilst you see this as an issue too important to be left

alone, I'm not really that bothered one way or the other.

It is common in the USA to feel that Christianity is an "all or nothing"

religion and inability to believe fundamentalist doctrines renders one

a "false Christian." In Europe the view is frequently more moderate,

and indeed some have difficulty seeing unbending adherence to

traditional doctrines as really following the true spirit of Christianity,

and maybe fundamentalists are "false Christians." Certainly I have

seen such divergent views expressed between the different viewpoints

when I was a Christian. I have seen even more divergence between

Christians since I have come on-line.

When doctrine becomes more important than spirituality, loving behaviour and

charitable acts, then Christianity looks pretty hollow and I wonder why anyone

even bothers to call it a religion. If the evidence is so good then priests,

missionaries and hosts of well-churched Christians would not be deconverting.

Also, if evidence was important for convincing ex and non-Christians then a

god could obviously convince them very easily. However, Dietrich Bonhoeffer

said that "to ask for faith in the way that many people do" (i.e. want evidence)

"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. If the Christian god wanted

to make us Christians by the weight of the evidence then he could easily do

it. 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 does not seem

too concerned about doing this.

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying here, but these are very

intrinsic problems with this "urgent investigation" as I understand your

portrayal of it.

Atheists are not without religious feeling - spirituality is human and natural,

and to say that a religion must be the natural conclusion of an investigation is

basically, how can I put it, not religious - "God" becomes a mere fact of the

world, looking very hollow. Frequently we poor atheists watch in bewilderment

as some Christians strenuously try to shore him 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.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/damnable.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/2/2front96.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/was_he_married.html.

Ultimately I don't believe such a religion is very healthy and it is no wonder

that the history (and current state) of Christianity is striven with so much

bloodshed and cruelty, not to mention unkindness. People in healthy

relationships behave better. It looks to me like many Christians are troubled

souls. Luckily most of the Christians I knew were laid back, but then they were

liberal. If that means they weren't "real Christians" then maybe that is the

key and they should be glad of it. I frequently find that when Christianity is

criticised Christians become aggressive (sometimes very much so with no

more provocation than mutual lending of books) which is unlikely if they felt

secure and loved in their relationship with their god.

I would also like you to consider why you are asking me particularly about

"Herod's Bethlehem Massacre?" This is a subject very appropriate to the

errancy discussion boards, which despite the polemics do manage to tackle the

issues. If you really think that these issues are not being adequately tackled

then that is the best place to give your evidence as you will find a wider

resource on both sides of the fence - and people with plenty of time. Try

joining news:alt.bible.errancy (I frequently lurk there) or the errancy

mailing list at http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/secular.html#errancy

Also don't forget to search the Dejanews archives beforehand

http://www.dejanews.com as I would be surprised if this thread has not come up

before.

You should also read this

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html if you are

interested in a non-Christian historian's view of the reliability of Christian

historical claims in general.

A couple of things for you to consider about the massacre of the innocents

(actually wider than Bethlehem - "Herod ordered the massacre of all male

children "from two years old and under" in Bethlehem "and in all the borders

thereof" Matt. 2:16 ). Why was the baby John the Baptist not killed? He was

purportedly born in a town in the hill country of Judea that had to be close

enough to Jerusalem for his father to perform priestly duties at the temple

and yet Jesus had to be taken all the way to Egypt to be safe.

Also if Jesus was sent to earth to be the ultimate sacrifice so that mankind

through him might be saved, then there should have been no need for humans,

human babies at that, to be sacrificed for him. Just who's doing the saving and

who's being saved in such a story?

Best wishes,

Steve

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

Leaving Christianity

From: John Richards

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 09 December 2000 16:50

Subject: Debate with Jordan

Dear Steve,

I am sorry to take so long in getting back to you. I wanted to go over

your post to me in detail and this is the response that follows.

I should have rephrased my initial sentence. I will wait until this

installment is finished before asking you further questions.

Secondly, I think "deconvert" should be rightfully labelled "reconvert".

Leaving Christianity(or what is perceived as such) means

believing in something else(with or without an organized basis).

I did not respond in detail due to your request to finish your response

to Jordan. I can wait until you do so to get very specific

concerning the mentioned two areas.

