A Reader Responds to Why I Quit Christianity

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I received this response to my post Why I Quit Christianity today:

Dear Mr. Richard,

Today, I accessed your website at biblewheel.com which is a very valuable tool for me in my study of The Scriptures and I noticed a message at the top of the page: 'My Deconversion.' I clicked on the link to see what that was about and after reading your testimony, I am perplexed and felt compelled to write you this e-mail.

The people of the Most High of whom I call YHWH and Yahuwah are not expected to know everything, are not expected to have the ability to answer every question, or to understand every doctrine.
When there is something that the people of Yahuwah do not understand, we are to ask for understanding, then if we still do not receive understanding, know this:

1. The Doctrine Of Hell

Wicked mankind will be cast into the lake of fire for their sin, but wicked mankind will not receive eternal life in the lake of fire. To say that wicked mankind will burn forever in a hell, is saying they will receive eternal life, but in hell. Wicked mankind will not get a drop of eternal life, not even in a hell as they call it. Wicked mankind will receive 'permanent death' in the lake of fire and will never exist again. Notice that in Revelation 20:14 the so called hell is cast into the lake of fire. Hell is not the final punishment of wicked mankind. The lake of fire is the final destination of the wicked.

2. The Bible contains many errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God.

1 Corinthians 13:12 'For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.'

The people of Yahuwah are not expected to know everything for that would make us Yahuwah.

Romans 11:33 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of Yahuwah! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!'

Therefore, when there is something that the people of Yahuwah don’t understand, it is best to confess we don’t understand and put it on the back burner. We need to confess that we don’t know the answer and leave it at that because Yahuwah is much brainier than human beings are.

3. God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers.

James 4:3 'Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.' (could this be the problem)

2 Corinthians 12:8-9 'For this thing I besought the Master thrice, that it might depart from me.' 'And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Mashiyach may rest upon me.' (or perhaps this is the problem)

1 Corinthians 10:13 ‘There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but Yahuwah is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.'

Yahuwah will test His people or allow them to be tested. The 'way of escape' may not be what we as human beings want. The 'way of escape' may even be death for some of the people of Yahuwah.'

Simply felt moved to testify.

Hope this brings some understanding.

Eve

I am very glad that Eve responded, and hope many other believers will follow suit. Her attempts to answer my points really help clarify and confirm my reasons for quitting Christianity.

The first thing to note is that she seems to be following a very minor variation of Christianity. She rejects the traditional Doctrine of Hell in favor of Annihilationism and also changes the Bible by inserting the invented name 'Yahuwah' in place of 'God' (Greek: Theos) in Romans 11:33 and 1 Corinthians 10:13. There is no justification for changing the Bible like this. And if the New Testament is wrong on this point, where else is it in error? How could anyone have any confidence in a book that could not even get the name of it’s God correct for two thousand years?

Eve appears to be a follower the Sacred Name Movement which teaches both Annihilationism and the insertion of Yahuwah into the New Testament, as well as a host of other obscure doctrines like Sabbath keeping. It is a splinter group off the Church of God (Seventh Day) which itself split off from the followers of failed doomsday prophet William Miller who founded the Seventh Day Adventists which is famous for producing David Koresh’s cult of The Branch Davidians. And all these groups split off from the Protestants who split from the Catholics who split from the Greek Orthodox over an obscure interpretation of the Trinity (amongst other things). This exemplifies the utter insanity of religion in general and apocalyptic Christianity in particular. It is absurd to think that any God would judge people according to which of these confused and unfounded dogmas they choose to believe! All these splinters of splinters show how there is no single religion properly called 'Christianity' – in reality there are many Christianities based on a broad range of overlapping but incoherent interpretations of the Bible. This is the real reason I quit 'Christianity' – there is no such thing!

