Study – Grow – Know

He Has a Flea…and Apparently, It’s Me!

September 24, 2009 at 12:27 PM Leave a comment

Not long ago, I wrote a book about those who refer to themselves as ex-Christians.  In it, I reviewed a book by someone who was, at one point, a minister of the gospel, but then turned from it and became an atheist.  I felt (and still feel), his arguments against Christianity were sorely wanting.  I spent a few chapters responding to a number of the points he made in his book.  I did so, because his book seemed to me then, to be utterly ridiculous.  It remains that.  Why?  Because there is nothing that anyone can say on either side of the argument that convinces people on the opposite side that their view is the correct view.

Now however, I find out that the real reason I reviewed his book (from his POV), is because I wanted to grab onto his coat tails into fame!  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am now a “flea” which is someone who attaches themselves to someone else, in the hopes of riding to fame (and possibly fortune).  The question is though, for this to occur, doesn’t the person that the “flea” is attached to have to be relatively famous?

Here are his comments (and boy, does HE sound excited):  “Richard Dawkins labels any book written against his book as a “flea.” I now have one too! Fred DeRuvo’s book, The Anti-Supernatural Bias of Ex-Christians, deals with mine in the 5th-7th chapters. Check out the back cover. Fred sent me a copy and I’ve read it. There is nothing there that seriously engages my arguments even though he tried to be fair with them. Of my book he says: “It is a fairly well written and certainly a thoughtful and insightful treatise…” (p. 60). He also admits: “John does not seem to be purposefully unfair in his assessment of Christianity, or of the Bible and or of God.” (p. 84) Fred has a Masters in Biblical Studies from Tyndale Theololical Seminary.”

Isn’t that neat?  He even follows that up with another statement indicating that he is about to get another flea!  Whoo hoo!  He sounds like a kid in a candy store, doesn’t he?  However, in reality, who cares what Richard Dawkins labels anyone who critiques his book?  Dawkins’ derogatory term is meant to keep people from critiquing his book, or to see themselves as hangers on; people who tag onto someone else in order to share their fame.  He is essentially stating that their opinions are of no consequence to him, and mean nothing.  In other words, he is not wrong about anything he espouses, so those who are writing against his assessments do so only to make a name for themselves.  I smell arrogance.

Actually, it would be good for Dawkins to start reading some of the books that have been published, which critique his books and viewpoints.  He might learn something.  Nonetheless, in actual fact, Dawkins has a very high view of himself to begin with, and he is simply letting people know that if you deign to critique his book (I’m sure this only applies to negative criticisms), then he considers you someone who is merely attempting to share in his glory, because to him, anyone else has nothing of real substance to say in rebuttal to anything he has written.

Apparently, this is now how the guy whose book I reviewed sees things for himself.  Never let it be said that atheists are not breeding grounds for arrogance.  Someone actually took the time to review his poorly argued book (which he is proud of though), and he considers the person who did this (me) a “flea.”  But this is really putting the cart before the horse, isn’t it?  In actuality, he (God forbid I mention his name, which may confuse him into thinking that I am now stalking him), has this uncanny idea that he is somehow famous, and that I am attempting to ride his shirt tail to fame with him.

The absurdity of this position should be obvious to anyone who has read my book (and thank you for those who have written stating that it helped answer some questions for them), since it is not so much an attempt to try and disprove what he states in his book, but more to the point, simply tries to analyze what he says, comparing it to what the Bible teaches. 

One of his major premises is that he once was a fully committed Christian, but left the faith, for a number of reasons.  In my book, I take his arguments and measure them against the Bible, trying to determine whether or not there is anything in Scripture that proves, or provides us with an answer for someone like him.  And behold, there is just that! 

In one of His parables, Christ speaks of the seed that is being sewn, and landing on various soil environments.  Some allow the seed to sprout, others, keep it from sprouting.  Still other areas allow it to sproud, but then the birds come and take it away, or the sun beats down and burns it, etc.  This is referred to as the Parable of the Sower and is found in three of the Gospel accounts (Mark 4:1-20, Matthew 13:1-23, and Luke 8:1-15).

I also speak to the point of what it actually means to be a Christian in my book, and in my view and understanding, it all begins with a spiritual transaction.  Though I’m hearing more and more ex-Christians speak of having “believed the story of Jesus,” this terminology, or definition just doesn’t cut it.  The reason?  Because it does not at all square with Jesus’ own definition of what it means to be a Christian. 

