"God of the gaps" did my faith in
In one of The Four Horsemen videos linked to below (I think it’s hour 1) Christopher Hitchens makes an observation about religious people that I think is quite true, at least I know it was of me. He says that most people keep two sets of books, meaning that there is one set of beliefs which they use to order their everyday lives and another set which they get from religion and use only occasionally. The first set we use when we eat breakfast, brush our teeth, commute to work (or stay home with the kids!), pick up the dry cleaning, etc. The second we use during holy times or when life starts to suck. I would add that religious people who do not do this, but rather keep only one set of books, we often label fanatical or radical – and most of us don’t like fanatics.
I have a friend, someone I love dearly, whom I have attempted to avoid religious discussion with for a long time. She tends to keep just one set of books. I used to listen to her talk about praying that she would not run out of gasoline instead of immediately stopping to fill up her tank (and she wasn’t rushing someone to the hospital at the time either). I remember wanting to grab her and shake her and scream, “Don’t you know that it doesn’t work that way. One of these days you’re going to find yourself stranded!” I mean, prayer is for asking God to help us with things that we don’t understand. Once we fully understand how something works it becomes a closed system, and there is no more room for God to maneuver (yes, this is Bonhoeffer’s “God of the gaps”), right?
OK, so if you find yourself about to run out of gas we both know that you’re going to pray to God to get you to a gas station quickly and safely, and if you should get there you are going to utter a quickie “thank you” prayer. I know because I used to do the same thing. The difference between this and what my friend was talking about is that one is actually banking on God to intervene as part of the rational decision-making process, while the other is not banking on anything but simply has nothing to lose. That’s a big difference – the difference between keeping one set of books and keeping two, I would say. (By the way, if any of you are tempted to come to my friend’s defense I would strongly suggest that you not attempt it because I’ve shared the most benign story in my arsenal.)
Why am I talking about this? I’ve shared this because I want to begin to explain how I went from being a leader of a small Christian house church to someone who rightly passes for an atheist (to borrow Derrida’s phrase) in a seemingly short amount of time. I’m going to attempt to tease out the various reasons for the change, and I’m going to try to arrange these in some kind of narrative sequence, although it might be disjunctive.
I don’t think it’s literally true, but it feels like I woke up one morning and realized all of the sudden that my life would be no different if I didn’t believe in God. Actually that’s not true: I would have much more time and much less stress. Bonhoeffer had been right, since I had relegated God to only the gaps in my knowledge of how this universe functions as a closed system He was continually being pushed ever further to the periphery. What’s more, being used to functioning without God meant that even those things which were inexplicable warranted a wait-and-see agnosticism rather than an invocation of the name of God. It was as if on that supposed morning I suddenly discovered that I had no need of God – everything functioned quite well without him, thank you very much (I’ve since learned that the famous Laplace once said the same thing, although I don’t know how I feel about that given the critique of Laplace offered by one of my favorite philosophers, Michael Polanyi).
I had long since abandoned prayer because it seemed useless: first, because this “God of the gaps” had no more gaps, and second, because empirically I learned that both good and bad things happened to me whether I prayed or not, and seemingly in the same proportion. Not to be overshadowed, however, is the fact that I felt silly for talking to someone who I had never seen and who had never answered me back. By the way, I used to be irked, and actually I’m sure I still am, by people who claim that God has spoken to them. I want to ask, “Really, what does His voice sound like?” The ones that I talk to don’t mean that they actually heard anything – they are simply baptizing their own opinions or desires and Christening them God’s opinions and desires. Sorry for the minor tangent. I’ll get back to telling my story.
