Letters From the Christian Un-Dead Something Wicked This Way Comes
A small collection of internet induced correspondence on Christianity, the Bible, Propaganda, and the Inerrant Word of God
By Robert Reames
Letter 1, Letter 2, Letters 3-6, Letters 7-8,Letters 9-11, Letters 12-14
Note: This collection represents several months of emails from right wing Fundamentalists and borderline Christians all attempting to argue their myths as facts. Some of them came from my association with Dennis McKinsey (from Biblical Errancy) and some from my late night hours harassing born again xtians in AOL chat rooms. Unfortunately, in most instances, I did not retain their original emails, even though most of what they wrote to me is broken up within my responses. Their names have been changed or removed to protect me from them. Some may be a little difficult to follow at times, but then, so is their religious indoctrination into the worst cult mankind has ever witnessed, so, it all evens out in the end. Enjoy, but be careful not to hit the "print" button. Until I can figure out html better, this is one LONG document (about 110 pages). Letter 1: A young woman who went to http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html (Dennis McKinsey’s Biblical Errancy website) and just had to comment. Hi Darla. My name is Robb and I’ll be helping Dennis with some of the many emails he receives. I have separated your points with quotation marks and then included my responses directly after each section. "Hi there. I stumbled across your website and noticed your arguments-very good questions, but I just wanted to let you know what I think about Adam's sinning (and Eve's). I believe that we are not paying for their sins." Then why aren't we automatically born into paradise? "Jesus Christ died on the cross to cover all sin." How? Although a magnanimous gesture, how does the death of someone's flesh (even if that someone is supposedly God or God's son) "cover" all sin? Remember that a "sacrifice" is nothing more than a man-made symbolic action and has no actual relevance to anything. You can sacrifice a goat to make it rain, but that does not mean that it rained because you sacrificed a goat. It’s pure poetry, but you are taking it to mean literal fact. So please explain exactly how this works and not merely the poetic imagery. What is the mechanism of salvation that happens because someone’s flesh died? Not to mention the idea that Jesus is supposed to also be God, so if you persist in misunderstanding the word "sacrifice," the next question would be, to whom was the sacrifice offered? This is a major aspect of your beliefs so please don't assume that the statement is it's own fact. We're discussing the supposed ultimate salvation of your Soul, here, and not ritual symbolism for the sake of pageantry and fable. How does the death of flesh "cover" us from sin? "I believe that by doing that he cleansed the original sin." Again, I ask, if that is the case, then why aren't we born directly into paradise? According to the only authority on this subject, the Bible, the only reason Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise was because of sin. The only reason we are therefore precluded from paradise is a result of Adam and Eve sinning (hence original sin). If we, as you say, were cleansed of the original sin from birth by Jesus' death on the cross, then why wouldn't we be birthed directly into paradise? We did nothing wrong; Adam and Eve did and as you've just stated, Jesus cleansed us of original sin two thousand years ago. Why should we be punished today by automatic exclusion from paradise when we have done nothing wrong? Or are you saying that we somehow sinned in the womb or before the womb, thereby precluding us from paradise automatically? "We are not paying for what Adam and Eve did, we are sinning because we want to." Again, this does not explain why we have been denied direct access to paradise (see above answer). "Therefore, when we accept Jesus as our savior he is then, and only then-cleansing us of our sin. " Oh, I see. So Jesus did not die for us, as you claimed earlier, cleansing us of our sin. It is only when we "accept Jesus as our savior" that the death provides salvation. So you're saying that Jesus put limitations on his gift. We must accept him to be our savior or we can't be saved. For what possible reason would a savior require anything of us in order to save us? Isn't that the purpose of a gift that it is given freely without any consideration for anything at all on the part of the gift recipient? I'll give you my love and protection but only if you believe that I am God? Doesn't that sound a bit egomaniacal to you? As objectively as you can, don't you see what an incredibly non-messianic condition that is, beyond the fact that it makes no basic sense? "This doesn't mean we won't sin again (we will), it just means that we are forgiven and we aim to live like Jesus did." I understand that you have a very strong and warm belief structure here and I appreciate it very much. Believe me, I'm not trying to do anything here but enlighten. I am trying to respect you as you seem a very sensitive and good-hearted person, but you also don't seem to really know who Jesus was. Turning to the accounts of his own life in the books of the New Testament—just for a few brief examples—Jesus was not here to bring peace ("I came not to send peace but a sword" Matt 10:34, and "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" Luke 22:36 spring to mind), nor did he preach the kind of family values I would look for in a child of God ("I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" Matt. 10:35-36, and "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14:26). That last one sends shivers down my spine every time I read it and yet those are the words supposedly out of his own mouth. Do you hate all those closest to you, including your own life? Because according to his own decree, you can't be his disciple unless you do. Not to mention the chilling (paranoid) threat, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30). Yes, there are many other statements he made about love and peace and harmony and I find those words to be just as poetically beautiful as you no doubt do, but how do you possibly reconcile them with just the handful of other things he said that I outlined above? Context? Is there any context where a savior of all mankind would/could ever justify stating that you have to hate your entire family (including yourself) in order to be his disciple? Or threaten? Does that sound like a loving savior to you? There are many other examples on Dennis' website (all taken directly from the Bible) and I highly recommend you look at them for your own sake, but I think you see my point. I know it's fashionable these days to simply discard anything bad and have faith and all that other brainwashing propaganda, but if you actually read what Jesus said, then "living like him" or according to his decrees is not a desirable thing to do. "God knows we will sin since we are human, but when we are saved it means we are going to try as best we can to emulate Christ." See above response and add here: If God knows that we will sin "since we are human," then God also knows that we aren't to blame for our actions since he created us human. If you build a Ford truck and then expect it to be a Cadillac that's your problem, not the truck's. If you build a Ford truck and somehow grant it the ability to choose to become a Cadillac and it does not, again, what possible blame could you apply to the truck? It's a truck, not a Cadillac. And, finally, if you build a truck with the ability to choose to be a Cadillac and then demand that it become a Cadillac or be junked in the junkyard for all eternity never to be anything but junk in the junkyard with all of the other discarded junk in the junkyard, then why didn't you just build a Cadillac to begin with and leave the poor truck alone? That's your psychosis acting out and has nothing to do with the truck. It's not its fault for being created a truck; it's your fault for creating it as a truck when what you wanted the whole time was a Cadillac. If you now claim (as so many do) that what you REALLY wanted was for the truck to see how beautiful it could be if only it would CHOOSE to be a Cadillac and that all you ever wanted was for the truck to CHOOSE to be a Cadillac instead of what you created it to be (a truck), then you are more in need of therapy than anything else and should seek serious help, even if you are (and especially if you are) claiming to be God. "Also, your other statement about God being perfect-the Bible says he created Adam in his own image, but it doesn't say he made him exactly like himself. He was a pattern." If the pattern is based upon a perfect being, then the pattern would also be perfect. How can the duplicate, being created by a perfect being based on a perfect pattern, be anything but perfect? Are you saying that God screwed up? "Adam had free-will, and ate from the forbidden tree with Eve. God told him not to, but he did it anyway. He was not perfect." Setting aside the fact that a perfect pattern is still perfect and that this fact you point out about the Adam and Eve story should be your first clue that the Bible is not God's truth, but man's fiction, you're forgetting that Adam and Eve were seduced into eating the fruit by Satan (well, technically, by a snake, so we're really out there now). So what this means is that God's "perfect pattern" could be easily persuaded by Satan to do something expressly forbidden by God—their creator and benefactor and source of pure love—which is difficult to understand at the very least. This would mean that God can be persuaded by Satan to be less than perfect, too. If within the pattern God used (himself) is the ability to be persuaded to not be perfect, then God must also have within him the ability to be persuaded to not be perfect, for it was his "pattern" he followed to create Adam and Eve. Which, in turn, means that God is not perfect. That's a sticky situation, don't you think? As for the"free-will" concept you threw in there, well, all right, let's get to this. I'm not sure if you know, but the concept of "free-will" is not Biblical. It was created by an Ecumenical conference in Rome in order to attempt to explain the inherent contradiction of a perfect God somehow creating imperfect beings. In other words, it is a rationalization; in Webster's words, "to devise plausible explanations for one's beliefs, usually in self-deception." You are told to somehow except the idea that God—the Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator of All Existence—created you with the ability to do something that God did not know you would do; with the ability to create something that God did not create (sin, according to fundamentalists). The argument is, "God did not create sin, Man did." This is where it gets really slippery. When confronted with such a contradiction (Man created something that God did not), the argument gets changed to, "No, God created man with the capacity for sin and Man chooses to sin," somehow erroneously putting the blame on us, even though our "pattern" was God. It's a valiant word play, but it doesn't work, because something had to create sin and the concept of non-perfection within perfection as well as "the capacity to sin." All of those conditions MUST be created before they can exist no matter how you wish to dance around that irrefutable fact. So again, the argument turns back to Man being able to create something (sin) that God did not create, a fundamental impossibility since God created everything and is perfect. Perfect, by the way, is an absolute. There are no "shades" of perfection. You are either perfect or you are not. So then the rationalization slips even more into evasive tactics to keep you from arguing this central flaw. Usually the "God doesn't want robots" statement is dusted off, which makes even less sense, because, by definition, we ARE robots to God. God is supposedly eternal as well as all-knowing, so there is literally nothing you could ever do at any point in your lifetime that wasn't already created by God, including, sin or the "capacity" to sin. So we're back to God creating sin and imperfection within a perfect pattern based upon himself. Doesn't sound right, does it? That's why the Church went to great lengths and came up with the rationalization of "free will," but never truly explained what it is or how it works. And, of course, when anyone asks about it, they are told to believe it through faith; believe the fantasy and not the facts that created the fantasy to begin with. Does that sound right to you, or more like irrational dictatorial decree? "Only Jesus was [perfect]. " Not according to his actions. Have you ever actually read the Bible? You don't need Dennis' website to illustrate this fact since everything Dennis talks about comes directly from the Bible, but it may help you to actually find out the things your supposed savior did. "Oh, and the thing about Jesus asking on the cross about being forsaken-that wasn't a sin. It was an honest question. It is not a sin to question." I'll get to the "sin" part in a minute, because that wasn't the only point Dennis was making here. Among the many points this brings up, when Jesus asks "why hast thou forsaken me" Dennis was illustrating that it proves that Jesus was not God. Beyond the obvious (that Jesus is speaking to God and not as God), God is omniscient, so no question would need to be asked. It also shows that Jesus was not exactly a willing participant, as Christians like yourself always claim he was. But, most importantly, this bizarre and tragic question asked by Jesus/God of God states that Jesus actually believed that God forsook him, while at the same time implying that God could actually forsake someone. The "sin" quality of this is that Jesus doubted God so directly as to accuse Him of abandoning him. Regardless of whether or not God actually abandoned Jesus, Jesus, the perfect being (and God) believed so strongly that this was the case as to commit a form of blasphemy and disbelief in God/Himself at the very moment of his death. If we are to "emulate Christ," then, are we also to ask at our deaths, "why hast thou forsaken me?" Do you see now why this is so cconvoluted and contradictory? Do you also understand now why you are commanded to believe through faith and not ask these kinds of questions? Quite simply because, if you weren't commanded to believe through faith, you would not believe it. If you weren't indoctrinated to accept such a dictatorial decree, you would not believe that the Bible is anything other than a quaint collection of ancient fables and myths (or, as your own savior supposedly put it, "parables"). So I ask, if you would not normally believe it, then why on earth would you believe it "just because?" Again, we're discussing the salvation of your eternal soul and you're told to believe "just because?" Is that acceptable to you? What if I told you to believe in Buddhism "just because." Would you? Why not? Or Islam or Judaism? If the only requirement for your belief is "just because" then what exactly is it that you believe in? Jesus? Why? Just because? Oh, that's right, there's also the threat. I always forget the threat, because I just can't believe that anyone would follow any religion that used fear as an indoctrination technique. It isn't "just because" is it? It's, "believe through faith or you will be punished for not doing so." Now do you see how wrong that is? And please don't drudge out that old analogy of a Father or Mother telling a child to do something they don't want to do simply because they know best and the child knows nothing. We're not discussing whether or not to touch a lighted stove, here, we're discussing whether or not Jesus was in fact the Messiah. If the evidence presented to us shows that he is NOT the Messiah, then he is NOT the Messiah. Period. Faith has nothing to do with it and would ONLY be used in order to force you to believe in something that you would not otherwise believe in. Forced belief is not what I would call a "free will" doctrine. I would call it Fascism. After all, Hitler promised and prophesied a new nation for all those who believed in him and look what happened. He delivered it. Then it fell once the facts of his actions destroyed the fantasy. If you think that is too harsh a comparison, just pick up any book on the Holy Inquisition and then we'll talk. Let me also ask you this, if faith is the only reason to believe in Jesus, then why did God "inspire" the Bible to begin with? If at the end of the day we say, "wait, these books are filled with contradictions and are clearly fraudulent," and the Church elders say, "believe it anyway or you'll burn in hell," then doesn't that send up even the tiniest red flag in your mind? Using fear to induce you to follow a supposedly loving God? What would be the point of the Bible—the supposed Inerrant Word of God and All That Is—if at the end of the day the answer to any question about it is, "you must believe anyway, regardless of the facts?" If Jesus really was the Messiah, then why did the Church torture and murder countless thousands in order to convert them to Christianity? Why would they need to? To drive out Satan? Torture and burning at the stake (which comes from the Bible, mind you) is a Father making sure his son does not burn his hand on the stove? Does that sound like religious freedom to you or the doctrine of an all loving all knowing creator, or more the dictatorial actions of an evil power structure intent on stopping at nothing—not even murder—to impose it's beliefs on others in order to control them? Just as you are controlled now. You don't think you are and your Church (whatever it may be), but you are. You believe in a fantasy which the facts do not support simply because you are told to do so and indirectly threatened to do so, or spend eternity in the fires of hell. That is not freedom. "If I were hanging on a cross with nails in my body, I'd be wondering if there were a better way to go about things, wouldn't you?" Yes. Now ask yourself, if I were God (or even the son of God and a perfect being) wouldn't I KNOW a better way to go about things? I certainly do and I'm no where near a perfect being. Don't punish us for something we didn't create in the first place. Or, even simpler, know that we are fallible and forgive us. No torture on the cross, no threats of eternal damnation, just divine love from a heavenly "father." Even simpler still, don't create us with "the ability" to sin in the first place. Don't forget, we ARE robots to God, no matter how we are created, so whether or not we "choose" anything is irrelevant to God. If the premise is, "I don't want my creation to sin," as seems to be the case you are presenting, then don't create either sin or the ability for us to sin. Once again, you can't blame the truck for being a truck if that's what you created in the first place. If, on the other hand, the premise is, "I want my creation to choose not to sin," then ask yourself why you would require something you know they won't do long before even they do, since you are Omniscient, and then punish them for doing it? It's not like you can fool God. God supposedly knows everything you will do throughout your entire life. An eternal, omniscient being is not in "linear time" the way we are. Supposedly, God knows what you are going to do when you're ninety just as easily as he knows what you are doing right now. It isn't a mystery to him, nor is it a "surprise." So why would he punish you or allow you to punish yourself for things you don't even know you are going to do? Remember, from God's perspective, you are simultaneously three years old, eighteen years old, forty years old, in heaven or in hell. That's what it means to be an eternal, omniscient being. You know all things that happen at all times simultaneously. That is the definition of Omniscient. It's not like an eternal, all knowing being can just push you into the water and not know before hand whether or not you are going to drown, nor is there anything you can do to prevent whether or not you are going to drown, because you are not omniscient and free from linear time the way he is. Even the best swimmers drown and if that is your fate, no amount of swim practice will alter that fact; a fact that God already knows has occurred, will occur, and was meant to occur, if indeed he is the supposed God of Creation. So where does punishment enter into it, either directly or indirectly? Are you going to punish your computer for not choosing to be an IBM? Are you going to allow your computer to punish itself for not being an IBM? "That's a whole lot of suffering for a bunch of people you don't even know." Well, let's get into this too. Just exactly what suffering are you referring to, beyond the poetic? If Jesus was/is God, then the only thing that happened was his flesh died the way all flesh dies. Perhaps a bit more uncomfortable, sure, but no more uncomfortable than all of the others dying on crosses along with him and throughout history. Believe me, there have been countless millions who suffered much worse than what Jesus went through. Just view any tape of Vietnam or read about the victims of Dahlmer or Gayce. You are the one who proclaim that his suffering is somehow greater than any other simply because you were told this was the case by those who indoctrinated you into their cult. Beyond the poetry there is only one simple fact: a man named Jesus was crucified by the Roman state for sedition against Rome. Everything else is mere myth and man-made aggrandizement. "I think Jesus rocks!!!!!!!! I know I wouldn't do that." Do what? He didn't do anything. If you accept he was a man, then the only thing he did was a symbolic gesture that is completely irrelevant but nice symbolism and if you believe he was God, God can not die nor could he "sacrifice" anything to himself. What would be the point? I can proclaim that I will die for you so that you will escape jail or punishment or death or whatever and even actually die protecting you so that you don't go to jail or are punished or killed or whatever, but beyond the word play, I haven't actually died for anything at all. I've just died. The poetry may be added later, but that's all it is, poetry. I would have done a magnanimous thing, yes, and you would indeed still be alive if it weren't for my gesture on your behalf. You would thank the memory of me, but I certainly would hope you wouldn't suddenly proclaim that I am God and the One True Savior of Mankind simply because I died "for you." It would be kind of you, but it wouldn't make it so. You can believe it, but it wouldn't make it so. "Anyway, thanks for having your site out there. I'm one who thinks that others opinions are just as important as mine." That's a remarkably open-minded statement, if not indirectly self-serving. I just wish you'd actually read what Dennis has illustrated so that you will eventually wake up from the cult in which you are indoctrinated and open your mind up even further. "Oh, one more thing. Babies, mentally handicapped people, those who are incapable of understanding the concept of accepting Christ as their savior, are taken to heaven. " I am incapable of understanding the concept of accepting Christ as my savior so am I taken directly to heaven, too? Why aren't the individuals you just mentioned sent directly to paradise, then, to begin with? Why are they birthed into a sinful world and not paradise? Did they do something wrong to exclude them from going directly to paradise? Yes, I've presented you with a lot of questions, I know, because these are serious questions that you are told over and over again NOT to ask. If nothing else, that fact alone should send every warning sign you have waving strongly in the wind. "God does not condemn those incapable of understanding, people condemn themselves by understanding and choosing to ignore his word. " That's another modern age evasion tactic and also falls when actually discussed. If God does not condemn those incapable of understanding, then you're saying that God created hell in order to condemn those who "choose to ignore his word." You've tried to slip around it by implying that we are the ones who actually condemn ourselves and that, therefore, it is we who created hell, but that doesn't wash. If hell exists then God had to have created it (unless we're right back to us being able to create something that God did not create, which, again, is by Biblical definition, impossible). God created hell for a purpose—to eternally punish those who "condemn themselves" in your words. So, we're back to God knowing we will not choose him and he creating Hell in order to punish us for not choosing him. Sound like the actions of a loving creator? Regardless of the semantics, we are told through the Bible and through the "servants" of that Bible that God created Hell for one purpose and one purpose only, to punish us for "ignoring" his word, and, more specifically to Christianity, for not accepting Jesus as savior. Once again, your supposed "free will" doctrine of love and spirituality is forced upon you through the indirect threat of eternal punishment in hell for "ignoring" his word. Don't you feel that's an unjust punishment—eternal damnation—for an all loving, all knowing God to create? You're trying valiantly to get around it by attempting to imply that we created it, but again, that's not possible. We can't create something that God did not create. Even granting your attempt (that he created the "capacity" to sin), that still means that he created both the "capacity" to sin as well as sin. You can't create the "capacity" to do something without creating that "something" as well, or else there is no "capacity" to do anything. Further, do you actually believe that God needs to threaten people (whether directly, like in the Bible, or indirectly, like in your reformed opinion) in order for us to believe in him? If so, then that's a very disturbed God you believe in. And, more to your original point, what happens when you read "his word" and see that understanding is not possible due to all of the contradictions and blatant impossibilities? I have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the Trinity concept, for example, because it is not possible to understand it. It isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of cold hard fact. It is not possible to believe in a black white horse, because of the simple fact that a white horse can not be a black horse at the same time it's a white horse. Faith doesn't enter into it. Or, if it does, fine, but that just means that you are choosing to believe in fantasy and not reality. If God is not reality, then you certainly can believe all you want, but that won't change the fact that it isn't a reality. You believed in Santa Clause until you discovered that the reality of your existence is that there is no Santa Clause, why then have you not continued this understanding with all other myths? "Hell is a choice, just like voting. Sounds too simple, doesn't it? " Beyond the fact that you’ve left out the most important point (that someone had to first create the voting booth), no, it doesn't sound simple at all, because you have not described a choice. You have described a threat; it's just an indirect threat hidden in the misleading language of a "choice." Let me illustrate: If I say to you, "You have a choice, I will either punch you or hug you," then that is a lie, for you don't actually have any choice at all in that scenario. It sounds like you do, but you do not. I will do something to you. You have no choice in the matter; you only have acquiescence to my authority over you and are not free at all. You think you’re free; after all, you certainly wouldn’t want a punch when you could "choose" to have a hug, but that isn’t what’s actually happening here. You are thinking the way a slave (or sheep) thinks; the way a victim thinks, which is how your religion indoctrinated you to think since birth. You have no choice because the situation is rigged from the beginning to fool you into thinking that you have some sort of freedom when you actually do not. In both situations, the hug or the punch, you are being subjected to something that you have no control over and therefore no choice. The choice in that scenario—for it truly to be a choice—would be, "I will either punch you or hug you" OR "You will either punch me or hug me." THAT and ONLY that is a choice wherein you are a free agent. A choice is between chicken for dinner or steak. A choice is going to see a comedy or going to see a drama. A choice is chocolate ice cream or vanilla. Do you see the distinction here? A choice—an actual free will choice—is only between things that don't result indirectly in your punishment. What you are describing is a veiled threat in the guise of a "choice" but it isn't actually a choice. It is a threat and I would/could never believe in any savior or God that threatened me, whether directly or indirectly. Why do you? "That's what I believe,Darla" I hope you seriously examine those beliefs by actually reading the book your beliefs come from. If it helps, try replacing the name Jesus with Bill or Tom and you will see immediately how false it is. Sorry to be so direct, but cults are very hard to break out of. The only way to do it is to wake up and see for yourself the lies that are continuously told to you and the truths that are always hidden or rationalized away so that you don't think about them. After all, "you must have faith" is the equivalent of saying, "don't think, believe." Would you ever accept such a ridiculous proclamation about anything else in your life? We're talking about your supposed salvation here and you're not even allowed to think, let alone instructed and encouraged to think? What does that sound like to you? What does that say about what you believe in? What do you think? Letter 2: Also from http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html Hello. I’ve broken up your letter in order to address as many of the issues you brought up in as much detail as time and space permits. Your parts are sectioned off by quotation marks. "You rail against the Bible and Jesus and that's your right. There are some things you mention that don't have a bearing on the doctrine of Christianity." The "doctrine" of Christianity is not the issue here, though it becomes the issue indirectly. What is at issue and is of the highest importance is whether or not the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God and therefore a means toward the "salvation" of the soul, or simply another book of myths and stories no more significant (or insignificant) than Grimm’s Fairy Tales. "Obviously we don't have any of the original manuscripts of the texts of the Bible." Well, good, I’m glad you are capable of dealing with some facts directly, but you shouldn’t sluff this off so casually. Without (allegedly) original manuscripts you are admitting that we do not have an actual Bible to base a doctrine upon, so I’m very curious to discover where this doctrine you speak of comes from. "What we do have is a wealth of ancient manuscripts from all over Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia that do not contradict each other in matters of doctrine." Beside my above observation, once again you’re missing the most important point while indirectly conceding it. I don’t know from which ancient manuscripts you are generalizing to make such a blanket statement (no ancient Asian manuscripts I’ve ever seen, for example, mention Jesus), however, the fact that you took pains to state they do not contradict each other "in matters of doctrine" betrays your knowledge that they DO contradict each other in terms of historical and anecdotal accounts. In other words, the facts do not correspond; they cancel each other out; they contradict each other. If the historical and anecdotal facts contradict one another, then you have no basis upon which to build a doctrine. You can’t claim the fantasy is the real issue and not the facts that support that fantasy, or else all you have is a belief structure based entirely upon personal whim. "Whether Ahaziah was 22 or 42 is insignificant to your or my relationship with our creator." Absolutely, categorically incorrect. You can not have a relationship with a non-existent creator, yes? So in order to have a relationship there must actually exist somewhere this alleged Creator. And not just any Creator figure. You believe in a very specific Creator figure, namely the Christian God, unless I missed your references to Buddha and Allah. The only evidence that points to the actual existence of such a Christian God is the Christian Bible and the only basis upon which you could possibly believe it truly is the work of the Christian God would be if it were a flawless work inspired entirely throughout its existence by The One True God to be God’s True Word and The One True Source of Salvation, no matter what variation or copy thereof. I’m assuming your God has no statute of limitations. His inspiration does not have a half-life. It stands to reason that if the "original manuscripts" were inspired by God and therefore Inerrant, then no version could be without this inspiration or Inerrancy and still remain THE Bible. The very second you admit Errancy is the very second you admit that what you’ve got in your hands is NOT The Bible, but simply a non-God inspired copy, full of errors and contradictions that leave you without a true Bible to base any doctrine upon. Without the "originals" for comparison and correction, no doctrine can be created that is not inherently flawed or at the very least, seriously in question. Take the "thou shalt not kill" vs. "though shalt not murder" conundrum. Without the original manuscripts to clear up this problem, Christians do not have consensus as to what one of the Ten Commandments God supposedly gave us tells us to do. Are we not to kill, meaning animal, vegetable and enemies of the state, or are we not to murder, meaning wars are justifiable, manslaughter is not a condemnation to Hell, and we are free to consume all animal and plant life that we desire? You can argue until you’re blue in the face that one version is the "correct" version, but your arguments are entirely without merit unless you have the alleged original manuscripts to definitively prove your claim. This isn’t whether or not someone was 22 or 42, these are the Ten Commandments we’re talking about here. You don’t get bigger than that, except, perhaps from your viewpoint, the death and resurrection of Jesus, as I will attend to later in your response. Without an Inerrant Bible, we are left without a Bible for which to base any doctrine upon, unless you just want to start making things up on your own according to your own whim, though I believe you would have to label that "blasphemy." You cannot have a relationship with something that does not exist and until you can verify that it does exist, then you have no relationship to begin with, merely the childish desires of a desperate, yet clearly creative mind. "We also are not punished for Adam's sin. We are held accountable for our own sin. Because Adam sinned we have inherited a sin nature." Ahh, the slippery slope. Just exactly what does this mean, we "inherited a sin nature?" Are you saying that "sinning" is a genetic trait found somewhere within our DNA? Or are you claiming that we "inherited" this nature the way we inherit money from a dead relative; that it is passed on to us as a gift? Are you saying that because your father lies, for example, that you have inherited his lying nature? How is it possible to inherit an abstract concept? Please clarify this point because currently it has no meaning beyond the original intent of this blatantly unfair construct, namely that innocent beings are being precluded from paradise because of the crimes of another individual—an individual not a single one of us has ever met or known. Don’t forget the trap of this construct is that we are BORN into this "sinning nature" and therefore precluded from paradise right from the start as innocent babies (or do you feel that you sinned the second you emerged from the womb and if so, how?) You’re attempting rationalization and it won’t work. As your own book states, The sins of the father SHALL NOT be passed on. No matter how you wish to dance around the semantics pole, this construct is inherently unfair and unjust and clearly negates the claim of the Judeo/Christian God as being a just and loving creator. In this instance, in fact, humans are evidently more just than is your God, for we would NEVER imprison the son because the father committed a crime, nor would we place any kind of limit or "inherited nature" whatsoever on the son’s ability to achieve happiness because the father failed to. No matter how you slice it, it is unjust. "I'm sure you admit that you are not sinless. I know that I'm not." Yes, more of the dance. Whether you are currently sinless or not is irrelevant and a childish evasion tactic and you should be ashamed of attempting it. The questions are (as you very well know), were you innocent at birth or had you committed some form of sin that would preclude you from entering paradise right away? At what point did you begin to sin, or were you simply a rotten apple gestating in the womb, waiting for your punishment to begin? If so, what could your sin possibly have been and isn’t your God then at fault for birthing an innocent being into a sinful nature? And, finally on this point, whether or not you personally have sinned, how does that justify the unfair proclamation that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve are to be punished for Adam and Eve’s actions? They screwed up and got thrown out of paradise, but we did not. In fact, we were not even offered the choice. You want to keep discussing doctrine? Ok. Let’s discuss that one. Explain to me how "inheriting a sinful nature" is not an unjust punishment precluding us from Eden on the basis of what our ancestors did thousands of years ago. Do not, however, attempt to claim that we can get back into Eden through the belief in Jesus Christ because that is not the issue at hand. The issue is, why are we automatically precluded from going directly to Eden simply because an ancestor of ours thousands of years ago sinned? Why should we "inherit a sinful nature" when we did absolutely nothing to deserve it? "I also assume that you do believe in God or you wouldn't have such a great interest in trying to tear the Bible down." Like all Christians, you assume far too much and base every assumption on a false premise. There is no "interest" in "trying to tear the Bible down." A fourth grader could illuminate the contradictions in the book and clearly demonstrate what narrow-minded individuals like yourself are incapable of realizing: it is nothing more than a book of fairy tales, fables and myths. At best, it’s a collection of interesting social stories told to ancient tribes in order to restore some semblance of hope in otherwise wretched, oppressed lives. They are no more remarkable or true than the stories prisoners of war tell each other in order to maintain their morale, or the lies we tell children about Santa Clause. Unfortunately, though, for you and your kind, no one let you in on the secret, most likely because the real creators of these myths