Beyond Belief: The Legend of Jesus

   

Several months ago, my boss asked me to consider reading Bob Ripley's, "Life Beyond Belief:  A Preacher's Deconversion".  I have just finished the fourth chapter, and up until this point, it's about what I have expected.  The arguments are as old as faith itself.  If I am convinced of anything, it is this;  Bob Ripley really is an atheist. 

   That is an important point.  Within the Christian community, we often ask that very question before welcoming a new person as one of our own.  Are they truly one of us?  So for those of you within the God-less community, I want to encourage you to welcome him with open arms. I truly believe he is one of you.

  I make this assertion out of the fact that his writing reflects the same spirit and attitude I have encountered among other atheists.  So I believe it is quite safe to assume he has the same kind of spirit as the rest.  It is difficult for me to communicate clearly, but I will do my best.  Here are two aspects of his dialogue that I generally find elsewhere among those who wrestle aggressively against The Imaginary Friend.  

 1.  The Unwillingness or Inability to Stay On Topic

I still remember meeting my first atheist.  When he found out I was a Christian he told me, "I have questions you can't answer."  I noticed a look of excitement in his eye, as if this was a grand opportunity to reveal his great intelligence to this young Christian.  He proceeded to ask me a very easy question.  Before I had the chance to respond, he just kept talking, making more of what I am sure he thought were points against Christ.

I see the very same quality in Bob Ripley.  He is either incapable or unwilling to introduce  a topic and stay on it.  I have never figured out whether this is simply a tactic intended at making it difficult for the reader to actually process what he is saying, or if it just comes out of his nature.  My hunch is that it is some combination of the two.

    For example.  He rightly presents to us that each of the four Gospels have parts of them that differ from each other.  He spends very little time on that topic before switching to other supposed objections to Christ.  I think atheists have to do this.  If they were to really think on it, of course 4 different testimonies would share different details.  Anything else would indicate corroboration, not authentic testimony.

If you really want to test this out, find 4 different people to write their account of your life.  Preferably, find two people who know you personally, and two people who only know about you.  Let me know how similar those accounts turn out to be.  According to a mind like Bob's, unless each account is verbatim the same, then maybe you don't exist.  Do you exist?

2.  Unwillingness or Inability to Apply Consistent Textual Criticism

Chapter 4 takes great pains to question the legitimacy of the Gospel writings.  I respect that.  I really do.  As a Christian, I have nothing to fear from the truth.  In fact, we believe that liars burn in hell. Read Revelation. (Which is kind of odd...I mean, why would a group of Christians completely fabricate a religion, and teach that liars end up in a lake of fire?)

He has been quite thorough in his study.  What he fails to do, as I have witnessed consistently in the non believing community, is that he most notably does NOT similarly scrutinize other ancient writings.  After writing several pages sizing up the authenticity of the accounts of Christ, Bob tells us, "I looked beyond the gospels to the pagan religions before and during the life of Jesus." Pg. 58.  In fact, for all (and I mean all) other ancient writings, there fails to be even one word of question to their credibility.

 

Congratulations world.  You truly have won this guy over.  What would this discussion look like if things were different?  What would Bob discover if he demanded the same credibility from writings on Osiris, as that of Christ?  You would discover this:  If the same level of textual criticism were to be applied equally to ALL ancient texts, none compare to that of the scriptures.

I get it though.  Why would Bob want to actually think through even one of his points?  Why would he want to give the same skepticism to ancient pagan writings?  Why would he scrutinize the stories that were rejected by the people who love Christ?  At the core, Bob has looked at who God is, and just plainly doesn't like Him.  He used to like Him, or at least thought he liked Him, until he actually took the time to seriously look at who God really is.   As long as he keeps switching the topic, and as long as he doesn't demand the same level of credibility from non-biblical writings as he does of The Bible, I'm sure he will maintain his current worldview.

The Not-So-Good-Book

Hi Bob.  Me again.  You likely don't read my writings, but I just finished chapter 3 of your book, "Life Beyond Belief", and I must admit, I don't know what to do with it.  Writing to you in this way helps to give me focus.  Overall, I believe you are right in this chapter, and because I agree with most of it, I believe some apologies are in order.  Part of me wants to apologize to you on behalf of the Christian community, and the other part of me thinks that you owe the Christian community an apology for the misinformation you offered your people while in ministry.  

  The general thrust of chapter 3 is that the Old Testament scriptures don't serve very well to establish a moral code for human conduct.  You also take aim at Christianity in general, claiming that we have perpetuated the same.  I think you are right.  I think it comes across that way, just as Atheists often come across as if they feel people should be able to live life however they want.  I know it might not be meant that way, but the message can sound that way when we hear, "There is probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I don't know how it comes out that way, but I would like to apologize on behalf of Christians everywhere.  Following Christ isn't supposed to be about following a moral code; it's supposed to be about following the risen Christ.  Many of us do in fact make it about morality.  I don't know how to correct them, or eject them from the fellowship.  I desperately desire to do one or the other, but I feel so helpless.  I can only hope a few of them read this apology and recognize their part in it.  

