Another note to the public from the II Secretary:
Once again, I would like to remind everyone that the rules on the Submit Feedback page are enforced quite strictly. I have had to delete several good letters from this page, including a critique of my own work that I was really disappointed to not be able to respond to. Please, pay attention to the rules when submitting feedback, if you would like your letters to be printed in the feedback section.
An open letter to Judith Hayes.
Dear Judith, I read your article on "All those Christian Presidents."
I have two questions: 1) why did you not comment on the first 150 years
of our nations history and the governments of the Colonies? That is a clearly
documented period in our history that was decidedly Christian. The founding
fathers lived in a Christian culture and did not find it necessary to build
Christianity into the founding documents. We see now what a mistake that
was.
2) Regarding your statement about James Madison: I quote: "James Madison
early on studied to become a minister, but inexplicably did not. He expressed
his indignation that people were being jailed in Virginia merely for criticizing
the Episcopal Church, t hen the established Church of Virginia. The state
laws of the time called for the death penalty for the following:
-Speaking impiously of any articles of Christianity
-Blaspheming God's name
-Incorrigible cursing"
Thank you for providing this information. It proves my thesis and disproves
yours. These laws demonstrate the Christian culture at the time.
John Edwards <jredwards@waymark.net>
USA - Sunday, November 30, 1997 at 19:25:24 (MST)
Internet Infidels' Response:
Responses to John Edwards, regarding my article, "All Those Christian Presidents:"
EDWARDS
(1) why did you not comment on the first 150 years of our nations history
and the governments of the Colonies? That is a clearly documented period
in our history that was decidedly Christian.
HAYES
Because my article was titled "All Those Christian Presidents"
not "All Those Christian Colonies." As to commenting on the Christian
colonial practices of hanging witches, using dunking stools, stocks, and
public whippings for impiety, and parading women (never men) through the
streets with a scarlet letter "A" on their chest for adultery,
perhaps I *will* comment on those things someday. My recent article was
not the place for it, though. (By the way, how can only ONE person commit
adultery??)
EDWARDS
The founding fathers lived in a Christian culture and did not find it necessary
to build Christianity into the founding documents.
HAYES
Wrong. They lived in a Christian culture and found it absolutely essential
NOT to build the new republic on it. They were aware of the various colonies'
attempts (all Christian, of course) to practice the most severe forms of
religious persecution---such as denying citizenship to anyone who was not
the correct brand of Protestant---and were determined to prevent such narrow-minded
bigotry in the new republic. Thank goodness.
EDWARDS
[quoting the HAYES' article] "...the Episcopal Church, then the established
Church of Virginia. The state laws of the time called for the death penalty
for the following:
-Speaking impiously of any articles of Christianity
-Blaspheming God's name
-Incorrigible cursing" [end quote]
Thank you for providing this information. It proves my thesis and disproves yours. These laws demonstrate the Christian culture at the time.
HAYES
They most certainly do, and if you approve of them I am so glad you were
not a Founding Father. So you would have us KILL people who say God damn
it! when they stub their toe? There seems to be so much hate bottled up
inside Christians.
Anyway, such barbaric laws in no way disprove my thesis. They actually highlight it. In trying to avoid just such hateful intolerance, the Fathers quite intentionally left Christianity out of all the founding documents. That is what I said happened, and that is what happened.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
To put it mildly, there are many, many inaccuracies in some of the things
you say about the Bible. As an example, some species of animals taken on
the ark were taken in by sevens, so there were some available for sacrifice
without killing off the species.
Carbon and other dating methods have been proven conclusively to be inaccurate
beyond 2000 years of age.
I have a question for you. You probably believe in the Big Bang Theory
of the creation of the universe. My understanding is that some super-compacted
ball of matter exploded which was the beginning of the universe. Answer
me this: where did the ball of matter come from?
I think you peopel are getting desparate, since more and more evidence
continues to come forward to show that there is indeed a design in the
universe and that everything didn't happen by chance. Tell me, can you
go outside and look at all of the different plants, animals, and people
and actually think that it all came about by accident? Get real.
Michael Shumaker, Sr. <jmshumakersr@juno.com>
Monument, Co USA - Sunday, November 30, 1997 at 06:17:06 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
I'm not Donald Morgan, but I would like to tackle a few of your comments and questions.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Judith Hays (The O'Hair Vanishing Act), should study her Bible a little more diligently. The Rapture Ms. Hays! The O'Hairs were caught up in the rapture. The only reasonable explaination don't you think? Josh M. and Pat. R. ain't going to like being left behind.
Ray Davis <rdavis@memphisonline.com>
Bartlett, Tn USA - Sunday, November 30, 1997 at 04:41:48 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap7.html
I just read your article responding to McDowell and Lewis about Jesus and the" trilemma." I haven't had alot of time to think through my response but I wanted to make some quick comments. I would guess someone like you rather enjoys hearing from visitors to your web sight.
