A former religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times, Lobdell recounts in this plainly written memoir how he became a Protestant evangelical, nearly accepted Catholicism and, in the end, rejected faith altogether. Central to the arc of this memoir is the unfolding sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, which Lobdell covered in depth during his time as a religion reporter, beginning in 2000. Despairing of the role of priests and bishops in that scandal, he refashions his identity as a crusading reporter out to cleanse the church of corrupt leaders. But after finding that his investigative stories about faith healer Benny Hinn and televangelists Jan and Paul Crouch appear to make no difference on the reach of these ministries or the lives of their followers, he gives up on the beat and on religion generally.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...=283155&s=books

The candle should be lit now.

his experience is dealing with tv evangelists ....

solid.

that is what Christianity is all about.

you haven't read this book -- the concepts inside are too much for your pea brain

its amazing how something that doesn't even affect you has ruined you.


go pray to your false idol at the alter of al.

His experience is being a lifetime protestant evangelical and reporter covering religious topics for 8 years.


At age 27, journalist William Lobdell hit a low point and, like many of us, began a search for God. At the urging of a friend, he attended an evangelical mega-church and liked what he saw. He started to "yearn to be part of this appealing club," he recalls in "Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America -- and Found Unexpected Peace," "to get some of what they appeared to have -- simple happiness."

He fell in love with a God who loved him perfectly. He publicly pronounced Jesus Christ as his personal lord and savior. He prayed for $50,000 and, sure enough, $50,000 came in. He began to attend church every Sunday morning with his wife and children and even to tithe. He began to wonder, "Why were so many stories about Christians negative or dismissive?" He had an epiphany. He heard the voice of God saying, "Why don't you become a religion writer?"

Lobdell prayed, with fervor, for a religion writing job at this newspaper, and in 1998, that materialized too. He very reasonably became interested in writing about people who lived as if the Scriptures were true. He found much to admire in billionaire philanthropists Susan and Henry Samueli and mega-preacher Rick Warren. He visited the Orange County branch of the Catholic Worker movement and found that the couple who ran it "believe in Christ as much as they believe in breathing." He was intrigued by people who had made sacrifices because of their beliefs, by people who had been beaten down by life but still didn't blame God. The whole "God thing" seemed to be working for him.

Lobdell felt a growing attraction to the Catholic Church, the childhood faith of his wife, Greer. He was intrigued by "its complex 2000-year-old history, its stories of the saints, the breadth and depth of its theology, its beautiful liturgy." He decided to convert but without believing in the church's central tenet: the Real Body and Blood of Christ. "I planned on being a Cafeteria Catholic," he writes, "picking which parts of church doctrine I would keep and which I would ignore."

Meanwhile, he asked with increasing urgency: Where are the holy people? Where are the men of principle? Instead of finding them, his work led him to uncover priestly abuse. As if the injury done to the children weren't enough, the cardinals were cowardly, the priests corrupt. The more he investigated, the more he found: lies, cover-ups, bishops alighting from limousines to have their rings kissed. He mentally lobbied to bring the concept of hell back, so God could send the pedophile priests there.

Lobdell began to win awards for his stories, but he was increasingly troubled. Men of God were not what they claimed to be. God was not who he had thought. A baby born prematurely first rallied, then died: Was this not cruel? Of the 2004 South Asia tsunami, he notes, "It made no sense. . . . What kind of God would allow so many people to die, and create so much heartbreak and so much misery?" Like most of us, of course, Lobdell shied away from misery in his daily existence. "I liked my life," he writes. "It was comfortable. I had money and a nice home. I didn't live among the poor and sick; visiting once in a while was enough."

His doubts began to gnaw at him. He found validation for his "dark night" in Mother Teresa: "These saints had struggled with faith just as I was now wrestling with it." He conducted research and found no scientific evidence in favor of prayer -- for an amputee's limb to be regenerated, for example -- concluding that the "most logical answer to why God won't heal amputees is that either God doesn't care or doesn't exist." He studied statistics on evangelicals and was discouraged to find that "Christians, as a group, acted no differently than anyone else, including atheists."

Lobdell tried to "pump up" his faith, but the feel-good music, the testimonies, the small-group sharing no longer did it for him. Instead, he wound up losing his faith, drifting away from the God for whom he once yearned. "Losing My Religion" tells the story of that experience.

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/l...0,6699806.story

really? that's his conclusion? not very insightful....

Gee, no one's ever thought of that.

