Alpha Course: Reviewed

by Stephen Butterfield

WEEK 11: “How Can I Make The Most Of The Rest Of My Life?”

(**Note to new visitors**: If you’ve been directed to this page, and you’d like to read this review from the beginning then please look to the right of the screen, and scroll down a little, where you’ll see the “Recent” header. Under that you’ll have access to all the links for each weekly instalment of my Alpha Course review. Click on the bottom one, “WEEK 1a: Christianity: Boring, Untrue and Irrelevant?” to start from the very beginning. Thanks.)

———————————————————————————————————————————

WEEK 11:

I enter the church to find a few of the group already in attendance. Thankfully Lady Three is back for the last session of the Alpha Course. I ask if she’s been ok and she responds by telling me that she’s fine and the reason why she missed last week’s session was because of a family member’s birthday party. I’m relieved that she’s fit and well. She’s a nice lady, happy and bubbly, calm, well spoken, unassuming, and though I’m fond of every member of the group I must say I’m of the opinion that she’s the best of the bunch.

I take to my seat and the pastor walks over to me and says, “Here’s a leaving present for you”, and hands me a book that I seem to remember him mentioning last week. It’s called, “Secret Believers”, by Brother Andrew. I take a look at the back cover and read the blurb, which says, “Here are the terrifying true stories of the men and women – born Muslims and still living in strict Islamic states – who have chosen to convert to Christianity.”

I thank the pastor and put the book on the table beside me.

For the next few minutes we talk about Muslims and Islam. Lady Three chips in to tell us that certain people, “always used to have a go” at her husband for being a Christian, and that these certain people never used to say anything of a similar derogatory nature about Muslims and Islam. Lady Three’s husband was curious as to why this was so, that is until a friend of his, who “wasn’t of any particular faith”, said “I can tell you the reason why they have a go at you about your faith. What you have has got them worried”

Yes, that’s right, non-believers poke fun at Christianity because they’re deeply worried by its power and truth. And, of course, no one pokes fun at other religions because they’re just so obviously false that they’re not even worthy of ridicule.

Yeah, that sounds like a convincing argument. And no doubt a completely true story, too. Or something like that.

The conversation continues about Muslims and Islam. I stop to think why it is that the group are concentrating on Islam rather than any other faith. Maybe the truth of Islam has them worried? No, maybe not. Maybe that kind of argument is just silly. Christians use it all the same, though.

As we’re talking, my eye catches a glimpse of a heavy-looking cardboard folder which is positioned under Lady Three’s chair. I remember the pastor telling me that Lady Three had spent many hours on the Internet investigating these so-called “sons of god” that I had mentioned to her a couple of weeks ago. Maybe she’s prepared a dossier to counter my claims, as I joked she might.

Only a moment or two after I notice the folder, Lady Three turns to me and says, “I’ve got some things for you, Stephen”. She can barely contain her excitement as she reaches under her chair for the aforementioned folder, thuds the bulging beast on her lap, and proceeds to pull out a host of documents.

“I’ve spent quite a lot of time studying the names you gave me a couple of weeks ago”, says Lady Three. “Yes, [the pastor] tells me you’ve been hard at work on the Internet. Four hours in one session alone, so I hear”, I reply.

She hands me a document, about five or six pages thick, which turns out to be a printout of a Wikipedia entry regarding the question of Jesus’ historicity. I thank her kindly for going to such effort, but also tell her that I’ve read the article previously. I promise to take it home with me and read it once more, though.

She then delves some more into the folder and pulls out another computer printout. “You know the list of names you gave me?”, she rhetorically asks, referring to the “sons of god” list, “Well, I’ve looked them up and most of them were listed on a site by this fellow”. She hands me the document and at the top reads the name “Kersey Graves”.

To those of you who are not familiar with the name – Kersey Graves was a 19th century writer most famous for his book “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors”, which is a book that I own and have read. Unfortunately for Graves he fails to cite sources for many of his claims and is therefore deemed by modern historians as “unreliable and unscholarly”. Richard Carrier, a well-renowned speaker, writer, and atheist, who also holds a PhD in ancient history, says of Graves, “[Y]ou will never be able to tell what he has right from what he has wrong without totally redoing all his research and beyond, which makes him utterly useless to historians as a source”

It’s fair to say, too, that Graves has been the target of heavy and prolonged criticism by Christian scholars, and the butt of many of their jokes. He’s been an easy target, and perhaps justifiably so.

I explain all of this to Lady Three. “Oh”, she says, “his was the website that I found all the names on, you see. And he’s not very credible.”

I’m curious, why would Lady Three’s search for the names that I mentioned (Perseus, Hercules, Mithras, and Dionysus – all well known characters in Greek and Roman mythology) bring up the name “Kersey Graves”? A quick Google search for their names doesn’t bring up an immediate link to his work, so I’m thinking that Lady Three must have searched high and low for a website, most probably a pro-Christian one, that proclaims Jesus Christ to be the only true “son of god” in the history of mankind. Graves, being the easy target that he is, was probably mentioned in such a website, and Lady Three had latched onto that with a vengeance.

Lady Three looks a little flustered as she searches some more within the depths of her folder. I’m beginning to think that she was of the opinion coming into this evening’s session that tonight was the night where she would deliver her winning hand against the pesky sceptic, a certain Mr Butterfield, who, in her eyes at least, has been attempting to poison the minds of the group for the last eleven weeks. Sadly, for her, the royal flush that she thought she was holding has turned out to be a busted flush, much to her dismay.

She pulls out another thick printout, “This is from a Christian website, admittedly, but it’s about all the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus”, she says. Then sheepishly asks, “You may have read it?”

I take a quick look at the page headings, “Josephus”, “Tacitus”, “Suetonius”, “Pliny the Younger”, and so on. Names we have discussed in previous sessions, none of whom were contemporaneous sources, which is what I’d asked for, and the earliest, Josephus, is almost universally regarded as a much later interpolation (most proabably from the 4th century A.D).

I explain this to Lady Three and ask if she managed to stumble upon any contemporaneous, extra-biblical sources that made mention of Jesus, his miracles, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. “I think Josephus wrote during that time. I think someone told me that he wrote about Jesus in 40AD”, she says. “Josephus wasn’t born until 37AD”, I reply, and add that “His Antiquities were written in 93AD”

After all of Lady Three’s hard work I do feel rather uncomfortable having to disregard it, but I thank her so very kindly for making the effort.

The pastor, like he did in a previous session, attempts to explain the contemporary silence about Jesus:

Pastor: “The wife of a friend of mine studies Church history. I spoke to her about the fact that you’d raised the question about the silence of contemporaneous sources. She told me that they were such a small band of people, and that the people around Jesus wouldn’t have been able to write.”
Me: “It does say in the Bible that Jesus was attracting huge crowds wherever he went. And that there were earthquakes, and that zombies popped out of their tombs in their multitudes, and that these zombies walked into the city to reveal themselves unto the crowds [Matthew 27: 51-53]. Yet not a single account outside of the Bible can be found to support such a story”
Pastor:[Long pause] “It’s because they tried to deny it”
Me: “What do you mean?”
Pastor: [Looking very uncomfortable] “They obviously didn’t perceive it as significant”
Me: “I think zombies leaping out of their graves and marching into the nearest city would have been quite a significant event. Don’t you?”
Pastor: [Very long pause] “People are very sceptical about it all, aren’t they”
Me: “But no one even wrote about them being sceptical about such events. There’s absolutely no mention of them anywhere”
Pastor: [He shrugs his shoulders, sighs, leans back in his chair, then whispers] “Fascinating”

At this point Lady Three offers her own viewpoint:

Lady Three: “There was talk about Christians later on, though. To me, they wouldn’t be talking about someone who hadn’t actually existed.”

No one doubts the existence of Christians. The fact that later sources mentioned Christians is not direct confirmation that there existed a historical Jesus. Using her line of thinking I could confirm the existence of any God or indeed any fictional character, just by appealing to the people who wrote about them or believed in them. Which, of course, is just silly.

Lady Three continues in a similar vein:

Lady Three: “He [Jesus] must have existed in order for them to be followers of him”
Me: “Would you take a similar view of Krishna, then?”
Lady Three: “Krishna?”
Me: “There have been followers of Krishna for 3,000 years. Does the fact that people believe in him prove to you that he was a historical character?”
Lady Three: [Avoiding the question altogether] “If the people who wrote about Jesus didn’t believe he existed they would have written in their work, “But there’s no evidence that he actually existed”. If they were proper historians that’s what they would have said.”

This is a comment that barely deserves a response so I’m thankful that the pastor intervenes at this point and jokes, “Steve has kept [Lady Three] very busy for the last two weeks!”. We all smile and Lady Three slides her humongous folder back under her chair. “It’s definitely an interesting subject, though”, she says. She’s right, it’s a fascinating subject.

“What’s it about?” asks a bemused Lady Two, whose been sat glassy-eyed, staring into empty space for the last twenty-five minutes. I like Lady Two a great deal, but she doesn’t talk (or listen) until the time arises when she thinks it’s a good opportunity to offer us her testimony. It’s just so bizarre.

The pastor switches on the DVD player, then inserts the last of Nicky Gumbel’s presentations which is entitled, “How Can I Make The Most Of The Rest Of My Life?”

Gumbel starts by asking, “How do we make the most of the rest of our lives?”. To answer this question he gives us the words of the Apostle Paul:

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” [Romans 12:1-2]

Gumbel then spends a couple of minutes dissecting that passage and explaining to the audience in simple terms what Saint Paul actually meant.

He then tells us that, as Christians, we shouldn’t give in to the temptation of taking off our “Christian uniform” and mingling in with the rest of the crowd. “What we’re called to be is distinctive, to retain our Christian identity wherever we are and whatever the circumstance.”

As Christians we should avoid backbiting and character assassination, and instead try to think of something positive to say about somebody. This is, of course, an admirable approach.

Gumbel then touches on the subject of sexual immorality: “We are called to demonstrate the blessing of keeping God’s standards. God LOVES us. God loves YOU. God is the creator of marriage. God is the creator of sex. It was God who INVENTED sex. He came up with the idea of sex!” He continues, “God made us sexual beings. And the Biblical context is lifelong commitment in marriage.” and “It’s God’s perfect plan that children should be brought up in an atmosphere of love and commitment and security.”

I suppose drowning every baby in the world by sending a flood to kill them all demonstrates his “love” for his children. And I suppose executing the innocent first-born children of the people of Egypt is another demonstration of his complete love. Yes, God loves little children so much. I sometimes wonder if Gumbel actually reads the Bible.

Gumbel then alludes to premarital sex and states, “I’ve never met anybody who has said to me, “I really regret that I waited [to have sex] until my wedding day”. I’ve met lots of people who said, “I really wish I had waited because I made a mess of my life””.

A mess?

Gumbel recaps and tells us that in order to become fruitful Christians we should 1) Break with the past, and 2) Make a new start in life.

At this point we are given a story of when Gumbel, as a vicar, was taking a funeral service at his church. The funeral was for a well-known, incredibly poor, homeless lady in the area who used to walk the streets begging for money. Gumbel tells us that this lady was very aggressive and rude to people when she asked for money, and she had no friends at all. However, oddly enough, her funeral was attended by lots of people. Gumbel wondered why this was so, and was then told that “Some years earlier she had inherited a HUGE fortune. Millions of pounds” and that’s why all these people, obviously relatives, had crawled out of the woodwork. Allegedly this lady had acquired an expensive flat in a trendy part of London as well as a number of expensive paintings.

“Why would someone with all this money choose to live on the streets with all their rubbish?”, asks Gumbel. Someone close to Gumbel answered, “I think the problem was she didn’t want to leave behind the life she knew”. Gumbel tells us that he initially thought this to be absolutely absurd, but that was until he had a think and it dawned on him that, “There are many people that are doing something even more absurd. They’re hanging on to the rubbish in their lives, and they’re missing out not just on a flat – they’re missing out on all the treasures that God has for us in our lives.”

By this I suppose he means that non-Christians are the rude, aggressive street-urchins that waste their lives living amongst the rubbish, while the Christians of this world escape the flea-ridden hovels and choose instead to live in the palatial abodes of Christendom, where they bask (and perhaps cower) in the wonderful glory of the biggest bully in the universe: Yahweh.

Gumbel then tells us that even though Christians are lavished with all of God’s treasures they should still be ambitious. “Jesus commands us to be ambitious”, states Gumbel. But we must make sure we’re aiming for noble ambitions. What is the point trying to earn lots of money, he asks. “Its pathetic”, exclaims the wealthy Mr Gumbel. “What you should be saying is “my priority is to seek God’s kingdom and his righteousness.””

Christians must remember to put God first in their lives because, as Gumbel says, “If we live for ourselves we find ourselves in bondage, in slavery. But if we present everything to God we find freedom”

Gumbel then turns up the heat, “If you want an easy life, if you want a life of ease, please don’t become a Christian because it’s not easy being a Christian. But if you want a GREAT life, a FULFILLING life – life at its BEST – then follow Jesus!”

Great stuff.

Gumbel then tells us why it’s not easy being a Christian: “More people have died for their faith in Christ in the 20th century than in all the other centuries put together. So it’s not always easy being a Christian”. He then asks, “So why should we do it?”

“First of all” states Gumbel, “for what God has planned for our lives”.

But all of the hardship is worth it in the end, supposedly. To the outsider this might sound absurd, but Gumbel tells us “I had a totally false view of God before I was a Christian. I thought God was a kind of spoilsport; God was a kind of person that if you gave your life to him he would destroy it; he’d take away all the things that were fun and good in our lives. How absurd that is! God LOVES us far more than we love our own children. And the little sacrifices we have to make for him are NOTHING compared to the sacrifice that Jesus made for us on the cross”

Doesn’t this “God loves us” mantra get a little tiring after a while? Considering that all the evidence in the world suggests that, if he even exists, he couldn’t care a jot about any of us.

To finish his presentation Gumbel offers us a tale about “a wealthy English baron”. I’ll let Gumbel take up the story:

“This man had one son who had left home. When he was away from home he [the son] died. This wealthy man never got over the loss of his son. As his wealth increased he invested in valuable paintings. When he died, his will called for all the paintings to be sold, and because he had such a great collection collectors and museums came from all over the world. On the day of the auction the lawyer read from his will and what it said was this, “The first painting to be sold in this auction is of my beloved son.” It was an unknown painting of poor quality, and the only person who bothered to bid for it was somebody who had worked for the family and who’d known the boy and had loved him, and bought it for sentimental value and the memories it held. Then the lawyer read the 2nd clause of the will: “Whoever buys my son gets everything. The auction is over.””

This, of course, is to illustrate the point that whoever buys into Christianity (to buy the son of God) shall inherit all things. Brilliant!

I’m sure that if Baywatch star, David Hasselhoff, was asked to read aloud that story he would say, “I’m sorry buddy, I can’t read THAT. It’s too cheesy, even for me!”

For the last time the pastor ejects the DVD and switches on the lights.

My fellow sceptic gets up and goes to the toilet. While he’s away Lady Two appears from the kitchen pushing the food trolley, which is stacked with all sorts of fancies. I decide to break with tradition and actually eat something. I plump for a chocolate bun. “YESSSSS!!!!!” jokes the pastor, “Steve’s actually eating something!”

As we’re eating, members of the group express how fond they are of Gumbel, and how great he is at his job. Eventually my fellow sceptic returns from the toilet, sees that the room is peaceful, and jokes “It hasn’t got to loggerheads yet, then?”. The pastor looks at my fellow sceptic, winks, then nods in my direction and says, “Sssshhhhhh, he’s eating his chocolate bun!”. I look up, and also with a wink, joke, “This should keep me quiet for the next forty minutes. You should have offered me a chocolate bun in each of the previous ten sessions.” The group laugh.