3 unrelated comments:
1. I agree that much of Jesus' teachings were morally sound and good. If we only look at his teachings about how people should live then you could call Him a great moral teacher. However, if we look at everything He said about himself you do not have a great moral teacher. Lunatic or liar fits better.
2. For you to say that Jesus made very little claims about his divine nature and about him being God in the flesh is something I have a hard time understanding. Have you read all the gospels in their entirety? I am sure you have but you must be missing something. You quoted one verse in John about Him being one with the father. He also says "If you have seen me you have seen him who sent me. that is more than just" unity in purpose ". But there is so much more. His words before His death to the High Priest spoke of his divinity. He claimed to be able to forgive sins. He said his followers do not have to fast when the bridegroom is with them. He claimed to be the one sending the prophets and the wisemen who the people were ignoring. He claims to have been around before Abraham. The parable about the landowner who went away and kept sending servants who were killed and finally he sent his son. These are just some of the claims that speak of Jesus being divine.
3. Do you think we will be talking about Manson, Koresh, Jones etc. 2,000 years later? Will they have approx. 900 milion followers.. To compare Jesus as a possible cult religion like these earlier mentioned characters is absurd.
4. It seems to me that the best way to question the divinity of Jesus is to questions the accuracy and authenticity of the bible. That is something I will not argue about. If you think the bible is not true or accurate than so be it. But if Jesus really was an historial person and the gospels are true then I agree with Lewis and McDowell. Jesus must have been either crazy or a liar or who He said He was.
Thanks for reading. sorry I got so long winded. Hope to correspond again sometime. If you have time I'd like to hear from you.
scott torppey <storppey@safeplace.net>
wheaton, IL USA - Saturday, November 29, 1997 at 20:51:17 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jerry_borchandt/skeptic.html
Hi! I am a Gr. 11 student who believes strongly in atheism. My Christian
friend and I were debating about revolution awhile ago and I came up with
a fairly good argument. He kept asking me, "How could 1 little cell
develop into something as complex as a human eye?" And I couldn't
answer. Then, my next class, Biology, explained it! We were doing the reproductive
system. I though, "What the heck?" Evolution happens every time
someone is born!! What starts as a single egg grows up into a full-bodied
human. Now if this happens everyday, whats to stop evolution way back at
the beginning? Take a look at our children, some are growing tails, others
with a 6th finger, is not evolution still upon us and right underneath
our noses? I have yet to present this argument to my friend to see his
response, but I think that's a pretty good proof for evolution being entirely
possible.
I must confess I know little about the different arguments... and therefore
this letter may be totally bogus...
Richard Gennya <desikage@geocities.com>
Toronto, ON Canada - Thursday, November 27, 1997 at 22:31:08 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
Although your comment does show that there is nothing mysterious about natural processes governing the development of a complex organ, well-informed creationists would object that the human zygote already contains all of the information it needs in its DNA in order to guide the development of the human eye - the question they would want to ask is how that initial information could eveer arise, since our first ancestors did not have the relevant genes. So you will have to dig a little deeper. May I recommend Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable as starting points?
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alan_hale/creationist.html
The unnamed creationist with whom (he is) / (you are) embroiled seems
to cite a lot of sites, but these are not presented on your site. Until
I arrived on this feedback page, this baffled and frustrated me; now that
I've read the rules I'm less baffled but no less frustrated.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the "no urls" policy
at work here. At a guess, I'd assume it's born of some sort of technical
stress placed on your system from excessive citing of sites, but... How
can I check into the sensibility/nonsensicality of that creationist's claims,
without ready access to the web-pages he's referring to? Is there a way
around this technical problem?
Thanks for, um, well thanks anyway.
Dave Loney <DaveLone@pilot.infi.net>
Norfolk, VA USA - Thursday, November 27, 1997 at 13:46:04 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
We are in the process of investigating why the URLs do not appear. I originally thought Hale had edited them out himself to preserve the anonymity of his sparring partner, but I have not managed to verify that hypothesis. In any case, for the time being I would suggest that you either do a net search with AltaVista or use the talk.origins page of links as a springboard for searching for the relevant articles.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I briefly looked through your website and have a few comments:
You All think real freely. I am a Christian and believe I think pretty
freely as well. I very much desire there be a free exchange of truth between
Believers (In Jesus Christ) and non-believers? Every person I speak with
about God has a different belief of who or what God is, I find there is
no commonality except that everyone who thinks they know who God is does
very little with the knowledge they have. A pure athesist will not acknowledge
the possibility of the existance of God. A person who is God conscious
possesses powerful knowledge and does nothing to allow God to pursue them.
If you are pure in your belief God is still using the pursue of truth to
draw you home. Time and space and all creation are God's, please don't
let another person keep you from knowing the True and Living God.
