Infidels: Feedback: March 1997

In my previous note, I referred to the writing "Absurdities of the Bible", and mistakenly named the author as Charles Darrow. The author's name was actually Clarence Darrow. I apologize for my mistake.

David Kridler <paksMRBK@brigadoon.com>
Victorville, CA USA - Monday, March 31, 1997 at 23:40:09 (MST)

I have nothing against you printing articles and writing expositions about agnosticism and atheism. In fact, I am for your right to do so. In my opinion, if you have a lucid argument for why you believe the way that you do, then your beliefs will be acceptable to me. Whether or not I personally agree with them is inconsequential. However, I do have a major problem with you including works that are written poorly, or have weak and insubstantiated claims, as they do nothing more than make your point of view look ridiculous and foolish. I am speaking of the piece that is entitled "Absurdities of the Bible", by Charles Darrow. This man's writing is frighteningly close to being mere drivel. His writing style is weak, and his intellectual capacity is less than the average slug. I have very much enjoyed some of the people that have submitted articles for you to print, many of whom have had extremely well developed thoughts and arguments and allow me to reaffirm why I believe the way that I do. Charles Darrow is not one of those individuals. I would like to suggest that you remove all of his writings, and I use the term loosely in his case, from your web pages and replace them with something that represents your group of individuals as something more than a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands, who have nothing better to do with that time than insulting people who think (some of them do think) differently than you do. The above e-mail address is that of my wife's. You may respond to me through that. Thank you.

Recently I have seen a Masonic Temple at Warwick, Queensland, Australia. I have been puzzled by the significance of four Hebrew words, set on four stones. They translate roughly into :"god", "who produces", "terrible", "world". As I am aHebrew speaker, I cannot make any sense of the insrciption. Can you enlighten me ?

Interesting Logo you have -- some would consider it blasphemous. Being an ex-Catholic -- reared in a midwest Irish/Catholic home -- and educated exclusively in parochial schools -- including college -- I must admit that I sense more than a little truth in your perspective of the Jesuits. My education only served to propel me into a wilderness of atheism and agnosticism -- before I kicked my thinker back on again and got over my anger, bitterness, and distrust at having been misled by the monstrously skewed Catholic twisting of scripture to suit their hunger for power and control. However, I feel that your bias -- the typical cynicism of the worldy doubter -- is glaringly obvious. Therefore, I have to take some -- if not much of what you say with a grain of salt. Your opinions and conclusions would be much more palatable if your preconceived biases where less obtrusive. Dig in a little more into Blaise Pascal, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer.

Your analysis of the historicity of Jesus is very good. The one thing missing is an understanding of the historical circumstances and the activities of his brothers and followers. For an excellent scholarly work on this I wish to call to your attention a newly published book by Dead Sea Scrolls specialist Robert Eisenman. The title is JAMES, THE BROTHER OF JESUS. It sheds light to BOTH the historical AND the mythical aspects of the Jesus character. P.S. I really enjoy your offerings. -- L.

You know, what I have never understood is why all the bashing of the Witnesses. The Catholics do the same thing with their worship of Mary and the line of Popes. They twist scripture to make them fit their teachings. Fundamentalists, especially the Baptists believe that it's perfectally correct to try and force their own beliefs down the throats of everyone else. But yet nothing is ever said about them. Only the Witnesses, with a slight ecxeption made for the Mormons. Could it be because members of those faiths act more in accordance with their teachings that other religions? The real key is our personal relationship with Christ, not what religion a person belongs to.

David Chisler <dchisl63@cybertrails.com>
Florence, AZ USA - Monday, March 31, 1997 at 15:14:16 (MST)

Internet Infidels Response:

I count one article against the Jehovah's Witnesses on the Secular Web. The bulk of the papers on this site are either against fundamentalism, or against theism across the board. Where in the world did you get the impression that nothing is ever said about anyone except for JW's and Mormons?

Mark I. Vuletic

Have you done any reearch on the words "Vicarius Filli Dei" appearin on the mitre/tiara/crown of the Catholic pope's when they took power? Is this fact or just fiction? Thank you for your information.

I have reviewed much of your comments to the variety of questions and situations proposed by Christian and non-Christian people. I am a Christian, I am also a Nuclear Engineer. The first is what I hope to be more of each day, the other is what I have been trained to do. As an Engineer I am well aware of the assumptions made by so called scholars to the validity or proof of something taken as fact. We only know for fact what we can prove, we only believe what we can see and/or prove. I do believe the Bible , I have no reason not to believe. There are inconsistencies in everything because we only believe what we can see or prove.

My question is simply this: Where did life or matter come from? If we evolved from apes, who evolved from "salamanders" who crawled out of the primordial swamp, and they from some amino acid struck by lightening or some other truly unbelievable act, where did the amino acid and lightening come from? Lets get right to the point, where did the first particle of matter or energy come from? I really can't see why you don't believe in a higher power, when the evidence is irrefutable?

So don't believe in Jesus, but don't tell me or others that your logic is all sound when you fail the final test, which is the problem with science, we don't know where it all started. I don't mean to sound condescending, I appreciate your logic, most of it is sound (remember I am an Engineer to my wife's distain). I do know the limitations of logic, and science has its limits and inconsistencies also. You have to believe in something bigger than yourself, and stop comparing "Christians" to each other. We simple people who individually serve God and Love Him, because we have chosen to believe in something bigger than ourselves. Open your mind, we don't have the answers in science, there must be a God. Carry your logic a step further, beyond where you can prove, and you will see there must be a beginning.

John Faircloth <john.faircloth@gat.com>
San Diego, CA USA - Monday, March 31, 1997 at 13:17:37 (MST)

Internet Infidels Response:

Your suggestion seems to be that the universe could not exist unless God exists. Yet, as a nuclear engineer, you must be aware that the entire enterprise of cosmology currently proceeds upon naturalistic assumptions, and is doing just fine. So where is the "irrefutable evidence" you refer to? For specific details of naturalistic cosmological theories, please look at papers by Victor J. Stenger and Michael Dickson.

Mark I. Vuletic

Would like to join. Being a cosmologist and a consumated atheist, I have much to contribute to any debate. Jesus was a good man, to whom I feel great sympaty and admiration. Moreover, he is a compatriot of mine! He gave-up his only life for his ideas, never before heard-of at his time: universal love, sacrifice for your fellow men, etc. DONT DEVALUATE HIS SACRIFICE BY DEIFYING HIM!! If Jesus was as they say "the son of god", and knew that he was going to resurrect, all what he did was a divine "FARSA". Jesus's ideas, as noble as they might have been, were highly impractical: findmy a christian that will give his other cheek when he is slapt in the face! Another thing I don't understand: the New Testament starts by giving Jesus's genealogy going back to the king David (whom I dont sympatise because of the Betsabe business), but what is the importance of his ascendency if he wasn't the son of Joseph but of god? I have many more riddles like this, touchin most of the prevalecent religions and would like to share them in a Forum.

