Why Jesus?

This is an edited version of a tract produced by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, whose original can be found at "Freedom From Religion Foundation".

"As for Jesus' divinity...I have doubts." -- Benjamin Franklin, near the end of his life.

WAS JESUS PEACEABLE AND COMPASSIONATE?
"Think not that I am come to send peace; I came not to send peace but a sword."

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (The last was spoken in a parable in Lk.)

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth...and men gather them into the fire, and they are burned." (a verse cited by the Inquisition)

Jesus looked at the Pharisees "with anger" Mk. 3:5, called them blind fools and sons of vipers and sons of the devil, and called his generation an evil and adulterous one [just as today's doomsaying Christian televangelists rave on about the evils of OUR generation] and said that certain towns of his day deserved and would receive greater judgment than Sodom. And in one spectacular curse, Jesus says, "Depart from me ye accursed into the hellfire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Jesus attacked merchants by turning over their tables and brandishing a whip.

He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals.

He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother.

WAS JESUS TOLERANT?
The Gospel of John, unlike the three other Gospels, concentrates on the necessity of "believing in Jesus." The other three Gospels do not have Jesus harping on the necessity of believing in Jesus but instead explain "the kingdom of God" in parables, and even downplay belief in Jesus and play up ethical actions instead. John's Gospel also differs from the rest in NOT HAVING JESUS UTTER A SINGLE PARABLE, but only portrays Jesus teaching about himself: "I am the way, the truth and the light," "I am the light of the world," "I am the good shepherd," "I am that I am," "I am the resurrection and the life," etc. Jesus' emphasis according to "John" was totally on himself, and the only way to inherit eternal life was by believing in Jesus (as supposedly revealed to Nicodemus secretly one night, an event that the other evangelists left out). Hence, statements appear in John's Gospel like, "If you do not eat the body of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you," and, "He who does not believe is condemned already" [the latter verse is found in John, chapter 3]

The Gospel of John is also the most anti-Semitic in tone, since it blames "The Jews" as a whole, not just "the Pharisees."

Neither is the author of the Gospel of John mentioned in the book itself. It is the "beloved disciple." And if the apostle John was that disciple then it is curious that his Gospel omits any account of Jesus transfiguration, a spectacular even that the disciple John was supposed to have witnessed along with only two other disciples, according to the other Gospel writers. Furthermore, a later chapter in John states that "we" are the ones who have "witnessed" and written the Gospel of John, implying a group effort. The Gospel also has two ending verses, one in the next to the last chapter, the other in the last chapter. The last chapter is therefore believed to have been added later, to enforce later church opinion, making it seem like the "beloved disciple" was "John" rather than someone else.

DID JESUS PROMOTE "FAMILY VALUES?"
"I am come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, etc., And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

When one of Jesus' disciples asked for time off to go to his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him, "Let the dead bury the dead."

Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or fathered children.

He spoke approvingly of those who would "become eunichs for the kingdom of heaven.

To his own mother he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

WHAT WHERE HIS VIEWS ON EQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE?
Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves. (Luke 12:47) He never denounced slavery and incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.

He did nothing to alleviate poverty. "Ye have the poor with you always."

No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.

WHAT MORAL ADVICE DID JESUS GIVE?
"There be eunichs which have made themselves eunichs for the kingdom of heaven."

"If you do something wrong with your eye or hand cut/pluck it off." (This perfectionist ideal, of being able to divorce yourself completely from even looking at a woman with a sexual longing, has lead to a lot of cognitive dissonance and neuroses, not to mention a few cases of actually severed hands!)

Jesus also taught people not to plan for the future in any realistic fashion, don't save money on earth, give to all who ask and ask nothing in return, give your cloak and coat to anyone who asks (leaving you naked).

If someone hits you, invite them to do it again.

If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment.

IS this WISE? Is this what you would teach your children?

WAS JESUS RELIABLE?
Jesus is depicted as mistakenly predicting that "some [of his disciples] standing there would not die" until they "saw the coming of the Son of Man" [with his angels, to reward the good and punish and evil, i.e., the final judgment] Mat 16:28

This false prophecy was echoed by Jesus' disciples throughout the N.T., here are some of those echoes:

The book of Revelation begins with this prophecy, "The revelation... which God gave to show...the things which must shortly take place." (1:1) The author, having addressed his letter to several churches in Asia Minor, circa 65-95 A.D., continued, "He is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even those who pierced him...Repent therefore; or else I am coming to you (the church at Pergamum) quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth...(To the church at Thyatira) hold fast until I come...Because you (the church at Philadelphia) have kept the word of my perseverance, I will keep you from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world...I am coming quickly...hold fast what you (Philadelphia) have."
Rev. 1:7; 2:16; 2:25; 3:10-11

In the final chapter of Revelation the author repeats his first chapter prediction of Jesus' soon coming, "...God...sent His angel to show...the things which must shortly take place...I am coming quickly...do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near...I am coming quickly, and my reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done...Yes, I am coming quickly...Come Lord Jesus."
Rev. 22:6,7,10,12,20

The idea of being either "sealed up" or "not sealed up" is something that the books of Revelation and Daniel both share. According to the author of the book of Daniel, he was commanded to "seal up" his book "until the end of time": "Conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time...these words are concealed and sealed up until the end of time." (Daniel 12:4,9) The book of Daniel was composed from the alleged point of view of a Jew living in ancient Persia who had visions of "the end of time," or, "the end of the age," when all men would "rise again" and be judged. (12:2,13) "Seal up the book," he was commanded, or so the story goes.

But the author of Revelation was told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book," adding that what is revealed in it "must shortly take place." The intent of the author of Revelation in alluding to the "non-sealing" of his book is obvious, the author believed and predicted that Jesus was about to "come" and judge the world "quickly." So, the author of Revelation was a false prophet. And, by the same token, so was the author of Daniel, since his book was "unsealed" long before "the end of time."

"The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining...The world is passing away [This world, as it is now, will not last much longer - Today's English Version]...Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many Antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour."
1 John 2:17,18

"The rulers of this age...are passing away [will not last much longer -Today's English Versin]...Do not go on passing judgment before the time ["before the time" of final judgment], but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts...The time has been shortened so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none...and those who use the world, as though they did not make use of it [i.e., there was no time for marriage or buying or selling - only in a state of holy celibacy could the Elect remain pure while awaiting the soon return of Christ]; for the form of this world is passing away [This world, as it is now, will not last much longer - Today's English Version]...These things were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."
1 Corinthians. 2:6; 4:5; 7:29-31; 10:11

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you...It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure [which is to say in James' own day]...Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord...for the coming of the Lord is at hand...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."
James 5:1,3,7-9

The author of the letter to the Hebrews began his letter, "...in these last days," and argued on such a basis that, "He (Jesus) would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." With equal fervor he employed the phrase, "as you see the day drawing near...," and made the prediction, "...for yet a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay."
Heb. 1:2; 9:26; 10:25,37

This ridiculous idea survived century after century. If the world did not end under the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, it had to end under Theodosius; if the end had not come under Theodosius, it had to occur under Attila the Hun. And up to the twelfth century this idea enriched the monasteries. A great many of the charters and donations to the monasteries began thus: "Christ reigning, the end of the world approaching, I, for the remedy of my soul, etc."
Voltaire, "An Important Study by Lord Bolingbroke, or, the Fall of Fanaticism"

Now back to the reliability of Jesus' claims...

