I’ve been criticized sharply by less Fundamentalist Christians both when I was a Christian and after I left the faith. They state the reason I left was because I was a Fundamentalist and that type of faith is untenable in the real world.
Of course this isn’t true. Therefore​ are probably hundreds of millions of Fundamentalists in the world who never leave the faith. And many liberals and moderates who do.

Jesus states that God reveals the faith to us. It is not man made.

Paul states heretics and schismatics will go to hell.

Jude states there is one faith delivered once to the saints.

Peter speaks about false teachers.

The Psalms say the fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Again James looks down on the doubter stating that he is tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. This charge was levelled at me any times as I went from denomination to denomination seeking sure answers to my questions.

My conviction after 15 years of personal study and reflection is that Christianty is no more miraculous or unusual than any other world religion. It’s claims are not sure or incontrovertible.

So my position has reverted to agnosticism. Though before I was uncertain. Now I am certain. In this way I disagree with Russell. I am certain but I remain open to real, testable and/or observable evidence that is not open to multiple valid interpretations. This is what separates dogma from true knowledge.

Christianity claims to be historic. It claims to have only one valid version of the faith. And it claims that heretics and schismatics will burn for eternity.

I find the evidence lacking regarding the claims and the certain threats of hellfire to be far beyond what is actually warranted based on the evidence.

Christianity claims to be a simple faith, yet digging deeper reveals huge cracks and gaping holes that need expertise in multiple fields and years of research that is far outside the remit or capability of most of humanity to engage in.

Saying that we should rely on experts doesn’t cut it for me. My own study has shown me just how much uncertainty resides in the very fabric of these issues and the almost endless diversity on all of the central issues also tells me that the experts are also guessing many times.

Theology is no different than mythology in my view. Ask about the nature of the Trinity and you might as well be asking what colour a fairy king’s wings are. It’s for this reason that I say theology is a thing that says it’s​ a thing but is not a thing!

There is much disagreement about many aspects of the history of Christianty just as there is about many aspects of every historical episode. But in most historical studies our eternal fate is not tied to getting the correct answers. Get the historical aspects of Christianty wrong and you may go to hell (or not if your theology interprets the many verses differently).

You see I believed certain things about the Bible. I was a fairly “orthodox” Evangelical. I believed if the Apostle John had walked into our little fellowship he would have been well pleased with what he saw. I knew Jesus was…

Then I started reading Polycarp and Ignatius. Disciples​ of John. Chosen leaders of that inspired Apostle to lead Christ’s Church into the next generation. Both died valiantly​ for the faith once delivered to the saints.

I was shocked at how different their theology was. This made me question everything I had been taught. My whole system crumbled and never recovered.

I became sure Evangelicalism simply had it flat wrong on many “fundamental” issues. This caused me to eventually question the whole thing. If Evangelicalism which seems so certain and complete has it wrong in spite of such clear contradictory evidence, then how can I be certain of such intrinsically uncertain information as is provided in the NT.

God is always invoked at this point, but again, Evangelicalism which claims to be of God is so wrong on historic theology and practice. Christianity clearly evolved and continues to evolve in spite of the claims that it is eternal and unchanging. Invoking God to say that he gives the certainty of your conviction is a non-argument and is evidence for nothing. It is a fallacy to claim your version of your religion is true because God told you it was. That could be used as an argument  by anyone to justify anything. At best it is ignorant of the historical facts. At worst it is simply delusional.