wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I understand Marks--to a degree. I can understand his desire to emerge from an evangelical form of Christianity, but why he would go from there to non-faith was never probed. Why not back to his roots, in a more mainline denomination, in which ambiguities and doubt and faith as journey might have been more adequately addressed? I can't say this is true for Marks, but many folks want to see their lives in terms of progress: growing more wise rather than less, becoming more mature rather than less, etc. In terms of faith and spirituality, becoming more a person whose take on the world is shaped more by a metaphysical truth than by a humanly created falsehood. The result is that we flatter ourselves, thinking "where I am today must be better than where I was." But is it not possible that people who step away from faith have regressed rather than progressed? (Of course, the opposite case could be made -- I'm just posing one side of the story.) The myth of personal progress is very strong. It would have been helpful to me if the show had probed this possibility.

Just a few notes:
Why do you continue to identify Christianity with Evangelicalism? The largest group within Christianity is Catholicism, but we never hear from Catholics.
Why do you keep digging up people who have left their faith? And never have people of faith on your program?
Leonard Lopate said "Mother Teresa flirted with atheism much of her life". This is not the way to see Blessed Teresa. Her community has a prayer to her which reads in part:
"You became so intimitely united to Jeses, your crucified Spouse, that He deigned to share with you the agony of His Heart as He hung upon the Cross" (c Missionaries of Charity 2003), in line with Matthew 27:46 "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and with John 19:28 "I thirst", in the mystery that Jesus experienced the absence of God's Presence in the Dereliction of the Cross.
The idea that the disciples took away the Body of Jesus to a tomb is unhistorical: they were in danger of being killed, and could not go near the tomb. And the tomb was guarded by the Romans. And if He had been buried somewhere else, which He couldn't have been, He would have been raised from there.
Leonard Lopate said '... the place where Jesus was allegedly killed ...'. The Crucifixion of Jesus is pretty much accepted as an historical fact. Even the strongest critics of Jesus at that time did not claim he was not crucified.
Lastly, the Evangelicals are not against Democrats per se, they disagree with the positions of the Democratic Party.

my question is about why someone wants to believe they will be saved, especially when it comes to the afterlife and the soul taking precedence over common reality.

there is no afterlife in Judaism [that's why we make such great doctors; no, seriously, not in the Jewish bible, just Tamludic interpretation and other mystical texts], and personally, i think salvation is a very dangerous lifestyle that leads to a lack of respect for life as it exists in the present.

hjs, I'm in, although don't restrict the effort to the South. Been to the Midwest lately?

As someone who also "escaped" evangelicalism, I can really identify with the guest. As I look back on those days, in some ways it was really easy. You didn't have to make decisions and deal with intricacies; the church did that for you.

Give me liberal Christianity or Unitarian-Universalism anyday. Thinking is not illegal--not yet, anyway.

Is this the same John Marks who wrote:

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence
-and-
The CIA and the Search for the Manchurian Candidate?

I think we should send humanists missionaries to enlighten the south etc

who's with me!