Feedback discussions - Tammy D. Sundby
just want to say that alot of people profess to be Christians because
they accept the doctrine, not because they have actually asked Christ
into their hearts and commited to pursuing a relationship with him.
Christianity is all about focusing your life on this relationship. Alot
of people don't realize that believing alone is not enough and miss out
on the awesome experience and life that comes with knowing God throught
Jesus Christ. I felt "life" breathed into me when I asked Christ into
my heart, that made me want to go out and do cartwheels all day. I've
had a friend tell me that based on what I said, he tried it and felt the
same thing and was the best thing he ever did in his life. I had the
opportunity to witness other people testify to feeling exactly what I
felt, to deny their faith in other religions/cults based on this
experience.
My request is that if you have not specifically asked Christ into your
heart and pursued this relationship in your life, you probably should
re-examine whether you really were a Christian, or just someone who
believed in the doctrine and specify that on your web-page. Thank you.
If something is not true but it makes you happy to believe it, is this belief
virtuous or even admirable? Is it responsible to promote a belief if it is
false? Would you want to believe something if it was not true even if it made
you happy?
People express as much love for religious leaders whom you would think
cultists, as you write about your love with Jesus. Moonies express their
happiness and love and devotion for the "true messiah" Sun Myung Moon - their
true "Father" who fills them with elation and inspiration. They too say they
have never been happier. You can read this in ex-Moonie leader Steve
Hassan's book "Combating cult mind control" - see
http://www.freedomofmind.com/
As you will know, people can be deliriously happy thinking somebody
loves them only to be shocked when they suddenly receive a "dear John"
letter telling them it is all over. There is even a condition, known as
De Clerambault's syndrome where a person believes that they are loved
by someone they may not even know - especially when that someone is
of a higher status than them. Happiness and a feeling of love is not a
guarantee of truth or even that the beloved exists, let alone that they love
you back. You may also be surprised at these happy people
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html
People leave from every variety of Christianity including those who fit your
description, doing cartwheels for Jesus and having "invited him into their
lives" etc. My site is not just about me, although I certainly felt and
believed that I had Jesus in my life (or rather he was life itself!) and you
will find such testimonies if you surf around.
Your claim that I was not a "true Christian" also puts the lie to Jesus' claim
that you can tell a tree by its fruit. None of the Christians who knew me when
I was a Christian could tell that I was not a "true Christian" rather quite
the opposite. Make sure you read this
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html
What about all the ex-priests, theologians, ministers etc. were they not true
Christians either? http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#profs
Unfortunately there is no consensus amongst Christians as to what a "true
Christian" is. In fact one Christian told me that "inviting Jesus in" is "as
false a gospel as has ever been preached" so in his eyes you might
not be a true Christian.
Every kind of Christian is described as "false" by another kind somewhere.
Fundamentalists condemn Catholics and some Catholics condemn non-Catholics
and so the list goes on and on. 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."
I have discussed your points further on my website. If you read
nothing else that I recommend, then please read my summary at
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm and this debate at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html
Then write again with your thoughts on what I wrote there and in this email.
Christians are meant to love people. That is a good sentiment,
but do you not think that love includes the responsibility to try to
understand others? Do you wish to really understand why people leave
Christianity or are you just doing what virtually all Christians do, which is
to pontificate and diagnose without listening? The most primordial
thing for a Christian is not love, it is Christian dogma. When love
really becomes primal then the compulsion to force the real world
into your particular Christian interpretation no longer becomes your
mission. Real love means the responsibility to actually find out what is
going on. So please read
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html and
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm Then if you really wish to
understand follow the other links too.
If you want to look into some of the evidences for and against Christianity
then you could follow my ongoing debate that starts here
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html
Sorry to be abrupt, but you have obviously not read much of my site. When you
have read the links above then come back and we can have a proper
conversation.
Best wishes,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
Five minutes later, whilst I was still on-line, I received this...
I hope God himself came down and revealed this to you. If the truth
were something to be grasped, what makes you so sure that it has to
follow the logic and reason of your worldview?
You wrote:
<< You sound absolutely positive there is nothing true about Christianity.