Christians cannot tell you exactly (or roughly) what happened the 3rd day after the crucifixion. It transcands experience and so therefor history or historical explanation. This is not a cop-out. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I just find your challenge academically stupid. You hit list of straw men seems mostly to be evangelicals.

Peter Fallon <Pfal@icdc.com>
Phila, PA USA - Monday, March 31, 1997 at 11:45:09 (MST)

Internet Infidels Response:

The mere fact that you say it is not a cop-out does not make it any less a cop-out.

Mark I. Vuletic

In the section of the Bibles uniqueness there are names and web sites available of the respondants, but are these people scolars in the field in which they are responding, or are they responding from a particular reading material. If the latter is so, is there a list of references available from each.

Enjoyed reading the debate

Dan Barker did a fine job, great in some places.

The vote taken at the end indicated Dan got a statistical win, since since the approx 35% for his side is considerably better than the percentage of Freethinkers as a whole.

Keep up the good work.

You know that is how athiest have been treated for thousands of years by the christians. I am not taking a side. You just need to look at both sides yourself.

I came across your site using a search on "freethought". (I performed the search because a URL referenced in a letter to the editor today in our local paper by a "free thinker" is unreachable.) What I found here did not surprise me in the least. The latest newsletter I found was November of '96. I couldn't miss the irony that the lead story was by the president of the Internet Infadels, Jeffery J. Lowder, entitled "Why do free thinkers have to be sooooo negative?", and the last article "Athiest family kicked off AOL." ends with the author, Timotheus Gorski M.D. stating "They don't seem to like religious skeptics there." The reason for this to me is pretty clear. The "Free Thinkers", aren't. Athiests and agnostics seem to be made up of three groups. Those that had traumatic experiences with a church, those who are so impressed with their own intellect they can't believe there could be a deity higher than themselves, and those that just love to argue about anything. If you want to exchange ideas, please email me. If you want to slam me, please don't waste our time.

Internet Infidels Response:

1. I haven't had a traumatic experience with a church.
2. I'm not extraordinarily impressed with my intellect (I am impressed by the evidence against the existence of God that imposes itself from the outside upon even the most rudimentary intellects).
3. I don't enjoy arguing about just anything, although I consider important questions like the existence of God worthy of discussion.

So much for your armchair psychological profile of atheists and agnostics.

> If you want to slam me, please don't waste our time.

Interesting - you didn't hesitate to slam us, but when you consider the possibility of our returning the favor, all of the sudden criticism becomes a waste of time.

Mark I. Vuletic

I skimmed your section on McDowell's book. I am left with the impression that you believe that you are the only historian that can sufficiently separte your investigation into the "historicity" of Jesus from your own world view. I am pleased that you say "Jesus is probably historical" but I am concerned about your position on not being able to know who Jesus is. He is the Christ. McDowell attempts to show that the evidence supports this conclusion. He never says that it proves it. The statement Jesus is the Christ is a faith statement. So is the statement "Jesus is not the Christ." My question for you is "Where is your faith?" You might say faith is not necessary for I base my life on the power of reason. Of course you are left trying to establish your own world view on purely a rational basis. Good luck trying to find out about your own world view. Go ahead and play it out to its logical conclusion, and you will be left with nihilism. You say you have been deconverted from Christianity, therefore I assume you now the facts. Now examine your faith. Jesus Christ loves you.

We just returned from a tour of duty working for the Lutheran Church in Papua New Guinea. After learning how corrupt the church is this has been a wonderful diversion. We just laughed and laughed.

Have you or any of your authors personally debated Josh in a public debate? If not, why not?

Kevin McKay <KevinMcK@concentric.net>
USA - Saturday, March 29, 1997 at 23:10:29 (MST)

Internet Infidels Response:

We have not debated Josh McDowell because he refuses to debate. I sent him a letter suggesting a debate, and he never responded to it. After I debated Norman Geisler at Columbus College in Columbus, GA, in March 1944, I asked him to debate me again, this time at the seminary in North Carolina, where he is the dean. Geisler sent me a terse refusal on the grounds that he was too busy. The stationery letterhead had Josh McDowell listed as an advisor to the seminary. I then sent a letter to Geisler asking him if he would contact McDowell and ask him to debate. I never received a response to this letter.

I might add that I have also challenged Gleason Archer to debate biblical inerrancy. He did respond but refused the challenge. It seems to me that these well known biblical apologists are extremely reluctant to test their arguments in public forums where they would have to confront an informed opposition.

Farrell Till

When will you have an answer for chapters 2, 10, 12? From a Christian free-thinker.

Internet Infidels Response:

I know that if I give you a date, I won't have it ready by then, so I will simply state that we are working on finishing those chapters and hope to have them available as soon as possible.

I realize that may not be the answer you wanted to hear, but that's the best I can offer you at this point.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Why do you fail to take into account the statments that are made throughout the book that you would purport to be so troublesome? Why not decry the others that are stated in the book also? Scott, Geisler, Nix, and many others. You fail to see that w hile these statements are given, you fail to put them in their proper context. None of the information provided in Mr. McDowell's book proves anything. The empirical evidence that you seek shall always allude you. I can claim that the sky on the other side of the globe is blue, and if your mind is set against any evidence that is presented, then no matter what amount of evidence that would be presented would bring you to believe otherwise.

I have studied elsewhere for a few weeks, and I shall be glad to come back here more to study your views and pass them on to others here. I only grow stronger in adversity. I hope you do the same.

For a moment there I thought that you were serious with all that trash. Good to know you're not all that crazy...

In America, periods and commas always go inside the quotes. Jeff Lowder's Chapter 5 of "Jury" is inconsistent with this. In England, the rule goes the other way. On more substantial matters, I only read Chapter 5, and not the rest. I have a masters in biblical studies, and could roughly be considered to come from an evangelical perspective on the Bible (I say roughly because I'm Roman Catholic), and I thoroughly enjoyed Jeff's presentation. McDowell is quite rough at the edges. Others present a better case and are more accurate historically, many of whom Jeff cites in his notes (e.g., RT France, Yamauchi, Evans, Bruce). I have numerous comments to pass along to Jeff. Few of these are of great substance, but they would polish this chapter a bit. My only major criticism is that in his conclusion section, he introduces two major issues he does not really address to any substantial degree in the paper. Thus, we have to trust Jeff on faith with these (namely conclusion 2 and 3). Conclusion 1 is well founded and he demonstrates quite well from his paper. Because it would take me a great deal of time to elaborate on these, I would rather convey these (and the minor changes) to Jeff in another medium, by e-mail or by phone if he'd be interested. Again, I enjoyed Jeff's analysis.