probably thought any intelligent individual would come to that conclusion on their own, just like you did with the Santa Clause myth. Once you saw the facts of existence did not coincide with the fantasy of the story, your belief in Santa dissolved. Why have you not continued this lesson with all other myths? You’re identical to a person who finds a comic book in the desert and proclaims that it MUST be divine simply because there’s a statement in it claiming divinity. "If God is not real what does it matter what a book or a group of people records or believes about Him?" Yes, the "what does it matter/what does it harm" approach to rationalizing away a malevolent organization. In effect you are saying, Who cares what we believe in? What’s it to you? Well, you’d be right if those believers kept their beliefs entirely to themselves, never telling another individual about them accept in the form of fantasy or story telling and never translating those beliefs into every day social existence. But, as you well know, Christians do not do such things. Quite the contrary. Christians have done everything in their power to force their private "what does it matter" beliefs on millions of otherwise blissful individuals who never considered a fear based dogma until it was literally shoved down their throats. Make absolutely NO mistake about this central and irrefutable fact: Christians force their religion on to others, starting with their own children. It is NEVER offered as a free will choice where children are concerned and rarely is it offered as a free will choice where preaching is concerned, because every time any Christian mentions their beliefs, they always threaten their listeners with their fear based indoctrination. In fact, Christians have murdered and tortured hundreds of millions of innocent people over the centuries in order to force their supposed "free will" doctrine of spiritual freedom on those who did not want it—under penalty of death. The only reason this stopped was because it was successful and certainly NOT because the Bible or God or their Christian upbringing told them to stop! Today, Christians do not have to murder and torture to force their beliefs on innocent people because the original crusades worked so well. Today, Christians force women to give birth to unwanted children, even if that child was a result of rape or incest. Today, Christians force legislatures to employ the death penalty and deny assisted suicide and all manner of censorship as a direct result of the teachings found in their Christian Bibles. Today, Christians indoctrinate their children into their members-only clubs through tales of Hell and damnation; in other words, through fear, thereby removing any freedom of religion those children had. Today, Christians fight wars against factions of their own religion (does Belfast ring a bell?) Today, Christians fight tooth and nail with our Government to force prayer in school, thereby costing taxpayers millions of dollars, even though their own religion commands them to pray in secret and do not do as the hypocrites do (Matt. 6:6). Today, Christians use their fear based dogma to bilk millions of innocent and honest individuals out of their hard earned money with promises of greater salvation in Heaven, whatever that may be. Today, Christians influence and shape almost every major political issue on the books from the perspective of their warped and malevolent Christian upbringing. Today, Christians lock their churches so the homeless have no place to sleep. Today, Christians shave their heads and torture gays, blacks, jews and just about any other group that isn’t a part of their select club. This country is almost entirely a Christian nation and as a direct result of Christian doctrines we have raped, stolen, destroyed, and plundered the land, natural resources, and indigenous peoples, while dropping TWO God Fearing atomic bombs, justifying all of it through the Christian beliefs as written in the Christian Bible. Slavery, the denigration of women, and the destruction of the Native American Indians can all be directly traced to your so-called Christian doctrines. And while Christian leaders are busy with their "manifest destiny," the less fortunate Christian children are taught to become the perfect mindless citizens; subservient to authority, turning the other cheek when attacked. They are taught to suffer now and be rewarded later, because, hey, the world needs ditch diggers, right? In other words, they are indoctrinated to be complacent slaves, though I believe the word used is "sheep." You wish this weren’t so, as do I, and you rationalize all of this away by erroneously stating ridiculous platitudes such as, "Those people who did those things were not TRUE Christians," as if that changes anything or removes culpability for your group’s actions, or "Christianity has also done a lot of good," though what you really mean is that a handful of individuals did some good in spite of their indoctrination, not because of it. The truth of your Christian doctrine is NOT peaceful co-existence and loving your brother and salvation into paradise. No other belief structure has caused such prolonged suffering and divisiveness (how many factions of Christianity are there now?) This is an indisputable fact and the direct result of the Judeo/Christian Bible and the doctrines taught therein. This fact can not be denied You may wish to say that that is not what Jesus intended, but you will have very little Biblical support for such a personal whim. After all, it was He who came with a sword, yes? "Your understanding of scripture is lacking or you intentionally take it out of context intentionally to build a straw man argument against." You state this because, once again, you proceed from a false assumption, namely the Bible and God exist and are nothing but love and goodness and salvation and therefore nothing in the Bible could possibly be interpreted or seen as malevolent, even though the majority clearly is. It’s called "cognitive dissonance." It’s a state of mind that occurs when a belief structure is challenged fundamentally and the individual challenged simply refuses to believe the truth, preferring fiction. An example would be coming home from work on a lovely spring day to police officers at your house detailing the murder your ten-year-old son just committed against your five-year-old daughter. Understandably, your mind would simply refuse to admit the situation and you could easily slip into cognitive dissonance and simply choose not believe such heinous truths. It does not, however, change the heinous truths. So, since I’m speaking on Dennis’ behalf, I can assure you that his grasp of scripture is most likely more extensive than your own. Have you read ALL of the issues of Biblical Errancy or his Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, or are you the one attempting a straw man argument? As for the "taken out of context" evasion, as with so many other evasive tactics, you’re going to have to show how any quotes were taken out of context and not (as you do in a moment) simply imply that your interpretation of a biblical story is THE correct context and anyone else’s is just wrong. You cannot state that the context of the Bible is that God exists, because that is NOT the context of the Bible. That is what the Bible is attempting to prove and if it does not, then nothing detailing errancy is taken out of context. If it can be shown (as Dennis does so extensively that the mind boggles) that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of quaint folk lore, then the context of that Bible is one of myth, not fact. Dance lightly on this context thing, because you are clearly not understanding what the word means. Indeed, as I illustrate more in a moment, a very good argument can be made that anyone assuming the context of the Bible to be anything other than fable and myth is the one "taking things out of context." Do not proceed from false assumptions. "If you notice when Jesus responded to the young ruler that he must follow the commandments to be saved the man told Him that He had kept them since his youth. Obviously he was still lacking something." This is pure speculation on your part based on the fact, once again, that you inherently believe the Bible to be The Truth regardless of the facts that prove it is not. This illustrates my point. In this instance it is you who are taking things out of context because you are merely assuming that the Bible is a book of divine Truth based solely upon your own personal desire that it be so and not upon any kind of substantive evidence whatsoever. You are assuming the Man was somehow at fault in this story simply because Jesus proclaimed that he was. Since you believe Jesus is God/Messiah, you also then assumed that Jesus was correct and the Man was wrong. Since there is no evidence that the Bible is "right" and therefore Jesus is God/Messiah, there is also no evidence that the Man was wrong in his statement nor that he was lacking anything at all. In fact, the Man is much more like a spectator standing before a snake oil salesman pointing out the fact that he drank what he was supposed to drink and was not healed as a result, so what gives? Well, of course the snake oil salesman will not admit that his concoction doesn’t work. He will instead put the blame on the Man for not being able to be healed in the first place. "Jesus then told him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor and follow Him. The man's great riches were too important to him for him to give his life to Christ." Again, this is merely your own speculation based upon a fable from a book of myths and fairy tales. You condemn the man for not following a charlatan attempting to trick him out of his honest living so that Jesus appears the savior and the Man the confused sinner who "just doesn’t get it." It’s the cheapest and oldest form of con: "I can heal you if you believe, but if I don’t heal you, then you just aren’t believing hard enough." In other words, it couldn’t possibly be Jesus’ fault the Man did not achieve salvation by following God's Ten Commandments, it must be the Man’s fault. God is never to blame, Man is always at fault. Convenient con game, don’t you think? Let me ask you a question that I’m sure no one ever has. Why would Jesus—our Savior—require ANYTHING from us in order to grant us salvation? Surely God’s grace is grand enough to save us without our having to "believe" in him, yes? "What is it that stands in your way? Salvation is only achieved through faith in Jesus." What is the evidence you offer for this profound declaration? That is a serious statement you are making and yet you have nothing to back it up with. If your claim is the Bible, then why is it any more definitive than the same kind of evidence offered by Buddhists or Muslims or the Jews? Because you say it is so? Because a character in a fable says it is so? Ask yourself, just once in your life, why wouldn’t God/Jesus tell you exactly why and how "belief" in Jesus is required for salvation? What would be the harm in doing so? Your Bible supposedly details every other aspect of God’s existence so why not an explanation as to the specific requirements of "believing" in Jesus to achieve salvation? It not only makes no basic, childhood level sense, it also betrays the desperation of a Man/Organization, rather than the all knowing, all understanding, all forgiving One True God. If your God requires anything at all in order to grant salvation for His own creation, then you’ve got a very disturbed God more in need of psychoanalysis than prayer offerings. "You and I can't save ourselves." Again, where is your evidence to support this claim? These are VERY serious issues you raise, so you MUST provide the evidence to support them if they are to be trusted. If your only evidence is, "It’s true because the Bible says its true," then you have no evidence whatsoever and your statements have no basis in truth. "There is a holy and righteous God who put us here for a purpose and that is to have a relationship with Him." See above observations and include this: why couldn’t we have a relationship with Him in Eden avoiding this "inherited" sinful life? We didn’t do anything wrong, Adam and Eve did. Why are innocent children being denied paradise because of what total strangers did thousands of years ago? Your platitudes and statements have no basis to support them. " But He is perfect and for us to be with Him after this life we must also be perfect." More grandiose statements that have no basis in fact nor anecdotal substance. If you’ll actually read your own Bible you’ll see very clearly that the God described in those two Testaments is anything BUT perfect. You didn’t really read any of Dennis’ newsletters did you? You’ll find literally hundreds of specific examples detailing beyond a shadow of a doubt through the very words God allegedly inspired that the Judeo/Christian God is nowhere near perfect. Here are just a few examples so that you will see with your own eyes the lies your book has been indoctrinating you with without your knowledge (from Biblical Errancy newsletter): God, the Perfect Being, did all of folowing in what is supposedly His book. He created evil (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, Ezek. 20.:25-26, Judges 9:3, 1 Sam. 16:23, 18:10); He decieved (Jer. 4:10, 15:18, 20:7, 2 Chron. 18:22, Ezek. 14:9, 2 Thess. 2:9-12); He told people to lie(Ex. 3:18, 1 Sam. 16:2); He lied (Gen 2:17, 2 Sam. 7:13); He rewarded liars (Ex. 1:15-20); He ordered men to become drunken (Jer. 25:27); He rewarded the fool and the transgressor (Prov.26:10); He delivered a man, Job, into Satan's hands (Job 2:6); He mingled a perverse spirit (Isa. 19:14); He spread dung on people's faces (Mal. 2:3)); He ordered stealing (Ezek. 39:10, Ex. 3:22); He made false prophecies (Jonah 3:4. Gen. 5:10); He changed his mind (Jonah 3:10); He caused adultery (2 Sam. 12:11-12); He ordered the taking of a harlot (Hosea 1:2, 3:1-2); He killed (Num. 16:35, 21:6, Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam. 2:26, Psalm 135:10); He ordered killing (Lev. 26:7-8, Num. 25:4-5); He had a temper (Deut. 13:17, Judges 3:8); He was often jealous (Deut. 5:9, 6:15); He wasn't omnipresent (Gen4:16, 11:5, 1 Kings 19:11-12); He wasn't omniscient (Deut. 8:2, 13:3, 2 Chron. 32:31); He often repented (Ex. 32:14, 1 Sam. 15:35); He practiced injustice (Ex. 4:22-23, Joshua 22:20, Rom. 5:12); He played favorites (Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 1 Sam. 12:22); He sanctioned slavery (Ex. 21:20-21, Deut. 15:17); He degraded deformed people (Lev. 21:16-23); He punished a bastard for being illegitimate (Deut. 23:2); He punished many for the acts of one (Gen. 3:16, 20:18); He punished children for the sins of their fathers (Ex. 12:29, 20:5, Deut. 5:9); He prevented people from hearing his word (Isa. 6:10, John 12:39-40); He supported human sacrifice (Ex. 22:29-30, Ezek. 20:26); He ordered cannibalism (Lev. 26: 29, Jer. 19:9); He demanded virgins as a part of war plunder (Num. 31:31-36); He ordered gambling (Joshua 14. 2, Num. 26:52, 55-56); He ordered horses to be hamstrung (Joshua 11:6); He sanctioned violation of the enemy's women (Deut. 21:10-14); He excused the beating of slaves to death (Ex. 21:20-21); He required a woman to marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28:29); He taught war (Psalm 144:1); He ordered the burning of human feces to cook food (Ezek. 21:3-5); He intentionally issued bad laws (Ezek. 20:25); He excused the sins of prostitutes and adulterers (Hosea 4:14); He excused a murderer and promised his protection (Gen. 4:8-15); He killed a man who refused to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law (Gen. 38:9-10); and He is indecisive (Gen. 18:17). "I 'm fairly confident that you, like me, have failed at that. Only Jesus' righteousness being given to us can reconcile us to God." Well, setting aside all of the above examples of why I would not want to be reconciled to your confused God, let’s get into this directly. If Jesus is giving something to us, then we need to do nothing whatsoever in order to receive it, correct? Otherwise, it’s not a gift, right? That includes, by the way as some other fundamentalist attempted to state, "picking it up." If this is truly a gift from Jesus then it is given freely to us, regardless of what our actions are, otherwise, it is NOT a gift. If we are required to do ANYTHING at all in order to receive this gift (including simply "picking it up") then it is NOT a gift. I don’t care if all that you need to do is love Jesus or believe in Jesus or simply blink three times, it is not a gift if I am required to do anything in order to receive it. And don’t attempt childish analogies here like the fundie above with the "picking it up" crap, because this is supposedly divine salvation we’re discussing. If divine salvation is a gift from God, then NOTHING we do can be a condition of that gift, or else it is not a gift. It would be a reward and that would mean your God plays favorites; that we can somehow "win" our way into Heaven. If that is your contention, then your belief structure is even more childish than I first thought and in serious need of examining beyond this missive. "He loves you and wants the same thing for you that I received from Him this past year." Well, since I’ve never met the man and don’t believe in the deity and he’s been dead for a few thousand years, then that puts things into an awkward light. I wonder what a psychologist that hadn’t been born on this planet would do the minute he entered any kind of Church. If he were I, he had every one of them committed. "It is good that you question things. No one should allow themselves to be duped." Well, finally another statement of yours I whole-heartedly agree with. The other was about how there are no original manuscripts. "In all the time you spend searching the scriptures in the attempt to destroy them truly see what it says." Ah, and here’s where we diverge. There is no "attempt" nor is there a destruction going on. The words speak for themselves, which is why Dennis never speculates in his analysis, he simply illustrates the obvious contradictions that exist. Once again, you proceed from a false assumption. You assume that we are all just Satan’s little helpers, hell bent on destroying what in your eyes cannot be destroyed. Nothing could be further from the truth. We’re just awake trying to help you and your kind discern truth from indoctrinated trance states. We are cult deprogrammers, and the tool we use is the book you’ve read, but never seen. You have been duped by a snake oil salesman and we’re just here to mop your brow while your sweat out the toxins of your indoctrination. Believe it or not, we’re not your enemies. "If it is truly of God then there is power and hope for eternal life. If its not what do we have?" Yes, Pascal’s pathetic wager. You know what? You’re right. We’re wrong. Go back to sleep. The Bible is completely true and the universe was magically willed into existence by a fairy God King who just wants us all to love him and sing his praises, which is why he created us with the ability to do whatever we wanted, hoping against hope on his throne in the clouds that we would all just do the right thing, because that makes the most sense; that version of events is clearly the easiest to understand and believe in because absolutely nothing about it is childish in any way shape or form. God never does anything bad, it’s all Mankind’s fault for not loving God, and dinosaurs were just God’s little way of saying, "Oh ye of little faith." It will never cease to amaze me that intelligent men and women will immediately revert back to frightened little children whenever their myths and fables are shown to be what they are. It always reminds me of how even the fiercest of cats will instantly ball up into a harmless kitten the second you grab them by the scruff. " No other man ever made the claims Jesus made." Actually, many thousands of men have made the same claims long before anybody named Jesus allegedly walked the planet (a few examples of Jesus lack of miracles is detailed below). What claims are you referring to? " No one else ever sacrificed himself for my sins so if it is true then it is the most important thing we will ever make a decision about." Ok, then let’s get into this one, too. Enough of my flippancy, you are a passionate believer in this doctrine so let’s actually discuss this. I have heard this many, many times, the "he sacrificed himself for my sins" guilt based propaganda and I’m wondering just exactly what it means? I don’t mean in a poetic sense since the poetry has no bearing on our supposed salvation, I mean in a specific, literal translation of that statement, "He sacrificed himself for my sins." Would you care to enlighten me as to how this is physically possible, or even meta-physically possible? How does the death of one person, even if that "person" was God, wipe out our sins? It was, at best, a magnanimous gesture, but utterly worthless when you actually examine the details. Christians are supposed to somehow accept that God came down in flesh in order to "die" for their sins, when supposedly God can not die (setting aside, of course, that God would not have to do such elaborate theatrics to save us to begin with). So what died? God’s flesh? What possible difference would that make? Then was it God’s spirit? Can God’s spirit die? Not according to any dogma I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. So, we’re back to the flesh dying and again I’ll ask, what is the specific mechanism of the death of God’s flesh that results in our salvation? This is a primary tenet of your religion so you should have a definitive answer. Again, I’m not asking you for the poetry here, I’m sincerely asking you to deconstruct this concept for me and detail how the death of anyone’s flesh has to do with wiping out our sins? And please do not simply use the word "sacrifice" as if it has any kind of magical, spiritual meaning, because it does not since we’re discussing God. There is nothing to sacrifice to, setting aside the fact that a sacrifice is a man-made concept that is purely symbolic and has no actual substantive results. You can sacrifice an animal to make it rain, but that does not mean it rained because you sacrificed an animal. It is pure symbolism, yet you are taking it to be some kind of literal fact. If so, then detail that fact and do not go into analogy or pointless generalities. "That is why His resurrection is the very foundation of Christianity. Jesus' resurrection and ascension shows that God accepted His sacrifice." Again, how could God accept a sacrifice to himself? What is sacrificing and what is accepting? "If you want to tear down Christianity I would suggest you start there. If you disprove that one event in history then all the rest falls with it." Very clever of you to attempt to slip in the assumption that the resurrection was a proven historical event. Since it has never been proven, however, I do not, as you claim, have to disprove it. It is on your shoulders to prove such an event occurred and that the event carries any kind of significance. I can, however, show you the insignificance of the event as related by your own book, as well as the mass of contradictions surrounding this erroneous claim of Jesus’ divinity in order to illustrate that not only has it not been proven, but worse, the accounts themselves clearly show no proof exists. Let’s examine the aspects of the "event" according to your own accounts. Once again I’ll turn to Dennis’ own illustration so that you will have no questions as to the conclusions drawn (from Biblical Errancy newsletter): >>Why should the Resurrection be of such significance? Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17, 21-22); Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me" (1Sam. 28.7, 11, 15); Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite (2 Kings 4:32, 34-35); a dead man being lowered into a grave revived when he touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21); Moses and Elijah revived at the time of the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28, 3 );the saints arose at the time of Jesus' death (Matt. 27:52-53); Jairus' daughter rose from the dead (Matt. 9:18, 23-25 ); the widow at Nain's son rose from the dead (Luke 7:11-15); and Lazarus rose from the dead (John 11:43-44). All of these people ascended from death, and all did so before Jesus. So why attribute so much importance to the event? By the time Christ rose from the dead, this was a rather common occurrence. Moreover, people arose not only before Jesus, but after as well. Peter raised Tabitha and Paul raised Eutychus. While participating in a radio call-in program several years ago, the author was told by a caller that, except for Jesus, all of the above-mentioned people eventually died again. But Paul clearly asserted it's the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact Jesus never died again. The caller was asked to cite a passage that justified his contention. There was no reply. A second major difficulty associated with the Resurrection lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred. The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the events connected with the Resurrection: A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb? At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1). B. Who came? Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary, the mother of James, and other women (Luke 24:10) C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 8:1-2) D. Whom did they see at the tomb? The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12) E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12). F. Were they standing or sitting? Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12). G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her? Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14). If the stories were consistent, one could write one long, continuous narrative, incorporating all four versions without fear of divergences. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument, which is quite irrelevant, since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event cannot be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming Innerrancy. A third major problem connected with the Resurrection lies in the fact that even if Jesus had risen, nobody is going to follow his example: Eccle. 3:19-21 (RSV) "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same: as one dies, so dies the other. ...man has no advantage (pre-eminence-KJV) over beasts;... All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth." Job 7:9-10, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, Isaiah 26:14 say as much. Robert Ingersoll, one of the greatest Biblical commentators in American history, spoke wisely when he said: "The Old Testament tells us how we lost immortality and it does not say a word about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi. No man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, "We shall meet again." From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world." (Orthodoxy, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, page 424.) In fact, what did Jesus ever do that had not already been accomplished? He rose from the dead, but only after others. He performed miracles, but so had others. He raised people from the dead, but so had Old Testament prophets. He healed, but so had others. What, then, did Jesus do that was different, that had not already been done? Plainly stated, "What makes him stand out from the crowd?" Thousands have claimed to be the savior; so what are the acts that substantiate his credentials? Assertions alone prove nothing. Anyone can claim to be the Messiah, and thousands have.<< Thank you Dennis. Now back to your closing. "As you said you "seek to prove all things" (1 Thes. 5:21)." Well, I didn’t say it, but I’m speaking on Dennis’ behalf, so, yes, we do seek to prove all things. As should you since your own book demands that you do. "I pray that as you search God will reveal Himself to you as you read His Word." Well, unfortunately, God did "reveal" himself to me as I read "his word." The revalation was that the Jedeo/Christian God does not exist and is merely a creation of Mankind’s need to control and subjugate individuals of low intelligence. I reached that conclusion, by the way, when I was eight years old. My subsequent study has only confirmed this fact and I am now thirty-four. "I know that you must get a lot of hate mail from "Christians" and I apologize for that. There is obviously a lot of hostility toward Christianity in your heart. I used to feel the same way." Again, speaking on behalf of Dennis, I can personally attest to the fact that he has no hostility toward Christianity, because that would be like having hostility toward the Brother’s Grimm or Mother Goose. Christians always attempt this sidetrack whenever any legitimate questions about their faith arise. They always attempt to claim that the one questioning is somehow filled with anger and bitterness and hatred at their purity, when the simple truth of the matter is that we aren’t at all. The only thing I am ever hostile toward is rampant stupidity that results in the harm of others and there has been no greater example of that malevolence than Christianity. Letters 3-6: These are from my personal correspondence with a particularly annoying individual who felt it his personal mission to force a debate over the Anthropic Principle (AP). As you’ll see from the progression of my responses, at first I had never heard of the AP and had no interest in arguing it, but got into it just to shut this jackass down. Again, the correspondence is not complete, but you’ll be able to follow the gist of it and see just how truly evil propaganda indoctrination is. In a nutshell, the AP (or, as it is commonly referred to, the Argument from Fine Tuning) is the "scientific" circuitous proof that God created the universe. You should also know that his original argument to me was a hypothetical regarding the impossibility of picking up a red grain of sand in the Sahara desert while blindfolded. It was supposed to be his lead in argument illustrating how impossible it is that the universe was created naturally. Students of propaganda should note throughout his consistent use of accusing his detractors (me) with his own offenses (the use of circular logic). Letter 3: Tom attempts to refute my statement that his argument (since the odds of natural occurrence are beyond 10 raised to the 50th power, it is therefore impossible for the universe to have occurred naturally) is erroneous at best and, at worst, mathematically incorrect. Tom— Once again, I have sectioned off your response with quotation marks. This time, however, I have not corrected your overwhelming spelling mistakes. "Let me try to put your "reasoning" into a faulty syllogism. Let X equal our universe and its physical laws. The odds of X of occuring naturally are zero (sense they are beyond 10 to the 50th power)" Once again, you have illustrated your ignorance. The odds of X occurring naturally are NOT zero. You have erroneously concluded that an odd of occurrence being beyond a certain mathematical limit is EQUIVALENT to zero, simply because they are so small and because you have learned that in mathematical computations, mathematicians routinely equate a miniscule number with zero in order to carry out their computations. It is NOT equivalent to zero, however, when you are discussing an event THAT HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED, no matter how many scientists you misinterpret to state that it is, so you are the one proceeding from a false construct. But let's continue, I come back to this in direct refutation of your "points" in the body of the letter... "X did occur. Therefore, X is not impossible to occur naturally.Is this close enough?" No, it isn't even in the same ballpark. My "syllogism" would be, The odds of X occurring are very small. X did occur. Therefore, calculating the odds of X occurring (though entertaining mental masturbation) is irrelevant. Note the difference here. You have decided that since you read someone claiming that .999999999999 EQUALS 1, then it MUST be that .9999999999 EQUALS 1. This is true only in mathematical computations and has no bearing on the fact of whether or not something "beat the odds." Again, I get into this more later... "Now, the problem is with the third part. The key word here is "naturally." It is still impossible for X to have occurred naturally, whether it has occurred in reality or not. Hence, to say that sense it occurred it THEREFORE occurred NATURALLY is a non sequiter." The only non-sequitur here is your above statement. You have not shown that it is "impossible for X to have occurred naturally," you have only demonstrated an irrelevant point, namely, that the odds of X occurring "naturally" are extremely small. This proves only one thing, that the odds of X occurring "naturally" are extremely small. That's it. No other inference can be made. And since it did occur naturally, this renders your already irrelevant point even more ridiculous. Unless, of course you are going to offer some form of proof that X occurred "supernaturally," which I would love to read. Is that where this is going? Do you have ANY PROOF AT ALL that X occurred "supernaturally" or are you the one using circular logic? Where is your valid syllogism? Where is your proof that X occurred "supernaturally?" Because, absent such proof, we are left with what we have, nature. Nature exists, this can not be refuted or denied. Therefore, the burden of proof to the contrary--that a "supernatural" event created the universe--is on he who alleges. Surely you learned that much in your logic course. "It is just like your circular reasoning re: the process of entropy. You seem to think that this was manufactured in some conspiracy by some creationist scientists who were out to prove the existence of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stephen Weinberg is one of the top 50 or so physicists in the world. He has worked with such renowned people as John Archibald Wheeler & Richard Feynman. Oh, and by the way - he is also a devout atheist. However, he has labelled entropy as creating the "problem of genesis." (See Stephen Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, 1979). John Archibald Wheeler himself has promoted himself as a defender of oscillating universe theory, even though he has described the evidence as "weak" (see John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam, 1998)." Great. I will read this and get back to you on it, but it doesn't change the central fact that you are proceeding from a false assumption. In fact, I am well versed in Feynman, so I can see right off the bat that you have done what so many Christians who try desperately to bend science to their rationalizations do on a painfully regular basis, namely, misinterpreted the scientists' points. But, since I have not read what you have asked me to read, I will hold my analysis until I do. This does not, however, preclude me from addressing your conclusions or the central flaws of your argument. As for the entropy stuff, I address that in a minute... "Now, you seem to think that the role of science is to disprove the existence of God." No, I don't think that, nor did I ever give any inference or implication that I did feel that. It just so happens that science has served very nicely to prove that most of the ridiculous claims in the Bible are clearly not possible (such as an Ark of the dimensions given carrying selections of every single animal, insect, bacterium, and Dinosaur; and the age of the universe according to the genealogies in Genesis). "It is not. Nor is it to prove the existence of God. The role of science is to find out the way things are, WHATEVER THAT MAY END UP BEING." Great, we're in agreement. And the very second science proves the existence of a fairy God-King that mystically "willed" the Universe into existence, I'll dance and sing and eat pounds of chocolate. One thing is definite, however, science has already disproved most of the claims of the Bible, so no matter what is discovered in the future, the Bible CAN NOT be the inerrant word of God. That is already proved through science, so I'm not going to hold my breath, but you certainly can. I recommend you begin right now. "Now, you rejected my argument for a first cause from the implications of entropy (one of the most esablished laws of nature that is accepted by every credible physicist on the planet) because it interefered with your fantasy world paradigm." What fantasy world paradigm are you talking about? Nature? Because that's the only paradigm I live in. "In other words, the argument from entropy is wrong because there is no God. This is a classic, texbook case of circular reasoning. Never mind what I say - go to any logician at any university & THEY WILL TELL YOU THE EXACT SAME THING!" I haven't a clue as to what your contention here is. I never stated that "entropy is wrong because there is no God." I'm a firm believer in entropy theory. What you were trying to assume is that entropy within an infinite universe would imply somehow in a finite regression, and that also shows your misunderstanding of both infinity and entropy. If the universe is an infinite system, then entropy will continue infinitely. There will NEVER be a point of infinity "stopping" no matter what current theories state; that is the definition of infinity. It has no beginning, no middle, and no end. Are we clear on that point now? You asked if I believed the universe was infinite, and I said yes. To then attempt a forced acceptance of a theory that would contradict this supposition only shows that the theory is not a complete theory and one I don't agree with, regardless of Stephen Hawking sitting in his chair telling me that it isn't the case. If the universe is indeed infinite, then there will never be a "time" when it ceases (or begins) to be infinite. And while we're at it, let's dispense right now with the "go to experts and they will tell you" bullshit, shall we? I can list hundreds of thousands of experts and you can list hundreds of thousands (well, probably only a handful) and none of it will make the slightest bit of difference. These are THEORIES we are discussing, NOT absolutes. This means that they are open to debate; conjecture; further proofs; disproof’s; all kinds of thought provoking analysis. Nor did I reject your argument based upon entropy or upon any "circular reasoning." As I stated before and in this response, I rejected your argument based solely upon the erroneous assumption that a slim chance of "natural" existence is EQUIVALENT to no chance of "natural" existence. This is the basis of your contention and it is not a supportable one. You are the one who consistently avoids this point, attempting to force an invalid construct upon my valid rejection of it. I don't give a flying neutrino whether or not the odds of a "natural" existence are smaller than Planck's constant; it is entirely irrelevant how small the odds are that it occurred. This is not "circular reasoning" this is direct refutation of your invalid construct. Nature exists. Absent any proof that it was created "supernaturally," the odds of its existence are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. Until you can offer proof of a "supernatural" creation of the Universe, then what we have is nature, no matter how slim the chances are that it was "naturally" constructed. "Now, about this business about your being able to find a red grain of sand blindfolded on the first try in the Sahara desert." Again, you're missing my point and misinterpreting what I wrote. I NEVER claimed that I COULD find the grain of sand. The question was and still remains, What happens to your argument if I DID find it on the very first try, regardless of how small the odds are of doing so? The fact that it IS possible to find a red grain of sand on the first try in the Sahara desert while blindfolded--NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY--is completely disregarded by you, without any justification whatsoever. Once again, you are proceeding from a false assumption, namely, .9999999999999 EQUALS 1. It does not (except as a convenience of mathematics for the express purpose of mathematical computations) and so long as it does not, there will always be a hole in your argument that you could drive a universe through. "Well, let us suppose for a moment that you have a realistic chance of getting it (just for the sake of argument). Would you bet everything you own, including your very life, that you would be able to accomplish this task? Remember, the Sahara desert is far far bigger than the United States & you only get ONE SHOT to pick up ONE GRAIN OF SAND and that grain of sand had better be the red one, OR ELSE YOU LOSE EVERYTHING." I have no idea why you've decided to add all of this pointless crap about having "one shot" and "I lose everything." Not only was this not a condition of your argument, it is just as irrelevant. This betrays your cult indoctrination and illustrates to me one thing: You are almost entirely blind and can only see through religious glasses. Why would I only get "one shot?" How would I "lose everything?" Are you attempting to infuse Christian concepts into your argument? Please explain how the small chance of finding a specific grain of sand in the Sahara has anything to do with "betting my life on it." But let's continue... "Now, you will most likely say yes to this question just to spite me." No, I didn't. I simply illustrated how irrelevant your argument is. "If you do, you are either a liar or a fool (or both). If you say no, you are unwilling to risk everything on it, I win by default. If you say that it does not matter, oh yes it does." Why, because you say it does? What the hell are you talking about? Or is that what you're trying to allude to, "hell?" Is that it? And when did "risking everything on it" and "winning by default" come into this? Were you attempting to make a theological argument out of this or ask me about the odds of something occurring? Clarify this please, because I was responding to the odds issue and not childish, fear-based dogma. "YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE "FACT" THAT YOU CAN GRAB THAT RED GRAIN OF SAND ON THE FIRST TRY!" WRONG! LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IN BIG E-Z-2 READ FUNDAMENTALIST-APPROVED TYPE: YOUR ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON AN INVALID ASSUMPTION AND THEREFORE FALLS. THE FACT THAT THE ODDS OF SOMETHING OCCURRING ARE SMALL PROVES ONLY ONE THING: THE ODDS OF SOMETHING OCCURRING ARE SMALL. PERIOD. Is that clear now? Further, as I asked before and I’ll ask again, what happens to your argument if (note the word "if") I can grab the grain on the first try? It is not an impossibility, it is highly improbable. They are not equivalent. It is entirely possible for me to grab the red grain of sand on the very first try, however unlikely it may be. So stick to the point and answer the question. What happens to your argument if I do grab the red grain on the first try? "Just as out of all of the possible universes (in accordance with the Penrose number (10 to the 10th raised to the 123rd)) this one just happened to be the one that was formed. NOBODY IS THAT LUCKY!" Well, again, you are simply speculating based upon your desperation. This is your own false conclusion and is both logically invalid and mathematically invalid. "Luck" has nothing to do with science or math, but using your own terminology, obviously WE are "that lucky" since it occurred. If your Penrose is correct in his calculation of the odds, then the ONLY conclusion to be made from such odds is that we are "lucky" that it did occur because it did occur, AND CERTAINLY NOT that a fairy God-King created us into existence. Nature exists. The fact that Penrose shows the odds of it existing are incredibly small--even to the point of giving the "appearance" of being zero--DOES NOT change the fact that nature exists and no proof of a "supernatural" existence is in evidence. Again, until you can present proof and not circuitous reasoning that the universe was created "supernaturally," the fact remains that it IS natural. