![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/10\/FrancisStigmata.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
See Part I<\/a> for background. This is a continuation of that discussion, after\u00a0Joe Omundson<\/a>, who runs the website,\u00a0Recovering from Religion: Ex-Communications<\/em><\/a>, made a second lengthy counter-reply in the combox<\/a>. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Thanks for your additional reply. I\u2019d like especially to clarify a few things where either you misunderstood or I did not express my view clearly enough, and make some other responses. Perhaps that may set us on a course of even more fruitful dialogue and mutual understanding.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think fundamentalism is equivalent to Christianity, but I don\u2019t think it isn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0Christianity either.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I never said it wasn\u2019t Christianity. It\u2019s highly flawed<\/em> Christianity: so much so that it sets off so many thousands of people straight to atheism . . .<\/p>\n I still think it\u2019s a valid choice to reject fundamentalism and the rest of Christianity \/ all religions at the same time.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t see how<\/em>. It\u2019s as if you are equating the two, when you just said you didn\u2019t. We may call fundamentalism FC<\/em> and more mainstream orthodox Christianity OC<\/em>. They both share the C<\/em> but are different forms of the C<\/em>, just as (not a perfect analogy, but . . .) water and carbon dioxide both share oxygen but are different. Thus, logically, to reject FC<\/em> is not the same as rejecting OC<\/em>.<\/p>\n Now, if you are merely saying that all can be rejected in one fell swoop, at one time<\/em>, then to my mind you would have to have additional (solid) reasons to reject OC<\/em>, where it differed from FC<\/em>. If someone just says, \u201cto hell with all religion,\u201d then that is usually mostly an emotional rather than logical \/ intellectual decision.<\/p>\n In the case of fundamentalists, they are usually mainly rejecting what they know, and (by their own account; not my mere speculation) it\u2019s usually misguided, false aspects of fundamentalism. Having replied to many of these deconversion stories (probably 75% from former fundamentalists), I have observed this pattern over and over.<\/p>\n I also don\u2019t think anyone needs an \u201cexcuse\u201d to dismiss Christianity. It\u2019s not an imperative. Just like you don\u2019t need an excuse to dismiss Islam or Buddhism<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n In our relativist \/ postmodernist \/ subjective world, no. They don\u2019t, anymore than they need an excuse to change preference from vanilla to chocolate ice cream. But in the world of reason and logic, they do<\/em> need such reasons: or at least such sufficient and adequate reasons ought to exist somewhere<\/em>\u00a0(people being of widely varying levels of education and knowledge) in the world of academia and folks like me who provide reasons for why we believe what we believe, and why we reject other religious and philosophical viewpoints.<\/p>\n But you might be making assumptions about people\u2019s thought processes. <\/span><\/p>\n Maybe. But as I see it, I\u2019m simply responding to expressed opinions. That\u2019s what socratics do, and I am one of those.<\/p>\n Just because someone presents the most significant personal reasons for leaving fundamentalist Christianity doesn\u2019t mean they don\u2019t also have nuanced reasons for rejecting liberal Christianity. It just wasn\u2019t the focal point of their own experience.<\/span><\/p>\n Understood. As I said, I am responding (with these deconversions) to what is written<\/em>, not what is not<\/em> written (which is only common sense). There may be all the submitted reasons in the world for why they changed their view, but I can only respond to what I see<\/em>. And in this case, and all others so far in such analyses, I have not seen sufficient reason to reject all of Christianity.<\/p>\n You guys are always demanding reasons from us. I\u2019m simply doing the same thing back. And it\u2019s universally disliked, believe me. You have expressed one of the milder reactions, but then again, we\u2019re not dealing with your story<\/em>, so you are one huge step removed from it.<\/p>\n Well, that\u2019s convenient isn\u2019t it? How did you conclude this is the \u201cproper\u201d view of biblical interpretation? . . .\u00a0What gives you the power to decide which parts are literal and which ones aren\u2019t? Do sections shift from literal to symbolic as science advances?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s like anything else<\/em>: the consensus of those (scholars and devoted amateurs like myself) who study the Bible in great depth is that it (like, in fact, all literature) has different genres, which must be understood in order to be properly interpreted. It would be like scientists talking about the nature of scientific evidence of hypotheses.<\/p>\n Someone comes along and asks, \u201cwell,\u00a0that\u2019s convenient isn\u2019t it? How did you conclude this is the \u201cproper\u201d view of scientific evidences and hypotheses? . . .