Jesus claimed the "stars would fall."

The author of the Gospel of Matthew (in the scene in which Jesus is taken to a very high mountain by Satan and there shown all the kingdoms of the world), claimed that you could "see _all_ the kingdoms of the world" from a "_very_ high mountain" (implying a "flat" shape for the earth).

Jesus also mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed was the "smalled seed on the face of the ground" (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could "lost its savour."

WAS JESUS A GOOD EXAMPLE?
Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a fool shall be in danger of hell fire, then he called the Pharisees much worse names, like sons of vipers, sons of the devil, etc.

Jesus irrationaly cursed a fig tree for being fruitless OUT OF SEASON.

He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath, and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission. (Matthew says it was not just one horse that Jesus said to take, but two, and adds that Jesus "rode THEM" into Jerusalem.)

The "humble" Jesus said that he was "greater than the temple" "greater than Jonah" and "greater than Solomon" (see Matt.). He appeared to suffer from a dictator's "paranoia" when he said, "He that is not with me is against me." Mat. 12:30 (Though in another place Jesus reversed that and said, "He who is not against me is with me.")

WHY JESUS?
Although other verses can be cited to portray Jesus in a different light, they do not erase the disturbing, judgmental, unruly side of his character. And if the church "added" this side, then there is certainly no way to credibly determine exactly what might not ALSO be merely an addition or gloss upon the Jesus legend. Maybe many of the beautiful, less disturbing passages are also additions, such as the "woman taken in adultery" section of John's Gospel, which we now know was a later addition, and not in the earliest Johnnine texts. (In fact, the earliest appearance of the parable of the "woman taken in adultery" is in a Lukan text dated after 1000 A.D., and the text became so popular it soon got copied again by some scribes who felt it belonged more properly in the fourth Gospel rather than the third.)

On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics, not even the notion of "eternal punishment" which several intertestamental works had introduced right before Jesus appeared on the scene, works like the Book of Daniel and the Books of Enoch. He instituted no social programs, no useful science or medicine, but appeared ignorant, a child of his times. Many scholars doubt that any clear picture of the "historical Jesus" will ever emerge. [See for instance the two excellent works by Dr. Robert M. Price, BEYOND BORN AGAIN (an introduction to "Jesus questions"), and, DECONSTRUCTING JESUS (his new scholarly thesis that sums up the many strands of work on the historical Jesus today).]

WHY IS JESUS SO "SPECIAL?"
It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity -- mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice -- than to worship a character of such dubious qualities as Jesus.

In fact, if it wasn't for a host of scientists who happened to be either lapsed churchgoers, heretics, apostates, infidels, agnostics, or atheists, and their successes in the fields of agricultural and medical science, hundreds of millions would have starved to death or suffered innumerable diseases this past century. Those agricultural and medical scientists "multiplied more loaves of bread" and "prevented/healed more diseases" in the past fifty years than Christianity has in the past two thousand.

Also, Florence Nightengale, the woman who made nursing a legitimate profession, was a lesbian who disdained institutionalized religion. The founder of the International Red Cross, Andre Dunant, was gay. The founder of the American Red Cross, Clara Barton, was a freethinker. And Helen Keller, the blind and deaf woman who proved an inspiration to sufferers of severe disabilities, was a humanist.

Changes we undergo "without knowing why"

Changes we undergo "without knowing why"
by Edward T. Babinski

Kate: I started to lose interest in many things for no apparent reason---I quit smoking, I quit drinking, I quit shagging, I even quit using profanity, all without knowing why. This building pressure was driving me buggy.

Ed: We all adjust to whatever group we belong to, or even visit. It's a subtle fact of us being social creatures. If you became a BOB JONES UNIVERSITY type of Christian, and were a male, then you'd probably cut your hair above the ears too, "without knowing why," and thinking it was due to "God's supernatural inducements." In fact, a guy from Bob Jones with a Ph.D. in Bible Studies from that college and who edits Bible Review wrote me a letter and told me that exact story, that he "didn't know why" he cut his hair for God, but he just did, and felt "better" afterwards, even though nobody in the church had "told him" to do it. Of course the fact the he was the only one wearing long hair in his church and his brother had cut his hair earlier had nothing to do with that "supernatural revelation" that his hair ought to be shorter than it was. Or if you became a BOB JONES type Christian you'd probably dress more demurely as a female than you do now, nothing but skirts a little above the ankles, "without knowing why," and attribute THOSE changes to some "supernatural" inducement.

There's also thousands of different Christian denominations and sects, each with their own subtle interpretation of just what "rules" God wants them to obey, and lo and behold, everyone in each of those thousands of different denominations and sects each "obey" the particular "rules" that distinguish their den. or sect from the rest, "without" really "knowing why." (This also applies to NON-Christian religions and sects and the people in them as well, who often undergo changes "without" really "knowing why," and consider such changes miraculous, including drug addiction "cures," and alcoholism "cures," etc. The Scientologists have plenty of such "testimonies," as do Christian Scientists, Mormons, you name it!)

Speaking for myself, I visited a Buddhist Sangha for the first time yesterday and "without knowing why," fell into the Buddhist way of interacting via quiet conversation and meditation, all "without knowing why." We all do it. There's nothing really miraculous about it. And when I visit a church I change too, "without knowing why." Perhaps an even simpler and easier example to grasp is how we "change" when we're around relatives at a family gathering. We "become" the person they love most, or perhaps hate most, again, "without knowing why," which often frustrates people at such gatherings.

As for giving up smoking, I never started. I think non-smoking is the natural state, especially since no other animals naturally and voluntarily take smoke into their lungs! Yeuch. I'm glad to hear you lost interest in it. But then, being around non-smokers in a church atmosphere will certainly influence you and help you to change, rather the opposite of being around smokers in, say, a comedy club or dance club atmosphere. I also know of lots of people who have given up smoking, including my Grandmother, my Dad, and my Mother, who aren't born again Christians. People do it all the time. But a supportive atmosphere of non-smokers is a great help. If you think it's "God" who is "leading" you to give up such things, that can help you give them up. Kind of self-fulfilling thinking.