Billy R Hamm <billy.hamm@stoneweb.com>
Atlanta, GA USA - Tuesday, November 25, 1997 at 11:27:41 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
You are mistaken about what a "pure atheist" will and will not acknowledge. It is false that an atheist will not recognize even the possibility of the existence of God. Just because an atheist lacks belief in the existence of God does not mean the atheist considers the existence of God impossible. The atheist may consider the existence of God possible, but false. There is no contradiction here.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
I am a 22 yr old, 5th year health and phys. ed. student in college. I have just completed reading an article and there seems to be some things which were overlooked.
1- There was a statement that reason is complimentary to faith and faith
was the starting point of holding to a position...
I feel logic is the starting point of holding to a position, reason allows
for discussion and research, and faith is what gives confidence as one
holds to a position
2- There was another stztement that reason could not disprove or prove the existence of God. Whether "Christians" or not, many feel logic proves the existence of God (even if the Bible had never spelled it out as clearly as some claim)
3- Why does it seem that evolving has stopped? Sure, every now and then there is a mutation, but a mutation is never beneficial. Evolution lends itself to imply that the change would provide a benefit. Usally animals with a mutation die at an early age (not very beneficial).
Is my thinking misguided??
Alfred Scotti <presbyter@hotmail.com>
Lanhorne , P.A. USA - Monday, November 24, 1997 at 18:27:15 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response #1:
1. If the evidence supports a proposition, then why is faith necessary? Do you believe that people have "faith" that the law of gravity is true? Or do they accept gravity on the basis of evidence? As Richard Dawkins writes, "If there were good supporting evidence then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway." Similarly, Robert Funk wrote:
If the evidence supports the historical accuracy of the
gospels, where is the need for faith? And if the historical reliability
of the gospels is so obvious, why have so many scholars failed to
appreciate the incontestable nature of the evidence?
2. This is not a reason to believe that a god exists. What is the evidence that a god exists?
3. You're assuming that evolution has, in fact, stopped. You're assuming that mutations are never beneficial. But can you provide any evidence for either of these assumptions?
Internet Infidels Response #2:
Regarding your second point, it's probably true that many feel that logic proves the existence of god. However, I've never seen a logical argument proving the existence of god that hasn't suffered from some sort of logical flaw when examined carefully.
Regarding your third point, there are plenty of examples of beneficial mutation. The talk.origins FAQ archive at URL:http://www.talkorigins.org will provide you with some examples. In fact, there have even been some completely new species observed in recent years.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/anthony_garrett/esct.html
My name is Alfred F. Scotti, I am a 22 year old college student who is interested in the creation vs. evolution debate. I have heard many presentations for both sides of the discussion. As I read or listen to presentations many thoughts come to mind which I am unable to share.... I value this oppurtunity. In reading through an article I found a statement which associated evolution as being complimentary to the Genesis account of creation (interesting). It seems logical to me that at the molecular level evolution is impossible. Also, through divine revelation God told man of the order of creation. God created each animal of the land, air and sea according to its own kind (Gen 1:24,25). Then God created man to name the various animals and have domi nion over them. Animals could not have evolved becuase God created tham all in one day. The original hebrew text uses the word "yohm". This means literal day, "from sunrise to sunset." Have you ever come across this fact?
Alfred Scotti <presbyter@hotmail.com>
Langhorne , P.A. USA - Monday, November 24, 1997 at 17:51:42 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robby_berry/ycomeout.html
I'm curious. If there is no God, there is no accountability to anyone
for anything. If there is no hereafter, there is no fear of having to be
accountable.
So.... Why bother with all of this? Why should you care what anyone thinks?
It is all irrelevant, isn't it?
William Pritchett <bpritch@shore.intercom.net>
Bridgeville, DE USA - Saturday, November 22, 1997 at 12:03:53 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response #1:
Actually, even if God does not exist, you are still accountable to your peers for your actions. If you doubt this, try walking into a police station with an openly displayed firearm, and announcing that you will kill everyone - if you don't have any fear of being accountable, you will soon learn to have some.
Internet Infidels Response #2:
I would add to Mark's response: I am accountable to myself -- and I hold myself to very high standards.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/email.html
Thankyou for this most interesting and useful web.
I wish to pose a (multi) question of "atheists"(in the dictionary
definition thereof i.e. disbelieving in God). That being:
Do you feel a gaping hole in your lives where 'spiritual satisfaction'goes?
How do you fill it, if indeed you feel the need at all?
Are such means induvidual for all, or are there communal rites, beleifs...?
Sorry questions are generalised, simplistic etc- having trouble expressing
thoughts. Personal philosophies welcome (preferably in summary form for
the beginner that I am).
Awaiting your correspondance,
Chloe Burnett <thebeach@ozemail.com.au>
Sydney, Australia - Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 20:03:07 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response #1:
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I'm not sure what 'spiritual satisfaction' would feel like. Some of the things I do in life satisfy me greatly -- but what would make the satisfaction spiritual? Is the spirituality a quality of the feeling, or a quality of the act which leads to the feeling?
