Internet Infidels: Feedback: 1996: May

I advise you to take your outdated, under-researched, and sophomoric review off the internet before someone with more biblical knowledge than I comes along and really gives you all a wake up call--

Buy one of Lindsey's new books and gain a little more insight. . . Fool.

Find Jesus

Internet Infidels' Response:

>I advise you to take your outdated, under-researched, and
>sophomoric review off the internet before someone with more
>biblical knowledge than I comes along and really gives you all a
>wake up call--

For some reason, after reading the above paragraph (and especially the underlined portion), I couldn't help but think of a proverbial conversation between a pot and a kettle.

Rob Berry

Internet Infidels' Response:

http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.html

Jeffery Jay Lowder

dear infidels of the internet

your web site is very impressive, i have been reading some of your feedback from jan.96, some of these people (actually, the poor lost souls who refute evolution) really are blind, and it would behoove them to take a course or two in evolution, specifically anthropolgy courses, and there are many, and if they pay close attention and have a desire to learn new things, which they will need a very open mind for, i think they would see that there was no god who created the earth.

i am also disappointed when they use the bible and the theory of evolution in the same sentence, creationism has no right to be compared to evolution. and anyone who has any understanding of sience knows not to take any thing as fact and by word of mouth. the theory of evolution is just that -a theory -albeit it is a strong one (paradigm)-and the beautiful thing about the scientific method and theories is that they can be modified, and the theory of evolution has been greatly modified since the time of darwin. thank you for taking the time to read the ramblings of a devoute biology/ archeology double major. as the christians say, knowledge is dangerous!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!he he hah hah.

thank you again

I am e-mailing you because I am doing a report on Freemasonry and would like to know if you were able to help me out.

I find it very interesting and so did another fellow student. I attend DePaul University and this will be used for my Political Science five page report on the role that Freemason's play in society today. One more question is it Freemasons or Masons?

Thank You.

[This message was sent in response to "The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell by .]

Hello Infidels!

I have enjoyed your Web site greatly. I am presently examining Biblical Inconsistencies compiled by Donald Morgan. I have not made my way through the whole list yet, but I am amazed at the material and how difficult it must have been to put it together. Most of the entries are on target, for when I looked up the passages, they looked truly inconsistent. But the list also contains many entries that I found easy to dismiss. For example, the passages (provided by the hypertext) do not say that Adam is to die the very day he eats the apple, but simply that he is to die. Consequently, the fact that he lives to be 930 years is no problem. When such entries are included, the total impact of the list is lessoned. Furthermore, these weak entries may be displayed as representative of the types of arguments presented.

I would like to contact Mr. Morgan and discuss with him my findings.

Also, I found that the hypertext pointers in some cases are not functioning correctly (age of Ahaziah).

As I say, there is no shortage of material to work with so the list does not need to be extra long in order to be effective. Including weak entries can only make the overall list seem weak.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Brenton:

Thanks for your input. I will be happy to look at what you have, but quite frankly, I do not have the time to get involved in supporting or discussing every criticism that comes along. I spent many years putting together this list, and thoroughly checked out each and every entry.

Obviously, I am not infallible. I do make corrections of obvious errors when someone points them out. On the whole, though, I think that you will find that the problem lies outside of my compilation.

If you take, for example, the point that you mention about Adam, here is the correct translation of the biblical verse: [GE 2:17] "... for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Some creative translations (such as the Living Bible) take out the "in the day of" in order to rectify the obvious inconsistency.

Perhaps there is a problem with the hypertext link. When I get a chance, I'll look.

Send me your list of comments if you like.

Regards,

Don Morgan

hallo...what an fascinating page.....normally i'm wary of dabbling in 'religious critism' but in this age of 'simplicity' and 'back-to-basics' where facts are ignored or suppressed becos they 'are of satan' it is vital that pages like yours exist to show people that there is a lot lot more than meets the eye when it comes to religion

Internet Infidels' Response:

I'm subscribing you to our newsletter.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

We are just in the process of selecting a video to watch, when the doorbell rings.

My friend opens the door.

Outside is two Jehova's witnesses with a colourful pamphlet in hand. They point to one of the pictures in the pamphlet depicting lambs eating grass together with lions, people smiling and having a picknick, and say: "This is how we imagine Paradise on Earth. What do you think?"