But read the stuff below too, to give you a fuller image of the confusion and non-uniqueness of "Christianity." It's a section of a paper I have on the web that answers the claims of "Josh McDowell."

McDowell argues that "The claims of great numbers of people confessing Christ are amazingly similar regardless of place, time, environment or background." Is McDowell oblivious of the fact that members of any religion, church, denomination, cult, political party, twelve-step program, or philosophical school of thought, tell "amazingly similar" stories of how and why they were attracted to their particular group? People who acknowledge the same beliefs and practices are naturally going to "astonish" one another with "amazingly similar tales" of who or what led them to do so, otherwise they would be somewhere else, believing something else. And of course, folks who leave such groups often tell "amazingly similar" stories of how and why they grew disenchanted with the particular group they left.

McDowell does not even begin to deal with the fact that today there are over 20,000 different Christian denominations, missionary groups and organizations (according to the Encyclopedia of Christianity). Indeed, within the religion known as "Christianity" there are nearly as infinite a variety of sects (each with their own weird beliefs and practices) as in Hinduism: From silent Trappist monks and quiet Quakers - to hell raisers and snake handlers; From those who "hear the Lord" telling them to run for president, seek diamonds in Uganda or sell "holy" cosmetics - to those who have visions of Mary, the saints, or experience bleeding stigmata; From those who believe the communion bread and wine remain just that - to those who believe the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into "invisible" flesh and blood (and can vouch for it with stories of communion wafers turning into human flesh and wine curdling into blood cells during Mass); From predestinationists to free will-ers; From universalists to damnationists; From Christian monks and priests who have gained insights into their own faith after dialoging with Buddhist monks and Hindu priests - to Christians who view Eastern religious ideas and practices as "Satanic"; From castrati (boys who sang in Catholic choirs and underwent castration to keep their voices high) - to Protestant choirs (singing Luther's hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," which was based on the melody of a drinking song) - all the way to "Christian reggae" and "Christian rap music;" From Christians who reject any behavior that even mimics "what homosexuals do" (including a rejection of fellatio and cunnilingus between husband and wife) - to Christians who accept committed, loving, homosexual relationships (including gay evangelical Church groups); From Catholic nuns and Amish women who dress to cover their bodies - to Christian nudists, and born-again strippers; From those who believe sending out missionaries to persuade others to become Christians is essential - to those (like the Anti-Mission Baptists) who believe that sending out missionaries and trying to persuade others constitutes a lack of faith and the sin of pride, and that the founding of "extra-congregational" missionary organizations is not Biblical; From Christians who believe Easter should be celebrated on one date (Roman Catholics) - to Christians who believe Easter should be celebrated on another date (Eastern Orthodox), which resulted in the Roman Catholics excommunicating all the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire; From Christians who worship on Sunday - to Christians who worship on Saturday (the Hebrew "sabbath day" that God said to "keep holy" according to one of the Ten Commandments) - to Christians who believe their daily walk with "God" and love of their fellow man is far more important than church attendance; From Christians who stress "God's commands" to those who stress "God's love;" From those who teach that obeying the Bible's command to be "baptized with water as an adult believer" is an essential sign of salvation - to those who deny it is; From those who teach that "baptism in the Holy Spirit" along with "speaking in tongues" are important signs of salvation - to those who deny they are (some of whom see mental and Satanic delusions in all modern accounts of "Spirit baptism" and "tongue-speaking"); From those who believe that avoiding alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, "contemporary Christian music," movies, television, long hair (on men), etc., are all important "signs" of being "truly" saved - to those who believe you need only trust in Jesus as your personal savior to be saved; From Christians who believe sticking one's nose in politics is wrong - to coup d'etat Christians; From "stop the bomb" Christians to "drop the bomb" Christians; From "social Gospel" Christians to "uncompromised Gospel" Christians; From pro-slavery Christians to anti-slavery Christians; From Christians who wave their Bibles above their white hoods - to Christians "in the hood" who march for equal rights for people of all colors; From Christians who worry most about doctors taking fetal lives - to those who worry most about doctors of religion raising questions that might "abort" a young person's faith and their eternal life.

The history of Christianity is the history of controversies too innumerable to mention. Moreover, within each major "Christian" denomination there are fundamentalists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, and "everything in between," including those who are conservative on some subjects and liberal on others. There are Christians in the same churches who disagree on interpretations from Genesis to Revelation - from how (and when) the world began - to how (and when) it will end, all according to the same Bible.

A variety of "Christianities" flourished before fourth-century church councils at Nicea and Chalcedon heatedly debated and composed their definitions of "orthodox" Christian belief. "There was no orthodoxy - only the pluralistic search for truth...There was a pluralism and fluidity to Christian theological experience...and the later creeds from Nicea and Chalcedon are only two slices of the whole."[68] And those "slices" remained the biggest pieces of the Christian pie via the use of political force. The first Roman Emperor who was a convert to Christianity, Constantine, introduced and presided over the first major church council at Nicea in 325 and afterwards assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In 380, another Roman Christian Emperor, Theodosius, passed a decree that read: "We shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."[69] Even the average Christians in the street were at odds with each other over matters of dogma. In the fourth and fifth-centuries citywide riots broke out between Christians with differing theological views and probably more Christians killed Christians at that time than the pagans had done during the previous centuries.[70]

From the day the "creeds" of "orthodox Christianity" were nailed down by political decrees, to today, Christian sects have continued to arise. A few of the stranger ones that stick out in my mind include the Skoptsy, each of whose male members cut off their "male member" - to become literal "eunuchs for the kingdom of God." (Shades of "Heaven's Gate!") And there were the Shakers, who were convinced that the Bible taught it was "best" for a Christian to never have sex, not even for procreation. (They raised orphaned children, but not enough of the children embraced Shakerism, so the sect died out.) According to some sources, there was even a Dutch Protestant Christian sect whose members murdered recently baptized infants to ensure that the infants would go to heaven[71] (a service also provided by some Catholic conquistadors who feared that if they left South American infants alive after baptizing them, then the infants might grow up and forsake Jesus for their parent's paganism and wind up in eternal hellfire).[72]

Even something as innocuous as "kneeling" proved a matter of debate within Christianity. The Church Fathers who lived in the days before the first Nicene Council (in 325 A.D.), along with the Council itself, agreed to forbid kneeling on all Sundays, and on all the days between Easter and Whit-Sunday. Kneeling was frowned upon as a pagan practice.