Many others do know the difference, but find it difficult to articulate it as such.  I am not apologizing for these people.  We are not all master communicators and are rarely as capable of clearly articulating theology as one such as yourself.  If you were to read my writings, you will find very little about morality, but Christendom has yet to endorse me as their spokesman.  If you still have some connections, I'd be glad if you put in a good word for me with the higher ups.

I also believe you owe your past churchgoers an apology.  It seems that coming to recognize that The Bible isn't a moral guide book was an awakening moment for you.  So I presume, and I believe rightly so, for the bulk of your ministry you presented it in just such a light.  Having been illuminated, it would be appropriate to apologize to the many honest people who were misinformed under your Christian ministry.  Maybe this book is written as an apology, but it doesn't come across that way.  The words I have for you next should be of great comfort to you now.  Having believed The Bible to be a moral good book, you were probably more effective during your ministry at tarnishing the name of Christ than anything you could do now as an atheist.

At this point, I doubt you much care about my take on the Old Testament scriptures, but I'll try  anyway.  You have done well to point out the many shortcomings in the lives of people like Noah, David and Jephthah.  The Bible is a really weird book for non believers to read.  It's kind of backwards isn't it?  Everything I read from atheists spends a great deal of effort trying to prove they are right, and other people are wrong.  Again.  That may not be the intent, but it seems that way.  Christians often conduct themselves similarly, but as you have recognized, scripture itself most certainly does not.  If you or I were to write the book, we wouldn't reveal the faults from people on our respective teams.  The irony at work, is that your criticism serves to solidify my confidence in The Bible, as it wasn't written to show that God's people were good guys, and other people were  bad guys.  It doesn't hide the flaws of its people, further demonstrating its authenticity.   It shows that before a perfect God, no one is good.  I have yet to witness this kind of transparency in your writing, my writing, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

The people of our world are consumed with a sense of self righteousness.  We desperately want to think that we're good enough, and if there is a God, He should accept us because we are such great people.  The Old Testament makes it so plainly obvious that if a person thinks they can be good enough, or obey Him, they are quite mistaken.  You can argue that His rules are dumb all you like.  Just get rid of the notion that reaching a moral standard somehow impresses this God.  It would be better to hope and pray that He isn't real, which is the option you seem to have chosen.

So how does it happen?  How can a book, a book primarily made up of stories, be received as if it were a  moral guidebook?  How did you make it through all of your schooling and not notice?  You are indeed well learned and you have your own copy of The Bible.  You did read it I hope, at least on occasion.  How did you, or how do we take a book of story - receive and present it as a means to make us into "good people"?  I'm not sure.

I'm sorry for my part in this travesty, whether by miscommunication, or buying into the lie.    I am the kind of believer who knows he isn't a good guy.  I'm one of those people God would have killed, were it to be based on how good I am, and the really odd part is that it doesn't bother me.  At one time in your career, you may have understood.  

       As for morality, I'm guessing you believe moral standards are set by the courts or the government, because they always do such a great job of everything they touch.  I am happy you enjoyed The Wizard of Oz.  It rings hollow for me, but  I'm sure it will get you where you want to go.

A Distasteful Diety

Dear Mr Bossman,

  Thank you very much for asking me to have a look at Bob Ripley’s “Life Beyond Belief”.  I can't tell you how honoured I am that you value my opinion on matters of faith and doubt enough to consider me for the task.  Please know that I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you these past 14 years.  I appreciate the way our company is run, building its foundation on integrity and quality workmanship.  These values are a big part of why working with you is a fit for who I am.

  I’m into the second chapter and at this point, one thing is clear to me.  After looking at how God interacted with humanity apart from a Saviour, Bob doesn't like Him.  That is plain.  Why he finally made this observation at 55 is uncertain.  In fact, he asks that very question himself.

  He is obviously a very intelligent man.  I also believe he is a better writer than I am.  My take on what he refers to as his deconversion, is that he hadn't really investigated the full nature of God prior.  Even after a life of professional ministry and extensive theological education, looking closer at God in the Old Testament revealed things to him; distasteful things.  He sees something very different than I do when I read the same pages.  I see a God with incredible patience towards His people, and mankind in general.  

  How about you?  Have you taken the time to really look at who God is?  I'm not sure how Bob would have expected life to look like without Christ.

   Bob thinks that God is mean, vengeful, distasteful and hypocritical and has done very well to verbalize those sentiments.  At the same time, he seems to think it mean that non believers would have to spend eternity without Christ.  I find that to be completely odd.  For a person who sees God in that light, why would they want to spend eternity with Him anyway?