My friend takes a long look at the picture, looks angrily up at the two witnesses, and says:

What? NO TENNISCOURTS?

And slams the door in their face.

They have yet, three years later, to come back.

Thanx

Joseph Lewis, Thomas Paine: Author of the Declaration of Independence (N.Y.: Freethought Press Assn., 1947).

Have not read it, but this author also wrote, among other books, "The Bible Unmasked".

Keep up your good work, too--the fresh air is great!

Cordially

P.S. Would appreciate confirmation, however brief, that this e-mail reached you. Thanks!

I need as much secret or undisclosed facts about masonry and Knights templar etc. as I can get. My purpose is exposure to publish on our website.

I LIKE your new look! And I will NOT miss the image map.

Good job.

In Reason We Trust

FYI, the links on the enhanced version are a little off. The Whats New link brings up the newsgroups, and the mail link got me a "URL not found."

But the pages are visually pleasing and easy to navigate.

Thanks,

Interesting page. I am an ordained Baptist minister who long ago began to question the myths and fables of religion. If one could read the stories (especially the creation myths in Genesis as poetry and not as prose, the stories would be instructive into the thought patterns of the ancients. Whenever poetry is read as prose or history, the poetry is ruined and the reader confused and shortchanged. I would consider myself a humanist with unitarian leanings. We need to affirm what we stand for and believe rather than spending all our time bashing the fundamentalists. As my old grampa used to say "You can't polish a turd!"

And, as always, the content is an interesting read.

Thanks

Internet Infidels' Response:

Translation:

You are showing a great example of civilization and courage in publishing Din Adamlari by Ilhan Arsel, who I was a student of in university. I heartily support this endeavor in my own name and that of hundreds of thousands of Turkish women -- please continue your publications without fail! We need to encourage Ilhan Arsel, who is a leader in the country's struggle to remain in the path of Ataturk; we have to help him in his work to support rationality, enlightenment, and Ataturk-nationalism. Unfortunately, there are more enemies among us than often thought -- please let us not cease in our efforts. We need to cleanse the country of these reactionaries [Muslim fundamentalists]. By the way, please be careful, as anything may happen including sabotage against your publications. The enemy reaches everywhere.

With respect,

P.S. You can send e-mail to this address which belongs to my son. I'm using it until I can get my own.

Translation by Taner

I do not know if you are expecting any comments regarding your material on the internet, but I can't resist the urge to respond. This is regarding a couple of critiques of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. One is a chapter from Dan Barker's book and the other is "In Behalf of the Fool". I will start with the former and get to the latter if I have time.

Barker seems to have a problem with Lewis' use of analogy. He is right in pointing out that Lewis uses a lot of analogies. He is a master illustrator. But analogy is not the only type of illustration he uses. Most, if not all, of what he uses to come to the conclusion that there is a Moral Law is not analogy but observation. He points out that someone may claim there is no right and wrong, but betrays himself when you try to lie to him or cheat him and he gets upset. That's not an analogy, it's an observation and an example.

Barker also has a problem with Lewis' belief that different civilizations have similar moralities. Lewis never said those moralities were EXACTLY the same in totality, and in fact agreed that there are differences. "Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you mustn't simply have any woman you liked." Barker asks, "What about culturally sanctioned polygamy, infanticide, cannibalism, wife beating, self mutilation, castration, incest and war?" Well, Lewis dealt with polygamy, as I pointed out, and agrees that not all civilizations are exactly the same, but the similarities are there. It doesn't matter if the Moral Law agrees with the Judeo-Christian one at this point in the argument or not, only that there is one.

Also, if Barker assumes those differences he points out prove there is no Moral Law then his only option is one of moral relativism. Wife beating is either universally wrong and some cultures just do not follow the rule, or wife beating is OK in those cultures that happen to practice it. If in some cultures it's OK to torture little babies for fun by sticking needles through their eyes, that does not mean it is OK. It is absolutely wrong. It does not matter how absurd the example is, any example proves that relativism is wrong. Lewis also points out that relativism creates a dilemma for reformers. Niether Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Jesus have accomplished anything in that case. The problems they sought to correct were not problems afterall, but only cultural.