Internet Infidels Response #2:
Talk about a "gaping hole" presupposes the validity of a belief we do not hold: theism. I suspect (though I do not know) that the only atheists who feel such a gaping hole are those who recently deconverted from religion.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/unknown/dark_bible/
what happened to your cool dark bible page????
Jeff Syrop <jeffsyrop@earthlink.net>
USA - Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 16:39:13 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
We removed it because of copyright issues.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/september.html
Mr Lowder,
Do you believe in presuppositions that govern our thought processes?
If so can you state your's? Can you state mine (I'm a theologically conservative
Christian) in a way that I would agree with?
Hans Redpath <blueside@hotmail.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 08:43:45 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html
My comments pertain to Michael Martain's..."Problems with Heaven".
First, I do not have the space in this forum to go into specific detail,
but with each comment made by him regarding his theory of heaven and it's
problems, I could explain a most concrete answer that would shed a far
greater positive light. I had to raise my eyebrow when I read his comments.
His writings projected a lack of research, and also gave me the distinct
impression that his spiritual search had either just began, or had not
yet taken place.
I have spent well over twenty years actively reading, researching and moving
forward on my personal spiritual journey, and can tell you here and now
that his concept/theory of heaven does not come close to the truth.
I have researched not only the Bible itself, but the history of the Bible,
the New Age concepts, and the extensive scientific
studies.
I feel that it's certainly OK for one to voice their opinions on any given
subject, but to "put the information out there", write a book
about it, one should take much MORE responsibility of the facts, do the
homework BEFORE filling up pages with just words.
If you would like more information, more details of this subject, I would
be happy to provide it with the appropriate avenue to do so.
Karen S. Merchant <cn4465@coastalnet.com>
Havelock, NC USA - Sunday, November 16, 1997 at 17:21:43 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
I hope you'll forgive us for taking Martin's arguments over your incredulity, since you haven't yet provided us with any reason to believe anything he has said is inaccuate. If you feel that the feedback section is not the "appropriate avenue" for counterargument that you seek, please remember that it is our policy to link up to rebuttals to specific works in the modern library - if you place a rebuttal to Martin's paper on the Web, we will be happy to link to it.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html
I must say that I was quite impressed by your dialogue.
I have, however, one problem with it, and it is nothing that will crush
you
I am sure. It is regarding Christ as a typical Mythic Hero Figure.
Although, he does follow the path closely, there is one important element
that is different. You mentioned , "a divine hero's birth is
supernaturally predicted and conceived. . . ." I am not so sure that
I can
agree here. A hero is usually introduced as a normal, everyday person,
who
is transformed through a quest that has been set off by a change in his/her
life. While, most of that statement holds true, how can you account for
the predictions?
It seems that much of your knowledge of myths reflects those beliefs
of the foremost mythologian of our time, Joseph Campbell. Are his ideas
in
agreement with yours? I know that he considers Jesus a hero. Maybe, I am
\
just wondering if there is a corrolary in the hero archetype for the Divine.
Joseph Ruggieri <tkarman913@aol.com>
Evans City, PA USA - Sunday, November 16, 1997 at 13:18:45 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/email.html
Thank you all for letting me respond to Dr. Gorski's article "Can the Bible God Support an Absolute Morality?" By supposing that God is omnipotent, as the author attempted to do in writing the article, he immediately forgot that principle. In claim ing to be supposing that God is all-powerful, he doubts the very likeness of that in his title. I was surprised by this.
The author also makes a doubting argument concerning God's will. He
wisely questions his Superior's motives, but forgot a unique characteristic
about the Bible's God: He's unchanging (James 1:17), a characteristic that
humans don't understand.
Have you ever eaten in a restaurant where you never met the cook? Flown
in an airplane, and never met the pilot? It's not uncommon for humans to
put faith in the things we don't see. You're reading this, but have never
met Bill Gates. The author also seems to put a lot of trust in the inadequacy
of dead men (or women or its) that are not perfect (I can't think of one.
Can you?)and that he can't see (boy, that's difficult!! Or is it?).
The doubting of God's power and ignoring his unchanging quality were
the downfall of this article. This shows that you don't need to be an M.D.
to talk about Truth.
P.S. My thanks to Jesus Christ, the Savior of all whether they like it
or not, and for His forgiveness of my inadequacies.
Brad Michalak <B-Michalak@neiu.edu>
Arlington Heights, IL USA - Thursday, November 13, 1997 at 16:20:42 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
Re: the following passage from "Bible Absurdities":
"LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go
around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs,
and all insects have six legs.)"
Correction: not all insects have six legs -- the taxonomic category Insectae
includes the arthropods, such as lobsters and spiders, all of which are
eight-legged. Six-legged insects -- admittedly the best-known sub-class
of insects -- fall under the tax onomic category Hexapodae.