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges, and pointing out how small the chances are of something occurring does not negate the fact that it occurred that way. It is only mental masturbation, a feat you are obviously an expert at. Beside all that, is your argument that "NOBODY IS THAT LUCKY" your "proof" that the universe must therefore have been created by a fairy God-King? If so, then you have defined circular reasoning. "If you point to the fact that the universe does indeed exist & that therefore we beat all of the impossible odds "by chance", you are once again retreating into circular reasoning. (See the syllogysm above)." Again, wrong. They are not impossible odds. That is your erroneous conclusion. THEY ARE VERY SLIM ODDS. MINISCULE ODDS. REALLY, REALLY, TINY ODDS. AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. The odds that you will be hit by a bus driven by an albino African on his way to a spelunking excursion on December 8th at exactly 5:01 p.m. are so small that you might as well say "it is impossible," but this does not mean it CAN NOT occur, nor does it mean it is impossible! That is a false conclusion not supported either by mathematics or by experience. If it DID occur, then where does that place your odds argument? In the trash. Now do you see why you are proceeding from a false assumption? Is it clear now? All this theory of yours states is that the odds of our existence occurring "naturally" are incredibly small, NOT that the odds of our existence occurring "naturally" are impossible. Since you have provided NO EVIDENCE that we exist "supernaturally" then your theory is irrelevant and proves nothing. I think the odds on my winning the lottery are so small as to be considered zero, but that does not mean that I am right, nor does it mean that they are zero. You can raise ten to the millionth power and it would not alter the fact that ten to the millionth power is still more than enough chance in an infinite universe that our existence would occur. Hell, raise ten to the googol plex power and it will still be a literal "drop in the bucket" as far as infinity is concerned. "Once again, according to all credible mathmaticians on earth, anything beyond one chance in 10 to the 50th power is the same as zero." Wrong! Only for Homocentric mathematical computations is the number "the same" as zero. I repeat, only for homocentric mathematical computations is the number "the same" as zero. For everything else, however, the fact that an odd of occurrence is small does not mean it can not be. You've completely misunderstood what mathematics is for. They are a man-made construct used as a tool for understanding our homocentric view of life, yet they are nowhere near "complete" and total absolutes. Again, I would refer you to any quantum physics 101 course for you to understand that "experts" are not only consistently wrong about their calculations, but not a single one worth a damn would ever make such stupendously stupid conclusions that you are making, and I could give a shit if they have a hundred PhD's after their name, they would still be arrogant fools too in love with their own faulty proofs to see that they have reached an untenable conclusion. When compared to an infinite universe, no odd is small enough to be considered zero. Got it? Is it clear now? Your argument is that, because the odds of natural occurrence are VERY small, so small as to be ASSUMED to be zero, that they are, IN FACT zero. This is an invalid conclusion and destroys your argument completely. "Forget about dueling with the theists - you are saying that you are right and that every mathmatician on the planet is wrong!!!!! And you say that I am childish? Whoa! Now I have heard everything!" Again, no mathematician worth a damn would ever say that it is impossible for natural occurrence. This is your erroneous conclusion. At best, at the very best, a statistician would state, "It is highly unlikely to the effective point of being improbable, but by no means is it impossible." If you are reading anyone--and I don't give a rat's ass if it were Einstein himself--that claimed anything other then they are just as wrong as you are. "One further point. You have a false
notion of t Wow, you just read what you want to and disregard the point, don't you? I did not say I thought I could grab the red grain of sand blindfolded on the first try, I asked you what would happen to your argument if I DID grab the grain on the first try? And I'm asking it again and will continue to ask it until you answer. Since it is not impossible for me to grab the grain on the first try, but merely highly improbable, what happens to your argument if I DO grab it on the first try? That is the only question to which you need to answer. "Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the greatest atheistic minds on the planet have adopted what is known as the multiple universe theory. You have probably not heard of it," I tell you what, you stop with your childish condescension and I'll stop calling you stupid. How's that? "They (unlike you) realize that the odds of this universe being the way it is (if it is in fact the only universe) are zero." Total and utter bullshit! They think only that the odds of this universe being the way it is are highly improbable. Stop making invalid conclusions. "As the famous astronomer Fred Hoyle (another atheist) once said, "The universe looks like a put-up job. It seems as though someone has been monkeying around with the laws of physics." Anyway, all of these gentlemen (and many more besides) find it necessary to invoke multitudes of imaginary universes IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THIS ONE!!!!! " You know, it's remarkable how you can have such an imaginative mind and understand so much, but consistently miss the true point. They do not find it "necessary" to invoke multiple universe theory "in order to justify this one." They, like all of science, are on a quest to understand and discover what our universe is; what our existence is based upon and what paradigms there are. One theory is that there are multiple universes (indeed, string theory states that we must live in a 26 or 10 dimensional universe), but it is not "to justify" anything. It is to discover what our universe is through possible theories. You seem to think that any new theory or new discovery is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH and somehow negates something else when the fact is that we are fleas trying to understand what the dog is. ALL thought on the matter--including religious myths--both past and present and future are part of the attempt to discover where we are and what it is made of. It is not an attempt to "justify" anything. It is an ever growing and ever changing discovery process of what our existence is constructed of, and just like mathematics, it changes and grows with each new theory; each new possibility; each new discovery. What current scientists theorize about only serves to broaden our understanding not set it down in stone tablets handed to Moses. If you have misinterpreted this, I'm sorry, but that is your own cross to bear. Indeed, only Christianity seeks to "justify" and rationalize what science would never do; proclaim an Absolute Understanding Of Existence. Every one of those "experts" you quote would be the first to state that what they are discussing are theories; possible answers to huge questions, questions that we are just beginning to ask on any fact based level. Unlike the closed-minded Christian, science heralds new discoveries and new constructs; it revels in new theories that may (or may not) answer age-old questions. It is not nor ever will be an absolute proclamation. And any scientist who claims it is absolute will simply suffer shame and humiliation (such as those working on GUT) when their theory is shown to be incomplete or just plain wrong. And unlike Christians, when a scientist is shown that their theory is wrong--that their belief structure crumbles under the light of scrutiny--they admit it and move on to the new theory. You should try it sometime, instead of attempting to find every rationalization no matter how ridiculous to continue your misguided belief that a fairy God-King created existence. "It also seems to me a bit of a desparate move, but that's of no consequence here. Once again, forget about squabbling with the creationists for a moment - THESE ARE YOUR OWN FELLOW ATHEISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Um, beside the fact that a single exclamation point is sufficient for me to understand your emphasis, I have no "fellow atheists." Atheism is not a religion; there are no club meetings, and there certainly are no guidelines or rules. It simply means that I do not believe a mythical creature created all of existence. And, not a single "fellow atheist" or scientist worth his or her salt would ever disagree with the fact that miniscule odds are not equivalent to no odds at all. At best they would agree that it is highly improbable and, irrelevant. "And yet you are going to sit there and tell me that all of the finest materialist & scientific minds on the planet are wrong, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT?!?!?!?!!" Stop leaping to erroneous conclusions! You quoted Penrose, not "all of the finest materialist and scientific minds on the planet." Your hyperbole is just as childish as your unnecessary repetitions of question marks and exclamation points. And, yes, the "finest materialist and scientific minds on the planet" would agree with my assessment; a small chance of occurrence is not equivalent to no chance of occurrence, especially when the event has already occurred. Again, if you are attempting to prove that there is a "supernatural" explanation of the universe, then state your proof, because without it, we have only one fact: Nature exists. "And then you accuse ME of meglomania? !?!?!?! Oh, plllllease..." I don't "accuse" you of it; I point it out to you as a matter of supportable fact. Your letters are filled with your childish and unwarranted self-aggrandizement, as I have and will illustrate to you from now on. "Anyway, there is one small, itsy bitsy problem with multiple universe theory: there is not a SHRED of evidence that so much as ONE universe besides our own exists - much less an infinite number of them." Well, guess what? There is not a SHRED of evidence that this universe was mythically created by a God, nor have you offered ANY evidence that our universe did not naturally occur. You erroneously conclude that since there is such a small chance of our existence, it MUST mean that a fairy God-King magically willed us into being. This is not only unsupportable, but also the very height of circuitous reasoning. You believe in a fairy God-King, and I believe in intelligence. The difference being that intelligence is an open system, capable of growth and fuller understanding, whereas your beliefs were closed two thousand years ago. "Therefore, if the atheist would like to believe in them, that is all fine and well. However, IT WOULD BE A LEAP OF FAITH TO DO SO!!! Surprise, surprise! Is this not delightful? This puts us all in the same metaphysical boat, so to speak. The only difference is in our destinations. So, if you are keeping score at home, being an atheist entails a leap of faith of its own. Surprised? Hmmmmmmm." In case you were looking for examples of your childishness, just read how silly your "hmmmmmmm" crap is. But more to the point, you've finally illustrated the fatal flaw in your position. "Atheists" do not "believe" in anything. It is not a "leap of faith" to believe in multiple universes, it can clearly be shown to be a logical probability through the very mathematics that you so incorrectly leap upon. NOTE THE WORD "PROBABILITY." You see, unlike frightened children, intelligent people such as myself are not afraid of the universe. We do not require something to "believe in" to "justify" our existence. We read current theories and are amazed at all of the new discoveries, but "belief" never enters into the picture. I make no "leap of faith" at all, I simply live and am in no "metaphysical boat." As for your "destinations" bullshit, you have offered absolutely no proof whatsoever that you "go someplace" so this is just as irrelevant. Once again, if you are attempting a theological discussion then get to it, because this circular bullshit is growing incredibly thin. The burden of proof lies with he who alleges so where's your proof that the universe did not naturally occur? "This is the bottom line: if Penrose is remotely correct (and if he is incorrect YOU must PROVE him as such and not merely CONJECTURE THAT HE IS INCORRECT)" Already done, if you have quoted Penrose faithfully. I suspect there is more to what he is writing and I'll find out, but we are clearly not debating Penrose, we are debating your erroneous conclusions based upon Penrose's theory. And that was unbelievably easy to prove incorrect, so I'll get to Penrose later. "then there are only three possibilities. EITHER there is a God (or gods, if you please) OR there are multiple universes." Once again you have leaped to the wrong conclusion. It is not an either or proposition. We don't know what the universe is made of, we only have theories about it's construction; theories that continue to grow and change as new concepts are investigated. Perhaps there are multiple universes. Perhaps there aren't. Do you have any idea what a theory is, by the way? "It could even be that there is both a God (or gods) AND multiple universes, BUT IT CAN'T BE THAT THERE ARE NEITHER!!!!!!! Period." There are all those exclamation points again. Here are some of mine: THEORIES ARE NOT ABSOLUTE PROOFS!!!!!!!!! WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTRUCTED OF!!!!!! WE HAVE MANY THEORIES ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTRUCTED OF!!!!!! YOU HAVE OFFERED NO PROOF THAT A GOD EXISTS, YOU HAVE ONLY ATTEMPTED CIRCUITOUS REASONING TO IMPLY THAT NATURAL OCCURRENCE COULD NOT HAVE EXPLAINED OUR EXISTENCE, SO, THEREFORE, GOD CREATED US!!!!!!! YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR SUPPOSITION, SYLLOGISM, AND CONCLUSION!!!!!!!! "If you wish to challenge this premise, don't waste my time -(I have wasted too much of my time on your little mind as it is)." More evidence of your childish insults and megalomania. Your premise is so clearly baseless it hurts. "Instead, consult ANY physicist who is educated on the issue (whether they be atheist, agnostic, skeptic or creationist does not matter) and THEY WILL TELL YOU THE EXACT SAME THING THAT I AM TELLING YOU NOW!!!!!!" NO THEY WON'T!!!!!!!! THEY WILL ONLY SAY AT BEST THAT IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT LIFE EXISTS--NOTE THE WORD "IMPROBABLE"!!!!!!!! "If you would like further reading on the Anthropic Principle, I would suggest Universes by John Leslie. I make this suggestion because it is THE definitive study of the Anthropic Principle. It is quite exhaustive & is also endorsed by BOTH atheists & theists alike. Of course, I am probably foolish to even attempt to recommend anything to you - the way you talk, you seem to have a monopoly on knowledge & don't need to consider anything that anyone else has to say - whether they be atheists, theists or whatever." I will read it with pleasure. Unlike you, I am open to anything that is thought provoking. However, if the conclusion is that "it is impossible for life to have been created without a fairy god-king willing it into creation" then I'll laugh my ass off at such a worthless rationalization and consider you more of an idiot than I already do. Sorry, I had promised not to call you any more names, but your childish attempts at insulting my intelligence beg for a statement of fact, namely, "if you believe this, you are an idiot." Not so much an insult as an observation. "In any case, I don't see why I am even trying to reason with you. Arguing with you is like trying to argue with a wall - you don't listen to anything anyone else has to say. You just like to talk." Perhaps that's because you have nothing to say except invalid conclusions based on faulty rationalizations. Perhaps it's because I see through you the way I do a window. If you are attempting to prove that a God exists, then do so. Your circuitous argument is not supportable, as I have conclusively proved. So, how's this: Would you care to go over the points I brought up to refute your argument before you accuse me of just "liking to talk?" You are the one who proposed an invalid argument, I merely illustrated all of the glaring flaws within it; flaws that you have yet to address directly. So, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!! (there, see how childish and annoying that is?) "I think you would be a good candidate to debate yourself - perhaps then you will learn how to listen? Probably not. Anyway, I would suggest that you take to heart a phrase by the great philsopher Walter Kaufmann of Princeton university (Kaufmann was an atheist, in case you are wondering): "He who rejects reason is like the man who gouges out his eyes because he can't see everything." Your continual rejection of reason is perhaps the most baffling aspect of someone who considers himself educated & at least semi-intelligent. I would urge you to reconsider your position in the light of reason - not in the interest of preserving your fantasy-world paradigm of the universe. That is all I have to say." I see. So you are stating what? That you believe a fairy God-King is NOT a fantasy? What fantasy of mine would you be referring to? I have no preconceived or indoctrinated fantasies about the universe. And, as this entire response proves conclusively, it is I who use reason; you use false conclusions based on misinterpretation and way too many "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’s." Try, if it is possible, to answer my direct refutations of your argument with direct refutations of your own. It’s called intelligence. Try it some time. And a detailed analysis of just exactly what my "fantasy-world paradigm" might be would be most appreciated. I had no idea that being open to new theories and discoveries about the Universe without prejudice was a fantasy. And, before you jump up and down on your exclamation point button, the theory you have described--if indeed it is as you have described--is not worth reviewing, but just to shut you up, I will read it. I'm sure I will find all of the mistakes you made when reading it and will be able to take you through them so that you can understand something instead of leaping to erroneous conclusions. One last thing, just so that you begin your letter with the ONLY answer I was seeking to begin with. If I DID find the grain of sand on the first try--no matter how small a chance that ultimately is--if I DID find it blindfolded in the Sahara desert on the first try, what would that do to your argument? Not holding my breath,Robb Letter 4: Tom had finally discarded most of his hyperbole and presented a somewhat intelligent response contained within my next response Unfortunately, this is where he branches out into his Anthropic Principle debacle, relying entirely upon carefully selected quotes from various physicists he thinks support his position (or, at the very least, from a pamphlet he read containing the carefully selected quotes). This is a common theme among wannabe demagogues; they present strong arguments backed up by weak or misinterpreted statements that they simply discard once presented, thinking their arguments do not actually require the support of the evidence to justify their positions. If any of you have ever "debated" a Christian, you'll know what I mean. They think that the only rule is quote somebody regardless of what they say. After all, that's what the other grown ups do, even though I never listen to what they're saying, because those are the words of the Devil. I'm fairly certain it's because they live their lives without the burdensome worry of proof. Tom-- Well, I appreciate the fact that you have offered--at last--a cogent response instead of childish attempts at belittling my intelligence, but there are still many flaws. Not to mention the fact that you have yet to address the central refutation I offered, but merely decided to quote other people discussing their metaphysical musings. Again, you seem to be under the belief that a theory is immutable, absolute fact--though I noticed you at least admitted the experts "could" be wrong. Unfortunately, the tone and structure of your response betrays a curious lack of sincerity in that remark, but that of course, is mere conjecture on my part. What is not conjecture on my part, however, is the fact that you have evaded my entirely logical deconstruction and refutation of your argument by presenting loosely connected opinions and "musings" from others, instead of directly addressing my points with counter arguments of your own design. You presented your argument, I refuted it, and you turn to other people's opinions to attempt to show that I am wrong, without refuting my arguments. So be it. Here's a "counter" opinion for you: "The anthropic principle is something that people do if they can't think of anything better to do." (The great physicist Alan Guth quoted in Lightman and Brawer's Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists, p. 479). Does that quote in any way refute your points? You tell me. So I must reiterate my original question to you: What happens to your argument if I DO grab the red grain of sand blindfolded in the Sahara on the very first try? That was, after all, what we were discussing, not other people's casual musings about various theories. The other issue you did not address is what evidence do you offer for "supernatural" creation? You have used circuitous logic (while attempting to accuse me of it to begin with) and have not supported your contention, merely stated, "Well, since the odds are so small (a fallacy I'll come back to) that we 'naturally' occurred, it MUST THEREFORE mean that a mystical being willed us into existence." I'll restate the ironclad syllogism for you so that it remains clear and present: Nature "occurred." Nature is not "super" natural. There is no evidence of a "super" natural occurrence of Nature. Therefore, Nature "occurred" naturally. There? Specific enough? Until there is evidence of a "super" natural occurrence, no other evidence is relevant. What you are doing is looking at "something" that exists, thinking (erroneously) about what an incredibly small chance that "something" had of existing (as far as our limited minds can comprehend), then concluding that it could not have existed without a "super-something" creator. This is where the problem lies. You have assumed an invalid conclusion. Simply because something has a small chance of occurring from a homocentric perspective does not in any way mean that it did not in fact occur in just that way. The only reason it seems incredible to you ("you" in the general as well as specific sense) is because it is too difficult for our limited and underdeveloped minds to yet accept the enormity of Nature; the concept of infinity. It just doesn't "sit well" because your mind can not fathom it (an argument often enlisted when theists discuss God, by the way). However, simply because your mind is not developed enough to understand such a vast concept as infinity, does not mean that infinity must therefore have been a "manufactured" construct, derived from a homocentric view of existence. It's equivalent to stating, "I don't know why something is the way it is, so I'll just make up my own version of the events to explain it to my limited mind." Now, that may be fine and dandy if that's what you want to do in the privacy of your own thoughts, but by no means should such a glaring fallacy be taught, preached, supported, or acted upon in any way outside of your own mind; especially not through vicious and deliberate fear-based oppression, or genocidal rage, for not accepting such a fallacy, which is the history of the Christian religion. Make no mistake, I could care less what you think in your own mind, but I care greatly when those misconceptions and misunderstandings result in the transference of such fallacies to friends, family, and the world at large. All you do in that case is continue to pass on detrimental and poorly understood ideas that serve only to stifle intelligence and harm humanity. You are arguing that intelligence and the search for truth be forfeited in favor of a concept that has only served to divide and destroy humanity ever since Gods were called upon in the first place. That is not only unsupportable but irresponsible and has resulted in the painful, unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people throughout the centuries and it can not be tolerated anymore if our society is to truly find its own salvation. Now, about this "small number" misconception. While ten times fifty raised to the one hundred and twenty fifth power appears to humans as an incredibly small number, it is nothing compared to infinity and only an example of the fact that our abilities to deal with such a number are not developed. In an infinite universe, as I stated before, ten times ten to the millionth power does not even begin to dent the enormity of infinity. Yes, to humans, a one in ten times fifty to the hundred and twenty fifth power chance seems unbelievably small, but compared to the enormity of infinity, it doesn't even warrant a blink of the third eye, if you will. In other words, if you turned to me one day and said, "You know, your chance of winning the lottery in your lifetime is 1 in 10 times 50 raised to the 125th power" I would indeed conclude that it would be "impossible" for all intents and purposes for me to win the lottery. I would be wrong, of course, but that is the false conclusion I would arrive at upon hearing such incredible odds against me. If, however, "Mr. Infinity" were given those same odds, he'd dance and sing and start contemplating how many galaxies he could buy with all that money, because in "his" lifetime--infinity--those odds would be more equivalent to, well, even, actually. Mr. Infinity would clearly win the lottery at some "point" because at some "point" infinity encompasses the number10 times 50 raised to the 125th power. In fact, infinity encompasses that number an infinite amount of "times," so it is more than likely that there are an "infinite" amount of worlds like ours (or, indeed, an infinite amount of universes like ours, if you want to get technical), but the key to ALL of this is the phrase "more than likely." It is not a known absolute, it is a theory based upon what limited knowledge we have managed to discover IN SPITE of Christian dogma (and Christian "leaders" who used to sentence scientists to death for heresy). If you're going to attempt to refute infinity, you must have an understanding of the enormity infinity encompasses. And as wonderful a mind Stephen Hawking has, it is no where near the level of understanding infinity. Which is why Hawking and his peers always state that they are working on a theory that might explain aspects of our universe that are not yet known (and, indeed, may never be known). Christians have decided, however, to demand that science is wrong and that they are the only authorities on the "true" nature of the Universe and repeatedly contend that they do know the "true" nature of the Universe. And, what's worse, they use the fact that we have a limited understanding of the enormity of the universe against us--through fear and posturing of unwarranted authority--by stealing the concept of enormity and then personifying it in a God-King being that created it all, so shut up and do as you're told and no one gets hurt (i.e., burns in hell). Understand? It's the oldest tool of propaganda known to man. Take a man's inability to understand a concept so enormous as infinity and simply proclaim that you have the answers and will provide those answers, so give us your money and your property and, the most unforgivable part, your minds, and we shall set you free. I don't know if you understand German, but a similar bald-faced contradiction was engraved into the gates of concentration camps: "Arbeit macht frei," which translates as "Work shall set you free." This was, of course, a lie designed to fool the "sheep" into walking directly into the ovens. Christianity works the same way. "Believe and you shall be free," which translates as "You will be a slave to our pretense of knowledge because you could not possibly understand the things that we understand." Now, on to your response and the mystical anthropic principal, which I have finally been able to read... "In your last letter you said that I had a grave misunderstanding of the MU (Multiple Universe) theory & that any correlation between it & the Anthropic Principle was merely a figment of my imagination." No, I did not. I stated that you had presented--based upon what you had presented--either a gross misinterpretation of the theories, or an invalid conclusion based upon those theories, or, at best, a theory that is irrelevant. And after reading the theory, I do believe it to be irrelevant, but we'll get to that later. You presented your arguments as you interpreted them and I refuted them. You have yet to refute my points, but have instead offered a thinly veiled attempt to string together quotes from other people that do not know who you are or what your arguments were in an attempt to evade having to directly refute my points. But don't worry, I will address each quote directly and show you how it does not relate to your argument that a small chance of "natural" occurrence is equivalent to NO chance of "natural" occurrence. "I would like the opportunity to dispute that. First, let me set a few things straight: the name of that book I mentioned is in fact entitled A Case Against Accident And Self-Organization & is by Dean L. Overman. Also, the name of Martin's book is called Atheism, A Philosophical Justification." Got it. I'll look for those books as soon as I am able. "As you will soon see, Martin is hardly the only one to make the connection between MU & Anthropic Principle. Much more than a handful of people have used MU to combat the implications of the Anthropic Principle." Are you saying that there is no connection between MU and AP? You've confused me here. In the first sentence, you claim that there is a connection between MU and AP, and then state in the next that people use MU to "combat" AP. Let's see if your quote will elucidate... "This is what the physicist Trinh Xuan Thuan (who has been called "the French Carl Sagan") has to say regarding MU vs. divine creator:
Oh, I see what you're trying to do. By quoting others who feel MU theory also relies on "faith," you're trying to state that since the AP (and Christianity with it) is roundly rejected by most physicists because it also relies on "faith" as opposed to the so called "scientific method," that MU and AP are therefore "tied together," so one is just as good as the other. That's a valiant attempt, but of course it misses the fact that you've left two very important qualifiers off of the various uses of the word "faith" here. AP (and Christianity) is predicated upon "religious faith," and MU theory is predicated on "scientific faith," the belief that an (as yet) unprovable theory will eventually prove itself to be true. It's a fine hair you've tried to split and I congratulate you on your attempt, but it isn't supportable. Religious faith goes far beyond scientific faith and resides in the realm of spiritual redemption and the salvation of your soul, whereas the word "faith" when applied to a theory simply means that the theorists involved have not discovered observable proof of their contention, just mathematical calculations. More on this, but first my direct observations on Thuan's quote. Fine. He finds the concept of multiple universes to "violate" his sense of simplicity and economy. That's his personal view and not a scientific statement refuting the theory. He then goes on to state it is "unwarranted." What you've not caught on to, however, is the fact that he finds the "hypothesis of innumerable universes, all inaccessible to observation, to be rather unwarranted." Note the inclusion of the "inaccessible to observation" qualifier. Although I have not read Thuan's work, it is easy to see from this quote that what he has difficulty in "warranting" is the notion that these multiple universes would be inaccessible to our observable verification, a commonly held prejudice amongst physicists. Do you see the distinction? He doesn't like the fact that MU theory can not be observably verified. Indeed, I think I've put my finger on your entire misinterpretation of the problem. Einstein himself had a problem with quantum physics because, as he put it, "I cannot imagine that a mouse could drastically change the Universe simply by looking at it." However, if you know anything about quantum mechanics, it is precisely this aspect--the observation of an event--which collapses the wave (the state of all possible events) into a singularity (i.e., an event). The more times I read this quote, in fact, the more it comes clear to me that the major objection is to the unobservable quality to the MU theory, hence yours and his misguided leap onto the "metaphysical boat" analogy. He doesn't state the theory is wrong, he states that "faced with this dilemma" he has trouble with it because it can not be verified to be true in the sense of experiment and observation. Non-theoretical Physicists HATE such theories, precisely because they offer no means (as yet known) to verify the proof of the theory, but that is not exactly refutation nor is it an observation based upon the "scientific method," it is simply his distaste of the unobservable aspects of the MU theory. Just because he, when faced with the inability to prove the theory, is "prepared to bet on the existence of a Supreme Being" does not mean that there IS a Supreme Being, nor does it mean that he supports the anthropic principal. It just means that he doesn't like the fact that the MU theory relies upon (as yet) unobservable verification. Shame on you for taking one man's poor choice of words in one context and misinterpreting them in order to merge them with your own definitions of such explosive and vague words such as "faith." "Here is what Dean Overman (a lawyer) has to say re: MU theory: Great, you're quoting a lawyer...Well, let's see....