The existence of so much variety within "Christianity" proves that every "Christian" testimony could not possibly be "amazingly similar." No doubt members of each group tell stories of their attraction to it that others in the group find "amazingly similar." But that's only true of members in the same group. For instance, Frank Schaeffer (AKA "Franky," the son of the famous evangelical Christian apologist, Francis Schaeffer) harshly criticized evangelical Christianity in his first book, Addicted to Mediocrity, which was followed by a funny, charming novel about his family and his evangelical Christian home life that highlighted the shortcomings of both, Portofino: A Novel. Finally, Frank left evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodox Christianity and now speaks and writes about his conversion to that branch of Christianity with the same kind of intensity that marked his father's advocacy of evangelical Christianity. See Frank's books, Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (in which he critiques the secularizing influence of Protestantism), and, Letters to Father Aristotle: A Journey Through Contemporary American Orthodoxy. One could also cite the testimony of Dr. Charles Bell, a former Protestant charismatic who, like Frank, converted to the Orthodox Church, and wrote, Discovering the Rich Heritage of Orthodoxy. Or there's Frederica Matthewes-Green testimony in her book, Facing East: A Pilgrim's Journey Into the Mysteries of Orthodoxy. In fact, Peter Gillquist has condensed the stories of over two thousand evangelical Christians and their quest for "historic Christianity" in his book, Becoming Orthodox.

Thomas Howard began his spiritual quest as a Protestant fundamentalist (not unlike that of Josh McDowell), but grew to reject such a faith in favor of a broader more mainstream Episcopalian-evangelical faith. In his books, Christ the Tiger: A Postscript to Dogma, and, Evangelical is Not Enough: Worship of God in Liturgy & Sacrament, he outlines the changes he went through. Later, Mr. Howard left Episcopalianism for Catholicism and wrote, Lead Kindly Light: My Journey to Rome, and, On Being Catholic.

Scott Hahn, a former hard-line evangelical Presbyterian minister and professor of theology, described in his book, Rome Sweet Rome, and in numerous videos,[73] his journey away from "false" Protestant doctrines, and his discovery of the one "true" faith, Roman Catholicism. A number of former Protestants have written similar books about their move to Catholicism, like, David Curie, author of Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, or, Stephen K. Ray, a former devout Baptist who became Catholic along with his wife, and wrote Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historic Church.

So, Schaeffer, Howard, Hahn and many others testify to their rejection of fundamentalism (and/or hard-line evangelical) Protestantism. In fact, they point out the "errors" in their former beliefs and the "truth" of either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not a lot of "amazing similarity" with Josh McDowell's Protestant fundamentalist beliefs!

Of the nearly sixty "Christian" testimonies that McDowell hand picked for inclusion in ETDAV there are few (if any) testimonies from folks who became Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Church of Christ, conservative Calvinist, or snake-handling, Christians. (I can not resist adding that a congregation of snake-handling Christians in Scrabble Creek, South Carolina, had a psychological test administered to them by a sociologist who gave the same test to a nearby Methodist congregation as a control group. And the serpent handlers came out mentally healthier!)[74] McDowell only cites testimonies from Christians of his own "narrow bibliolatrous" persuasion and ignores testimonies from Christians whose beliefs differ in significant ways from his own.

Among the testimonies that McDowell published, it would appear that some "converts" were raised as children to believe only in "Jesus and Christianity," and later "rededicated" their lives. Some had a dramatic conversion experience that happened at a specific time and place. Others had relatively undramatic experiences. Cartoonist, Charles Schulz, attended some "Bible Studies" and "thought about the matter" until he realized he "really loved God," yet, "I cannot point to a specific time of dedication to Christ." C. S. Lewis "decided to rejoin the church" during a trip to the zoo. Author, Eugenia Price, had a Christian friend and they argued about religion until Eugenia said, "'Okay, I guess you're right.' And that was it...Now I like to get up in the morning. He is my reason for waking up." Such stories are no more "amazingly similar" than testimonies from converts to other religions or belief systems.

McDowell cites fellow hard-line evangelical Protestants, E. Y. Mullins and Gordon Allport as experts on "Christian experience." (McDowell also cites Bernard Ramm - but I have discussed Ramm's "heretical" views above.) Naturally, Mullins and Allport write glowingly of "...irrefutable evidence of the objective existence of the Person so moving me...my certainty becomes absolute...the certainties of Christian experience...the blessedness of certitude." Such "absolute certainty" and "blessed certitude" is found universally among the most pious and devout adherents of different Christian denominations, other religions, and cults.

If McDowell had more of the curiosity of a genuine scholar, and less of the "blessed certitude" of an evangelist, he would have discovered that a far wider spectrum of religious testimonies and convictions exists than the narrow band he focuses on in ETDAV. For instance, there are the testimonies and convictions of Schaeffer, Howard, and Hahn, mentioned above; and those of many others recorded in the books below:

1) Journeys in Belief, edited by Bernard Dixon[75] (testimonies of people who converted from Catholicism to Judaism, from Christianity to skepticism, from skepticism to Christianity, etc., each time convinced that their new beliefs supplied the "best, or final, answers").

2) Amazing Conversions: Why Some People Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion, by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger[76] (testimonies of some "amazing believers" and some "amazing apostates" contrasted and compared).

3) What I Believe, edited by Mark Booth (featuring the sincerest beliefs of Albert Einstein, James Thurber, Thomas Mann, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, et al.).

4) The Courage of Conviction: Thirty-Three Prominent Men and Women Reveal Their Beliefs - And How They Put Those Beliefs Into Practice, edited by Phillip L. Berman (the beliefs and convictions of Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, Andrew Greeley, Harold Kushner, Jim Henson, Jane Goodall, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Mario Cuomo, et al.).

5) The Door Interviews, edited by Mike Yaconelli (interviews with Christians who are theologians, novelists, musicians, and politicians, and whose beliefs run the gamut from fundamentalism to liberalism and mixtures of both).

6) The Varieties of Religious Experience by the noted psychologist William James (who compares "once-born" and "twice-born" Christians).

7) Once-Born Twice-Born Zen by Conrad Hyers (about a school of Zen Buddhism whose descriptions of "satori" resemble being "born again").

8) The Inner Eye of Love by Robert Johnson (a Catholic in Japan compares Christian agape love with Buddhist karnua compassion; and compares devotion to Christ with devotion to the compassionate Amida Buddha).

9) The Marriage of East and West, and, The Cosmic Revelation: The Hindu Way to God by Dom Bede Griffiths (a Catholic who founded a Christian-Hindu ashram in India, who was also a close friend of C. S. Lewis, talks about his inter-religious discoveries).

10) The Spirituality of Comedy, The Comic Vision and the Christian Faith, And God Created Laughter: The Bible as Divine Comedy, and, The Laughing Buddha: Zen and the Comic Spirit by Conrad Hyers (the spirit of comedic grace shared by both Christians and non-Christians).

