Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains [Paperback]

John W. Loftus (Author)

Book Description

Release date: June 30, 2006

How have I gone from being a defender of Christianity to an atheist? That is the question of this book. I was a Christian apologist set for the express purpose of defending Christianity from intellectual attacks. I was not afraid of any idea, because I was convinced that Christianity was true and could withstand all attacks. Now I turn that same intellectual muscle into questioning the things I formerly defended.

There are three major experiences that happened in my life that changed my thinking. They all happened in the space of about five years, from 1991-1996. They are: 1) A major crisis, 2) plus information, 3) minus a sense of a loving, caring, Christian community. For me it was an assault of major proportions that if I still believed in the devil would say it was orchestrated by the legions of hell.

Afterward I began to doubt the very things I had previously argued for. You see, I knew most of the arguments against Christianity, and as a philosophy instructor in a secular college I could debate both sides of most any argument. Anyway, I have told people time and time again that I could teach philosophy until I was blue in the face so long as I knew I had a loving, caring, and faithful Christian community to fall back on after my class is over. When that fell through the floor, the doubts crept in my life.

As the doubts crept in, my life changed, and so did my thinking. This book shares both the experiences that changed my life, and focuses on the ideas that I now reject. It is a look at Christianity from an insider's perspective from start to finish.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

I graduated from Great Lakes Bible College, Lansing Michigan, in 1977. Afterwards I became the Associate Minister under Eddie Bratton in Kalkaska, Michigan, for two years. Then I attended Lincoln Christian Seminary, Lincoln, IL, and graduated in 1982 with M.A. and M.Div. degrees, under the mentoring of Dr. James D. Strauss. After this I attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and graduated in 1985 with a Th.M degree, under the mentoring of Dr. William Lane Craig. I also took classes at Marquette University in a Ph.D. program with a double major in Philosophy and Ethics, but didn't finish. At Marquette I studied with Dr. Ron Feenstra, Dr. Marc Greisbach, and Dr. Daniel MaGuire. I have taught extension classes for Lincoln Christian College, Lincoln, IL, and I taught for Great Lakes Christian College, Lansing, Michigan, for the College of Lake County, in Grayslake, IL, for Tri-State University, Angola, IN, and for Kellogg Community College, Battle Creek, ! MI. I was in the "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" in 1996.

From December of 1987 to December of 1990 I was the Senior Minister of the Angola Christian Church, Angola, IN, and for a year was the President of the Steuben County Ministerial Association. Before that I had several ministries in Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. I was in the ministry for about fourteen years, or so, and wrote many articles for the Christian weekly magazine, The Christian Standard.

Product Details

• Paperback: 280 pages
• Publisher: Trafford Publishing (June 30, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1412076811
• ISBN-13: 978-1412076814
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (34 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,612,160 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

John W. Loftus is the "Debunking Christianity" Blog founder and author of "Why I Became An Atheist." Be sure to get the most recent 2012 edition, which replaces "Why I Rejected Christianity," a self-published book. He is the author of "The Outsider Test for Faith," and the editor of two books, "The Christian Delusion," and "The End of Christianity." John also co-wrote a debate book with Dr. Randal Rauser, "God or Godless." His self-published book, "Why I became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments," contains chapters not to be found in his books or Blog.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

65 of 82 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Delves far deeper than most similar texts. June 26, 2007

By Greg

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

John W. Loftus' book is a great read for anyone confused by Christianity's many contradictions. As a former paster himself, Loftus' position lends extra credibility to his conclusions.

Here are four reasons why this book is superior to many similar texts:

1. Loftus is well-read in the Christian apologist realm, and he cites these authors' works frequently. Anyone in the "Zondervan school of thought" will quickly become comfortable in his context, even if he/she is in total disagreement with his point.

2. The book reads without even a hint of condescending tone towards his former faith. It is obvious that the man is simply sincere, and he resorts to no personal attacks on any level. This is more than can be said of most current atheist authors.

3. The level of research and brutal logic applied to the Bible is absolutely stunning, as is the sheer number of examples given. Loftus mentions several of the most popular Biblical contradictions, but goes much further, offering evidence that even many simple Bible stories defy logic.