Folks who call themselves 'Christian' reject every other version of their religion. Evangelicals reject Mormonism, and the founder of Mormonism said that God commissioned him to restore true Christianity because every form of Christianity had become corrupt. And the Reformers declared the Roman Catholic Church to be a system of the Antichrist, and identified the Pope as the very Antichrist himself in the Westminster Confession of Faith. And the Jehovah’s Witnesses think they are the true church, and many Seventh Day Adventists believe that going to church on Sunday is the Mark of the Beast! There is no end to the insanity spawned by teaching people that mere belief in unfounded dogmas is a virtue and that doubt is the ultimate vice. So when I say that I reject 'Christianity' I am not rejecting any one version – I am rejecting everything that falls under the rubric of 'Christianity.' And the amazing thing is that Christians tend to agree with me in as much as they too reject all the other versions that differ from their own. It’s like atheism. Christians and atheists agree that all other gods are false. They differ only concerning the one god believed by the Christian.

Now on to her specific points:

1) The Doctrine of Hell

I agree that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell is not particularly well-founded in the Bible, though there are a number of verses that can be used to support it. Unfortunately, this has not stopped it from being a dominant doctrine in historical Christianity. If it is false then God has failed to lead the vast majority of his people into truth and I can have no reason to have any confidence in any version of it. If it is true, then Christianity is to be rejected. In either case, I see no reason to believe in that the Bible is a reliable guide, or that there is any truth to the god it proclaims.

2. The Bible contains many errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God.

The problem is not that we see through a glass darkly. The problem is that we see the errors, absurdities, and moral abominations all too clearly! Eve gave no rational response to the many problems in the Bible.

3. God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers.

No evidence was given to contradict this fact. Mere assertions based on quotations from the Bible mean nothing, especially when the contradict observed reality.

So that’s it. I really hope other Christians will try to refute the reasons I gave for quitting Christianity. I’ve been discussing this here on my forum and on my blog with many Christians for months and not one has come close to presenting any real challenge to the reasons I gave.

[jce]

I agree with Richard. Modern Christianity is divided and that's one reason it is rejected by many. Personally speaking, I do believe what I comprehend of the bible's message regarding the doctrine of salvation. I also have many unanswered questions, but have not yet encountered any contradictions that would sway me from knowing my need of Christ's sacrifice for my sins. I am a sinner saved by grace... and for that reason, I have hope, and hope is essential for endurance.

John

[David M]

I agree with Richard. Modern Christianity is divided and that's one reason it is rejected by many. Personally speaking, I do believe what I comprehend of the bible's message regarding the doctrine of salvation. I also have many unanswered questions, but have not yet encountered any contradictions that would sway me from knowing my need of Christ's sacrifice for my sins. I am a sinner saved by grace... and for that reason, I have hope, and hope is essential for endurance.

John

That's good John. Just because every man has an their own opinion about what the Bible says, and that would make as many interpretations of the Bible as there are men, this does not negate the truth within the Bible. The fact that everyone does not have a perfect grasp of the truth and does not understand every part of the truth revealed, still does not negate the whole truth of the Bible.

You believe the essential element as I do.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." "Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way". "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding."

David

[Lora]

1) The Doctrine of Hell
I cannot conceive of a good God who would design an eternal evil in which souls suffer eternal conscious torment. This is a central doctrine accepted by the vast majority of Christians. It always bothered me throughout my time as a Christian, but I put it on the 'back burner' and didn’t think about it much.

There are many topics in this statement, and I am not sure how to begin a discussion concerning this statement - or even where the "true" issue is. Is it with the "doctrine of hell as taught by christianity?" or something else... I cannot tell.
So I will wait for clarification before running off at the mouth

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There are many topics in this statement, and I am not sure how to begin a discussion concerning this statement - or even where the "true" issue is. Is it with the "doctrine of hell as taught by christianity?" or something else... I cannot tell.
So I will wait for clarification before running off at the mouth

Hi Lora,

Welcome to our forum!