Jordan's first response gave you Glenn

Miller's(www.Christian-thinktank.com) and JP Holding's(www.tekton.org)

on the non-resurrection issues you raised. Glenn's site even has a separate

area dealing with objections you mentioned. Why no response to them? This

involves buying no new book.

You mention only Matthew noting the massacre. You assume that it did not

happen because it was only mentioned here. Do all contemporary historians

mention all incidents of all rulers at all times? This assumes that we have

all surviving ancient historical records that have come down to us. This

also assumes all historians

place equal weight as to the people/incidents/times recorded.

If you use the reasoning stated, the corollary must be true since the

resurrection is mentioned in all four gospel accounts and so must have

happened.

The multiple dead rising from the graves is a separate issue whih

we can discuss later after dealing with the two issues I have mentioned.

Yes, I am familiar with the OT parallels.

I will withhold any comments on your links until I have read them in

their entirety.

These issues I have raised were ones apart from the resurrection. Had

your other links dealt exclusively with the resurrection, I would not raise

these other issues. Since your "Seek" link mentions them,

I am attempting to address them. However, this in no way detracts from the

central importance of the resurrection as Jordan previously

stated.

If these issues aren't important, wouldn't it be better to say so in your

"Seek" link, for example.

The question needs to be asked: What doctrines are the ex-C's reconverting

to?If they find the Bible objectionable, why don't they subject their new

views to the same scruntiny? Simply dismissing Sea of Faith as "god talk"

does not deal with the internal problems in the new worldview.

Of course, behavior consistent with views is very important. No one is

disputing that. My point is the hypocrisy, shallowness, and bigotry are

quite capable of coming from those who "reconvert". Does this mean will

"reconversion" will happen again if unloving people appear in the Sea of

Faith or BSA or any other non-theistic group? No one group has a monopoly on

hypocrisy or unloving behavior.

What would you consider as valid evidence from the Christian God? If God

uses people to document His message, this is showing concern and making His

message available to all.

The point is that athiests(and skeptics) do want "rational" evidence as

defined by them before they will even consider the case for the existence of

God and the resurrection. Seeing unchristian behavior becomes just another

excuse to avoid using the same standards the skeptics want initially.

Perhaps Christians need to be secure in what they believe so they can

give legitimate answers to questions. Please see Miller's and Holding's

sites who do address legitimate questions.

I did not seek to go on errancy boards. You had wanted me to read your

links so that is what I did. These other issues were brought up by you as

to why you disagreed with Christianity. I am simply responding to these

other points.

Scripture is silent about how John the Baptist was protected. Matthew and

Luke only focus on how Jesus escaped.

Human babies weren't being sacrificed for Jesus. Herod viewed Jesus as a

threat to this political throne. Herod was the one who ordered the

executions. This was a political act done by a political

man. Jesus' voluntary sacrifice had nothing to do with this.

Thank you for allowing me to respond to your e-mail. I shall read the

printouts and will be responding further.

Best to you in the UK, John

From: Steve Locks

To: John Richards

Sent: 12 December 2000 01:45

Subject: Re: Debate with Jordan

Hello John,

There are a lot of points you raised there! I will give frank answers, please

don't feel they are aggressive, just to the point. I certainly appreciate

civilised discussion.

<< I think "deconvert" should be rightfully labelled "reconvert".

Leaving Christianity(or what is perceived as such) means

believing in something else(with or without an organized basis). >>

"Deconvert" is a commonly used word for leaving a religion (Christian or

otherwise) and it would be confusing if I was to change terminology. Also

I think if I used "reconvert" it would sound like people are going

back to a belief system. I suspect this is what you think not believing in

Christianity is though. Not believing something does not imply any other set of

beliefs. Ex-Christians become atheists, agnostics, Muslims, new-age, pagans etc.

There is no pre-defined package for us to "re-convert" to. We just no longer

have the Christian beliefs we once held as true.