4. There is "no stone unturned", as Loftus takes on nearly every apologist angle ever conceived. Science vs. religion debate? It's here. ID people knocking on your door? Read this book. Historical evidence issues? Loftus tackles them head-on.

On the back cover, the book is critiqued by Dr. James Sennett, who is credited as a Christian philosopher and author. One of Dr. Sennett's quotes (taken out of context here) is, "Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe."

This book will give more insight into this "scholarly unbelief" than you ever thought possible.

99 of 128 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars What we've always suspected... December 28, 2006

By A Customer

Format:Paperback

I presume many Christians will react to this book with "rantings and tantrums" since it always hurts deeper when one who has been there, comes back to tell it like it is. Having been a believing Christian myself and finally seeing the light, that Christianity is no different than any other religious myths that went before it, I can empathize with the author. Loftus gives a very personal account of his road to de-conversion and presents some very powerful arguments to expose the intellectual bankruptency of Christian beliefs specifically and theistic beliefs in general. He clearly shows how trying to have "a relationship" with an imaginary supernatural being only fulfills a delusion supported by pure slight of mind. Loftus provides a substantial number of references to support his journey from supernaturalism to freedom. He was a true believer who had clearly read the Bible numerous times and finally came away with his original delusions shattered and reality clearly in front of him. I hope this book will lead others from their religious supernatural bonds to freedom. Its about time we examined religion with rational thinking. I recommend that after reading this book you take the next step and also read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

199 of 262 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A Review of "Why I Rejected Christianity" December 3, 2006

By Joe E. Holman

Format:Paperback

The trend is growing. More and more often nowadays we are hearing about Christian preachers walking out of their pulpits, away from lives of privilege and honor, leaving the fold of God. Emerging from different sects of Christianity, these ex-ministers are observed to defect for strikingly similar reasons. When they let us into their lives to see why they forsook their lord and master, we see that virtually all of them found Christianity to be evidentially problematic, if not patently false.

In 1963, a young Church of Christ preacher by the name of Farrell Till left the faith. A number of years later, he became quite outspoken against his former religion in a publication he founded known as The Skeptical Review. Then in 1984, Dan Barker appeared on the scene, a former Assembly of God preacher and graduate of Azusa Pacific University. After leaving Christianity, he joined the Freedom from Religion Foundation where he is now co-president, and in 1992 published his account of the desertion entitled, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist.

As of 1997, another name has been thrown into the hat of unbelievers, John W. Loftus. Like myself, Loftus was a Church of Christ minister and graduate of several Christian colleges and seminaries. Making John even more unique to the already exceptional caste of minister-turned-atheist is his education at the feet of renowned Christian apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig. Craig is best known for his work and defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and is viewed as a "Big Gun" in the world of Christian-atheist debate.... Having spent a number of years as a seeker, a mere doubter of Christianity, Loftus now openly rejects his former theistic belief system and has declared why in this work, Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains.

Says Loftus, "I was a Christian apologist with several Master's Degrees set for the express purpose of defending Christianity from intellectual attacks." Was he successful? Could Christianity be successfully defended from the attacks of her systematically versatile secular critics? What was his conclusion after years of preaching and fighting for the faith? "I am now an atheist," John says. Why? Because the arguments in support of Christianity "just weren't there, period." (p. 8)

Having left the ministry myself, I can personally relate to many of John's struggles as a Christian minister. I have endured some fine ones in my time, plus the painful dregs of resurfacing doubts that just wouldn't go away all throughout my Christian years. Any Christian-turned-heretic can confirm that eventually, all such doubts terminate in unbelief, and this only after a long and agonizing de-conversion process--right up there in intensity with a divorce or a death in the family. Just ask any apostate who has gone through the ordeal!

In one word...

For a little while now, I have been acquainted with John and have found him to be an upstanding individual. It's not everyday you learn about someone with the courage and love of self-honesty to turn their back on a cherished belief system. John stepped up to the plate by being willing to follow his heart (and his mind) wherever it led him. It led him right out of Christianity!

