Abstract

This splendid personal rejection of Christian indoctrination came from somewhere on the web as a .TXT file. It was anonymous and gave no indications of its origins, so I assume it is free to be used publicly.

© Dr M D Magee
Contents Updated: Wednesday, 19 June 2002

An Evangelical Letter to a Christian Friend

My own experience as a Christian has been based on two things for the most part.

1. My experience of God as I perceived Him to move in my life.
2. The Bible. I found it to be an amazing document, both in its revelation of the character of God (which was consistent with my own experience) and its historical accuracy. Its age alone almost seems to make it above serious criticism.

My probing in the last seven years has been in both of these areas. It started first with my experience because of the circumstances I was going through at the time, and has since moved to the accuracy of the Bible.

You warned me against the use of subjective reasoning, and admonished me to base my faith on the solid foundation of the Bible, and my relationship with Christ. From my perspective, the probing I have been doing is an escape from subjective reasoning. For a long time I have not only viewed the world through a small keyhole but also interpreted everything I saw to fit within the limitations of the world model that I perceived.

In deciding to probe I believe that I committed an act of faith. I dared to doubt. I am convinced that fear is the root of close-minded thinking. One does not make a “truth” by believing it hard enough. Truth stands by reason of its own accuracy when allowed to do so. Re-examining the facts never changes the facts themselves, it only change’s one’s perception of them. Therefore I don’t consider it a breach of faith or self-deception to question things previously taken for granted.

Psychology of Christianity

Spiritual experiences are not easy things to judge. They really don’t have tangible evidences per se. They are “like the wind blowing where it will” and you can only gauge it by its effects. How then does one tell the difference between real encounters with non-tangible beings and mere psychological abberation? My own process of thought on this has been twofold. I have had to look both inward, at my own perceptions and the overall effect they have had on my own life, and outward at the church and humanity as a whole.

The idea that spiritual experiences (hearing from God) can be manufactured or at least misinterpreted without Satanic implications is not new to Christians. A wide variation in doctrine is tolerated by believers, where each doctrine is believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. A classic example of this is the disagreement between the Baptist types and the Charismatics over how one experiences the Holy Spirit Himself. One side says that the Holy Spirit automatically indwells all persons who make a decision for Christ and rarely, if ever gives such gifts as Tongues, Word of Knowledge, or Prophecy. The other side says that you must have a separate experience to be indwelt by said Spirit and that He always gives such gifts. Obviously, if there is only one Spirit, one or both of these positions is incorrect.

Another example is in eschatology (the study of End Times prophecy). There are no fewer than six major views on how history will play out the predictions of “The Last Days.” Most reasonable people put the fire out in these discussioms by acknowledging that salvation is not contingent upon understanding all of the mysteries of God.

Who’s right when disagreements of this type come up? Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, when considered on the whole it becomes obvious that, just as salvation is not contingent on 100% doctrinal correctness, neither is correctness assured by salvation. So then, how do we decide? If you happen to be one of the folks who got your position by your own study and patient waiting on God you know who’s right. If your opponent arrived at his conclusions the same way you’re both right as far as you are individually concerned. Bearing in mind that experience shows that Christians can be wrong, the assumption that your inspiration is less fallible than someone else’s is an arbitrary decision. Enter Egotism—the original sin.

But if there is no guarantee that the Holy Spirit speaks clearly or can be heard accurately by mortals, what basis is there for believing that we can be assured of salvation? What good is it if His Spirit witnesses with ours if we can’t be certain that we understand what He’s saying?

Well, since we haven’t been able to get a very good grip on the wind, maybe a look at the rustling leaves is in order. This involves not only looking at the lives of believers but also at the historical track record of the church.

The Living Proof

The best evidence for Christianity is the changed lives of believers.

That is a true statement. I have seen many lives changed for the better in many ways. Drug problems, alcohol, dying marriages, etc. All of these are symptoms that, when corrected, indicate that a change has taken place inside the believer. We look at this as Christians and say that the Holy Spirit is changing the nature of that individual. That may well be true but before we accept that conclusion, let’s consider a few other possibilities.

People with seemingly unmanageable problems often find solutions for them, and not always through Christ. I have often marveled at the program that Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) uses and its effectiveness. If you are not familiar with that organization I would encourage you to check out their program. It is Christianity with no specifically defined God.