Finally, we see that Barker believes there is a right and wrong after all! "After all, don't we humanists sometimes claim that there is a common thread of humanistic values running through history across cultural and religious lines?" Later, he states that there is something called "justice". This assumes there has to be something called "injustice". It does not matter how you get there or how you want to slice it, at this point in the argument all we have to agree on is that there is a Moral Law, and we do! Call it whatever you want. So everything Barker said up to this point in his chapter is much ado about nothing. And, by the way, Lewis really hasn't used much analogy yet. (I shouldn't really say "up to this point in his chapter" because there isn't really any logical flow to it anyway.)

The next part of Lewis' argument is how one gets from a Moral Law to God. Barker tries to simply debunk this by being a skeptic ("How does Lewis know any of this?"). That isn't actually a position, it's an anti-position. To have a valid point he needs to come up with a position of his own. For instance, he could explain WHY Lewis could not know any of this. All he came up with is trying to discredit Lewis' analogy. (Here we actually have an analogy!) So why is Barker so upset by analogies. Webster's says:"analogy: a logical form of inference...". It's actually a very good form of an argument. If Barker wants to have a valid point he's going to have to come up with an analogy of his own (which I guess he tries to do). Also, it is understood when using analogies that any analogy will break down at a certain point, if taken too far. If an analogy could be a perfect representation of a situation, then it would be that situation. So the fact that Barker finds some problems with the analogy as he extends it is irrelevant. He does try to come up with a better one by saying that Lewis "misses the possibility of improvisation and composition, making robots of us all." Well, I think Lewis would like this addition to his analogy. He would difinitely agree that we are not robots and anyone has the free will to improvise if he/she wants to. But remember, we all agreed there is some sind of Moral Law, or some tune that we are SUPPOSED to play.

Lewis' point is that there is a Moral Law, which cannot be of ourselves, so there has to be some reality beyond that which we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste, which establishes that Law. That is what is illustrated by the piano analogy. Lewis spends a good deal more time going into it, but if there is a Moral Law, and we agree that there is, it is something from outside of us that affects us. Some people say, as Lewis' points out, that this code of decent conduct or Moral Law is only what "pays the human race as a whole." Lewis points out that this is circular reasoning and doesn't provid an argument but only restates the position in a fancier way. To use another of Lewis' analogies, it would be like this:

If we ask,"Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply,"Because it is good for society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?" and then you'll have to say, "Because you ought to be unselfish"...If a man asked what was the point of playing football, it wouldn't be much good saying, "in order to score goals, "for trying to score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you'd really only be saying that football was football was football--which is true, but not worth saying.

Sincerely,

Greets...

I just finished reading Charles Watts Christianity and Civilization... It's a remarkable text, and well ahead of its time. One question... who is Charles Watts? Maybe it might be possible to add a few short biographies so we know a little something about these people.

Thanks,

I just read an Internet Infidels feedback from someone who asked what to tell the kids about the god person their friends were always talking about. The response was good and told about using any kids' fable to demonstrate... It also mentioned that the responder's kids wondered about why they didn't go to church...

I just thought I would mention that there IS a Church of Freethought in Dallas. These Freethinkers decided they deserved to have a church of rational thinkers... so they started one. They have tax exempt status and all the other stuff "regular" churches have. I just learned that at their last service they had about 75 adults and 23 kids. They are growing like wildfire, indicating, I believe, a real interest in non-religious community life. And Dallas is in the BUCKLE of the Bible Belt. Imagine the interest which might exist in other parts of the country! I wouldn't be surprised to see more churches of this sort start up in the next few years.

BTW, I am an atheist and very involved in Unitarian Universalism. This is another option for those atheists and rationalists who may still want the extended family of church without the dogmatic expectations.

FYI-

I really like the new secular web look!

Keep up the good work!

-thank you

Hi. I was going through yer site when I came across this cryptic page "we do not have any files available on hell yet." Indeed? Hell does not exist, it is not in the Bible so you won't find any truly Christian things to say about Hell. That is just a concept make up by Catholicism, and many Christians doubt that Catholicism is anything more than glorified paganism with the Pope as the head witchdoctor.

Here is my fundementalist site that deals with what the Bible says about Satan, where he came from, what he is doing now, and the fate of Satan and those who give allegience to his puppet the antichrist. http://www.MT.net/~watcher/stones.html

etc...