Really, Mr Smith! Your idea that "gratuitous evil" in the world somehow "proves" the non-existence of god sounds like something a 12 year-old might conceive. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would attempt to prove or disprove god's existence using such a childish concept. For that matter, I'm shocked to find that someone with your intellectual pretensions even believes in the concept of "evil". There must be more sophisticated ways of describing the reasonableness of your persuasion.

martin braun <poolemillett@worldnet.att.net >
nyc, ny USA - Friday, March 28, 1997 at 08:57:56 (MST)

Internet Infidels Response:

Gratuitous evil is a "childish concept"? Do you have a proof to present that shows how the death of every child who dies from, say, leukemia, is either a necessary evil or not an evil at all? If so, please present it, because it is not at all obvious to most people.

Mark I. Vuletic

My name is Steve and I'm a teenager in Houston. It's hard to have Atheist beliefs when you live an such a pro-christian community as mine. It's refreshing to have sort of a haven like the internet where people can speak freely about their beliefs. Go ing to Catholic school for my freshman and sophomore years of high school only streghtened my beliefs. And I would just like to say thanks.

Internet Infidels Response:

Let me say on behalf of the Internet Infidels that we are glad to be able to make things easier for you. Personally, I grew up in a liberal Christian environment, so I was not persecuted (at least, not by everyone!) for questioning what was once my faith, but even in that environment, it was difficult to find people who could relate to my skeptical views; consequently, I imagine things must be far more difficult for you. But hang in there - there are others who share your views, even in Houston. In fact, there's a list you might be interested in at http://www.sdsmt.edu/caa-bin/contact?Texas - perhaps you can acquire some contacts off the net.

Hope everything works out well for you.

Mark I. Vuletic

RE: The Genesis of the Humanist Manifesto (Wilson). It's a great read. As I came to chapter 16 it was missing. We go from chapt. 15 to 17. What gives? Is it classified? Does it have a title? It's a very interesting book, I only wish I had it all . Thanks for the service.

The portion that reads that Chritianity and Masonry orginated at the same time, is false. Masonry is much older than Christianity. Masonry is a religion of its own and Christianity is a separate "Waty of Life" not a religion per se.

And of course the chronology of the races of the world date far beyond the 6000 years that some Judeo- Chritian prechers claim. For all the races are much older than the White Race which only recently came upon the scene. The blacks, chinese and etc., are far older than the White Race. Even the Scriptures teach that there were two periods of time when the races were created or formed. The blacks, Chinese and etc., were "created" the White Race was "formed." The two are not the same, yet God said it was good. But the race-mixers of today woud have all the races reduced to one mongrel race.

I'm not sure what your personal credentials are but I think the diatribe you have posted is a waste of band width and your time. Your arguments are so shallow that it is a waste of my time to get into specifics (something you exhaustively attempted).

Believe this my friend, the Bible itself reads: scholars will consider spiritual things folly. Spiritual understanding can not be discerned by the wisdom of man. It is my experience that while historic information with reasonable validity does not conflict with my spiritual belief, I (nor anyone else) can figure it out without getting down on their knees and attempting to gain spiritual insight threw the power of the Holy Spirit.

John Wilson <jonwil@primenet.com>
Prescott, AZ USA - Wednesday, March 26, 1997 at 11:38:11 (MST)

Internet Infidels Response:

Just saying that someone's arguments are "shallow" is the simplest thing in the world - the difficult part, from which you have cringed, is demonstrating that those arguments are in fact unsound. If you won't even try to do the latter, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Mark I. Vuletic

I am courious about the concept that you describe as "free thinking," is that "free" for the constrants of prejudice and bias? If that indeed is your defination of the term "free thinking," why are you so closed minded in the area of Christ?

And your choice of the term "Infidel," does that mean that you recognize the rudiments of a personal relationship with Christ as undeniable fact, and usurp the term? By defination it is simply used in reference to those that do not believe in Christ? It just seems strange to me that you would use this term, unless you were looking for sympathy or tring to start an argument.

I've heard of "The Devil's Bible" or similar title: it's the King James Bible with ONLY the violence, sex, etc. Someone told me that was produced by an atheist group in Texas in the 40's. Do you know if anyone has an online copy of this? Or where I could buy a printed version?

I've done most of these things and I know how you veiw church. I've been there. This page is funny but it's not reality. I know you'll regret this stupid home page when you me GOD face to face and have to answer for every thing you've done

Hello, surfing I came by your the secular web. I appreciate your work much. Being infidel for years - however not "practsing" - I began rethinking and evaluating my standpoint. The material you offer is excellent food for thought. You are doing excelle nt work - keep it up, in spite of menaces of censorship.

While I aplaud your [Jeff Lowder's] efforts at reconciliation of Christians and atheists on resurrection, your statement "to accept and reject the resurrection..." smacks of not just cop-out but subjective mumbo-jumbo. Why do you not see truth as the issue here? Either resurrection is possible or it isn't... either Jesus was resurrected from death or his body is still around somewhere....either-or is still around.... essentially you've taken on Pilate's role in the matter.... he asked, when finding Jesus intriguing and not guilty... What is Truth? You see to have the same question and are sitting on the fence of agnosticism along with Pilate and others who find the truth to penetrating and revealing. Jeff, denial works only for a while, then you have to deal with reality...what do your really believe about the big R?

First I commend you and your's on awonderful piece long since needed written about the theorys of both evolution and creation. But, you should go back through and do a spell check as there are many words misspelled , and we would'nt want creationist's holding that against you too!

thanks 4 the info on the wacko right..utter morons..why dont u guys do more on demon possesions,especially the bob larson ministry stuff that is on video,of a 30 hour exorcism..what is it..why do they know things they couldnt of possibly known..hmmm.th is is serious stuff. hope u folks can stop it..peace out and thanks..

Concerning the 'archives' information on Luther Burbank and his statements about being an Agnostic: The use of his statements seem to imply that Mr. Burbank is an athetist. I dont believe that this is the case. To support my opinion, I reference Chapter 38 from "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yogananda. For sure, Mr. Burbank is a free-thinker as were other great men such as Einstein and Gandhi; however this does not mean they were atheists. Mr. Burbank however was a critic of blind obedience and believed that everything should undergo the scientific method. Mr. Burbank showed great courage in making statements of his "agnosticism". His scientific discoveries given freely to mankind are a tribute to his unselfishness and a desire to help others. So, if there was a heaven (for good people), he would get my vote to be a part of it; of course he would want to visit the place first to determine whether he wanted to stay.

read it, interesting, thanks.