As Jesus talked to Nicodemus, in what is undoubtedly the most famous passage of Scripture in the entire Bible, a new birth is required, in order to begin life as a Christian.  Without it, people can pray, go to church, teach, preach, sing praises, give money, etc., etc., etc., and none of means anything because the newness of life is simply not there.

None of this is that difficult to understand, yet for the person whose book I reviewed, his words – regarding my review of his book – were to the effect that my book is “lame.”  That’s fine, as far as an opinion goes, because though it would have been nice, I really held out little hope that he would understand anything I had stated.  My book was not so much written for the atheist or agnostic at all, and the only reason I sent him a copy of my book, was merely as a courtesy since I reviewed his book in mine. 

My book was actually written for other Christians who were as curious as I had become about people who leave the faith, which happens to be a growing number of individuals.  These individuals who leave, state without equivocation that they were Christians, but no longer.  In fact, most of them become atheists.  Now, the point of my book was to show that this is not so strange, if we base it on Jesus’ parable alone.

There are a number of areas in Scripture that speak of this and besides the one that I’ve already mentioned, Paul speaks of this as well.  In 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul tells Timothy, “The Holy Spirit clearly says that in the last days some people will leave the faith. They will follow spirits that will fool them. They will believe things that demons will teach them.” (quoted from the NIV).

So we have two cases in Scripture that tell us people DO leave the faith.  Whether or not the writer of the book I reviewed was an authentic Christian or not is between him and the Lord.  The reality though is that while he strongly states that he was a Christian, he now just as strongly states that he was deluded in his previous thinking, because he has now become convinced that God does not exist at all.

If that is the case, then it would have been impossible for him to have actually been a Christian at all.  The logic here should make sense, but apparenly he, and others like him, see no logic in it at all.  Why?  Because to them, (and he even admits later on his website that he must not have had a true spiritual transaction, since God [to him] does not exist), if there is NO god at all now, then who was there to grant him a spiritual transaction?

Who says atheists are logical?  I was talking to one individual just the other day, who also says he left the faith.  I asked him what made him think he was a Christian to begin with, and his answer was that he “believed the story of Jesus,” whatever that means.  But obviously, John 3 negates that definition.  Don’t tell an atheist that though, because they will argue that they were a Christian because they:

• prayed
• worshiped
• gave money
• spoke in tongues
• loved God
• loved people
• read the Bible
• memorized Scripture
• preached
• taught
• helped the sick and/or poor

In response to that though, the question is a simple, “So what?”  In John chapter three, Jesus mentions none of that.  He states that “you must be born again.”  So it appears as though the ex-Christian-turned-atheist uses a completely different definition for being a Christian than Jesus Himself did.

At any rate, though this individual obviously enjoys the fact that someone “flea’d” him, the question remains concerning his “fame.”  Did I become a “flea” to latch onto his coat tails?  That argument might hold if he was actually, in fact, famous, and I had actually written a book to the type of person that he has become; an atheist.  In truth, the book was not written to him, nor to people like him, but to other Christians who wonder about this phenomenon, of people leaving the faith. 

People do leave the faith.  It is a fact taught in Scripture.  The Scriptures identifies why it occurs in at least two places, and other areas as well.  The idea that someone becomes a “flea” because they choose to write about, and/or review someone else’s work is asinine.  I took a subject, compared it to Scripture and came up with an answer

In the end, the problem lies not with me as a “flea,” but with him and his arrogance; arrogance that pre-supposes that he is actually more “famous” than he truly is in life. 

Books by that author are a dime a dozen.  They have nothing at all new to say on the subject of “why God does not exist,” or “why I am no longer a Christian,” or “why god let me down,” or anything else they care to confess.

My review of his book, in part, was merely an attempt to provide a biblical response as to why people leave the faith.  The other aspects of reviewing his book dealt with his poorly worded arguments about why the events in the biblical narrative could not have happened the way they are stated.  His reason?  He doesn’t believe them, so while he says he is a skeptic along the lines of the Great Randi, he simply changed the biblical narrative to suit himself, as opposed to finding another reason why the events could have happened exactly as listed, yet without the supernatural element.

Entry filed under: Atheism and religion, Life in America, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology. Tags: agnostic, anti-christian, atheism, atheist, christian, christian to atheist, christianity, departed the faith, leaving the faith, no longer a christian.