When I first entered the room this evening I pictured the session ending with me delivering a rousing, Churchill-esque speech, in which I would point out the flaws and silliness of the arguments that I’d heard during the last eleven weeks. Now, though, I feel no desire to end it that way. I’ve now made a decision to sit quietly for the remainder of the session. The group is in good spirits, and I’ve decided that I’d like to keep it that way. I’ll sit quietly for the remainder of the evening, shake hands at the end and wish everyone well for the future. Nothing is going to get sorted tonight, that’s for certain. It’s too late for that.

The group begin to speak about the supposed beauty of Christianity:

Lady Two: “It [Christianity] gives your life direction. It gives it purpose. You know where you’re going. You know what you’re trying to aspire to and be. You want to be filled with the fruits of the Holy Spirit and try to bring others into the fold. That’s your direction.”
New Christian Male: “It opens your eyes as well. When you’re filled with the Holy Spirit you just focus on that. If previously you’d been hitting wall after wall after wall, then after you’ve been filled with the Holy Spirit those walls seem to break down. That’s one thing I’ve learned from this course.”

The pastor tells us about how he’s always been honest in business, and how that’s thanks to his firm Christian beliefs. My fellow sceptic and the rest of the group discuss honesty in business. It’s an interesting discussion that lasts for about twenty minutes or so, and a number of different topics manage to find a way into the conversation, such as 1) how it’s not easy to be a Christian, 2) the environment, 3) the lead singer of U2, Bono, and 4) Cadbury’s chocolate. The Christians in the group then tell us of the challenges they face in daily life, and how their belief in God helps them overcome such challenges.

The next topic to crop up is that of heaven. The pastor says that he’d love to see a united Church where all races, ages and creeds came together as one. “Because that’s what it’s going to be like in heaven” he says.

Lady Two: “Yes, everybody being loving and no backbiting. Every one being kind and filled with the fruits of the Holy Spirit.”

My fellow sceptic jokingly asks how they are all going to cope with no one to preach to? How will they get by without an insatiable thirst to convert people to their faith? What will these Christians find to do with their time if there are no heathens? “We’re all going to be concentrating on worshipping God”, replies the pastor.

My fellow sceptic then wants to know how the pastor envisages heaven. The pastor then tells us about how the Bible mentions God sitting on a throne, and how we’ll all spend time praising his holy name. He also mentions that it is unlikely that pets will be joining us in the hereafter. So any of you reading this blog who are looking forward to seeing your favourite pet when you get to heaven, then forget it – as I have it on good authority that pets aren’t allowed in the heavenly realm. God’s orders.

I break my now thirty-minute silence by asking, “How big is heaven?”

Pastor: “I don’t know”
Me: “Is it bigger than the earth?”
Pastor: “I guess so”
Me: “So there’s going to be people separated by considerable distances, yes?”
Pastor: “I don’t know”

I ask that question because I’m curious as to how we’re going travel from A to B in heaven, particularly if the journey is of a considerable distance (such as, say, from Britain to Australia). Planes perhaps? Rockets? Jet packs? Star Trek style teleportation machines?

Pastor: “I think that’s only an issue when we’re bound by the body. Once we’re in spirit, once we’re in our spiritual bodies, distance and time is just irrelevant.”

I’d love for him to explain exactly what he means by that, but the opportunity for me to ask doesn’t present itself as my fellow sceptic jumps in wanting to know if we’ll be able to recognise people in heaven. The pastor is a bit vague in his response and basically admits that he has no idea [again?], but then says, “That’s like asking if someone dies when they’re seven years old what age are they in heaven?”
I inform the pastor that British theologian, Alistair McGrath, believes we’ll all be thirty years of age! Here’s a quote from one of his books:

“A final question that has greatly vexed Christian theologians concerns the age of those who are resurrected. If someone dies at the age of 60, will they appear in the streets of the New Jerusalem as an old person? And if someone dies at the age of 10, will they appear as a child? This issue caused the spilling of much theological ink, especially during the Middle Ages. By the end of the thirteenth century, an emerging consensus can be discerned. As each person reaches their peak of perfection around the age of 30, they will be resurrected as they would have appeared at that time – even if they never lived to reach that age… The New Jerusalem will thus be populated by men and women as they would appear at the age of 30 (the age, of course, at which Christ was crucified) – but with every blemish removed.” Alistair McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven (p.37)

The long-standing male member picks up the topic and runs with it a little:

Long-Standing Male Member: “God talks about us reigning, but what we’re going to reign over I don’t know [again?]. Other planets, maybe, but I don’t know. If there’s a new heaven and a new earth then what’s to stop us going to other planets?”
My Fellow Sceptic: “So basically all of you are saying that you have no idea what it’s going to be like, no idea where its going to be, no idea what’s going to happen, no idea who’ll be there, yet Christianity is all geared up towards “Lets get to heaven!””

My fellow sceptic is on to something. These people are obsessed with heaven, but, when asked to tell us about it, they know little (or nothing) at all. Yet we non-believers must be absolutely certain of such a place, and long to go there, or be doomed to an eternity of torture in hell. Strange?

Long-Standing Male Member: “Jesus loves us and he doesn’t want us to end up in Hell”
Me: “I asked this to [Lady Two] last week, so I’ll ask you too if you don’t mind: Could you live an eternity of happiness in heaven knowing that people were being fried and tortured in hell? And that they were suffering these torments because of nothing more than them having had a different opinion on religion whilst on earth.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “This is how I understand it: I won’t know about what’s happening to them. That’s something that God deals with as the Almighty. When I get to heaven there will be no sadness, I won’t even be thinking about people in hell”
Me: “So you’ll just forget about them?”
Long-Standing Male Member: “That part of my memory will be gone”
Me: “It all sounds rather sinister to me”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Sinister?”

Lady Two jumps in:

Lady Two: “I believe it’s not the father’s will to lose one child. I think he wants to save everybody. I think he’s trying to save us by using Christians and the Holy Spirit, and things like that. We as Christians are trying to witness, we’re trying to get everyone saved. We’re trying to get everyone nice and peaceful with him [God] before they die, so that it’s a safe passage through for them”
Me: “Well, I’ve said this before but he could have created a system where everyone was peaceful with him from the beginning.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “But then we’d have been robots, Stephen”

Oh dear, here we go again. So much for me keeping quiet for the remainder of the evening…

Me: “I don’t understand your line of thinking at all, sorry. Using that kind of reasoning we’re all going to be robots in heaven, then.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “What God has done is this: In the Old Testament he used one nation – Israel – to say, “Look, here’s the laws. You try and live by them”. And they tried time and time again but failed time and time again. They just couldn’t do it”
Me: “But God knew that in advance”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Yes, he knew that”
Me: “So why bother?”
Long-Standing Male Member: “So that they couldn’t come to him and say “You never gave us a chance to come to you with our own free will. You made us robots””
Me: “So why would he get upset with them if he knew exactly what they were going to do before he even created them?”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Because as a father you know what you want your kids to do. Are you a dad, Steve?”
Me: “No, I don’t have any children. Not yet anyway.” [EDIT: My first child, a beautiful baby boy, was born on the 23rd of January 2010]
Long-Standing Male Member: “With my kids if there’s something they should do and they don’t do it, and they hurt themselves, I get very cross. That’s how I picture God. He sees the nation of Israel the same way I see my kids. If my kids are messing about at the top of the stairs I’ll shout “Don’t do that, you might fall!””
Me: “Your analogy might work if God wasn’t omniscient. But he is, so it doesn’t. You don’t know every event – past, present and future. God does. You may have an inkling that your kids may hurt themselves, but then again they may not. God knows precisely what each person will do before it even happens. Would you place your kids at the top of a flight of very steep and hazardous steps knowing in advance that they would fall and kill themselves? You’d get locked up for that, wouldn’t you? But this is what God has done. He’s put mankind on earth knowing in advance that they would fall. Knowing in advance that millions of kids would be tortured and raped, that billions would starve to death, and so on”
Long-Standing Male Member: “God is looking at the end game”
Me: “And if you knew that the “end game” would be that your kids fell to their deaths down the steep steps, would you place them there?”
Long-Standing Male Member: [Long pause] “It’s like stopping your kids from putting their hands close to a coal fire. You teach your kids not to go near the coal fire”
Me: “That’s not what I’m asking.”
Long-Standing Male Member: [Long pause] “Ask again”
Me: “If you knew in advance that by placing your kids at the top of some steep, hazardous steps they would fall to their deaths, would you place them there?”
Long-Standing Male Member: [Long pause] “It depends what my goal is.”
Lady Three: [Turns to me] “You’re saying that what God has done to us is like him putting some kids at the top of some stairs knowing they would fall. That’s how you see it. But I don’t see it like that. I see that God has made a perfect place and he’s placed his ultimate creation – which is a man and a woman – in a perfect garden with just a guideline”
Me: “Yes, he placed them in the garden knowing in advance exactly what was going to happen”
Lady Three: “Its not like he’s left them at the top of some dangerous stairs. He’s left them in a safe environment with instructions that would keep them safe”
Me: “But it wasn’t a safe environment. He placed them in a garden with a tree bearing fruit that would ruin the future of mankind, if eaten. This is a “safe environment”? Was a garden that contained Satan himself, who was on the prowl looking for a couple of human victims, a “safe environment”? God put them there knowing in advance what would happen.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “He did that because of love. It was because of love. Because he loves us he gives us free will. You’re struggling with the free will bit”
Me: “No, I’m struggling with the fact that God could have created a system where pain, agony, torture and death weren’t necessary.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “If he didn’t give us free will he’d always be controlling us. If we didn’t have free will we couldn’t do wrong even if we wanted to do wrong”
Me: “Supposedly we have free will in heaven, yet never do any wrong. If this sort of free will is possible then God could have given us it in the first place. No kids tortured, no innocent people murdered, no rapes, no muggings, no assaults, nothing like that need ever happen. But God didn’t give us that sort of free will. He gave us the kind where people WILL commit all the atrocities I just mentioned. And, worst of all, he knew it all in advance. And you honestly want us to believe that he loves and cares for us?”
Lady Two: “God wants us to do his will. He wants a relationship with us. That’s the point. He wants the relationship to be lovely and happy. He knows that if we keep in his will we’ll be happy and safe”

The pastor joins in:

Pastor: “You’re looking at this from a completely human point of view, Steve. I gave you a scripture the other day about God’s ways being higher than our ways. The reason why God has done it is beyond our comprehension”
Me: “But that doesn’t answer the question. All you’re saying, basically, is that you’ve no idea [again?] why God set it up the way he did, with him knowing that billions of people would live short, sad, tortuous lives, but that we shouldn’t question God because he knows best, so we should just leave it at that. It’s not good enough. Sorry”
Pastor: [In a tone that suggests he’s just about had enough] “You’re not satisfied with our answers. Fine. But we have an answer that satisfies us”
Me: “Throwing your hands up in the air and saying “God knows best” is hardly an answer likely to be deemed satisfactory by any non-Christian”

Lady Three gets back in the mix:

Lady Three: “What you’re saying is that God should have made us robots”
Long-Standing Male Member: [Turns to Lady Three] “Yes, that’s how I’m seeing what Steve is saying, too.”

Hammer and chisel anyone?

Long-Standing Male Member: [Turns to me] If you were God how would you do it?”
Me: “I’d create a paradise where people have the sort of free will that they will supposedly have in your idea of heaven. Where the only things they want to do are good things. No rape, murder, assault, and heartache. Just a wondrous place where everyone shows immense love for one another, and where everyone gets along. An eternity of peace, happiness and well-being. That’s how I’d do it. So what I’m asking you is this: Could God create a system where people have a version of free will where the possibility of raping and abusing children is not there? If you say, “Yes” then I’d like for you to explain to me why God didn’t create such a system in the first place.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Because God is after perfect holiness, perfect righteousness. Not a watered down version”
Me: “So in order for a select few to achieve this state of holiness they must go through a system where the majority of God’s creations are nothing more than collateral damage, as they starve to death, are raped, abused, tortured, and so on?”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Yes”
Me: “I don’t think there’s anything further to add”

Lady Three thinks she has a solution to the problem:

Lady Three: “The reason why kids are raped is because Satan has influenced people. It’s not because God created it like that.”
Me: “You’re missing the point altogether. God created Satan, knowing in advance what he would do. God could have created a system without Satan, without pain and suffering, and without gratuitous evil. But he didn’t. Ultimately the buck stops with God”

The discussion suddenly turns into a heated free-for-all. Everyone in the group is trying to get their point across to me, and it becomes somewhat of an inaudible jumble. I sit for a moment shaking my head. Lady Three can see that things are getting out of control and tries to shush the baying crowd. The most vociferous of them all is the new Christian male, who’s doing his best to shout over the top of everybody else. As they say, there is none so passionate as a new convert.

Lady Three manages to quieten everyone down and asks me to carry on with what I was saying. I’m thankful to Lady Three. Once again she proves to me that she is the best of the bunch. I ask the question once again:

Me: “God could have created a system where humans live in paradise from the very beginning, just like how you all believe you will live in heaven. If God is so concerned for human welfare, and for us all to worship him, why didn’t he just do that in the first place?”
Pastor: “Well, we’ve answered that question. That was God’s choice and his ways are better than our ways.”

I’m beginning to think that someone should nominate me for the Queen’s Honours List, for my sustained and dedicated services to patience, of course.

The pastor continues:

Pastor: “You just want to blame God. You just want robots. I’m telling you that God didn’t want robots.”
Me: “You’ve told me that heaven is going to be perfect. We’re all going to get along and we’re all going to love each other”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Yeah”
Me: “But God could have made it that way from the off. We don’t need billions of innocent casualties in order to achieve complete happiness.”

The new Christian male then goes into a tirade about how Satan (in the guise of a “smooth talking serpent”) deceived Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge. Satan is to blame for all the world’s ills.

“And who created a garden with such a serpent in it?” asks my fellow sceptic.

Pastor: “I understand your argument. You want to blame God”
Me: “God created the system, did he not?”
Pastor: “I can only give the answer that I’ve given to you. It doesn’t satisfy you, and I can’t change that. But I’ve answered your question”
Me: “With respect, you haven’t really. All you’ve said is God knows best. It doesn’t answer anything”
Pastor: “I accept your argument that it would have been nice to get to heaven without all the raping and the killing. I agree with you on that, but that’s not the way God has chosen. He’s chosen it to be like this instead. I don’t know why.”
Me: “If God chooses it to be like this – a system where innocent people are victims – what, then, makes you so convinced that God is all good, and that he has even the slightest interest in our welfare?”
Pastor: “The fact that God is holy. And because he is so holy no other created being has the right, however good they may be, to be in his presence because that created being is not holy. We are not worthy of being in his presence. Until you perceive the holiness of God, and the miracle of anything else standing in his presence, you have no understanding of the miracle of grace. Until you recognise the holiness and that God is God is God is God [huh?] then human argument and reason can never understand why this dilemma has happened”
Me: “I admire your attempt to explain the situation, but, with respect, and try as I may, it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me, to be honest.”

The long-standing male member is still keen to press the issue. He tells me that God gave us free will because he wanted us to choose whether or not we loved him. He continues:

Long-Standing Male Member: “The argument I could make is that we’d be robots if it were any different. If we HAD to love God then we wouldn’t be free.”
Me: “Are you free in heaven not to love him?”
Long-Standing Male Member: “I’m choosing IN THIS LIFE to love God. I make the choice HERE
Me: “Oh, so there’s no choice in heaven? I gather from that that we aren’t free in heaven, then”
New Christian Male: “I think if you didn’t love God he would kick you out of heaven until you said sorry to him”
Long-Standing Male Member: “I’m dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. I’ve just got to make sure that I listen to Jesus and obey what God’s word says. It’s living that Christian life. I’m preparing myself NOW for when I get to heaven. So when you ask if I have the choice not to love God when I get to heaven the answer is no, because I’m making the choice now.”
Me: “No choice in heaven? So you’re a robot in heaven, then”
Long-Standing Male Member: “No, because I’ve made the choice here.”

The words, “This”, “Is”, “Like”, “Talking”, “To”, “A”, “Brick”, and “Wall” spring to mind, possibly in that order, too.