If I had just one word to describe John, it would be "noble." It doesn't require much of one's self to gloat in personal positives, but it does require a lot of conviction to expound on the negatives. John is noble and humble to share some less than flattering things about himself in his journey out of Christianity. One word describing John's book would be "rich," as every chapter is tightly packed with loads of qualitative information.

Style...

The overall writing style of the book is decent, while the format is at least tolerable, being tiresome on the eyes at times. The outline breakdown of content makes for a somewhat fragmented read with underlined text, bold-faced type, repeated indentations, and tabbed paragraphs not exactly aiding the "lazy eye" along. Incredibly lengthy source quotations and thick paragraphs of book recommendations can be distracting at places, but after reading a few chapters, this begins to seem less obstructive.

A number of writers make the understandable mistake of writing in an outline style, assuming that accented lines of text make for an easier read, when in fact just the opposite is the case. The eye is not only lazy, but prefers simplicity and uniformity. A traditional chapter layout would have proved more accommodating for the reader. But these are merely cosmetic critiques. I now move on to more important matters.

Content...

The book's central strength lies in it's information-rich content. In truth, a person could spend quite a long time following up on John's sources and recommended reading materials. There is a tremendous well of knowledge here. The work is chock-full of great information with one major theme underlying it all; the supporting "facts," the cardinal pillars of Christianity, cannot be rescued from unrelenting, submerging doubt--even if one happens to find belief in Christianity viable. Cause for serious skepticism is everywhere lurking. The major tenants of Christianity, the "core doctrines" at the heart of the faith, are shaky at best and vulnerable to attack from all sides of debate. John speaks the language of competent and well-known Christian scholars and apologists of both liberal and conservative affiliation, employing their own words against them, demonstrating that they themselves recognize the grave position they are in when facing the critical eye of a skeptical, modern world.

The audience...

I see this book being of exceptional value to college students, philosophy buffs, and particularly those who are "on the fence," actively struggling with an open mind to objectively beat their doubts about the validity of Christianity. I also see it serving as an ideal study-guide for someone looking to get in touch with other excellent works on the nature of the Christian religion. John's scholarship is solid, drawing from a host of proponents and critics in a wide range of disciplines, including history, philosophy, and theology. Loftus is very well read. Any doubts about that will quickly disappear upon reading the book.

Concerning his own academic qualifications, John writes, "I consider my expertise (if I have one) in the area of the Big Picture." "None of us are experts in all the areas we need to be," and yet "someone has to stand back from all of the trees to see the forest and describe what it looks like." (p. 59) True that. It is the job of every writer to extrapolate information, to draw from a wellspring of sources and reach conclusions of their own, and to expound upon those conclusions in a clear and thought-provoking manner. This John does, and his conclusion is that Christianity is fatally inundated with problems.

Exceptional chapters...

While I enjoyed reading every chapter, there were some that stood out as sublimely exceptional in nature. These included...The Outsider Test for Faith, The Problem of Unanswered Prayer, The Problem of Evil, The Strange and Superstitious World of the Bible, Historical Evidence and Christianity, Was Jesus born of a virgin in Bethlehem?, Was Jesus God Incarnate?, The Devil Made Me Do It!, and Prophecy and Biblical Authority.

The Outsider Test for Faith is one of those chapters that says what every doubter of religion has always thought but perhaps never said so well. The chapter is an absolute jewel, an extended take on the old realization that "If you lived in Iraq, you'd be a Muslim." John did a masterful job at making application of this truth when he made the following observations...

"If you were born in the first century B.C. in Israel, you'd be a Jew, and if you were born in Europe in 1200 A.D. you'd be a Roman Catholic. But there's more. Had we lived in ancient Babylonia, or the Greco-Roman worlds, we would have been very superstitious and polytheistic to the core. In the ancient world, we would have sought God's guidance through divination, and appeased his wrath with barbaric blood sacrifices. We would have also been opposed to democracy and preferred instead the divine right of kings, like Plato and people in the Middle Ages...Our metaphysical and religious beliefs are dependent to a great extent on the `accidents of birth' (when and where we are born) primarily because there are no agreed upon empirical tests to decide between these metaphysical and religious belief systems." (p. 43-44, 46)

I don't want to give away too many goodies, but I'll make mention of several more before moving on. In The Strange and Superstitious World of the Bible, Loftus discusses the more rigorous nature of today's standards of proof verses those in the minds of first century societies. Loftus rightly points out how big of a discrediting factor to the Bible the superstitious setting from which it emerged is. We should consider it suspect for this reason alone, if for no other...