I also didn’t read or use the Bible in the same way that I used to, and this change had been happening over a long period of time. To get the obvious stuff out of the way first, I realized long ago that the Bible is not a scientific textbook or a history in the Western tradition, and that it should not be read as such. In case hearing me share this as part of the story of my slide into atheism freaks out any of my more progressive Christian friends, this was a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Obviously, to lose one’s faith one cannot accept the Bible at naïve face value, but that in no way implies that all who take a more mature view of the Bible must lose their faith. ‘Nuff said on that? Anyway, and more to the point, I had stopped reading the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular as normative. That’s a much bigger deal, and I’ll explain what I mean by it by telling another story.
Years ago I led the house church in a study of the “issue” of marriage and divorce. It was a really in depth study of the Bible and to this day I think I did a decent job on it. Later, a friend of mine asked that I officiate at her wedding ceremony, and I happily agreed. When another Christian challenged her on her right to marry again, she asked me for the information from our previous study so that she might discuss it with this person. Now here’s what startled me: I realized that the information that I was giving her didn’t matter to me. Even if I believed that the Bible forbade her to marry again I would have married them because I believe that people have a right to be happy. I was floored. I never imagined that I would feel that way. Still, I was happy to be able to be honest with myself and to know that I was not getting my sense of morality or ethics from the Bible (this generalization was in fact largely true).
So, like I said, I seemingly woke up one morning and realized that my life would be no different, practically, without God. I made all of my decisions based on the assumption that the universe operates by simple cause-and-effect. My hopes did not involve God’s intervention. My sense of “right and wrong” did not come directly from the Bible or any other Christian source. In fact, as I’ve said since then, the word ‘God’ had become meaningless to me. I had no idea what it even meant. I know what ‘chair’ means because I’ve sat in one and I know what ‘water’ means because it’s quenched my thirst, but I’d never experienced a ‘God’. All of this being the case, what’s the point in maintaining a farcical faith? So that, in a nutshell, is how I lost my faith.
Of course, none of this inherently means that I believe there is no God, only that I do not hold the belief that there is one. The difference is subtle. Some of you might object to my self-description with the word “atheist,” and would think that “agnostic” would be more appropriate. Indeed, I began sharing this experience with friends by using that word. I now want to know, however, the pragmatic difference between the two. I mean, if I’m completely fine with living my life as if there is no God (which I am, and which I am doing), then why should I adopt a mental stance which says maybe-there-is-and-maybe-there-isn’t? How are these two beliefs cashed out in actual experience? If I really were an agnostic, would I hedge my bets in some way, and if so how?
Ok, that’s it. Now I think you are pretty well caught up to the present on this journey of mine.
# 1
Rand Huber — Sat Apr 12, 06:53 PM
As always Jared, I value your thoughts and your voice. We need more voices such as this, being honest about their experiences. Having said this, I wanted to admit that I too have had similar revelations in my own life. About a year ago, a friend was arguing with me about my beliefs regarding egalitarianism (I know, that’s kicking it old school), and asked what I would do if I found out that God really was a dyed in the wool, card-carrying, male headship complimentarian. My response was simply this: “I’d stop believing in God, because I know that my perspective is right.” I’ve felt a little damned by that statement ever since, but know that not all of my morals and ethics are rooted in the Bible and or God either. Yet, I can’t help but wonder still about the bigger picture…what if God really doesn’t care that I think I’m right? More importantly, what if he promises to hold me in his hand and be with me even if I’m a stubborn mule who values my own morality over his? All this to say, I’m clinging to my mustard seed, even though I know it makes me a bit foolish…
I value you and your courage so much…keep riding the wave buddy!
# 2
Robert — Sat Apr 12, 11:53 PM
Hey Jared,
Thanks for this post. I’d like to echo Rand- and myself- in saying that I am appreciative of your willingness to be vulnerable and share your journey with us. Thank you. When we talked on the phone about this one, you said you looked forward to hearing my thoughts- “positive” or “negative.” Well, I hope I don’t have too much to say that you would consider “negative.” That doesn’t mean, obviously, that I agree with everything you say, of course. I’ve long stated that disagreement- even of a fundamental, profound nature- need not lead to discord. That hasn’t always worked out very well for me interpersonally, unfortunately, but (again, perhaps unfortunately) that doesn’t stop me from trying.