Ok, his opinion is also that MU theory rests on "faith" and, further, that the AP is not a scientific principle. He is, of course, wrong, as MU theory rests on verifiable mathematical computations, it just can not be verified through the observation. So, you've simply quoted someone who misunderstood both the theory and the difference between "religious faith" and "scientific faith." Still, it's a nice try. I can't wait for the next one.... "Here is what the physicist Paul Davies has to say about MU:
Well, again, this is simply his opinion that the MU theory is "scientifically questionable" and he is troubled by the fact that the theory incorporates no "selection mechanism." He is simply personifying existence by alleging that particle physics has a "design" and "ingenuity" to it. While there may be a "design" and "ingenuity" to particle physics in his homocentric view, this does not mean that it is a God that designed it, nor does his use of the words "design" and "ingenuity" mean that there actually IS a "design" and "ingenuity" to particle physics. This quote does not refute my argument in any way and you are including it only to attempt to build a separate argument evading my original refutation. "Here is what Gerald Schroeder, a physicist who once taught at MIT, has to say about multiple universes as the solution to first cause:
Well, once more, we see that his objection to the MU theory is that "there is no observable proof" for such a theory. Fine. It is a theory that can never be tested by observation. Neither can the anthropic principle. Neither can God, for that matter, but, again, this has nothing to do with my refutation of your argument. The fact that a universe has a "small" chance of occurring "naturally" does not mean that it did not occur "naturally." And, I should point out, that while these opinions are interesting, not a single one so far has offered anything more than the distaste of the unobservable qualities of the MU theory. How this relates to my refutation of your argument is beyond me. You seem to be under the impression that I believe that the MU theory is an absolute. It isn't. It is just a theory. Further, you seem to believe that I feel the MU theory these physicists are referring to is the ONLY theory about our universe or about multiple universes and that the tenets of this MU theory are the ONLY tenets of a theoretical multiple universe hypothesis. I do not. Nor do I concur, for that matter, that multiple universes--if they exist--are "unobservable." I would certainly say that they are CURRENTLY unobservable, but, to throw another quote back your way, as James Watson, the co-discoverer of the spiral structure of DNA once said, "I don't think that consciousness will turn out to be something grand. People said there was something grand down in the cellar that gave us heredity. It turned out to be pretty simple--DNA." (quoted in Herbert's Elemental Mind, p. 4). For some strange reason you have taken me off onto your own attempts to refute whatever grand and glorious MU theory you have stumbled upon, instead of addressing my refutations of your arguments about the anthropic principal (which were misinterpreted by you to begin with, but again, I'll deal with that later). Your attempt to equate religious faith and scientific faith has not and will not come to fruition. "Here is what the physicist John Polkinghorne of Cambridge university has to say regarding MU.
Once again you've quoted somebody's "poetic" musings about what they wish to believe in, while at the same time trying to pigeonhole theories about multiple universes into the ONE AND ONLY MU THEORY. Perhaps there is a theory known as the MU theory (I only know of the superstring theory), but, again, this has nothing to do with my refutation of your arguments and is ONLY a theory. And by the way, "It is a metaphysical guess that there might be many universes" is not true at all, it is based upon mathematical computations, such as superstring theory, which can not currently be verified through observation because we have yet to develop a means to observe whether or not there are alternate or multiple universes. However, if you're familiar with superstring theory (another multiple universe theory), it is also a theory that is (so far) completely corroborated by mathematical calculations and not "meta" physical at all. Indeed, it shows a remarkable proficiency in being able to account for universal symmetry--so far. All of which is through mathematics which can not currently be verified through direct observation, but that does not mean that it is metaphysical, it just means that we do not have the instruments available to measure the validity of the calculations directly. I get the feeling that you have no intention of addressing my refutations of your points based upon anthropic principle and probably did not want that from the beginning. You have consistently attempted to pigeonhole and reinterpret my comments--and those of others--to fit into some sort of prearranged argument that you've always wanted to have pitting a specific MU theory against AP. My suspicion is that you were given a pamphlet by a religious zealot with all of these quotes outlined and spoon fed to you and were "programmed" to pretend that you did all the research yourself and go out into the world disseminating your misconceptions and stretched and twisted definitions in a vain and circuitous attempt to somehow prove that God exists, though, again, this is mere conjecture on my part. You are, however, under the misguided impression that I am a defender of this MU theory you refer to, to the point that it is the only theory about multiple universes that exists. I guess that's what is at the heart of all of this--your fear. You can not seem to rest comfortably with the fact that mankind just simply doesn't know what the universe is--that we are ever trying to discover what it is. You seem to need to have absolute answers so that you can sleep at night, but dismissing theories about the universe because they don't fit into a neat and tidy ball like the fairy God-King creator belief structure is just as ludicrous as stating that any theory is an absolute immutable fact. "The multiple universe theory has also been called the "strong Anthropic principle." Here is what the great Stephen Hawking himself has to say about this:" Here's an example of why I suspect that you are merely quoting from somebody else's prepared pamphlet, because what you meant to say was there are two versions of the anthropic principle, the "strong" and the "weak." Theories about multiple universes have never been called the "strong anthropic principle" and you've misquoted Hawking. The "weak" version of the AP states that the fact that intelligent life exists in the universe should be taken as an experimental fact that helps us understand the constants of the universe. As Steven Weinberg explains, "the world is the way it is, at least in part, because otherwise there would be no one to ask why it is the way it is." The "strong" version of the AP states that God or some Supreme Being has precisely chosen all the physical constants of the universe so that life is possible in our universe. But on to Stephen and your observation to what he stated...
Well, you're guilty of it again, because Hawking was not discussing MU theory as opposed to the AP. You've misunderstood the quote. He was saying that this aspect of "MU theory" (the fact that, apparently, the MU theory he was discussing would necessarily result in multiple universes just like ours without any life upon them to witness the beauty), is such a sad outlook on the cold hard realities of nature that you could "take this" (as you have or the person who wrote your pamphlet has) "as evidence" in support of a God or the AP (which is the same thing as saying in support of God) because it would make no homocentric "sense" that there would be multiple universes with absolutely no (sentient) life within them to "wonder at the beauty." In other words, this is not a refutation of the MU theory he is discussing, this is merely a personal observation--or an "aside" to the reader--to contemplate what a shame it would be to have multiple universes with no one in them to see how beautiful they are. Nor did Hawking say it is "either one or the other," again you've misunderstood his point. He said, "One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose" or as "support for the strong anthropic principle," meaning that both of them are the same thing and both of them would mean a more poetic justice would be at work than the random formation of multiple universes with no one in them to wonder at the beauty. Reread the entire section and you'll see the distinction. "Finally, here is what Fred Herren has to say:" Who is Fred Herren? I smell a fundamentalist and probably the author of your pamphlet. Let's see....
AHH! I was right! Fred Herren, author of "Show me God." A fundamentalist? (Did I call it or did I call it?) Must be, I can tell by his unsupported hyperbole such as "today, the multiple universe hypothesis is unacceptable to most physicists." Notice how he conveniently leaves out the most important qualifier of that statement, which is that it is unacceptable to physicists because it can not be directly verified by observation, the ONLY point any of your quoted physicists used as their reason to dismiss the MU theory discussed. Your attempt was well constructed but you'll have to find a better pamphlet than this one to get past any intelligent person, because you still have failed to support your misinterpretation of religious faith as opposed to the misnomer of scientific faith, as well as any refutation of the original arguments I presented to you about how a small chance of natural occurrence is irrelevant. Nice try, though. "Now, Robb: do you still think that my linking MU with the Anthropic Principle is but a "figment of my imagination"? Or a dim-witted "misinterpretation" of mine?" No, not "dim-witted" very well crafted, but still unsupported and upon direct scrutiny, just as flawed and/or irrelevant as your original arguments that I refuted. "I will concede that both Hawking and Penrose & everyone else I have quoted COULD be wrong & that there is perhaps a third possibility that no one has thought of yet. However, I will need to SEE that possibility before I am able to validate it as legitimate." Why? You can't "see" the AP nor can you "see" God, yet you find them to be legitimate. "You, on the other hand, seem to ASSUME CATEGORICALLY that Hawking, Penrose & every other *&$#*&#@($# !! person I have cited is wrong because it would in fact mean that there are only two alternatives: either there are multiple universes, or there is a divine creator." No, I have shown directly why you have mistakenly quoted each of the people you have quoted. There are many alternatives, including the simple fact that just because there is a slim chance that our universe "naturally" occurred does not mean that it did not "naturally" occur. And we're back yet again to my original refutation of your entire argument. So, although the dog and quote show was a valiant try, you still must answer three things:
You continue: "Which one that one picks is much more based on psychological reasons than philosophical or scientific reasons." No, the physicists you were quoting dismissed the MU theory based on the fact that it can not be verified through observation and non-theoretical physicists detest any theory as "non-science" if it can not be verified. Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, will argue differently. Regardless, my arguments remain. "However, I believe that to categorically reject what all of these people have to say (right off the bat) is a bit of a cop-out. It amounts to not accepting an idea or premise because it makes one feel uncomfortable." I did not. I gave detailed analysis of every quote you presented and clearly showed why either you or whoever wrote your pamphlet mistook the quote. Ok, it's late and enough is enough. Answer my questions and stop the evasions through mistakenly quoting others to attempt a piecemeal campaign to support your hatred of the MU theory. In fact, forget the MU theory, because it has nothing to do with my refutations of your original arguments. Looking forward to your response--Robb Letter 5: A full letter from Tom that I did not directly address. I include it intact so that you can gauge how a little knowledge to one who has been indoctrinated only serves to muddle the process and further confuse the cult member. You can also see that he is an intelligent person valiantly struggling with his untenable position. "Robb,, Yes, you are correct that there are two versions of the anthropic principle. I did not included these as I did not want to make things more complicated than they need be. The "weak" anthropic principle (WAP) merely states that if things did not happen exactly as they had, we would not be here. This is subscribed to by many atheists but amounts to nothing more than a tautology. The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) which postulates the idea of multiple universes. The anthropic principle itself merely refers to all of the "cosmic coincidences" (as John Gribbin has called them) that had to go just right for us to be here. On this particular point there is no dispute between creationists & atheists. The dispute lies in the inference to either a creator or multiple universes. Once more, you have built up strawman arguments against that you try to tear down. I never said that the history of Christianity was pretty. What they did during the crusades & what they to the library of Alexandria was reprehensible (to say the least). However, that has absolutely nothing at all to do with my argument. My argument only has to do with the EXISTENCE OF GOD, not whether or not Christianity (or any other religion) has exhibited moral excellence over the ages. However, since you are trying to use that card, I will offer a brief defense: THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE IS UGLY! This is not all due to religion - your citing of the Nazis is a good example of ugliness that had nothing to do with religion. In fact, the Third Reich was based on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche - who called himself the Antichrist! Anyway, this is not trying to say that all atheists are immoral. I have known many in my life who were moral & many who were not (the same as I can say of people of all other various religions). At any rate, it was for good reason that Hegel called our sojourn on this planet the "slaughterbench of history." But in any case, all of this is absolutely irrelevant as to whether God does or does not exist. You still have not answered my questions: why is MU constantly brought up as a challenge to the argument from design? You cannot deny that it has been - see Dressler's & Martin's books for ready-at-hand examples (both are adamently opposed to the idea of a divine creator). This is all of the "evidence" I need. If the position of the atheists were so secure, there would be no need to take the leap of faith necessary (call it whatever you will) to believe in MU. Once again I ask, if MU is irrelevant as a challenge to the argument from design, then why is it cited again & again as the main weapon against the design argument? I don't need to display any more evidence - the atheists have done my job for me. You are correct that the physicists & such that I mentioned do not like MU because these "other" universes are unobservable. BUT THAT IS MY POINT! Yes, both MU and the idea of a divine creator are bad hypotheses (i.e.: they cannot be tested). However, once again I say that those are the only two possiblities. I need not do any more to make this point any more clear - you reject all references I use to elucidate the point. You also continually insist that the universe is infinite, yet you have offered no "evidence" or proof that it is. To the contrary, you have ignored my refutations of entropy that napalm that idea. Give me a reason as to why the universe is infinite! I have given several reasons to believe it is not. You are way off base as far as why I believe what I do. Nobody ever gave me any phamplets & I did all of my own research independently of anyone else. As a matter of fact, I entered into the debate neutral - without any bias one way or the other. However, along with reading people such as Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Kai Nielsen, Antony Flew, Walter Kaufmann and Michael Martin (among others) I read the theist side also. I wanted to decide for myself which side was more plausible and in the end it was not even close. You keep on asking for evidence & then categorically reject (but not refute) everything I tell you. If you want me to say it, I will: theism does require a leap of faith. However, I consider it a rather small one compared to the leap of faith needed by the atheist. Moreover, the atheist is compelled to make several leaps of faith: one to overcome the anthropic principle, one to overcome entropy (what Stephen Weinberg called the "problem of genesis"), one to overcome the lack of evidence for Darwinism, one to overcome the problem of complexity which is a question Darwinism has not even engaged, one to overcome the logical fallacies that abound in Darwinism, one to overcome the mathmatical impossiblities of both the anthropic principle and Darwinism, and one to overcome the impossibility of irreducible complexity in microbiology. Thus far, no atheist has even come close to resolving these issues satisfactorily for me. Hence, I see the idea of taking one leap of faith to solve everything as much more plausible than taking leap after leap after leap to cover up all of the holes that are inherent in atheism." Letter 6: My response to the second letter he had written (contained within) as almost an afterthought to the one above. Tom-- I tell you what. Before I dissect your response, let's quit all of this pointless evasion and quoting. The ONLY answer I would like for you to address (before you do ANYTHING else) is this: What happens to your argument if I DO grab the red grain of sand on the very first try? JUST ANSWER THAT PRIMARY QUESTION AND WE CAN FINALLY GET SOMEWHERE. Don't fish out another quote or abstraction or feeble attempt to force me into arguing something that is completely irrelevant to that central question, for that is the only question I asked you to deal with and you never have. What happens to your argument if I do grab the red grain of sand on the very first try? Now, on to, yet another of your evasions... "Just for good measure, here is what the famous astronomer Alan Dressler has to say re: the MU theory. Oh, and by the way: Dressler is one of the most adamant materialistic scientists on the planet. He is also on of the most influential astronomers in the entire field. Dressler writes:
So let me guess, Robb: Dressler is guilty of mental masturbation too, right? After all, odds don't mean anything, do they?" Do you even read the quotes you present? The quote says absolutely nothing scientific at all about any MU theory. All Dressler says is "perhaps it required a virtual infinity until one arose..." PERHAPS. Nor does he state anything concrete about this possibility of multiple universes, all he asks is a rhetorical, thought provoking question about what "stories" other universes might have to tell. This is more philosophical musing about the possibility of the existence of other universes and, IF SO, what that would entail. It is entirely "mental masturbation;" the very essence of rhetorical musings, and offers absolutely nothing to the table except the fact that a man named Dressler once pondered whether or not it took the mathematical existence of several universes in order for this universe to exist. Once again, this quote says nothing about the impossibility of our universe existing naturally. Stick to your original argument and my refutation of that argument and stop misunderstanding what other people philosophically think about MU theory. You presented an argument to me which I refuted by stating that, although the odds of natural occurrence by our standards "seem to us" to be extraordinarily small, this does not mean that natural occurrence was impossible, nor that our universe did not occur naturally, as you claimed was the case. Indeed, I went on to point out that in an infinite universe, all odds are effectively even, so your irrelevant discussion of odds is rendered even more pointless and misinterpreted. Nor does this quote offer any refutation of the fact that you have failed to present evidence of a "super" natural explanation of the existence of our universe. Can't you read? Where is your Physicist that states "The universe was created by a super natural being and not by natural occurrence and here's the scientific evidence to support this claim"? All the AP states is that, because it seems impossible to us, it therefore is impossible. That is simply wrong no matter who says it. "Why stop there? Why not just say that everybody on the whole fucking planet is guilty of mental masturbation but you?" Until you offer scientific evidence that refutes the possibility (not the probability, but the possibility) of our universe occurring naturally, then all you are offering is indeed "mental masturbation." Casual philosophical musings about whether or not there are multiple universes is NOT scientific proof that shows it is impossible--as you claimed it to be--that our universe occurred naturally. You must offer scientific proof that our universe did not occur naturally; not mere personal, dismissive conjecture about what the small odds of natural occurrence are and how that relates in a poetic fashion to what may or may not have occurred. You're the one making the claim; you must supply the evidence. Whether or not a physicist has personal misgivings or distaste for a theory means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that a physicist has personal misgivings or distaste for a theory. It is neither supportable evidence for your claim, nor is it scientific evidence for your claim that the universe was created "super" naturally. AND ANSWER MY GODDAMNED QUESTION! WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR THEORY IF I DO GRAB THE RED GRAIN OF SAND ON THE VERY FIRST TRY? Stop evading the issues with irrelevant personal opinions about the philosophical nature of existence and address my refutation of your original argument. "You claimed that you could list 1,000+ scientists who would back up your point. I am still waiting..." Every single scientist on this planet would agree with me that a small chance of something occurring in a certain way does not equal no chance of it occurring that way. Since no scientist would state such a stupendously wrong conclusion to begin with, it will be exceedingly difficult for me to find anyone who would have to state such an obvious fact, but I'll look. In the meantime, refute my arguments! "NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID HAS REFUTED MY ARGUMENTS ONE IOTA! You have merely rejected everything I have said - not refuted it (and there is a difference - in case you are wondering)." Yes, I'm painfully aware of the difference as you continue to be guilty of what you attempt to accuse me of. So let me spell it out for you once more to show you what direct refutation means: You claimed that a small chance of something occurring was equivalent to no chance--a.k.a., impossible--of something occurring. That is wrong. As long as there is ANY chance--no matter how miniscule it may appear to you as a tiny little human with your limited abilities to understand the enormity of infinity--by definition it means that such an occurrence is not impossible, but simply highly unlikely. Clear now? Highly unlikely does not equal impossible. Have you got that? Further, you claimed that it was impossible to be blindfolded in the Sahara and grab a grain of red sand on the very first try. This is also wrong. It is not impossible, it is highly unlikely, but by no means either mathematically or physically is it impossible to grab a red grain of sand while blindfolded in the Sahara on the very first try. Again, you have avoided this fact as well as my question, which has gone unanswered and repeated some ten times now: what happens to your argument if I do grab the grain on the very first try? "You appear to be alone on an island, Robb." The fact that I can't find anyone stupid enough to state the obvious is hardly a surprise (though I did like Garth's suggestion that anyone contemplating the AP simply did not have anything better to do). Nor is it my responsibility to do anything more than point out all of the flaws of your arguments, which I have done consistently over and over and over again. The burden of proof is upon he who alleges and you have not met that burden. You did not prove that natural occurrence is impossible. You did not prove that our universe was created "super" naturally. You did not address the fact that it is possible--however unlikely--that the universe did occur naturally. And worse, not a single physicist you quoted stated that it is impossible--categorically, across the board, impossible--that our universe occurred naturally. Not one single one. The burden of proof is yours, not mine. "Once again, if odds are so meaningless & your position is so secure, WHY do atheists constantly see the need to invoke multiple universes to make their paradigm "work"?" Atheists do not. Physicists do. Physicists need to "invoke" a theoretical basis for their hypothesis in order for them to "work." That's what physicists do. That is their job. Atheists have no "paradigm." Atheists simply do not believe that a fairy god-king magically created existence. Once again, stop with the hyperbole and the unwarranted leaps of false conclusions based on generalities. You are guilty of the worst form of debate; that of stating a strong argument on the surface and then offering weak evidence to support it just so that you can disregard the evidence and proclaim that your hyperbole is correct. If your evidence does not support your contention, then your contention is invalid. Not only did i give detailed analysis with each and every quote you presented to show that--individually and as a whole--the evidence you presented did not support your contention, but you completely ignored the fact that this "evidence" has nothing to do with what you originally argued. Until you can prove that the universe did not occur naturally--that a "super" natural event occurred--it is entirely irrelevant what anybody's philosophical musings on the subject of either AP or MU are. That is not proof of a god; that is not proof of a "super" natural creation of nature. Period. "Why do they need to mention MU at all - even if only for a fall back position?" "They" don't. You have leaped ahead of any evidence you presented, disregarding entirely all of the points I made directly dismissing your quotes as bearing any relevance, and simply based this question upon your own faulty logic. MU has nothing to do with why people are atheists. MU is a theory that has nothing to do with your original argument and you are using it as a sidetrack evasion. If someone mentions multiple universes as proof that there is no god, then you'd have a reason to even bring it up in the first place, but I never did. Don't forget that you are the one who has been arguing this pointlessness about MU vs. AP to begin with. This was never an argument that I made. Indeed, I didn't make any argument, I simply refuted your faulty logic. Stick to my refutations and only my refutations and then we'll have a dialogue. This constant attempt to sidetrack into what other people's philosophical musings on MU theory vs. AP theory are has nothing to do with your argument that our universe was created by a god and not through natural occurrence. All they prove is that natural occurrence is a remarkable thing, given the odds of it occurring; they do not prove that natural occurrence did not, in fact, occur. "If I have not sufficiently convinced you that this is NOT, in fact, just a figment of my imagination, then there is nothing I can do for you." I never claimed it was a figment of your imagination, you have stated I stated this in order to avoid answering my refutations. They still stand and you still haven't addressed them. "From the way that you stubbornly argue, it sounds as though there is nothing anyone can do for you to rescue you from your fantasy world where you are right & everyone else is wrong." Stop with the useless hyperbole! I never claimed that I am right and "everyone else" is wrong. I showed specifically how your argument is not supportable through detailed analysis of my arguments, your arguments, and the quotes you presented as support for your position. Now, the very least you could do in return is stop with the hyperbole and false conclusions and answer my questions. Prove that natural occurrence is impossible--not just highly unlikely--but impossible. Prove that a "super" natural occurrence happened. And tell me what happens to your theory if I do grab the grain on the very first try!---Robb Letters 7 & 8: These are from an older Fundamentalist who, as you’ll see, is staunchly Christian. He and I had struck up a correspondence after he had visited the Biblical Errancy website at my insistence and came back with a blanket statement that "there are no errors in the Bible.". A perfect case example of ingrained indoctrination. Letter 7: The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God. Major-- Thank you for such a thorough response. Let me just go through it the way you went through mine and then I'll wrap it up with a nice tidy bow at the end...One overview: throughout I refer to God in a way that might mislead you into believing that I am referring to the Christian version of God as described in the Christian Bible. I am not. For the most part, I am using the term "God" from the standpoint of "The One True God," which, as I will demonstrate, the Christian Bible clearly does NOT do, and that is the meat of the issue. Also, whenever I use the term "you" you should include all of Christianity in that general term as well. On to your response: "There are no errors in the Bible, the point is moot, and you have x amount of life days left within which to make your freewill choice either for , or against Jesus Christ." There are not only errors as you have admitted to later in your response, but this is not even a half-assed attempt on your part to address my points directly, a recurrent theme, unfortunately throughout your response, but so be it. Let's get to the heart of this statement. Free will. That wonderful, misunderstood concept illustrated so perfectly by you. You claim that I must make a choice (of my own "free will") either for or against Jesus Christ. Yet this is not a choice at all, it is a threat. You have completely misunderstood your own construct. If we are free, truly free then there can be no dictatorial threats made against us under the guise of a "choice" for that is neither a choice, nor a state of freedom. It is entirely dictatorial, meaning that God is going to punish us if we don't do as it says. And you can save all of the ridiculous rationalizations that are always employed on this point, such as "God does not punish you, you punish yourself" and all that bull, because the threat of NOT choosing to believe in Jesus is clearly known to every Sunday school child on the planet. You will be in Hell if you do not believe. That is the so called "choice" that you claim is being offered; Believe in Jesus, or burn in Hell. I don't care how you sugar coat it or attempt to redirect and rationalize it, that is the core of it in a nutshell and every Christian knows it because every Christian was taught it. Regardless, this is NOT a choice! You do not have a choice, for example, in the following analogy: "I will either hug you, or I will punch you." The "you" in that scenario has no free choice because no matter what happens, the "I" in that scenario is inflicting an action upon you. Do you see the distinction here? A choice offered to a man of FREE WILL would be, "You may eat chicken or you may eat steak," for example. In other words, you are free so therefore whatever you choose will be beneficial to you, not detrimental, and CERTAINLY NOT DICTATED BY SOMEONE ELSE, either God or the waiter. That is not a choice, it is a decree. I'll get more into the overriding fallacy of your position in a moment, but for now, let's continue (and please spare me the "all choices have consequences" evasion, because it doesn't apply to the Gift of Salvation. Either God is giving you salvation, or God is rewarding you with salvation, it can not be both. A gift is NOT a reward, no matter how much you want to stretch interpretations; if God "grants" you admission, then it must be because you did something, and then it isn't a gift, it is payment, so if there are any adverse consequences to a choice of salvation, then it is an implicit threat and not a choice made of free will at all). "By far not the most important. Christ's (God in the flesh) love for us, demonstrated on the cross at Calvary, literally demolishes sin, and is the most important aspect of Christianity. Death had been literally conquered, sin being that whiched caused us to have death." I have no idea where you get such leaps, but let's start with the first part, where Jesus' death on the cross "literally demolishes sin." There are so many different points to make here, so I'll just keep going until I run out or get bored. First, although a magnanimous gesture on Jesus' behalf, dying on the cross did not demolish sin as is clearly evident from the existence of it today, nor was such an action necessary. Wait, bare with me, I know, but do me the courtesy of following my train of thought before you try to bring up the supernatural "ramifications" angle on this construct. Presumably, according to the anecdotal evidence presented in the New Testament, the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross was, as you've pointed out, to save mankind from sin and death. In other words, Jesus (a.k.a. God) wished that mankind would be saved (hold off on the free will tie in, I'll cover it). That's a safe assumption to make; God/Jesus wished this to happen, that Jesus/God die on the cross in order to save mankind. God/Jesus certainly knew what was going to happen, after all, they're God. So, in essence, you have a God who went through all that trouble in order to do something that God could have done anytime God chose to do it--save mankind. Again, it is God; it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. And it clearly wanted to save mankind as evidenced by the events describing what happened to Jesus/God on the cross and the subsequent "meaning" that implied. So the natural question raised is why? Why would God go through such an ordeal to save mankind when God has the power to save mankind at any time? Now, here's where the rationalizations kick in, such as "God moves in mysterious ways" and "free will." Since it doesn't make any sense to even the dumbest of humans that a God, who if it wanted to do something could do it whenever it wished, would go through such an elaborate and horrendous scenario (sending it's "only begotten Son", a.k.a., God, down to Earth in human flesh in order to spread the Word and then be tortured and crucified only to be resurrected later), the Christian, instead of simply stopping there and saying, "yeah, you're right, that is ludicrous" goes to great lengths to explain this odd behavior in countless different ways, none of which make any sense when analyzed. You know the arguments, you're thinking of them right now. But the point is not that there ARE rationalizations on this central flaw--you know them all--rather that the NEED for rationalizations is erroneously dismissed. The "free will" argument, for example, states, in essence, "God did all of that because God wants it to be our 'choice' and not simply God's decree." God doesn't want robots, I believe someone succinctly put it to me once. Which makes no sense (beyond what I mentioned above about how it's not a choice after all) because no matter what we ever do, we are EXACTLY robots to God. Indeed, one could argue that a defining quality of a robot is that it is manufactured (created) by a "higher being" in the first place. God KNOWS ALL, including whether or not we "believe" in it. We ARE robots to God and no "choice" could ever be made without God already knowing before we selected what choice we would make. The whole need for a choice, in that regard, is moot because there could be no choice that God would not already know of, or, indeed, instilled within us from the outset (assuming that God created everything). God, being infinite as well as omniscient, knows ALL, not just what you came up with at 27, or 56, or 103, but ALL--EVERY SINGLE THING YOU WILL DO, PRACTICE, OR PREACH THROUGHOUT YOUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE IS KNOWN TO GOD AND, INDEED, CREATED BY GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. So the Christian propagandists try to come up with a myriad of confusing and misleading platitudes and rationalizations, such as free will, in order to "answer" the question of why in the World God would NEED (and it IS a need, not a "want" as you point out later "for the glory of God") for us to choose anything at all. Why would a God NEED for us to "choose" God freely when there is nothing that we could possibly do or say or practice or preach that God would not already know we were going to do or say or practice or preach? The obvious answer to anyone who was not indoctrinated into the cult of Christianity is, "God would not need it at all." The Christian, however, will spend countless centuries attempting to come up with a rationalization that justifies such a ludicrous concept instead of simply stating, "Oh, that's right. God would not do that, therefore the God described in the Bible is NOT the ONE TRUE GOD." There's more on this, but I sense this will be a leit motif throughout the rest of my response, so I'll move on. "Rom. 