I read the article Mcdowell in the Critic's Den by Bernard Katz. I also consider Daniel an inaccurate historian but for Biblical reasons. You might consider me a fundamentalist but I don't consider myself such. If anybody is interested you can read my Bible studies at

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/AFuller

I would love to hear your opinion.

Thank you for your attention.

Give me as much info as you can!!! I am an athiest in search of as much athiestic knowledge as possible!

Internet Infidels' Response:

You can start by learning how to correctly spell the word, 'atheist.'

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[This message was sent in response to "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'" edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]

There are several Christian apologetic books which are titled Reasonable or Rational Faith (such as the book by William Lane Craig). As you know McDowell's entire premise is based on the fact that anyone who performs a honest unbiased investigation into the historial reliability of the New Testament will find the supporting evidence to far outweigh the non-supporting evidence. If this isn't the case as presented in the ETDAV rebuttal, then the Christian faith becomes one based on subjective and not objective evidence (meaning the objective evidence can't stand on its own to support Christianity). In our society, reasonable doubt is enough to free someone accused of a crime. The God in Christianity has sentenced every one of us to eternal damnation unless we accept his son Jesus Christ. One would hope that God would have provided abundant evidence supporting the claims given in the New Testament and not leave the honest unbiased investigator with REASONABLE DOUBT not to believe.

Thanks for your honesty and integrity as you investigate these matters.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Are there any Christian apologetic groups which have reviewed the material in the rebuttal to ETDAV and have given any constructive feedback? If not, maybe possibly an organization such as the Christian Research Institue. I have the email address for Ron Rhoads (editor of the CRI Journal) if your are interested. Have you sent any of your material to Josh McDowell ministries? I know you have conversed with Glenn Miller, has he given you any feedback? What about William Lane Craig?

I have not submitted the manuscript to Josh McDowell ministries for the simple reason that it is not done yet. When the entire Jury project is done, I will personally mail a hard copy of Jury to McDowell. I will offer McDowell space on our server for his response if he wishes to respond to Jury.

I have not mailed this manuscript to William Lane Craig. I doubt I am on Craig's list of friends right now. I transcribed from videotape the Craig-Washington Debate (1995) on the existence of God and wanted to upload it to the Internet; Craig blocked publication. I did not want all of my time to go to waste so I uploaded his opponents remarks in the debate, and replaced Craig's comments with a statement informing readers that Craig has blocked publication of the debate. Looking back, I handled the whole siutation rather untactfully, but I also feel Craig is making a mistake by blocking publication.

Once chapter 5 of Jury is done, I plan to mail it to Bill Lane, Professor of New Testament at Seattle Pacific University (my alma mater) for his feedback. (Lane is a very conservative Christian.)

Also, my text has been read by Kevin Bywater at Summit Ministries, although the feedback I received from him was mainly in the form of book recommendations.

There are several Christian apologetic books which are titled Reasonable or Rational Faith (such as the book by William Lane Craig). As you know

McDowell's entire premise is based on the fact that anyone who performs a honest unbiased investigation into the historial reliability of the New Testament will find the supporting evidence to far outweigh the non-supporting evidence.

If this isn't the case as presented in the ETDAV rebuttal, then the Christian faith becomes one based on subjective and not objective evidence (meaning the objective evidence can't stand on its own to support Christianity).

Anyway, the purpose of Jury is to demonstrate that McDowell's attempt at a "hard" apologetic fails. This is different from asserting that there is no "soft" apologetic for Christianity. Thus ETDAV could fail to make unbelief irrational, yet belief in Christianity could still be rational.

In our society, reasonable doubt is enough to free someone accused of a crime. The God in Christianity has sentenced every one of us to eternal damnation unless we accept his son Jesus Christ. One would hope that God would have provided abundant evidence supporting the claims given in the New Testament and not leave the honest unbiased investigator with REASONABLE DOUBT not to believe.

Thanks for your honesty and integrity as you investigate these matters.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

I forgot to mention that I would be interested in CRI's feedback on my manuscript (once it is finished).

Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans brought into the world by 'God' not necessarily the ONLY.

I repeat, i am not a Christian, merely sombody who likes a good, clean and un-biased argument. Thank you for your time.

