Over the last couple of years, you've probably noticed that the tenor of my posts has changed. Clearly, I no longer believe many of the things I had been previously taught -- as a Jehovah's Witness, as a follower of The Way, and during my time in a "regular" evangelical Christian church. I have been very careful in what I have said and what I have not said. It was important to me that my comments and observations be taken at face value, accepted because the evidence supported me, or rejected because the evidence refuted me.
It is a logical fallacy to reject what someone says because of the source of the information. The ability to discern between what is said and who is saying it is a crucial talent, one that is not always easy to maintain. My goal has been to argue my points on the merits of those points, not to get caught up in who is making those points or even where those points may lead.
I attempted to demonstrate, for example, that one can reject SIT as we were taught in TWI without rejecting Christianity. I think I managed that successfully.
I attempted to demonstrate in the Doctrinal section that one can reject the notion of the Bible as "God-breathed" according to TWI's definition without rejecting Christianity. Surprisingly, I met with very little argument when I made this observation. Most folks had either beaten me to it by years or presented very weak arguments against it.
In any event, I struggled as I discussed these things because I wanted to argue those points in isolation, on the merits, as I said. There are countless others I did not bring up, and I mention them now only in passing.
I came to the conclusion years ago that the Book of Job is either fiction or evidence that God is not good. If it is a story with a moral, that's one thing. If it's history, then God allowed innocent people to be slaughtered in order to win a bet he knew he would win in the first place.
I came to the conclusion years ago that Noah's flood didn't happen as described in the Bible. Really, no boat would have been big enough, and no regional flood would have covered Ararat.
I came to the conclusion years ago that Exodus, as history, made precious little sense. Where in Egyptian history do we learn about the death of everyone's firstborn on a single night? Where do we read of the rather sudden evacuation of roughly 2 million people and all their livestock? Why does Moses claim the Hebrews built the store city of Rameses when that city wasn't built until hundreds of years after the Exodus took place?
I came to the conclusion years ago that if God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, the only moral response from Abraham would have been "No!" Certainly not "Okay, let me gather up some firewood."
I came to the conclusion years ago that mankind has been on earth longer than 6,000 years. We've had beer longer than that.
Approaching the Bible with the preconceived notion that it is "truth" leads you to a conclusion that you would never reach if you treated it as any other book claiming to be holy. Dianetics fails because it is demonstrably nonsensical. The Book of Mormon fails because it makes historical claims that are demonstrably untrue. The Quran fails because it posits a God who is implacably cruel. The Bible, held to the same standard as those "holy" books, fails on precisely the same grounds.
Some of you have been willing to hear me out because I am a Christian and I am not saying "Jesus is not Lord." You have treated me as your brother in Christ, and that allowed you to take my statements and observations at face value and evaluate them on the merits. I applaud the end result, but in good conscience, I cannot continue to allow you to take the preconceptions for granted.
Jesus is not Lord.
I am not your brother in Christ.
The Bible says, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." It also compares Christians who reject the faith to dogs who eat their own vomit. The "good" book is NOT respectful to those who disagree with its (very human) authors. But that's okay with me, because the more I read its pages, the less I can agree with the view that this is a very "good" book at all.
I know this will change how a lot of you see me. And that's okay. I'm still me. I still care deeply about you guys as people. Part of me wishes I could take you on the same journey I've been through, so you could see and understand why I've made the choices I've made. By the same token, I know you have all been through a great many things yourselves, and if that hasn't led you to where I am today, then nothing I say will convince you.
I don't have to convince you, nor do I really wish to. My journey is my own.
I don't have a holy book calling you a fool. You may have one that says that about me. I will not hold that book's words against you, but I will defend myself against that book's words. They have NOT stood the test of time. They are rather obviously a product of their time, offering no indication that they were written by anyone with a knowledge of science, history, geology, geography, meteorology or (most certainly) astronomy.
I am nobody's fool. And I say in my heart and in public, There Is No God.