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" -- This verse( taken out of context as all attacks on the Bible are) I sincerely hope that your entire refutation of these contradictions does not rest on the "taken out of context" crap, because that kind of childish evasion won't work. Beyond the fact that the quotes are almost entirely self contained concepts and therefore do not rely upon "context" in order to understand those concepts, need I remind you that Christians take quotes out of context repeatedly to serve their own points, but they still serve the point. There is no other "context" of the point being explicitly made in the above passage. It states categorically that death through sin entered into the world through one man who has passed that death onto all men, an inherently unjust scenario no matter how you slice it. No other context is necessary to understand what the sentence states; indeed, ANY context you put that sentence into would be irrelevant since the idea expressed is self contained within the quote. "precedes the whole point of Pauls assertions from 5:1 - 5-12..., that "sin is not imputed where there is no law." Christ broke the bondage of the law on the cross, for all those who will accept Him." You've missed the point entirely. What Rom 5:12 reveals is the inherent lack of justice being distributed by God upon it's creation. We do not condemn all of mankind when one of us commits a crime, yet God, apparently, does. That is not the mark of a just God no matter what context you wish the statement to be within. "Rom. 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,..."--- McKinsey completely blows off the whole meaning here again. if you read 5:15, you will find Paul pointing out that " if through the offense of one many be dead , much more the grace of God." (again pointing to Christ) ." the gift by grace, which is by ONE man" . Paul is pointing out that God became a man and personally undid what Adam did. The spiritual death is the big issue here, not the physical death." Again, too many fallacies to deal with completely, so I'll select the biggest one, "the spiritual death is the big issue here, not the physical death." What does this mean? Certainly not the spiritual death of Jesus. When did Jesus/God ever die in a spiritual way? It isn't possible for God to die, so you must be referring to the physical death of Jesus' body somehow saving mankind from a spiritual death. So, how, I ask you, is it relevant that Jesus' body died? How could that possibly save mankind? What has flesh got to do with ANY powers of salvation at all? And don't start up with the "Jesus was God made flesh" crap, because it not only makes no sense, it clearly negates the Father, Son, Holy Ghost Trinity construct. If Jesus is God then Jesus is God whether IN flesh or OUT of flesh, unless you mean to say that while Jesus was God on earth there was no God in heaven (but of course you won't say that, for that is not possible either), so I guess you'll say that Jesus was God on Earth at the same time that God was in heaven, in which case, again, there is no spiritual death of Jesus, just his flesh. But it isn't flesh that supposedly gets us into heaven. In fact, it isn't ANYTHING that "gets" us into heaven accept for a gift from God and we've already covered that. So what exactly are you attempting to say here? That the death of Jesus' flesh "pays for" the spiritual death imposed upon us (unjustly) through the sin of one man (Adam?) This is your belief? And if so, then again the question is begged, why the hell would God go through all of that trouble if the end result was the desire to save mankind from spiritual death to begin with? Surely God is above such pettiness and certainly more just than that. If Adam sinned, then the "sins of the fathers shall not be passed on." "McKinsey is also implying that he feels his moral standard is higher than He who created the universe in 6 24hr days. " McKinsey, if I may speak on his behalf, is saying nothing of the sort. What he is proving is that the Bible is NOT the Inerrant Word of God it claims to be and that the God described in the versions of the Bible that exist today, could not POSSIBLY be the One True God. At no time is McKinsey stating that God does not exist, he is, quite conclusively stating that the God depicted in Christian writings is obviously not a true God. "First of all, you are using the Bible to argue the Bible." No, McKinsey is using the Bible to illustrate the contradictions and fallacies of the Bible to argue that what you call the Bible is not the Inerrant Word of God at all. "If you don't believe that there was an Adam who was physically immortal to begin with , then you have no right to complain about losing physical immortality." Setting aside the fact that Adam was NOT physically immortal (he died at 969 years old, I think it is. I can't remember, it's late), the point isn't a "belief" vs. "non-belief" scenario, it is, "this book claims to be the Inerrant Word of God and clearly is not as illustrated by these contradictions and fallacies." Stick to the point, please. And while I'm at it, there were several pages of contradictions that you did not address. I can only conclude that you had no refutations of those points and like a good Christian you simply ignored them or attempted another "oh, those silly things are all taken out of context, too" approach, which I have conclusively shown to be an illegitimate claim. "McKinsey continues... " Yet, no amount of theological reasoning {none needed- common sense tells you Gods ultimate purpose for allowing any of this to take place are beyond our concievable understanding}.." Actually, "common sense" tells you that the Bible should contain the truth about God's ultimate purpose considering it claims to detail and chronicle every other aspect of God's creation, including the torture and murder of God's only begotten son, but let's briefly address a major fallacy and propaganda tool here, the "God is beyond our understanding" ruse. A logical conclusion to be drawn from the entire existence of a Bible supposedly inspired by God is that it IS God's ultimate purpose; that it is supposed to be and claims to be God's whole guidebook for our existence and salvation, from beginning to end. You can't claim that the Bible contains everything you need to know about God's plan and then come right back with, "God's plan can not be conceived of by us, so just do as God tells you to." If that is the final, bottom line response to any questions raised about the Bible, then you have effectively dismissed the entire need for a Bible to begin with. If at the end of the day, we are simply to trust in God regardless of the many contradictions and confusing arguments presented to us in "God's Book" then there is no purpose for the book to have been made in the first place. Refer to the above argument about the purpose of the Bible for further clarification on this point. Like I said, it's getting late and you have so many evasions and rationalizations to contend with that the mind boggles. I will say, however, that that fact alone proves that the Bible is quite obviously NOT a guidebook on spirituality or, indeed, The Truth, since The Truth would contain everything that is true and nothing obscured or hidden from us. After all, what would be the point of inspiring so many different men to write God's Truth if it weren't, ultimately, so? "can make an inherently unjust idea{death is a reality that must be dealt with, not whined about} seem right." "Whined about?" McKinsey isn't whining about anything at all, he's making a valid point which you have chosen to simply ignore through a childish tactic that is beneath you. His point is that God is supposedly just, and yet there are clear examples in the Bible that the Christian version of God is not only NOT just, but also plays favorites and punishes everyone for one man's sin. No matter what context you put that in, it is an unjust concept and clearly NOT the result of a just and loving God. More on this later... "(Money is one of societies Gods, thats why debts are inheritable. McKinsey is a hypocrite, his God of evolution is no less forgiving, allowing genetic deformities and other conditions to be passed down through the ages. } " This doesn't merit a reply beyond, of course, the fact that evolution has no "God;" it is a theory of how matter and biology have evolved or grown into more complex organisms throughout history. "It" doesn't "allow" anything for there is no "it" to personify. "Punishing billions of people for the acts of one is not only inherently unfair and unwarranted but also in opposition to other Biblical verses such as:.." and McKinsey proceeds to quote mismatched scripture verses out of the context of thier individual application." Here's a unique thought: Instead of evading the issue through a blanket and already proven false platitude, why not address each of the points made and illucidate how they are taken out of context, or, indeed, how context matters in relationship to the specific quotes? Not a single one of those quotes relies on context at all, as I've shown above and will continue to show throughout, so the only reason you are avoiding addressing them directly is that you have no refutation of his points. The contradictions therefore stand and clearly illustrate that the book you call the Bible is not a book to base anything upon. More on this later, as well... "The entire line of thinking that follows can best be summed up in two points. 1) McKinsey, like most of his kind, is ungrateful to be alive by the grace of God.(this applies to a lot of people, even a lot of Christians today)" Let me break up your "points" and address each to it's own. You proceed once again from a false premise (that the God of the Bible is the One True God), but more to the point, McKinsey is bringing up and pointing out obvious and clear contradictions about THE MOST IMPORTANT CLAIMS IN THE BIBLE. He is not "ungrateful," he is proving that the book you call the Bible can not possibly be the Inerrant Word of God and he then provides direct evidence of that claim from specific quotes from the book itself, NONE of which are "taken out of context." Every point that he presents is a self-contained concept found within the quotes and will remain a self-contained concept no matter what context you put them in. To attempt a childish diversion from that central irrefutable fact begs the question, "Who is whining?" "and 2) he forgets the reflexive property: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Just as waves become larger and more encompassing as they radiate outward, so did original sin encompass all of humanity from one starting point, until halted by Christ." He has not "forgotten" anything for he only looks to the Bible for his evidence. If you can quote me chapter and verse that states, "Forget ye not the reflexive property" fine, that's a different story. Until then, do not attempt further evasions by trying (unsuccessfully) to undermine the validity of his arguments through your own speculation. Not to mention, of course, that Christ clearly DID NOT halt original sin since we are still under such an unjust edict according to the New Testament as well as the old. Hold off on the provisions of Jesus' death on the cross, I get to that nearer to the end of my response. "The verses that refer to people like Noah and Job being "perfect" and "upright" in no way relate to thier inherited sin. Tha they retain like all of Adams seed, including us. The "righteousness" of these figures, like other servants of God in the old testament, like Moses and Elisha, etc , consisted in their moral and spiritual qualities, which gave them access to God, approaching (but not permanent for them at that time) the way that Christ would make a "permanent fix" for the problem of sin, and make it available to all, but we still have the blood of Adam." Again you are merely speculating and rationalizing, and, indeed, taking things out of context yourself. The quotes about Noah and Moses never state at any point that they were perfect beings except for the imperfection of Adam's inherited sin. They state "they were perfect." Perfect. If they were with inherited sin through the blood of Adam, then it would not be possible for them to be perfect and they would not have been described that way, if the Bible is God's Truth. This fact can not be evaded through any "contextual" argument whatsoever, for there is only ONE context of perfection and that is a state of perfection--no flaws. Inherited sin is not only a flaw it is the reason we are punished to begin with. And if you really want to debate semantics, fine, but "righteous" is a word that could not possibly be applied to someone who has sinned no matter what. If you have sinned in any way shape or form, then by definition you could not be called a righteous man. "The difference is power over sin in this life(aside from peace, joy, and fulfillment, etc) and ENTRY INTO THE NEXT!! You cant just throw a bunch of verses together to force a false conclusion." A) it isn't a false conclusion, it is entirely logical and never refuted by you directly in any way; B) you've just aptly described the Bible itself, it is a bunch of verses thrown together to force a false conclusion; C) again, McKinsey is not doing anything beyond showing specific examples taken directly from the Bible that illustrate conclusively that the Bible can not be the Inerrant Word of God. "This will fool only those who have never read the Bible! For example the verses McKinsey lists in support that all have sinned, are misleading . In 1Kings, Prov, and Eccle. during that span of time no one was without sin. ( UNTIL Christs birth in 1 ad) Both Noah and Job had been dead for ages by that time, yet thier "righteousness " was no different from that of Elisabeth and Zacharias, it was only superficial. "just and perfect" as in Gen refering to Noah, are translated moral and well rounded, definatley NOT sinless. The same greek word "teleios" is used regarding Zacharias and his wife, and others. It refers to physical and moral maturity, NOT the goodness and perfection that God alone posseses. That kind of perfection called "agathos" which also has different forms, according to its context. It is used by Jesus in Mark 10:18 , to refer to Gods ultimate goodness above all others. he was replying to someone who approached Him on the street who had no knowledge of His divine nature." Ahh, yes, I was wondering when you'd get to this "you've got to go to the original text and translate from there" argument. A specious one at that. Beyond the fact that each version of the Bible was written by theologians and scholars who have spent accumulated centuries interpreting and choosing the proper translations for the texts, beyond the fact that there is no "original" Bible for you to make such claims, beyond the fact that even today no one agrees on what translation is the "correct" translation; all of these points are moot due to the fact that these are the translations that Christianity has chosen as being inspired by God. You can't claim that the book is inspired by God "originally" and then each subsequent translation was NOT also inspired by God, because that negates ALL translations as being inspired by God (a central point of mine and McKinsey's). What you have just done is to state that the versions of the Bible that every Christian refers to today are clearly not the inspired words of God, but only approximations (flawed at that) of what God "originally" meant to say. That is not only ludicrous, but it proves the point that no version of the Bible except perhaps the original (which does not exist) is the Inerrant Word of God. Period. Which, in turn, means that Christians, for literally centuries, have been basing their beliefs on, at best, incorrect translations. The problem here, of course, is which translation then is the one to follow? Which version of the Bible reveals God's Truth? We're not stating here that some have wrong translations and that basically they all hold up, we are clearing arguing that one translation is WRONG and will result in misinterpretation, as you have attempted to claim is the case with McKinsey and myself. So, I will ask you again, which version of the Bible is right, how do you know it is right, and why wasn't the "correct" translation used to begin with? Until any of those questions are answered, the world is effectively without a Bible, and ALL of our arguments here are moot. "Its really quite easy to kick back and ignore facts ." Quite right. Christians have been doing it by your own admission (see the above argument) for centuries. That's why McKinsey painstakingly searches through all versions of the Bible to find direct, self-sustained quotes to illustrate the point that the Christian Bible does not actually exist, only flawed and contradictory ones do. This fact would not be important if we were discussing, say, "War and Peace" as you do in a moment, because "War and Peace" is not concerned with our salvation as a race of beings! IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE WHEN DISCUSSING OUR SALVATION. If there is no reliable version, and so many words are translated incorrectly as to cause these arguments to begin with, then we can not consider ANY of the versions to be God's Truth in any way for we do not know what is supposed to be correct. You are proving mine and McKinsey's point better than we could. " I can make War and Peace read like a cookbook if I rearrange the phrases in the right order." No, you can't. The only way you could do that is to literally take one word here and another from there and one from that chapter, etc., and utterly rearrange those words into whatever order you wish. McKinsey NEVER does such a thing. In every instance he has presented statements of theological "fact" which are self-contained within the quotations that directly relate to specific constructs of salvation and God's Truth. What "context" those "facts" are in is irrelevant because each stands on it's own. " McKnsey has taken it one step further, he has ignored the very meanings of the words." He has not "ignored" them, he has illustrated (as have you) that since "meaning" is too arbitrary a construct, one must take the words spoken as they are spoken and not speculate beyond that. He shows you precisely that one statement of supposed fact contradicts another statement of supposed fact, regardless of the context those facts are presented. "How many times do you think of the sun rising, when it it not rising at all;you know it is the earth that revolves around the sun. Or said, "this is a perfect day" even when you know there are "starving kids" alive somewhere else on theplanet on that same day, and the day is not perfect for them. Or said, "I'm dying to get that new car" , when you are doing nothing of the kind, but are perfectly alive and well." Now this is truly beneath you. You know as well as I do that you have used purposefully vague statements that do not in any way compare to the specific theological constructs pointed out by McKinsey. I guess I'll have to show examples since you seem incapable of direct refutation on a point by point basis: Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." clearly contradicts Rom. 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." There is no context wherein these two statements can co-exist. Eccl. 7:23 "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." clearly contradicts Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Not to mention that in this instance, the word "perfect" is not in contention. The contradiction lies in the fact that Eccl. states there is not a just man upon earth, and Gen. states that Noah was a just man. Or are you going to state that the Greek for "just" has two different meanings as well? If so, then why on earth did the translators of the Bible use the word "just" in both instances if in fact they did NOT mean for the words to have equal importance? Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." clearly contradicts Exod. 32:14 "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. These are all specific examples of direct contradictions that have nothing whatsoever to do with context at all. God does not repent contradicts that God repents. Again, I will ask you to specifically refute statements instead of employing childish evasion tactics, such as blanket (false) platitudes that do not apply. "... Context is everything, and the English language makes for a "coarse" but still beautiful and miraculously revealing translation. Gods Holy Spirit has guided the writing of and the miraculous preservation of, Gods word, and there are no "contradictions" that cant be shown to be ill informed pot-shots. I fear perhaps you fall into the catagory of the decieved. " Again, I'm beating a dead horse at this point, so I'll just point out that what you are claiming is that McKinsey has somehow "perverted" the quotes by viewing them as the statements they claim to be. Utterly false. Indeed, you are the one deceived in this regard, because you are filling in and defending points that have come from your own imagination and NOT from what is written in the Bible. You have filled in the blanks, ostensibly for God. Why? Two reasons: 1) you operate from the false assumption that the Bible is the Word of God, and, 2) because you have to in order for it to remain your Bible. This goes back to the Truth aspect of the whole thing; if it were God's Truth then there would be absolutely no need whatsoever for it to be "interpreted" one way or another for God would make sure that EVERY translation was inspired by God, and that the truth would be true across the board. Truth is true no matter what, and certainly God's Truth is the truest of all. The very fact that there are questions and contradictions proves that what you call the Bible is NOT an example of God's Truth. "... for the things of god are foolishness to the natural( unsaved, unrepentant, carnal) man" Here, you've done it again and illustrated my point beautifully. The actual quote is "...for the things of god are foolishness to the natural man." You have filled in the specifics by erroneously addending to the word "natural" the qualifiers "unsaved," "unrepentant," and "carnal," in order to rationalize your way of thinking; your false assumption. These are all words that certainly could be attributed as aspects of the definition of "natural" just as easily as many hundreds of others as well, such as "for the things of god are foolishness to the natural (innocent, pure, loving) man." This is where you get your context hairs in an uproar, because you proceed from a false point: "That is not what God means. The context of the Bible proves that." As you have so aptly pointed out, no one knows what God "means" so the only thing we can do is take God at it's word and NOT speculate and fill in the blanks in an attempt to "figure out" what God "meant" to say. That is not only impossible, according to your own viewpoint, but also highly blasphemous. "Beware...persistant unbelief will place you at risk of falling under the 'strong delusion" of the end times, spoken of in Revelation. What could be worse than becoming further entrenched in a false belief?" Considering it is you that operate from the false belief, I can't answer exactly what could be worse, but I will directly refute your threat by pointing out, once again, it IS a threat and not at all a choice of free will. You have just threatened me into believing what you believe, not offered your belief as a choice that I am free to make. "Robb, God spent eternity past deciding if your pain would be worth your existance...if this scenario, out of countless free will scenarios in which man ( like some of the angels) inevitable chose to reject Gods will, would be the least painful to the least amount of people. Who are you to judge God by your own flawed standards?" First, the "least painful" is to not put us through such an unjust trial to begin with. To answer your question as to "who I am" well, according to your own Bible, I am perfect according to the God of genesis and made in God's image, so that's who I am. Further, I have no idea what you are talking about simply because you are merely speculating and, indeed, making things up, not to mention misinterpreting on a major scale. Eternity has no past, no present, and no future. There is never a point in time where God stops eternity and "sees what happens next." If God is indeed an eternal, omniscient being then God is everywhere at everytime throughout all of existence, past, present, and future. There are no individual "scenarios" to God; God is, by definition, ALL SCENARIOS. There can not be just one proven to be the best for God is ALL of them and God is perfect so ALL of the scenarios would be perfect. So let's look at the one you chose, the idea that God determined that "this scenario" was the best for us. Again, you proceed from a false assumption, but let's get at it: What you are attempting to claim is that because God has apparently chosen to constantly test our belief (or rather and more distressing, our love) of God in this manner, then it MUST be the best way because God is perfect and would never do anything that wasn't perfect. This is assuming that the Christian God is the "right" God, which is your false assumption that precedes all of your points. It clearly is NOT the right way of doing things, since the right way of "saving" us is to simply not punish us for something someone else did. As humans, we are more just than God, for we do not, nor would ever consider, punishing someone who had not done something for someone who did. If Adam brought sin into this world, then Adam should be punished for such a thing, if you actually believe in a God that punishes it's creation. If we are all being punished for "original sin", i.e., for being born, then that is clearly not the ruling of a just God since birth was created by God to begin with and we were "birthed" by God's will. In effect, you are stating that God is punishing us for God's own mistake, giving us life to begin with. "God did all this for His own glory." This is the most telling statement about your indoctrination that you have presented so far, and is a seriously deranged belief. You are stating that God caused all of this--the whole shooting match; pain, suffering, sin, and redemption--for God's own vanity! As if our entire purpose in life is to do nothing but sing the praises of God. Why in the world would a God be so insecure that it would require such childishness and pettiness on our behalf in order for God to do anything? What you are describing is more akin to the Devil than to God because it states that our purpose here is to bow down before God and constantly praise and thank God for our existence (an existence, mind you, that is supposedly flawed through original sin to begin with) UNDER THE THREAT OF BURNING IN HELL IF WE DO NOT. Or, if you prefer, under the threat of not being within God's grace, which is just a veiled nineties version of burning in hell anyway. The point is that the One True God would never use or need to use threats or fear in order for us to love it. Yet, your God not only does use threats and fear, he goes so far as to take perfectly innocent and righteous beings (Job) and test them for no other purpose than to test them; as if God could not exist without our TESTED love and devotion, even when there is "no man living" who loved God more than Job. Your God goes beyond need and into psychotic and unwarranted cruelty in order to affirm devotion and that is simply the work of what Christians term the Devil, not God. " Get over your self pity and ingratitude, and humbly accept Gods infintely greater wisdom and power ." I have no self pity, nor am I "ungrateful" for asking legitimate questions that arise directly from the book that is supposed to be God's Truth. This statement, this platitude, this veiled threat is at the heart of what I'm talking about. Christians claim until they are blue in the face that the Bible is the Holy Word of God, but the minute anyone questions it, they always say, "Shut up and do as you're told." So much for free will, I guess. So much for intelligence. And, more importantly, so much for the purpose of the Bible to begin with, because if it all just boils down to "Shut up and do as you're told," that negates the need for a Bible. " The Holy spirit of God, made individually available by salvation in Christ Jesus, was the force that turned the tide of history, and despite satans best efforts, it was the Holy Spirit which has been the sole restrainer of much of the evil that is on the earth." Again, more cultish propaganda based not on spirituality but on fear and threats. The Holy Spirit, as you put it, CREATED EVERYTHING. That means that man can only DISCOVER that creation, not CONTRIBUTE TO IT for God has already created it all! There is NOTHING man can create that God did not already create, unless you are claiming (or admitting) that God did not create everything. So if you are claiming that God is the restrainer of evil, you must also accept that it was God who created evil to begin with. No evasion whatsoever can avoid this absolute. God created EVERY THING; therefore God created evil and everything is God's fault. No loving, just God would EVER punish you for something God did to begin with. That is simply a ridiculous belief for any intelligent man or woman to cling to and tells more about the desperation of the individual than it does about the spirituality of God. " When Christians are raptured off the earth ( dont let them tell you it was UFO's that took em--- better yet COME ALONG-) the Holy Spirit will be taken up as well. 3 1/2 years later , "all hell will break loose". You don't want to be here." It will never cease to amaze me how an intelligent person such as yourself can attempt to argue this point without cracking a smile. This is, of course, the final rationalization and the most ridiculous. What you are stating, in effect, is that Jesus failed to save mankind, as evidenced in Revelations and the "second coming." If Jesus had indeed "demolished all sin" on the cross and died for all mankind to be saved, then there will be neither a need for a "second coming" nor any "final judgement" of mankind. So which is it? Did Jesus save all of mankind or not? Or are you going to state that Jesus "tried" to save mankind, but could not? Or is it that, Jesus saved all of mankind, but mankind (or the devil) was too powerful for Jesus to save entirely, so therefore we who were somehow not saved by Jesus dying on the cross are doomed? Did Jesus die for us with provisions? Is that the contention? Jesus died for all of mankind, BUT ONLY IF MANKIND ACCEPTS THAT JESUS IS GOD? Is that going to be the final contention, that there are provisions to Jesus' dying for us? Salvation from God has a price tag on it? If that is the case and you are correct and the rapture comes, then I will walk straight up to God/Jesus and slap him/her/it on the face and say, "Shame on you." If that sends me to hell eternal then so be it, so make sure you're no where near me and disavow all knowledge of our correspondence, because you wouldn't want an unjust God such as the one you are describing to think that you and I are brothers. One day, and I hope I am around for it, mankind will finally understand what the God concept truly is--that we are God and we are responsible for what we have created with our own minds/souls--and will stop being frightened little sheep who have to use fear and threats in order to force people to believe what they believe in. Until then, of course, Christianity will continue to do it's evil work and lead thousands away from the reality of their beautiful, benign existence. I'm just sorry that you're one of them, though, thankfully, I know that even if you are, no ill will befall you for your beliefs. And that's it in a nutshell; you believe through fear of retribution and I know that a truly just God--if one does exist separate from the collective "we"--would never even consider punishing you for not believing in it. Such unjust cruelty would never even cross it's mind. I look forward to your response and I sincerely hope it will be much more detailed and to the point.--Robb Letter 8: Major attempts to argue that everything has been done "for God’s glory." Major-- Thank you for responding, although, yet again, I am disappointed that you have not addressed any of my valid arguments, nor refuted any of the contradictions except to say that they are "taken out of context," which I conclusively illustrated was not the case. You're going to have to show how specific arguments are taken out of context, not just blanket-respond with a meaningless and already disproven reiteration. I address all of your points directly and offer detailed analysis so that you can understand fully my points and would appreciate if you would offer detailed analysis of your own to refute mine for the purpose of discovering truth; the least you could do is respect that. Now, on to your response.... "After rereading your lengthy response, I have been forced to conclude the following: You forget that according to the Bible , God has done all of this, let all this pain to occur, used jesus to fufill the prophecy etc etc, having had full foreknowledge and yet choosing to "let it all happen this way" soley for His only glory, and perhaps some other purpose not yet revealed." Yes, you've stated this before, which is why I asked the question, "Why would you believe in a vain God?" Again, this sounds more like an aspect of your Christian devil than a just and all loving Supreme Being. As for the "other" purpose, what could that be? What could possibly be the "other" purpose? If your answer is (as I'm sure it is) "We can not know the purpose of God" then you have once again proven that the Bible is an entirely irrelevant book, for the very purpose of the Bible is to know God's purpose. It is supposed to be (and every Church claims it to be) God's Truth--literally everything you need to know about God and existence and salvation, etc. So if there are no answers to be found and the end of the day response is, "You are nothing compared to God, who are you to question God, just believe in the Bible and shut up" then you have destroyed the purpose of the Bible to begin with. This was my original point, if you'll recall, and I would not only appreciate either a refutation of this (and all of my points), or, at the very least, a direct addressing of this completely valid point. Is God vain, i.e., doing "all this" for his glory (and if so, why would God need such a childish validation?), or is God an all loving and just God, free of the human trait you ascribe to him? And further, if the answers to God's plan are not to be found in the Bible--"We can not know God's plan"--then, again, what is the purpose of the Bible? "If you think you would have done it differently(yet you offer no comprehensive solution, nor does you or anyone have a means of supplanting what we already have for something better)" I did indeed offer a different approach, and that was one that we mere humans regularly employ in our own courtrooms, that of "Innocent until proven guilty." In other words, we do not punish unjustly; we do not punish one man for the sins of another. Surely you're not suggesting that humans are MORE just than God? The other approach I mentioned--which remains on the table, so to speak, since you did not address it--is to simply not punish humanity for being born to begin with. If it is God's will that we are birthed into flesh, why would we be punished with "original sin" when we have done nothing except be born (by God)? This, too, is a valid argument that, if not addressed, effectively destroys any possible belief in the supreme justice of the Christian God. By simply stating, "God is beyond question" you've clearly shown how insidiously you've been brainwashed by a malevolent cult, for that is NOT a doctrine of spiritual freedom. If, indeed, we are free and have a free will, then there should be absolutely no reason to question unjust actions; we do on a constant basis in every other aspect of our existence, so why not God? Does this make me ungrateful? How? That's identical to saying that the Jews and Gypsies in the concentration camps were ungrateful to the Nazi's for providing them with a bed and a meal. If the original action or event is an unjust one, then all bets are off. If, indeed, God were just, and we were NOT being punished for something we did not do, then yes, your argument would stand. Do you see the distinction here? You're telling me to be grateful that God gave me life and to overlook the fact that at the same time God is punishing me by birthing me into sin. That's a ridiculous statement and speaks more to your indoctrination than to a spiritual freedom through God. "Contrary to what you said, the "rationalization" is not "God moves in mysterious ways" or "free will"., it is God glorifying Himself. You simply have a problem with Gods ultimate authority and His decision not to play "puppeteer" to prevent or eliminate grievous ills, such as original sin, and all that followed. You will have at least one opportunity to voice your superior view of the situation." Again, you seem to have no problem with the concept that God--an all loving all knowing creator--would somehow have a NEED to glorify himself. This is pure vanity and does not in any way excuse the deliberate cruelty such a doctrine inflicts. And as to your point about God "not playing puppeteer" you are confused on that point because it is by God's will that we are born into sin. God is clearly playing "puppeteer" by setting up all the rules and regulations that we (supposedly) must live by. In short, God pulls all the strings, including our birth, our life and our ultimate salvation. Indeed, the only way God could not be considered a "puppeteer" is to have set things up justly and then never intervened. Since your Bible claims God does intervene on a regular basis and has indeed wiped out whole generations (remember Noah?) then you can not conclude anything other than the fact that God IS a puppeteer. God can change that at anytime God chooses--God can do anything, including removing an unjust situation such as "original sin" and truly allow us to be free, but God does not set us up in a free environment at all, according to your religion. On to your "point" about original sin, no matter how you rationalize it, punishing others for the crimes of one is inherently unjust and THEREFORE removes any claim to superiority the Christian God may claim. Again, this is like saying the black slaves were ungrateful to their white masters and is a reprehensible attitude; an attitude, by the way, that we have gone to war over in order to stop. If we won't accept such cruelty from our fellow man, why in the world should we accept it from a God? "Without exception, every statement you made and its motivation was based on what looks to me to be a distinct lack of gratitude." Yes, you're correct. I have no gratitude whatsoever for being punished for crimes I did not commit or