We’ve spoken before, I believe, about how people are “wired.” Some people see God hiding under every leaf. Others look for God and find nothing. Still others prefer things to be out in the open and have little patience for such “games.” You may rightly accuse of me of falling into the first camp, though I might correct that by saying that I know God more by his absence- and that mystery is just fine with me. Anyway, let me get to the substance of what I wanted to say…..
I was struck by Christopher Hitchens’ “two sets of books” argument- and your comment that “religious people who do not do this, but rather keep only one set of books, we often label fanatical or radical – and most of us don’t like fanatics.” I’m intrigued that you only said “most people” don’t like fanatics, but not radicals. I wonder if you left that opening for (hopefully well-intentioned) folks like Shane Claiborne and the people of Circle of Hope or other “new radicals”- and those who would emulate them, like me. If so, I thank you. I suppose I must agree with you that “most” Christians do probably keep two sets of books, but if you’ve been listening to me over the past year-and-a-half (and I know that you have), you know that this is something I decry. So I guess you can group me with the (would-be) radicals. I think that life in Christ is one whole cloth so I believe that those who would follow Jesus must strive to do so consistently in every aspect of their lives, repenting of arbitrary divisions between “sacred” and “secular.” I mean, if the Christian story is “true” in any sense that doesn’t rob the word of all meaning, then I can’t see how it makes sense not to live this way. It doesn’t necessarily follow that I agree with your friend who prays not to run out of gas, though. Following Jesus, in my humble opinion, should give you more “common sense,” not less (I don’t think I made this last point very well; so tell me if I need to clarify).
You said: “prayer is for asking God to help us with things that we don’t understand. Once we fully understand how something works it becomes a closed system, and there is no more room for God to maneuver…, right?” I have to say that I’m not so sure, though I like that you at least alluded to what prayer is for. Like so many other things, I think prayer is for relationship. This is the only way that “pray without ceasing” really makes sense to me. I think it has to do with an openness, a willingness to listen for that “still, small voice.” I think prayer is more about changing me than it is about changing God. You later say: “I learned that both good and bad things happened to me whether I prayed or not, and seemingly in the same proportion,” but I don’t see this as evidence that prayer doesn’t work. I suppose I would be forced to agree with you if I thought that God should give me whatever I ask for, but I don’t. I guess I don’t really believe that God is in the business of wish fulfillment. Kirsten and I talked about this recently, and I agree with what she said, which was that when things were toughest when Samuel was born, she didn’t necessarily pray that God would make everything all better. Instead, she asked for strength to deal with whatever happened- including/especially the strength to realize that Samuel belongs to God, not us. That strength (the strength to let go), however imperfectly we display it, is what sustains us as parents- both then and now. Anyway, I think prayer is about maintaining some kind of connection with God, especially since we don’t see him “face to face,” because we know him best by his absence.
If we take for granted that God created the world and set into motion laws which do the day-to-day business of governing its existence (including the disease process, etc. which Rand was talking about last night), then I guess I can see your point in saying that “once we fully understand how something works it becomes a closed system,” but I don’t know that this necessarily limits God’s ability to manuever. To say this, I think, gets us into the (tired, in my opinion) “Can God make a rock so big that God can’t move it?” debate, and the absurdity of the question is on par with the impossibility of an answer to it. Being so finite myself, on this one I’m pretty content to not know the answer. You said that you “had relegated God to only the gaps in my knowledge of how this universe functions as a closed system,” and I wonder how big of a role this played in leading you to the place you are in your journey now. Of course you’re the better judge of that, but I thought it worth mentioning.