Long-Standing Male Member: “Would you murder someone?”
Me: “No, of course not”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Not loving God is the same way, it’s like murder. So I’m not going to do it.”
Me: “We’re going round in circles”.
Long-Standing Male Member: “God doesn’t want murder. He doesn’t even want white lies. When you use the example of children being raped you’re using a very emotional topic.”
Me: “Because it’s probably the worst thing I can think of. The simple fact of the matter is that God created a system where such atrocious things can and will occur. And he knew all of this in advance.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “God wants relationships to be pure and holy”
Me: “As I keep saying, God could have made it so that we had pure and holy relationships without anyone ever raping a defenceless, innocent child. But he didn’t.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Yeah, he didn’t”
Me: “Yet you cling to the belief that this God character is all-loving and wants no one to come to harm. I don’t know how you can reconcile that belief with the evidence we have around us in the world”
Long-Standing Male Member: “The reason he didn’t make it without all those nasty things is because he’s given us the free choice. We surrender our lives to God. Being a Christian is not easy. Some people don’t want to be Christians because they don’t want to change their lifestyle.”
Me: “I’d be willing to change if I knew of some evidence in favour of what you’ve had to say. But genuinely I know of none.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “The only way to please God is by faith”

Brilliant this, isn’t it? As I’m typing up this transcript I’m sure I’ve headbutted the wall at least twice, and sprouted a dozen or so more grey hairs.

Long-Standing Male Member: “Faith comes by hearing the word, so you need to spend more time reading the Bible”

I sit back, take a sip from my glass of water and hope [maybe I should pray?] that someone talks about something else. The pastor looks at his watch. It’s 9pm, time for the session to end. The pastor explains that he has to leave immediately in order to make an important phone call. He states that we are free to continue our discussion, though, and that we can stay over for as long as we want. He may even manage to get back before we’ve all gone home, he says. He gets up out of his chair and thanks me for attending. I joke, “You’re leaving? I was just on the brink of giving my life to Christ!” The group laughs, and the pastor shakes my hand and tells me that he hopes that I’ll stay in touch.

As the pastor exits the building Lady Two turns to me and says:

Lady Two: “God is just waiting. The night that I found him [here we go] he was just waiting for me, too. He was waiting for me to reach up to him, you see. As soon as I reached up to him, as a child would, I was looking at him as a God who was white. That’s how I saw him. I didn’t question it, I just thought, “God, you are white. If you’re there, and you’re the God of that Bible, then you’re white and I want to be your child. You know?”
Me: [Trying to nip this in the bud] “Like I’ve said before quite a few times in the past, that’s fair enough”
Lady Two: “That’s how I saw it. He met me in ABSOLUTE LOVE. It was… it was… I can’t describe the ABSOLUTE LOVE that it was. It was just ABSOLUTE LOVE being poured into me. Because I’d reached up to him, in a child-like way, and recognised that if he was there then I wanted to be right with him.”
Me: “Great”
Lady Two: “That was all I needed to do. It was as SIMPLE AS THAT. And that is what he’s waiting for, he’s waiting for his children to say sorry for what they’ve done wrong, that they recognise their sins, they recognise where they’ve been out of line with him, and they’re just saying sorry for it. They’re saying “I want to be your child, I want you in my life and I want to follow your way”. And that’s all he wants.”
Me: [Trying my best to just agree with her] “Ok”
Lady Two:I’M NOT A LIAR, I’M NOT A LIAR. It was simple. All you need to do is go to your maker, go to that place in your mind and APPEAL to him. It’s as simple as that. For me it was over in a space of two minutes, it was all done with. He had ABSOLUTELY convinced me 100% that it was all true.”
Me: [Doing my best to tread carefully here] “I don’t think for one moment that you’re lying to me. But you must remember that people can say things that are false without actually telling a lie. A lie requires intent. Lets say that [the long-standing male member] tells me that he used to live in Australia for twenty years. He would be lying. But I wouldn’t know that. If I went and told you that he used to live in Australia for twenty years I would be spreading a falsehood, but I wouldn’t be lying. He would be lying to me but I wouldn’t be lying to you. Being led to believe a certain thing, which unbeknownst to you is false, does not mean that you’re lying if you then go and tell someone about it. You’d just be mistaken. There’s a difference. Like I say, I don’t think you’re lying to me at all. I think you’re completely convinced by all of this.”

Long-Standing Male Member: [Turns to me] “I’d like to ask you something, Steve. Over the last eleven weeks how do you think we have shared the Gospel with you? In a way I’m kinda asking for a review of how you’ve viewed what we have had to say.”

[That’s interesting, isn’t it? I wonder if this website might be of some assistance?]

Me: “I think you’re all incredibly sincere and passionate people. I’m quite fond of all of you.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Have we shared the Gospel with you? Have we communicated the Gospel to you as best we can? Have we communicated to you that Jesus is God, that he came down as a human being, gave up his divine powers, died on the cross for our sins and rose again?”
Me: “Sure”
Long-Standing Male Member: “There’s something that’s been hitting home to me this week and for some reason I’ve felt the need to share it with you. None of us, NONE OF US, deserve to go to heaven. Ok? I deserve to go into heaven as much as the person who is raping a three year old kid. Which is NIL. Ok? None of us deserve to go into heaven. It’s purely God’s choice to give us the opportunity to go into heaven. That’s what the Gospel is. I believe what I believe, and that’s how it is. And when you tell me to look at another faith, and how they supposedly “prove” their arguments, my faith is strong enough not to be fazed by it. Just like your faith is strong enough to make you think, “No, there is no God””
Me: [Laughs] “No, that’s not my faith at all. In fact I don’t think I’ve said such a thing in all of the eleven weeks that I’ve been here.”
Lady Two: [Turns to me excitedly] “You want to believe that there is a God! You WANT to believe that there IS!
Me: “Well, not really. I don’t WANT to believe that there is a god. I’m just interested to know if there is a god or not. But, as it stands at the moment, I have no reason for believing that there is a god. Especially not the kind of god who is supposedly all-loving, and who supposedly has a vested interest in the welfare of human beings, yet for the entirety of human history has allowed kids to be raped in their millions.”
Lady Two: “But God HATES that. It’s not what he wanted!”
Me: [Tongue in cheek] “Well, I think it’s best if I decline the opportunity to repeat myself for the 114th time”

All of the group smile and take my comment as a lighthearted acceptance that we’re not going to solve anything on this particular problem. That is all of the group with the exception of the new Christian male, who looks at me and says:

New Christian Male: “Let’s hope that you’re not forced into believing in God when something bad happens to you.”
Me: “Well, let’s not hope for that, hey?”
New Christian Male: “That’s the only way some people can come to understand God. With my hand on my heart I hope it doesn’t take that for you to believe in God. But if it does then you know why.”

This is nothing but a veiled threat. I’m sure anyone else with less patience than I would have told him where to go, and very promptly, and perhaps with an accompanying scuff of the earlobe for good measure. I understand, though, that he’s just keen to fit in with the group, he’s trying his best to be “one of them”, and this often clouds his judgment. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, and I choose not to respond in the way that many people might have.

A few moments later we are discussing charity, and the group tell me about how some Christians work tirelessly for charity. I agree with them, yes, some Christians do work tirelessly for charity, as do some atheists and some Muslims, some Sikhs and some Hindus. To which the new Christian male responds “Yeah, but they’re just jumping on the bandwagon”

I take the group back a few weeks, and take the opportunity to remind them of the session when the pastor laid hands on me. He asked God to reveal himself to me but I’ve heard nothing from God since. There’s been no sign of this God character anywhere. I ask the group why they think God failed to show. No one seems particularly keen to offer an explanation. That is until the new Christian male chimes up with his own theory:

New Christian Male: “When you talk to Muslims do you talk about Allah with them?”
Me: “Of course”
New Christian Male: “Then that is why God is saying, “I won’t speak to you unless you come away from Allah””
Me: “Eh? So I’m not allowed to talk to Muslims?”
New Christian Male: “Talk to Muslims, yes, but don’t talk to them about their faith. Because God thinks you’re going to go to Allah”
Me: “I have to understand what it is that people believe. To do that I have to talk to them about it”
New Christian Male: “You might go home at night and ask God to reveal himself to you but he might be thinking, “Why should I reveal myself to Steve when he’s talking to Muslims about Allah?” God is saying “If Steve wants to be with me then he cannot listen to Allah” So if you don’t talk to Allah then God will talk to you. Then you’ll hear God. Read the Old Testament. When Hezekiah became king of Judah he did evil in the eyes of the Lord. When he decided to talk to another god he was punished by the real God”

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

The long-standing male member has, what he thinks, a better explanation for why it is that God never revealed himself to me:

Long-Standing Male Member: “I think the more time you spend reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, at some stage the Holy Spirit will reveal himself. That’s why they call it the living word. It’s where the Holy Spirit can take the word and apply it to my life to make me more like Jesus. The reason why God wants us to surrender our lives to him is so that we can become more like Jesus. God wants us to be exactly like Jesus. The two hours or so that you’ve been spending here every week try to use that time in the future for reading the New Testament. It’s great that you’re reading lots of other books. I’m not saying don’t read other books. But if you’re REALLY seeking God then read the New Testament”
Me: “I’ve read the New Testament several times”
New Christian Male: “Every night, every night, you must read it every night”
Lady Two: “When I was a hoper, Stephen, I used to think “Even if it’s not true I want to support it in terms of the way I live my life and the way I treat other people”. Because it’s the nicest ideology, it’s the nicest story going. You know, that a saviour had come to save me from my sins and to show me the way to live my life properly and everything. When I was a hoper, like you, I used to analyse it too. I used to think, “Well, it’s a fantastic story, and even if it’s not true I’m going to try and live my life largely as much as I can to follow it”. I tried to be kind and I tried to say nice things to people because I came to the conclusion that out of all the ways to live your life it was the best one to follow. You know? The ideology was so nice, that God loved us so much that he’d done his utmost to make us live a nice life and a happy life and everything, by following him and working for him. It gave my life purpose, it gave my life direction, it made life fruitful because I would meet other people who were kind and who kept on the straight and narrow as well. They treated each other with respect and everything. Everything was nice about it. So I was always that hoper following it. You know?”

My fellow sceptic looks at me and, with a wink and a shake of the head, states, “You must try harder, Steve”. Everyone laughs.

We’ve over run the time by about 45mins but we’ve all enjoyed our chat and this seems as good a time as any to call a close to the evening. I tell the group that I have really appreciated their time, and that I have enjoyed the course immensely. They thank me for attending.

Lady Three asks, “We’d like to say a final prayer if that’s alright. Is that alright?”. My fellow sceptic and I reply with an “Of course. No problem”

Lady Three: “Heavenly father, we thank you for this course. It has given us the chance to get together and talk about you and to debate different ideas. Lord, I just pray that it would be great if you did reveal yourself to them. To show the truth and the reality of what you’re about, Lord. We can’t persuade them, Lord, it’s got to be you, in a way that is tangible and real to them. Lord, only you know the depth of their hearts and where they are. Lord, thank you for the time we’ve spent together and thank you for the friendships that have developed over the great evenings we’ve had together. Lord I pray that you watch over us and keep us safe, and we ask this in the name of Jesus our Lord.”
The Group As A Whole: “Amen”

Lady Two has a go:

Lady Two: “Thank you, God, that your Holy Spirit is evidently working in both their hearts, that they’re searching for you as they are and that they come to the meetings every week like they do. You are working in them and that’s obvious, Lord. I just earnestly ask, Lord, that you would not leave them alone. Not let them have rest. I don’t want them to have rest, Lord, until they’ve tussled it out and found you, Lord. I just want them not to give up and to be wrestling with it, and to be searching for you, and for them not to be happy with the direction of their lives until they have made a commitment, Lord, and for you to reach down and make yourself real to them, Lord. I just want that, Lord, because I know it means a lot to them and I know that to have come here for eleven weeks it is obvious that both of them are searching and both of them would love a direction in life which is so holy, so purposeful, and so lovely. I just pray, Lord, that they will both find it in their own time and in their own way. In Jesus’ name. Amen. “
The Group As A Whole: “Amen”

The room remains silent for a moment or two, then gradually the Christians in the group open their eyes and look approvingly towards my fellow sceptic and I.

People start to move out of their seats and I help Lady Two clear the pots away. On our walk to the kitchen we all chat about family life and such.

I approach my fellow sceptic and tell him that it was lovely to meet him. Shame we didn’t really get to chat together all that much. When everything is cleared away I put on my coat and say my goodbyes for the last time. I wish everyone well then head for the door. As I open the door to exit the church I bump into the pastor who is on his way back in. We shake each other’s hand and wish each other well for the future. “Stay in touch”, he says. I pat him on the shoulder; thank him for his patience and then I slip him a little bit of money as my contribution towards the cheesecakes and fruit salads that have been on offer over the last eleven weeks. “That’s very kind of you, Stephen” says the pastor. One last final handshake and then I open the church door and head back to my car for the journey home.

My time on the Alpha Course has come to an end.

November 24, 2008 - Posted by | Alpha Course, Atheism, Christianity, God, Religion | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

121 Comments »

  1. PASTOR
    She told me that they were such a small band of people, and that the people around Jesus wouldn’t have been able to write.

    CARR
    Gosh, I thought Christianity grew explosively with 3000 people being converted by one Peter speech (Jesus must have been turning in his grave when he saw how successful the movement was now that he was no longer doing the preaching)

    And Matthew and John wrote Gospels, while Peter wrote letters.

    Now we learn that the people near to Jesus would not have been able to write.

    Comment by Steven Carr | November 24, 2008

  2. Christian on the course ‘None of us, NONE OF US, deserve to go to heaven. Ok? I deserve to go into heaven as much as the person who is raping a three year old kid.’

    CARR
    Obviously the guy is crazy if he thinks the three year old kid is as hell bound as the person who is raping the child.

    I hope that his God finds it in his heart to forgive the child.

    Comment by Steven Carr | November 24, 2008

  3. Pretty epic end, but the cognitive brick wall seemed to be getting bigger and bigger as time went on. Hopefully one day these people will one day understand what you were trying to get at

    Comment by Stylesjl | November 24, 2008

  4. The Bible is very clear that rape is wrong, and punishes the rapist with the greatest severity possible – he is forced to marry the girl he raped.

    ‘If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.’

    Comment by Steven Carr | November 24, 2008

  5. Well done again! A most interesting read.

    Regards the “New Christian Male” and his veiled threat, I’ve seen this before many times. A well reasoned challenge to cognitive dissonance often produces anger.

    Any chance of you doing the Scientologists next? :-)

    Comment by Steve Jones | November 24, 2008

  6. Steve Jones wrote: “Any chance of you doing the Scientologists next?”

    It’s funny you should mention that, Steve. Although I don’t have any plans to do a write up about scientologists, I did actually spend a full year with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (November 2006 – November 2007) and managed to record over 100 hours of audio with them over that 12-month period.

    I took them up on their offer of a home Bible study, and each week they came to my home and we worked our way through their book, “What Does The Bible Really Teach”.

    We had some truly remarkable conversations, and some of the claims they made were nothing short of mind blowing. They put the Alpha Course group to shame, that’s for sure.

    I don’t know if I’ll write a blog about my time spent with them, but it’s something I’m mulling over at the moment.

    What I am hoping to do most of all, though, is finish writing a book that I had started a couple of years ago. I have quite a fair amount already written, so I may approach a publisher in the not-too-distant future. We’ll see.

    All the very best,

    Stephen Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | November 24, 2008

  7. I’m not surprised you are nonplussed and remain unconverted after your Alpha Course experience. Based on what the attendees and the pastor said about heaven, God’s role in ‘allowing’ rape, child abuse etc, it is more a surprise to me that they are such believers.

    It is evident to me that your knowledge of the New and Old Testaments is greater than theirs. The self-proclaimed UK’s expert on spirituality nothingness is also apparently something of an expert on scripture.