Think about it for a second and the reason for describing obscene acts in detail in the Bible becomes clear (i hope). We have to consider how people thought in those days when the Testaments were being compiled. Such 'pornographic detail' was used in order to DISGUST people, not to titilate them. The ethics of this tactic are a different matter, but i believe that the author's interpretation of the 'acts' in question is tainted with modern society's voyeuristic nature. The descriptive passages quoted are hardly 'pornographic'. In fact they are quite repulsive, and in that sense they are also effective, as that is what they were intended to be. It seems that nobody contributing to these pages is truly willing to put aside their preconcieved opinions and look at things like this objectively. All this talk of Thinking instead of blindly Believing reeks of hypocrisy when your own contributors taint their arguments with atheist dogma.

You are rapidly losing any intellectual respectibilty i credited you with.

Greetings! It's not enough to believe in God. The Bible says even the demons believe.....and tremble. You must accept Jesus Christ as Savior. You see, Jesus was sinless and we are not. A holy God will not accept your logic or denials. God accepts Jesus price paid at Calvary. He must see Jesus when addressing your sin. If He does not, you will be cast into the lake of fire. It will not matter whether you believe in God or not then. It will not be an issue anymore. I am obligated to warn you. We are praying for you.

Internet Infidels' Response:

Translation:

As if the only thing missing from the Internet was the ravings of this idiot Ilhan [Arsel]. Congratulations to you. All of us will have to give an accounting of ourselves in the other side of this life. Be forewarned. But you do not have the intelligence to understand this. You probably do not believe in anything you do not see. Your head and your ass must have switched places. :-)))))))))))))

Translation by Taner

Reply much appreciated.

[I don't] quite have time to detail my specific lne of thinking. Perhaps I have not fully understood another one of your central points, positive assertion vs. negative belief. I would appreciate any clarification you could provide?

Internet Infidels' Response:

One of the things you spend most of your time talking about is misconceptions and stereotypes about atheists. You raised many good points which I believe any person should think about, such as atheists all being very different in their reasons. But then I was a bit confused by something you asserted near the end. You said that theism(you used Christianiy as an example) has caused a lot of harm in the world, or at least been used as an excuse to cause harm. My question is, if that can be used to discredit theism, how is it then that the same logic can not be applied to atheism? quite have time to detail my specific lne of thinking. Perhaps I have not fully understood another one of your central points, positive assertion vs. negative belief. I would appreciate any clarification you could provide?

Let me explain with an example...

Islam teaches many good things; for example, forgiveness. However, Islam *the religion as practiced* has been the cause of many atrocities, from suicide bombings to death threats against authors. In spite of the goodness and rightness of many of the teachings of Islam, something about the religion has made it a vector for all kinds of unpleasantness.

Why can the same criticism not be made of atheism? Because atheism is the absence of beliefs, not a system of beliefs. There's nothing there to hang unpleasant teachings onto.

The closest atheism has got to causing harm is probably Stalin's purges in the Soviet Union. But what caused those was Stalin's thirst for power, not his atheism. He could just as easily have been religious, like Hitler; in which case rather than closing down the churches for being organized religion, he'd have closed down the churches for being the wrong churches.

On the other hand, I can't believe Islamic suicide bombers would be as motivated if they were atheists. It's the religious belief that they will go to heaven for their actions that allows them to commit atrocities.

It's worth pointing out that not all evils done in the name of religion have anything to do with religion; Hitler is the classic example. The fact that he was a theist is neither here nor there, in my opinion.

It's possible that a strong atheist - one who positively believes that no gods exist - could build up a system of beliefs based around that core. That system could become self-sustaining, like a religion. I can't think of a single example of it happening, though; or of such a system leading to evil which would not have occurred without the system.

quite have time to detail my specific lne of thinking. Perhaps I have not fully understood another one of your central points, positive assertion vs. negative belief. I would appreciate any clarification you could provide?

1. I believe that there is a pencil under your desk.
2. I believe that there is no pencil under your desk.
3. I do not believe that there is a pencil under your desk.

Do you see the difference between 2 and 3? Whereas 2 suggests that I have knowledge, 3 suggests that I am merely witholding belief out of uncertainty or scepticism.