for enslavement based upon an unjust concept. "the verses you used were not "self contained concepts" by any stretch of the imagination." This is your direct refutation of my specific examples proving that they were indeed self-contained concepts? Where is your counter-example? Where is your evidence? "Trying to make such claims against scripture, is in my opinion ( and the opinion of many many literary scholars, philosophers and lawyers , some not Christians) impossible." You are not supporting your contentions with any examples at all. They are indeed self-contained concepts as I conclusively proved to you and you have offered no counter argument except childish denial and irrelevant, vague allusions to "many many literary scholars." Must I quote yet again to show you that the positions being stated in the Bible that I presented as proof have no need for contextual basis? Will repetition get through to you? No, obviously not, for you are doing what every Christian does when presented with facts, you ignore them or attempt a childish evasion, so let's go directly to this "context" issue instead, considering you are using it as a "catch all" (erroneous) refutation. What context are you speaking of? The only "context" I can see that you are talking about is the grossly false context of "The bible is God's word so anything in the Bible is correct and any attempt to offer valid points against it is just plain wrong." That is NOT context, that is a childish supposition with absolutely no support. The Bible is NOT God's word just because the Bible SAYS it is God's word. Accordingly, I can claim that everything I write is God's Word because I say it is. Or, indeed, everything I write is God's Word because God says it is. Although you and I know that to be ludicrous, this is exactly what is at the heart of your argument and if it doesn't apply to me then it doesn't apply to the Bible. You can't have it both ways. If the only requirement is the statement, "These words are God's Words because God said they are" then ANY person or author can make the exact same claim and you would HAVE to believe. If that "logic" applies to one group of writings, then it must apply to ALL writing, for by your own definition of God--God is everything--then ALL words are God's words. That is a patently ridiculous viewpoint, yet it must be true if that is your claim as it applies to the Bible. If, on the other hand, you are claiming that the quotes I presented are taken out of context in the sense of the "whole" of the book they were taken from, then it should be very easy for you to give counter-examples that would refute my claim. Since you did not, I can only conclude that you CAN not, setting aside the fact that if one section of a story claiming to be a factual account of something can be proven incorrect, then that destroys whatever "whole" is being claimed. By continuously claiming "context, context, context" without illustrating HOW the quotes are taken out of context, you have offered no counter argument whatsoever. You have simply evaded my points with a meaningless and baseless platitude that serves only to prove further that you are incapable of refuting my arguments. You have clearly shown that you are an intelligent person, so why are you relying on propaganda "spin" control evasions? If my arguments are easily dismissed then present your counter-arguments to dismiss them. "In trying to make such a critical analysis, the Bible fits together as a whole, and must be taken as such, both conceptually, and in detail." SHOW HOW. I have gone to great lengths and shown in numerous ways that the Bible DOES NOT fit together as a whole; that in fact, when taken as a whole there are even more "contextual" problems then when dissected as individual stories. The four gospels, for example, when "taken as a whole" show numerous contradictions (not merely mistakes, but contradictory facts that conclusively negate each other). Your "whole" theory does not stand up to scrutiny, as I illustrated with specific examples, which you have simply chosen to ignore with another unsupported sweeping generalization. That is NOT refutation, that is evasion and it is beneath you. "Argumentatively speaking, the idea of "mysterious ways" is must be equally considered along with the rest of the claims of scripture. I don't see how you or anyone can try to second guess the reason for existance." First of all, I'm not "second guessing the reason for existence" I am conclusively proving that the Bible does not PROVIDE a reason for existence, so don't even attempt to evade the issues by sidetracking. And secondly, I have shown that to even hint that "God moves in mysterious ways that we can not know so believe just because" clearly negates the purpose of a Bible to begin with, another valid argument of mine that you have not addressed. You proceed from a false assumption, namely that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore not to be questioned. I would agree only if there weren't so many questions raised by the wording and platitudes of the Bible; questions which CAN NOT be dismissed simply by stating, "Well, no man can know what God's plan is, so shut up." That is a childish statement--more akin to a bully than a spiritually free child of God--and only serves to negate the purpose of the Bible. "Philosophers have tried for years and where has it gotten us? " Where has belief in the Christian God gotten us? Do I really need to bring up the countless millions of innocent people who have been murdered in the name of the Christian God? Do you really want to go down that bloodied path? At least Philosophers are open and readily admit that there are unanswered questions; questions that mankind SHOULD answer and not just pretend to answer with baseless platitudes and dictatorial decrees. Your own religion has been so fragmented and confused throughout the centuries and all that has resulted in is bloodshed and divisiveness. Why not ask a Muslim or either a Catholic or Protestant Irishman whether or not they would have preferred a philosopher to a religious zealot, killing their children and wives and friends because their Christian God told them to? As far as I know, no one has ever murdered somebody in the name of Thomas Paine, or Emanual Kant. "The pain of mankind has risen commensurate to his spread over the earth." For once I agree with you, though not in what you're attempting to imply. In this regard, you should have capitalized the "his" in the above sentence to make it a true statement. The pain of mankind for the past twenty centuries can be directly linked to the imperialist, dictatorial pogroms of the Christian religion. Pick up a history book one of these days and open your eyes to the truth. "If it werent for the pivotal work of Christ on the cross, life as we know it would not exist," I have no idea what you are attempting to say here, so if you could, please clarify this bizarre statement. Life existed long before Christ and has existed long after Christ and Christ did no "work" upon the cross, he simply died. It is your religious fervor and desperate spiritual need that turned the simple death of a man for sedition against the Roman Empire into a deity and no amount of doubletalk and dictatorial decree on your behalf can show anything beyond that simple fact. A man died. Period. You and your religion claimed that man was more than a man (remember that no book of the New Testament was written during Jesus' lifetime, so all supposed quotes from Jesus can only be considered hearsay--funny how close hearsay is to heresy). "and when the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth, the only restraining influence against evil on the earth will be gone, paving the way for the new world leader." Fear based propaganda holds no weight with me, so save your paranoid delusions please and stick to refutation of my arguments. Not to mention the fact that I have no idea where you are getting these claims. If God is omnipresent and eternal, then there will NEVER be a "time" when the Holy Spirit is "removed" from the Earth. And since God created evil, it's God's fault and responsibility to begin with, so whatever point you're trying to make is moot. "If there were one shred of evidence of naturalistic evolution, " Are you serious? Is that all you would require, one shred of naturalistic evolution? Fantastic, because you have more than that shred in your mouth as we type (and more! indeed, your body is a perfect example of naturalistic evolution). Go ahead and check your incisors or ask your dentist why they ritualistically have to remove your molar teeth. The simple reason is that we no longer need to have sharp incisors and strong molar teeth because we no longer hunt and kill and eat raw meat. Is that "shred," if you'll pardon the pun, enough? How about your tonsils? When did you have those taken out? How's your back? Walking upright, are you? Or your eyesight? Do you wear glasses? Do you know anyone who wears glasses? Do you know why anyone needs to wear glasses? Ask any optometrist what one of the leading causes of having to use glasses is (here's a hint, it's called reading, a learned process). Still need more? Ok, here's more than just a shred, here's the whole shooting match. It will help if you know any pregnant women, but if you don't, you can always buy a book on ultrasound to see that you, us, we, humans, start out as fish, then evolve into reptiles, then finally into primates (who still breath water) until finally emerging from the womb as homo sapiens. There, not just shreds, but multiple examples found in your very own body of naturalistic evolution, so you can finally stop being frightened into desperation and instead wake up, open your eyes, and see the truth that surrounds you. I know it's scary to accept the responsibility of your own existence, but maybe, just maybe if we all finally did, then and only then would we truly have salvation. I look forward to your detailed point-by-point refutation of my arguments and am still waiting for you to refute the several pages of direct biblical contradictions I sent to you before (context won't cut it unless you can illustrate how those quotes are taken out of context). Letters 9-11: These are from personal correspondence as well. Marcus contacted me in a "God Does Not Exist" chat room one late night and challenged me to convert him. The following letters are all that survive the three-month process, during which, surprise, surprise, he did not convert to atheism. C’est la vie. Letter 9: A detailed explanation of how Christianity’s propaganda works. Marcus-- I apologize for the language and I thank you for giving my points earnest attention (though I am somewhat dismayed that you did not respond to the list of biblical contradictions I sent--unless it did not get through for some reason. I'll re-include them at the end of my response to your responses. To whit: "On a different note I would like to say that while your letter was interesting, I truly felt sorrow for you as you argued your point with such a blindness to the concept of the supernatural and spiritual realm." I do not have any such blindness at all. In fact, I am an extremely spiritual person. What I am addressing is the fact that the Bible is not so much a spiritual guidebook as it is a deliberate attempt to take advantage of mankind's innate knowledge of the "supernatural" in order to impose a detrimental philosophy. This can most readily be seen in the repeated "lesson" of "turning the other cheek." Please follow me on this one, I do understand the "other side" of this argument so there is no need for you to condescend and feel "sorrow" for me. Throughout the New Testament there is a repetition of this concept; indeed at the heart of Christianity is the teaching that suffrage today will result in heaven tomorrow. "You must love your enemies." On the surface, these appear to be valiant platitudes; a good philosophy to have. Unfortunately, the dark side to this is that it deliberately tells you not to question your oppressors--not to rise up above your station in this life because God will rise you up when you die. Setting aside here a belief in God for just a moment (because that is the innate "supernatural" concept endemic in all sentient beings that can be used to get your attention), there could be no better propaganda used than "Love your enemies" by the State/Church in order to control and maintain the status quo of oppression. Also, at this point, you should remember that the Christian Church that you belong to only recently appeared on the Christian rung, comparatively speaking. Where this all began (after Jesus, of course) was with Paul and the Catholic Church, which wielded supreme power over Kings and Countries for centuries. So, we're discussing here a ways to gain and maintain a power base, not the "spirituality" of God. Start with the basic premise, "I wish to rule other men" here instead of "I wish to spread the word of God" for a moment and you'll see my point. How do you organize and rule over men? Knowledge and propaganda (or, the careful dissemination of said knowledge). I know that you wish to believe in God. Knowing that (knowledge) I then can rule you by providing you with knowledge of God (propaganda). Since no one knows what "God" is (indeed the Bible goes to great lengths to point out that "no one hast seen His face"--and then contradicts this repeatedly, but that's under "biblical contradictions"), since no one knows what God is and everyone wants to know, it won't take too much to convince them that you have special knowledge of God. Indeed, all you had to do in those days is proclaim that you had special knowledge and voila! You had an audience to hear your tale. So, back to propaganda. What then must you do to insure that those amongst the audience don't cry out, "you are a false prophet" is to include in your tale a pre-emptive attack, "Beware of false prophets." If you state "beware of false prophets" the psychology involved automatically instills in your audience the belief that you are NOT a false prophet (otherwise, why would you instruct your audience to beware of them, meaning, you?). From there, you can indeed proclaim that you are a prophet (or this man you heard of was a prophet, or whatever person or object you wish to deify). The audience already believes that you are not a false prophet because you warned them never to listen to false prophets. In their innocent minds they would never listen to a false prophet and therefore the scrutiny of whether or not YOU are a false prophet is dismissed, for they are indeed listening to you. Do you understand the distinction here? The very fact that you are stating, "beware of false prophets" implies that you are NOT a false prophet, even though you very well may be. It doesn't matter, however, because you have already convinced your audience that you are speaking the "truth" without ever stating to begin with that you are. They will assume it to be true, and that's how propaganda works. You get your audience to believe in things that you have never directly stated; once they do believe in it, then you are free to directly state or claim anything at all, because you know that your audience will believe whatever you have to say. "Turn the other cheek" works on largely the same principle. On the surface, it sounds like a good way to live. If someone strikes you, show him or her that you are better than they are by offering your other cheek. The problem that arises, of course, is that it is also telling people to remain docile when authority--those who wish to rule other men--transgress upon you to maintain their status above you and the privileges you do not have as a result of their oppression. Marry "Turn the other cheek" with "You will be redeemed in Heaven for transgressions against you on Earth" and you've completed the cycle of control. No one knows what Heaven truly is, or even if such a place exists and that's the point. That's why there is no detailed explanation of exactly what Heaven is (or where it exists, for that matter) given in the Bible. Yes, I know there are bits and pieces and there are different visions and various statements that seem to add up to a whole, complete picture, but if you are going to be as honest with me as you have been so far, you must admit that primarily it is a vague concept. And it is a vague concept on purpose. Why? So that you fill in the blanks; so that your own individual imagination will take all of the bits and pieces and put them together in your own mind as one coherent whole. In that way you will defend such a vision, because you have created the whole yourself, because you have already decided that you believe in such a place, since you would never listen to a false prophet. See how it all links together? Again, I'm speaking from a standpoint of someone who wishes to rule other men; to be a shepherd of a flock of willing sheep. The third step then (after your audience has willingly given you their trust and willingly followed your decry not to question authority--i.e., you) you simply have to proclaim any wild things you want; the wilder the better. The more fantastic, the more attention will be yours, because, again, you know that people WANT to believe. This also serves a dual purpose, of course, as all propaganda does: by deliberately instilling the fantastic and the mysterious in the minds of innocents who could not possibly conceive of such things on their own, you insure that your audience will follow you and do whatever you ask of them, because it appears that only you have this knowledge; that only through you can such knowledge and wonderment and mystery be acquired (or, more simply, understood). Again, look back to the origins of the Catholic Church and their insistence upon a rigid hierarchy. You HAD to go through a Priest in order to achieve the knowledge of salvation. Along the way, of course, sincere seekers of truth splintered off from this oppression in an attempt to "free up" religion, but in every instance, the result has simply been a different form of oppression in the guise of freedom, and from a sincere desire not to oppress. You're right, most ministers and priests and Christians do not wish to oppress anyone; they sincerely hope to deliver salvation. The problem, of course, is that they also proceed from a false assumption: That what they have based their beliefs upon was designed to enlighten rather than enslave. If you actually read the Bible--not from a standpoint of "These Are The Holy Words of God Almighty," but instead from the standpoint of "These Are Words Written By Men In Order To Gain Power Over Other Men" (i.e. the Catholic Church)--you'll see in an instant how the New Testament, especially, is designed to keep you confused and docile, so that you never really know what is going on. This is where the coup de gras comes in, "Faith" the fourth and last bit of propaganda that seals the deal. You are told repeatedly in the New Testament that at any point where you question the validity of "The Word" or God or Jesus or anything for that matter, you are to believe through faith and be redeemed. In other words, it's ok for you to have questions, but know that those questions should never detract you from your "faith" that even if you don't have the answers, God does (i.e., the men who wrote the Bible, i.e. the Catholic Church). Don't forget that it was the Catholic Church in circa 300 a.d. under Bishop Iraneus (or however you spell his name) who decided which religious stories would make it into the final cut (if you haven't yet, you should read the Gnostic Gospels, the gospels that were considered "heresy" by the Bishop and removed from what became at that and later canonical conferences, the New Testament). The insidious nature of such a four tiered propaganda scheme is that you actually are the one that insists the Bible is true simply because the Bible (and your Church and Parents) tells you that it is true. It is the only book that claims authenticity "just because." Why? How can that be? Through the four examples of brilliant propaganda outlined above and, primarily because, you WANT it to be true. I know, I know, at this point you are saying that there is another option, and that is simply, that it IS true. But if it were "true" then there would not be the amount of contradictions that there are, as outlined briefly below, nor would there be the instruction that you MUST believe through faith. Only faith can redeem you, you are told repeatedly throughout, effectively stating, "even if you find fault with the wording, having faith that it is true is enough for your deepest wish to be true." If the Bible actually were The Inerrant Words of God and The One True Testament To The Existence Of God And Man as it claims to be, then there would be absolutely no need for the concept of "faith" at all. If it were truly God's words and the absolute truth of God's creation, then there would be no need to believe through faith because you would immediately recognize it to be the word of God. The very fact that you are repeatedly instructed "you must have faith" that it is true proves that it is not true. Truth is true no matter what (if you wish to get into a deconstruction of "truth" here, we certainly can, but you should know what I'm getting at by now). "Don't presume that, because I believe in God, that you really know me. It is not true that I have been told to use faith as an out whenever I do not know the answer to someone's question concerning Him. Sometimes though, I have to tell myself to have faith, because I may not know the answer to a question, BUT I can go to someone who does know, and until then, I need to keep on believing." This is fairly self-explanatory and addressed above, but you've given away a telling point: you "need to keep on believing." You readily admit that there are questions that you have which might actually detract from your belief, so you employ the tool of "faith" to "keep on believing" until such time as you can have someone answer your question. The problem here is that you've asked a question of someone who "does know," implying that there is someone who does know. This also goes to the fact that you're inadvertently proving that the bible is not sufficient for you to find the truth on your own; you must go to someone. See what I'm getting at? Automatically, you are reliant upon someone with more "knowledge" than you have to find the truth, when, if the Bible indeed were the Truth, you would never "not know." You have illustrated my point brilliantly; you are reliant upon someone else to give you the guidance you could not find on your own. But if the Bible were the actual true words of God, you would never find yourself needing to go to someone else for that guidance. I'm not suggesting that the people you go to are only interested in controlling you, but the fact remains that you are, in fact, at their "mercy." You are willingly giving up control of your spiritual knowledge to another and whether you accept this or not, that is the essence of how to control; how to rule over men. Insure that they will never have all of the answers themselves. Here's another example of propaganda, by the way, the misnomer that "God is so vast that you could never know the truth on your own." One second's worth of reflection would show you that that statement effectively negates the whole purpose of the Bible to begin with, for the supposed purpose of the Bible is to give the Complete Word of God. It is supposed to be a gift from God and all that you need to understand and know the Truth; yet they tell you it is ok for you to have questions because God's truth is so vast, that no one has the answers, so believe through faith. If no one but God has the answers, then what is the point of the Bible? "So far the Bible has never been proven wrong to me. Scientists have never even been able to prove the Bible wrong." There are many fallacies stated above, so bare with me. First of all, you have confused many different platitudes here as well as mixed meanings. The Bible has indeed been proven wrong in many different ways, what you are attempting to state is that science has never been able to prove that God does NOT exist; that's very different than stating the Bible has never been proven wrong because science is not concerned at all with spiritual explanations. Science does not set out from the standpoint of "Let's prove that there is no God." So, don't mistake what science's role is. In regard to what IS proven "wrong" about claims of the Bible (note the use of the phrase "about claims of the Bible"), although too numerous to catalogue here, I'll give you two that clearly disprove biblical claims:
I know what you're about to think, that you've heard carbon dating and science is not reliable enough to know how old the universe is, but that is simply a lie. Even if carbon dating is not very accurate, that does not account for the fact that the discrepancy between science (that the earth is billions of years old--we'll say 4 billion for the sake of argument because that's close enough) and that of the Bible (that the Earth is around 6,000 years old) is so incredibly vast. We're not talking that science is off by a few hundred years, or a few thousand, or even a few million, but, if the Bible is The Truth, science, which created your computer and put a man on the moon, is off by 3,999,994,000 years (according to my numbers)! If that were the case, if our scientists are THAT wrong in their calculations, then there is no possible way you would be reading this on your computer or we could send astronauts into space. No way. And, again, remember the Bible is claiming to be The Truth, not The Sort of Truth, or The Spiritual Truth, it claims to be the complete and inerrant story of God's creation. Accordingly, it states that the earth (and the universe!) was created some 6,000 years ago. That simply is not true and can be easily verified. "As a matter of fact it has been proven correct in every archeological dispute that has ever arisen against the Word." The Bible has not been proven "right", i.e., The Truth, because of archeological digs. An archeological dig is only involved in discovering ancient cities that once stood. The Bible mentions cities that no longer exist, and archeology has unearthed many (but by no means all) of those cities. That's it. Archeology and the unearthing of ancient cities does not prove that the Bible is The Inerrant Word of God, it merely proves that the authors of the stories in the Bible mentioned the cities that they lived in and those cities were unearthed. It has nothing to do with spirituality in any way shape or form. No one is disputing that people lived in cities thousands of years ago; what is in dispute is whether or not God visited the people that lived in those cities On Earth. "I know you don't take the Bible as "valid" but, when I said that God's ways are not our ways, and his thoughts not our thoughts, that also applies to your example. Of course you would question a human banker handling your precious money. He's human! God won't double-cross us. " Again, you have filled in the blanks left open by the vagaries of the Bible. You don't know that "God won't double cross us" you are assuming God won't because no God that you could believe in WOULD double cross you (need I refer to Job, or the "sons and daughters into the fourth generations," or do you get my point?) Regardless, it isn't a question of whether or not God would double cross you--that's irrelevant. The point I was making with the use of the tool "Faith" is outlined above and I needn't beat a dead horse here. "When the Bible said that you can't be saved by works or deeds or beliefs, but only through God's grace it meant that just being a good person will not save you. Just giving to charity will not guarantee you Heaven. When you said that it is a gift, not a reward - the Bible calls it both "For great is the gift of the kingdom of Heaven." You don't "earn" salvation, you achieve it through obedience to the plan of salvation." Well, here you're just doing a dance of semantics. "Earning" and "Achieving" are identical concepts in this context because a gift can not in any way be a reward. I'll get to this with your next statement. "Why do you think that a reward can not also be a gift? If a rich man gives a child 2 million dollars for just doing a simple task that the man asks the child to do, isn't that reward rather generous? A proper reward would have been maybe five dollars, yet he gave him a great reward. The surplus amount would be a gift. I token of gratitude given out of the man's own free will and generous spirit." First of all, you're discussing payment for services rendered, not a gift. But, using your words for the sake of clarification--that a "proper reward would have been maybe five dollars"--we see that it IS a reward, as you've clearly stated. The rich man gives a child a REWARD (in this case money) for services rendered. The child performed a task and was rewarded. Whether it was a simple or difficult task is irrelevant, because you clearly stated that the child was given a reward for performing a task for the rich man. Now, if the rich man was simply walking down the street and handed a child 12 million dollars, or five dollars, or whatever, then AND ONLY THEN would it be a gift, for the child did nothing to earn such generosity. The rich man out of the man’s own free will and generous spirit gave it to him precisely BECAUSE the child had done absolutely nothing to earn or achieve or any other similar verb you wish to employ. The fact is that a gift (for it to truly be a gift) must not have ANY action required by the receiver of the gift, or else it is NOT a gift. Do you see the distinction here? ANY task that the child performed for the rich man would automatically turn the "gift" into a "reward;" payment for services rendered, NO MATTER WHAT THOSE SERVICES WOULD BE. Belief, achieving a sinless nature, NONE of these would have any bearing whatsoever upon the true nature of a gift. For it to be a gift there can be NO action taken on behalf of the receiver, no matter how small you wish it to be. "This entire conversation is not about devious attempts by clergymen to make their church grow to get more money. The men and women who preach this Word do so because they believe in it, and they want others to be saved." This was also covered above, but one final point here: When you base your belief on a flawed construct to begin with, it does not matter what later generations honestly or sincerely believe and act upon, because the base of their beliefs, and therefore the basis for their honesty and sincerity is flawed. One need only bring up the analogy of the Army or the Nazi's or the Crusades to illustrate the point. Let's just use the Crusades, it's getting late. Those who were honest and sincere in their beliefs numbered in the thousands of the soldiers of the Crusades and they honestly and sincerely believed that what they were doing--the hunting down, torturing and murder of innocent people who chose to believe something other than what the Christian religion demanded of them--was correct in the eyes of the Lord. That they were insuring their place in heaven by assisting Torqueamada in his Church mandated pogrom. They too honestly and sincerely believed that they were doing the Lord's work. Were they wrong? If so, how? Their priests (their ministers--those with the knowledge of God) told them that what they were doing would help all of mankind, and, indeed, would actually SAVE the poor heretical souls of the thousands that were tortured and murdered. So, your argument is specious at best. "The preacher never hides the Word from anyone. Anybody can go to a local bookstore or library and get a Bible. You need to lose the notion that the ministers of churches are intentionally misleading people. You can still make your point without calling the ministers "brainwashers" as if they were leading us on to our own demise on purpose." Again, the point is that they aren't doing it on purpose, but they are, nonetheless doing it. And, you're wrong about the first two lines. Remember it has only been in the last century that a "layperson" could have their own bibles and read the Bible for themselves. The history of the Christian religion in all of its offshoots has been that you could ONLY get religious guidance through your minister or priest. Only comparatively recently has the "freedom" been granted to the sheep to discover for themselves what the shepherd's "plan" is. "I'm sorry, I thought that you wanted accounts that I've heard of. But I do want to say that I believe in those accounts of "other" people. If you want personal accounts I can tell you of the time my grandfather had a man come to him with a shriveled hand that could not be extended. My grandpa put a handkerchief over the lame hand, prayed for a minute, removed the handkerchief and the hand was made whole. It could move and grasp as well as the other hand. Madisonville, Kentucky. At a popular camp meeting a woman with a tumor the size of a cantalope around her waist was prayed for. Before the tumor was visible under the skin. You could see the lump. After prayer it disappeared! She went to the doctor and they concluded that it had, in fact, vanished. I woman at my church was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She was prayed for and returned to her doctor for a checkup. The doctor asked her where she went for surgery because there was no sign of the tumor anymore! I'm sorry if these stories seem like second-hand accounts, but they're the closest miracles that have occurred to me. At least I know the people that these events happened to. I've never had a personal crisis such as a tumor." All this can easily and quite simply be dismissed by the placebo effect. I don't know if you've heard of this, but a placebo is a sugar pill (usually) or some other form of benign or inactive pill given to someone, but they are told it is actually very powerful medicine. The placebo effect works roughly fifty percent of the time, which means it is just as effective as prescribing the actual or active pill. The reason it works is because the people it worked on believed so strongly in the doctor or the "miracle" of prescription drugs, that they healed themselves. In other words, what you call a miracle, I call the ability to heal yourself, a natural ability of the body, by the way, through the belief that the "cure" (whatever it may be) is real. That in itself is "miraculous" but again, does not prove (or disprove) God. What it certainly does not do is prove that the Bible is anything more than a collection of stories written by men. Letter 10: Marcus attempts to refute the notion that the Bible is some form of deliberate control mechanism of the Church/State. Marcus— Hello again, and thanks for responding. I often forget that I can come across as being extremely arrogant in my responses and I hope you don't take offense when I do. I tend to get very "heated" when discussing these matters and often that passion becomes, at times, unbridled. It is my way. Now, on to your response: "Here you say that the Bible was an attempt to take advantage of mankind's knowledge of the "supernatural." But how could so many men write the Bible, in different periods of time, most of whom never even having met each other, write about the same God and all be writing with the intent to oppress the masses? I'm sure you're aware that the Bible was not just written by one person, or even a "commitee" of men. It was written over a very long period of time. You think that these men all had the same motive to write? No way." There are several levels to this so I'll just plow on through. Although I'm not the scholar I wish I were on the matter of who wrote what when (few people are and even they rarely agree), I am fairly confident that the "original" writers (if indeed, there were original writers) did what all of the other chroniclers of scripture did, and that was to read what was written before them or listen to the tales told to them, and then embellish and retell the stories in there own way. In that regard, the scriptures were indeed written and rewritten throughout the centuries by a "committee" of men; the Old Testament by the "Jewish" authors, and the New Testament by the "splinter" groups, i.e., the Catholics and the Gnostics as well as the Essenes (who predate Jesus). Not that these authors all got together and compared notes, not at all, but the records show, primarily, that the only people capable of writing anything in those days were either State officials (who would not have written anything non-pagan) and the religious authors, i.e., Rabbis and the splinter groups. The Catholic Church, for example, had several canonical conferences in and around 300-400 A.D. to selectively edit what we now know as the New Testament. I think the first was under the auspices of Bishop Iraneus around 350 a.d., for that is when the gospels known as the "Gnostic Gospels" were removed. I don't know if you've ever read anything about these "heretical" works, but I have read a wonderful account of them called "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels, and I highly recommend it. For example, the oldest known gospel of the New Testament, the Gospel of Thomas, estimated to have been written between 40 and 60 a.d., was removed because it claimed, in essence, that Jesus stated man did not need anybody to act as a "go between" with God--including Jesus! It was removed as heretical because the Catholic Church--a clearly hierarchical structure--would have been destroyed by such a concept. Another gospel was the Gospel of Mary, also known as the Song of Mary, which was removed simply because the Church felt that a woman could not possibly have known or witnessed God. Anyway, my contention is not that Jesus or even the supposed apostles of Jesus had set out specifically to control mankind. I don't know (and neither does the rest of the world) what the original intention was--in my heart I believe Jesus was simply an extraordinary teacher who's humanity, as is so often the case, was deified, or "put onto a pedestal" by later generations--but I do know that what we call the Bible was deliberately edited and selectively constructed according to Catholic precepts, namely, the rigid hierarchy of the Priest/Bishop/Pope chain of command, and I firmly believe that it was edited and compiled in order to be used as a means of control (this belief, by the way, comes directly from the language and platitudes found in the Bible and not merely my whim). Again, you must look at the Church's history in order to understand its present. The Catholic Church became the most powerful institution the world had ever known--more powerful than Kings or Nation States--in a remarkably short period of time, comparatively speaking, and they did it not through preaching love and salvation, but through brutal force, fear, and, as evidenced by the Crusades, blood, torture, and murder. And let's also not forget that it is the victors who write history (if you don't believe this, just rent Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" someday to see just how powerful propaganda is, or any American history textbook will illustrate my point). "Maybe some of the pleasures in Heaven are incomprehensible to human minds. I do see what you're saying but this is the point where either you believe in the Word, or you don't. If you do, you'll have your reasons for believing in Heaven, if you don't you'll have reasons for not believing. I think you might agree with me there." Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that the concept is deliberately vague when it should not be vague at all, if the Bible is indeed God's Truth. "Belief" should not enter into the equation if the Bible were God's Truth. Every other aspect of God and Jesus (except, perhaps, Jesus' childhood) is painstakingly chronicled. We are told repeatedly who begat whom and how the fall of man supposedly occurred and how long it took God to create everything, etc. Considering that "Heaven" is the ultimate goal (or, as the Bible erroneously puts it, "reward"), you'd think that there would be more detail as to what it is and where it is and exactly how to get there. We are told that you can get there through faith or through works, and at the same time told that it is a gift from God, and not a reward for works (or faith, for that matter). We are told on the one hand that we get there "through" Jesus, or through "belief" in Jesus, but we aren't told why, and then told on the other hand, that it is by God's grace alone that we go to heaven. Indeed, if it is a gift from God, then there is nothing we can do to earn entrance into heaven, including belief in Jesus, or faith. In short, we are told contradictory and mutually exclusive ways of getting to Heaven, without ever being told exactly what Heaven is. It is deliberately left up to our imaginations. Why? If, as the Bible claims, heaven is a real place, or even a state of being, then why not tell us where that place is and what to expect, or indeed, exactly how we get there? If the Bible were The Ultimate Guidebook to God, then why wouldn't there be a detailed description of the Ultimate Goal to the Ultimate Guidebook? If I may go back somewhat tangentially to a point I made before, if we get there "through Jesus" as the New Testament claims, then an excellent question is how? Through belief, is usually the answer given, but if you examine that answer, it makes no sense. "You must believe that Jesus was God in order to get to Heaven" is what it boils down to, but we are never given any reason as to why that would be a pre-requisite. I know, I know, the rationalization is, "because He died for your sins." But, again, that isn't an answer because that also makes no sense. Not only do we continue to "sin," but how does the death of one person, even if that "person" was God, wipe out our sins? It was, at best, a magnanimous gesture, but utterly worthless when you actually examine the supposed answer given to us by the various Churches and the Bible. We, as Christians, or indeed, as children of God, are supposed to somehow accept that God came down in order to "die" for our sins, when we all know that God can not die. If God wanted us to be "sin" free, then God could simply have made us without sin. So the answer to that question is then another confusing sidetrack, namely, Adam "brought" sin into the world, and therefore we are all punished. Again, this makes no sense, because even we mortals do not punish someone for somebody else's crime, setting aside the fact that it also implies that God did not create sin, man did, even though we are told that God created everything. So, when you put it all together, it reads like this: God came to Earth in flesh in order to willingly die to remove the sins that God punishes us for (unjustly) to begin with, because of the actions of one man (Adam) centuries before any of us were born, even though that man (Adam) was supposedly created "perfect" by God at the start. If that makes sense to you, then please explain it to me, because no God I could ever believe in would go to such elaborate extremes to save us when God has the power to save us all along. "Yes. Sometimes I do need to go to someone. Not because the Bible doesn't have the answers, but because I may not see them, or may not have read it enough. Or maybe I even read over it. When I say I need to go to someone to ask them, I mean I need to go to someone who has studied the Scriptures more than I. And one who has more insight into them." I know, but that still means that your spiritual understanding is reliant upon someone else, because, let's face it, the only reason any of us go to someone who has studied the Scriptures more than we have is because they are so confusing to us to begin with. My point is that if the Scriptures were indeed the Inerrant Words of God--God's Ultimate Truth as it and your Church claims it to be--then, regardless of interpretation or translation, there would be no need to seek anybody else for the answers. The response to this logical argument is always, "Well men are fallible," or, "The devil is causing the confusion," but that just doesn't stand up to even the simplest of scrutiny if you remember that the Bible was (supposedly) deliberately inspired by God for God's children to understand God's Godliness. Surely God is more powerful than either man's fallibility or the devil's influence and could have insured that ALL of mankind--as long as they could read--could understand God's Truth without the need for anyone else explaining or interpreting sections for us. The fact that this is not the case only strengthens my contention that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, but is instead a deliberately confusing means to control mass consciousness. If you are, at this point, asking "why" just watch the Christmas Mass from the Vatican some day (or turn on any of the televangelists) and you'll see the obscene opulence and power displayed. You must look beyond your local or even personal beliefs to see the unbelievable abuses of power going on as a direct result of the teachings found in the Bible. Yes, there are sincere and honest Christians, but that is due to the fact that Godhood (not the Christian God, mind you, but the more general concept of a Grand Creator, or Original Idea) is inherent within mankind, and not because of the Bible. The Bible, and more specifically, the Churches that sprang up as a result of the Bible, use this innocent knowledge to control--primarily through fear--and that is not only wrong in the grand sense of that word, but not the result of an all loving, just God. "Where are you getting this from? Simply because one reads a book doesn't mean that that one gained all the knowledge possible from that book! Simply because someone is a pupil of a great instructor doesn't mean that they've gained all the intellect of that teacher!" God is not just a teacher, God is your creator and your salvation, and is all knowing and supposedly wishes you to be able to pick up God's words and know the Truth. That's the key here; that's supposed to be the purpose of the Bible to begin with. It is supposed to be God's Truth. So, except for the fact that you have yet to learn how to read (not you specifically, but "you" in general), there should be no reason to go to anyone beside the Words of God to be instructed. Do you see my point here? The only reason to go to some other "instructor" than God would be if these words were not the words of God, unless your contention (like the Churches') is that God did not mean for "just anybody" to know God, in which case you have been seriously indoctrinated and should consider yourself to be a brainwashed member of an elitist cult. "This may be a little off the subject but I actually have a theory about the whole dinosaur existence concept. This actually answers many archeological and time-related disputes. I thought of this myself. You might think that it's a little far-fetched but listen to this: God made Adam as a full grown man, not a small child or a baby. Right? So why couldn't God make a planet, and even a universe that is aged? If He made Adam, say, 30 years old, why couldn't He make our Earth billions of years old? I think it's an intriguing idea. What if God put dinosaur bones and fossils into the Earth to give man something to do? I don't really know, I just thought that that was interesting. Although it's not Bible-based, I think it would answer a lot of questions that people have about the Bible and modern science. Don't you?" Although an interesting answer to the problem, it is not, as you put it, Bible-based, so it is simply rationalization on your part in order to answer a question that can not be answered by reading God's Truth. That's the point. If the Bible is God's Truth, then we have a serious problem with the dinosaurs, because they aren't dealt with at all in the Bible (except for references to a Behemoth and Dragons, but since the Bible's genealogies show that the entire universe is only around 12,000 years old, we have another serious problem). Again, this goes to the question of whether or not the Bible is actually God's Truth, or simply fictional stories told to children throughout the ages in order to instill rules and regulations of conduct according to the whims of the controlling elite. And while your answer is imaginative, the Bible does not support it and therefore it is not a part of God's Truth. The story of Genesis does not say, "And God made the Earth billions of years old on the first day and hid Dinosaur bones in the Earth in order to give man something to do," which it would if that were, indeed, The Truth. "Oh yeah, they've found the Ark on Mt. Ararat. Just where the Bible said it would be." Um, I think you're joking about this, but in case you aren't, no, "they" have never found the actual Ark. I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but in case you are not and are basing this upon some TV show narrated by Leonard Nimoy, or some tabloid book, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it isn't true. There was a hoax perpetrated in the late seventies about the supposed Ark, but it was shown to be made of wood a few decades old and it was also not built according to the specifications in the story of Noah. Regardless, it is still physically impossible for any ship, no matter what the configurations, to contain the entire animal and insect populations of this planet, especially one with the ridiculously small configurations set down in the story of Noah. "Maybe I should have said that it has not been proven wrong." Well, many of the claims within the Bible have been proven wrong by science, as I've illustrated. Indeed, you already stated that your first "refutation" (the imaginative, "God could have made the universe old and planted dinosaurs") is not biblically supported, but simply your rationalization. "Go ahead and refer to Job! I know my life isn't going to be perfect because I have God." I'm not sure you meant to write that, but, again, if you did, then that is another example that you have been indoctrinated into a cult. Only a cult would tell you such a ridiculous thing in order to control you, for, if you do "have God" then your life should be nothing but perfect. "I know that God can, at any time, throw a test at me, too! I know you're thinking, what kind of loving God would do that? But God is sovereign. If He wants to bless us, test us, save us, or burn us that's His choice." Oh, I see where you've been indoctrinated here. You've missed my point. The question is why would God need to do such a thing? Sovereign or not, what God would put a clearly righteous man such as Job to any test at all? What would be the point? To prove what God and Job already know--that Job is faithful--assuming that God is omniscient to begin with? If God is "all knowing" then God knew that Job's faith was indeed pure and would therefore not need to test him at all. Assuming that Job's faith was indeed pure, then there would be no need to test him for his sake, either, so what was the purpose of the test? Only a cruel and vain God would do such a thing, for it would ultimately serve no purpose, since both Job and God would know immediately whether his faith was "true" or not. "We humans are so caught up with the notion that we are the supreme beings of the universe! Come on! God created the universe! If you have a plant it's your choice whether you want to water it or let it die, or even through it into the fire! In that case you are the Master of that plant. You see? Well, this is the very point we are discussing--how you've been mislead and how the Bible is clearly a tool of oppressors and not a spiritually freeing doctrine of belief. You have been told that your Christian God created the universe, so somehow you believe, because you are human, that God can then do whatever God wants to do with it and we should just keep our heads bowed and allow any unjust action God wishes based on the premise that one who creates something is master over it. This is clearly a human trait and not one that any God should be involved with in any way, shape, or form. Again, you've missed the point. God is supposed to be not just sovereign, but also just and all loving. An all loving and just God would not throw a plant, as you've put it, into a fire, or let it die, because an all loving and just God would have no NEED to throw a plant into a fire or let it die, nor would it be a just and loving thing to throw a plant into a fire simply because God is master over the plant. You are (erroneously) personifying God by attributing human traits of "master and servant" to an all loving and just being, without realizing that the "master and servant" approach to existence is entirely a man made concept. Only man has slaves, and no matter how you wish to justify it, you can not, because slavery is an inherently unjust institution. We've actually had wars over just such concepts, remember? So the question is, why would you be indoctrinated into believing such an atrocious thing about your God? The only answer is the one I've provided before, namely that it is an example of how the Bible is written by men in order to control and subjugate other men. After all, if God, the Almighty Being can be so cruel and inflict such concepts of Master and Servant onto God's children, then you certainly won't question when mere men inflict the same kinds of cruelty and subjugation upon you, which effectively allows the ruling elite to continue to oppress you. You are, unknowingly, proving my point that you have accepted as fact that in this life there will always be a master and a servant. Unfortunately, what you have failed to understand is that you are the servant and the Church/State is the master and the way they got you to bow down and dig their ditches is through fear. And, in your response to this point, please acknowledge the fact that I am using your analogy here, so I would appreciate no ridiculous comments such as, "But sometimes plants need to die or be burned" because it is God we are discussing, and God would have absolutely no need to either burn a plant or let it die. And please don't attempt to dismiss this very valid point by dragging out that most ridiculous of platitudes, "We can not know what God's plan is for us, and should never question God's plan" because that is simply another man-made excuse for the continuation of Church/State mandated control and negates the purpose of the Bible, as I conclusively argued in this paragraph and in my last letter (which you did not refute, I've noticed). "I must apologize for my example above about the "gift." I spoke with a member of my church and he said that there is a distinction between the gift of God and our reward. The gift was Jesus laying down His life for us that we might find salvation. Our reward is the Kingdom of Heaven for faithfully running the race which is set before us." Well, again, this misses the point, for if Heaven is a "reward" for anything that we do, then that means, once again, that God is not a just God, but instead simply plays favorites. By God's grace alone do you enter heaven, supposedly, so heaven can not in any way be a reward for "faithfully running the race." A gift can not require anything in return for the giving, or else it is not a gift. Period. So if the "gift" was indeed Jesus "laying down his life" then it has been freely given and we are required to do nothing in return (including "picking up" the gift, as one fundamentalist attempted to argue with me in another chat room, for the act of "picking up" the gift would have nothing to do with the giving of the gift). The very second a receiver of a gift is required to do anything in return for being given a gift, then it is not a gift freely given. A lot of alliteration, but you should be able to see my point. "I understand what you're saying about the pill and self-will. But what about when a person dies and is brought back to life? It's happened in recent times. Not just in the Bible. When someone dies they no longer have self-will. Is it then the strong belief of those praying for that dead person that brings him/her back to life?" Well, there are several answers to this, number one being that no one has ever "died" and "come back to life." Interestingly enough, on this point, most Christians readily turn to science claiming that, "See, that person died" when it could simply mean that our instruments--cardiac monitors and EKG's, etc., --are just not sensitive enough yet to truly measure death. Or it could mean that there is a level of disconnection from the body that a consciousness goes through that gives the appearance of death. Or it could be that they have actually died and come back to life. I don't know. I do know that if prayer is the answer, then that answer would work every time, and it does not work in the vast majority of cases. After all, the Bible does not say, "Only in a select few instances will your prayers be answered," it says, quite explicitly, "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. " (Matt. 21:22). If that is true (and it MUST be, for Jesus said it) then so long as you "believe," your prayers will be answered. That's it. Not "strong" belief, or "absolutely, unequivocal" belief, just "believe." Although I'm generalizing, it stands to reason that there have been literally hundreds of millions of true believers in Jesus/God that have made the same prayers for their loved ones throughout the centuries that went unanswered. Of course, the Christian will rationalize this by saying either they did not believe strongly enough (which is not only ludicrous but incredibly insulting) or that "God moves in mysterious ways," which contradicts the explicit statement made by Jesus/God above. And please don't try to evade the issue with the tired old platitude, "God answers all prayers, just sometimes you won't like the answer" because Jesus did not say, "believing, ye shall receive something that you might not want." There was no qualification placed upon Jesus/God's statement accept that you "believe." I freely admit (and so will every scientist worth their salt) that there are things that happen to people that science can not explain, but that does not mean that they are proof of the Christian God or the Judeo/Christian Bible. All it means is that we do not have adequate answers for human events, either through science, or through the world's religions. The problem arises when Christians claim that they DO have adequate answers to those events, which, when actually addressed, prove to be far from even adequate. The Christian answer to such a thing is another vague platitude that doesn't hold up, "You must have faith." As I've already pointed out, that very platitude proves that the Bible is an irrelevancy at best. "Thank you for respecting my feelings about cursing. I need to ask you one more favor, though. And that is, could you make your letters a little shorter? It is very difficult for me to find the time to write a letter this long. I do not own my own computer, so I have to use other's. I am interested in your views, I just am very busy. That's why I took so long to return your letter. I had 44 messages! A record for me." No problem, I hope. It's just that there is a tremendous amount of indoctrination that you have gone through since birth that I have to contend with, and often a short answer simply does not work. I hope this one was shorter. I look forward to your reply. Letter 11: A common theme. The subjugation technique of "Original Sin." Marcus-- Thank you for your response, though, again, I'm dismayed that you did not refute any of the contradictions directly, but instead decided to use general platitudes and propaganda tools that simply don't hold up to scrutiny. To whit... "Adam was the first of the human race. And in so being, he was also the first to make mistakes." He could not make any mistakes if God created him. Remember that Genesis claims that God created Adam "perfect." That means, perfect--without flaw. Therefore, it would not be possible for Adam to "make mistakes" because that would mean that God DID NOT create Adam perfectly. "His greatest mistake was that of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When he sinned, all of mankind inherited a sinful nature - not as a punishment, but as a characteristic. A personality trait that we can only overcome through obediance to the Word." This is the first time I've ever read anyone characterizing sin as a "personality trait," and it's a fun semantic dance, but it still isn't just, and it IS a punishment, as the Bible clearly states. We are being punished for original sin; in effect, we are being punished simply by being born. Whether you wish to categorize it as a "characteristic" or not is irrelevant because the punishment is still unjust. Adam sinned, so Adam and ONLY Adam should pay for that sin. On to your second point, how is it possible that we have "inherited" a sinful nature from Adam? Your father may have robbed a bank, but that doesn't mean that you will rob a bank, nor does it mean that you should be punished for what your father did. Unless you are implying that "sinning" is somehow a genetic trait. If so, then it is God's fault and not ours since God (according to your religion) created genetics to begin with and we're right back to an unjust God punishing us for something God did. No matter how you rationalize it, we are being unfairly punished for something we did not do, no matter how many games of semantics you wish to play, and that is NOT the sign of a just and loving God. "Personally, I don't see wh there should be any great debate over this part of the Bible contradicing itself." Well, at least we agree that the Bible contradicts itself, thereby proving it can not be the Inerrant Word of God. "I'm sure even you can see that God wasn't punishing every human for Adam's actions," That's not what your Bible or any Religious leader would say, so I don't know where you are getting this. In fact, that's the whole reason Jesus supposedly died on the cross to begin with--to save us from Adam's sin. Adam "brought" sin and therefore death into Eden and all of mankind was punished as a result (punished with death), so Jesus supposedly died on the cross for that sin in order to give us "eternal life." "it was only a part of a master plan that had to occur for there to ever be any salvation." What "master plan" would involve unjustly blaming us for Adam's faults? Here's a better "master plan" for salvation: create mankind without sin to begin with and none of us will have to go through any of this. We could, instead, live in peace and harmony and love. And don't bring up that tired old "God doesn't want robots, God wants us to choose" bull because we ARE robots to God. After all, God created us, right? God knows all, right? There is nothing that we could ever do that God would not already know about, so we ARE robots to God. Being born without sin does not take anything away from us at all except sin and punishment for sin, which God created to begin with. It is clearly God's desire that we do not sin--hence the whole Bible and especially the New Testament--but it is man's rationalization that God wants us to "choose" not to sin. Otherwise, why would God have created sin, right? Obviously, so the rationalization goes, God wanted us to "choose" not to sin, of our own free will. This is the Church's construct, mind you. "Free will" is not found in the Bible, the Pope created it in a canonical decree in the 1950's, I believe. And it is entirely without foundation, considering two things:
"One must consider also the [m]any definitions and meanings of words when reading the Bible. " No, one mustn't. The theologians and scholars who translated the Bible to begin with already had those debates and they were much more learned than you or I and they decided upon the definitions (supposedly) through God's inspiration. Or are you claiming that the Bible is not inspired by God? This argument can never be supported--as I'll demonstrate in more detail later--and is only used as an evasion from specific arguments against the Bible. Instead of attempting such a childish blanket response evasion, why not refute the quotes I presented directly? Attempting a general dismissal (as I'll presently show) results in nothing more than a waste of time and does not negate any of the points I raised. "Not only can one word mean many different things in English, but in Hebrew (the Bible's core language)." Exactly, which is why biblicists always claim that the Bible is inspired by God, for, if it weren't then all we have is a book like any other book, no more valid or divine than the next one. If the versions of the Bible are not to be trusted because they use the wrong words and present the wrong meanings, then we do not have a Bible, but simply a collection of stories written by men with no more meaning to them than any other collection of stories written by men. (And, just for your education, the Old Testament's "core" language was Hebrew; the New Testament was Greek) "When translating from language to language sometimes words are use out of context." I agree, so which words are taken out of context and which words are translated incorrectly and why did the theologians and biblical scholars make so many glaring contradictions and mistakes? Which version of the Bible is The Bible? We're not discussing minor mistakes, here, we're talking about serious alterations that completely change the entire meaning of key concepts. One of the Commandments will serve nicely as an example (keep that in mind, one of then COMMANDMENTS). For centuries, "Thou shalt not kill" was translated as "Thou shalt not murder." These are two radically different commandments with far reaching ramifications. If we are not to "murder" then God is implicitly sanctioning the "justifiable" homicides, such as self-defense and killing in war. If, however, the commandment is the more general "Thou shalt not kill" then God is stating, explicitly, with no room to maneuver, that there are NO circumstances in which a human can kill (including animals, insects, and war). This is no petty semantic argument, this is one of only Ten Commandments that both God and Jesus DEMAND we live by (indeed, salvation will be denied if any of them are broken). So which is it? "Thou shalt not murder," or, "Thou shalt not kill?" "That's why there are now many new revised editions of the Bible which often give more accurate words that show more closely what the original authors were trying to say." What original authors? There are no original manuscripts to know what the "original" authors meant to say. The so-called "original autographs" no longer exist. Beside the fact that the many "new revised" versions of the Bible further illustrate that NONE of them can be trusted to be The Bible, these revisions can only be based upon translations of translations of translations handed down over the centuries. According to Norman Geisler in "A General Introduction to the Bible" (a fundamentalist, by the way) in the New Testament alone there are "over 200,000 variants in some 5,000 manuscripts." And none of them agree with each other. So which one is the Inerrant Word of God? Which one do we believe in and follow to achieve spiritual enlightenment/salvation? "If you told a Frenchman that it was raining cats and dogs he wouldn't understand what you're talking about. If you told an American the same thing, they would know you meant that it was raining hard." Yes, and when you substitute the word "kill" for "murder" you have effectively removed the reliability of either interpretation, since both can not be the meaning God intended. So, again, which is it? It can't be both since they are not equivalent. "When you used "repent" in your former context it probably meant that God doesn't need to repent of sins to gain salvation as we do. In your latter context it most likely meant that God had wished that man would have made better decisions or that Saul would have been a better king after being placed in that position by God." Setting aside the fact that the theologians and scholars of the versions did not make any such delineation (because the interpretation of the same word would necessarily be the same meaning, "repent"), you are simply speculating on what the meaning "probably" was. While interesting, it is not a valid argument, for, once again, this leaves ALL versions up to speculation and uncertainty, effectively removing the validity of ANY of the versions from discussion. Again, you are proving my point that we do not have a Bible, but simply a faulty collection of stories, no more divinely inspired than a Stephen King novel. Now, on to the one section of contradictions you actually did address (taken from the Biblical Errancy website):
You responded with: "’Face to face’ - a meeting of minds- on a personal basis- to know each other's heart." Although fun poetry and wishful thinking, this is not biblically supported and once more mere speculation on your part. I'm sorry to say that you have not only failed to refute any of these contradictions, but you have, in fact, offered further proof that no version of the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God and we therefore can not trust any one of them to be God's Truth. This is, of course, why your church indoctrinators came up with "You must have faith" regardless of whether or not you have the Truth. Do you see, finally, how insidious this is? They preach to you through the Bible and because of the Bible and tell you that all you need to know about God and salvation is written in the Holy Book, but when you point out that the book is clearly not the Holy Book, only a collection of contradictory stories without any clear meaning equal to any other book on the shelf, they dismiss this devastating argument with a "You must have faith." This argument only serves to remove the purpose of the Bible. If at the end of the day the only answer they have is "Trust God and shut up" then there is no reason for the Bible. The Bible claims to be, and they tell you it is, The Truth about God, yet the second you point out that it isn't, they dismiss your point and the purpose of the Bible by telling you to believe "because we tell you to." That is not spiritual freedom--that is a dictatorial decree. Letters 12-14: This was an open challenge to any atheists on the web that I responded to. The first letter below explains what the process was and the following illustrate perfectly how religions indoctrinate rather than elucidate. Letter 12: My first missive. Dear Manna— I understand that I am only allowed to send two questions regarding the Bible at a time so I’ve decided to primarily address doctrine instead of errancy (I’m sure my colleagues will be addressing errancy directly). Though my tone may seem abrasive, believe it or not, I’m serious on both counts (I’ve thrown in a third "lighter" question in case you are incapable of adhering to the letter of my first):
Letter 13: Their first response followed by my first response Their response: "Thank you sir for your marvellous e-mail.It's great to be challenged like this!! Sorry that I could'nt have replied sooner, but We didn't notice your e-mail in our mail box. At the moment I can only respond to your first question due to time restrictions, but tomorrow, I will try to answer them all. You used a few big words that I cant seem to understand, but I will try my best to answer question one. If you notice in the Bible when The temple containing the ark of the covenant was built you will see that people had to sacrifice perfect lambs without spot or blemish to attone for their sins. They could not enter the presence of God at all. Only priests could do that and they had to wear pomegranites around their ankles and a rope tied to them in case they died in the presence of God. The reason that God sent Jesus (who is also the same God) to die for you and myself was that it was a "LIVING, PURE SACRIFICE, HOLY AND PLEASING UNTO GOD." Jesus was the pure spotless lamb of God who was severely, brutally, violently murdered and hung upon a cross so that no one would ever have to sacrifice a lamb or a bull ever again because Jesus attoned for their sins. When Jesus cried, "It is finished" the curtain of the said temple tore in two right down the middle, meaning that (in Hebrews) We can therefore approach the throne of grace with confidence that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. I appreciate your e-mails and will try to reply to your other two questions tomorrow. Until then, May the Lord of peace himself, who takes away the sin of the world be with you always. God bless you!" My response: And all I can say is, you did not answer my first question in any way and I don’t understand why as I thought I had been as specific as possible. In fact, it seems as if you didn’t even read my first question. If I may be so impolite as to quote myself to illustrate, my first question was, "What is the specific mechanism of flesh dying on a cross that removes our sins?" Instead of answering that question, you did the one thing I asked you not to do, you confused the word "sacrifice" with a meaningful event, as if a "sacrifice" were a literal fact and not mere poetic symbolism. In other words, you stated that killing a lamb or a bull or a chicken or whatever ACTUALLY RESULTED IN some form of action. "I killed this goat to make it rain, and because I killed this goat, it is raining." As you well know, that is ridiculous. It doesn’t rain because you killed/sacrificed a goat. The only thing that you did was needlessly kill an innocent goat for the sake of childish pageantry and some sort of symbolic ritual, but your killing a goat in no way effected whether or not it rained. So, for example, when you responded with, "If you notice in the Bible when The temple containing the ark of the covenant was built you will see that people had to sacrifice perfect lambs without spot or blemish to attone for their sins," you have not responded with any form of answer to my question at all. Those people may indeed have been told that they needed to sacrifice "perfect lambs without spot or blemish" to atone for their sins, but that is a meaningless symbolic gesture and will not in any way actually "atone" for their sins. How could it? What would be the mechanism for atonement from sin that results from killing an animal? Do you understand the distinction here and what my question is? Killing an animal does not do anything at all except make that animal dead. If you want to pretend that the symbolic gesture of killing it has meaning, fine, but it is only fantasy and not any kind of literal fact or actual occurrence. Every single one of those people in the Temple containing the ark of the covenant succeeded in doing one thing and one thing only, they killed a whole bunch of lambs. They retained their sins for the simple fact that their sins have nothing whatsoever to do with the killing of an animal (indeed, killing the animal senselessly, in my book, IS a sin). Unless you are claiming that killing a lamb has some form of literal result, in which case I will ask you once again, What is the specific mechanism of flesh dying (on a cross) that removes our sins? How does some being’s flesh being killed result in our sins being removed? Literally, not figuratively. Do not go back to poetry by using the word "sacrifice" as if it has magical qualities, because it does not. Unless you are attempting to state that the God you believe in looks at the murder of an innocent animal as some form of correct action; that killing a "perfect lamb without spot or blemish" is the right way of atoning for our sins, which I sincerely hope you are not as that is too ridiculous to even comment on. I look forward to your response, along with your response to the other two questions I asked.