    But then spirituality is completely different to intellectual prowess. Intellectuals can also be spiritual just as spiritual individuals can also be bright. However, those who take excessive pride in their intellectual accomplishments/ endowments often have empty hearts.

    Luke 10:21 “At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure”

    I would like to turn very briefly to a couple of things you mention.

    “Lady Three: “The reason why kids are raped is because Satan has influenced people. It’s not because God created it like that.”
    Me: “You’re missing the point altogether. God created Satan, knowing in advance what he would do. God could have created a system without Satan, without pain and suffering, and without gratuitous evil. But he didn’t. Ultimately the buck stops with God”

    Lady three has it right.
    On your point, when God created Lucifer the latter was certainly not the evil fallen-angel who is the prince of this world. He was, rather next only to God. this is why in Ezekiel 28:12-17, we read:

    ““You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.”

    Satan became what he is after he was cast to earth. He now holds sway over the Earth. This is why even Jesus refers to Satan as the ‘Prince of this world’.

    Finally, you write: “Me: “Supposedly we have free will in heaven, yet never do any wrong. If this sort of free will is possible then God could have given us it in the first place. No kids tortured, no innocent people murdered, no rapes, no muggings, no assaults, nothing like that need ever happen. But God didn’t give us that sort of free will. He gave us the kind where people WILL commit all the atrocities I just mentioned. And, worst of all, he knew it all in advance. And you honestly want us to believe that he loves and cares for us?”

    Now, I don’t know if this is what heaven will be like, but it is what the new earth (described in John’s Revelation and Daniel) will be like when Jesus returns again and establishes His kingdom on Earth. Will all this coincide with 21/12/12? Should we read about St. Faustina (check that one out Mr. Carr) to know what the signs will be?

    The point is that the idyl you describe is what was originally intended before Adam relinquished power to Satan in the Garden of Eden. Instead, we got the fall and Satan has been in control since…until Jesus Christ conquered death on the cross.

    There..I’ve given enough material for the UK’s ‘Greatest Atheist’ to play with!

    Comment by Anthony | November 24, 2008

  8. Goodness, Anthony, what a mean-spirited comment. Where has Steve ever indicated that he thinks of himself as “The self-proclaimed UK’s expert on spirituality nothingness (sic)” or “UK’s ‘Greatest Atheist’”? Why should it be a surprise that he knows something about scripture? From my experience, atheists frequently know more scripture than christians, simply because once you know what’s actually in the bible, it is far harder to give it any credence.

    Isn’t it funny that as soon as atheists start defending or reasoning out their position in public, they are accused of being “militant atheists” or “fundamentalist atheists.” It is as if anyone who will not instantly defer to the faithful in the name of “respect” must automatically be some sort of hard-line extremist. Rebecca West famously wrote “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.” I, myself, have never been able to find out precisely what militant atheism is: I only know that the accusation is thrown about when people not only hold atheist views but are prepared to robustly express them.

    Comment by Ian Edmond | November 24, 2008

  9. Ian…if I was talking about the author of this blog it would be mean spirited. But I’m referring to Mr. Steven Carr.

    Comment by Anthony | November 24, 2008

  10. Here you go
    “The UK’s leading atheist” – http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/christ.htm

    Comment by Anthony | November 24, 2008

  11. Anthony, I misunderstood you, and I apologise.

    Comment by Ian Edmond | November 24, 2008

  12. Although… while I don’t take back my apology (I really am sorry for accusing you of something that you didn’t intend), I would contest that your wording was ambiguous at best. Much of what you write is directly addressed to Steve B. The references to Steve C are oblique.

    Comment by Ian Edmond | November 24, 2008

  13. Anthony can get nothing right.

    The title of my web page is ‘The UK’s leading atheist web page’. I wonder why Anthony decided to change it so he could be mean-spirited and vicious….

    I would be interested to know which web pages were better than mine when I set it up over a decade ago. I think there were only two, making my claim as totally inerrant as anything in the Bible!

    Comment by Steven Carr | November 25, 2008

  14. ANTONY
    The point is that the idyl you describe is what was originally intended before Adam relinquished power to Satan in the Garden of Eden.

    CARR
    Gosh, your god is as dumb as a rock!

    Apparently it was Satan in the garden.

    And your god cursed snakes, because Satan possessed a snake.

    Eve was fooled by Satan, and so was this alleged god, who cursed snakes, unaware that the snake was actually Satan in disguise.

    At least I know how to avoid damnation. I just wear a Ronald Reagan mask and this god will not know who I really am.

    Comment by Steven Carr | November 25, 2008

  15. Ahh but there is a problem with your talk about satan anthony.

    It is true that satan was a good angel when created, but God would still know what was going to happen with him! All knowing, yes? So he had to approve of satan, fall and everything.

    Omniscience implies responsibility. At least when paired with omnipotence.

    Comment by Cat of Many Faces | November 25, 2008

  16. Antony says:

    “Satan became what he is after he was cast to earth. He now holds sway over the Earth. This is why even Jesus refers to Satan as the ‘Prince of this world’. ”

    If I catch a wolf, and put it in a fold with a flock of sheep, are the deaths of the sheep that will almost certainly result the fault of the wolf…or are they *my* fault?

    And, as Cat of Many Faces points out, it’s much worse than that, with God. Because I only have a very strong certainty of what the wolf will do…I cannot be 100% sure. God, on the other hand, being omniscient, KNOWS for certain how Satan will act, knows for certain the suffering that will result, knew everything that would transpire after he created Satan. What are we to think? That God intended the suffering and pain? That is our only possible conclusion. Why would he want that?

    Comment by Steve Jones | November 25, 2008

  17. Stephen, a most interesting review, and pause for thought for anyone considering running an Alpha course!

    I have to say I’m bemused by the fact that you apparently built up friendly relationships with these people, became fond of them, and IIRC even said ‘I’m being honest with you’ or ‘I’m not lying to you’ (sorry I can’t find the exact quote – I admit it’s out of context) yet, unless I missed it or you simply didn’t tell us this bit, were quite happy to record the audio and post this blog without anyone’s permission (albeit you didn’t post their names). Now I’m aware that an Alpha course is open to all, but surely it’s one thing to welcome anyone attending, and another to unknowingly have your words recorded and distributed elsewhere. I think a few other posters commented on this too.

    So, did your fellow Alpha-goers know or didn’t they, and if not, what’s your response?

    As I said, well done, and I hope you keep exploring – perhaps find a different group of not-so-literal Christians and do a compare-and-contrast?

    Dave

    Comment by Dave | November 25, 2008

  18. Dave said: “I have to say I’m bemused by the fact that you apparently built up friendly relationships with these people, became fond of them, and IIRC even said ‘I’m being honest with you’ or ‘I’m not lying to you’… yet… were quite happy to record the audio…”
    Hello Dave. At the very beginning of the very first session I asked if it was ok to use my audio recorder, and the group was fine with it. So I haven’t been dishonest and I wasn’t lying to them.

    Dave said: “… and post this blog without anyone’s permission (albeit you didn’t post their names).”
    I didn’t need their permission to write a blog about my time spent on the course. Your comment in brackets is an important one, as I have intentionally written my review in such a way that the members of the group remain anonymous throughout. Not only are there no names, there isn’t even a location.

    Dave said: “As I said, well done, and I hope you keep exploring – perhaps find a different group of not-so-literal Christians and do a compare-and-contrast?”
    Oddly enough, Dave, I’ve already done that (see comment#6, above). I’ve spent quite a bit of time with Christians of most denominations, as well as quite a number of Muslims and Hindus.

    All the best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | November 25, 2008

  19. Steven Carr wrote: “The title of my web page is ‘The UK’s leading atheist web page’. I wonder why Anthony decided to change it so he could be mean-spirited and vicious….”

    Steven, interesting to hear an atheist use the term ‘mean-spirited’. I’m sure it was intended only as a turn of phrase and you do not actually believe in ‘spirits’. After all, in your materialism, spirits do not exist (the mind being only a computer, thoughts the random happenings of chemical reactions, no such thing as conciousness). It would be interesting to hear you address more difficult areas of enquiries e.g. such as the apparently critical role of the observer in quantum theory and how this still fits in with your model of spiritual nothingness. As it is, you are reduced to making cheap shots by concentrating on the nature of God (whether He is, as many believe, pure love).

    Finally, can you please explain something you said a few weeks ago when we were talking about a dear gentlemen by the name of Maitreya. As you will recall, you pointed to the miracles (including a sighting in Nairobi) he is said to have performed and you said (in so many words) that in X years, there will be no-one on earth who will not have heard of Maitreya due to his miraculous deeds etc. My question is: how can you tally your statements with an atheist stance? It is once thing to use atheism to attack religion in general (including Christianity) and quite another to seemingly endorse an occult figure like Maitreya.

    (even more) finally, you say “I would be interested to know which web pages were better than mine when I set it up over a decade ago” To which one might (if one were so mean-spirited) suggest that there were no better home computers than the ZX80 not so long ago!

    Comment by Anthony | November 26, 2008

  20. On the question of God creating Adam and giving him custody of the Earth when knowing all along that Satan was present (had in fact already been cast to Earth) and would succesfully tempt them into doing evil…..

    Let’s go back to the beginning.

    “1.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2. Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

    A question back to you: what happened between 1 (in the beginning) and 2 Now. Why was the earth formless and empty? Most suppose that it was formless and empty because God had not created light etc. Maybe, but what if 1 happened billions of years ago (consistent with the Big Bang) and 2 was 6,000 or so years ago? How would this reconcile with legends of ancient civilisations such as Atlantis as related by Plato and others, legends of angelic wars (following which Satan was cast to Earth along with one third of all angels) If the Earth was practically destroyed (and I am reliant here on the work of Velikovsy…Worlds in Collision as well as Firestone, West et al http://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Cosmic-Catastrophes-Stone-Age-Changed/dp/1591430615, James McCanney etc) and rebuilt 6,000 years ago…then what?

    This is an area of serious research for me…I accept neither the literalist ‘creationist’ ideas that everything was created 6,000 years ago, nor the opposite (atheist apologetic) idea that the universe has always existed and we’ve simply..evolved from star dust.

    Comment by Anthony | November 26, 2008

  21. Apologies for taking up so much bandwidth…it was precisely because of what happened in the Garden of Eden (the Fall) that God sent Jesus.

    Comment by Anthony | November 26, 2008

  22. Anthony,

    If you really think that it is strange for atheists to use terms like “mean-spirited”, as I also did upthread (without appreciating the historical context, and how religion has appropriated many words that can be used in other contexts, transcendental being another case in point); if you really think that atheists think that there is no shuch thing as conciousness; and if you really think that computers were not much better than ZX80s just over a decade ago (I was an IT manager at that time, and computers and the internet were not fundamentally different to what they are now), then I’m not sure that we have much in the way of common ground for discussion.

    And this is before we even begin to deal with “demonic possession is a reality” (week 10 comment 12).

    Comment by Ian Edmond | November 26, 2008

  23. Antony simply cannot read or comprehend what people say.

    I said that Maitreya does not even exist, but people have reported seeing him.

    And I sarcastically claimed that it could very well be just like Jesus, and in 2000 years people will say it is irrational to deny that the Maitreya existed.

    Comment by Steven Carr | November 26, 2008

  24. This has been one of the most consistently entertaining blogs I’ve ever read (and I’ve read a good few). I’m so sad to come to the end of it – I hope we hear much more in the same vein! And I’m mad curious to hear more about the book you’re writing … are you going to drop a few hints?

    Comment by Spud | November 26, 2008

  25. Proof of divine authorship of Genesis.
    http://www.s8int.com/page30.html

    Would love to hear how the atheists could explain away this one…especially since “Unsettling though the implications are to mainstream science, the research has made it past the usual critical hurdles into two scientific journals: Statistical Science and Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.”

    Is it possible that hardcore atheists, having so much intellectual investment in their (non) beliefs, could ever be convinced by anything that was contrary to their sacred cow (oops, there I go again with another religion-inspired expression!)

    CONCLUSION:”One is reminded of the persistent (but after 80 years at last weakening) skepticism that greeted certain results in quantum mechanics research: for example, that what happens in every part of the universe instantaneously–or even backwards in time–influences, in measurable degree, what happens everywhere else. Should the “codes in the Torah” phenomenon remain undefeated, perhaps in the light of such astonishing findings in modern science it, too, will one day seem not so preposterous.

    What then was the purpose of encoding this information into the text? Some would say it is the Author’s signature. Is it His way of assuring us that at this particular, late moment–when our scientific, materialistic doubt has reached its apotheosis, when we have been driven to the brink of radical skepticism–that He is precisely who He said He is in that astonishing, radical core document of the Judeo-Christian tradition?”

    Comment by Anthony | November 27, 2008

  26. Naturally, I recognise (past posting) that bible codes is a controversial area with people on both sides of the fence (a bit like Ron Wyatt in fact). Please do not therefore assume I am not aware of the arguments for and against. It would seem that ELS has never been properly refuted, however, a bit like Wyatt’s work.

    Comment by Anthony | November 27, 2008

  27. C’mon Anthony, give us something real to engage with. That whole site is madder than a box of frogs.

    Comment by Ian Edmond | November 27, 2008

  28. Anthony,

    Witzum et al.’s paper published in 1988, Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis? It passed peer review as to general methodology, but the reviewers do not re-analyze the data, and the question as to whether this was a unique case, as is certainly implied by fans of the paper, was answered by the now-somewhat-famous accomplishment of the same feat with War and Peace.

    A further summary paper by McKay et al. and some ongoing replies to Witzum’s baseless complaints are here: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/

    Velikovsky, too, the man with a fun idea but with no understanding of orbital mechanics?

    Atlantis??

    *grin* Have you yet to meet a conspiracy theory that you didn’t like? :)

    Comment by Ritchie Annand | November 27, 2008

  29. Hi,Ritchie

    If you are still clinging to the traditional Newtonian model of orbital mechanics, aren’t you a bit out of date? Velikovsky got a few things wrong, but the fact is that electromagnestism is vastly more powerful and prevalent a force in the universe.

    “Conspiracy theories” is a nice term to use to avoid getting into the merits of arguments. Unless of course you believe in the accidental theory of history and that, for example, a bunch of bearded cave-dwellers were responsible for the collapse of 3 large buildings on 911.

    Thanks for the links to McKay et al…I am aware of their rebuttals but, as you know, there are rebuttals to their work too! All we know is that there is still phenomena in the codes that has not been properly explained by the doubters.

    None of which you will find, alas, in the Alpha Course.

    Comment by Anthony | November 28, 2008

  30. Ian Edmond..you asked for something ‘real to engage with’. How about contrasting a near-death experience as related by St Bede in the 7th century with modern ND experiences. The similarities are remarkable, particularly in the description of ‘the void’, & darkness. Please meditate on this.

    Here is the URL

    http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research15.html

    And Bede.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bede/hist129.htm

    Comment by Anthony | November 28, 2008

  31. Anthony,

    “If you are still clinging to the traditional Newtonian model of orbital mechanics, aren’t you a bit out of date?”

    *laugh* Indeed? I am familiar with the Pioneer anomaly as well, the variances in the Lagos satellites, and the processions of Mercury. While interesting, none of them are even remotely of the magnitude necessary to deviate from plain Newtonian calculations to the degree that Velikovsky required.

    “Velikovsky got a few things wrong, but the fact is that electromagnestism is vastly more powerful and prevalent a force in the universe”.

    Electromagnetism is indeed more powerful, but its efficacy is vastly limited by the ratio of cancelling charges, and even a strongly-charged object can only attract a neutral object by the sum of inordinately tiny dipoles. Even a planetary rubbing with Jupiter-sized silk or fur would not be enough to get the effects Velikovsky wants.

    I’m even aware of Alfven’s plasma cosmology. It, too, doesn’t have the effects you would need.