<< Jordan's first response gave you Glenn

Miller's(www.Christian-thinktank.com) and JP Holding's(www.tekton.org)

on the non-resurrection issues you raised. Glenn's site even has a separate

area dealing with objections you mentioned. Why no response to them? This

involves buying no new book. >>

There is an enormous amount of material out there both on these sites and

elsewhere. I link to Craig's resurrection articles and put up a link on my site

to Glenn Miller's site (and I had a short email exchange with him) before I even

heard of Jordan. I must admit that I am surprised that you and Jordan think that

Holding is good, I find him very puerile and rude, so even though I have read

articles on his site for a while, I was not expecting that I should link to him

as being a good Christian apologist. There are many dreadful Christian sites

that argue passionately, but I would only have thought of linking to them as

those that give Christians a bad name, which is not what my site is about. I'm

afraid I had Holding down as one of those. Nevertheless, because Jordan refers

to him quite a lot, I discuss him a little in my upcoming part 3. Anyway, I

have Jordan's links to his site on my first resurrection page and criticism of

him are linked to on my part 3. But as for delving into the arguments of other

huge websites I don't really want to repeat the work others are doing. There are

plenty of rebuttals of Holding on the secular web already. I suppose since

Christians are influenced by him and he lambastes so many people that they feel

the need to respond. So far I don't. My interest is in Jordan's thoughts.

Remember that I contacted Jordan due to my "asymmetry of conversion" researches

as that is where my real interest lies. Discussion of the resurrection with him

is a by-product of this (initially my page on Jordan was not even called

"resurrection"). To comb through enormous websites and pick their arguments

apart too is not something I have the leisure to do. To take Jordan points on is

about all I have time for, and as I said criticism of the resurrection and

debates on the resurrection with professional Christian apologists is already

available through my site links. Whether they convince people one way or the

other or not at all is not the purpose of my primary research, which is to find

out if Jordan personally really came up with anything when he converted that

balances the deconversion of priests, missionaries etc.

In re-cap, I do tackle specific issues but cannot be expected to single handily

discuss everything on other people's websites. I have already covered much

more ground than Jordan has - have you been chastising him for not responding

to the arguments against the resurrection in the external sites that I link to?

I mentioned on my first resurrection page that I do not wish to re-hash the

debates that are already out there. Most of these links I give at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html#links

Nevertheless if you have something specific you have found, then bring it up

after I have uploaded my resurrection part 3 and I'll discuss it. However please

don't expect me to go through enormous websites like Miller's and Holding's and

refute all their arguments any more than I should send you to the secular web

saying "refute that!" Just how much time do you think I have - It's already past

my bedtime now! :-)

I did have a plan to go through Craig's articles on my website, but after

pondering this further, although I had many thoughts, I realised that to do so

properly would take too much research for me to check his claims, making it nigh

impossible. Much of his material includes references to theologians and writers

I am unfamiliar with and would have a hard time tracking down. Some of his

passages are not even in English! From discussions with Christians and reading

criticism of apologists it is crucial to check their claims, rather than take

their word for the assertions they make. So I have to leave it to those with the

resources to tackle Craig on his own level (e.g.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html as I link

to).

I am intending to review some books though, as I mentioned at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html Also my resurrection

articles so far do address a fair amount raised in the material at the sites you

bring up, as well as having the odd novel idea. Before you criticise me too hard

for not tackling half the Internet, have you or Jordan put in the effort I have?

<< You mention only Matthew noting the massacre. You assume that it did not

happen because it was only mentioned here. Do all contemporary historians

mention all incidents of all rulers at all times? This assumes that we have

all surviving ancient historical records that have come down to us. >>

We have Josephus for example, who would have mentioned it had it happened. He

mentions all kind of minor detail about the period and to miss this one is

strong evidence that it didn't happen. Josephus devoted nearly 40 chapters to

the life of Herod and relates every important event in his life. He detested

Herod and dwelled on his crimes and errors. Yet, he never mentioned this

massacre and appears to have known nothing about it. No ancient historian

recalls this massacre. "All incidents" are obviously not reported, but ones of

extreme interest to contemporary historians with copious surviving writings

should have come down to us. Make sure you have read the link I gave to

Carrier's latest article.

Matthew said that this event happened in fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:15, "A voice

was heard in Ramah, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for

her children, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more," but when this

statement is examined in the context of Jeremiah 30-31, it is obvious that the

prophet was speaking about the symbolic sorrow of Rachel over the deportation of

her "children" to Babylon during the captivity. This "prophecy," then, appears

to be a prophecy only in Matthew's imagination as he searched through the

Old Testament for predictions of events in the life of Jesus.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

<< This also assumes all historians place equal weight as to the

people/incidents/times recorded. >>

Herod's purported baby genocide should have been given quite a lot of weight by

a Historian who loathed Herod and catalogued his crimes!

