Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cksalmon

  1. You'd think so, wouldn't you? It's a great question. ๐Ÿค” But I think ... not really? Or, not that much, maybe. I went from a belief in (a fairly-thoroughgoing) inerrancy to questioning whether the Jesus of the New Testament existed at all. Maybe at some point in that journey the issue you raise above played its part, but I'm not able to pinpoint it at the moment. ๐Ÿ˜ž
  2. No, I wouldn't. Certainly not in the sense of "critical scholarship" with which I'm familiar. No, I certainly don't consider Enns a Christian apologist. (Maybe an apologist for evolution. Ha.) He just doesn't do apologetics in the sense of that term with which I'm familiar. (Think WLCraig.) Much of Enns's recent output strikes me more as that of a popularizer, but, sure, he has engaged in his share of critical scholarship. I don't have any opinion about (nor much interest, frankly, in) the extent and particulars of Enns's theology. Suffice it to say I didn't end up in the same place as he has. ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ
  3. Hi, Robert. In fact, yes, on both counts. --- This sort of dives into the middle of my story rather than the beginning, but briefly: At a certain point, I came to take critical scholars like Ehrman and Robert Price at their word when they claimed to have sought advanced studies/degrees in order to understand and defend (Evangelical) Christianity. They started from a point of sincere belief. But, as you know, they wound up quite in another place (as have many others like them). Then I had to choose between believing that these ex-Christian scholars of religion and the Bible had been bamboozled by Satan and were now (wittingly or unwittingly) serving his dark and nefarious bidding to destroy Christianity. OR, alternatively, their studies led them to conclude that the historical and textual evidence in favor of Christianity just wasn't compelling. Some other things in my life made it possible for me to even entertain that question, but that's for another post. They now disbelievedโ€”just as sincerely as they'd once believedโ€”in the doctrines and foundational truth claims of Christianity (at least insofar as they identified Evangelicalism with Christianity). I read Ehrman voraciously (and Price, too). I discovered that they are just nerdy biblical scholars trying to make sense of the available historical data. No demonic possession required. Over time, my views shifted considerably. ๐Ÿ‘‹ cks
  4. Thank you all for the well wishes and welcoming me back so warmly. I hope to respond individually over the next few days and in a more general fashion with a brief summary of my deconversion process, as some have expressed interest.
  5. Long-time board participants may remember me as a (mostly) level-headed Evangelical Christian of the Calvinist variety who started studying Mormonism (as a cult) while at a (Southern Baptist) seminary. This farewell post is mostly for them. Others are free to move on to something more interesting. Farewell, you say? Yes, I think so. I mean, I haven't posted in many, many moons. And since that time, I've left my faith-based worldview behind. I no longer consider myself a Christian in any sense of that word (or even a theist, for that matter), so there's really just no reason for me to "correct" or convert you fine Mormon folks and/or stand up against Mormon attacks on my cherished theological beliefs with the most righteous indignation allowable by law. I think that's a win-win scenario for all concerned. ๐Ÿ˜ You know what's interesting, though? When I now consider Mormonism vs EV Christianity vs RCC, etc., purely in terms of manmade mythologies, I actually think Mormonism is the better story (in general, that is; there are parts I don't like at all, too). It very nearly pained me to write that given the emotional muscle memory associated with this discussion board. Ha. AMA if there's any interest. Otherwise, to my Internet friends here (if any are still hanging about), happy trails!
  • Create New...