Mathew

I will never cease to be amazed by the people who have spent their lives trying to disprove the Bible. You are really beating around the main issue and that is your relationship (or lack thereof) to Jesus Christ. I am suprised you didn't try to attak John 1:1 or Philippians 2:5-8. Have you ever considered what lies beyond this temporal world? The rich man found out the hard way, I beg you do not let your ways lead you there.

I have no problem believing the Bible. You have obviously choosen your arguements based upon someone else's work. Read the Bible for yourself, and without any ones help try and find a legitimate problem. Proverbs 14:12 Tells us that there is a way that seems right unto man, but it ends in destruction.

As far as the age of the Earth I suggest you contact the Creation Research people for information on the Mt. Saint Helens eruption and what geologists have really learned.

Internet Infidels' Response:

I will never cease to be amazed by the people who have spent their lives trying to disprove the Bible.

You are really beating around the main issue and that is your relationship (or lack thereof) to Jesus Christ.

You sound not unlike what I used to sound like when I "had a relationship with Jesus Christ." Yes, I was at one time a Bible-believing, born-again, fundamentalist Christian.

I am suprised you didn't try to attak John 1:1 or Philippians 2:5-8.

Have you ever considered what lies beyond this temporal world?

The rich man found out the hard way, I beg you do not let your ways lead you there. I have no problem believing the Bible.

Consider, too, that there are 20,000+ Christian denominations each of which has a slightly different interpretation of the meaning of what the Bible says about what we are supposed to believe.

You have obviously choosen your arguements based upon someone else's work.

Having said that, it is true that I have read literally hundreds of books about Christianity and the Bible. Thus there is no way that I could completely divorce myself from what I have read. On the other hand, the works to which you refer and which bear my name are largely my own work, compiled over a period of many years. They came about because--while I was still a Christian--I read the Bible so much that I began to notice problems.

This is not, by the way, a particularly unusual occurrence; I personally know two ministers and another who started out to be a minister who had the same experience and are now unbelievers.

Read the Bible for yourself, and without any ones help try and find a legitimate problem.

The Bible says that you can drink poison and that it will not harm you. Would you like to demonstrate for us?

Proverbs 14:12 Tells us that there is a way that seems right unto man, but it ends in destruction.

As far as the age of the Earth I suggest you contact the Creation Research people for information on the Mt. Saint Helens eruption and what geologists have really learned.

Scientists do not normally attempt to find evidence only to support a predetermined viewpoint as do these people. If they were truly followers of an infinite God, they would not need to spend their time trying to prove their own point of view in the fact of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Don Morgan

Scripture requires revelation from the Holy Spirit, not scientific analysis. Of course you see the life of Jesus as hypocrisy and ignorance. You view through the eyes of man and not by revelation. The whole of Scripture is based on Faith. Of course Jesus didn't teach natural law or philosophy. Why would God come to earth to put man into more bondage than he was already in? Jesus said I am the Way , the Truth and the Life.

Why would the Truth teach philosophy. Philosophy argues in circles, Truth cuts to the quick. This world is in bondage because it continues to believe that it can mend itself. The False religion of this day, whether it has the Christian name on it or not, has the form of Godliness but no power. It teaches moralism. Jesus did not teach moralism. There is not another religion on this earth like he taught. All religion of this world is able to be done with a reasonably stringent effort. The religion Jesus Christ spoke of isn't able to be done by man. Jesus does it all. It's about relationship. I am crucified with Him. The Holy Spirit leads.

The power that was evident in the Early Church is still in existence. You scoff at miracles because you've never seen one. I could tell you of plenty that would destroy the science you hold so tightly too. I like your tenacity and conviction, but your wrong. Look around you and what is getting ready to happen to the world. Crops are failing, our government is giving away money that we don't have to foreign aid, gas prices are going to skyrocket. Who can you rely on? Definitely not our government, unless your looking forward to communism. One world government is right around the corner. The Truth is coming back soon. Repent before the Lord and he is faithful to forgive. He died for us that we might have life. Only through the blood and power of Jesus are we made free.

Why is it that you think that God can't be angry? The Scripture says," Be angry and sin not." Anger isn't the problem, it's the sin of holding on to it as resentment and bitterness. God doesn't hold onto his anger. He is merciful, but His wrath is great to those who live in iniquity. But, he is faithful to forgive when we come before Him and repent of our evil ways. Through His son Jesus with the power of the Holy Spirit we are able to live according to His Word. It truly is freedom. I don't know about you, but my ways were evil and I continue to see the sin in my life that God is faithful to forgive when I bring it before Him. Time is short, seek Him with all your heart and he will reveal His goodness to you.