Karl Jones <hero@skypoint.com>
Minneapolis, MN USA - Wednesday, November 12, 1997 at 06:31:17 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Why waste your time with this foolish "Evidentialism".Why
not give Van Tilian "Presuppostional Apologetics" a shot.As a
Calvinist I would hold the position that Josh is all wet,and his form of
apologetics is unbiblical and undermines the Absolute Sovereignty of God.
But nevertheless,due to the total depravity of man you folks can not within
your own reasoning ability conclude the truth of God.You have shown me
proof that you "Suppress" the truth,as the 1st chapter of Romans
tells us.
Christopher M. DiDonna <CMDiDonna@aol.com>
Lisbon, Me USA - Tuesday, November 11, 1997 at 20:51:43 (MST).
Internet Infidels Response:
Actually, we have given presuppositionalism attention. Michael Martin has written about the transcendental argument, and participated in three written debates/correspondences on the subject.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/
Heres a random (I mean -really- random) dissertation I had with my self.
Could you all critique it (Besides my english, I know about that, its the
arguements I need critiqued.). Much thanks.
I am a student. I am only a student. I have been given only the authority
due to a 17 year old student who works as a janitor. I like life. I like
money. People are nice. Friends are nice people. Best friends are great
friends. All this means that best f riends are great nice nice people.
Dont let it go to your head. Its posionous. Note: Mercury looks cool, but
you should not ingest it, as it will be absorbed by your mouth and esophagous
lining and damage your brain. Brains are good. Brains are not everyt hing.
If brains were everything, then computers would have superseded humans
in the past five years. So; there must be som[e]thing else. Bingo: a soul.
Soul is to body as mind is to spirit. spirit soul body. animals have bodies.
animals have brains. anima ls have no soul. animals are beasts. when man
gets greedy, man loses his soul. when man loses his soul, he becomes a
beast. a smart beast; a cunning beast; but only a beast. Save your soul,
lose your life. Eternity is forever. Forever. Neverending. Everla sting,
infinite. Capiche? Note: Life is meaningless without an afterlife. So,
what do you live for. I live for a cause. the cause of [more]. my soul
is lost. I am a beast. I go to college to find a way out. to end the quest
for meaning for respite from th e insanity. to listen to acid rock all
night long and find out that god is not music, not money, not possessions,
not relationships, not me. I am not God. God is bigger than all that. God
lives above all and throughout all, but only God is god. God is all powerful,
all knowing and all seeing. Gods ways are not our ways, Gods ways are above
our ways. We must do his will in order to succeed in life. Fear of death
is not existant for one who looks to the next life. nothing can harm such
a person. not bullets not horrors not words. they have a hope beyond all
other hopes a knowledge that supersedes all other knowledge. that is the
knowledge of God and who God is and what God is and what they are and why
they are and where they will be after death. So one shou ld not seek anything
on earth for everything on earth will dissappear, atoms destroyed into
a vapourous haze. only spirit, soul shall live on. Beasts will die. Lost
men will die. The ones who know and who follow will live. True Freedom.
God. Is. ONE. Reme mber that.
Darco Remulant <darco@sj.bigger.net>
USA - Tuesday, November 11, 1997 at 05:03:46 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
Love the page, I can't say much else. I set it up so that every time I turn on my computer The Secular Web is the first thing that I see. Thanks to your page, I have been able to contact other Atheist/Freethought organizations, and I have been able to set up my own on my college campus. Thanks alot, a keep fighting the good fight.
Scott Palmer <scpalmer@mtu.edu>
Houghton, MI USA - Monday, November 10, 1997 at 20:31:50 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/feedback.html
Robert Price's rejoinder to Josh McDowell's "Evidence that D emands
a Verdict" (Chapter 6) would be stronger if he would cite specific
examples, rather than merely criticize McDowell's style, make generalizations
about Christian apologists, and make unproveable claims.
For example, Price says, "McDowell is preaching to the converted."
This is really a critique of the book's tone, and is impossible to prove.
Nowhere did Price give a supporting example.
I cannot defend every apologist. Surely some of what Price says is valid,
such as when he charges Christians with being unwilling to consider other
points of view. As for myself, all I can try to do--as I claim that Christ
is the Son of God and Savior o f the world--is to seek to be fair and consider
what people with other world views have to say.
Thanks,
Stephen Walker
Systems Analyst
Stephen Walker <Fonologist@aol.com>
Austin, TX USA - Monday, November 10, 1997 at 15:48:33 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Dear Infidels, (Ha! Sounds hysterical!)
I posted a reply here yesterday regarding your Common Questions Webpages
and realised an error I made in the number I had referenced to the number
of chapters in the KJV Bible.
I was mentioning an amazing relationship of a unique verse of Psalms 118.8
and that the number of chapters of the KJV Bible is 1188. The number of
chapters in the KJV is 1189. I forgot to mention that 1188 excludes the
Psalms 118 chapter itself.