"We who live in the modern world of science simply don't believe in a god of the sun, or moon, or harvest, or fertility, or rain, or the sea. We don't see omens in an eclipse, or in a flood, a storm, snakebite, or a drought, either. That's because we understand nature better than they did, by using science. We don't see sickness as demon possession. Nor do we think we are physically any closer to God whether we're up on a mountaintop or down in a valley. But every nation did in ancient days." (p. 120)

Commenting on Historical Evidence and Christianity, the chapter bearing this title emphasizes what naturalists have long since known and faulted theistic conceptions for--legends and records of so-called miraculous events cannot survive the stretch of time with credibility...

"History itself is fraught with many difficult problems when one comes to understand the events of the past. According to Beddington again, `Any historical account is, in strict logic, open to doubt. It is not just remarkable events long ago like biblical miracles that are not logically certain. But if non-supernatural events in the past are open to doubt, then how much more so is it the case with supernatural claims of events in the past, like biblical miracles?'" (p. 163)

And...

"The modern historian lives in the modern world, a world where miracles and supernatural events simply don't take place. At least, that is his experience...There should be no reason to suppose that ancient historical people experienced anything different than what we experience today. They were perhaps just superstitious, that's all, and they lived in a world where there was nothing known about nature's fixed laws--just their belief in a God who expresses his will in all events. So when confronted with a miraculous story the modern historian assumes a natural explanation, or that the story became exaggerated in the telling, or that the cure was a psychological one, or it may simply be a legend to enhance the reputation of the miracle worker." (p. 165-166)

The thrust of the chapter forces the believer to acknowledge that the Jesus they preach and defend originates from a limited knowledge of the past, an intrinsically fallible knowledge, one which can be misinterpreted, misrepresented, exaggerated, or just plain wrong. This realization brings shockwaves of uncertainty to an inquiring mind.

Gems...

In addition to possessing some very fine chapters, such as those already mentioned, this work covers some ground that is seldom touched on in other comparable freethought works. These include such things as references to the apocryphal Book of Enoch and Jude's quotation of a passage from this obvious fake as a divine prophecy from God (Jude 1:14) (p. 153-154). It also delves into a biblical problem with the resurrection story I find to be particularly intriguing--the biblical claim that Pontius Pilate's guards would approach the chief priest and elders of the Jews to suppress the knowledge that they were actual eyewitnesses of God's miraculous power in the moving away of the stone from the tomb...

"These soldiers wouldn't have reported to the chief priest and elders, but to Pilate whose guards they were (Matt. 27:64). And what was the lie? They are to say; "we were asleep" while the disciples stole the body. Now it's one thing to lie, but another thing for soldiers to spread the word that they were derelict in their duty in order to help people they didn't care for, especially in light of their vivid experience, and with the possibility of being severely punished for it...But the truth is that it's a useless and stupid lie. If they were asleep, how did they know what happened?" (p. 213)

John does a number on this and other major logistical problems with the resurrection narrative. Was Jesus God Incarnate? is an especially juicy chapter that focuses on the many serious absurdities and troubles created by the idea of a "fully God and fully man" Jesus. Scholars have unendingly tried to work out the manifold difficulties that the notion of a man-god brings to the surface, one of which has to do with sin and temptation...