    The fact that Velikovsky interjects the possibility of an earth-sized mass of iron filings to help generate the eight billion gauss field required to stop the sun in the sky should be a clue to how strained his story was, not to mention the effects on the Earth and its contents when subjected to the resultant torque!

    ““Conspiracy theories” is a nice term to use to avoid getting into the merits of arguments.”

    Avoid it? It is “merely” tiring. Conspiracy theories work backwards from suspicion and incredulity and ignore evidence that does not conform, takes non-replies as confirmation that something sinister is at work, and then takes replies as additional confirmation that these are just people in the sway of sinister forces. Implants, reptilians, expanding Earth, UFOs, Illuminati, 9/11 truthism, NDEs, Chi… what have you.

    There’s also the matter of apologetics, which cherry-picks any available evidence that might be in concord with their beliefs, or interpretable as in concord with their beliefs, and use those points to claim that they lead to the things that they believe in, but this is an exercise you can repeat with almost any fiction.

    I never know sometimes if I’m dealing with a person suffering from schizophrenia.

    I’m not completely beholden to mainstream thoughts, but I give merit to those that have been through the empirical and theoretical grinder, which include a lot of current science. On the other hand, I find string theory, despite its very understandable noble initial intentions, devoid of any utility except for mathematical curiosity. I do not expect results from the LHC to vindicate it.

    “All we know is that there is still phenomena in the codes that has not been properly explained by the doubters.”

    If you finish that sentence “…that the doubters OF the doubters will ever accept,” then I would concur ;)

    Something along the lines of “there are no transitional forms” because every discovery creates two new gaps :)

    Comment by Ritchie Annand | November 29, 2008

  32. Stephen -> I often wondered about the zombies :)

    27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
    27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

    Based on my readings over the years, the Bible often seems a bit confused as to what exactly happens after death. In one version, it seems that in death, you stay in your body (I’ve seen it argued that you are your body, and that the Old Testament “soul” meant body) but your batteries, your ruach, your Breath of God, runs out, and you have to remain intact for Judgment Day when your body will be reanimated… and in the other version, your soul is separate from your body and is released when your body dies to go to its fate pretty much immediately.

    Then there might be some weird combination of the two with a sleeping dualistic soul trapped inside a body which has to remain intact for Judgment Day.

    Some of the church prohibitions on cremation have been explained as related to need those bodies intact, but in a strangely utilitarian concern, cremation was allowed once church graveyards started to become disgusting and dangerous.

    (If you have any light to shed on my collected memory of history, do share it. The sources of my remembered history often stem from a decade ago or more )

    The zombie story certainly seems to compound that confusion, not to mention its ahistoricity.

    I’m reading Michael Onfray’s “In Defense Of Atheism”. I must say that it’s an interesting read; it has a significantly different “flavour” than many others on the market today, and focuses in a lot more on history, anti-intellectualism, philosophy and the like as well as several interesting turns of phrase. It’s a good translation from the original French, but there are a lot of French philosophers and figures with which I admit to being completely unfamiliar. Recommended if you have not yet read it.

    Comment by Ritchie Annand | November 29, 2008

  33. Hi Ritchie,

    I read the Michael Onfray book a couple of years ago (though at that time it was published in the US under the title “Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”). Like you I enjoyed it immensely. I remember making a considerable amount of notes and jotting down a number of quotes (as I do with all the books I read), especially early on in the book. I must say I’ve had some mileage out of his “perpetual mental infantilism” phrase, as given on page 1 of the Introduction.

    If you enjoyed Onfray’s book then you may find Michael Martin’s similarly titled, “The Case Against Christianity” to be just as rewarding.

    All the best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | November 29, 2008

  34. Thanks for the book recommendation; I just finished Onfray’s book, and it was very good, in the final analysis, but with a fairly weak ending – his final thesis should have taken more than a bare handful of pages :)

    Cheers, Stephen!

    Comment by Ritchie Annand | December 1, 2008

  35. Stephen -> I can’t help but think that you probably made the experience a little more valuable for everyone just from bringing some skepticism, history and lesser-known scripture to the table.

    I daresay their experience would have been merely self-reaffirming and full of too-easy – and with Gumbel in many cases, specious – answers.

    Have you kept in contact with anyone from the group at all?

    For what it’s worth, I’ve popped a link to you up on my blog. I am fascinated by this sort of live “Into the Viper’s Nest” slash “How Things Work” from a skeptical perspective. Jason Rosenhouse lets me experience creationist and intelligent design conferences vicariously, and Abbie Smith does the same, well, for one anti-vaccination conference, which was enough :)

    Cheers, Stephen. Looking forward to your future exploits.

    Comment by Ritchie Annand | December 2, 2008

  36. Hi Stephen,

    Thanks yet again for taking the time to prepare this blog. I hope you have gained something from the experience, culturally if not intellectually at the very least.

    I believe many of the questions that you have put to the group are deserving of decent, thoughtful responses, and I fully believe that all of the objections that you raise are actually, at least in principle, quite answerable. I want to apologize for not taking the time to provide responses to these issues to the level of detail that they deserve, but unfortunately my time is very much constrained at present.

    If I may make a suggestion I would recommend that, if you decide at a future point in time to re-engage with theistic evidences in general and Christian claims in particular, then you apportion your time wisely by focusing on the writings of the ‘cream of the crop’ (eg. scholars and theologians of the caliber of Polkinghorne, Haught, Ellis, Lewis and co.) and continue to ponder their evidences over a quiet read.

    As but one example, I came across the following book recently which I thought might be quite profitable for someone with your worldview. The approving review from Michael Shermer is certainly a positive sign:

    http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=139

    Thanks again, and good luck in your quest for truth. May it continue to be characterized with sincerity and integrity, and rewarded with progress and fulfillment.

    Best Regards,
    James

    Comment by James Garth | December 8, 2008

  37. Ritchie Annand said, “Have you kept in contact with anyone from the group at all?”

    Since the course ended the pastor and I have exchanged a few emails, in which we thanked each other for the cordial nature of the discussion throughout the Alpha sessions. I may pop along to one of his Sunday morning services in the coming weeks/months.

    James Garth said, “I came across the following book recently which I thought might be quite profitable for someone with your worldview. The approving review from Michael Shermer is certainly a positive sign. Thanks again, and good luck in your quest for truth. May it continue to be characterized with sincerity and integrity, and rewarded with progress and fulfillment.”

    Thanks for the book suggestion, James. It’s much appreciated. And thank you, too, for your consistently pleasant manner. You’re a gentleman.

    All the very best,

    Stephen Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | December 8, 2008

  38. Very interesting Steve. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

    Comment by null | December 8, 2008

  39. Oh, if I may, might I recommend 50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy Harrison? I feel as I’ve been ticking them off in my head while reading about your journey!

    Comment by null | December 8, 2008

  40. Just came to this blog as a result of reading Nullifidian (who I see precedes me in the comments). Nice one – I admire your fortitude in enduring all this for 12 weeks on our behalf!

    Apart from the arguments about the incompatibility between God’s omniscience and the events in the world, I find another useful line to pursue is that of eternity, and the length thereof. Once you have a relgionist admit that they’re hoping to go to heaven when they die, try asking how long they think they’ll be there. When they say “Forever”, ask them how long they think that is. Here’s my take on it… :-)

    Comment by PeterM | December 9, 2008

  41. Just finished reading the full blog and I have been most impressed, you are an intelligent, articulate person (and writer) always displaying a sense of understanding and calm throughout difficult and sometimes nonsensical arguments. I will certainly look forward to your future work.

    Comment by Jonathan | December 10, 2008

  42. Hi Stephen
    Wonderful blog, thank you for doing such a wonderful job for our cause.
    Have you been on the bus?
    I would like to go on one of these courses, but, how did you manage to keep a straight face? I do not think that I could be that disciplined.
    Best wishes and a Merry Christmas
    Malcolm, Holly and Jo

    Comment by Malcolm Dodd | December 11, 2008

  43. Sorry Stephen, too many wonderfuls; have I caught the L2v? I sincerely hope not; I am already suffering from OCADD.

    Comment by Malcolm Dodd | December 11, 2008

  44. Stephen,

    Just wanted to let you know that I’m sincerely grateful for you taking the considerable effort to sit through this and write it all up in so much detail. It’s fascinating to try and understand the way Christians think. Your approach was just how I would (or would like to) talk to Christians.

    I’ve spent some time with Jehovah’s Witnesses and written about that on my blog, but your efforts here are truly Herculean and made for a riveting read! I’ll certainly be posting something enthusiastic about your work soon.

    Comment by Eshu | December 11, 2008

  45. Stephen B.,

    I’d just like to tell you how much I’ve enjoyed following this blog. Do your fellow participants on the Alpha course know about it yet?

    Comment by johnnyess | December 14, 2008

  46. It took a couple weeks, but I’ve now finished your blog. That was quite the adventure! I went through the course 5 years ago back when I was a Christian. Btw, did the participants know they were being taped and did you ever tell this about this blog?

    Comment by Jeffrey | December 16, 2008

  47. Null said, “… might I recommend 50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy Harrison? I feel as I’ve been ticking them off in my head while reading about your journey!”
    Thanks, Null. I ordered Harrison’s book after hearing him on Freethought Radio a while ago (Listen here). He sounds like a reasonable chap. I haven’t read it yet though.

    PeterM said, “Apart from the arguments about the incompatibility between God’s omniscience and the events in the world, I find another useful line to pursue is that of eternity, and the length thereof. Once you have a relgionist admit that they’re hoping to go to heaven when they die, try asking how long they think they’ll be there. When they say “Forever”, ask them how long they think that is.”
    Thanks Peter. I read your splendid blog entry and I must say I’ve thought in a similar fashion myself. We humans can barely remember things from 20 years ago, let alone 746 trillion years. Imagine spending an eternity somewhere only for almost ALL of it to be forgotten!

    Thanks for your kind words Jonathan, Eshu, and Malcolm. By the way, Malcolm, I’ve added a few links to the atheist bus campaign on this website. Ariane Sherine, who, as far as I’m aware, came up with the idea, also recommended my blog on her facebook page (so I hear). I must say I’m quite flattered.

    Johnnyness said, “Do your fellow participants on the Alpha course know about it yet?”
    I have no idea. I haven’t seen any of them since the course finished. I’m planning on paying them another visit in the near future, though.

    Jeffrey said, “…did the participants know they were being taped?”
    Yes (see comment #18 )

    All the best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | December 16, 2008

  48. Like you I went through an Alpha course recently. I was working in a school in Hong Kong with quite a few Evangelicals on the staff and a very nice colleague asked me to go so I did.
    Like you I was primarily astonished by the low level of argument, the lack of any evidence and the general simple mindedness of the whole thing. During the week on Prayer I asked the group I was sitting with to test the efficacy of prayer by asking for world peace. Clearly this would not work but none of the group offered a reason as to why six good Christians and true should not expect such a prayer to be answered.
    Apart from that I wish that I had your persistence in keeping up the blog for the full course. Many thanks.

    Comment by Rick Twyman | December 17, 2008

  49. Hello Stephen,

    I’ve just taken the liberty of adding your website address to the Alpha Course “Questions for God” slot. Didn’t think God would click on it, but possibly some seekers after truth may. However, I had to post Week 1b, as Week 1a seems to have disappeared. Could you please put it back, as I would have been very frustrated to have missed it (obsessive compulsive syndrome, I know).

    Comment by johnnyess | December 18, 2008

  50. Hello Johnny,

    The “Recent” header gives access to a maximum of 12 links, so the earlier blog entries (the first 2) aren’t under that header anymore. However, these earlier links can be found in the “Archives” section (September).

    Better still here’s a direct link to Week 1a:

    http://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/week-1a-introduction/

    People can then navigate through the remainder of the review by using the links under the “Recent” header.

    Thanks Johnny.

    All the best,

    Stephen Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | December 18, 2008

  51. On second thoughts I’ve decided it’s best to dispense with the “Half-Term Break” blog entry (which was nestled between week 7 and week 8), as this was nothing more than a very brief announcement to say that I was going on holiday. Week 1a now slips back under the “Recent” header.

    Hope that helps.

    All the best,

    Stephen Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | December 18, 2008

  52. would you consider restructuring the site now that its ‘done’. Maybe in less of a post/comments format.. and more of a book format ? maybe with a tab for each weeks entry. just an idea.

    Comment by qmonkey | December 19, 2008

  53. Congratulations Stephen on your blog. Myself and a number of colleagues have been spending our lunchtimes ‘religiously’ reading it and enjoyed it immensely. We started off with amusement at Creationists but that has developed into a serious distaste and concern that the creationist agenda is achieving growth in the country. Your blog succinctly asks the questions we would love to ask of ‘people in the know!’ and stumps them for valid responses. I would urge fellow readers to take a look at Christianvoice.org.uk for the word of Christian intolerance and answersingenesis.org for mind numbing and manipulative views arguing for a young earth.

    Comment by Mike Brough | December 27, 2008

  54. Hi Steve,

    That was a really good read. Interesting and a little alarming. Well done for keeping your cool.

    Thanks

    (PS “Long-Standing Male Member”? Snigger.)

    Comment by Rodney Cross | February 22, 2009

  55. Though I’m a solid atheist, I’m rather sceptical about the worth of this project.

    On reading it soon became clear that this was not a simple, objective account of your “alpha” experience. It seemed to me that you were attempting some sort of intellectual challenge to Christianity. If this is the case, choosing a local church with a tiny handful of believers where (according to your presentation) you “win” most of the arguments is very weak. Read J.S.Mill’s ‘On Liberty’. You should be seeking out the strongest possible arguments against your views, even where your weakest positions are attacked and you are most vunerable – and never hide behind rhetoric or the inexperience of those you debate with. Also, ideally, one of the other people present would be writing it all up.

    Comment by Jonathan | March 28, 2009

  56. Hello Jonathan,

    I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood the point of this website, sadly.

    I’m not writing a piece against Christianity, the Bible, or Christians. Nor am I writing an article in defence of atheism. Maybe that’s your misconception. This website is, as the title suggests, a review of my time spent on the Alpha Course. Nothing more.

    Perhaps you’re reading too much into it and looking for something that isn’t actually there, Jonathan?

    Thanks for your input though, it’s genuinely appreciated.

    All the very best,

    S. Butterfield

    PS. I’ve added a link to Mill’s On Liberty in your post (above), for anyone who might be interested in reading it.

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | March 28, 2009

  57. Repentance & Faith

    There are therefore important areas which must be examined concerning Alpha. The message of Repentance is sidelined because the focus is taken off the proclamation of the inerrant Word of the living God. Despite quotes from the Bible, Alpha fails to present us with the God who has revealed himself in Holy Scripture. The message of sin through the total depravity of the human heart is missed. The apostle Paul explains in Ephesians 2 v 3 that we are ‘by nature children of wrath’ and deserve His condemnation. By contrast Alpha does not use strong and clear terms warning as scripture does of Judgment and Hell.

    Theologically & ecumenically suspect

    Alpha clearly from the evidence, has no problem with the gospel which Rome proclaims. Nicky Gumbel has been a frequent visitor to the Vatican. Some years ago after returning, he is quoted ’It was a great honour to be presented to Pope John Paul II, who has done so much to promote evangelization around the world.

    We have been enriched by our interaction with Catholics in many countries and discover that what unites us is infinitely greater than what divides us’ !

    Foolishness of Preaching

    The apostle Paul made this emphasis in Holy Scripture beyond doubt ‘And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?’ Romans 10 v 14 and ‘It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe’ I Corinthians 1 v 21.

    Alpha is silent therefore on some key issues, much to the fore in apostolic preaching. It was George Whitefield the evangelist of another century who declared ‘I love those that thunder out the Word. The Christian world is in a deep sleep. Nothing but a loud voice can awaken them out of it’

    Salvation from Sin

    AW Pink has wisely written that ‘God saves us from the pleasure or love of Sin before He delivers us from the penalty or punishment of sin’ ‘God is a God of order throughout. There can be no saving faith till the soul is filled with evangelical repentance, and repentance is a Godly sorrow for sin, a holy detestation of sin, a sincere purpose to forsake it. The Gospel calls upon men to repent of their sins, forsake their idols, and thus it is utterly impossible for the Gospel to be a message of good tidings to those who are in love with sin and madly determined to perish rather than part with their idols’

    As Christians we must ‘Try the Spirits’ 1 John 4 v 1
    The Word of God is clearly our only authority. Martin Luther declared that his conscience was captive to that Word and that is why he was not bound by the Roman church as today’s ALPHA is.