\u00a0What gives you the power to decide that?\u201d And the answer is the same: this is the consensus of scientists.<\/span><\/p>\n Lots of other Christians have a wide spectrum of opinions on how to interpret these things. And they\u2019re all convinced they have the \u201cproper view, of course.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Absolutely. Again, like any other field of knowledge, it takes study to develop a consistent and plausible hermeneutics and exegesis. As in all fields, there are people who go down wrong paths and who reject the consensus. The problem in Christianity is that we have millions of folks who say they still believe in it but who have rejected key parts of it (liberal theology). They are being intellectually dishonest in a similar way as young earth creationists or geocentrists are not really doing science, even though they are convinced they are.<\/p>\n . . . To me this very much comes across as starting with the conclusion and then finding an interpretation that fits it. Cherry picking. You can do the same with any holy book.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s how you<\/em> would see it, yes. You are wrong. What you describe is called eisegesis<\/em> (reading into<\/em> Scripture what we want, from our prior intellectual commitments and opinions). That\u2019s the very worst way to approach the Bible or any piece of literature.<\/p>\n We might have a miscommunication about the semantics of this. My definition of fundamentalism might not be the same as yours \u2014 but when I say I oppose it, what I mean is that I oppose people pushing the idea that there\u2019s a literal hell, and a literal heaven, <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s true of virtually all Christians at all times, and is simply Christianity, not fundamentalism. Jesus talked more about hell than about heaven.<\/p>\n and the only<\/em>\u00a0way to get there is through the correct form of religion, <\/span><\/p>\n Fundamentalists and Calvinists think that, but not the vast majority of Christians now and throughout history. St. Paul in Romans 2 makes it pretty clear that those who haven\u2019t heard or understood the gospel can possibly be saved. To sum up: we\u2019re judged by what we know and how we act upon it.<\/p>\n and you must evangelize your friends and neighbors and children to accept this idea, and sacrifice your life on earth for that eternal end. <\/span><\/p>\n Christians are called to share the good news of Jesus Christ and salvation (evangelism). Sadly, most don\u2019t. And many who do, do so in an obnoxious and ineffective way.<\/p>\n I think that\u2019s a virus on humanity that harms people deeply. I don\u2019t care much if it\u2019s called evangelicalism or fundamentalism.<\/span><\/p>\n I disagree as to the false parts of that, but with regard to what I have expressed, I couldn\u2019t disagree more strongly than I do.<\/p>\n Generally speaking, we support people who are already on the path of leaving\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0kind of religion, because we believe such belief systems are illogical and can be damaging, so that\u2019s the kind of content I post . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly what I was saying: your site is opposed to religion, period, not just Christian fundamentalism. Thanks for making my point for me again. And that gets back to, again, why I would spend my time critiquing one of the articles on your site.<\/p>\n But I think when your content makes personal attacks about ex-believers\u2019 faculty of reasoning <\/span><\/p>\n To critique another\u2019s reasoning is not<\/em> to make a personal attack. I could see how it might feel that way, but it is not, because a person is not the same as his or her beliefs. They are two different<\/em> things. I\u2019m disagreeing with you now, but I am not attacking you personally to the slightest degree.<\/p>\n it comes across as kind of desperate. Are you threatened by what we have to say?<\/span><\/p>\n No, not in the least bit. That\u2019s how you<\/em> see it. I see it as simply honest, passionate disagreement on the topic of whether Christianity is a good and true thing or a false and bad thing. You defend your positions; I defend mine. Apologetics is not \u201cdesperation\u201d; it\u2019s the thinking process applied to religion.<\/p>\n You guys so often make out that Christians are dummies and ignoramuses (check out just about any combox of atheist sites online; I\u2019ve never<\/em> found one that didn\u2019t<\/em> do this, and quite a bit at that: usually the leading theme by far), yet when you run across an apologist who is certainly seeking to be rational and reasonable in religious matters, you start making this sort of quack psychoanalysis (which \u2014 ironically \u2014\u00a0is<\/em> actually ad hominem<\/em> or personal attack). There is no call for that.<\/p>\n That\u2019s interesting that you say that, because I\u2019ve been told many times that any true Christian would experience God\u2019s love in such a profound way that they could never dream of leaving him. At least, that\u2019s how my story has been discredited \u2014 I must have never been a\u00a0true<\/i>\u00a0believer, if I ended up leaving, because if I\u2019d\u00a0really<\/i>\u00a0believed I would have never changed my mind\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly, because that\u2019s the fundamentalist and Calvinist line, and it is false, because it\u2019s unbiblical (as well as viciously logically circular), as I have argued many times. The Bible, in my opinion, and that of the vast majority of Christians now and all through history. teaches that someone can be a true believer and still fall from grace and salvation. If you want to see where it teaches that, I\u2019ll be more than happy to show you.