A simpler method is to consider the entire collection of chapters, 1189.
There are 594 chapters before the Psalms 117 "chapter" and 594
chapters after it, comprising a total of 1189, including the 595th chapter,
Psalms 117, which is also incidentally the shortest chapter in the KJV.
Psalms 118 is in the middle of Psalms 117 and Psalms 119, Psalms 119 being
the longest "chapter. The shortest chapter in the Bible and the central
one of the entire Book, has a striking significance of its own:
O praise the Lord all ye nations; praise Him all ye people. For His merciful
kindness is great towards us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.
Psalms 117:1,2
If one writes down in figures Psalm 118, verse 8, and puts these numbers
side by side, they become 1188, which is the number of chapters in the
Bible, besides the one that contains the remarkable verse Psalms 118.8,
as I called attention to in the origina l posting to your mail. This, the
middle verse of the KJV, is the 8th verse of the 118th Psalm is the middle
verse of the entire book.
I realise Martin Gardner (a.k.a. Dr. Matrix) and others have written some
amusing material on "patterns" and "co-incidences"
that "beg the question" in my opinion regarding what is "statistically
relevant" or not. Lunatics are "experts" at discovering
all sorts of patterns with "significance", after all! But on
the same point, lunatics can also become blind to any significance at all.
I don't believe this is a case of a lunatic delusion though! Perhaps the
disregard of it can also be construed as a form of delusion? Eccentricity
surely depends on precisely "where lies the center" it would
seem! ;->
The important thing is that nobody is ever tortured or killed or persecuted
for their beliefs of "where that center" lies. I speak figuratively,
of course. Yet there are "modern inquisitions" taking place today
at both ends of the spectrum, the religious right wishing to impose its
"holy will" and legislate away opposition. And there are those
of the "opposite" extreme who take up intellectual opposition
and crusade in anti-religious movements, in their particular brand of a
secular, humanistic inquisitio n, opposing beliefs in the Supernatural
or Spiritual Dimension, etc. The truth, as usual lies paradoxically, like
a wave and a point, at neither end, and both and somewhere in between and
all at once, it seems! AH! Life is so scintillating!
It's my opinion that the unique "position" of such a verse and
the specific "meaning" of the verse in question is quite remarkable.
I'll leave it at that.
Cheers,
David d'apollonia
archive@netcom.ca
David d'Apollonia <archive@netcom.ca>
Dartmouth, NS Canada - Monday, November 10, 1997 at 09:07:29 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
Overall your project is very successful. Unfortunately, one of the weakest moments co mes right up front in Chapter 1, in the "Unique in Its Continuity" section. Farrell Till cites a few examples of inconsistency in the biblical narrative, then begs off of giving more of the "hundreds of known examples" for lack of space or time or someth ing. Such a copout is not helpful to me, the sympathetic non-expert. But the Believer would be justified in calling this a thin attempt to cover up a lack of real arguments. Please don't refer to arguments without giving at least a brief citation.
Stan Polanski <polanski@drake.dnet.net>
Franklin, NC USA - Friday, November 07, 1997 at 17:05:13 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
I just had to take a moment and let you know what a BLESSING this web site is. Every once in a while, in my quest for s elf-induced torment, I watch a little late night TBN. It reassures me when I have doubts about how sincere Christians are. Tonight the 'special' is "Send $2000 and get out of debt!" No shit. Keep up the good work!
Mike Roberts <mrob@shoalsnet.com>
Florence, AL USA - Friday, November 07, 1997 at 01:49:54 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1997/
Why is it that the "American Atheist" organization invites other atheist organizations to link to them b ut refuses to link to any other atheist groups. I think we should all ask them why they are so one sided in these matters. Of course its hard to run off with the money if your wide open isn't it? As an Atheist and a past member of their group for 20 year s, I can tell you for sure that they are still controlled by the O'hairs. Nothing has changed. Not even their resentment of compitition from other atheist groups. If they really want to be a leader for atheist they should link to the atheist community of web sites! Many of the members they had in Austin, now have joined local atheist groups here. The "Atheist Communith if Austin" is one such group. Let me tell you, they are much more open and rewarding then the O'hair group ever thought of being. I have j oined it myself. We are like one big happy friendship club!
Keith Berka <AAFAB@hotmail.com>
Austin, Tx USA - Thursday, November 06, 1997 at 19:45:28 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
I don't speak for American Atheists, and won't attempt to do so. All I can say is that American Atheists has been asked repeatedly to link to other sites, and has yet to do so.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
One question. Doesn't the law of biogensis state that life can only
come from life? No matter how simple or complex. Therefore if this law
is scientific truth all the very first life had to come from another living
entity.
Yes or No? And if yes, then why could not the creator of that first life
be called God?