<< If you use the reasoning stated, the corollary must be true since the

resurrection is mentioned in all four gospel accounts and so must have

happened. >>

I'm afraid this is too simplistic and I think you know that. You should also

know what I would say if you have read my feedback (specifically to Mark

McFall).

As I said at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply1.html#eye, I

take it you don't take the multiple eyewitness attestations to the Statue of

Tyche speaking as evidence that it did, and so on. I discussed more at the URL

above which you should have read.

Remember that Luke and Matthew borrowed great chunks verbatim from Mark and all

3 are thought to borrow from "Q" as you will know. Mark's text has 661 verses,

more than 600 of which appear in Matthew and 350 in Luke. I'm sure you know all

this and can verify it all yourself at some neutral resource such as an online

encyclopaedia. They also make mistakes about contemporary events and geography

of the places fundamentalists claim they were witnesses at. This is all quite

incongruous with them being contemporary eyewitnesses, but fits in with

believing Christians padding out a story using the methods of the time such as

Midrash and turning to the OT for clues as to what must have happened. They also

show theological development and the events they describe are not corroborated

by any contemporary sources. The links I gave you to Richard Carrier's articles

should have shown this, not to mention the material available from my discussion

with Mark McFall, which you promised to read. Even reading the articles on the

gospels in encyclopaedias shows that the gospels are not independently reporting

events as seen by eyewitnesses. If 4 people variously retell a tale they heard

second-hand through oral tradition and now lost writings, does that mean they

were 4 independent witnesses?

I'm sure you must have heard this before and I'm not trying to teach you to the

obvious. However you must surely realise that << If you use the reasoning

stated, the corollary must be true since the resurrection is mentioned in all

four gospel accounts and so must have happened >> just does not follow at all.

If someone claimed war had broken out between America and the UK and I did not

see it on the news that night, then I would think they were mistaken. If a few

religious zealots wrote divergent and increasingly elaborated stories about an

article of faith that had been handed down to them, then I would not have reason

to think they were making multiple attestations, or that the story must

therefore be true. Rather quite the opposite. Divergent increasingly elaborated

accounts, decades removed from the purported events, with no contemporary record

makes me dubious. Would you accept the book of Mormon on the strength of the

multiple sworn eyewitness affidavits contained within it?

<< I will withhold any comments on your links until I have read them in

their entirety. >>

It looks like you didn't though. Did you really read my feedback? My

conversation with Dr. Garrett is very relevant to our discussion at a number of

places and I am surprised at some of your questions if you had read that. Please

make sure you do, and the rest of my feedback - it really doesn't take that

long. http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/feedback

<< If these issues aren't important, wouldn't it be better to say so in your

"Seek" link, for example. >>

I am not sure that I follow you here, or that you have understood what I wrote

about the importance or not of various religious issues in my previous email.

Could you explain a little more? My "Seek and Ye shall find" discussion was

about whether Jesus' purported statement was true, since I argued that many

seek and do not find, even to the extent that "seeking" is frequently a path to

leaving Christianity.

All sorts of Christian questions are important to Christians and prey on the

minds of those undergoing deconversion. Once Christianity is left, and fully

shaken off (it is seldom possible to just stop the old thinking habits)

Christian questions start to look as important as some squabbles over which

Egyptian Pharaoh was the most divine. However the phenomena of Christianity,

religious belief, conversion and deconversion fascinates me.

Whilst Christianity is in our culture and people are influenced by it then I

think it is important to talk about it openly. Since I have thought about

Christian issues a great deal, I find that reading about its history and

psychology very interesting. That does not mean I get uptight about matters of

doctrine, other than the phenomena of how people can believe it when faced with

the problems (see my conversation with Dr. Garrett for a graphic example) and of

course what it's like to leave.

If there had been no Christians for some decades, then I might take a small

historical interest, but I would not have a website for those leaving

Christianity. If I was an ex-Muslim, I might have had a site on leaving Islam.