The laws of God transends human capacity in and of itself. Just because Newton discovered the law of gravity doesn't mean that God couldn't reverse that in a second. Science has no precedent. God has precedent. If God says that with the Faith of a mustard seed, I can move a mountain, then it must be so. There are plenty of mountains in my life that have been moved with Faith. I love to talk about the Truth. E-mail me back if you have the time. May the Lord bless you and remove the blinders from your eyes.

I find your viewpoint interesting.

You do cite several instances (tongue in cheek) of Christians or "so-called" Christian's influence on today's society in America.

However, if you're not a member of a certain group, not intimately familiar with their beliefs, and not able to share their viewpoint, how could you possibly be qualified to say that there isn't a "growing anti-bias" against that group?

I see anti-Christian usenet groups and WWW sites, and chat rooms more and more. Where are the anti-Buddhist, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu sites? If they exist why are there so few of them that one would have to search them out and not trip over them every day?

The irony of your whole page is that you yourself are another example of the growing "anti-bias" towards Christians. Why are there so many people who put so much effort into discrediting ONE particular religion? There are answers to this question.

I am convinced that most people who say they don't believe in the New Testament have never read it. But for those who do read it, it can produce the faith necessary to believe in Jesus. The Bible is about love, and hate for sin. Its interesting that what the Bible defines as sin is what is the source of this society's problems, crime, disease, war, divorce, etc.

Since you have a college education I challenge you to respond to my e-mail in a mature and educated manner. Show off you education, use it. Now my question to you is, if all people were to pattern their life on what is taught in the New Testament, do you think the world would be a better or worse place? and why?

Just curious if you feel qualified to answer that question.

Internet Infidels' Response:

I find your viewpoint interesting.

You do cite several instances (tongue in cheek) of Christians or "so-called" Christian's influence on today's society in America.

However, if you're not a member of a certain group, not intimately familiar with their beliefs, and not able to share their viewpoint, how could you possibly be qualified to say that there isn't a "growing anti-bias" against that group?

I see anti-Christian usenet groups and WWW sites, and chat rooms more and more. Where are the anti-Buddhist, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu sites? If they exist why are there so few of them that one would have to search them out and not trip over them every day?

While there are sites with information discrediting Islam, for example, Islamic lands have far fewer internet connections than do ones heavily populated by Christians. That and speaking/writing against Islam in an Islamic country is likely to get you dead.

The irony of your whole page is that you yourself are another example of the growing "anti-bias" towards Christians. Why are there so many people who put so much effort into discrediting ONE particular religion? There are answers to this question.

Before you start drawing conclusions based on the number of people arguing against Christianity, bear in mind that there are far more arguing for it.

I am convinced that most people who say they don't believe in the New Testament have never read it. But for those who do read it, it can produce the faith necessary to believe in Jesus. The Bible is about love, and hate for sin. Its interesting that what the Bible defines as sin is what is the source of this society's problems, crime, disease, war, divorce, etc.

The Bible is 'about' alot of things. What it's not about, imho, is an accurate representation of the universe.

Since you have a college education I challenge you to respond to my e-mail in a mature and educated manner. Show off you education, use it. Now my question to you is, if all people were to pattern their life on what is taught in the New Testament, do you think the world would be a better or worse place? and why?

Just curious if you feel qualified to answer that question.

In seriousness, I don't claim to have 'Answers'. I merely claim to have come to conclusions as honestly as I can and as best I know how: through the use of critical reason. I argue my position as much if not more to continue to explore and test my own beliefs as to convince any one else to belive as I do.

Brett G. Lemoine

Thank you,

Internet Infidels' Response #1:

I haven't seen any questions from you; it's possible they were lost in transit. Could you please restate the questions? Thanks!

Sincerely,

Rob Berry

Internet Infidels' Response #2:

What questions? Before you start blindly tossing out accusations of "ignoring" your questions, you might give us the benefit of the doubt and ask if your questions were received. I don't remember ever receiving mail from you.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ e-mail the URL of this page ] [top of page]

Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved. « disclaimer »