You made a few good points, but frankly, most of your arguments were pathetic. The Holy Bible is the true Word of God! I am amazed by your blindness to the facts that are all around you. To say that God didn't know what David was going to choose is ridiculous. The Bible says God knows us better than we know ourselves. And the reason Moses wrote that he was humble was that God told him to write that. And when the Bible refered to a prophet claiming that his prophecy was not from God, when it came true - clearly means that the prophet was lying and he took the credit for what God allowed him to do. I rebuke this evil spirit of blindness that the devil is holding over you! I take authority over satan and all his evil works and I cast them down and out in the name of Jesus! You will now see God in a new light in the name of Jesus. You need to become born again. Your eternal life or damnation depends on it! You are soooo deceived! The Bible has proved "the scientific experts" and archeology wrong so many times, it is comical. Never, never, ever has or will the Bible ever be wrong or in error. You will someday soon find this out for yourself! Jesus is returning very soon and you had better prepare yourself! Very soon, there will be a rapture (taking away) of the Church and then the anti-christ will take over and declare himself god 3.5 years after the Church is gone. See for yourself if every word written in the New Testament does not come to pass. And you can be for sure that every word of prophecy in the Old Test happend just as it said as well. I suggest you read the book "The Signature of God" by Grant Jeffry. I will see you in Heaven, because I am going to pray every day for you and I will pray that God softens your heart and removes the blinders away from your dying eyes. I promise you, you will feel the power of the Holy Ghost tugging at your heart and consuming your mind!

Read the Bible with an open heart and ask God to show you the truth, the light, and the one and only way to eternal life in heaven. Jesus fulfilled over 60 prophecies in his lifetime, many which He had no control of. And the Gospels were written as eye-wittness acounts while thousands of other eye-wittnesses were alive to contest any "lies" Every book in the Bible is united. 66 books with 44 authors in complete hamony. The Gospels - 4 accounts of the life of Jesus, all in harmony, yet from slightly different views. I could write for days and give you hundreds of testimonies of how the power of Jesus has changed people's lives. Delivered from sickness, disease, drugs, abuse, on and on and on. No other "religion" can claim miraculous healings and changes in people's hearts. Look at the false gods in India, North Africa, Middle East, and S.E. Asia. Their countries are cursed and under attack from satan. Forget it, I could write forever and still not convince you. You have to have some faith! Therefore I'll let the Holy Spirit convict you and bring you to repentace and salvation.

I found your thoughts on the Biblical views of women very interesting. However, I did not find any reference to the Lord creating them "male and female," (what I would consider a reference of equality, since each gender has distinctions ordained by Go d) or anything aluding to the two being made "one flesh" in the act of marriage, or any of Jesus' teachings of divoce. I realize your goal of this web site was probably not for equal time, but your case might be given more credibility by giving some views from the 'other side.' Thanks!

Actually, I have a question for you. I'm an agnostic who is very interested in politics. The organization Common Cause seems to reflect some of my concerns. However, a friend of mine mentioned that groups interested in curtailing PAC money are often right-wing Xians (although I don't quite see the connection myself). Do you have any info on this organization? Of course, their PR says they are non-partisan etc. etc. Thanks very much. BTW, I love this site, especially the historical docs!

You have hit the nail right on the head. If I had your intellect I would have written the same material. I am presently writing a page in Geocities, but it is not finished for another month. I would like to congratulate you for a fine work done.

Thy word exposed my wounded soul,
cleaved by a lie and its grusome toll.

The scales came off my blinded eyes,
ere I saw the healing prize:

The crimson flow from the tortuous tree,
where hung that man who set me free.

My sins are drowned beneath the tide,
that spilt from his ruptured side.

O death, you'll never have me;
Oh grave, where is your victory?

Your site is like a breath of fresh air!

Having found my college and community extremely hostile towards my atheism, it was great to stumble across an *intelligent* discourse on atheism in general. I tend to shy away from fruitless confrontational arguments with theists, although the ones I've had were so very funny. I was very impressed with the article "Gentle Godlessness" - it really helped me to organize my own thoughts and beliefs in a more concrete and explainable fashion. I think it is more important to be able to defend one's beliefs intelligently than to attack others for thiers. Be wary of atheists who are relentless in their attack of Christianity - I have seen it become a consuming passion, or dare I say, *religion*, of sorts. Better to live with NO religion, and show that gods aren't worth 10 minutes to even think about at all. Besides, why give theists the satisfaction that they agitate you at all? People tend to resist change unless they honestly want to, and, although the info on your site is likely attacked by set-minded people, I hope a few looking for a fresh perspective will drop by and have the courage to explore. I've been reading at your site for the past three days and will continue, happily.

Thank you for providing a safe place to allow me to think...

A great website! It isn't all suryp among the scriptures. Its amazing that christians-jews don't read and understand their own scriptures. Then again thats probably a good thing

I've enjoyed the Infidel's site immensely - a terrific resource for atheists, humanists and the like.

The other day, just out of curiosity, I emailed a question to an online bible site. I picked out one of the flaws from Donald Morgan' Fatal Biblical Flaws - the first one regarding Love god, Fear god and there is no fear in love. I was curious to see their explanation for the apparent inconsistency. This was their reply:

Frequently your question about harmonizing love to God with Bible texts that tell us to fear Him arises.

The topic of love to God is relatively easy to understand for most people. But the other aspect regarding fearing Him, often is filled with misunderstanding. The concept of fear as expressed in the Bible covers a wide range of emotions. Its force ranges from deep concern (as in 2 Cor. 11:3; 12:20; Jude 23) to abject terror (as in Matt. 14:26). Occasionally, fear merely involves a sense of respect for one's superiors (as in Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:18; cf. Job 32:6). Sometimes it describes a feeling of awe (Isa. 60:5; Luke 5:26, RSV; 7:16). The exact shade of thought or degree of fear generally needs to be determined from the context (what is being spoken about prior to the verse as well as after it).

A number of occurrences of the word "fear" involve the reverential awe that man should feel for the majesty, power, and position of his divine Maker. This is the meaning in most of the texts you cited. In this sense the term would include any of the varying degrees of emotional response comprehended in our words "reverence," "respect," "awe," and "fear"; and it may occasionally signify even the more extreme reaction of awe mingled with terror that a mortal man would naturally feel when in the immediate presence of God (Heb. 12:21; Judges 6:22,23) or of angels (Luke 1:12,13). This type of fear is, of course, not to be included in the harmful emotion that is disparaged in 1 John 4:18, but is rather commended in the Scriptures (Rev. 14:7; Job 28:28; Ps. 2:11, 111:10, etc.).