I hope God himself came down and revealed this to you. >>
In your previous email you told me that Jesus filled you with so much that is
good that you feel like doing cartwheels all day. I would have thought that
such inspiration from the God of love who taught you to love your neighbour as
yourself would have engendered greater feeling for your fellow man than the 5
minutes you gave me before replying with a taunting email. It really doesn't
make Christianity look very impressive I'm afraid. Why do you think that I
wrote at the end of my testimony "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." ? What is primal for a Christian? Is it love
and truth or is it Christianity? Do you really wish to understand and relate
to your fellow man or just force us all into a mould of the Christian
worldview, whatever the facts?
So, are you really interested in finding out why people leave Christianity, or
are you just here to point fingers and not listen?
Obviously if I thought I had a divine revelation then I would be a theist and
thus your comment << I hope God himself came down and revealed this to you >>
is just typical Christian sarcasm, which I'm afraid I see a lot of. My
non-belief is a very powerful working hypothesis, and the result of my
researches making Christian belief untenable, not a proof of the
non-existence of any particular deity. I am open to be convinced that I
am wrong, so if you wish to engage me in open, carefully considered
and non-sarcastic debate then please do.
You wrote:
<< If the truth were something to be grasped, what makes you so sure that it
has to follow the logic and reason of your worldview? >>
Conviction is a state of mind and not a guarantee of truth. Personally I'm
convinced because I read, discussed and thought about it, which is the most
common story of why people leave. You will see some of what these reasons are
if you follow the links in my previous email. Bare in mind that I changed my
worldview. I didn't start with a worldview that denies divine revelation, so
your comment << what makes you so sure that it has to follow the logic
and reason of your worldview? >> is quite misplaced. My views are
something I came to, not what I started with. However if beliefs are
based on revelation or faith then it soon becomes apparent that it is
difficult to know what to have faith in or which is the correct revelation
as there are many different faiths and revelations that are in conflict.
Famed Christian apologist William Craig wrote in "Reasonable Faith:
Christian Truth and Apologetics, 1994" as follows: "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."
Craig (and I assume you too) thinks that his religious experience is veridical
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/holy_spirit.html whereas
somebody else's very different religions experience is apparently not!
http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/ivanhoe.html
Others of course could (and do) make exactly the opposite claim, so
appeal to divine revelation is quite useless. Curiously it was the spiritual
attraction of atheism that was one of the things that intrigued me about
it in the first place. What do you think about that?
Anyway, why do you think I (and all the other ex-Christians including
previous ministers, missionaries etc.) have not had divine revelation?
Did Jesus not say "knock and the door shall be opened to you," "seek
and you shall find"? Was he not telling the truth? See
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html
Will you answer at least this question - if Christianity is false would you
want to know that?
Don't forget to read http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html before
answering again as I will be putting our correspondence on our website, as I
warned on my email page. A hasty, rude, or un-thought out reply from you
won't look good to those who come to my site with questions and doubts
about Christianity (see who is visiting my site from my poll).
Best wishes,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
1. I'm not sure why or how you can accuse me of "attacking" you, or
"pointing fingers", when all I have done is asked a simple question.
All I've asked is that you entertain the thought that all the research
in the world won't bring you back in time. In fact there's probably
just as much evidence to support the religion as you can find to not
support it. There are some atheist/scientist who have set out to do
what you are doing and in the end chose to become Christians(to name a
couple, read about C.S. Lewis, Dr. Don Bierle, "Surprised by Faith",
Joshua McDowell, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict").
2. You previously accused Christianity of being a pack of lies. If you
don't know the ultimate truth, how can you make that assertion? These
are simple questions. They don't need a debate. If there's a
possibility that you can be wrong, where are you ultimately at in the
end? You're left with the choice of having faith or no faith. And in
the end you may or maynot be judged for your decision. So which way do
you go?
3. You accused me of not loving my neighbor. Just so you know, none of
the above or previous comments were intended to come across as "snide".
I can't keep you from reading into my letters. So I explicitly ask that
you just take them at face value, no emotions.
I apologise if I have misread any emotions. Nevertheless, if you "explicitly
ask that you just take them at face value, no emotions" then I ask that you
don't quote me as saying things I did not.
<< 1. I'm not sure why or how you can accuse me of "attacking" you >>
Try looking for this in my emails, that is not what I said. The meaning
of "pointing fingers" is rather different than "attacking." My point is that I
feel you are contacting me to tell me things, not to dialogue, and these
things you are telling me are ones that I have already been discussed at
length in the links I gave you. 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.