"We're told that Jesus was tempted (Matt. 4:1; Heb. 4:15). To be tempted would entail having thoughts about sinning. One cannot be tempted to do something if there is no desire to do it...But since Jesus was tempted to sin there seems to be some small imperfections in him, since to be tempted means to have desires that do not accord with the nature of God." (p. 198)

Loftus also mentions the very common (and comical) discrepancy concerning Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on a colt, or (depending on which gospel account you read) one young colt and a fully-grown ass! This problem - by far one of the most embarrassing biblical discrepancies of all time - comes from five conflicting passages of scripture (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:2; Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30; John 12:14-15). All but Matthew mention Jesus riding on a colt, whereas Matthew mistakenly and ridiculously concludes from Zechariah 9:9 that "riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass," refers to two mules, which it clearly doesn't as John points out on page 234.

Many other gems are found throughout that are worth mentioning but are far too numerous, like how the words of Mary at the announcement of Jesus' miraculous conception, "How shall this be seeing I know not a man?" are a complete literary invention (p. 188). Loftus rightly bears out how Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation tale) is an older mythical epic, from which Genesis steals its framework (p. 108-109). And on and on we could go.

Criticisms...

Aside from format and basic literary concerns, I do not take issue with many of the claims John makes, and those small tidbits we might happen to disagree on are not even worth commenting on here. But here are a few things I will take issue with...

My biggest complaint is with the tone of the book. It is not aggressive enough. A writer must accept the challenge to exude personal authority, to tell the reader what should be believed and why. The occasional lack of this quality is found throughout the work in certain places where John seems rather withdrawn; namely, I would love to have seen more of John's own sentiments and less a barrage of thoughts and facts presented by others, which in certain places, can seem rather dry and aloof. A hefty number of sections and chapters, however, including The Outsider Test for Faith, The Problem of Unanswered Prayer, and The Problem of Evil, are fittingly exempted from this criticism.

I would like to have seen John elaborate more on the popular Josephus forgery that some uninformed Christians still claim was Josephus' testimony of Jesus (found in Antiquities 18.3.3), though even many Christian fundamentalists now realize that the text was in fact doctored by later Christian interpolators, making it royally unlikely that Josephus wrote very much of that text, if any of it (p. 156). More supporting material would have been helpful on the discussion of the Exodus and the Canaanite Conquest (p. 157-158). I happen to agree that the evidence for the traditional view of an Egyptian Exodus is extremely wanting.

I wish John had devoted more space dismantling the Kalam cosmological argument, though he does deal with it (p. 75-76). The same criticism goes for his hasty development and critique of the mildly confusing ontological arguments in Faith and Reason (p. 72-73). John's writing is not difficult to follow, but with strained and nebulous arguments like those of the Ontological persuasion, more attention and space are needed to exhaustively deal with these subjects as deep as they are, and with as much weight as some contemporary Christian thinkers put on them. This brings out what would be a concern for some--the book is, in a few places, a little too deep for the average reader who may not have at least a little familiarity with these philosophical arguments.

A few small criticisms notwithstanding, the book cuts the theological lifeline of mom and dad's "old time religion." It is a more than worthy read, making it a fine addition to the freethinker's library.

Conclusion...

Why I Rejected Christianity is the story of a once invigorated believer who, having seen Christianity from the inside out, chose to reject it. In an age when evangelical Christians have decided to spread their nets to catch a much larger audience, an audience of more critical minds than the average churchgoer who sits in the pews like a wooden Indian, the contents of this work should be considered all the more valuable to them. It will challenge the faith of believers, and only the most wayfaring of them will accept this challenge. The progressively-minded faithful owe it to themselves to strongly consider the material presented herein, forgoing the usual aversions that popular Christian scholars "already answered that." The biblical incongruities John addresses are "alive and kicking." They have not been laid to rest by Christian defenders as some assume and would love nothing more than to believe. The rifts and divisions in scholarly thought alone bear witness to this fact. These problems are formidable, and they aren't going to go away anytime soon.

(JH)

[...] Read more ›

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars FOUND ALL HIS HUGE ERRORS YET? April 25, 2010

By Jeri Nevermind VINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback

If Loftus became an atheist based on the information in this book, then he badly needs to do more research because his facts are wrong or out of date.