In fact a few Muslims have written to me to point me to resources explaining why

Islam is the one true religion. I have found some interesting essays there that

criticise Christianity, but because Islam is not in my past or culture I don't

concentrate on it (another problem of finite time!)

<< The question needs to be asked: What doctrines are the ex-C's reconverting

to? >>

The only commonality is disbelief in Christianity. There is no "evil atheist

conspiracy" that we all sign up to or a set of doctrines that we all accept.

Indeed nobody tells us anything. It is partly because deconversion is usually

an individual and lonely process that I put my site together so that other

ex-Christians would not feel alone or unusual.

When I was on the ex-Christian mailing list, when the topic got off

Christian/ex-Christian issues a wide spectrum of beliefs whether on politics,

abortion, child-rearing etc. were aired, sometimes with heated debates. The only

common new belief (or rather attitude) I found was an acceptance of different

sexual persuasions. This is not a way anyone tells us to think though, rather it

appears people naturally drop an attitude no longer seen to be necessary or

kind.

<< If they find the Bible objectionable, why don't they subject their new

views to the same scruntiny? >>

What new views? That we no longer believe Christianity to be true? I can assure

you that coming to such a view has been subject to years of hard thought for

most of us! It is very unsympathetic to suggest that ex-Christians have not put

their views under scrutiny. I doubt you can imagine the heartache and inner

wrangling that goes on during the deconversion process for many of us. Sure

enough, we find light at the end of the tunnel, but to claim that we have not

examined the questions we asked about Christianity and looked for apologetics to

make us feel more secure in Christian faith is a gross naiveté I'm afraid. I am

disappointed that you make the claim that we don't subject our views to scrutiny

if you have read my feedback etc. as I asked you to. Well-churched Christians in

particular do not leave Christianity lightly and have tried all kinds of

apologetics to hang on to faith.

If you want to see ex-Christians scrutinised by others then see the

alt.bible.errancy archives, or just see your own and Jordan's writings to me! In

the last few weeks an atheist has been torn to pieces by the other atheists on

alt.bible.errancy for using nit-picking and straw man arguments against the

bible. So I can assure you that the same standard is applied quite rigorously

and no prisoners are taken from either side of the fence!

<< Simply dismissing Sea of Faith as "god talk" does not deal with the internal

problems in the new worldview. >>

I do not "dismiss" the SoF in any way - you must have misunderstood me. Also,

again you are being vague as to what the problems you see are. As I discussed

before, it really doesn't matter whether they have internal problems or not and

I know a 3rd of their membership changes each year, so clearly most people feel

the need to move on. I find their writings interesting, but I have not felt like

joining their organisation. They conduct an investigation into religious life

and are far from holding a rigid set of beliefs or worldview other than seeing

religion as a human creation - a conclusion they usually came to from a previously more

conservative religious background. They evolve and change their ideas in how

they express religious behaviour and feelings and have a range of views within

their membership (without condemning each other as "unspiritual" or "hell-bound"

for having different ideas). As they explain, there is no party-line in the SoF,

which is why they call themselves a "network." They are more like a bunch of

explorers.

If you have a problem that really bothers you regarding the SoF then I suggest

writing to them, like I did. They took a while to reply to me but I got an

interesting and civil reply and then did the decent thing which was to do better

homework and read more of their writings. Once I did that I felt I had been

impetuous and was rather embarrassed. I have since learnt that open un-dogmatic

religious exploration is not something to get worked up about.

<< Of course, behavior consistent with views is very important. No one is

disputing that. My point is the hypocrisy, shallowness, and bigotry are

quite capable of coming from those who "reconvert". >>

Quite true. Unfortunately if you examine the hate groups at hatewatch you will

find the religious ones are far more common than the anti-religious ones. Also

looking through the guestbooks of Christian and atheist sites would show far

more hateful and aggressive writing from Christians than atheists. Usually worst

atheist behaviour is ridicule and exasperation, whereas it doesn't take long to

provoke plenty of Christians into hell-threats and turning on the caps-lock key.

It is Christians who are meant to have divine influence in their lives.