<\/p>\n So what do you think makes a person want to hang around atheists and agnostics rather than other Christians? What led them to seek these alternative perspectives?<\/span><\/p>\n There could be any number<\/em> of reasons. How could I possibly answer such a question (i.e., broadly)? We would have to ask them to see why they wanted to do so. To take Don R\u2019s case as an example, he told us what started the ball rolling: \u201cI believed in a literal interpretation of the bible, and to hear that someone who was as fully devoted as I was could believe in evolution was really difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n He was wrong in thinking that the Bible was always to be interpreted literally, and that no Christian could possibly believe in the Bible and evolution, too, so when he discovered someone did that, it rocked his world. It was the first domino to fall.<\/p>\n So sometimes, folks with that background will \u201cride\u201d that shock emotion and move on to start rejecting Christianity altogether, because they were never taught proper biblical interpretation and in many cases, not taught true doctrine, either. That\u2019s just one of hundreds of possible reasons. We decide who we will start listening to and who is gonna influence us the most.<\/p>\n We are what we eat. So we better get it right what<\/em> we decide to eat, or else we should read both sides of big disputes and make up our mind in the most objective way possible.<\/p>\n Isn\u2019t God captivating enough to hold a believer\u2019s attention?<\/span><\/p>\n Absolutely. But the heart can\u2019t rejoice in what the mind rejects as false. If we don\u2019t know and study and live our faith, and don;t know why we believe it (apologetics), that same faith teaches that the world, the flesh, and the devil can come along and erode our faith and cause us to fall away. The Bible warns about it. Even the apostle Paul said that it could happen to him if he wasn\u2019t vigilant.<\/p>\n I just think you could be more effective with a less reactionary approach. It feels like you\u2019re threatened by what these stories are saying, . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Now you\u2019re back to quack psychoanalysis again . . . you can do better than this. But if simple honest disagreement is being a \u201creactionary\u201d then I am proud to be one, because all it is is thinking and using our noggin.<\/p>\n First you say: it can\u2019t be expected to be scientifically accurate, as it was written by pre-science cultures. But then you say it is in fact scientifically accurate and so this proves its accuracy (implying that the anti-scientific parts should also be considered to detract from its accuracy). So which is it?<\/span><\/p>\n This misrepresents what I stated, which was this:<\/p>\n It\u2019s not a scientific treatise. It came from a pre-scientific culture (which even the ancient Greeks still were) and speaks in phenomenological terms.\u00a0Yet what it teaches is true, and it sometimes touches tangentially on scientific matters.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n My point was not that it was scientifically inaccurate<\/em>, but that it was not scientifically technical<\/em>, and not a scientific treatise, since it came from a pre-scientific culture. If I say, \u201cthe sun rose at 6 AM\u201d (as any meteorologist might also say), I am making an accurate statement (from a phenomenological, non-technical point of view). That\u2019s exactly what the Bible does.<\/p>\n Then I gave the example of \u201cthe principles of hygiene and proper sewage and disease control\u201d and challenged you to explain how the Bible cold get this right, where science didn\u2019t have a clue till the 1800s. I was writing today in another article how the Bible doesn\u2019t accept the existence of mythical animals, whereas even\u00a0Pliny the Elder<\/a>\u00a0(AD 23\u201379), the Roman\u00a0author, naturalist, and\u00a0natural philosopher, who wrote the 37-volume\u00a0Naturalis Historia<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(Natural History<\/i>), which became an editorial model for\u00a0encyclopedias, believed in legendary creatures such as the\u00a0manticore, basilisk, werewolf,\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0catoblepas<\/a>, and\u00a0phoenix<\/a>.<\/a><\/p>\n Likewise,\u00a0Herodotus<\/a>,\u00a0<\/a>Ovid<\/a>, <\/a>and\u00a0Virgil<\/a>\u00a0all wrote seriously about\u00a0werewolves. The Bible never does; nor does it accept any mythical animal as literally real<\/a>.<\/p>\n As for that specific example, assuming it is true, why should it be surprising that some people discovered good hygiene standards before it was widespread? All kinds of different advancements are made by different cultures across history\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Oh, I agree. It doesn\u2019t make sense only if one regards the Bible writers as ignorant iron age troglodytes (as a million atheists I have come across, do), while scientists are virtually infallible and the new gods. So given that background and baggage, I asked, \u201chow could that be<\/em>?