I do want to touch on one of your major points- how your changing view of the Bible played what sounds like a pretty significant role in your journey. You said several things about this:
I just have a quick thought on the latter quote above. I can understand why you might say that, but to whatever extent it matters- or not-, I wonder if you aren’t discounting the influence of the Judeo-Christian worldview on the development of Western culture and Anglo-Saxon (and then American) jurisprudence. Perhaps this is what you were implying with the modifier “directly,” but again- I thought it worth mentioning.
There’s a larger point I want to make, though, about the role of your view of the Bible in the demise of your ability to call yourself a Christian or not. I think there’s a lot to be unpacked in your statement that you would have supported your friend’s re-marriage even if you thought the Bible “said” you shouldn’t. We’ve talked about this, but I don’t think the Bible really “says” anything. It’s far more accurate to say that people say things about the Bible. We both know that all reading is interpretation, especially when it comes to the Bible. We also both know that this interpretive process is layered and nuanced. The (Protestant) Christian Bible we have today, as you know, is a vast collection of various types of literature, many of which existed first- and for quite some time- as an oral tradition. When these oral traditions were written down, this was done by a multitude of authors from different cultures, who spoke different languages, likely over a period of more than a thousand years, and all of that is to say nothing about canonization- which was a highly charged, politicized process in and of itself. It’s no wonder then that so many Reason-able people have such a problem with the Bible’s “authority,” especially when it is burdened with the doctrine of inerrancy. As you know, I believe that this doctrine developed historically as a knee-jerk Protestant reaction to the Roman Catholic Church’s claims about the infallibility of the Pope. This is, after all, not a claim that can be found within the pages of the Bible itself.
Moreover, again as you well know, all of this gets at my oft-asked question regarding what the Bible is for. You were good to point out the “obvious” in stating your long ago realization “that the Bible is not a scientific textbook or a history in the Western tradition, and that it should not be read as such.” Still, not only is it not, in my opinion as well, either of things, it also isn’t a mere “rule book” or instruction book for life, and likewise should not be read as such. Here we get to my “rules are for relationships” mantra. I believe that those rules- like don’t divorce except for marital unfaithfulness- are meant to point us in the direction of right relationship with our spouses, our communities, God, and creation itself. So the rules matter, but aren’t the crux of what it means to follow Jesus; nor are they the essence of the Bible.
I say all of that to say simply that I don’t think your desire to see your friend be happy and your willingness to support her re-marriage need necessarily lead to a conclusion that the Bible (and by extension, as I understand your argument- the Christian faith) is irrelevant or not “useful.” To state it again, I believe that what the Bible is for is to recount the story of God’s wooing of humanity throughout the ages. I believe it is meant to point us to Jesus, the fulfillment of the Law, which is now written on our hearts. And yes, I still believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, but it’s a long road, in my opinion, from inspiration to inerrancy-and the larger purpose of the story in the first place is what’s most important as far as I’m concerned.
I have a couple of other thoughts, if you don’t mind:
If I could, I would package it (such a “glimpse”) up and hand it to you and say, “Here it is. Here’s (the experience of) God.” But of course I can’t, and even if I could, I don’t think you’d really want me to. Deep down, I don’t think anybody really wants “God in a box,” and anyway I just don’t think that’s how it works. I’d much rather keep living “with” you and loving you as a dear friend- regardless of what you believe. I’d much rather walk the road of life with you and invite you to break bread with me, as it just may be that in the breaking of the bread we both meet Jesus in a new way.
# 3
Jared — Sun Apr 13, 02:04 PM
Rand:
Thanks for the encouraging comment. I don’t think you are foolish at all for clinging to your mustard seed. I did the same thing for a long time, which is not to say that I think or hope that you will eventually end up like me; I don’t. I respect how honest you are about your faith as much as you respect me for it.