<< all I have done is asked a simple question. >>
It seemed more than that, in that you were diagnosing why I am not a Christian
without looking into the matter as was evidenced by the fact that it took only
5 minutes to reply to my first email. Have you read the links I gave you? I
have seen no comment on them from you.
<< All I've asked is that you entertain the thought that all the research
in the world won't bring you back in time. >>
In time for what?
<< In fact there's probably just as much evidence to support the religion as
you can find to not support it. >>
How do you know this? What is the evidence which has so far eluded me, not to
mention the ex-priests, theologians, missionaries etc. who have left
Christianity.
Why didn't all these well-churched and professional Christians know about the
evidence you claim to know? Why didn't it stop them deconverting?
<< There are some atheist/scientist who have set out to do what you
are doing >>
What do you think I "have set out to do?" I was a Christian, but became
convinced I was mistaken about Christianity and am now sharing what I and
others have been through and learned with those who are interested. Are you
suggesting I set out to become an ex-Christian? Make sure you read my
conversation with Dr. Garrett where I have discussed all this already at great
length. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html etc.
<< and in the end chose to become Christians(to name a
couple, read about C.S. Lewis, Dr. Don Bierle, "Surprised by Faith",
Joshua McDowell, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"). >>
Again you are not reading my site and I am not going to repeat myself (too
much). As you should know from
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/why.html,
I have read all of C.S. Lewis (it's "surprised by Joy" BTW, which I
also lent to an atheist friend when I was a Christian in the hope that it
would convert him) and as you should also know from
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html Josh
McDowell is not even highly regarded by some Christians, and is
thoroughly discredited at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html
I will look into Dr. Bierle, but from past experience I am not hopeful. You
may be interested in the "asymmetry of conversion" research I have been
conducting which starts at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html
<< 2. You previously accused Christianity of being a pack of lies. >>
I did not say that. I did say I find Christianity "untenable" which means I
do not know how it can be successfully defended.
<< If you don't know the ultimate truth, how can you make that assertion? >>
Easy, I don't make it. I have had occasion to use the quote "A really
successful lie is best sandwiched between two truths." Christianity is far too
complex to all be "a pack of lies." I disbelieve the supernatural elements and
am convinced that the history and psychology of religion is other than the
conservative church paints it. See
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/why.html
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/why.html#n4 and
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/mybooks.html
<< If there's a possibility that you can be wrong, where are
you ultimately at in the end? You're left with the choice of having
faith or no faith. >>
Belief is not a "choice" if it is honest. I cannot choose to believe something
which I find unbelievable, even if it was virtuous or responsible to do so!
You really must read my conversation with Dr. Garrett where I went into all
this and many more of your points in detail.
<< And in the end you may or maynot be judged for your decision. So which way
do you go? >>
Pascal's Wager is a very flawed argument! Illogical and immoral.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
I don't want to read things into your words, so please reassure me that you
are no not insinuating I might go to hell, as that's a pretty nasty threat.
Krishna and Allah have also predicted unpleasant things for those who
do not believe their "true religion."
"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]
"We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we assigned their
number (19) (1) to disturb the disbelievers, (2) to convince the Christians
and Jews (that this is a divine scripture)"
[Koran, Sura 74, verse 31]
"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.)
I am not scared by their threats either.
If you believe that your god allows hell then your relationship is like that
of an abused spouse or victims of the Stockholm syndrome (you will understand
why I say this if you read the links I gave).
<< 3. You accused me of not loving my neighbor. Just so you know, none of
the above or previous comments were intended to come across as "snide".
I can't keep you from reading into my letters. So I explicitly ask that
you just take them at face value, no emotions. >>
I am glad to hear it and I apologise where I have misunderstood you. However I
still fail to see how writing "I hope God himself came down and revealed this
to you" can be anything other than sarcastic or taunting. Since you know I
don't believe in any god, how did you think this would sound and what did you
mean by it? When you responded in 5 minutes with this
were you really doing so out of love? Why did I not deserve more
consideration such as is due to the neighbour you love?
Have you read any of the links I gave you previously? You really must do so as
I do not have the time to rewrite my website in emails for you. Also you have
not answered any of the questions I have asked of you. If you don't get much
more of a response from me it will be because you are still rehashing old
ground I have already discussed.
Best wishes,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
This discussion is continued here
feedback discussions listing | Leaving Christianity contents | email me