The text in 1 John 4:18 is a reference to craven fear (see Rom. 8:15) and not to the desirable "fear of the Lord" that all believers possess (see Acts 9:31; 2 Cor. 5:11; 7:1). Fear is the opposite of "boldness" (1 John 4:17), and will have no place in the mind of the Christian. Fear, which is essentially self-centered, has no place in love, which in its perfection involves complete self-surrender. The two cannot exist side by side.

Thank you for the contact on the Bible Information On-Line.

The case can be made, I suppose, for different meanings of the word fear, though it seems a bit of a leap to me. I was wondering how accurate their response is (I ask since I have no background in the bible, its origins, translations etc). Do the word meanings hold in the original Hebrew or Greek scriptures (I may have the original languages mixed up but you get where I'm going). Their explanation doesn't seem sufficient in my mind, but I would appreciate the thoughts of any of the Infidels on this one. (Note: I'm not particularly interested in having this mail put on the feedback section - but if it serves some useful purpose, then go ahead. Keep up the good work!

Wonderful reading, your contradictions of the bible. I amnow armed with more things to talk about when I have to talk to my B.A.C. brother.

In the past I used to hate you guys for attacking my Jesus. But now, I realize my 20 years involvement with born-agains and International Church of Christ as a big mistake. Today, I have discovered my Chinese roots and study Taoism. I find it so much more peaceful. However, I visit Hillel services on my campus because I always was interested in knowing more about the Jews and have discovered how similar Taoism and Judaism can be. I was really angry at you and sent an insulting e-mail. I am sorry and I hope to hear from you soon.

I'm new on the net. Answer this question? How do you explain evil in the world without God? Where do atheists get their sense of justice,morality,fairness, etc I would like to hear your response

Internet Infidels Response:

I got my sense of justice, morality, and fairness from my parents and colleagues. I suspect that's where you got yours, too (well, from your parents and colleagues, not mine!).

Mark I. Vuletic

I appreciate your questioning of this book and of the Bible itself. Many people say that as Christians we should not question what we are told. But what we are told cannot be infallible since it is from humans who are infallible. I feel that as humans, we have a right to think for ourselves. I support Betty J. Eadie very strongly, who had a near-death experience and returned saying that some parts of the Bible not necessarily inspired, and that many churches use God to intimidate and control others. Thank you for writing this article.

I am praying for you. it is God's will that none shall perish. But that all should have eternal life throght the confession of belief of His son Jesus Christ and the repentance of sins.

The Babylon referred to in Jeremiah 50-51 is the Babylon of Revelations 17-18. The name Babylon signals the chief power of the world, of whatever age. In the time of Christ it was Rome.

I'm a Christian, buy still think you're one heck of a swell guy! The most disgusting aspect about your site is not what you say, but how you say it. I'm talking about your responses in italics. Long-winded italics are annoying to read and almost drive me to the point where I'll sneak over to an infidel's house (or cave) and do something mean like break the flag off his mailbox. I know what I'm talking about-I'm an optometrist. That means I'm an eye scholar because I attended an institution run by other eye experts (O.D.'s and M.D.'s). I went to the most expensive and therefore the best school. That means my opinion in ocular matters is scholarly, expert, and accurate in even the most minute detail...well... except when I'm wrong. Also, everyone should quit throwing around the word "scholar". "Thus saith the scholar". Isn't one Pope more than enough?

When the Lord said "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." He was talking to the devil, the serpent, so picture the man stomping out the head of t he snake. Far from being a non-Messianic prophecy, this is in fact the FIRST prophecy of God sending Jesus Christ, who later tells his followers that he has overcome the world (the devil), a spiritual stomping so to speak. Such bruising of the head of the serpent, the prince of this world, is required of the saints. It is an inner conquering over the temptations of sin, followed later by a physical reality upon Christ's return. Remember the close of the parable of the unjust judge, "And those mine enemies who will not have me rule over them, come and slay them before my feet." This is the Great Stomping to come.

Wondering if you might have any info on possible north atlantic land bridge that early nomdic people might have crossed hunting mammoth?

I was pleased to receive the invitation to attend the talk by Annie Laurie Gaylor at the U. of Michigan Wed., March 19 at 7:00 p.m. I will try to make it. Are you aware that under "Directions" on the enclosed news release, the date for the lecture is given as Wed.,April 19? I assume that March 19 is correct, since that date is a Wednesday.

I am becoming quite brave about publically discussing my atheistic convictions, and look forward to Ms. Gaylor's inspiration and information to help me along.

Whoops...

Pardon me. Immediately after my (very) recent missive regarding Madalyn Murray O'Hair's "Agnostics," I found the January 1997 "Feedback" page, and the very first letter therein...

What I wrote still stands, but I guess my question has been answered. Please excuse my lack of thorough research.

This may be something new: an atheist writing to criticize a Secular Web article...

After browsing through your "Modern Documents" section, it strikes me that Madalyn Murray O'Hair's "Agnostics" is unique in that it treats a flavor of secularism in a harshly negative light--and I'm not sure that it's a justifiable one. I guess I wonder if it's such a great idea to include Ms. O'Hair's piece among much more even-handed treatments of secularism (the other articles under the "Agnosticism" header, for instance).

I don't consider myself an agnostic, but lines like "The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp" seem to me to border on serious, baseless insult to some very reasonable people who (I think) are otherwise well-represented on your site. (Is there even any support supplied for this alleged cowardice?) Even theists aren't called "gutless," or the like, in any of the modern articles I've read here; it's to the great credit of the Secular Web that treatments of theism and its defenders tend to be rational critiques rather than emotional name-calling. Would that O'Hair's essay were as reasonable.

On a somewhat related note, I'd like to congratulate the Infidels on your responses in your Feedback section: despite the frequent illogic and demeaning tone of many of the incoming messages, your replies (Mr. Lowder's, especially) are invariably even-handed and scrupulously rational.

Oh, well, I guess I'm just a glutton for politeness... :-)

Another good way to "discourage" those lovely door Knockers.. My roomate answered the door one morning to there smiling faces, our couch is out of sight of the door, I sat there and quietly at first, then louder and more distressed, started "bah-ing" like a sheep.... needless to say we were left alone after that but our nieghbors gave us some very funny looks after...

Re: The Dark Bible...