For example, he argues that "many famous people were said to be born of a virgin" and "there were savior-gods like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, who were born of virgins" (p 323). This is a very, very old argument. From about 1880-1920 actually. Many biblical scholars published books on the subject and it became known as the "History of Religions" theory. It was subsequently proven completely wrong. There are two good books on Amazon that explain how the idea was refuted, "The Jesus Legend" by Eddy and "The Gospel and the Greeks" by Nash.

By the way, one of the reasons the idea is now laughed at is very simple. The women were virgins until they slept with someone. After they slept with someone they were no longer virgins. Which is not at all the claim of Christianity.

Loftus also stumbles in his arguments about the New Testament. Some of his facts are simply wrong, as when he states, "during the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther rejected the book of James" (p 309). Actually, Luther didn't like James--he called it so much `straw' because it advocated works, but Luther did accept James.

Loftus is wrong when he states, "The process of deification of Jesus took at least seventy years among ancient superstitious people" (p 330), which is untrue for many reasons. If he believes the ancient Jews were superstitious morons he has read very little of the Second Temple literature. And he has certainly avoided recent scholarship such as "Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus", which suggests that since the time of Ben Sira more Jews were literate than either Romans or Greeks....

But he is also wrong that Jesus wasn't considered God from the first. Paul very clearly states Jesus is God twenty years after the crucifixion. In 1 Corinthians 6 he actually rewrites the Shema - the prayer every Jew was obliged to repeat every day, which proclaimed the existence of the one God - to include Jesus.

Moreover, scholars have shown that the songs and prayers embedded in Paul's epistles clearly date even earlier. Here is Hurtado on the subject: "The worship of Jesus is so early that practically any evolutionary approach is rendered invalid as historical explanation. Our earliest Christian writings, from approximately 50-60 AD already presuppose cultic devotion to Jesus." Anyone interested in the beliefs of early Christianity should read Martin Hengel, perhaps the most respected biblical scholar in the world, or Larry Hurtado.

The five stage process concerning the bible that Loftus proposes was certainly believed in, by some scholars, in about 1970. So was the idea of separate Christian communities, each with its own separate gospel. And, of course, Q. All these ideas are hotly debated at the moment, and are all, perhaps, in utter ruin. At any rate, Loftus, once an Evangelical, has apparently never heard the Catholic explanation for the formation of the bible, and never mentions the role of the church, tradition, and the bishops in the collection of the gospels. Which does ignore the beliefs of the largest number of Christians in the world.

Loftus is also wrong when he states "The Catholic Church decided at the Council of Trent...to include several additional books into their canon that Protestants think are apocryphal" (p 309). Actually, those books were ratified a thousand years earlier, which is why they were included in every bible up until the Protestant Reformation.

Loftus suggests various ways to "harmonize" the bible with science, and he keeps saying, "Christians think" as if he were describing all Christians. Catholics, for example, believe the bible teaches theology, not 21st century science.

Loftus says "according to Christians" again, when he talks about biblical prophecy, such as "Psalms 2...expresses hope for the Messiah" (p 293). Yet he ignores the two most basic principles for interpreting biblical prophecy--multiple fulfillment and typology--which have been standard practice since Paul used them. The New Testament is the key to understanding the Old Testament. There is no point in pointing our Loftus' errors about the Old Testament, because without any of the standard principles for understanding it, principles used for 2,000 years, he naturally stumbles.

Nor is he convincing when he tackles the problem of evil. He ignores the concept of heaven, to start with. On the simplest and most basic of levels, how many thousands of years of utter joy would it take you to forget anything that happened on earth?

Most of all, he has no response to: without God, how can there be evil? We can forget about inalienable rights, too. Without God, there are no absolutes, no true evil--just society's preferences this century. The Aztecs thought it was good and moral to yank the still beating hearts from their victims, before they sat down to a cheery meal of eating the corpse. Pol Pot's minions, only a few decades ago, thought it was good and moral to hunt down and kill anyone over the age of 20. And so what, if all we are is mere animals?

When God met Abraham, Abraham was in the `howling wilderness'. Mr. Loftus, forget the painful and childish literalness with which you interpret the bible. You were supposed to grasp the fact that the `howling wilderness' was life without God. Read more ›