    Alpha misses the Biblical Gospel and worldwide is aiding the gospel of the Anti-christ and the false prophet.

    Comment by Raymond | April 9, 2009

  58. I just thought I’d re-read this site (and some of the new comments). It’s still awesome, Stephen.

    I’ve also come to a conclusion—indeed—especially regarding Raymond’s last comment here: The joy of theology is that you can make up any old shit to explain religious “facts”, and nobody can say you’re wrong. Well they can, but they’re obviously just not as “spiritually enlightened” as you and so you can dismiss them out of hand without having to support your assertions with that nasty materialistic “evidence” stuff.

    Too soon? It’s been a good 2,000 years or so, but I’m a terrible judge of that sort of thing…

    Comment by nullifidian | June 29, 2009

  59. Most enlightening and amusing throughout! It is astonishing just how weak the “arguments” of the pastor, your Christian fellow-course-members, and most of the Christian commenters are (honourable exception: James Garth). One concludes that Christianity is, primarily, a religion for the weak-minded or ignorant.

    Comment by Knockgoats | October 6, 2009

  60. Very well written and frequently hilarious, you have done us all a great service by the way you have recounted your experiences and kept your cool. I suspect the vast majority would have lost it when confronted with people who appear to have been programmed to the point where they appear unable to process logic, however otherwise nice they might be.

    I’ll certainly post a link to this from my site. Well done!

    Comment by Greg du Pille | October 7, 2009

  61. Thank you for posting these. It was funny and educational. You have got a lot of patience.
    Reason to believers is like bullets to superman.

    Comment by AdamSch | October 9, 2009

  62. Thanks, I really think you have done a wonderfull job. Your approach is very refreshing and I really admire your patience. I think I couldn’t even bare the first lesson…

    Comment by Jacco | October 10, 2009

  63. Hi Stephen,

    I am a Christian in Australia and I just want to say that I have viewed the Alpha Course before and I don’t think it represents the gospel properly to those who are not Christians.

    Also, in reading the conversations you have had with Christians at the Alpha Course, I am sincerely disappointed with their responses to your questions. Although they may have been keen to help, their answers have clearly not been helpful to you, or even Biblically correct.

    I just wanted to say that if you do sincerely wish to find God, please don’t give up on that because of what happened at the Alpha Course you attended.

    Thanks for your time,

    Alex.

    Comment by alex | October 14, 2009

  64. Fascinating and beautifully written account. Thank you Stephen.

    I would never have the guts to do this myself but your arguments have given me some great ammunition for future conversations with my Christian brother….!

    Comment by Andrew MW | October 14, 2009

  65. I have very much enjoyed reading this. I’ve found your patience to be absolutely extraordinary! I’ve often considered attending the Alpha to see if I can be ‘swayed’, however i’m now convinced that the apologetic argument is quite hollow. I’m baffled as to how they can accept such bizzarre tenets. It would be very intereseting to read this blog from the view point of one of the believers.

    Comment by larynx | October 15, 2009

  66. Stephen, this has been an epic read. And you have a level of patience found only in legend! This has done two things; a) confirmed that it’s far better to live under the blue skies of learning and discovery, however disquieting it gets, over a life of dogma and b) avoid going on an Alpha course! I doubt I’d be as polite as you.

    Comment by Am I Evil? | October 15, 2009

  67. I just finished reading your reviews of the whole Alpha Course, and I am very impressed by your writing! You mentioned upthread on this entry that you’re working on a book, and I’d love to hear if you’ve finished it yet.

    Again, excellent work here.

    Comment by Josh | October 18, 2009

  68. Hi Josh,

    I’ve been adding bits and pieces to my book for the last few months, but haven’t had the opportunity to spend any serious amount of time on it recently. I’m hoping to have a window of opportunity in the New Year where I can knuckle down and make some hefty progress. Fingers crossed, I should have it completed sometime in 2010.

    All the best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | October 19, 2009

  69. Stephen,

    A wonderfully entertaining and even-handed account. My son (18) recommended it to me and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am an inveterate proof reader and wanted to suggest that you correct the only off turn of phrase I found:

    “yet for the entirity of human history he has allowed kids to be raped in their millions.”
    (it may have been quite late when you wrote it!)
    Thanks again and await your book expectantly.

    Ted Michelini, Ph.D.

    Comment by Ted | October 20, 2009

  70. Thank you for your effort. Very interesting read, useful too.

    I find the “logic” of most Christians to be bizarre in the extreme. I have had contact with evangelicals who thought it okay to pray for a parking space (God found them one …eventually) and yet the millions of prayers made by desperately poor people go unanswered. The mind boggles

    Comment by righter | October 22, 2009

  71. Stephen, I very much enjoyed reading your blog, and am pleased you found time to visit mine – your encouragement was a source of inspiration when I very much needed it…!

    My own humble effort at a review of the Alpha Course can be found here: http://carcrashinternet.blogspot.com/ – I hope you won’t mind me taking the liberty of drawing attention to my site here.
    I’ve reciprocated in kind, of course.

    Comment by Jim | December 7, 2009

  72. Dear Stephen

    I have only just come across your blog, and as a Christian involved in helping with alpha courses, I have found it utterly fascinating. Very well written, and very interesting and insightful.
    I also think your attitude to the members in the group is very admirable, and it was great to see you building relationships with them despite your disagreements when it came to faith.

    Take care
    James

    Comment by James | July 14, 2010

  73. Hello James,

    I’m glad that you enjoyed my Alpha review. Many thanks for your kind words.

    I wish you well.

    All the best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | July 14, 2010

  74. Thank you for a really interesting read. It’s certainly made me think! I am attending an Alpha course at the start of September 2010. A family member recently revealed to me she had made contact with her ‘spirit guide’ (rather unexpectedly for her) and has become a channel for ‘healing! Coming from somebody I love, respect and admire this has had a big impact on me and has caused me to question my ‘faith’ (or lack of it!). I have to say, your ‘conclusions’ mirror my thoughts but the fact that a sane and highly intelligent woman who I have known for over 25 years and whom I trust implicitly has told me things that she couldn’t possibly have known causes me to question everything.I am at a crossroads…here goes, so thanks for the intro!Whatever happens,commandments 5 to 10 are a code of conduct I hope one day we can all live by if nothing else in this troubled world!

    Comment by LYNNE ECCLESTONE | August 7, 2010

  75. I’ve been a Christian nearly my whole life and while I’m pretty sold on the truth of Christianity I like to think of myself as a pretty open minded person. I’ve never read through such a solid argument from a secular perspective that remained so respectful and patient the whole way through. Thanks for typing it all up, I’m going to be doing a decent amount of research myself now, much like lady 3, and hopefully avoid all wikipedia Josephus answers…

    Comment by Ben | August 13, 2010

  76. Thanks for your kind words, Lynne and Ben.

    Lynne, I do hope you enjoy your time on the Alpha Course, which starts next month. Hopefully my review will be of some assistance as you work your way through Alpha.

    Ben, good luck with your research. I’m sure you’ll find it to be a thoroughly enjoyable journey.

    Best wishes to the both of you,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | August 15, 2010

  77. Hi Stephen

    Thanks for a very interesting read. I’ve been reading your review / blog every day for the last week or so on my commute in preparation for a debate I am hosting this Saturday. It’s been a very useful insight into the Alpha course as I sadly did not have the time to attend onemyself.

    I hope you don’t mind me posting the details of the debate in the comments section as I think that you and your readers may find the debate interesting.

    Between 9am and 10am on Saturday 2nd October Pastor Roy Young from Garston Community Church and John Dowdle, President of the Watford Area Humanists will go head to head in a live debate. To listen, tune in by clicking on http://www.watfordhospitalradio.com and clicking on the LISTEN NOW link. If you have any questions for either guest leading up to the event, please do email me at andy.leeks@watfordhospitalradio.com

    Comment by Andy Leeks | September 28, 2010

  78. Hi Andy,

    Thanks for the information regarding the upcoming debate. I’ll make sure to tune in on Saturday morning.

    If there’s a question that springs to mind between now and then I’ll send you an email.

    Good luck with the show.

    Best wishes,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | September 29, 2010

  79. This was great. I’d love to be part of a very small group like you’ve described. Everyone was nice, and it didn’t get ugly.

    But no one changed their minds. I wonder if they are all still perfectly content and sure of their beliefs. I wonder if the Christians listened very carefully and later thought through what you and the other agnostic were saying?

    Maybe they were simply saying that it doesn’t have to make sense, and you were saying it does have to make sense.

    Thanks again for posting this experience. It was truly fascinating and actually a little encouraging that it is possible to have a discussion with good faith and civility all round.

    Comment by Lynn | October 3, 2010

  80. Hi Stephen, just read all these posts in one hit… absolutely fascinating, thank you. (FWIW, I’m an ex-believer and a couple of friends have been trying to get me to attend the Alpha Course for ages in the hope that it would get me to change my mind back again. I’m really not seeing anything in the course that I haven’t already heard a hundred times before, so I won’t be going.)

    Comment by Sue | October 3, 2010

  81. Very interesting read.

    You remind me of me (which is a compliment), if that doesn’t make me sound too vain.

    I am the same age as you, I also come from God’s county and I attended an Alpha course 10 years ago.

    I was 100% more skeptical than you, but the penny dropped for me on the course. I read the bible in a month and it made complete sense; I haven’t looked back. I go to church but I am not religious. It is about me, my bible and God, not a set of standards and rules and my life is a better place with the Big Man on my side. I never thought I needed him. I was driving a Porsche, with a gorgeous family but my perspective changed, for the better.

    I would never argue about faith with anyone. It is about you and God.

    Why the note from me?

    Two things:

    1: Keep looking, as U2 say, I still haven’t found what I’m looking for, but I’m still running…

    2: Take some time, in the peace and quiet, to read one of the Gospels, as you would read a book. It doesn’t take long.

    I pray that the penny drops for you too. My faith is precious to me and life is better as a result.

    Comment by Andrew | November 11, 2010

  82. Hello Andrew,

    I appreciate that your faith is incredibly precious to you. As I’m sure faith is to many other people, too (including those of different religions). And I have no doubt that the Bible makes complete sense to you, as I’m sure it does to the people that attended the same Alpha Course as I did.

    I just find it rather strange, I suppose, that these kind of people struggle terribly when it comes to supporting their beliefs with actual evidence or even a half-decent argument. They always end up drawing a blank, and I can’t possibly imagine why, especially in light of the fact that their belief is supposedly grounded on the greatest truth imaginable.

    Anyway, I’m glad you’re leading a happier life nowadays Andrew, and I genuinely wish you well for the future.

    All the best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | November 11, 2010

  83. Lovely note back – thanks. And will you read one of the gospels – just to humour me?

    Comment by Andrew | November 16, 2010

  84. I’ve read them many, many times already Andrew.

    Having said that, I’m sure there’s every chance of me reading them again sometime in the near future.

    All the best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | November 16, 2010

  85. Great job here. I really enjoyed what you had to say. Keep going because you definitely bring a new voice to this subject. Not many people would say what you’ve said and still make it interesting. Well, at least I’m interested. Can’t wait to see more of this from you.

    Comment by phentermine | November 29, 2010

  86. This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses.

    Comment by Spots | January 16, 2011

  87. Thank you for all the hard work that you put into this blog. I read through it over a few days and I must say, it takes me back. I grew up in a church very similar to the one you you attended for the Alpha Course.

    Thanks again, would love to read more from you on the subject of religion.

    -Stephen

    Comment by Stephen | February 3, 2011

  88. Thanks for your kind words Stephen, and I’m glad you enjoyed my review.

    Since writing this review in 2008 I’ve been working on a book, also about religion, though work has ground to halt since the birth of my first child last year and my subsequent struggle with illness. With a bit of luck I should be fit and well enough to be able to re-focus on my book sometime in the coming months.

    All the very best,

    S. Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | February 4, 2011

  89. Hi Stephen

    I’ve only just come across your review of 2008 and am very grateful for your analysis. I was asked recently to help with an Alpha course by accompanying the songs on guitar. I then participated in the discussions but was told at the review meeting after the «clients » had left that « staff » are not allowed to express personal views but but stick rigidly to the programmed text, while facilitating exchanges and revelations by the clients. This and other remarks led me to look more closely at the programme. As you found, it is strongly literalist and dogmatic and I’m not surprised that its message is rejected by many. This is a pity because the teaching and example of Jesus, stripped of all the magical elements and signs that grew in the telling by his overawed followers, seems to me worth heeding. He came out of a particular religious tradition where fixed practices were very important and he rejected those practices, instead emphasizing a radically different approach to life and the deity. His teaching of a spirituality that can lead to a fully compassionate existence ought to be presented without the trappings of dogma that only complicate and obscure his message. Therefore I think the Alpha course does a huge disservice in peddling the idea of a God who needed sacrifices (a concept of early religions) and of a man who was also God, thus creating impossible arguments. I’m encouraged to read that more than half of practising catholics don’t believe in the virgin birth or the holy Trinity. Hopefully at some time in the future the Christian churches will catch up with their members and be open to other religions, instead of insisting that theirs is the only way. Or is that pie in the sky?
    I wish you a full recovery from your illness, much joy with your family and every encouragement with your writing.
    Gordon

    Comment by Gordon Fraser | February 13, 2011

  90. Gordon, thank you very much for your wonderful post. Your encouragement is gratefully received, and I wish you well.

    All the very best,

    Stephen

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | February 13, 2011

  91. Dear Stephen,

    I have only read your posts for weeks 3 (How can I be sure of my faith?”, 2 and this one, week 11, but when I next get the time I’d really like to read your other blogs.

    I am currently helping out with an Alpha course in my workplace and I googled “Alpha course week 3″ because I had to email the attendees about a change in date and I couldn’t remember the exact title of this week’s course (what did we do before google?!), and anyway your blog came up as the first hit. (Not convinced you needed all this background but there you are!)

    So I have been thoroughly engaged today, reading about your experience and then the follow up comments that others have posted.

    Firstly, I agree with many people that your writing style is brilliant, and really funny! And you’ve given me LOTS of food for thought for this week.

    I am a Christian, in that I belive in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit being one, and I belive that the Bible is God’s word, and I belive that Jesus died for my sins.

    But I totally empathise with many of the points you’ve made, and concede many of your arguments throughout. For example, WHY didn’t God just make it so that there would be no devil and no hell, if he knew the devil, this fallen angel, was going to turn bad. But that kind of blows my mind, because on that logic, maybe he wouldn’t have made me. Sure, I’ve never killed any babies – but I have lied, I have hurt people I love, I have cheated. They’re not great things to have done, and they’re against God’s 10 commandments (which Jesus later sums up as two: love God first and love others as yourself). But maybe God should just say about me, “it’s totally cool, I forgive you for that stuff because you mess up and people make mistakes”. But then I’m thinking, well, he does kind of say that – he says that through Jesus. ie. God KNOWS that no one can be perfect, so he decides to to deal with the punishment for it once and for all by putting jesus on the cross and separating himself from him for 3 days. (Sounds pretty whack, I admit!)