It's funny...Man is and was unable to understand the true meaning of the word of God. His use of it to do and excuse himself of evil...Your interpretation is not accurate. You forget man is sinful/evil...looking with these eyes may bring things into perspective. God is a being beyond the mind of man. Only God can turn the mind of man...The discussion of theology/religon is a bore when the truth is known.

all said in a letter on yourweb site. How do you explain there isn't a god? And i would like to know if you have ever studied any religions at all, like gone to church. Just thought i would ask cause i have a friend that says he is a atheist but has never even looked at any other religion and only went to church a few times when he was younger.

Also just want to say that in my beliefe there is a god and he will come back some day and every body will now that he is god. if you haven't ever read Revelations in the Bible i think you should even if you are atheist or any thing else that you might be. In Revelations it foretells all of this The internet and little microchips that are alreaddy being placed in people's hands in Californa. Like a cashless society were people in the goverment can weed out the christians by not letting them buy or sell.

READ IT cause it is a good book but a little hard to understand.

This kind of information is very hard to find. It is really great that it is available to so many people now. Maybe if more people were exposed to this information they would throw off their traditional beliefs and use their own minds. Thank you.

I've become interested in the knowledge of freemason. Although I have little knowlegde, I would like to build a good foundation about freemason. I look forward in a response.

I am a frequent visitor to your site. I'm writing for no other reason than to egg you on. Great job!

Is it allowed to use parts of a historical document in a discussion group?

I'm not sure if what is posted on your lists is supposed to be a joke or or what, but 99% is false. I read that is hard to find a Christian to debate If you want to have a civilized debate, tell me.

Thought your letter interesting. My feelings on this subject is the sadness and emptyness that is the aftermath of WCG. My belief that God exist is still with me. But I am at a loss as to what is happening at this time in history and where do we fit into it. It would be enjoyable to discuss and explore this more with you both sometime. One thing I feel strongly about now, is Where we ever in the "church" at all! Hope to hear from you soon

There seem to be a lot of people out there who have a lot to say about the (non) existance of someone they don't know.

None of you know my Dad, so I guess that means he doesn't exist either; which means I can't exist; which means this comment can't exist.

So you're sitting there reading something that can't exist!

So do you exist?

(I do, and I'm going to heaven when I die. What about you?)

Internet Infidels Response:

We have good evidence for the existence (at some point in time) of your Dad: since most of the messages we receive are sent by humans (some by computers), we have good reason to believe that you exist, that you are human, and, consequently, that you have a father. No similar good reasons exist for believing in the existence of God.

Mark I. Vuletic

Didn't you once have a t-shirt for sale "10 reasons beer is better than Jesus" or know where I can get one? I'd like to buy one to wear to the gym where "God's Gym" and the "...by God's might..." quotes abound. Thanks.

Mr. Price, Please consider this message. I just read your critique on ETDAV. It seems that the premise of the book was "Evidence that demands a verdict", so it should not be surprising that McDowell claims to be speaking from within the truth, even if he can't lay out a clear, 100%, 1+1=2 proof that Jesus was the Son of God. I think it is the nature of historical inquiry that this will not be possible. It seems also that it might be a good idea to see the biases, or presuppositions that you yourself bring into this inquiry. I come from a skeptical background and gave my life to the Lord two years ago. Never have I turned away from rational inquiry. However, assuming supernaturalism or divine revelation as something that is possibly real shed new light on my own investigation. It seems also that our beliefs has as much to do with how we interpret the empirical data as the data itself. My point is this: It is not impossible that God created man in his image, loved him, and now wants him back. I hate to say this but I do not think you will ever find this God through historical investigation. But I also don't think the purpose of His coming was for us to know about Him, but to know Him personally. I have no idea where your walk has taken you, but I bet you can remember a time when you felt close to the living God. Think back at how your growing skepticism was painful, yet how you forged ahead, determined to find the truth. You did it because you knew the truth was worth finding at any cost.

I ask you to take another journey now. Drop particular presuppositions (to use the word twice in one letter) that you carry into this whole debate, and again open yourself up to a search for the truth. It seems there is ample historical evidence to support a life of faith, even if this evidence will not bring a non-believer to his knees. Also, I wonder if this type of evidence was ever meant to. An honest reading of Paul (what I mean by honest is up to you to decide, I suppose) of the Pauline letters clearly (at least I think clearly) supports the idea that Paul thought Jesus was God. I know some of these letters have been dated to within 20 years of Jesus' death, so it seems to make criticism of John's gospel sort of unnecessary, at least in determining whether or not early followers of Christ thought he was God. Maybe you can jump all over this last statement, but again I ask "How sure are you really that the evidence you have is better than your opponents." Reading through your critique, it seems you were not entirely sure on this matter. Anyway, this is mostly beside the point of this letter. I am simply appealing to you to turn away from the rationalism towards reason, if only for a day. What does and does not seem reasonable to you. Please do not let the dog of empiricism jump up and bite you during this time. It seems that writers of the New Testament did not always appeal to the historical evidence, and they were only a generation or two from the events of the crucifixion (although Paul does mention the 500 and many miracles are recorded). The fact that writers of the Gospel claim that many other miracles happened but did not record them I think is significant. It tells me no amount of miracle-telling was going to convince a non-believer (though I cam imagine a non-believer has an entirely different take on the matter). A relationship with God is that, a relationship. I know you once had that. I suppose your own walk on this planet will be the evidence you will use in deciding your own verdict. I just pray you not use selective memory. Try to remember the times when God was more than something to argue around or about. Remember when being in His presence was real, and felt pretty darn good. An intellectual cop-out? It seems more like good sense. If you wait for it to be an intellectual certainty, it will never happen, because I doubt our brains will ever tell any one of us anything we really don't want to hear.

I am responding to this letter, any Infidels response to it I just finished reading/skimming through Josh McDowell's article on evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ. Although I am not a Christian or a Moslem, I think that Jesus existed and that he was a divinely inspired man. I also think that first-rate, objective scholarship should always be encouraged because it will eventually shed much-needed light on any subject worthy of investigation. In any event, reading this article reminded me of a challenge I received from a co-worker while I was describing the wonders of the internet. He asked me to find a picture of Jesus Christ working at an ordinary job e.g. as a carpenter, a fisherman, etc. I am curious as to whether there are any depictions or descriptions of Jesus Christ as a worker or as an ordinary man doing ordinary things. You questioned how someone could belive in Jesus and nit be a Christan. the anser to that is easy, Jesus existed, and he did have a lot of good words and thoughts, thus I belive in him, I also belive in Socrates, but am not Greek, Lao Tzu but am not a Taoist and Nietzsche, but I am not German. The point is that you can listen to a man's (read human's) widom, without beeing religously devoted to that man.