Yes, my problem is with the Doctrine of Hell as taught by traditional "orthodox" Christianity. But it extends beyond that because it is connected with the whole idea that people need salvation. If there is no hell and everyone eventually gets reconciled to God (saved) then it apparently doesn't matter what a person believes. And besides that, the whole idea that God would judge us according to our opinions about a 2000 year old book doesn't make any sense either. So my real problem is with the whole set of doctrines that folks derive from the Bible. And besides all that, there are so many variations of Christianity it seems absurd to worry about which might be right, especially since the Bible itself is not trustworthy because it contains errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God.

It's always a good idea to ask questions before trying to answer but there's no need to be too cautious. Let your mouth run a little and we'll see what comes of it.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree with Richard. Modern Christianity is divided and that's one reason it is rejected by many. Personally speaking, I do believe what I comprehend of the bible's message regarding the doctrine of salvation. I also have many unanswered questions, but have not yet encountered any contradictions that would sway me from knowing my need of Christ's sacrifice for my sins. I am a sinner saved by grace... and for that reason, I have hope, and hope is essential for endurance.

John

Good morning John,

The problem of schisms is not limited to "modern Christianity." It's been that way from the beginning. Paul had to deal with it:

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

The problem of "divisions" and "heresies" and "controversies" seems to be the fundamental characteristic of the religions that are classed as "Christianity." The Arian Controversy is a prime example. There was a large population of Arian believers that were FORCED to "convert" to Trinitarian Christianity. And this division continues to this day. It seems to me that an error on this point would determine the difference between a "saving faith" and a damnable heresy. Indeed, many Muslims use the the Doctrine of the Trinity as a main justification for their rejection of Christianity.

This is why Christianity has no gravitas - no moral weight that could compel me to believe. It is a confused mess of contradictory claims. No rational God would hold anyone responsible for how they responded to such confusion.

You say that you "have not yet encountered any contradictions that would sway me from knowing my need of Christ's sacrifice for my sins." Why would you start with the presupposition that you are in need of a "sacrifice" or you can't be forgiven? I forgive people every day without having to kill someone. Why can't God do what any normal person can do, and simply forgive? The concept of "blood atonement for sin" is an ancient and primitive concept found in all cultures. Why would you ever think it true? It looks like just another pagan religion to me. Do you think the practitioners of the Greek mystery religions (which predate Christianity) really had their sins forgiven when they stood under a bull to be washed in it's blood?

Great chatting,

Richard

[Lora]

But it extends beyond that because it is connected with the whole idea that people need salvation.

I also have a problem with this (I think) if I understand properly your statement. To teach about burning forever in hot flames and then tie that into the salvation message defeats the whole point of all of it.

I do believe the Creator when He told the first man "the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die"
This is where I understand that there are consequences for actions. I do view that as an instruction of love from Him.
So it does seem that there is a life or death consequence, not only with each action - but in the final equation as well.
What are your thoughts?

* thank you for the warm welcome. Very kind.

Wasn't hell a term and concept created by the Greeks and then refined by Roman Catholicism? Came into the book during the hellenistic period and into the present age? It is difficult for me to even consider the topic after discovering who introduced it. We have to begin with the original intention I believe. That means going back to the beginning and starting there. Otherwise it seems to me, that we are trying to discuss something that doesn't exist or something very obscure and difficult and without benefit.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I also have a problem with this (I think) if I understand properly your statement. To teach about burning forever in hot flames and then tie that into the salvation message defeats the whole point of all of it.

I do believe the Creator when He told the first man "the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die"
This is where I understand that there are consequences for actions. I do view that as an instruction of love from Him.
So it does seem that there is a life or death consequence, not only with each action - but in the final equation as well.
What are your thoughts?

* thank you for the warm welcome. Very kind.

Good morning Lora,

It would be interesting if you could elaborate a bit on why you think the doctrine of hell "defeats the whole message."