    Also, on that point – why does an innocent man (God in the form of Jesus) have to take the hit? And is it justice if he takes the hit – have my wrong doings even been dealt with if it wasn’t actually me who took the punishment for them? I suppose firstly I’m really glad that the innocent man in this analogy did decide to take the hit for me – or at least, I believe he did! But I totally get the analogy that you gave to the pastor: that if a man has killed a child, but someone else takes the punishment on behalf of the man, then justice hasn’t been done, because what about the fact that the man who killed the child has gone free. I am all over that argument, and I wonder if there is anything that can be said to go some way in answering it for us (I’m thinking, what if someone asks at Alpha this week?!) Well first off there can be no justification for anyone harming a child. And I truly believe it grieves God’s very soul that this evil thing has happened. But a few thoughts – I don’t know the killer’s background or what caused him to do what he did – other than pure evil running through him. But I do kind of feel like even if that man did that to my child – my own beautiful flesh and blood – although I would HATE him for doing it, it wouldn’t be up to me to judge him and say he should go to hell, because I’m far from perfect myself. And also, it IS freeing to forgive someone who has grieved you even in the most horrific of ways such as this. A brief example – I know a girl who went to Rwanda post-1994 genocide. She stayed with a woman whose daughter had been killed by a member of the other tribe (I can’t remember who was hutu and who was tutsi). Now what I’m about to say next kind of defies belief, but a year or so later, the man who killed the daughter came knocking on the woman’s door looking for shelter – he was wounded or something. Surely she would tell him to rot?! But the mother took the man in and looked after him, and she told my friend she thought of Jesus and prayed for the strength to forgive the man, because she knew her little baby’s soul was in heaven now, with her loving and heavenly father, and she wanted to forgive the killer just as Jesus forgave her all her wrongdoings and as Jesus commanded. Now I kind of cringe at this story too, because how could a loving God allow such a thing to happen, and what kind of mum is she if she didn’t want to avenge her child’s death?! BUT – it’s our old friend free will again – pain like this happens every day, and if God stops this event, he has to stop all evil and they we are as your Alpha guys said “robots”. But, I recall your point – we’ll all be robots in heaven anyway, right? Why didn’t he just stop evil at the beginning, and have us all be perfect creations in heaven and not bother with the earth part? IS this all just a test run? Why bother with the earth part – why not just take our £200 and pass go?

    Well I’m not certain of the answer by any means. Not to repeat all of the (so often ill-thought-out) arguments of your Alpha friends, but maybe it IS just all free will – the chance to decide, because God wants us to love his freely. If God just made us but we were incapable of sinning, then that would be hunkey dorey, right? Maybe. Why bother creating people, just to see if they’ll change their minds and actually decide to love you, when because you’re God and you know it all already, you know they won’t? Like, imagine I didn’t belive, or didn’t feel I could believe – I mean, I didn’t ASK to not be a believer, why would God even create me just to destroy me? Oh boy, do I ever get that argument.

    BUT, I think I’ve reconcilled myself to the belief that if someone is searching, always looking – and that someone has heard of* God, then God is loving and righteous enough to make the right decision when the time comes. Only he knows the extent to which that person knew him and loved him. I think. I hope!

    *cf. people of other faiths or no faith, who have never heard of and understood the Word of God – I’m still not convinced God’s just going to throw them into hell without batting an eyelid…but that’s possibly unbiblical….

    So yes, it’s all VERY interesting. I don’t know why I believe, when there are so many good arguments against belief. Also, my God is a curious creature – his old testament ways seem so much to contradict the Jesus of the new testament. But I know that that comes down to holiness, as your Alpha pals said. God is holy, so we have to be holy to be united with him – he cannot take sin* into himself so it has to be dealt with. Before Jesus came people has to strive and make sacrificed to atone for their sins. It is a mystery, why he dealt with people’s lack of holiness by Jesus. I agree it doesn’t really make sense, especially when you look to what we said about re the man who killed the child not actually being punished, which surely can’t be right. I don’t really think there is a great analogy here – instead I kind of think that God is the creater of the universe and who am I? (Maybe I just have low self-esteem as I think you might have said as an aside in one of your blogs!) He is a mystery, but 10 years ago I took a tentative wee step of faith and said – I don’t really understand all this, but I want to find out more. I’m still learning. But sometimes these weird ‘coincidences’ happen and I laugh to myself because I think what subtle and gentle and loving ways God has of getting my attention! I’m not sure if I’ll ever know and understand it all. Maybe I’m brainwashed and it will turn out that all we’ll ever be is worm food – but something inside me is just screaming ‘NO, that’s not how it is’. But maybe I just don’t WANT that to be how it is! Well, I don’t know – I kind of do want that to be how it is – a depressing thought perhaps, but better that the alternative if there is a hell – plus my life now having no consequences for my life later – ho ho, the fun I might have!

    I jest though, because I truly believe that God’s laws are there for our own good – and that all he wants is for us to have a wonderful, full and rich life now.

    For every argument people make I think there is a “but what about that”, and I suppose so far no argument I’ve read has truly convinced me that God is a fake and a phoney, or that he exists but he’s unloving (just as, I’m guessing, no argument has ever conviced you of the opposite?), because as the ever-smiley Mr Gumble says – I have experienced him. And whilst I concede that’s a very poor argument for trying to PROVE the existence of God to someone who has never experienced him – now that I have come through the other side, I personally couldn’t deny his existence now. How have I experienced him? Small ways, sure. I belive that God is a gentleman – waiting for you invite him in – but I DO believe he’s there. And not in the form of a human in my living room, but in the form of funny little coincidences like I said, or strange kindnesses, or interesting unexpected conversations. Maybe I’m looking too hard. But I don’t think I am – if anything the opposite. Plus remember Moses and the burning bush? God is too holy to appear before me right now – or something like that?

    Sorry this is massive – I hope you don’t mind. Brevity is not a strength if mine.

    Last point – the “new christian” dude saying maybe you’re not believing because you’re talking to Allah?! This is unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst – second guessing God like that – not cool.

    Anyway I think the fact you look down all avenues is awesome, I thank you for these blogs because they’ve given me a lot of food for thought, as I say!

    Comment by Frankie | April 5, 2011

  92. PS Unlike poor Gordon, everyone is encouraged to speak freely at our Alpha! How vexing!

    Comment by Frankie | April 5, 2011

  93. Perhaps Frankie and others will be released from the kind of inner conflicts that he/she describes if they accept to read the Bible less literally. For me the Bible is a clear description of human psychological and religious development. The Adam and Eve story is about the dawn of self-awareness (they realise that they are naked); early ideas about God were about rules and punishment; later, love and compassion came to be understood as the essence of the Creator. Even Jesus was influenced by the existing traditions to talk about evil and Satan; there is really no need for these concepts now that virtually every event can be explained by physics, psychology etc. related to our time/space universe. There seem to be more than this however – but since we are here and surviving so far, what ever else there is seems to be benevolent. It remains for interested and intelligent humans to discover how to relate to the presumed God. Reading the Bible literally, I believe, is an obstacle to progress.

    Comment by Gordon | April 6, 2011

  94. Tomorrow, I’ll be attending a happy lil’ dinner with my Christian friends at my last Alpha Course meeting. Hope they’re not too disappointed I’m still a filthy heathen bastard…

    Thanks for this writeup. It was the inspiration for my attending the course in the first place.

    Comment by MikeTheInfidel | April 18, 2011

  95. Thanks Mike, and good luck with your last evening on the Alpha Course.

    By the way, sorry for the slight delay in approvng your comment. I only got back home to the UK this evening.

    All the best,

    Steve Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | April 19, 2011

  96. I was wondering what you thought of the course. A friend has suggested it as im looking for a constant in my life and have been struggling with things. But wasnt entirely sure if this would help as I havent attended church or believed in anything for some time now.

    Comment by John | May 2, 2011

  97. I’m glad to see, a fair time after the event, that this blog is still up and people like John on May 2 come to it with questions. Although it requires some time to read it all through I think it is a very useful review of one approach to making some sense of life. I have to say, along with Steve I think, that the very dogmatic and restricted path proposed by the Alpha course is not for everyone. On the other hand the message and example of Jesus Christ on how to live life within the hypothesis of a benevolent creator has inspired amazing and admirable lives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is not available to proof, whatever the Alpha course asserts, but I for one hope it is true. A recent book, ‘Spe Salvi’ by the present Pope (a good intellect, despite his conservative biais) points out that hope and faith were once expressions of the same idea but later ‘faith’ came to represent some magical property that was given like a passport to some and not to others. I would say don’t worry too much about ‘belief’; Mother Teresa had doubts but it didn’t stop her carrying on with the hypothesis that it is in the end all worth while.

    Comment by Gordon | May 7, 2011

  98. Have just read this whole blog and was genuinely sad for it to end. Thanks for sharing, Stephen.

    Comment by Andy | May 15, 2011

  99. Hi Stephen,

    I really found your blog interesting and helpful from a Christian point of view, trying to give actual answers and not avoid them. However, I did think that your reasoning was something of a hindrance to yourself. We can’t just say I will only believe something if I understand it 100% can we? If there is a God then we are putting ourselves in his place when we do this. I wonder whether you would watch this 10 minute video that is clear and helpful on this point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qnrJVTSYLr8
    And maybe have a look at this very short blog post and see if you think it is fair? http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/not-enough-evidence?

    Comment by Tim | August 11, 2011

  100. Hi Tim,

    I watched the video and read the short blog entry. Thanks.

    Just out of curiosity, how is my reasoning a hindrance to me? Perhaps you could highlight a particular example so that I’m able to see where you’re coming from. Thanks.

    All the best,

    Stephen Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | August 11, 2011

  101. Hi Stephen

    May I butt in again with a point about evidence. Tim doesn’t accept atheists’ rejection of miracles as evidence. But evidence in a scientific context means being able to corroborate phenomena by independent observation. I don’t think accounts of miracles two thousand years ago qualify, Miraculous healings were attributed to a number of prophets of pagan and other traditions and it is quite possible that this was just a form of expression of the spiritual power of Jesus. The Alpha course is going nowhere in trying to force a fusion of literary tradition and science. On the other hand there is evidence of phenomena that lack rational explanation, such as surviving for years without food or drink (e.g. Marthe Robin) and different kinds of extra sensory perception that point to the likely existence of another dimension of life that doesn’t fit with our physical world.

    In the end it’s a personal choice whether to believe in a remote creator, a loving god, a mere possibility that doesn’t really affect our lives or the unambiguous absence of any of those. In fact there seems to be an inborn disposition, possibly genetic, to adopt one or other of those positions, which makes discussions like this blog particularly difficult. I particularly like the open-minded declaration of a Jesuit that I read recently; it was to the effect that he is happy to have spent his life believing in god but if it is proved that god does not exist he will not consider it to be his fault but god’s for not existing.

    Gordon

    Comment by Gordon | August 11, 2011

  102. Hi Stephen, thanks for watching the video, reading the blog and replying to me!

    I’m actually not really sure what Gordon is getting at here but never mind. I’ve actually seen miraculous healings very recently (people who have even had ‘miracle healing’ written on hospital reports) so I’m not trying to make a point about a dead book and a pagan God but what I believe to be a very living God. But I can’t make out what Gordon is saying, he may not even be disagreeing with that!
    Anyway
    What I meant about your reasoning was sort of what Francis Chan said in the video. I remember in one of your blogs you made some comments about how God seems more evil and bullyish than loving- letting children die in their thousands in some parts of the OT. But you are reasoning from your human perspective. I understand – as Francis Chan does in the video – that this seems horrific. But we aren’t God. When we say ‘He CAN’T do that’ we are putting ourselves in his place and assuming that our reasoning is superior.
    The other point is that, as I’m sure you’ve read, Paul the apostle says in Romans 1:19- 20 that “19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
    When we reason without submitting to God we reason like this ‘I will only be content that there is a God when God shows himself the way I want him to’ Therefore we are asking him to stop being God, to be lower than us. In Romans 1 Paul is saying we are all without excuse because God has already made himself known. If that revelation is not good enough for us then that is because we are unwilling to believe, not because God needs to ‘step up’. I understand I am coming from a biblical viewpoint and not a philosophical one or a secular humanist one so I don’t expect this to convert you but I thought it may help somewhat, and hopefully it will give you something of a clearer Christian viewpoint other than, ‘please stop saying things we can’t handle!’ ;)
    At the same time, I do believe that Christianity is reasonable as in you can actually argue for the existence of a God through science and creation. Science and God are far from mutually exclusive as some people would argue. (Look up William Lane Craig and John Lennox arguments for examples of Christians who argue scientifically for God) Not to mention Historical arguments – which are how the Alpha course approaches it I think.
    And yet again Christianity is totally unreasonable – that God himself would be tortured, spat on, mocked, betrayed, and killed, taking God the Father’s wrath against sin, so that any of us could walk into freedom and righteousness. But that is what he has done – that’s not reasonable- it’s certainly not how we would have done it anyway!

    I’m grateful for your attempt at fair and balanced reasoning and that you respect Christianity somewhat and Christians. Even as I write I am aware of how easily people can feel patronised when the person they are talking with is just trying to help and answer questions. I’m grateful that you never take that stance. Thank you. Like I said before, it is extremely helpful to hear your point of view. I found it a real challenge when I read about the ‘words of knowledge’ and how they are so generic. The new testament church received the power of the HS and really moved in power. I believe that power is still available to us, and you are right, if it is real, we shouldn’t be content with airy fairy but should be asking God for more.

    Thanks again, Tim

    Comment by Tim | August 12, 2011

  103. Hi Tim,

    Tim said, “What I meant about your reasoning was sort of what Francis Chan said in the video. I remember in one of your blogs you made some comments about how God seems more evil and bullyish than loving- letting children die in their thousands in some parts of the OT. But you are reasoning from your human perspective.”
    Obviously I’m reasoning from a human perspective, for I can reason from no other. I must say, I don’t really understand how I am supposed to reason from the perspective of an entity which I have no reason for believing to exist in the first place. Perhaps you can explain how this makes any sense. Thanks.

    Tim said, “The other point is that, as I’m sure you’ve read, Paul the apostle says in Romans 1:19- 20 that “19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”” If that revelation is not good enough for us then that is because we are unwilling to believe, not because God needs to ‘step up’.
    I’m not quite sure how we are supposedly without excuse to doubt that the Christian God created the universe and everything within it. Maybe I’m missing something here. As it stands at the moment, I just don’t see it. So, if I may ask, what is so strikingly obvious that demonstrates the Christian God did any of this?

    Tim said, “I’m grateful for your attempt at fair and balanced reasoning and that you respect Christianity somewhat and Christians. Even as I write I am aware of how easily people can feel patronised when the person they are talking with is just trying to help and answer questions. I’m grateful that you never take that stance. Thank you.”
    And thank you, too, for your polite approach.

    All the best,

    Stephen Butterfield

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | August 12, 2011

  104. Hi Tim
    I’m sorry I was less than clear on the question on evidence. I was in principle responding to the point in the whatyouthinkmatters blog that you cited; there the atheists are chided for not accepting the evidence of miracles in the gospels. You appear now not to be relying on those reports but cite instead more recent unexplained cures and accept that they are evidence of the voluntary intervention of God in human individual lives. I remain sceptical; we just do not understand enough about the mind and the body, or indeed about our environment, to be able to say why such things happen. I also fail to see the point of divine interventions in favour of some and not others. I recall a cleric being furious with one person who had just avoided having a nasty accident and ascribed his survival to having a holy medal in the car; indeed if he was saved through intervention of the deity one is tempted to conclude that all other misfortunes are willed by that deity.

    I looked at the video of Francis Chan and can only agree with him that the purposes of the creator of the universe are not going to be readily understood by a human brain in it’s current evolutionary state. But from there to accepting that the same creator has also designed a system of everlasting torture sounds to me all too anthropomorphic. A deity who is perfect must have perfect understanding, compassion and forgiveness in which there can be no place for such a vengeful construction. I think that a number of blind alleys are created by literal readings of the Bible, which is essentially a record of the evolution of religious thought: in the beginning God was indeed thought of as an angry fearsome being, later as introducing love and justice and finally in the Gospels as pure compassion. I have in addition little use for the Apocalypse, cited by Chan, a poetic work full of violent imagery: many Christian traditions decline to accept it as part of their teaching.