1. The first step toward recovery for an alcoholic in their program is to admit that he has a problem (Sin?).
2. The second step is to believe that there is a higher power that has the strength to overcome what he can’t, and rely on that power when his own will is weak. The organizaton is quick to deny that this power must be God, though it can be if he so chooses. Any god. Or no god. Any religion or no religion.
3. The next step in AA is to remember to take one day at a time, not trying to conquer the world in a day. The alcoholic is admonished—no, commanded—to go to AA meetings to gather with other alcoholics (church?). He cannot make it without the fellowship and acceptance of others like himself.
4. Finally, in order to stay sober he has to witness. Alcoholics are encouraged to share their experience with others who have drinking problems.

All of these things are essential to the program, and if followed religiously the program works. My uncle is in AA, not a Christian, and his life has been amazingly changed by it. Not only in terms of his drinking but in his personal growth as well. He introduced me to a man who had been to several AA meetings many years before but had never quite taken the plunge yet. Then one day he fell out of a moving railroad box car. He had no idea where he was. He rolled along the ground in a drunken stupor until he hit a telephone pole and was knocked unconscious. He had hit bottom.

He looked at that telephone pole and was impressed by its unwavering strength. Remembering the AA plan he actually prayed to that telephone pole for the strength to be like it! When I met him he had been sober for over twenty years on the strength of that pole and had become a very successful businessman. I know that sounds outrageous but that is his story, unchanged.

Other religions change lives too. Zen Buddhism, which has no God either, is probably the most effective discipline builder known to man. And if Christians had the temperament and self-control that Zen converts have the world would really sit up and take notice. I’ve never met a Buddhist who took his religion seriously who wasn’t content with his estate no matter how lowly it was. The Mormons believe, as Christians do, that the believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and should be cared for accordingly. They abstain from all drugs, including alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, and take care to stay fit and trim. The Mormons practice this as part of their religion. Christians, on the whole, do not.

Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all recognize the Great Commission (spreading the gospel) as a religious imperative. But the other two groups have it hands down over Christians when it comes to average commitment level. Did you ever meet a Christian who prayed and read the word of God as much as Moslems do? The average Moslem spends 3 hours a day in prayer and also studies the Quran. Every day! Is it any wonder that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and Mormonism the fastest growing religion in America? Apparently most people who are shopping for a religion are too ernest about it to consider Christianity.

Not all Christians are uncommitted. That’s not what I’m saying at all. Neither are all Buddhists committed, etc. The point to all this is that if you could look at the statistical averages in these religions Christianity would rank pretty low. That’s hard to reconcile with the type of covenant that God has supposedly made with His people.

I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jer 31:33

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Ezek 11:19-20

These promises are made to all of the partakers of the New Covenant. (The Old Covenant was the Law, as given to Moses, and was made with the Jews. The New Covenant is Grace, secured by the Messiah, and open to both Jew and Gentile.) This group of people is supposed to be “the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” These promises are not contingent upon a person’s will to excel before God. The will expresses the desire of the heart and God takes the responsibility for the condition of a Christian’s heart by reason of the covenant that He makes with them.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy… Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom 9:16,18

I hope that you are not taking this as a personal attack. I believe that you honestly desire to seek God. But you can’t deny that only a small percentage of Christians take their walk as seriously as you do. And the difference between you and “Joe Average Christian” probably has nothing to do with your religion whatsoever. Some people strive to excel in what they do more than others no matter what the task at hand.

Most joggers are not as avid as you are. Most parents do not have children as secure and well behaved as yours are. Most employees are not as consciencious as you probably are. But you are not alone in these things and some of your counterparts are not Christians. I think that to attribute these character traits to the movement of the Holy Spirit is wholly without merit. You may perceive this to be the case for yourself but that theory fails to account for the non-Christians who possess these traits and the Christians who show no trace of them.

I know that I have a tendency to look on the negative side of things, and I suppose that at heart I am really a cynic. I don’t apologize for this because there is just too much crap in the world to take everything at face value. But I want you to know that it isn’t just the fact that there are negative aspects to Christianity that turns me off. It’s the fact that I really don’t see the that the net effect is particularly positive.

One of the basic doctrines of Christianity is that we are so corrupted by sin that we are incapable of anything good without the aid of God. Unless we rely completely on the Holy Spirit to control our lives, Satan will have us in his grasp to control us at will. There are two things wrong with this philosophy:

1. Man becomes a mere pawn on the cosmic chessboard with no ability to think for himself—hardly a fitting creation for a God of such proportions.
2. The real world reality is that “Holy Spirit controlled” Christians make just as many blunders as anyone else.