And where is God in all this? Why did he produce a book so ambiguous that millions of devoted Christians would think that the doctrine of hell is absolutely essential to the message? If there is no hell, then there are only two possibilities that I can imagine - Annihilationism or Universalism. Do you believe one of those, or is there another possibility that I missed?

Great chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Wasn't hell a term and concept created by the Greeks and then refined by Roman Catholicism? Came into the book during the hellenistic period and into the present age? It is difficult for me to even consider the topic after discovering who introduced it. We have to begin with the original intention I believe. That means going back to the beginning and starting there. Otherwise it seems to me, that we are trying to discuss something that doesn't exist or something very obscure and difficult and without benefit.

There really is no Biblical word properly translated as "hell" in English. Here's what the wiki says about it:

The modern English word Hell is derived from Old English hel, helle (about 725 AD to refer to a nether world of the dead) reaching into the Anglo-Saxon pagan period, and ultimately from Proto-Germanic *halja, meaning "one who covers up or hides something".^[1] The word has cognates in related Germanic languages such as Old Frisian helle, hille, Old Saxon hellja, Middle Dutch helle (modern Dutch hel), Old High German helle (Modern German Hölle), Danish, Norwegian and Swedish "helvede"/helvete (hel + Old Norse vitti, "punishment" whence the Icelandic víti "hell"), and Gothic halja.^[1] Subsequently, the word was used to transfer a pagan concept to Christian theology and its vocabulary^[1] (however, for the Judeo-Christian origin of the concept see Gehenna).

The Doctrine of Hell is just one of many pagan doctrines that made it's way into Christianity. Many pagan concepts were included in the Bible itself, such as the place called Tartarus (2 Pet 3:19)) where Zeus (God) chained the Titans (fallen angels) that rebelled against him.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Likewise, John mentioned the Greek gods Thanatos (Death) and Hades (Hell) as riding horses in Revelation. And indeed, the whole Biblical cosmology follows the pattern of pagan mythology which had a flat earth with a dome. We talked about this a lot in a thread called Pagan Mythology in the Bible?.

Getting back to the question of hell - the root of that word has the same meaning as the Greek Hades (something hidden) and so both became the name of the underworld of the dead. This is a fundamentally pagan concept. But it does not carry the ideas of fire and suffering. Those ideas seem to have come from Christ's reference to Gehenna (the place where garbage was burned). When I was a Christian, I tended towards annihilationism because fire normally annihilates (burns up) whatever is thrown in. But Christians developed the doctrine that God would sustain the flesh of the damned so they would suffer forever and ever and ever and ever ... what a perverse doctrine!

And yes, "Roman Catholicism" certainly refined the concept, but it also was accepted by the Reformers and now this doctrine is found in the vast majority of religions called "Christianity." If it is not true, then God has failed to guide "his people" into the truth.

You suggest that we must "go back to the beginning and start there." How can we do that? There was no Bible "in the beginning" and the only Bibles available are those produced by the Roman Catholic Church and/or her offspring, the Protestants. If they are false denominations teaching false doctrines, why would we trust the book that they produced?

[Lora]

It would be interesting if you could elaborate a bit on why you think the doctrine of hell "defeats the whole message."

And where is God in all this? Why did he produce a book so ambiguous that millions of devoted Christians would think that the doctrine of hell is absolutely essential to the message? If there is no hell, then there are only two possibilities that I can imagine - Annihilationism or Universalism. Do you believe one of those, or is there another possibility that I missed?

"Defeats the whole message" in that people make decisions based on fear and not love. The motivation for a professed belief is to save their own skin. I do not think this is helpful at all for people.

christianity went amuck when there was taught disregard the first five books of the scriptures. That is the first step towards all kinds of error and dillusion and false doctrine.

I am not familiar with the categories of annihilationism or universalism.
All I know is that scripture speaks of an eternal situation that are made final as we take our last breath: one is death and the other is life.