  Think what you want about God.  Call Him what you will; mean, merciful or otherwise.  At the end of the day, our opinions of His nature have no sway over whether or not He is.  My view on His interaction with mankind during the Old Testament is as follows.  Without a Saviour, we are not going to make it with God.  I know this flies in the face of what a lot of people think.  We want to think, “I should be good enough.  God should just get past the wrongs I've done.  I'm not as bad as other people.  I do enough nice things.”  

  I'm not good enough to make it with the Toronto Maple Leafs let alone an almighty, perfect God, and they aren't even that good.

  Bob has certainly gone beyond this.  He is not thinking that he’s good enough for God.  He clings to the hope that God is little more than a nightmare having made it to print.  At this point, I think he has to be an atheist.  I’m certain that it would be too painful for anyone who views God in that light, to consider the possibility of answering to Him at the end of this life.

  In any manner, he doesn't like God anyway, so it won't be too disappointing if he doesn't spend an eternity with Him.

   For a man who sees God as he does - knowing Him to be an unappeasable Deity, Life Beyond Belief is probably the only way to continue living with some semblance of sanity.

  

Time for a Rewrite

Dear Bob

  I'm reading your book entitled, "Beyond Belief".  I don't normally read books, but my boss has asked me to have a go at it and give him my thoughts.  I wanted you to know that I appreciate your humanity and candidness, although, as a fellow author, I thought you might appreciate the heads up.

  Your first chapter doesn't accomplish what I think you had hoped.  If I understand you correctly, you had hoped to establish in the mind of the reader your authenticity as a believer before your deconversion.  I know how costly it can be to make changes once a book has made it to print, but it may be necessary to change the bulk of chapter 1.

Your account of life as a Christian reminds me very much of a man who attended one of my book studies a year ago.  I had asked the group a question about their faith, and the gentleman proceeded to tell us all about the many acts of kindness he had done for the less fortunate in his life.  It was a very awkward moment, and as the group leader, I really didn't know how to handle the moment.  You could almost feel the tension in the room.  It seemed quite out of place in a setting of supposed believers to hear about this man's accomplishments and wonderful acts of kindness.  It flies in the face of what we generally understand as the Gospel itself.  Believers typically speak little on what they have done, and make much of what Christ has done for, and in them.

I appreciate how zealous you were for the Christian religion.  In the balance of your life, perhaps you have done more good than bad.  I am glad of your accomplishments in the political arena, and your contribution for humanitarian efforts globally.  I believe you were committed to your cause so intentionally that you neglected your own family. 

On the outside, you would likely have convinced me had I been your friend, yet somehow, reading it in print, it becomes so painfully obvious that the religion your served so passionately, holds little resemblance to the Christ I know.  Hearing about your achievements, your attitude towards your first church and neglect for your family seem misplaced at best for someone who is trusting Christ.

I get it though.  I really do.  I get how you might have really thought you were in the club.  When my wife met me in 1992 she asked me if I was Christian.  You see, she wanted to marry a Christian man.  I told her I was a Christian, not as a lie, but because I really thought I was.  At the age of 19, my life hadn't been nearly as religiously successful as the life you have lived, but I truly believed myself to be among the people of Christ.  Reading your chapter reminds me so much of what it was like to think I was a believer, even though I had yet to come to truly know Christ.

I have one more short item that may be of assistance.

On Trust

I'm not sure if you are really trying to speak to the Christian community or not.  If you are,  then you will likely hope that they would trust some of what your are saying.  There is one glaring aspect of your testimony that inhibits people of authentic faith from lending you their trust.  Although likely not by intention, you unwittingly insult them.  You describe your pilgrimage as, "the honest account of one person's journey from faith to reason."  Life Beyond Belief, Bob Ripley, Page 28

  It is after all your story and you are allowed to phrase it however you want.  It is common practise among atheists to insist that us Jesus types are unreasonable.  I don't expect anything less from most atheists, but given your past, I rather expected something more.  If you would like to enjoy the trust of the believing community, you might entertain the notion that faith is not without reason, and neither is faith an exclusive thing to Christians.  I know atheists who think that extra terrestrial life must exist in the universe, even though they have never seen such creatures.  (Oddly enough, these individuals claim to be people of reason)

We both know I'm not God.  I don't know the complete truth about what has happened in  your heart over the last 50 years or so.  I do however know what it's like to be self deceived.  That may or may not be your case.  What I know for sure, is that as a believer, your first chapter fails to gain my trust, and I really see little evidence of a life having ever resembled what I know to be the life of a new creation.

      

PS - If you ever consider reading one of my books, have a look at Chapter 7 of The Edge of His Cloak.  It ties in to this topic quite significantly.