Count Stan Jankaitis III <gabrial@prolog.net>
Shenandoah, pa USA - Wednesday, November 05, 1997 at 13:40:09 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
Forgive me for recycling, but I am going to quote from my CEFEC:
Creationists represent biogenesis as a rigid law with universal scope, when, in reality, it is merely a guideline that amounts to saying that spontaneous generation (the assembly of fully formed organisms out of inanimate material in short periods of time by purely natural processes) does not occur. The slow, stepwise process of prebiotic synthesis and the all-at-once process of spontaneous generation are not comparable. The creationist claim that the "law" of biogenesis precludes prebiotic synthesis is analogous to the obviously false assertion that quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity are invalid because they "violate" Newton's physical laws.
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.atheism.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/
Hello,
I'd be thankful if you could help me please with a query of mine:
Has the Torah any serious textual variants or
is it just a case of orthography as some of my faith-ful friends tell me
? -
beholden,
Afzal Hussain
Afzal Hussain <mfnx3ah1@fs1.art.man.ac.uk>
Manchester, UK - Wednesday, November 05, 1997 at 07:58:28 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/
In 1989, while a guest in the home of well educated scion of one of
Pakistan's principal business families, I beca me tangently acquainted
with a body of Islamic literature, mainly late 19th century up to WWII,
which articulated gracefully an accommodation of Islam to both "western
science" and "western values".
Since the Islamic revolution in Iran, it appears that western scholars
have overly dwelt on the fundamentalism in modern Islam to the exclusion
of the more secular philosphy that was reflected not only in the direction
that Kemal Attaturk pointed Turkey, but also which Jinnah intimated in
his hopes for Pakistn.
Is there a website which focuses on this body of "liberal" Muslin
literature, and continues its advocacy today?
Aldine. J. Coffman <pdcoffman@earthlink.net>
Cherry Hills Village, CO USA - Tuesday, November 04, 1997 at 21:25:35 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the_fool/late.html
GAUNILO II
IT SEEMS TO BE THAT YOU SHOULD SPEND MORE TIME IN GODS WORK SEEING WHAT
IT
SEEING WHAT IT HAS TO SAY ABOUT PEOPLE THAT CALL OTHERS FOOL. AND WHAT
THE
WORD HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE END TIMES. IF YOU HAVE EVER PICKED UP A BIBLE?
rich barker <barcom@jcn1.com>
farmington, mo USA - Tuesday, November 04, 1997 at 21:23:54 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/2/
Greetings.
Just want to say what an excellent site the skeptical review is.
I've been brought up in the fundamentalist "bible believing , spirit
filled" sort of church on putting my thinking cap found a fair few
problems with what I believed.
it was very hard at first - quite obviously changin the basis of ones life
tends to be!!
This page is excellent. A reasonable debate on issues of importance to
me - esp. the biblical one. I'm finding it very helpful and construvctive.
Thanks,
Simon
Simon Rushton <s.p.rushton@ncl.ac.uk>
Newcastle, Britain - Tuesday, November 04, 1997 at 08:37:40 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/frame.html
Are you amazon.com "sub bookstore?" How do I get my hist.religious
book to sell th ru you? Do you sell audiotapes?What kind of stats are there
for this subject?How much do you charge for me to advertise my link? Thanks
bob hughs <hughs@world-net.net>
san ant., tx USA - Monday, November 03, 1997 at 23:37:41 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/discussion/book/
Just found your site, and look forward to going through it when I have
the time.
You asked for book recommendations, and I thought mine might fit well onyour
site, but I keep getting a form error.
Here's the info:
The Bible Tells Me So : Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture
by Jim Hill, Rand Cheadle
Publication date: January 1, 1996
ISBN: 0385476957
Thanks.
jhsf@hotmail.com
Jim Hill <jhsf@hotmail.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Monday, November 03, 1997 at 16:05:31 (MST)
I like the idea of this sort of open forum, as long as political correctness
is'nt taken to silly extremes.Re:(re:bible codes).
Please be assured that the reference to Mr.Bill Gates was not a personal
comment
but the result of 'research' undertaken as part of a challenge given by
the author
of the Bible Codes.The result seemingly obtained from the classic Mobey
Dick.The validity
of the completed challenge is for mathmaticians to look at and was not
in my remit-I merely found it highly amusing!! So may I repeat, has any
maths boffin out there
thought of applying anti-chaos theory to the random sequencing of letters
as used
for instance,in the so-called Bible Codes.Could the strange attractors
make the leap to direct translation
from any literary source ?
stephen evans <stephen.evans2@virgin.net>
dolgellau, gwynedd Wales. UK - Monday, November 03, 1997 at 11:03:58 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/ring/
I'd just like a few questions answered. Upfront I will identify myself
as a
a Biblical Christian who came to his belief after an exhaustive study
of humanism and many other religions. My belief comes from the historicity
and reliability of the Bible and the Resurrection of the Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ. (For further study on this topic, one should not be
without a copy of Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict.")