And because the Bible teaches that we are all sinners, some of us tend to go too far in deriding ourselves. It’s one thing to realize that we are all capable of being rapists and murderers and all those evil things but it’s quite another to believe that “there but for the grace of God go I.” Again, when you look at statistics, the majority of non-Christians are not really evil nasty people.

In fact, most people really don’t have a desire to hurt anyone else to satisfy their personal selfish goals. My experience has been that most people just want to live in peace and not bother anyone. They do nice things for people they know and like because it makes them feel good inside, and sometimes they hurt people because of thoughtlessness. When they’re young they tend to be more thoughtless. Even wild and hurtful sometimes. But as they mature and their values develop they mellow out and become less self-centered.

That is the exact pattern in many conversion testimonials, and with good reason. Making a commitment to Christ is, among other things, a form of expressing a commitment to mature. Then, when maturity has brought her fruit, Voila!, the Holy Spirit has worked a miracle of grace. Forgive me if I seem to be unmoved, but that kind change occurs regularly in non-believers also.

Of course, there are also those who become believers after the maturing process has borne this kind of fruit in their lives already and they become happier, more secure, and more satisfied. But I wonder if a living God is necessary to this sort of change.

I’m not saying that God does not move in their lives, but consider this: When you spend time praying you are also taking time to get in touch with your own emotions. In questioning what your responses should be in difficult situations you are defusing your tendency to react without reason. Your decisions are better thought out and therefore wiser. You are more satisfied with the results. When you become involved with a church you deepen the scope of your personal relationships. You also become aware of other people dealing with unpleasant circumstances and you become more compassionate. That changes the way you view yourself. Many psychiatrists specialize in using the same techniques (less God, of course) with group therapy to produce similar results. If you throw in a Teddy Bear who always loves you and is always there to cuddle with the package is nearly perfect. I’m not trying to say that God has no part in changing folks, I’m just commenting on the fact that He is not necessary to the achievement of said results.

The curious thing about all this is that Christians are rarely, if ever aware of the psychology of the program they are in. In fact, to consider such a thing might be blasphemy to them. If God is so mighty and active, why must they praise Him for things that don’t even seem to require His attention? Is it really healthy to force every positive experience through your little keyhole that defines it as an act of God? To the casual observer it would almost seem to be willful self-deception. Perhaps that’s a little too strong. I think willful ignorance is a little closer to the mark. We need to perceive God to be active in our minds even if He isn’t dishing out any flashy miracles at the moment. This kind of thinking is not motivated by faith at all, but rather the fear that we may lose faith. As I said before, fear is the root of close-mindedness, but worse than that, this is the same thought process that allows dangerous cults to brainwash their members.

Christian History

The history of the church is perhaps one of the most curious testimonies of all. It is important because Jesus commissioned the church to be a Witness. But before I get too far into that I want to review the Bible, from the Old Testament on, to get your expectations in order.

The nation of Israel was a tribe raised up seemingly from nowhere for the purpose of being a witness to all the nations of the earth that God was indeed The Almighty of the Universe. To them he gave the definition of righteousness and the bloodline of the Messiah. He also placed great expectations on them, knowing full well that their sinful nature would not allow them to fulfil them.

And so it was that the Promised Land came with both a blessing and a curse, so that the nations might see, through the chastisement of unrighteousness, His unswerving righteousness and awesome power.

Yet He found that His covenant with Israel was not sufficient to produce the brand of righteousness that He desired because of the weakness of their fleshly wills. So He announced a new covenant that was not to be based on the obedience of man but rather the life-changing power of the Holy Spirit. After sacrificing His beloved Son to an excruciating death to accomplish this He sent His newly covenanted people out with the commission:

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

Mt 28:19-20

They were further commanded to wait until they were filled with the Holy Spirit so that the new covenant might have its full effect. And so they went.

Not long afterward a couple of new converts named Ananias and Saphira became covetous and dishonest and God graphically demonstrated that He would no longer tolerate this kind of behavior. He wanted a pure people this time. He commissioned his top servants to explain, in writing, to all current and subsequent believers exactly what was expected of them and how easy it would be with Him doing all the work. The problems started there.