11) Cosmic Trigger, Vols. 1, 2 & 3 by Robert Anton Wilson (wild transcendental experiences as seen through the eyes of a "transcendental agnostic").

12) Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists by Edward Babinski (thirty-three testimonies from "narrow bibliolators" who converted to either moderate/ liberal Christianity, the wiccan religion, eastern mysticism, agnosticism, or atheism; including the testimony of evangelist Chuck Templeton, Billy Graham's closest friend, who became a "reverent agnostic").[77]

Today, not just books, but also the World Wide Web makes available (to those who seek) many first-hand "testimonies" to the validity (and invalidity) of different religions and philosophies. And you can often e-mail the authors of such testimonies and receive e-mail from them in return, until your bloodshot eyes, carpel-tunnelled wrists, stiff shoulders, and patience, is frazzled trying to show them the error of their ways and the superiority of your own.

"Millions...From All Walks of Life"

Next, McDowell proudly proclaims, "The following testimonies of men and women from all walks of life demonstrate the unity of Christian experience. While each one embraces a different background, profession or culture, each points to the same object as the source of new power for transformed lives - Jesus Christ...Is the Christian experience valid? These and millions more believe so, and they have new lives to back up their statement."

But compare McDowell's proclamation with this one:

"People who have benefited come from all over the globe and from all walks of life. L. Ron Hubbard's technology knows no economic, ethnic, racial, political or religious barriers...Literally millions of stories are on file in churches and missions in all parts of the world. These are not the stories of the privileged or select. They are the successes of everyday people who were looking for answers and who were bright enough to know when the answers had been found."

The latter statement comes from the "Church of Scientology" web site[78] which features glowing testimonies of miraculous healings, miraculous cures from drug and alcohol addiction, increased compassion, confidence, intelligence and the ability to "live life to its fullest."

It should be obvious to McDowell, as it has been to sociologists and students of comparative religion for quite some time, that every new religion begins with a founder and a few dedicated disciples (whom outsiders call "fanatics"). Next it is denounced as a "cult" or as an "unauthorized" "heretical" offshoot of a previous religion. After a hundred years or so the budding faith will grow and mature, or it will fail. It has either satisfied many of its members of its authenticity and importance in their lives, or it has not. If it continues to grow, then it will eventually include millions of satisfied customers drawn from all walks of life. There is Judaism (with its ancient and new branches, and its most famous "heretical" offshoot, Christianity); Christianity (with its denominations and "heretical" offshoots like Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Unification Church, and the Unitarian Church); Islam (with its divisions and "heretical" offshoots like the universalistic Bahai faith); Hinduism (with its thousands of sects - including the Sikh religion that believes in one God and no caste system - and its most famous "heretical" offshoot Buddhism). All of them boast millions of followers from all walks of life. Who can predict what next seedling of faith will blossom into a full blown religion with "millions of followers from all walks of life?"[79] (For a fuller discussion of this interesting topic, I recommend, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: Neo-Confucian, Islamic, Jewish, and Early Christian Patterns by John B. Henderson.) [END OF EXCERPT]

Don't feel like you quite belong?

Don't feel like you belong?
by Edward T. Babinski

Have you heard of a classic sci-fi novel called Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein? It's about a boy raised by Martians who then travels to earth, and truly feels like a stranger in a strange land, like he doesn't belong. It's a great story, and also involves man's search for religious truth as a major theme. It was very popular during the 60's along with Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Also, Woody Allan's comedic prose works are also classics, in the humor section of any major bookstore, GETTING EVEN, WITHOUT FEATHERS, and, SIDE EFFECTS. They are all written I suppose from the point of view of someone who doesn't belong, which is to say from the viewpoint of a Jew in modern day society, in this case a neurotic obsessive one, obsessed with such basic matters as religion, sex, and death. The stories he invents in "Hassidic Tales" as told by "famous rabbis" of the past are fall-off-your-chair funny.

Also, there was a letter sent to the website www.billhicks.com years ago. I can't find it at the moment. But it was the tale of a kid who felt he didn't fit in. He wanted to do something dreadful to himself, because he felt like nobody truly understood him. Then he discovered the comedy of Bill Hicks, and felt for the first time like somebody else really understood him. It was a great letter. Moments like those are great.

I thought I was going to pieces when I was a fundamentalist and when I began to realize how much other people believed in their religions. They were sure as I was, and just as compassionate and kind.

Which reminds me of an e-mail I rec'd just the other day which said, "I think the Chr. Reconstuctionists make a good case that other religions, such as Hinduism produce terrible consequences for humanity."

And I replied:
I have no particular love for any particular religion. But certainly Christians of all people, have no right to criticize the consequences and history of another religion. For all of Hinduism's faults, it never produced slavery. The caste system, yes, but slavery, no. Heck, even Medieval Christianity had a _caste_ system of _inherited_ nobility, kings, lords, all the way down to peasants. And during the Medieval ages when king Asoka ruled India he made it a rule that all religions should be respected. There was peace during his reign and freedom of religion, while in Europe and the Middle East there was the Thirty Years' War. Asoka even entertained Jesuits in his court, and allowed them to speak their views..

I also have read about the marvelous attempts by some Hindus to spread the news about birth control, which the Catholics in their country are attempting to thwart. One female who works with poor Indians and who teaches them birth control says that the families that have only a few children are much better off, since they can concentrate on those few children and they grow up well and whole, while the old way of having as many children as possible, and wearing down the health of the wife and stretching the budget for the children until some inevitably die, is a much worse way to go. She has proven this is true via the lives of the women she has worked with. Yet Mother Teresa tells India and the world they must go the other way.

Interesting is the fact that the 1996 winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion was Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ (which also subsidizes Josh McDowell Ministries!). But the very next year the winner was a Hindu, Shastri Athavale, whose spiritual and social activism was inspired by the The Bhagavad Gita. Athavale has inspired hundreds of thousands of people to spend two weeks or more visiting India's poorest villages where they seek to advance the self-respect and economic condition of those they visit. For more than four decades Athavale has taught that service to God is incomplete without service to humanity.

Perhaps you've heard of Sundar Singh, the Sikh convert to Christianity? He was quite famous in his day. But he made plain his view that, "There are many more people among us in India who lead a spiritual life than in the West, although they do not know or confess Christ...It is of course true that people who live in India worship idols; but here in England people worship themselves, and that is still worse. Idol-worshippers seek the truth, but people over here, so far as I can see, seek pleasure and comfort...The people of the West understand how to use electricity and how to fly in the air. The men of the East have sought the truth. Of the three Wise Men who went to Palestine to see Jesus not one was from the West.'". Heiler, p. 217.