If a humanist only believes in that which is testable and rational, how
can
one believe anything in history? Without eyewitness accounts of history
who is to say the American Revolution ever took place? or that the Declaration
of Independence is valid? or for that matter the Humanist Manifesto is
real
from a person's viewpoint in 100 years?
The Bible is the most accurate written eyewitness accounts of the greatest
miracle in God's history.
Why do humanists still believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? Even the
secular scientists of today can not say with any accuracy that evolution
is how humans came to be and Darwin himself said that his writings were
merely a theory, not fact. All Darwin proved was natural selection. Any
idiot can figure that out! That certainly doesn't disprove God.
Why do humanists put feminist rights at the forefront? What is wrong with
the male counterpart? Even the Bible says, "Neither Jew nor Greek,
male nor
female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." We should, and are in
the eyes
of the Lord equal.
If humanists are clamoring for freedom of speech, how come they put down
others who believe in the Judeo-Christian view on homosexuality? or
abortion? Is it freedom of speech for those who speak as I like
for a humanist? Even Montesquieu was quoted as saying, "I may
disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your
right to say it."
Why did the Center for Freedom of Thought oppose the construction of
a Creation Museum in Kentucky? Doesn't sound like they were for
freedom of thought for others who thought other than them.
Just a few questions I was wondering about. A thoughtful. polite response
would be appreciated.
Steve Lindsay <slindsay@juno.com>
Clearwater, fl USA - Saturday, November 01, 1997 at 19:31:11 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
Regarding how we can believe in history, when it isn't testable: Actually, a lot of history *is* testable. We believe the American Revolution took place because there's a lot of documentary evidence to prove that it did -- not just eyewitness accounts. Furthermore, the degree of proof required depends upon the claim. The American Revolution was not miraculous, so ordinary levels of proof are sufficient. "Historical" stories about Atlantis or the Bermuda Triangle are more unbelievable, and hence tend not to be accepted by many historians in the absence of strong evidence. You say yourself that the Bible describes the greatest miracle in human history -- and that is why it requires such exceptional standards ofproof.
Why do humanists believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? Well, basically they don't, any more than modern physicists believe in Newton's laws of motion. Evolutionary theories have been refined a great deal over the years; in many areas, modern evolutionary theory is completely different to that described by Darwin.
Einstein said that his Special Relativity was a theory. Nevertheless, it was later proven to be fact. That's how science works -- just because something was once purely theory, does not mean that it is pure theory forever. There is now in addition a great deal of scientific evidence proving the truth of many theories of genetics, biology and evolution.
I'm not sure which humanists you refer to when you talk of putting women's rights at the forefront. Personally, I'm committed to equality.
Regarding your freedom of speech comment: Freedom of speech does not mean that you have freedom from beingcriticized, put down, or subjected to sarcasm or even outright abuse. Those who try to justify their own hatred of homosexuals by pointing at quotes from sections of the Bible which they do not themselves obey, are quite deserving of ridicule.
I have no comment on the "Creation Museum", as I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the case.
This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap5.html
I think the article on the opening page was ex cellent. It was not a
copout to conclude that the resurrection is both credible and incredible.
It is also key to note that Christianity stands or falls on the physical
resurrection of Jesus. Christianity is an announcement long before it became
part of a propositional creed or abstract doctrine.
I should like to raise two issues. First, while I believe in the resurrection
for several reasons, Pascal's comment that the heart has its reasons of
which reason knows nothing. We are only now emerging from the rationalism
os the previous three centurie s. The question of the resurrection, once
some hears or sees the announcement engages the mind, the memory, the emotions,
the sense of aesthetics and all of the experiences that shaped an individual's
personality. To say "yes" to the announcement, I belie ve, also
requires the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
Second, I believe in the physical and material resurrection of Jesus, but
I am not sure what "matter" means today.
I enjoyed your reflection very much.
Leon McKenzie <leemck@compuserve.com>
Greenwood, IN USA - Saturday, November 01, 1997 at 19:22:10 (MST)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/
Re: Your position on the Boy Scouts of America and other organizations
that "discriminate" based on a belief in God.
If you don't like the requirement------DON'T JOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are trying to deny my right to associate with other individuals who
share my beliefs, guaranteed by the US Constitution. There is no "right"
to join the Boy Scouts or any other organization.
John Marston <jbmarston@juno.com>
Chino Hills, CA USA - Saturday, November 01, 1997 at 10:25:09 (MST)
Internet Infidels Response:
The First Amendment requires separation of church and state. If the BSA doesn't like THAT requirement, then it should not have any Troops or Explorer Posts sponsored by government organizations.
Contrary to your assertions, we are not trying to deny your right to associate with others who share your beliefs. Allowing atheists and Wiccans to join the BSA does not mean that suddenly everybody else in the BSA disappears. We would just like to the BSA honor Scouting founder Lord Baden-Powell's intentions and allow ALL BOYS to join.
Happy Holidays,
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