# 4
Jared — Sun Apr 13, 03:35 PM
Robert:
I appreciate your brief response to this entry. :-) In this reply, there will be a danger of misreading me in two ways: 1) thinking that I am being “cold” because I am going to write in a point-counterpoint style, and 2) thinking that I am being too “hot-headed” because of some of what I am going to say. I’m writing in this point-couterpoint style for sake of time and clarity, and I’m going to let me emotions come out more than usual because I feel that you are misinterpreting my recent investigation into the intellectual side of atheism.
You said: “Some people see God hiding under every leaf. Others look for God and find nothing. Still others prefer things to be out in the open and have little patience for such “games.” You may rightly accuse of me of falling into the first camp, though I might correct that by saying that I know God more by his absence- and that mystery is just fine with me.”
My response: No, I don’t think you are in the first group. I would like to know exactly how you would describe this particular “mystery.” I believe that there are things that we cannot understand (mystery), but I cannot simply label the God of the Bible, who is supposedly passionately interested in life here on earth and at the same time has rightly been called (even by you, I believe) “the God who hides,” a mystery and act like that makes everything better somehow. Here is something that I haven’t revealed yet, and I think it may be huge in this discussion… I think that my overt response to this problem – I’m talking about no longer believing in this God who hides – is only half of my reaction. The other half is to be really pissed at this supposed God who has the audacity to act like he wants a relationship with us and loves us while making it so damned easy for things to go to hell around here in his absense while we spend our lives playing hide-and-seek. If it weren’t for the fact that this very realization undermined my faith in this God, I would still probably be a believer, but not the good kind. I wouldn’t want a relationship with this God. Even writing about this now provokes anger in me; I can feel it this moment. This leads me to…
You also said: “All of this seems so intellectual for you. You truly have ‘a beautiful mind,’ but in regard to all this I wonder about the rest of you.”
My response: As you see from what I’ve just wrote, it’s not just intellectual for me. I understand how it might seem that way to you, but it really isn’t. I’m exploring the intellectual side of atheism only because of my own very personal experience, which I described above. Mother Theresa may have been able to smile at the darkness in time, but I cannot. I’m not going to shake my fist and curse at it, but I am going to say that it must be nonsense. If you were to abandon Kirsten and Sam while claiming to love them, I wouldn’t call it mystery, I’d call it nonsense too. I rally hate that I am coming across as someone who has been converted to the other side simply by intellectual arguments. My own intensely personal experience as a Christian probably accounts for 98% of my present atheism.
Now, you and others will probably object to my analogy of abandonment because according to the Christian worldview (in all its forms), God has decidedly NOT abandoned the world, but has entered it, embraced it, suffered with it, and is redeeming it through Jesus. To this I would say that if you can reconcile this story with your own experience and therefore believe it, more power to you; I cannot anymore. Perhaps I prefer to disbelieve rather than to feel completely abandoned and angry. I hope and believe (hehehe) that’s not the case, and that my disbelief is more genuine than that. I can’t rule out the possibility right now, however.
OK, now onto the discussion of the Bible, about which I’m not going to quote you. Let me just put it a different way. If Jesus himself were to say that someone had no right to remarry because of a previous divorce, which if the gospels are to be creditied with faithfulness does not seem a stretch to imagine, I would not listen unless he could explain how this was somehow more loving and just. So what I’m really saying is that I realized that my commitment to Christ and the whole Christian way had changed, however that commitment is to function in practice (commitment to Jesus, the Bible, tradition, etc.). So again, I’m committed to love and justice, but is that in and of itself really enough to constitute a Christian commitment? There was a time when I argued that this was indeed the case, but I now think it’s better to call a spade a spade. Here you may see my changing perspective on pomo and deconstruction, as I mentioned the other night when I talked about Scott’s analogy of Noah’s nakedness in this regard. We can deconstruct the word ‘Christian,’ but for what purpose? If we are trying to recenter the meaning of the term because we think it has lost its true center that is good, in my view. If we are trying to broaden it to the point that it has little meaning, this is not good. For example, Jesus was deconstructing Sabbath law and practice, but not to do away with the Sabbath, as deconstruction probably could have been used to do. Similarly, can a commitment to love and justice – without particular methods for acheiving these, worship, and sacrament (etc.) – count as Christianity? I just don’t think that’s a battle worth fighting, on several levels.