Paul wrote, almost pleadingly, to a people that were rife with sin that sin had no power over them, in that death, through baptism had freed them from its grasp. He explained:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:3-4

By the time he got to his second letter to the Corinthians he had digressed to the point of telling them to expel those who have sex with their own mothers from their midst (1 Cor 5:1-8). By the end of the first century Jesus Himself was writing letters to the churches (in Revelation) in hopes that they would shape up.

And then God apparently gave up. Within another couple of centuries the Roman Emperor had taken over the Church, incorporated all kinds of idolatry into the namesake of Christ and was making plans to make war on all those who disagreed with him.

But this time there was no intervention from the throne. Not even a letter. In fact, the new blend of Christianity and Paganism, later to be known as Catholicism prospered more than the early church could ever have hoped to. When the leaders of this new religion compiled a book of writings that they considered to be scripture and called it The Bible, He never once objected to it being called “The Word Of God.” He also made no attempt to prevent these Pagans from burning all the original copies of the manuscripts from which it was compiled.

Then came the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and men who carried scepters and declared themselves to be as infallible as Christ Himself. And all of this was done in the name of the carpenter that the very same Roman influence had crucified. But there was no judgement, no comment, nor seemingly any notice at all from the God who had earlier been so jealous of his own reputation.

We’ve had countless divisions from in-fighting amongst our ranks, enough different doctrines for forty religions, and a departure from all doctrine for the sake of unity. We’ve had repression of education, birth control, and all manners of technology that could relieve the suffering of the masses. All this has been done in the Name of Christ, for His Glory, and supposedly by His direction.

Modern history is no different. For years TV preachers have committed outrageous acts of fraud in the name of Christ. And the glorious Church, with neither spot nor wrinkle, Holy and without blemish, was content not only to be led by them, but to finance their excesses. Nor has God smitten any of them as one might expect. Surely Oral Roberts’ claim that God would kill him if viewers didn’t give 7 million dollars was adequate offense to elicit some response from on high.

In our own personal experience, we both fellowshipped with and loved “A Christian,” who (I believe) genuinely believes he loves God. Surely, you remember when he prophesied at a prayer meeting that my wife was healed of diabetes, and that she should not take insulin anymore. She stopped taking it, and four days later entered into a coma. On the edge of death, I gave her her medication and rushed her to a hospital, barely in time to save her life. “Another Christian” was recently convicted of sexually abusing his own daughters. He admitted to me that he was guilty of the crime, and told me that he had strayed for awhile, but was back on track with God again. Where is the Church that is to be “without spot or wrinkle,” and “Holy and without blemish?”

What about my wife’s healing? That was neither the first nor the last time that “prophecies” were spoken saying that she would be healed. She obeyed the prophecy quite literally to her death, so her faith was above reproach. I only interceded when it was obvious that she was near death. She was unconscious, and incapable of acting in her own behalf. That was 14 years ago. Today, she is blind from the disease, has had a kidney transplant, and cannot stand for more than 3 or 4 minutes due to circulation problems in her legs. She left the church (and me) a few years after that experience.

Assuming that God really did do all the miracles in the Bible 2000-5000 years ago, what value is that to a man who lives at best 100 years? All he can see with his own eyes are the contradictions of the church within his own lifetime. That witness has been less than convincing in most generations since the first century.

The Bible: The Word of God?

The next thing to consider is the credibility of the Bible. I have been taught to believe that:

• the Bible is the Word of God;
• it was given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to Godly men who wrote it down and preserved it;
• it has been preserved intact from ancient times until now;
• it is useful for doctrine, for reproof, and instruction in righteousness;
• the text itself is above reproach;
• it is the authoritative source for all information about God, and His plan for man.

If all that is true, then there should be nothing of substance that can be proven to be inaccurate within the 66 books that comprise the Bible. A few brief examples will be sufficient here. You are aware, of course that the genealogies of the Bible are complete from Adam to Jesus, allowing us to date the human race at about 5800 years. You’re also aware that geological and fossil evidence disagrees to the tune of about 2 million years. But consider for a moment another element of the Genesis account of creation. On the fourth day:

God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth. And it was so.

Gen 1:14

Forget about the fact that we now know that the stars are not mounted in a solid firmament as the ancients believed. Concentrate for a moment on how many of them there are, and how far away they are.

Most of the stars you see at night are millions of light-years away. That means that light has been in transit for at least that long or you would not be able to see them. In fact, it would have taken four years for Adam to have seen the light from even one star.