    Gordon

    Comment by Gordon Fraser | August 12, 2011

  105. Hi Stephen, thanks for this blog, as an Alpha Course organiser it’s really helpful to hear such honesty, sometimes our guests in their politeness don’t always give us the full message of their feedback, so this is refreshing and insightful. Thank you.

    Comment by Simon Thomas | March 15, 2012

  106. Hi Simon,

    Thanks for your nice comments.

    Good luck with your future courses.

    All the best,

    Stephen

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | March 15, 2012

  107. [...] Christian doctrine is accepted regardless. For example, here’s an extract from the final session which includes a typically protracted discussion of evil and free will. The long-standing male [...]

    Pingback by One Man’s Experience Of The Alpha Course | BridgingSchisms.org | March 25, 2012

  108. Hi Stephen, I came across your blog as part of a research project I’ve been doing on the Alpha Course. It was very useful, thanks. However, there was one point I was unsure of. You refer to the lack of external contemporaneous sources re Jesus, but surely there are no sources in existence from that period at all? The Alpha course points out that the earliest New Testament fragment only originates from about 130. The lack of external references to zombies in Jerusalem etc only shows that the sources werent maintained, not that they never existed. Of course they may never have existed, but their lack doesnt seem to me to be evidence of frailty in the New Testament record – which you seem to assert. Isnt that a glaring flaw in your argument?

    Comment by Pete | June 19, 2012

  109. Hi Pete,

    I think you’ve misunderstood the point I made about the lack of extra-biblical, contemporaneous sources. From your comment above, it would seem that you think that I am arguing that there should be some original documents from that period in existence today. However, that’s not what I’m arguing.

    A contemporaneous source is an account (copy or otherwise) from someone that lived during the lifetime of Jesus. My point is that we have no such account (copy or otherwise).

    All the best,

    Stephen.

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | June 20, 2012

  110. Sorry for not making myself clear. My point is that the absence of contemporaneous documents, does not show there werent any around at the time (or even for hundreds of years after). There is no good reason why there couldnt have been many references that simply werent kept or copied. (I’m not saying that it proves there must have been such sources, just that there’s no reason why there couldnt have been).
    Rgds

    Comment by Pete | June 20, 2012

  111. Hi Pete,

    An important point: No one is saying that there couldn’t have been accounts in existence that have since been lost.

    But here’s 3 quick questions for you:

    1: What good reason would you have for believing that contemporaneous accounts did exist (not that they could have existed) and that they have since been lost?

    2: If, as you say, such accounts could have existed for hundreds of years after the event but were then lost, why is it that in all of these hundreds of years we have no record whatsoever of anyone even refering to these hypothetical accounts? Not a single mention anywhere in the historical record. (Would you really want to argue that all of these references were coincidentally lost too?)

    3: If such contemporaneous accounts really did exist, and considering how important they would be for supporting the Christian claim, why did God fail to keep them preserved?

    I’d be interested to hear your response to these questions. Thanks.

    All the best,

    Stephen.

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | June 20, 2012

  112. Hi Stephen, thanks for your invitation for a response.
    You did make quite a point that the lack of a single extra-biblical contemporaneous source indicates the unreliability of the New Testament accounts. However, as you accept, the lack of sources is not necessarily evidence that the events didnt occur, simply that the sources dont exist. The absence of contemporaneous sources therefore has no relevance to the reliability of the NT accounts. If you wanted to argue from lack of sources, you could just as well argue that there are no contemporaneous sources that disagree with the NT record, therefore it is very reliable.

    As regards to your questions though, I’m happy to suggest some answers:
    1. First Century people obviously didnt write down as much as we do now, but those that were literate did write. Documents from that period are extremely rare, so it is safe to assume that large quantities of texts have been lost. Why shouldnt some of those lost texts include references to the events recorded in the NT?

    2. What kind of sources are we talking about? There wasnt a historian on every street corner. Lets say that there was an educated merchant in Jerusalem who witnessed some neighbor, who had died, return from the dead (on the day of the crucifixion). As a result he writes a letter to a colleague in Rome. That would be a great primary source, but why would it be kept or referred to later? At the time it was a bit of a story to marvel about down the forum, soon to be forgotten and the letter used as a fire lighter. Even assuming that such sources were kept, for posterity, say until Rome fell a few centuries later, why would such a inconsequential source be commented on when the Christian texts (Gospels, letters, commentaries et al) were more detailed and more public?
    You refer to there being no mention in “the historical record”, but there is barely a “historical record” about any events (Christian-related or otherwise) in that period. If there were vast amounts of extra-biblical historical records and not a single one contained a corroborative account, then, I would agree, it would be suspicious. But that’s not the case. The ancient Christian writings were kept and copied because they were so important to the early Christians, other ancient documents werent kept. Simple as that, no far-fetched coincidences. The latter may have contained references to NT events. I’m not saying that they did or didnt – we’ll never know – but there’s no reason why they couldnt have.

    3. Firstly, I’d want to say that me guessing why God does anything is a bit like a microbe hypothesising about the galaxy, and, even then, I’m exaggerating the microbe’s relative size. But secondly, I’d argue that, although you are saying they are so important as corroborative evidence, Nicky Gumbel and the folks on your course evidently dont see it like that. They were quite happy to accept the biblical accounts as true, despite your efforts to convince them of their ignorance :) . They, and presumably the other millions of Christians over the centuries, dont think the Chrisian claim needs supporting. In addition, the Alpha course points out, early on, the historical veracity of the Bible. For myself, as a historian, I also find these claims more than sufficient. Even if you believe there is a God who controls history to that extent (which I’m not sure is the case for many Christians), then there is no need to believe He would need to keep such additional sources,when He has done such a good job of maintaining the Bible.

    Rgds
    Pete

    Comment by Pete | June 22, 2012

  113. Hi Pete,

    I’ll highlight some of your comments and respond to them below:

    “… as you accept, the lack of sources is not necessarily evidence that the events didnt occur, simply that the sources dont exist.”
    The sources don’t exist, that’s right (which is the point I’ve made all along). And yes, as we agree, this is not necessarily evidence that the events didn’t occur, but let’s imagine just for a moment, if you will, that these events didn’t actually occur: Would we expect a complete silence about such alleged events from contemporaneous sources? Yes, of course. And, interestingly enough, a complete silence is precisely what we’ve got.

    ”What kind of sources are we talking about?”
    The kind of sources that chronicled all the other major events that occurred in the 1st century. A few quick examples off the top of my head would be Paterculus describing the Roman massacre in the Teutoburg Forest, Josephus writing about the fall of Jerusalem, or Pliny’s account of the catastrophic eruption of Mount Vesuvius. These events, though incredibly important, pale in to insignificance compared to God himself coming to earth, walking among us, performing miracles, rising from the dead and flying up to heaven sometime in the first half of the 1st century AD. This event, if true, is the biggest event in world history. Is it not? Yet no contemporary source saw fit to give it even a passing mention. It seems to have gone completely unnoticed. That doesn’t trouble you?

    ”Lets say that there was an educated merchant in Jerusalem who witnessed some neighbor, who had died, return from the dead (on the day of the crucifixion). As a result he writes a letter to a colleague in Rome.
    Let’s say this neighbour of his was God himself. Imagine that! God dying then rising from the dead, and this chap saw it all and wrote about it. A contemporaneous account that supports the biblical claim. That would be lovely.

    “That would be a great primary source, but why would it be kept or referred to later?”
    Well, let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that the events described in the letter would have to be believed by people of future generations, and that failure to believe that such events actually occurred would be a punishable offence. In fact, the punishment would be worse than death. Imagine the horror! If this was the case, why wouldn’t the letter be kept or referred to later? Surely it must be kept and must be referred to.

    “At the time it was a bit of a story to marvel about down the forum, soon to be forgotten and the letter used as a fire lighter.”
    Why is it that the written accounts of other (less important) events of the 1st century weren’t soon forgotten and used as fire lighters?

    ”Even assuming that such sources were kept, for posterity, say until Rome fell a few centuries later, why would such a inconsequential source be commented on when the Christian texts (Gospels, letters, commentaries et al) were more detailed and more public?”
    I’m having difficulty trying to fathom out how you would consider potential contemporaneous, extra-biblical support for the life and deeds of Jesus to be nothing more than “inconsequential”. If it didn’t matter if we believed or not then what you’re suggesting wouldn’t be a problem. It isn’t an offence to doubt that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, that Ovid was exiled by Augustus, or that Nero kicked his wife to death. We have evidence to support all of these claims but people are free not to believe them. There’s nothing wrong with that. But what if people had to believe these three claims or face an eternity of torture? Don’t you think the quality and quantity of evidence would have to be exceptionally good? So good in fact that no reasonable person could doubt it? Yes, of course. But this isn’t the case with some of the most important claims about Jesus. The evidence is simply not of that quality, unfortunately.

    … “I’d argue that, although you are saying they [contemporaneous, extra-biblical accounts] are so important as corroborative evidence, Nicky Gumbel and the folks on your course evidently dont see it like that.”
    Conveniently so, yes.

    ”They were quite happy to accept the biblical accounts as true… They, and presumably the other millions of Christians over the centuries, dont think the Christian claim needs supporting.”
    The worrying thing is, they can say that with a straight face. The claim, they say, doesn’t even need supporting yet it is, they say, the epitome of perfect justice to eternally torture anyone who doubts it.

    Madness.

    Thanks Pete.

    All the best,

    Stephen

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | June 25, 2012

  114. Hi Stephen
    It’s very refreshing to see your mammoth work of a few years ago to throw light on the content of the Alpha course still attracting interest. I tend to share your view that the attempt by the course to treat all the events related in the New Testament as fact and substantiable is doomed. One possible reason is that the compilers of the different documents that we call the NT were in fact working independently (although clearly drawing in part on common sources) and were already drawing together all the useful information they could about the life and death of Jesus. The only author who claims he was there was John, writing in Patmos, paradoxically later than the others, and he was a mystic whose writing is not easy to decipher. Paul was the first of the extant authors to write and this was in letters to dispersed communities around 20 or 30 years after the crucifixion. Luke in the Acts describes how Paul attended the stoning to death of Stephen, one of Jesus’s disciples, and approved the act, only having remorse hit him some time later.

    The other possible reason for lack of news spreading beyond a small initial group is that objectively the events that occurred were not that newsworthy. There was a huge amount of foment in the Jewish population at the time. A number of Galileans could be massacred by the Roman soldiers just to show an example, and a tower could fall on 18 of them without causing a stir. The events were also not newsworthy if they just were about some miracle man in the teeming popular quarters. Paul had not met him. We are left with the impression that, by our standards, there may have been more than a certain amount of exaggeration in the telling.of events like miracles, although it is clear that if Jesus was as wonderful as his followers believed, he probably did have exceptional gifts of healing and understanding. And if they had visions of him after his crucifixion, this is not impossible to believe.

    The reason why I think the Alpha course is a mistake is that it obscures the value of the teaching of Jesus, who took the beautiful but strangely blinkered religious culture based on the Torah and showed a new way forward. Instead, the course, like much of mainstream Christianity since Constantine, presents a literal reading of the NT, which is as futile as a creationist reading of the Old Testament.

    Best wishes

    Gordon

    Comment by Gordon | June 26, 2012

  115. Hi Stephen, we may end up agreeing to disagree, but let me just come back on one point. You dismiss my point that the NT evidence is more than sufficient for Nicky Gumbel and millions of other Christians, with the inference that “well they would say that because they’re Christians”. But, if you take the example of Gumbel, he explains, in the Alpha talks, how he was a well-educated and antagonistic non-believer, who then became convinced of the truth of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Your basic premise that the historical evidence is inadequate for most reasonable people is based on the fact it is not adequate for you. I’m sure you are a fairly intelligent guy, but I presume you are not claiming you are more intelligent than every person in the world who ever converted to Christianity. Just to clarify, I’m not saying that the existence of well-educated Christians, such as Gumbel, proves anything. Merely that many non-believers over the centuries have been convinced of the Christian message based on the evidence placed in front of them.

    Ps. Evidently written accounts of less important events of the First Century were used as firelighters (or whatever) as we dont have a wealth of such sources (as we already agreed, I thought).

    Rgds
    Pete

    Comment by Pete | July 4, 2012

  116. Hi Pete,

    “… Gumbel… explains, in the Alpha talks, how he was a well-educated and antagonistic non-believer, who then became convinced of the truth of the death and resurrection of Jesus.”
    Well-educated, intelligent people can believe all sorts of things, even things that are supported by weak evidence and/or poor arguments. We are all aware of the fact that highly educated individuals, people with PhD’s, have relatively recently slammed aeroplanes in to skyscrapers at 500mph, convinced they were to be rewarded, after death, with 72 virgins in a magical, invisible realm. Does the fact that these people were well-educated lend any support to their beliefs being true? Of course not. So why should Gumbel’s intelligence be regarded as some sort of reliable indicator to his beliefs being true? The simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t.

    “… I’m sure you are a fairly intelligent guy, but I presume you are not claiming you are more intelligent than every person in the world who ever converted to Christianity.”
    That’s right, that’s not what I’m claiming.

    “… many non-believers over the centuries have been convinced of the Christian message based on the evidence placed in front of them.”
    I refer you to the first sentence of the answer that I gave to your first comment.

    “… Evidently written accounts of less important events of the First Century were used as firelighters (or whatever) as we dont have a wealth of such sources (as we already agreed, I thought).”
    My point was that we have written accounts from 1st century, contemporary sources about all manner of things. The fact that we have such accounts means that they weren’t “forgotten about and used as firelighters”, obviously. However, according to you, contemporary accounts of the most important event in human history, if indeed they ever existed at all, were most probably cast in to the flames and erased from memory altogether.

    A bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

    All the best,

    Stephen

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | July 5, 2012

  117. Thanks for this article. It seems to me that the biggest problem with evangelical christianity is that it does not recognise the activity of God in those outside the group. Hence the comment on those helping charities as jumping on the bandwagon.

    Comment by gordonhudsonnu | July 18, 2012

  118. It’s a problem with most religions, in fact. If there is a God who created the universe and has some sort of reason for it and is consequenty favourably disposed to us, there can ony be one such God as far as we are concerned. Whether you call it Allah, Yahveh or Universal Spirit, it is completely illogical to ask such a deity only to bless America, or sanction only charity done in the name of Jesus or the Buddha or whatever. The Bible is an account of the growing of religious understanding and referring back to a God who is going to smite my enemies (other humans) is no more helpful than insisting on a six-day creation of the Universe. That said, I believe Jesus was on the right lines and worth following. Despite the Alpha course, there are plenty of Christians with a more liberal philosophical view.

    Gordon

    Comment by Gordon Fraser | July 18, 2012

  119. I have no idea how you remained so patient with these people, especially some of those who have commented here, in the face of their breathtaking ability to ignore reality and rely on texts which at best contradict themselves and at worst present evil on a scale any supernatural being which has been imagined by man would struggle to compete with.

    It does confirm House’s opinion that if it were possible to reason with religious people there would be no religious people. At least we know House is an imaginary character but he does have the advantage over their imaginary characters of saying things which not only make sense but are borne out by the evidence of experience.

    Comment by Yiam Cross | October 15, 2012

  120. Many thanks for all your tireless work, humour and insight you brought to your time in Alpha – a riveting read that I read in one whole go and probably the best analytical deconstruction on Christianity I have ever read. It stimulated me to read around your sources, look at a lot if Nicky Gumbel videos (to be honest I him and a lot of his fellow Alpha converts a little cultish and inhuman) and I’ve passed it onto my brother who was equally enriched by the same reading experience. Would love to read your other experiences you touch upon in your comments (Jehova Witnessess) and would love to see you producing a book at some point. Simply brilliant – and many many thanks.

    Kind regards

    Ian

    Comment by Ian | April 26, 2013

  121. Thanks for your kind words, Ian. Nice to hear that you and your brother enjoyed the review.

    Best wishes,

    Steve.

    Comment by Stephen Butterfield | April 27, 2013


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: