Sad on many levels...

Thanks for the article. I enjoyed reading it. It brings to light many questions that "Christians" are too afraid to ask and many ideals too intrinsic to apologetics to question.

The key part of the article is her confession that "She enjoys her freedom." In truth.... she isn't really free. There is a danger in training unregenerate peoples to be "Christians". As much as we like to ignore it. Our children will one day make their own choices. Too often we are so focuses on an intellectual understanding of our God.... that we lose what it means to actual get to "know" Him personally.

She has another huge problem. A problem that many have today. She "thinks" she knows all there is to know about "God". What she "thinks" she knows.... has lead her to reject the very "idea" of God. In truth, she only formed an "idol" in her mind of God. The god she rejected is just a figment of her imagination. An "idol" of imagination.

I honestly and truly believe, that when a person truly comes to God, that person comes with no perceived ideals. That person abandons what they believe to embrace God as He IS. The best thing a person can do is just admit to themselves they don't know God. She has impugned the very character of God. God is who He IS. Not what we think He IS. 
 
I was really baffled by the article and I'm glad you posted it.  My first thought was my own kids.  I think often of how I would handle it if my children rejected Christ and chose a lifestyle that I am opposed to.  I know it is a possibility, and articles like this reinforce that idea.
The second thing I thought of as I read the article is that this girl has no concept of grace.  She has been brought to an understanding of the law and holiness, and she sees herself as a sinner, but she seemed to be totally missing the point that Christ forgives our sins.  She's been brought down but not back up.
As a pastor, I see families handle this both ways.  Some parents want to cut off their errant children and some love the fire out of them without approving of their lifestyle.  Personally, I'd hope I could be the second type of parent.  (and I'm not saying that in judgment of the Slick's.  I don't know their situation.)
Thanks again for posting the article, gave me a lot to ponder this morning.
 
I call BS on this author.  She said she abandoned the faith because she couldn't reconcile the fact that some things were wrong in the Old Testament but not wrong in the New?  When given a perfectly logical explanation she rejected it and therefore completely abandoned Christianity and is now an atheist.  That's a load of crap.  She's not being honest about the real reasons for her "deconversion"




 
Rachel Slick said:
I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off [her friend Alex], and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Alex had no answer — and I realized I didn’t either.
Click to expand...

As Stephen said . . . BS!

There is an answer to her unanswerable question. It's not glib, in fact it's fairly complicated; and, of course, it's completely commonsensical.  Some of the moral teaching of the Bible transcends time, location, and culture, such as the rules against murder or idolatry. Some of it is intended for a particular time, place, and culture - for example, the ceremonial laws dealing with Temple sacrifice and so forth.

The trick is to actually study the Bible, to figure out which category a particular rule falls into. This, of course, requires homework.

And, of course, there's no contradiction between an "absolutely moral" God and some laws having a limited scope. That's nothing but an assumption on her part, that if God is absolutely moral, all of God's laws must have a universal and eternal application.

This is just another form of the same "stumper" question skeptics like to throw at Christians: if you truly believe the Bible, why don't you abstain from shellfish, stone your children for disobedience, or wear clothing woven of only one kind of fibre?  I was just remarking to a Facebook friend last night that even though there's an obvious answer to this question, it seems as though the skeptics get a free pass on it, all too often.

I don't believe I've posted my quickie hermeneutics study on moral theology on this forum yet. Maybe I will, once I'm at home and I have access to my notes again.
 
Stephen said:
I call BS on this author.  She said she abandoned the faith because she couldn't reconcile the fact that some things were wrong in the Old Testament but not wrong in the New?  When given a perfectly logical explanation she rejected it and therefore completely abandoned Christianity and is now an atheist.  That's a load of crap.  She's not being honest about the real reasons for her "deconversion"
Click to expand...

She does actually admit to the honest reason for her rebellion against God later in the piece:



For a long time I couldn’t have sex with my boyfriend (of over a year by this point) without crippling guilt. I had anxiety that I was going to Hell. I felt like I was standing upon glass, and, though I knew it was safe, every time I glanced down I saw death.
Click to expand...



Someone once asked me if I would trade in my childhood for another, if I had the chance, and my answer was no, not for anything.
 My reason is that, without that childhood, I wouldn’t understand what freedom truly is — freedom from a life centered around obedience and submission, freedom to think anything, freedom from guilt and shame, freedom from the perpetual heavy obligation to keep every thought pure. Nothing I’ve ever encountered in my life has been so breathtakingly beautiful. 


Freedom is my God now, and I love this one a thousand times more than I ever loved the last one.
Click to expand...

She is now FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE to sin as much as she wishes and never feel the least bit bad about it.  She loves her new god, freedom to sin, 1000 times more than she ever loved the only true and living God.
 
If there's one silver lining in this cloud of darkness, it is that she has openly renounced her faith and made her apostasy from the church clear.  I say that's a "silver lining" because myriads of people hang on to some faint remnant of Christianity, living their lives in hyprocisy and practical atheism.

It's tempting to arm-chair quarterback and suggest ways that things could have turned out differently-- but I would bet that the thorough training she received as a child had something to do with goading her out the door and making her unbelief visible.  IOW, she couldn't escape the antithesis.  She either had to declare herself for Jesus or against Him.
 
Reformed Guy said:
If there's one silver lining in this cloud of darkness, it is that she has openly renounced her faith and made her apostasy from the church clear.  I say that's a "silver lining" because myriads of people hang on to some faint remnant of Christianity, living their lives in hyprocisy and practical atheism.

It's tempting to arm-chair quarterback and suggest ways that things could have turned out differently-- but I would bet that the thorough training she received as a child had something to do with goading her out the door and making her unbelief visible.  IOW, she couldn't escape the antithesis.  She either had to declare herself for Jesus or against Him.
Click to expand...

Or at least the "Jesus" she was introduced to in her childhood. Another silver lining in this cloud is that God will save those He chooses, and nothing yet precludes her from still answering His call...and apparently, she still feels something about the things of God.

I would also add that it appears from the article that her father was more interested in teaching her correct doctrine than in how to love others...and last time I checked, we aren't Christians because of what we know but because of love, both God's and ours (as a reflection of His).
 
rsc2a said:
Reformed Guy said:
If there's one silver lining in this cloud of darkness, it is that she has openly renounced her faith and made her apostasy from the church clear.  I say that's a "silver lining" because myriads of people hang on to some faint remnant of Christianity, living their lives in hyprocisy and practical atheism.

It's tempting to arm-chair quarterback and suggest ways that things could have turned out differently-- but I would bet that the thorough training she received as a child had something to do with goading her out the door and making her unbelief visible.  IOW, she couldn't escape the antithesis.  She either had to declare herself for Jesus or against Him.
Click to expand...

Or at least the "Jesus" she was introduced to in her childhood. Another silver lining in this cloud is that God will save those He chooses, and nothing yet precludes her from still answering His call...and apparently, she still feels something about the things of God.

I would also add that it appears from the article that her father was more interested in teaching her correct doctrine than in how to love others...and last time I checked, we aren't Christians because of what we know but because of love, both God's and ours (as a reflection of His).
Click to expand...

He should have taught her to howl at the moon.
 
Most of the things I noted when reading it have already been mentioned.  It sounds possible that dad was big on apologetics/debate but lacking in the relationship-building department, but, it also sounds like her carnality caught up to her.  She admits she likes her "freedom" to sin, and Romans 1 bears that out for all pagans.  They suppress and can't handle the truth (said in my best Jack Nicholson voice :D).  She's simply making excuses, and has made herself to be god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top