Neither was Sundar afraid to raise his voice in favor of "universalism." He could never deny to all non-Christians the possibility of entering heaven (as fundamentalist and hard-line evangelicals, like McDowell, do). In 1925 Sundar wrote, "If the Divine spark in the soul cannot be destroyed, then we need despair of no sinner... Since God created men to have fellowship with Himself, they cannot for ever be separated from Him...After long wandering, and by devious paths, sinful man will at last return to Him in whose Image he was created; for this is his final destiny.". Sundar Singh, Meditations on Various Aspects of the Spiritual Life (London, Macmillan, 1925).

In February, 1929, the year Sundar disappeared on his final missionary trip to Tibet, he was interviewed by several theology students in Calcutta, India, where he answered their questions: "(Question #1) What did the Sadhu think should be our attitude towards non-Christian religions? - The old habit of calling them 'heathen' should go. The worst 'heathen' were among us [Christians].

By the way, C.S. Lewis' close lifelong friend, Bede Griffiths, became a Catholic monk and ran a Chrisitan-Hindu ashram in India for decades, devoting his life to inter-religious dialogue, and grew to love Hindus and Hinduism so much he wrote books praising Hindusim's most sublime aspects, even defending it against papal ignorance and misunderstandings. Griffiths also got Lewis to admit in a letter that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it may make him very much worse, a "devil," as Lewis himself admitted to Griffiths in one of the last letters Lewis penned.

HINDUISM AND EASTERN RELIGIONS
In the little self-contained Christian "world" view of evangelists there is no room for Hinduism. Yet for millions of devout Hindus there remains room for Christianity and Christ's divinity. Hinduism in that sense encompasses a wider range of faith than Christianity.

There are even what one might call "fundamentalist" Hindus, like the one who asked Joseph Campbell, "What do scholars think of the Vedas [the most ancient Hindu holy books]?" Campbell answered, "The dating of the Vedas has been reduced to 1500 to 1000 B.C., and there have been found in India itself the remains of an earlier civilization than the Vedic." "Yes," said the Indian gentleman, "I know; but as an orthodox Hindu I cannot believe that there is anything in the universe earlier than the Vedas.". Joseph Campbell, Myths to Live By (New York: Bantam Books, 1973), p. 54.

It's obvious that the study of the world's holy books by historical, archeological and literary scholars continues to provoke tension and discomfort in "Vedic believing" Hindus, "Koran believing" Moslems, and "Bible believing" Christians (like McDowell).. Philip H. Ashby's The Conflict of Religions (published around 1960), describes the conflict in the major world religions between modern scientific knowledge and old religious traditions. Christianity is not the only religion being "attacked" by "devilish liberals." Traditionalists in all the world's religions feel threatened by the insights that scholars bring to light whenever such scholars are free from having to parrot inherited dogma. So there is nothing "unique" about "Bible believing" Christians in that respect.

Furthermore, there are millions of devout Hindus more moved by the story of Krishna in the Hindu holy book, The Bhagavad Gita, than by the story of Jesus. As one Indian Catholic priest candidly told a British journalist, "Although my family had been Christians for generations and I had been through the full rigors of a Jesuit training, I still, in my heart of hearts, feel closer to the God Krishna than to Jesus.". Mark Tully, "Lives of Jesus" in The Illustrated London News, Christmas Issue, 1996, p. 33. (In Indian courts of law, people swear with their hand on The Bhagavad Gita not the Bible, and there are even popular Indian books with titles like, The Bhagavada Gita for Executives by V. Ramanathan.)

There are also millions of devout Buddhists more moved by stories of the Buddha and his disciples. See Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker, The Great Disciples of the Buddha: Their Lives, Their Works, Their Legacy (1997). than by stories of Jesus and his. Anagarika Dharmapala, a nineteenth century Buddhist, commented, "The Nazarene carpenter had no sublime teachings to offer, and understandably so, because his parables not only reveal a limited mind, but they also impart immoral lessons and impractical ethics...The few illiterate fishermen of Galilee followed him as he promised to make them judges to rule over Israel [appealing to relatively 'base' desires according to Buddhist teachings - ED.]." To such Buddhists, "Jesus is a spiritual dwarf before Buddha, the spiritual giant." A J. Mattill, Jr., The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs, 2nd Ed., Revised and Enlarged (The Flatwood Free Press: Alabama, 1995), p. 237.

Oddly enough, one version of the Buddha's life that reached Europe from India underwent subtle changes along the way, until the Buddha became a Christian saint! According to that version the "prince" who "lived in India" was named "Josaphat," and he was a "Great Renouncer." Research into the origins of "Saint Josaphat," revealed that the Latin name, "Josaphat," was based on an earlier version of the story in which the Greek name "Ioasaph" was used, which came from the Arabic "Yudasaf," which came from the Manichee "Bodisaf," which came from "Bodhisattva" in the original story of the Buddha. (A "Bodhisattva" is a person who achieves great spiritual enlightenment yet remains on earth to help others.) Thus the Buddha came to be included in Butler's Lives of the Saints.. See Leonard Swidler, "The Buddha Revered As A Christian Saint," The Catholic World, May/June 1989, p. 121; and Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Towards a World Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 7-11.

Also, some of the earliest Jesuit missionaries to China, who read the Far Eastern book of wisdom, the Tao Te Ching, returned to Rome and requested that that book be added to the Bible, because it contained teachings on non-violence, love and humility that paralleled and preceded Jesus' teachings by hundreds of years. (Many of those parallels are commented on in The Tao of Jesus: An Exercise in Inter-Traditional Understanding by Joseph A. Loya, O.S.A, Wan-Li Ho, and Chang-Shin Jih.)

Eastern religions also feature stories of miracles and visions, along with stories of saintly Hindus and Buddhists who died beautifully and serenely. In some cases a sweet flowery odor is said to have come from their corpses. In another case a corpse allegedly turned into flowers at death. All in all, the stories rival those of Catholic saints and their miracles. In fact, "sainthood" is a phenomenon common to all the world's religions.. Richard Kieckhefer and George D. Bond, eds., Sainthood: Its Manifestations in World Religions (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988). Needless to say, reading about Hinduism and Buddhism in books written by Josh McDowell is no substitute for reading books written by Hindus and Buddhists. A tour of any large bookstore can provide plenty of interesting titles by both Hindu and Buddhist authors.. Here is a list of books on Hinduism (none of which were written by hard-line Christian apologists): The Hindu Phenomenon by Girilal Jain; Hindus and Others by Gyanendra Pandey; Hinduism for the Next Generation by V. Krishnamurthy; Recovery of Faith by Radhakrishnan; An Autobiography by M. K. Gandhi; Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda; The Mind of Swami Vivekananda by Gautam Sen; The Mind of Adi Shankaracharya by Y. Keshava Menon; Ramakrishna and His Disciples by Christopher Isherwood; Living Biographies of Great Religious Leaders by H. Thomas & Dana Lee Thomas; Truth is Two-Eyed by John A. T. Robinson (Christianity as seen through Eastern eyes and Hinduism as seen through Western eyes). Not to forget the magazine, Hinduism Today.

---

Right now secular and governmental charities feed more people worldwide than religious ones do. One thanksgiving there was an aritcle in USA Today that listed the three major organizations in America that feed the hungry and not one of them was related to any particular Christian denomination or even to Christianity as a whole. Check out the United Way sometime and the listing of all the charities in your area. See how many of them are "church-related." Church-related charities do a good job of parading around their righteousness in the public square like the Pharisees.

If it wasn't for a host of scientists who happened to be either lapsed churchgoers, heretics, apostates, infidels, agnostics, or atheists, and their successes in the fields of agricultural and medical science, hundreds of millions would have starved to death or suffered innumerable diseases this past century. Those agricultural and medical scientists "multiplied more loaves of bread" and "prevented/healed more diseases" in the past fifty years than Christianity has in the past two thousand.

Also, Florence Nightengale, the woman who made nursing a legitimate profession, was a lesbian who disdained institutionalized religion. The founder of the International Red Cross, Andre Dunant, was gay. The founder of the American Red Cross, Clara Barton, was a freethinker. And Helen Keller, the blind and deaf woman who proved an inspiration to sufferers of severe disabilities, was a humanist.

Josh McDowell - Atheist Convert to Christianity?

Josh McDowell - Atheist Convert to Christianity?
Questions have been raised whether or not indeed Josh McDowell was an Atheist. Some on the web have reported McDowell was an atheist before accepting Christianity. A representative of McDowell's Ministries claims that was never so, and Ed Babinski quotes McDowell on what appears to be a testimonial of a former atheist.

From: sharon
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 6:53 PM
To: Josh Web
Subject: Review on a Book by Josh McDowell from Amazon

Greetings,

I'm writing because something has troubled me for years about Josh McDowell.

Josh McDowell claims he was an atheist, and I don't see how he possibly could have been one. It is impossible in my reasoning, to be an atheist (like Farrel Till and Dan Barker and the like) and becoming a Christian. I can only believe that Josh McDowell was a "backslider"... a Christian deep down at heart, and later began to take his faith seriously and following it. (Prv:22:6: Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. (KJV)

Is there anything on the web which goes indepth on Mr. McDowell's former "atheist" beliefs? Because I sure would like to read them, and compare them with what I know from other atheists' beliefs. Thanks in advance!

I can see how a person raised in a foreign land, and taught non-Christian, non-Hindu, non-Muslim beliefs could be an atheist (lacking a substantial teaching about a god, although most places on earth teach of some kind of god(s) --- then convert to Christianity, but not due to "biblical knowledge". Rather their neighbors are doing it, it offers social opportunities, so they become like their neighbors, without even the need to read the Bible.

The group of atheists I speak of are those like Professor Till, a former preacher, whom with much knowledge about the Bible, loses faith, after years of study and research... one group of atheists are atheists for lack of exposure to Biblical knowledge. The second group of atheists, become atheists, due to exposure to Biblical knowledge.

I'm not very clear on how or why Josh McDowell claims often he is a former atheist. What were his beliefs, while he was an atheist?

Thank you sincerely, very much,

Sharon

___________________________

The Response from Josh McDowell's ministry went something as thus:

Josh says in his tract, "Skeptic's Quest," that he was looking for meaning and purpose in life. He had tried religion when he was young but could not find the answers he was searching for. What he did not know until he was in college was that it is a relationship with Jesus Christ, rather than religion, which gives meaning and purpose to life.

He does not use the word atheist in the tract, but set out to prove Christianity false. Instead of being able to do that, he came to the following three conclusions: Jesus Christ was who He said He was, there is historic evidence for the reliability of Scripture, and the Resurrection of Christ took place.

In His service,
Penny Woods
Josh McDowell Ministry

___________________________

From: sharon
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:55 PM
To: Penny Woods
Subject: Re: Review on a Book by Josh McDowell from Amazon

Dear Penny,

Thank you for responding.

Many people have it so written on the internet, and I've heard it spoken on K-Love Radio and elsewhere, that Josh McDowell said he was an atheist, and from my limited knowledge about what Josh McDowell teaches, and his personal testimony, I simply cannot find an atheist in the picture of Mr. McDowell's account on his life. I could and can only find a "backsliding Christian", not an atheist.

He does not use the word atheist in the tract, but set out to prove Christianity false.

And I was an unbeliever who set out to prove Christianity true...About 3 years ago, I was a confirmed Deist, and had rejected the Bible utterly, after leaving a cult from 10 years before (raised from about age 5, in the legalistic Worldwide Church of God... my parents were baptised around 1975 and I finally left the WWCG in 1991) ... the Church had fallen apart, so I spent years wandering in confusion, with no where to turn, but maintaining my belief in a God. It had taught us well, not to trust in any other religion, and then itself became untrustworthy, as Joseph Tkach reformed doctrines... I was one that could not accept these radical changes, and instead of joining like others had, in one of the splinter groups, I struck out on my own in much confusion to find God on my own.

What happened, was losing faith in the Bible... ( for instance, when Peter denies Jesus, the cock crows one time in Matthew, Luke and John, but is recorded to crow twice in Mark --- this contradiction devastated me when I saw it in the Bible... I was sick to my stomach, I could not sleep, or eat... I felt as if the world had caved in on me all over again .. first our reliable church had crumbled, and now the Bible... I was devastated... it was traumatizing to learn about discrepancies in the Bible, after years of being told it was without error or contradiction ) when I recovered from some of this grief, I gained an indifference for the Bible.

Three years ago that changed. I believe it was indeed God himself that was at work in my mind, and spirit, and forced me to pick up the Bible (after years of indifference and deism), and to accept it on blind faith. I did after weeks/months of spiritual warfare.. to believe in a book which a lifetime had taught me to not believe in, it was an impossible leap of faith, but I made it. Very fervent search that I had never experienced. Easter morning at 3 a.m., in my home I was awake and pacing the floor, and I prayed a fervent prayer --- holding the Bible toward heaven, shaking that book, and demanding if indeed that were the true Word of God, "GIVE ME PROOF GOD". Shortly after, I felt compelled to leave the church which did not have my answers, one Sunday School teacher could not even tell me where the Bible came from, because he himself had not ever bothered to take the time to read it, or research it, and yet defended it as "The Inerrant Word of God"... I left the church because of such people, and put my faith in God to guide me, and seek the truth about the Bible/Spiritualism. My journey lead me into buying several thousand dollars worth of books, and for the first time, to actually read the Bible from end to end, hearing every word, and if indeed I felt that I had not captured the context of a chapter I'd repeat the process 6 or 7 times if necessary... until I felt comfortable to move on to the next chapter. When all was said and done, including studying in reference books that I had purchased from Christian Book Distributors - - - I found myself back where I was years before, rejecting the Bible all over again - - - except without indifference this time around. That's where I am today. I take the Bible very seriously, but I do not revere it as the inerrant word of God. I tried like the devil, to make Genesis and Science reconcile, I made many people peaved with my enthusiasm --- I wanted so badly for the Bible to be inerrant and giving me the peace and hope that it was the Word of God... for the first time in my life, I had began to take a serious look at what science actually teaches. From my understanding now, many of the concepts found in Genesis, came from Babylonian mythology. My search for truth continues, a search which I believe that God put me on... in that alone, I find peace. I believe God exists, beyond any doubt in my mind.

For instance... after reading the Bible, for what it says.... it was the Bible itself, that lead me to conclude there is no Satan at work in this world, but rather as Gandhi said "The only devils we need fear are the ones running around in our own hearts." I came away from the Bible and these many reference books with a new found lack of fear of the spirit realm. (Years before, for lack of study, I had carried varied spiritual beliefs into my Deism, when I lost faith in religion and the Bible. I had great fears of demons and devils --- today, I have no fear of such beings, I do not have that old fear of God's wrath either, a fear which the WwCG put in to its flock, and the Protestant Church I was attending, helped to exaserbate three years ago. Some study in theologian books, and encyclopedias, and reading the Bible helped me to unlearn those grim evil fears... demons attacking... the Baptist church had me so afraid to pray out loud -- one minister said "you must be careful about prayer, because there are demons about and they can take what you say to Satan, and he use your weaknesses against you"... I was terrified to pray out loud, but my study brought me to the understanding there is no Satan. There are no demons. The early books of the Bible, are absent of such concepts being the main reason I thought to reject a belief in them... further study confirmed the suspicion. I can pray out loud, without fear of a Devil either hearing me, or using the information against me, to hurt me... as if part of the spiritual journey with God taught me, "just calm down and trust me... things are better than the Church has taught you about me..." I have peace in that regard today. No fears of devils or demons attacking... The God I know, set me on a path to seek knowledge... and is not that God of Wrath I was raised to dread in the WwCG's legalistic Old Testament, not even the Protestant's New Testament which speaks of hell and its eternal death and damnation... I have no fear of eternal torment from the God that is my God.)

It appears to me, that myself and Mr. McDowell started out on the same spiritual path, but ended up on 2 very different outcomes.... my journey still continues, and in many ways, is just beginning. (The Search for truth and knowledge.)

Best Regards,

Sharon

___________________________

Yet another reply came back something as thus:

Sharon, as believers, we need to be wise to the work of the enemy (1 Peter 5:8) but we do not need to fear him, because if we resist him he flees (James 4:7). The Lord has given us authority over Satan. Jesus was present when Satan was thrown out of heaven because of his rebellion against God. That is what Jesus is referring to in Luke 10:18, 19 when he says, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you." The Bible assures us that He who is in us is greater than the enemy (1 John 4:4).

You mentioned that the early books of the Bible do not mention Satan. Actually, he makes his appearance early on, as the crafty serpent in Genesis 3:1.

It is unfortunate that some people are taught an unhealthy fear about the enemy in church, because correct biblical teaching will teach that though Satan is present and active in today's world, believers, through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, need not fear what Satan can do. He was defeated at the cross. A good way to present Satan's position today is to say that he is condemned but not yet totally destroyed, almost like a person sitting on death row who is alive and can cause problems but is facing certain execution. Satan was condemned at the cross and one day he will be totally destroyed when he is thrown in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).

We know that Satan was condemned at the cross because Paul is referring to what Jesus did to Satan and his demons in Colossians 2:15 when he says, "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

1 John 3:8--"The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."

Hebrews 2:14--"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil. . ."

Jesus told us in John 10:10 that Satan came to steal, kill, and destroy, but He came to give us an abundant life. For those who do not give their lives to Jesus or do not properly understand their power and authority over Satan, he will do all he can to destroy lives, but believers who stand on the Word, are obedient to the Lord's teachings, and practice spiritual warfare according to Ephesians 6:10-18, have nothing to fear. If the enemy should attack, it will only be because the Lord allowed it, as He did in the case of righteous Job (see Job 1 and 2). For a person who is living in God's will, nothing comes into his life without first passing through the hands of God.

I encourage you to take these verses before the Lord, Sharon, and ask Him to give you His wisdom, insight, discernment and understanding. He never wants any of us to miss any point of truth He wants to show us because Jesus came to set us free from bondage, and any time we aren't walking in truth we are, to some degree, in bondage.

In His service,
Penny Woods
Josh McDowell Ministry

___________________________

From: Edward T. Babinski
To: sharon
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: McDowell's "atheism"

She apparently has not even read Genesis, which does NOT mention "Satan," instead it says that the serpent was "the wisest beast of the field that God had made." And it was cursed as a serpent would be cursed, not as Satan. I mean, was "Satan" cursed to go on his belly and eat dust all the days of his life? Was "Satan" cursed "more than all cattle?" Yes, she knows the later Christian theological interpretations of the tale about Eden, but she ignores the plain words of the text in favor of later theological interpretations.

I wrote about McDowell's alleged "atheism" at length. I sent McDowell ministries a paper copy too, and a copy online, sent to someone a bit higher up than Penny at his ministry. They never responded.

Best, Ed

___________________________

From: Edward T. Babinski
To: sharon
Cc: penny..
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 10:46 PM
Subject: Josh McDowell claimed he had "chucked religion."

Dear Penny,

I do not know what you have been reading about McDowell's testimony, but he claimed to have been more than simply a backsliding Christian. McDowell wrote that he had "chucked religion." He said he was not a "Christian." That's more than just "backsliding."

In the first edition of Evidence that Demands a Verdict his testimony was titled, "I've Got a Satisfied Mind" (referred to hereafter as "MT1" for "McDowell Testimony #1"). The second edition of ETDAV featured a longer rewritten version of MT1, titled, "He Changed My Life" (referred to hereafter as "MT2" for "McDowell Testimony #2").

"I chucked religion...it didn't work" (MT1&2).

"I thought most Christians were walking idiots... I imagined that if a Christian had a brain cell, it would die of loneliness" (MT2)."

"I figured every Christian had two brains; one was lost and the other was out looking for it" (MT1).

"I used to listen to professors in supercilious humanities classes, and if they didn't believe Christianity, you weren't going to catch me believing it." (MT1).

His "testimony" is unimpressive and expected, given the description he supplies of the state he was in at the time.

Best, Edward T. Babinski (author of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, Prometheus Books, 1995, now in paperback)