Great page, hear is a yhing I wrote to myself that you may like

1.Pledge Allegiance to Your Self
2. I swear allegiance to no force that would subjugate me, weather it is a God or a government. I do not deny the existence of God as our equal, but deny it the authority to claim sovereignty over humanity. I do not resist the authority of government, as much as it is necessary for the maintenance of an ordered, creative, and healthy society. I pledge to act in my own best interest, but remain aware that it is most often in my interest to do what is best for all of humanity.

I would like to be an atheist, except it is more realistic mor me see all of humanity as god's. We cant do any worse than Johova.

Great Web page. A amazing collection of resources. I have been reading some of the feedback over the last year and I have noticed a lot of people requesting help in dealing with family or friends or looking for fellow atheists. I just wanted to have it posted in the feedback that the Unitarian-Univeralist church may be a good place for people to start. I thought I was the only person in the world (or at least one of a few) that felt like I do. Not all people at UU churches atheists, but they are willing to discuss all points of view. I am sure those at the secular web are aware of these facts but I just wanted to pass this info on to others looking for a port in a storm.

Please be so kind as to give me your humble and unbiased opinions on the following :

* How did it all start ? Where are we from ? Right from the VERY beginning if you may.

* Where do we go to from this world?

* How did the concept of believing in" a God" begin - if man made , so to speak. Did one man, peering over the plains, suddenly say Hey I think somebody made all this. No guys, you can't see him but I know its true. And then all the others must've said hey I think you 're right. But if we can't see him he must be in .......never.. heathen... ....HEAVEN. Yea thats it..... Heaven ? And from there on everyone started writing books ?

Your logic is clear and precise in most of what you say but sadly limited only to things you can comprehend. As Jesus said: how can I explain heavenly things to you when you do not even understand the things of this world. Gentleman , in my opinion you took a wrong turn way back and now you're doing your best to justify your position instead of turning to your Maker , uh map , and getting the right direction.

Thank you so much for the material on Robert G. Ingersoll. This has been a remarkable step back through history and one that I didn't expect to find so simply on the web. I'm writing a piece on Oscar Wilde's tour of America and I was searching for something of Ingersoll's much publicized views of the Gaiteau trial. It was great to get such comprehensive material from your sight. I would be greatly appreciative of any further directions concerning Oscar Wilde in Ameria 1882. One correction to note the Whitman eulogy is listed as 1882; this would be 1892.

(Me again) I just got done with reading the last Feedback and I would like to make some observations on Atheism and Agnosticism.

In George Smith's book "Atheism: The Case against God", he argues that an agnostic is either a Theistic Agnostic: A person believes in god, but by God's nature, He is unknowable. The Theistic agnostic presupposed that God exists. The Atheistic Agnostic, on the other hand, isn't sure if there is a god, so he/she reserves judgement for later. The point is, that no one really is agnostic...someone in a neutral position...because there really is no way to hold a neutral position. The Theistic agnostic lives her life under the assumption that God exists..The Atheistic Agnostic, on the other hand may or may not be sure if God exists, but she'll end up living her life as if there wasn't. If, on the other hand, I am wrong...and even Atheistic Agnostics are still agnostic, then, by that definition I too must be an agnostic, even though in actuallity, I consider myself an Atheist. Becuase as an Atheist, I feel that there is NO data that can support a god existing, however if God suddenly appeared before me, then obviously I would have to start believing. This is close to the definition of an Atheistic Agnostic, which would render the term "Atheist" as meaningless. Just a little observatio n.

Darwin bless you? I've never heard anyone say that when I sneeze. It's always God bless you. Where do you get this shit? By law we have a right to observe religious holidays. I don't hate you, but I'm gonna be bustin a gut when you are rottin in Hell

I want to ask a few questions about the statements made in "The Jury is In." First people who refute Josh's statements seem to make many generalities. I find very few direct quotes from "ETDAV" and then a direct rebuttal of what Mr. McDowell states as f act. I only made it through the first 4 or 5 sections and then lost interest simply because the authors of the "Jury" paper never offer any direct rebuttle. I.E. I'm curious as to why someone would say something like "all books are unique," I think Mr. McDowell is smart enough to figure that out. And how come no one addresses that other popular works from the times of the Bible were copied so long after their original "publishing". The New Testament was copied only 25 years after it was originally wri tten, the odds of fallicies are very nearly impossible (note you could always bring attn. to the fact that I said "very nearly"). Scribes of the time were not allowed to miscopy even one single letter. They didn't cross out words, and write over them, i f any mistake was made the copy was destroyed. All I'm saying is that I don't really want to read everything that you've written when I'm not finding any solid evedince. I want proof, you think Jesus didn't even exist, prove it to me. If it's allready in your paper tell me where, and show me the proof (It's like Jerry McGuire "Show me the Money!!!!) I'm not on a tirade here, I am just really interested in proof, in college english students are taught to back up their statements. I dont see much backi ng up other than some playing with words. The same thing that you accuse Mr. McDowell of. I'm just interested in proof.

That is an excellent article on the 'holy' 7's in your life!! I really enjoyed reading it - Nearly fell off my chair laughing! You clearly show that numerology isn't as powerful as I first thought!! And (as seen in my email address) I'm a dedicated Christian!!! So, thanks for the amusing article! Just proves once again why Jesus called us to have **faith** in Him, and not to **prove** Him to the world scientifically!! (I'm not being sarcastic!! I really DID enjoy your article!!)

I just came across your site, and noticed several references to Hinduism, some of which were not entirely true. There is a tendency to lump in all religions as being prostelyzing and evangelical, just because most people in America have experienced these things from the various denominations of Christianity. The concept of evangelizing one's religion is foreign to Hindus; Hindus are perfectly happy if you are a Christian, an athiest, whatever, as long as you are happy. We are taught that all paths lead to God, and do not think Chrisitans or anybody else are completely wrong, as was stated by someone in an earlier post. It seems that most people's contact with Hindus tends to be mostly from Hare Krishna's. Hare Krishna's are evangelical, but that is becaus e they tend to be former Christians, and I guess that is all they know. They do not always behave inaccordance with Hinduism, particularly when it comes to evangelism. They are a very tiny offshoot of Hinduism, do not judge an entire religion by its (for lack of a better word) fringe members.

I was writing an essay about religion (actually the statement was that people did not need any religion except the natural one). I tried to find Man a Machine by Julien Offray de la Mettrie in my University Library, but I didn't find it. Fortunately I decided to browse the Internet to find this necessary source for my essay and I find it among your pages. I just needed one quatetion from this work, and it really helped me to organize my essay. I also found other great philosopher's works here. I think it was a great idea to put them all together.