A couple more things… In talking in this post about the whole “God of the gaps” thing I wasn’t attempting to present a logically compelling argument, but rather was just describing my own interpretations of my experience. In other words, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me when I say that once we understand something God’s hands are tied. Most people I know would disagree, and I can’t argue against them. I mean, if you begin a priori with an omni-omni God then nothing is off the table. I was just recognizing that in my experience, as soon as I understood something I no longer felt comfortable praying about it. I no longer believed that God could or would intervene because now the “black box” of mystery had been opened. I feel like you have misundersood my intention on this point, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
Similarly, in your discussion of my example of the bejeweled road sign you seem to make this same mistake – as if I were trying to logically prove the non-existence of God. Let me assure you that I do not believe this is possible. What was my purpose in sharing this story and argument, which originated with Michael Polanyi? I think the answer is long enough to warrant a post in itself, and I am needing to wrap up this reply for time’s sake, so let me write more about that later.
OK, I hope some of that was helpful. I think those were all the things that I felt really needed a response, at least for now.
# 5
Robert — Sun Apr 13, 06:03 PM
Yeah- I did work hard to keep it short. I’m glad you noticed!
Let’s get this out of the way. Just as you noted that you were not trying to logically prove the non-existence of God- nor, I guess, were you trying to give a logical account for how you arrived at your decision-neither am I trying to convince you to believe in God or become a Christian via logical argument. Such an attempt is something that I’ve long been dissuaded from for a host of reasons. So I hope we can really understand each other on this point. I think, though, that this begs the question- just what the hell am I doing? Well, I want you to know that what you do matters to me. Decisions you make in regard to your life make a pretty significant difference in mine for lots of reasons which I’m sure you well know because we’ve talked about it of late. While I will be the last person to judge you for deciding not to follow Jesus, and will continue to strive not to have any angst about it, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think it’s pretty significant. Using your example, if I decided to leave my family and began telling you my reasons for doing so, I hope that you’d help me process that decision to the fullest- that you’d make sure I had some pretty compelling reasons for doing so. I could take this analogy a bit further, but I’m not sure it transfers all that well after this point.
As for my experience of the mystery of God, I’ll try to write more about that later, perhaps in a new post.
# 6
Jeff Greathouse — Mon Apr 14, 10:53 AM
I just wanted to say that it was great seeing you guys on Friday and “now” I feel that I am caught up a little and in the loop.
I look forward to reading the journey.
# 7
Derek Guyer — Sat Apr 19, 07:12 PM
Great post, man. I’ve had this on my mind a lot recently and appreciate a different twist on it. Good stuff.
# 8
Derek Guyer — Wed Apr 23, 11:37 AM
Great talking to you last night, man. I came back to look at this post again and realized I had only read the first paragraph or two when I commented. I’m an idiot. I think you had some great points in the beginning paragraphs and will can say I’ve thought about those gaps as well. It’s amazing how we’ve taken totally different views of those struggles with gaps, though. You definitely have a “different twist”.
I’m a little shocked still as I think through all of this, but I’m looking forward to talking through some of this more. Thanks for sharing everything with me.
# 9
Roderick — Sat May 10, 05:10 PM
Jared, oddly enough I commend you for your honesty but having observed you through the years, I must say that you DIDN’T just wake up one day & find yourself no longer a believer.
For many years now you have been embracing two virulent forms of deconstructionism.
#1. Hyperpreterism which claims that Jesus came, the general resurrection of of the believers, & the Judgment all happened in AD70 — which goes against all Christian interpretation for over 2000 years.
#2. Postmodernist/Emergent concepts which encourage doubt & disbelief yet call it “journey” & exploration.
It is no wonder you ended up being a function atheist — but you are because you have been more honest than others. I mean hyperpreterism for one revisions a God that has failed to lead His Church & instead claims eschatology has been skewed for over 2000 years. Who wouldn’t have doubt over a mess like that???
Secondly, postmodernism with its constant flux leaves even the foundation settled. It is more stable to believe we are mere hairless-apes here by happenstance than to drift about on the postmodernist sea.
Anyhow, I know about 6-7 former hyperpreterists who are now atheist & I understand why they are now atheist — it is the only “logical” outcome of a person who is honest.
I wrote about your article here: http://thekingdomcome.com/hyperpret_atheism
# 10
Jared — Mon May 12, 12:22 AM
Roderick:
You are correct that I didn’t just wake up an atheist one day, but the change had been building so slowly and for so long that when I finally hit the “tipping point” it sure felt that way.
I don’t share your critiques of preterism and Emergent, but I will admit that eschatology probably played a small role in the demise of my faith. I have been thinking about writing a post about that sometime, so maybe I will.
# 11
Roderick — Mon May 12, 09:41 PM
Jared,
I would be willing to do an interview with you on the topic…with pre-set topic points so that you are not blindsided. Anyone that has ever done a podcast with me knows I don’t set them up. I don’t pretend to have them on to hear their side & then wait until they are off the line to dog them. We can talk openly & fairly. Of course you won’t share my critiques of preterism & emergent & their effects on you but consider that sometimes outside observers can see what is happening more than those caught up in the events.
Take care Jared, & again…I appreciate your honesty & am not going to ask you to “embrace mystery & doubt” — that is not even Christian since the Bible clearly states: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Heb 11:1)
Faith ISN’T the opposite of surety & certainty but rather FAITH is being sure & certain. I think whether or not you were ever a Christian (a speculation of some about your state of being), that at least I don’t think many of the influences you have had in your life (as I’ve seen it) are “Christian” but rather some sort of socialistic, humanistic, philanthropic philosophy that when put to the test is found wanting. The real question for all people who proclaim Christ is what I call the Job Test — Could you follow a God that can & will do what He wants with His creation AND it is still considered just & fair? If not, then such a person isn’t really a believer.
—Roderick
# 12
Virgil — Mon May 12, 10:27 PM
Aww – nothing like Roderick Edwards sucking whatever publicity he can out of this – the guy ready to hump any leg that is willing to kick Virgil Vaduva eh? :)
Jared, I posted a follow; when you get back give me a ring so we can connect.
# 13
Roderick — Mon May 12, 11:44 PM
See Jared, THAT is the kind of “Christian” you have been influenced by for the last 5 years or so. I’m sorry that that has been your example.
# 14
Jared — Tue May 13, 01:18 AM
Virgil:
I just saw that you posted an article, and I’m going to read it in a minute. I’ll respond when I can and yes, I’ll call you when I get back. I’m looking forward to talking to you.
Roderick:
I appreciate the invitation for the interview, and I believe you when you say that you would treat me fairly. I’m going to decline, however. Thanks again.
# 15
Roderick — Wed May 14, 12:24 AM
Thanks Jared. I respect that. The door is open if you ever want to talk. I still talk often with a friend who was a former hyperpreterists turned functional atheist — he too at first didn’t think there was a connection but now acknowledges it played a large part. It was that last jumping off point since obviously a God that can’t even sustain awareness of His ultimate plan throughout 2000 years of history is a God hardly worth believing in.
Again, I will not try to convince you that you are still a Christian & just don’t realize it, nor will I try to “evidence” you into believing again. It may just take you, God & a personal “Damascus Road” if you were to ever re-embrace the Christian faith. Beyond that, I just wanted to say I admire your honesty. I would prefer to interact with an honest atheist than a humanist pretending to be “Christian”. I’ll stop posting here now.
Commenting is closed for this article.