--Robb Letter 14: They actually responded once more. As did I. With a lot of help from various websites around the globe. This is an excellent example of how knowledge (in the right hands) is power. It’s also a good example of "be prepared" whenever you enter into any form of debate with known propagandists. Many of my detailed referrences came from only ten minutes worth of research on the web. Dear Manna Team— I have marked your response by quotation marks, breaking up your points so that I can directly refute as much of your arguments as possible, a consideration I would appreciate being reciprocated. "Dear Robb, I have studied your e-mail very carefully, Sorry that I couldn't get back to you sooner. Your questions are much appreciated, and I will answer them as best I can. 1) The death of Jesus on the cross is the most important doctrine in all Christianity.Asking me to explain it without using the terms sacrifice and symbolism are like asking someone to explain a red ball without being able to name any colour or use any mathematical terminology." No, it isn’t, and you should be ashamed of such a transparent evasion attempt right out of the gate. I was and am asking you to explain the actual mechanism of salvation without using the meaningless poetry. Describing a red ball with color and mathematical terminology is NOT meaningless poetry. It is, in fact, the very details I originally asked you to explain. Describing a red ball as a breast substitute, for example, would be meaningless symbolism. So, once again, back to the point. The word "sacrifice" has no actual meaning beyond the figurative, yet you are claiming that it has a literal effect here. I did something wrong, so I must ruthlessly slaughter an innocent lamb on an altar in order for God to forgive me. That is the literal effect; I am forgiven through the direct action of slaughtering an innocent lamb on an altar. You are stating that your God requires the senseless murder of an innocent being in order for salvation to be granted (or, as you state later on, for such simple things as atonement to be granted). That is patently absurd, which is why I asked a specific question, What is the mechanism of salvation that results when an innocent being is murdered? How (and why) would the cut throat of a goat "save" me from my sins? Are you actually claiming that God looks down and sees us slaughtering innocent "perfect" animals and says, "Oh, ok, they murdered a lamb so now I can forgive them their sins?" I’m not asking you to verify whether or not the Bible states this; I know that it does as do you. I ask it in order to illustrate that any book, which would claim God desires and indeed mandates such a ludicrous and needlessly barbaric symbol of atonement, is therefore clearly NOT a book of God or by God or about God in any way. It is proof that the book you call the Bible is nothing more than man-made lies and a false doctrine deliberately crafted in order to control and subjugate. There is no greater display of human power than the ability to ritually force innocent peasants into killing their prized and most perfect animals (their breeding stock) and it has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of divine decree at all. It is the action of a Feudal Dictator flagrantly displaying his power over those unfortunate enough to have been born on his land. Only a moron and a terrified peasant would think that is not the case, which is exactly where the power structure comes from—stupidity and fear. I’m surprised those particular pillars of Christianity haven’t been canonized, but then I guess that would be like mistaking an abstract concept for some sort of literal event. "So if you truly do want an answer, then I will have to use these terms. Otherwise you arelooking for an answer within a restrictive framehold which you have fashioned." Yes, I am. That’s why people ask specific questions, in order to get specific answers. Are you saying that a question that allows for useless hyperbole and expansive vagaries that avoid the central point under discussion is the correct way to ask a question, or are you simply reverting back to a tried and true evasion technique every poli-sci minor learns in Propaganda 101? You needn’t answer. It was rhetorical. "In the Old Testament sin is dealt with by the offering of sacrifice. Thus the burnt offering will be accepted "to make atonement" (Lev. 1:4), as also the sin offering and the guilt offering (Lev. 4:20; 7:7) and especially the sacrifices on the day of atonement (Lev. 16). Of course, sacrifice is ineffective if offered in the wrong spirit." Actually, sacrifice is "ineffective" period, as it is a ridiculous and meaningless concept so far as deity is concerned. God, knowing your heart, would never have need for an "offering" of any kind. Only a pagan ritual designed as a display of subjugation would even attempt to claim such nonsense. Why are you? To sin "with a high hand" (Num. 15:30), i.e., proudly and presumptuously, is to place oneself outside the sphere of God's forgiveness. The prophets have many denunciations of the offering of sacrifice as the expression of a repentant and trustful heart is to find atonement. Atonement is sometimes made by means other than the sacrifices, such as the payment of money (Exod. 30:12-16) or the offering of life (II Sam. 21:3-6). In such cases to make atonement means "to avert punishment, especially the divine anger, by the payment of a koper, a ransom,' which may be of money or which may be of life" (L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 166). Throughout the Old Testament sin is serious; it will be punished unless atonement is sought in the way God has provided." Exactly, and that is proof positive that what you are reading and quoting from is a fraud to be discarded as carelessly and effortlessly as you do stories about Mount Olympus and Santa Clause. "This truth is repeated and enlarged upon in the New Testament." How did it suddenly become "this truth?" I see no evidence of truth presented. To even hint at a True God requiring money, or worse, life as a means to "avert punishment" is so profoundly blasphemous and just plain wrong that I am shocked you had the nerve to print it. You’re saying God has a price; God can be bribed. But then again, a false doctrine based on fraudulent claims will yield no actual "divine" danger, so perhaps subconsciously you really do see my point? "There it is made clear that all men are sinners (Rom. 3:23) and that hell awaits them (Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5)." It isn’t "made clear" at all. It is simply alleged. Please do not jump to a conclusion without first backing that conclusion up with some form of verifiable evidence. The anecdotes of unknown authors from hundreds of years ago do not constitute verifiable evidence, by the way. One other note here, fear-based dogma is further irrefutable proof of fraud. "But it is just as clear that God wills to bring salvation and that he has brought it in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of his Son." Take a long look at that sentence and see if you can spot the flaw. You are claiming first and foremost that God "wills to bring salvation." It is God’s will that mankind is saved. Then you claim that the salvation is predicated on the "life, death, resurrection, and ascension of his Son." Why? From a divine viewpoint, why would this be done? God’s will of salvation is all that is necessary for salvation, correct? By God’s grace alone do we enter paradise, yes? Or am I asking that question in too rigid a framehold? There is only one reason for this ridiculous charade. It was the only way to steal power away from the Jewish stronghold; the only way for the faction to gain control over the flock. The Romans had military power (the power of the State) and the Sanhedrin had religious power (the power of the Church), so you do the math. Without a martyr there would be no change--no revolution--and without a Messiah, there would be no reason to follow the new religious faction. Judaism covers everything except the actual deliverance of Elijah, so, why not provide the ignorant and the desperate with Elijah? You keep forgetting that you have been indoctrinated into a cult. By definition that means you are not capable of recognizing the shell-game that is being perpetrated upon you, so I will simply leave it at this: study the Crusades and the Holy Inquisition in order to see what kind of free-will dogma you are tacitly supporting. Once you’re done with that, move into the many, many, many Christian factions that formed later and trace their rise to power and prominence. You will find that NOWHERE in the Christian past (or present) is there any sign of either religious freedom or humility to God, nor any of the precepts Jesus allegedly preached. This is not to say you won’t find innocent, kindhearted people earnestly believing and following what they think to be the righteous path, but a false doctrine is a false doctrine, no matter how earnestly someone believes in it. "The love of God is the mainspring (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). We are not to think of a loving Son as wringing salvation from a just but stern Father. It is the will of the Father that men be saved" You state it again! It is the will of the Father that men be saved. Then you leap to the strangest conclusion imaginable, based, yet again, on anecdotal myths told by anonymous sources hundreds of years ago: "and salvation is accomplished, not with a wave of the hand, so to speak, but by what God has done in Christ: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (II Cor. 5:19), a reconciliation brought about by the death of Christ (Rom. 5:10)." All right, let’s cut to the chase here. God is God, yes? What sort of "reconciliation" would that be, then? Are you claiming that God did not already know something about the world he/she created? That the knowledge could only be attained by God somehow dying, which is, by your own definition, impossible? You spout the dogma without actually analyzing its veracity as if you had analyzed and affirmed that it is the truth. Why do you do that? "The New Testament emphasises his death, and it is no accident that the cross has come to be accepted as the symbol of the Christian faith or that words like "crux" and "crucial" have come to have the significance that they possess." You’re right, it is no accident. It was and is a deliberate brainwashing technique to subjugate innocent people into believing what the Church wants them to believe based on fear. Wasn’t there something in there about not worshipping any idols, or am I mistaken about that? "The cross is absolutely central to salvation as the New Testament sees it. This is distinctive of Christianity. Other religions have their martyrs, but the death of Jesus was not that of a martyr. It was that of a Saviour. His death saves men from their sins." Ok, so we’re right back to my original question and that is how? What is the specific mechanism of Jesus’ death that saves us from our sin? God saw that we murdered his Son, so now we’re all saved? Don’t claim for a second that Jesus willingly went to the cross because your own books state that wasn’t the case, so, yet again, what aspect of this results in any kind of literal event--the removal of our sins? Only an ignorant child would simply accept the statement, "He died for your sins." Why do you? "Christ took their place and died their death (Mark 10:45; II Cor. 5:21)," How? Once again, you are describing a poetic action as if it were a literal fact. You can state until you’re blue in the face that you "take on all sins," but that does not make it so, nor could it make it so. Sinning is a moral interpretation of physical and mental actions based entirely upon human culture. In other words, it is an abstract concept. There is nothing literal about it, beyond the use of the term to describe a culturally abhorrent act. However, as you well know, cultures vary greatly on what they consider immoral. Cannibals, for example. Mormons, for another. "the culmination of a ministry in which he consistently made himself one with sinners." All right, then, here’s another glaring flaw. Jesus never sinned, therefore he could not "take on our sins" unless he sinned. That would mean Jesus had to have performed every single sin mankind has ever done or thought of in order to "reconcile" sin. Not just heard about them or "become one with sinners," and not just told a white lie or cursed. In order for him to "take on our sins" that would mean he would literally have had to actually perform every single sin known, including incest, rape, and murder. Not to mention the fact that he clearly did not take away our sins as we continue to "sin." Christians always claim the central flaw—"Jesus died for your sins"—and then when asked why we continue to sin, the claim gets changed and mutated and rationalized and altered and confused and muddled so that no direct answer is EVER given. It’s a tremendous house of malevolent cards designed to turn otherwise intelligent children into brain dead sheep and it is the most disgusting form of cultism ever witnessed. Unbelievable amounts of sleight of hand and word play are utilized in order to justify what is simply not justifiable. At the very best the myths of the Bible point more rationally toward extra-terrestrial beings instilling slave conditions on a fearful and ignorant indigenous population, but they certainly do not deconstruct into a fairy God King that willed us magically into existence only to punish us for that existence. You can not reconcile the lies and self-contradictory doctrines no matter how many Ecumenical conferences are convened, which is why the Church is so profoundly evil it makes the mind boggle. A doctrine of love and freedom based entirely upon hatred, fear, and eternal punishment can not EVER be reconciled; it can only be indoctrinated. "The New Testament does not put forward a theory of atonement, but there are several indications of the principle on which atonement is effected. Thus sacrifice must be offered, not the sacrifice of animals, which cannot avail for men (Heb. 10:4), but the perfect sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 9:26; 10:5-10). Christ paid sin's due penalty (Rom. 3:25-26; 6:23; Gal. 3:13). He redeemed us (Eph. 1:7), paying the price that sets us free (I Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). He made a new covenant (Heb. 9:15). He won the victory (I Cor. 15:55-57). He effected the propitiation that turns away the wrath of God (Rom. 3:25), made the reconciliation that turns enemies into friends (Eph. 2:16). His love and his patient endurance of suffering set an example (I Pet. 2:21); we are to take up our cross (Luke 9:23)." So, once again, the unjustified murder of an innocent being is what God requires before granting salvation? Are you clinically insane? I ask you that earnestly. God is omniscient, correct? He/she/it, whatever, therefore knew the entire time exactly what was going to happen. In fact, since God is God, according to your own definitions, God not only knew what was going to happen, he/she/it CREATED it to happen in exactly that way, which means that you are stating God orchestrated the unjustified murder of his/her/it’s own son in order to grant salvation to the very people who unjustly murdered him, WHEN GOD HAS THE ABILITY TO GRANT SALVATION WHENEVER HE PLEASES! BY GOD’S GRACE ALONE DO WE ENTER HEAVEN, YES? So what is all of this pointless crap about sending down a son that is also a God but not a God, just a God of flesh, but is also the Holy Spirit, etc, etc, rationalization, rationalization, excuse, excuse in order to grant what God grants by grace alone anyway? There is only ONE reason for such an elaborate and convoluted lie as any magician or con artist can easily tell you, you’re just too brainwashed to see it. "Salvation is many-sided." Categorically wrong! Salvation is by God’s grace alone. At least every honest Christian I’ve ever dealt with (and they are few and far between, believe me) has admitted this to be the ultimate truth and lesson of the Bible and their Religion, whatever faction it may be. By God’s grace alone is salvation granted. It is NOT many sided, no matter how much you may wish that to be the case so that it justifies your rationalizations. The only way for you to enter your heaven is through God’s grace; a gift of God. Note the word "gift" and not "reward." If you do anything—ANYTHING—in order to bias God in your favor, then it is a reward and not a freely given gift of the grace of God, not to mention a pathetic attempt at fooling the one being you supposedly can not fool. That means murderers and tax officials are just as equal as mothers and Peace Corps engineers in God’s eyes, whether they believe in Buddha or the voices coming from their Dog. That is precisely why your religion has sought to addend "many sides" to this issue, thereby reducing and limiting God’s love to a select few. It is the Country Club mentality, the elitist snob mentality, all under the utterly misleading guise of total freedom and love and kindness for all mankind. It is a lie and you are lying on its behalf, most probably without realizing it. That’s the hell of the cult mentality. That’s why people use words like "deprogram" when rescued from a cult, so I don’t blame you for your indoctrination, just your continued support and inability to wake up from it. This isn’t rocket science. Just look rationally one time at the fact that your religion goes to such great lengths to stop you from looking rationally at it! Why on Earth would God not want you to use reason? God gave you reason and logic and the desire to find out the truth no matter what the cost. Only a book of lies would demand you believe through faith alone. Why do you? "But however it is viewed, Christ has taken our place, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. Our part is simply to respond in repentance, faith, and selfless living." Your contention does not even meet the most basic forms of common sense, let alone ANY form of evidentiary legitimacy and therefore falls. Your belief structure has no basis beyond personal whim and should ONLY be thought of in that manner. Any attempt to preach or teach this obviously false doctrine will be an overt act of a cult indoctrinator and if this were a perfect world created by a perfect being, then your punishment would be public ridicule on a daily basis in the town square with the word "brainwashed child" slung around your neck. "2) Hmmm!, John 19:24 in the King James would make Jesus rather stupid to have orchestrated His own crucifixion, and arranged a couple of the guys who did it to start casting lots (or in other words playing dice!) for a fine tunic." Nowhere is there prophecy of a crucifixion so I don’t see what you’re trying to point out here. The closest is hanging from a tree, which you know very well is not a messianic prophecy nor does it have any similarity to being crucified beyond the simple fact that a cross was made of wood and the vertical aspect of the corpse. "No I think we can discard that specific scripture from your equation if you agree?" Yes, we can, as there was no prophecy involved. "I notice you also didn't include Mat 27:35 why? Because, like John 19:24, it is not a prophecy, fulfilled or otherwise. MATT. 27:35 says, "...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots" and was supposedly taken from Psalm 22:18 which says, "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." You have conveniently ignored the fact that: (a) Psalm 22 uses present tense verbs and is referring to events contemporaneous with Isaiah. (b) The writer of Psalm 22 is speaking of himself, not Jesus or anyone else, and (c) The writer of Psalm 22 is not prophesying anything. Does that answer your question? "Now I notice you don't also include such verses as Matthew 1:22 where the same words appear about "it" being fulfilled (it being prophecy as you have defined). And I’ve noticed that you have conveniently avoided addressing the dozen or so quotes I did include, but so be it. I’ll play it your way since you don’t seem capable of playing it mine. Matthew 1:22 is based upon Isaiah 7:14, which could not possibly be referring to Jesus. I’ll illustrate since you decided against it:
Does that answer your question in the proper framehold? "Now wouldn't Jesus have been really been king of the charlatans to be able to be born of a virgin…: He wasn’t. Let me illustrate, yet again, your misguided indoctrination:
"…and in just the right place that the prophecies said He would be. Same applies for Matthew 2:14-17 where as a baby He would have had to arrange for someone to kill off Herod, make it look like natural causes, kill off all the new-born babies in Bethlehem and it's surrounds." Once again, no such prophecy exists in the OT. Consider, first, Micah 5:2 (or Micah 5:1 of the Tanakh), which is supposed to prophesy that the Messiah will be born in the town of Bethlehem. According to the New Testament, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1) and that was a fulfillment of the Micah prophecy (Mt 2:5-6, John 7:42). However, there are many problems with that:
Further, MATT. 2:14-15 states, "When he-Joseph-arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt. And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.’" This is a misinterpretation of Hosea 11:1-3 RSV ("When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk....") This is not a messianic prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. How do we know this? Simple:
Another prophecy related to the birth of Jesus I did not go into, but you allude to is the claim that the Messiah would be born at a time when King Herod was killing children. Only the gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) makes this claim, quoting a prophecy of Jeremiah (31:15) which states that "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." There are two problems with this alleged messianic prophecy: it is not a prophecy about children being killed and it is quite doubtful that there ever was such a slaughter of innocents by Herod. "Rachel weeping for her children" refers to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (and wife of Jacob) weeping about her children taken captive to Egypt. In context, the verse is about the Babylonian captivity, which its author witnessed. Subsequent verses speak of the children being returned, and thus it refers to captivity rather than murder. The slaughter by Herod is also in doubt because the writer of Matthew is the only person who has noted such an event. Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses—indeed, almost delighted in outlining his misdeeds--makes no mention of it whatsoever! " Also see Mat 2:23, did Jesus as a child order his folks around and make them move to Nazareth?" You don’t read your own counter arguments very closely, do you? At the end of the same chapter of Matthew (2:23), its author writes that Mary, Joseph, and the child Jesus settled in Nazareth, in order "... that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" There is no such prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures, though some claim this refers to Judges 13:5. This verse describes an angel speaking to the mother of Samson, telling her that her son "shall be a Nazirite." This is not only not a messianic prophecy, it can't be what Matthew is referring to. A Nazirite is quite different from a Nazarene. A Nazarene is an inhabitant of Nazareth, but a Nazirite is a Jew who has taken special vows to abstain from all wine and grapes, not to cut his hair, and to perform special sacrifices (see Leviticus 6:1-21). Jesus drank wine (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18), and so could not have been a Nazirite. "No I'm afraid you have been reading a book supposedly refuting the Scriptures which picks and chooses and attempts to build a picture that isn't true." No, that is not the case as all of my direct quotes taken from several different versions of the Bible clearly illustrate. In fact, as my discussion of Isaiah and Matthew and the Tanakh proves, it is you that are guilty of "picking and choosing" to build a picture that isn’t true. "Why pick and choose? be honest and include all the places where that turn of phrase is used in the Gospels." I was honest and still am. It is you who went on this pointless evasion to avoid having to deal with the dozen or so other sections I pointed out originally. You have yet to address any of them so I can only conclude you agree with my position, otherwise you would have shown how each one of my points was incorrect, as I have done with each one of yours in such elaborate detail. "Saying that Jesus orchestrated what happened to Him and I quote >Allegedly, fulfilling prophecy means he is the messiah; orchestrating events in order to fulfil prophecy means he is a charlatan playing upon the superstitions and indoctrination of innocent followers of Judaic tradition.< Your words." And they’re still my words, just don’t misinterpret their meaning. "Well if the people of the day were following the Judaic tradition (or Religion) they would have understood and not opposed Jesus. Especially those of the priesthood, who being so indoctrinated would most certainly have run after Jesus." Not if he was a fraud! For what reason would they have to follow a charlatan whose claims are just as fraudulent now as they were then? You’re confusing the sheep with the shepherds. Only people who willingly consider themselves sheep would be fooled by such blatant fraud. "But they opposed Him didn't they?" Did they? I don’t know, I wasn’t there. On the one hand, we have the historical records of Rome and on the other, the Bible. All the historical records of Rome show are that a man named Jesus was crucified for sedition against the state. Big fat period. What does the Bible say? Well, even a cursory deconstruction shows the events surrounding the so called trial of Jesus are so flawed as to render them the most ridiculous of all the claims of the New Testament, second only to the resurrection myth. All accounts (where they don’t contradict each other, that is) describe a situation that would NEVER have occurred, either in Roman proceedings, nor in the rituals of the Sanhedrin. Luke tells us in chapter 26 that Jesus was taken in the middle of the night to the home of Caiaphas for questioning. Frustrated at Jesus' answers to their questions as to whether or not he claimed to be the Messiah, the scribes and priests hit Jesus in the face and spit on him in disgust. This, quite simply, could not have occurred:
If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin would not be necessary, the affair would be preliminarily investigated by the High Priest before turning the matter over to the Roman authorities. (Indeed Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious. In the trial of Peter as reported in Acts, the Pharisees sided against the High Priest and voted to release the accused.) Jesus’ actions as a claimant to the throne of Israel--which surely would have involved a rebellion of some sort for the Romans were not likely to cede authority quietly--made him guilty of sedition against Rome. Jesus was a patriot for the restoration of Israel. His motives were political and the context of his actions found in the more credible portions of the Gospels supports this conclusion. Further complicating the truth of the Gospel accounts is the motivations and actions of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, whom Jesus is brought to by the High Priest. Jesus is handed over to Pilate, accused of sedition, and Pilate questions Jesus personally asking him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" to which Jesus replies "I am." For some reason, the priests are said to go on "heaping accusations" against Jesus despite the fact that his sedition was clearly established by Jesus himself. Even stranger still, Pilate seems to not even care that Jesus claims to be the King of the Jews and Pilate "wonders" if Jesus is dangerous. (Mk 15:1-5) At this point the author of Mark is either blatantly ignorant of the facts, or simply telling a tale for the sake of his overall story. This account is quite out of context with the monster that Philo wrote Gaius Caesar about, reporting that Pilate was inflexible and "cruel." Further, Josephus reports several occurrences where Pilate flagrantly incites insurrection in order to ruthlessly purge it with his soldiers. Pilate was eventually recalled to Vitellius (then Legate of Syria) after a particularly violent attack on the Samaritans in 36 CE, and was ordered sent to Rome in order to stand accusations of the slaughter. (Antiquities 18.4.85) The anti-Semitic Pilate was not the sort of governor that would have acted with even the slightest civility toward a Jew who openly admitted to sedition. Pilate's dismal record of purges and punishments against seditious behavior was anathema and history shows him to be one of, if not the cruelest of the Prefects of Judaea. He would think nothing of killing a hundred thousand Jews, let alone one. Nor would there have been any kind of mercy offered or "washing of the hands." If Pilate truly was scared of Jesus—as the gospels imply--then he could simply have told the Sanhedrin to kill him themselves, which rabbinical law would have allowed through stoning of a heretic. The Sanhedrin did not need the Romans—their mortal enemy—to make any kind of decision whatsoever in dealing with a member of their own religion and would never have dreamed of going to them for help. That’s pure propaganda designed by the Christians to appease the Romans (who still ruled them) and distance themselves from the Synagogue. Their goal was power and since they knew they weren’t going to get any from the Romans, they had to do the next best thing—split the Church. It’s an age-old strategy that’s served the Christian factions extremely well as you can see every Sunday on TV. "Haven't you read the Bible, even the gospels?" Yes, I have. That should be abundantly clear to you by now. "Jesus was opposed by many." If true, then all it offers is more proof that he was a fraud. "The most indoctrinated people of the day would have been indoctrinated into a form of Judaism which went against the Scriptures. They would have had the teachings of Hilell and Shammi, two of the most famous Rabbi's whom Jews follow. They follow their interpretations of the Scriptures, their teachings, their rules, their philosophies. This is why Jesus was questioned and opposed. He fulfilled what was written, and we can see this in hindsight. The people of the day didn't know this, all they saw Jesus as was someone who would free them from Roman oppression and occupation. When He challenged them, they all went away." I don’t know what you’re trying to say here as you’ve jumbled together many disparate statements. I’ll simply say that there is no corroborative evidence at all that Jesus was questioned and opposed and that the evidence we do have (the NT) can not be true. The Romans would never have conducted amnesty proceedings, for example, nor would they have consulted with the Jewish leaders for anything at all, let alone an erroneous and unnecessary request on their behalf that Jesus be killed. As for the people of the day seeing Jesus as someone who would free them from Roman oppression and occupation, that is also false. He did not and they were not, either through hindsight or any other sight. In case you hadn’t noticed, Jesus failed to bring about any kind of relief from oppression both in his generation and in the following generations. Indeed, he still supposed to be coming sometime "soon" I believe. At least, that’s been the time frame stated for the past two thousand years. "If the whole thing had been a plot, don't you think the Apostles would have suspected?" You just can’t see it, so don’t even try. It could very well be that there was an extraordinary person named Jesus who incited the locals into some form of sedition serious enough for the Romans to have him killed. It could even be that his words were blasphemous in the Judaic view and he made enemies amongst the religious High Priests. Regardless, there were no "apostles" or virgin births or anything even remotely approaching the ludicrous claims of deity and divinity found within the myths attributed to the man called Jesus. What you call "apostles," I call spin doctors—political propaganda operatives of the newly formed religious power structure that began a ruthless and calculated empire based upon fear and childhood indoctrination into a cult, no different (except in scope) than any other form of religious cult, including Judaism. Does that make it clearer? Think of it this way, what you consider history I consider a Leni Riefenstahl film. Watch Monty Python’s "The Life of Brian" to see just how easily ignorant desperation can be molded into whatever form of control and oppression is desired. And remember, too, that it isn’t I who comes with a sword. "Instead it appears they were foolish enough to continue living the lie and even be willing to face death to make the lie stronger." If that happened. "Every one of them except John died in terrible circumstances at the hands of other men or animals for sport. They were made public spectacles because of their beliefs. Now isn't it a bit much to think they would have covered their lie that far?" If it happened. We have no historical documents that proclaim Christians were treated any worse (or better) than any other religious zealots of the day. Everyone was being oppressed; everyone was being murdered pointlessly for the amusement of the Roman State. You think that mankind somehow changes over the years; that we went from A (primitives) to Z (civilized), but that just isn’t the case. There has never been and never will be any form of linear progression of mankind. EVERY generation has had it’s Hitlers and it’s Ghandis and every Hitler has a little Ghandi in them just as every Ghandi’s got a little Hitler. It isn’t black and white, good and evil, pure and unpure. That is the very definition of MYTH. Look at what the Christian church has done with its so called free will doctrine of love—hundreds of millions murdered in the name of Jesus. You want to pretend it isn’t true—that those people who do those things in the name of Jesus clearly are NOT Christians—but that just doesn’t wash. It’s like saying that just because you’re a member of the KKK doesn’t mean you agree with everything the other KKK members say. You have been indoctrinated into a lie written by the victors. Look at Ireland, for chrissakes. Seven hundred years of Christians maiming and murdering innocent people all in the name of Jesus--ON BOTH SIDES! It may no longer be about religion--I don’t know--but it sure as hell began that way and went on that way for at least six of those seven hundred (and counting). "As far as saying there is a perfect version of the Bible out there, you are correct there isn't a perfect translation out there." No, not a perfect translation, don’t try that slippery slope. There is not an Inerrant version. That is the point and the truth. Without an Inerrant Bible then there is no claim to divinity and therefore no Bible upon which to base any doctrine. It was a nice try, but your semantics dance doesn’t hold up. "The autographs (originals) have long since been wiped out by time, wars, persecutions and book burnings. What we do have today is about 99.9 percent accurate to the originals." That is the most blatant lie I’ve ever seen regarding the "originals." Again, nice try, except for the fact that if no originals exist, then there is absolutely no way to measure ANY comparative accuracy. I can just as easily claim that what we do have today is about .01 percent accurate to the originals and there is nothing you could do to prove other absent the originals. Regardless, you have admitted the point in contention, namely that we do not have an Inerrant Bible upon which to base any form of religious doctrine of salvation. Period. "Scholars have been collecting and comparing many of the ancient writings and comparing them for centuries to get as near as possible to the original word," We have no original word to compare it to so there is no way for them to get "as near as possible." "and translate it understanding the peripatetic intention." In other words, travelling nomads claimed the myths in what we currently call the Bible to be the divine word of God so we—the modern day translators—should operate from this belief and interpret backwards from reality into fantasy? Forwards? Sideways? The simple fact is that we don’t have a clue what the "peripatetic intention" was because we weren’t walking around back then, though my version of events makes far greater sense than yours so I’d be careful if I were you. You might trip over enlightenment on your way to intention. "A good book to read on this subject if you would like to study this further is a book called "The Scrolls and the Parchments" by F.F.Bruce. It deals excently with such difficulties you appear to struggle with in textural criticism etc." And I’d recommend reading the Gnostic Gospels, since we’re on the topic of Scrolls. You’ll find the Gospel of Thomas to be the oldest traceable gospel and it was thrown out by Iraneus around 340 a.d. because it taught that Jesus said, basically, we are all God and God is us and there is no need for any form of intermediary (including himself) to intercede on your behalf between yourself and your God (i.e., you). "Your argument implies the Bible not being 100% shouldn't be used as a basis for faith is a false one." Why, because you say so? You admitted we have no Inerrant Bible. Inerrancy is an absolute, by the way. You can’t have degrees of Inerrancy. Either the Bible is Inerrant and therefore the Word of God, or it is not, and therefore the word of man, no more divine than any other book on the shelf. The very second you admit to even one percent errancy is the very second you admit that you have no divine source upon which to base any doctrine. "Most of the Scriptures are 100% correct as compared across many copies going back to the dead sea scrolls. It's in small places like turns of phrase that scholars may dispute. The wording being exact, the translation being the problem." Again, that is simply a lie and the very worst of your evasions. Without the originals we have no way of knowing the "exactness" of the wording so do not use terms you can not prove to be the case. In fact, just the opposite is true and those "small places" you refer to, are things like the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill" as opposed to "Thou shalt not murder"), whether someone was born of a virgin or simply a maiden, what actually occurred as opposed to what was reported to have occurred, etc., etc., so don’t insult my intelligence any further than you already have. Indeed, it’s the translations that are causing the mistakes of Messiah and deity, so don’t think for a second they work in your favor except amongst the ignorant. Or would you like me to go into detail listing the hundreds of contradictions between existing texts, too? The simple truth here is that you—being indoctrinated into a cult—will go to any length conceivable to justify your indoctrination the same way Moonies or Neo-Nazis do. If it were a cult that never did anything but good will toward man, then I’d have no problem with it. But it isn’t. It is, in fact, the worst cult humanity has ever been disgraced by, guilty thousands of times over of ruthless, barbaric genocide and the allowance of genocide, and if there actually is a God up there somewhere, anyone associated with it will wake up tomorrow and see that no God of Love would EVER use fear in any way shape or form in order to terrify people into believing, much less torture and murder. And, believe it or not, I was raised a Christian. --Robb |
he dichotomy here in polemics. You seem to think that
all of your fellow atheists would agree with your silly idea that
you could grab the red grain of sand blindfolded the first
try."