The people of this earth can be divided into two groups: thinking and believing. I consider myself a thinking person, and based on your well-thought-out, literate mail responses, you all seem to be as well. We need neither the comforting shoulder of God to cry on nor the pointing finger of God to give our lives direction. If we are truly thinking people, we should not need to spread word of our beliefs across the vast electronic networks that sprawl the glope either. Except for in a few cases (on the scale of averting a Jihad), to do so is purely self-indulgent. The only feat you could hope to accomplish with your stingingly sarcastic commentaries on Christianity is the turning of gentle, harmless Christians into fervent fundmentalists. You certainly won't convert more than a few, and indubitably, these would have been straddling the fence already.

Religion serves a very important purpose in the world today. Yes, on more than one occasion, horrible atrocities have been committed in its name (one of the many it goes by). For the most part, though, it is a pillar of strength for those who carry none within themselves. To coin an overused phrase; it provides security in an insecure world. Do not try to tear faith out of these people. Do not even risk it as a possible side affect of what you may see as harmless parody.

I realize the many dangers fanatics pose. I am a scientist (or, at least, my studies lead in that direction), and I have seen the dangers of public ignorance. It pains me to say it, but I fear public awareness would be a greater evil. Be satisfied with the innate reason and strength of chacacter you have been blessed with (forgive the mannerism), and do not spread your word as so many others have done in the name of so many deities. Do not sink to their level. Let those who are ready and able achieve conciousness on their own.

I am very interested to hear a response from you on this issue. Naturally, I have many, many more thoughts on religion and an interesting personal history with it, but this letter bears what I feel is the most important of the things I have to say.

Your much learning has made you mad! Talk to Jesus yourself He is alive. I dare you to openly talk to Him. He will without a doubt answer you if your are as sincere about knowing "truth" as you say you are. He is a big God and can speak for Himself. I hope you find your way back to Jesus.

read "in defense of evolution".......if you are trying to stay "scientific"......please realize this page ( only had time to read 1 so far) is totally inaccurate and certainly does more to prove a literal Biblical creation because of it's obvious lack of ANY facts and a feeble distortion of scripture . I thought this site was to present science . I may come back to read a few more articles to see if there is ANYTHING here worthwhile , but I sure was disappointed in the guy that wrote this .

Internet Infidels Response:

I'm sorry my article disappointed you. However, you did not mention anything specific enough for me to address/redress. Any idiot can just say that a document is "totally inaccurate" and lacks "ANY facts." If you would like to be productive, please point out the specific mistakes you believe I made in my article.

Mark I. Vuletic

May the Lord have mercy on your souls and may your hearts be opened before it's too late If everyone lived a Christian life this world would be minus 95% of it's problems

You guys are providing an invaluable service and I wish you continued success and good luck in your endeavors.

I read an interesting refutation of Steven Morris' claim in hisarticle entitled "Founding Fathers Were Not Christians." It appeared as an editorial in the local newspaper and the gist was this: The original claim that the Treaty of Peace and Friendship had a line in its paragraph that stated "..the United States government is in no way found on the Christian religion.." appeared on the editorial page of Time magazine in July of 1963. This idea was then endorsed and spread as fact by a Duke University professor. The refuting writer, being a good suspicious Christian, consulted historians at US State department and had his suspicions confirmed...this was not truth, but rather fiction, albiet based on a grain of truth. The offending line "..the United States government is in no way founding on the Christian religion..." purportedly appeared years later in an extra paragraph in a translation of the Arabic version, "made by an obscure clerk." The writer goes on to give info on how to verify this. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States edited by Hunter Miller, vol 2 document i-40: 1776-1818, USGovernment Printing Office, Washington.

Thought you might find this, at the very least, interesting. Keep up the excellent work!

I am looking for a place that would hold the true facts concerning many of the common Creationist disinformation attacks. For instance, I saw again a post on the MSN Human Evolution BBS an attack that Lucy's knee joint was found a mile and a half away 20 0' into different rock. I know I saw a web site wiht a "watchdog" group that cited who made this erronious claim originalls, and the true facts concering it. I thought it was here, but i cannot now find it. Any sugestions for me?

I appreciate your web site. I especially appreciate your respectful attitude toward others who have different beliefs. I need some help. As a part of Mr. Ingersoll's arguement re. the birth account of Jesus ( I know he wrote it a long time ago, but his his material is still very useful) in Matthew and in Luke he shows that Matt. states Jesus was born when Herod was governor (king) and Luke says it was when Quirinius (Cyrenius) was governor of Syria. Mr. Ingersoll's point was that Quirinius was governor about 10 years after Herod's death....therefore the texts are in disagreement.

However, in a commentary by Paul Butler, The Gospel of Luke: College Press Printing Co. Joplin, MO 1981, Mr. Butler says:

"Recent archaeological discoveries have remarkably confirmed and illuminated Luke's record, attesting his reliability in detail.

1. A number of papyrus documents have been discovered showing that a census was made every 14 yeas and also pointing back to one taken about 9-6 B.C. Josephus shows that these "enrollments" (one in 6 A.C. specifically ) often caused rebellious uprisings Palestine and that Jewish rulers often delayed carrying out these orders of Rome as long as they could in order to placate the people. The census ordered in 9-6 B.C. in Syria was undoubtedly delayed by Herod in Palestine until 5-4 B.C. and so Lukes accuracy is verified. 2 Early historical records seemed to show that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was governor of Syria in 6 A.D., 10 years too late for the birth of Christ. However, an inscription was found in Rome in 1828 by archaeologists indicating that Quirinius was also governor in Syria in 10-7 B.C. Ramsay found a monument in Asia minor which confirmed the discovery in Rome, so Quirinius was twice governor in Syria and he was occupying this office when Agustus ordered the 1st enrollment, which is exactly what Luke says. 3. Historians found an edict made in 104 A.D. by the governor of Egypt which was under Roman rule... which showed that at the time of the census people were to return to their ancestral homes. Luke's gospel record is accurate in minute detail. The critics are wrong!"

He gives no footnotes to any of this and I don't know whether this is true or not, so I don't know how to refute it except by saying, "show me the footnotes."

I very much enjoyed your debate with Morris in which he did very poorly by any criteria. I was curious if you have ever debated Duane Gish. I have been to the ICR museum and collected a few years ago an ICR Impact #224, which must be the follow on to #178 referred to in your notes. The article so bothered me I called A. N. Strahler (Science and Earth History) who put me on to Brent Dalrymple. He didn't want to say that Austin (who I heard talk once on the age of the earth) was actually dishonest, but when you consider that Austin certainly knows what he did is not legit. When he then publishes a tract which the faithful accept as proving that radioactive dating is bogus, I think it cerainly borders on dishonesty. Of course, Austin no doubt believes it mus t be bogus as he is a young earth creationist. Thanks a lot and keep up the good work

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

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