Surprised by some of these quotes...this books gotten good press but if those quotes are indicative, there's not much ground here that hasn't been--and far better--plowed by bigger thinkers for decades and centuries.

agreed...if there is a god then why is there any suffering? i remember pondering that in elementary school. curious that this guy is still stuck on it.

LOL...seems like it's pretty straight-forward "dark night of the soul" stuff.

Probably because he grew up with religion. Not a lot of thinking going on with most people in that situation.

It's relative...

Gee, no book has ever been written about something someone else hadn't already pondered... :logik:

A more appropriate title would be "Promoting My Atheism."

exactly, this guy's opinion has been expressed by someone before, so he should shut up. Unlike the thousands of new batshit religious books that come out saying the exact same thing every year

And while I dont agree with his reasoning to become an atheist, his experience is pretty unique as a religion reporter from the latimes.

:lol: Stupid. How can he "promote" it?

Are you feeling tempted?

:lol:

Good point. Gregor Mendel wasn't much of a thinker.

i've heard kepler was a real slouch too.

you're right. compared to what you post it's very insightful.

No one said that. But most people see value in new books if they are insightful or have a unique perspective on things. But that P word is likely something you're not familiar with given the smoothness of your brain, so don't worry about it, Sugar Tits.

Kali, is your emoticonmasturbation to Pats an example of your core beliefs, as enumerated in the "ideal president" thread?

You know...the philosophy of tolerance found here:

Just curious.

Out of billions you guys have named two. Awesome. Only about 3 or 4 billion more and youll have a point.

:lol:

yeah right

You're right, the NYT Review of Books usually pumps up uninsightful regurgitations in its reccs.

Don't be afraid to push Oak. I really think you can take the belt away from him.

Pascal? Copernicus? Francis Bacon? Max Planck? Faraday? Boyle? Newton? Descartes? Any of these names mean anything to you?

How about the role of the Catholic Church in translating and archiving ancient literary and scientific texts during the Dark Ages? Suppose that gets nowhere with you either.

Whatever. Just another failure for you.

lol at tits going back to the f*cking dark ages to find people who grew up in religious homes and made big contributions to science...


Keep at it though. Youre up to about a dozen. That's like... almost most of the people who were raised in religious homes. And Im being generous, there's not much saying Newton or Pascal were raised in religious homes. It's OK though, Ill spot you them.

Nice attempt to re-frame the argument. Yet another failure. I'm pretty sure there was a lot of thinking that went on with Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and Mendel and the others. I'm also pretty sure that the amount of thinking that went on there, even in a religious framework, not only far outstrips the amount going on in your own "situation" but also has allowed you and thousands of others to do their work. You're the "scientist" so how many of you = one Newton?

ah, you are just jealous .... my belts actually fit me.

starting something you can't finish Frankie. :lol:

Some people don't need belts. But the issue was intellect and you and Pats are in a race to the bottom. Good luck!

and yet thats EXACTLY what you do in the Religion section.

might be one of the greatest ironies on this board that your contributions in this forum expose your perspective on religion and the religious as subjective, irrational, and uninformed.

The last thing he's interested in is an actual coversation about the subject.

It's far more fun--and thankfully for him, far easier--to throw bricks.

Well, he's always highly rewarded when Me Too responds with an emoticon valentine. :wub:

You all throw bricks. Not one of you is blameless.

To our shame, true. But there is a difference...

Like spacedope, when things go past a point of disagreement pats is unable and/or unwilling to respect opposing views. He refuses to debate this subject in good-faith and de-legitimizes other views on the matter.

Stop being full of shit, Willie. You once said the same bullshit line to me.
That whenever I was ready to discuss Christianity with you to let you know.

I told you, "ok, let's discuss it". Then you said, "I don't have time for that". lol

You're a weasle

You should probably stay away from words you dont understand, like irony.

Yeah I always ignore all those logical, common sense arguments coming from the religious kooks like oak.

:lol:

you're right. it's not completely ironic when a guy who exalts science and the scientific method criticizes the ignorance of religions and the religious from a perspective that is itself irrational and uninformed. :rolleyes:

I work six days a week. I didn't have time.

Deal with it. Schedule an appointment...whatever you wanna do.

Pats has far more faith in the magic of 'science' than any Christian's faith in God that I know. It's a free country, he's welcome to it and I'm not going to attack his character for choosing to believe it.

He routinely maligns pretty much all faiths but especially Christianity and specifically evangelical Christians. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to act in bad faith.