I think my site (which I try to keep pretty un-scornful) was up for only a few

months before I received hatemail from Christians and even a death threat. How

many Christian sites suffer such feedback? I bet they get other Christian

groups telling them they are hell-bound false Christians though. I have had a

good few Christians independently explaining to me what "true Christianity" is

and who the "false Christians" are, mutually excluding every kind of Christian

in the process. For instance, some tell me you have to "invite Jesus in" (as if

I had never heard that before) whilst another told me that to "invite Jesus in"

is "as false a doctrine as has ever been preached." Some explain that there is

no hell and Christians have done a lot of damage to the "true message" by

preaching it, whereas others tell me that I just have not understood why hell is

a reality and why it's right. And so it goes on.

<< Does this mean will "reconversion" will happen again if unloving people

appear in the Sea of Faith or BSA or any other non-theistic group? No one

group has a monopoly on hypocrisy or unloving behavior. >>

You should know from my feedback that I did not deconvert due to a bad

experience of Christians. Neither am I likely to go back to Christianity if I

find a load of nasty atheists. However, as I say on my site, God or the Holy

Spirit is meant to be in the lives of Christians in some way. The gospels report

Jesus as telling us to judge a tree by its fruit. However Christianity has such

a poor record of producing good fruit that it does not bode well for evidence of

divine influence. Secular life makes no supernatural claims for influence on our

behaviour. As much as people are liberated, well-fed, secure and educated then

in general society is better and people behave well. When people live with

ignorance, poverty and insecurity then there is usually turmoil. Religious life

is frequently a cause of turmoil and I think that is due to a misunderstanding

of the world and hence conflict with it.

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. See

http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm and

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

<< What would you consider as valid evidence from the Christian God? >>

You shouldn't be asking me these questions if you have read the links I gave.

Make sure you have read my feedback.

Personally I think the Christian god is a nonsense and asking for valid evidence

from him is like asking for valid evidence of a square circle. It is not just a

lack of evidence for the Christian God, but more poignantly that Christianity

does not make sense and is full of awful doctrines. See my discussion with Dr.

Garrett.

Nevertheless, if mankind's hearts were moved to make us all loving and

empathetic towards each other then I would be impressed. (It doesn't mean that

the Christian God specifically would be responsible though). Note that many

people appear to be loving and empathetic naturally or are so due to good

upbringing, so I don't buy giving us a natural inclination toward loving and

empathetic behaviour as going against "free will," unless I can be convinced

that good people don't have free will. Meanwhile God hardens people's hearts

so that they cannot be converted (John 12:40) - or maybe *that* is interfering

with free will!

If the stars were moved around to spell "the Christian Bible God exists" (and

maybe add "as understood by the Antioch Bible Church" - or whichever version of

Christianity is true) then I ought to be convinced but would not be so

impressed. Ultimately if life as a Christian was better than as not then I would

probably be a Christian, despite questions and doubts, as I discussed with Dr.

Garrett. We are only human, and despite the most terrible doubts about

Christianity, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and I would have

probably have returned to be a "pragmatic" Christian, all be it perplexed, if I

had not found atheism more spiritually fulfilling. (Please don't try to tell me

I/we can't have been "real Christians." I discuss this at multiple places on my

site that you should have read).

Finding Christianity untenable includes the whole of human concerns, not just

the intellectual side. For instance I discussed my thoughts on hell and death

and the wonder of naked existence in my deconversion story.

Nevertheless, if I was a "pragmatic" Christian I think it would be

understandable, but a reflection on my human weakness and not admirable or even

responsible. It is better to believe things that are true. Even if the truth

about the world was ugly and brutal (which I have not found), then I hope I

would always have the strength and honesty to accept it. Would you wish to be a

Christian if Christianity is false?

Since you asked me, what would you consider as valid evidence *against* the

Christian God? My answer for you, speaking from experience, is "a surprise!" i.e. you

cannot know in advance what new discoveries you may make or what new connections

you might make with the information you already have. Nevertheless, I would be

interested in your answer.