\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, how could this ancient people figure this out, whereas the \u201cfar superior\u201d modern scientist did not till the 19th century. In any event, the Bible got that right, and it\u2019s the perfect example of how it is scientifically accurate, while at the same time it expresses itself in pre-scientific modes of thought.<\/p>\n Or you could just observe that humans have the capacity for both of what we consider \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cbad\u201d, regardless of what they believe, and leave out the mythological backstory that any religion uses as a metaphor.<\/span><\/p>\n The first clause is obvious and self-evident, but it is desirable to have a deeper understanding of why that is: why human beings are capable of such good and nobility, but also such wicked, heinous evil. I think original sin is a pretty plausible hypothesis. It\u2019s certainly more plausible than the notion that all men are naturally good and only corrupted by their environments, or saying that all men are utterly wicked, with no good in them at all (Calvinist supralapsarianism).<\/p>\n If the truth is that Jesus dwells inside believers, that he washes them and breaks their bondage to sin (while the rest of the world are still slaves to sin), you\u2019d generally expect see some decrease in \u201csinfulness\u201d\/strife\/division\/pride compared to the rest of the population, wouldn\u2019t you? <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, if the Christian is truly following Him and doing what He commands them to do. I totally agree. But its a hard road, so most of us only show signs here and there of sanctity or holiness. What really reveals this are the saints.<\/p>\n Otherwise, what power does Jesus have? Believing in him has not seemed to reliably make people act better. I think if you explain the divisions in Christianity by saying that all humans are sinful, you\u2019re admitting that being saved has little or no effect on a person.<\/span><\/p>\n There are signs that Christianity does indeed have a positive effect, as indicated even in secular sociological literature. For example, I have written about how committed Christian married couples<\/a> (according to controlled sociological studies) are happier and have far less divorce, and even (surprise!) more sexual fulfillment.<\/p>\n There are other indications as well, that support traditional Christian family and sexual morality, such as studies showing that absence of a mother or father in the home is harmful<\/a>, or that cohabitation is a strong predictor of increased chances for later divorce (if they ever marry). For example, a 2014 article in The Atlantic<\/em><\/a> stated:<\/p>\n Since the 1970\u2019s,\u00a0study\u00a0<\/a>after\u00a0study\u00a0<\/a>found that living together before marriage could undercut a couple\u2019s future happiness and ultimately lead to divorce.\u00a0On average, researchers concluded<\/a>\u00a0that couples who lived together before they tied the knot saw a 33 percent higher rate of divorce than those who waited to live together until after they were married.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I would also note that it is established that political conservatives (who strongly tend to be more religious) give more to charity than liberals do, and Christians give more than atheists<\/a>.<\/p>\n OK, then you can probably understand why many people, who were severely traumatized and depressed within various kinds of religion, and who find a great deal of relief, joy, and purpose in non-theistic worldviews, might be passionate about that transition as well. <\/span><\/p>\n Certainly.<\/p>\n . . .\u00a0your bad experience with \u201cpractical atheism\/occultism\u201d does nothing to discredit agnosticism or atheism as a whole. I\u2019m sorry you spent 6 months in serious clinical depression. I\u2019m glad you\u2019re feeling better now. But being an agnostic atheist, for me and many others, has been nothing but a massive relief and a source of freedom and meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m just saying that they could find a much\u00a0more<\/em> fulfilling and rewarding way: one of inner peace and joy and the deepest purpose and meaning. My life was transformed, too. And many millions of Christians can give this same testimony.<\/p>\n We\u2019re not perfect; we still sin (as Christianity teaches us to fully expect), but our lives are tangibly different. You can point to a thousand lousy, hypocritical Christians out there. I\u2019d probably agree on most of \u2019em. But there are many positive examples, too.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:<\/span>\u00a0If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>). My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/p>\n My book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2500 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will start receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago). May God abundantly bless you.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n