The genealogies themselves in Matthew and Luke do not agree on the exact lineage of Christ from king David. In fact, both claim to be the lineage of Joseph, not Mary, who is reported to be the only human parent of Christ. Even if one accepts the explanation of theologians that one is the lineage of Joseph and one of Mary (which is not what the text says), one has to wonder why Joseph’s lineage is important to Jesus’ genealogy at all, why Mary is never mentioned in either account, and why Mary’s lineage is reported to be that of Joseph.

It is a fact that books of the Bible have been altered over the years. If you find that hard to accept, let me assure you that I did too.

I’ve heard much propaganda about the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they prove the accuracy of our Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isaiah has been changed in no fewer than 11 places. Habbakuk has had an entire chapter added. Entire books have been deleted, most notably Enoch. The entire Sermon on the Mount and several other key teachings of Christ’s appeared first in Enoch. These manuscripts predate Christ by 100-200 years. The only trace of Enoch left in our Bible is a fleeting reference in Jude.

It is clear that there were not simply two sects of Judaiism in Israel (the Pharisees and Saduccees) at the time of Christ as reported by our New Testament. There was a third group, called Essenes who were also a strong element. Josephus recorded that this sect represented approximately one third of the Jewish population, and the discovery of the largest religious library known to exist from that period (the Essene library in Qumran), confirms this. Yet they are not mentioned at all, which is strange considering that the founder of that sect, known only as “the Teacher of Righteousness,” was considered to be the Messiah, though he himself never made such a claim.

I find it hard to believe that Jesus never addressed Himself to these people even though the early church was patterned after their life style. They not only practiced baptism as a sacrament but also observed a ritual identical to the Holy Communion. Many theologians now believe that Jesus Himself was an Essene. It seems likely that they were edited out of Christian history by someone who felt that Jesus’s reputation was better off without them.

1 John 5:7 in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”) is now known to have been inserted by a scribe. It doesn’t even appear in most newer translations.

The baptismal formula recorded in Matthew 28:19 conflicts with the one Peter espouses in Acts 2:38. Oddly enough, no manuscript predating the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD (when the Trinity doctrine was officially adopted by the fledgling Catholic Church) contains the last half of Matthew 28:19.

I could go on. But I don’t think it’s necessary. The way I see it “the Word of God” should be above reproach. If God wanted you and I to base our lives on an ancient book then I would think that He would preserve it for us intact. How could He possibly expect every Christian to wade through thousands of years of history and archeology in order to get to the truth? And even if He did, what about the millions of people who lived in the centuries between the events of the Bible and Modern Archeology?

I’ve heard the argument that the Bible was inerrant in its original form and that the problems are due to the fallibilities of men. I reject that argument on the basis that it does not purport to be the “Word of Man” but rather the “Word of God.” If Man is sinful, God could not possibly hope to succeed in His plan of salvation if He relied on our haphazard ways to assure the purity of His message.

Can any part of the Bible be trusted? Which parts? How do you know? By inspiration? That’s the way Khomeini did it. Not to mention Joseph Smith (the Mormon prophet), Jim Jones (leader of the suicide cult in Guyana), Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker. I don’t know about you, but I can’t prove that I’m any better equipped to avoid deception than any of them.

Well, I don’t suppose you really wanted to hear me say all that. I don’t claim to know what the truth is anymore, but I do intend to look at the evidence closely before I accept anything as fact. Of one thing I am certain: Only The Truth can set me free, and only The Truth (whatever it is) will stand up to close scrutiny.

This continues to be the most important decision I have ever faced. I’d like to hear your comments on the issues raised here but I must insist that you stay objective and refrain from appealing to my emotions through subjective revelation. For reasons stated earlier, I can’t accept “warm fuzzies” reports as evidence anymore. Hope to hear from you soon.

Skeptical Resources—Internet infidels | Jesus Never Existed | Steven Carr’s Website | Christianism | Early Christian Writings | God is Imaginary | “Religion Detoxification” | Our Judaio-Christian Heritage | Archaeoastronomy | No Deity | No Beliefs | Evil Bible | Bible God | ex-Christians | Jesus Police | Islamic Faith Freedom | Atheist Experience | American Atheists | Jovial Atheist | Askwhy! books
Other Resources—Early Christian Docs | Resources for Study | Traditional Bible-History | Traditional Bible World History | Traditional Bible History | about.com biblical history | Apologetics web sites | Advent Ch Fathers | Orion center links | Wikipedia | Traditional Jewish History