<< If God uses people to document His message, this is showing concern and

making His message available to all. >>

Clearly not as so many of us are not convinced, including those who have studied

"His message" for decades. That is one of the many ironies, that it is

frequently exactly study of "his message" that leads to deconversion, as you

should have gathered from http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html

and from reading some of the testimonies I link to. Even without people leaving

Christianity from the seminary, pulpit and mission field, how "his message" is

available to all, when Christians are not in agreement over what his message is,

baffles me. Christianity has included a rich litany of inter-Nicene argument,

mutual condemnation, ex-communication and murder of "brothers" and condemnation

of "non-believers" from the beginning to the present day. Jesus prayed that his

followers would be as one (John 17:20-22). His prayer had so little power that

argument, heresy, schism and religious wars have been the story ever since. For

every Christian group one can find another group who will tell them they are

hell-bound "false Christians." You should have already read

http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/feedback/dr-anthony-garrett/part-6#tertullian

How was "God's message" available to those babies that were slaughtered by

Herod, or for that matter by Moses under God's direct command? etc. (See my

conversation with Dr. Garrett). What about the Jewish children who were sent to

Auschwitz, where was their opportunity? Where is my opportunity when I honestly

do not find Christianity believable?

<< The point is that athiests(and skeptics) do want "rational" evidence as

defined by them before they will even consider the case for the existence of God

and the resurrection. >>

Not true, as I discussed with my quote from Bonhoeffer and on my

resurrection pages. Christians are too quick to "demonise" non-Christians

as some sort of spiritual ignoramuses, only interested in the "rational"

(and spurious rationality at that). As I said, like Don Cupitt I see belief in

a deity due to "evidence" as something basically not religious and I

mentioned my distaste for Jordan and Richard Swinburne's "evidential"

approach to religion there, which you should have read

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply1.html#sof.

I am weak enough to be a Christian without evidence if I really believed

Christianity was valuable and gave people something deeply worthwhile. As I said

in my testimony:

<< "I almost deconverted whilst at university due to what seemed a more coherent

explanation of Christianity as a human phenomenon. I was kept back though by the

feeling that as Thomas Merton said "by denying God we are denying ourselves." If

I wasn't a Christian I would be missing something important in life, therefore

there had to be something in it." >>

In fact I knew nothing about arguments for Christianity when I initially became

a serious Christian, instead at that time I just assumed Christianity was true

but more importantly responded to it as something I believed was valuable.

Despite once believing that was the case, I no longer do. I think there is a

better way.

It is also not just a lack of evidence that is part of the problem with

Christianity, but the fact that it doesn't make sense, even in core doctrines,

for example as I linked to regarding the atonement in my previous email.

<< Seeing unchristian behavior becomes just another excuse to avoid using the

same standards the skeptics want initially. >>

Rude and unkind behaviour is not "un-Christian", rather it is typical Christian

behaviour from my post-Christian experience. I would say over half the

Christians who write to me are very rude or become so when it becomes clear they

are not convincing me of anything. This has become less since I put my email

page up and I now get a fair few civilised discussions and even complementary

emails from Christians. Unfortunately there are still plenty of Christians who

demonstrate how parochial their love often is. When put to the test with

outsiders it unfortunately frequently turns to anger, complete with threats of

everlasting torture (how can anyone be that inhumane!) This was a discovery

since I left Christianity and I had never expected it when I was a Christian.

Whilst a Christian I had a very nice time, as I have discussed at length in my

feedback (I hope you did read it - I mentioned I did not wish to re-hash old

debates). I deconverted due to finding Christianity untenable and

the discovery of a richer life without it made it obvious how wrong I had been,

despite how good I had felt Christianity to be. You can read all this on my

site.

<< Perhaps Christians need to be secure in what they believe so they can give

legitimate answers to questions. Please see Miller's and Holding's sites who do

address legitimate questions. >>

Uncertainty is an underrated state of mind! Why not go on an open voyage of

discovery rather than looking to bolster a belief system? I have read

significant chunks of Miller's and Holding's sites and am shocked at

the thinking of fundamentalists. Miller goes to enormous convoluted lengths to

excuse the Christian god of biblical atrocities and neglect for the terrors of

history. He does at least attempt to tackle difficult questions though and for

that and his good humour I admire him. However I find his discussions so full of

holes it would take an enormous amount of time to pick apart, as I have

mentioned.

Luckily though he has saved debates he has had, such as the excellent (and

ongoing last time I looked) one with Jeff Lowder (unfortunately I can't find the

URL despite re-searching through his site - my original link to that debate is

broken). [note: since writing this email I have found it - It was

James Still, not Jeff Lowder, my mis-remembering!. The link is here.]

If you find and read that one you will see what I mean about the length

and detail that one needs to go into, so I'm afraid I am going to remain general

on my criticisms of his site with you.

<< I did not seek to go on errancy boards. You had wanted me to read your

links so that is what I did. These other issues were brought up by you as to

why you disagreed with Christianity. I am simply responding to these

other points. >>

I suggested the errancy boards because that is the most appropriate place to

discuss Herod's massacre which was the main topic you bought up. By all means

discuss issues with me (especially ones from my website) but you would get a

wider discussion on errancy issues at errancy resources.

If you wish to find answers to the questions you ask of me, then it is best to

go to the places especially designed for that purpose. You could download the

errancy resources at the "Pilate project"

http://www.xmission.com/~jburton/index.htm.

That would give you relevant material to chew over for years where you will see

that questions of errancy have been discussed at length. (I have just counted

seven articles about Herod's massacre there with a quick keyword search).

<< Scripture is silent about how John the Baptist was protected. Matthew and

Luke only focus on how Jesus escaped. >>

Actually it is only Matthew that mentions the massacre. Luke says nothing about

it or an escape. In fact it is worse than merely being silent about John the

Baptist. Not only did Luke leave the infanticide and flight to Egypt out of his

account, he stated that Mary and Joseph took Jesus up directly to Galilee from

Jerusalem, leaving no room for a trip to Egypt (2:39 ).

Anyway, why give silence the benefit of the doubt? The bible gives us a lot of

less interesting information about John the Baptist. Why ever should Matthew

1:20 not say "An Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and Zacharias in their

dreams"? or "Joseph took Zacharias and his family with them to Egypt." It would

be much more interesting than the masses of information about how to make a tent

that there is in the OT. If someone was making stories up to fit what he thought

had to have happened in with his theological views, then missing out John the

Baptist is just the kind of error we could expect due to not thinking it all

through properly. I only noticed it when reading an article whilst writing my

previous email to you.

<< Human babies weren't being sacrificed for Jesus. >>

God did not see fit to send an angel to warn normal parents. If all the babies

disappeared out of Bethlehem and the surrounding region then Herod would have

continued his chase (assuming he was really as interested as Matthew portrays

him in the first place). Instead it appears it was acceptable that they were

used as a smoke-screen. I am afraid that as I discussed at length with Dr.

Garrett, the bible god is not adverse to commanding and sanctioning murder of

babies and other innocents. I often wonder just what the bible god would have to

do before Christians realise that the religion they believe in was invented by

primitive people. Ezechial 9:4-6 "The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright,

young men and maidens, little children and women." Would you obey this command?

You must read my conversation with Dr. Garrett.

When Christians try to excuse this behaviour it strikes me like the refusal of a

mother to believe that her husband has been abusing their children. Instead she

gets angry with them for ever daring to say such awful things about their

father. (I am not implying you get angry, but plenty of Christians do when this

sort of thing is bought up). The simple fact is that the bible has multiple

portrayals of God sanctioning and ordering murder, torture and rape as I

discussed with Dr. Garrett. To claim that he was blameless in the Herod

incident is just not facing an unpleasant issue. It is better for Christianity

if the Herod incident was a mistake by Matthew!

<< Herod viewed Jesus as a threat to this political throne. Herod was the one

who ordered the executions. This was a political act done by a political man. >>

How do you know this? Are you using Matthew to prove Matthew?

If you are right, then the Christian god did not feel it in his heart to warn

the parents of normal children. He was only interested in rescuing Jesus. Would

you have warned the other parents if you knew Herod's forces were on the

way to slaughter their babies?

<< Jesus' voluntary sacrifice had nothing to do with this. >>

If it wasn't for Jesus those babies would not have been slaughtered. If Jesus

and his father are one then since the Christian God knew this slaughter was

going to happen and yet did not warn the people then he certainly is culpable.

That will do. I hope it doesn't look confrontational. I try to be frank to

avoid giving an unsatisfactory or vague conversation. Please make sure you

have read my feedback and quotes page (and my resurrection articles). My guest

essay at http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm may also be of interest.

Regards,

Steve

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

Leaving Christianity: