Infidels: Feedback : 1999 : October

Mark Vuletic on Vacuum Fluctuations

I remember that the first suggestion I saw that the universe might be a vacuum fluctuation came from Ed Tryon, who wrote a memorable article, "Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?" in Nature sometime in 1973. I was so impressed I clipped the article but of course I've now lost it. Paul Davies refers to this in New Scientist, "The Day Time Began," 27 Apr 1996 [see web version] I'm still looking for Tryon's original piece and if I find it I'll let you know.

Richard Lubbock < rlubbock@sympatico.ca
Toronto, ON Canada - Monday, October 11, 1999 at 11:52:57 (MDT)

Mark Vuletic responds:

Dear Mr. Lubbock,

Thank you for the pointers to the new references. Tryon's paper is anthologized in John Leslie's Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, but I just haven't managed to incorporate it into my list yet.

James Still on the Universe

Is not Goedel's Theorem relevant to the question as to whether man can prove or know that god exists? Since man is a part of the "system" that is made up of everything in the phenomenal universe, isn't he, according to that theorem unable to have knowledge about anything "outside" of that system such as any god?

Roy E. Overmann <reover@juno.com
St. Louis, Mo USA - Thursday, October 14, 1999 at 15:22:21 (MDT)

James Still responds:

I would argue that, just as it is meaningless to speak of what is "north" of the North Pole, so too is it meaningless to speak of what is "outside" of the phenomenal/natural world.

Goedel's Theorem is a demonstration that the consistency of a sufficiently complex language (including mathematics or logic or ordinary languages) cannot be proven. That is all it consists of. This has nothing to do with empirical claims or proofs, or with questions of what exists. The fact that we cannot prove the consistency of any language used to describe what exists does not tell us that we cannot know things about what exists. Indeed, Goedel's theorem is little more than a proof of the same uncertainty that attends all knowledge, applied to our knowledge of only one thing: the consistency of language. So your point does not follow from anything Goedel argued.

Epp Jamieson on the Christian Coalition

Your prediction that the coalition would continue to try to censor the internet is, I believe, correct. Religious leaders must be desperate to cut off a technology with such monumental potential. I likewise agree with your views concerning the inhumane society that would ensue were the coalition and its supporters to have its way with goverment. I already find the lack of due respect for children in this country in schools and other government institutions reprehensible, and cannot even bear to consider what it would be like to live in America if the religious zealouts were in control. The intentions are clear: Keep the poor on their knees, indoctrinate the children and before we know it, society will be enslaved under the yoke of Christian dictators. Women and children must go down!

M Cantrell <thor@thevision.net
CA USA - Tuesday, October 12, 1999 at 15:13:24 (MDT)

Farrell Till on Possession of the Promised Land

Dear Mr. Farrel,

I think you have misread all those Bible verses you made as your arsenal to attack the Scripture:

• First of all, Yahweh is not a tribal god, He is the God of the whole Universe
  
• Second, it is very clear in the Bible that Yahweh made a covenant with his people, the Israelites. And a covenant is not a one way agreement, it is mutual, when Yahweh stated that "You shall destroy the inhabitants of the Promised Land etc" He was stating His part of the agreement, please read the verses in their complete format.
• Third, the Bible said "Joshua did everything Yahweh told Moses His servant to do" this refers to Yahweh's command to Moses to utterly destroy the inhabitants of the Promised Land. It does not mean that Yahweh told Moses to take possession of the whole land, of course Yahweh wanted the Israelites to take possession of the whole land, but it's up to them to take it. Yahweh had made ready the land to be taken, He did not want to keep feeding the Israelites like babies.
• Fourth, it is to be understood that God could create the whole universe in any span of time He wanted, but He chose to create the earth (and here the earth is emphasized) in six days, because:
  - The earth is where God put his latest image, man
  - God gave a role model for the observance of Sabbath (thus, the Israelites work for six days, and rest in the seven day) the very observance of Sabbath itself is the acknowledgement of why we worship God, because He is the Creator.
• Fifth, it is also to be understood that miracles happen in the Bible, and more than often, God does miracle in symbolism, and even in seemingly impossible ways. The mention of genetical science explaining the colors of the cattle of Jacob does not discredit the Bible, and it does not enhance the miracle. It is just that, God did miracles using symbolism.
• Sixth, the "morning stars" are not stars in literal meaning, they are titles designated for the angels ("Sons of God") this is one way Hebrew writers mentioned angels.
• Seventh, it is also useless mentioning how light is electromagnetic bla bla bla. Please understand that God is not limited by any limitation, and He is beyond dimensions. He can do anything He wants, and we should be grateful He does things which are good for us. And the Bible clearly state that God is the Light of the World.
• Eighth, the day mentioned in the Genesis does not specifically refer to the day of the earth, in the Bible there are instances mentioning that the heavenly realms have their own system of days bla bla bla.
• Ninth, please understand that God values oath and covenant very much. That's why He went on punishing the Israelites whenever they went astray, He promised to them that He would bless them if they live according to his rules and commandments, but He also promised them He would punish them if they break their part of the covenant (that is, to be faithful to God and keep his commandments).

Farrell Till on the "Error" of Balaam

This is in response to the article critical of the Bible's treatment of Balaam.

It's a nice strawman, but it fails in several areas. I'm NOT going to try to capture all of it, but instead focus on a SINGLE point since I don't type really fast.

One of the most important messages of the Bible is that God judges the HEART. You'll find that statement littered throughout the old and new testaments.

Note also that the book of numbers is a historical account which provides no real insight into Balaam's thought process (his heart). Having said that, we can see that Balak was truly desirous of receiving the honor and riches offered by Balak, to the point of disobedience to the God he claimed allegance to. I offer up for evidence:

1. Num 22:12 "And God said to Balaam 'You shall not go with them. You shall not curse the people, for they are blessed'"

2. After Balak's second attempt to get Balaam to come, God gives Balaam permission to go. What Balaam is thinking or hoping, the Bible does not reveal, but whatever it was aroused God's anger, and you have the incident with the Angel of the Lord (this usage always means an appearance of God) and a talking donkey. God's words to Balaam at this point are "...your way is perverse before me." (Numbers 22:32)

3. Yet after this he does receive God's permission to continue toward his meeting with Balak. He attempts to curse Israel three times, and each time God turns it into a blessing. The second time God himself inclues a scold: "God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent (change his mind)" (Numbers 23:19)

4. Yet even after this Balaam again attempts to fulfill his agreement with Balak. This in itself is an outward demonstration of Balak's heart, although again I would point out that as a historical account there is no revelation of Balaam's thought process.

5. Finally, in Numbers 31:16 we have a statement that reveals that Balaam did indeed give advice to the Midianites: "...these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord."

6. Further references to Balaam in Joshua 24:9-10 clearly indicate that it was Balaam's desire to curse the Israelites, but God did not permit it.

In summary, my point is that as humans, having finite understanding, we ourselves cannot see the depths of the human soul. Without the outward symptoms of greed blatantly displayed, we don't know the greed exists. Or envy. Or murderous anger. Etcetera. Yet when the manifestations, such as murder, are splashed before us on the headlines, how often we read the accounts of neighbors and acquaintances such as "He seemed like such a nice man." God, however, Judges the heart, and reveals the results as he chooses. Reading the bible without accepting this tenet will most certainly result in the fallacy put forward in this article.

Now, since you've opened up the ol' can o' worms about the Balaam story, why not make your next article about which of the prophesies in the latter half of Numbers 24 were never fulfilled - if you can. (Hint: This is an area where biblical consistency can readily be demonstrated.)

In Jesus Love,

Glen Collins <gcollins@iol7.com>
Spring Valley, CA USA - Saturday, October 30, 1999 at 16:50:20 (MDT)

Farrell Till on Dr. Price and Jeremiah

To whom this may concern,
My name is Jessi and I'm an 18 year old undergrad. As I read the article concerning Dr. Price's claims of the fulfillment of the prophecies of Jeremiah, I found myself startled that the Masoretic and Septuagint contained so many discrepancies. I don't know that I'm speaking from a particularly informed position, but unless I'm totally off-base, I was under the impression that the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the original Hebrew scriptures (unduly named, supposedly done in 7 places, by some factor of 7 translators, etc.) was done in Alexandria by The Seleucids and Ptolemies, under the pretense of providing Greek speaking Jews with a text they could read, but was possibly changed in attempt to Hellenize reluctant Jews (in such a manner that the scriptures could pertain to either Yahweh or Zeus; for example: in the Septuagint, the firmament discussed in Genesis was interpretted to mean "rigid sky", which upheld ideas of Zeus, believed to be lord of the sky). Anyway, I understood the Masoretic text to be the attempt of orthodox Jews to reestablish the scriptures as they had read prior to this change, thus the discrepancies. I am thoroughly interested in this subject, and any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Jessi Nippert <jessin52@hotmail.com >
Arlington, TX USA - Monday, October 25, 1999 at 19:18:05 (MDT)

Farrell Till on Who's to Blame?

Regarding the "Who's to Blame?" article, I find it somewhat ironic that you would even display the free speech online blue ribbon campaign banner on your web page, since you are so quick to discount the freedoms of Christians.

No where in the New Testament does it give license to kill, abuse, or any other form of violence towards any other person. Christ said love your neighbor as yourself, and if a man were to smite you on the cheek, turn and offer him the other. The Old Testament is not applicable to Christians and never has been. If the Old Testament were in fact applicable to us, we would have to stone our children if they disobeyed us three times. If religious institutions still adhere to the Old Testament and the law, then they are in err. It says in the New Testament not to mingle the two, and that Christ had fulfilled the requirements of the law in his death and resurrection. You making such a broad generalization about Christians is no different than what you are accusing them of doing.

As a practicing libertarian, your type of speech scares me as much as those who would have us live in a theocracy.

steve w <stwitter@earthlink.net >
USA - Saturday, October 30, 1999 at 16:22:44 (MDT)

Farrel Till on Leaning Over Backwards for God

We have a new covenet with God after Jesus died for our sins so that all that accept His death for our sins and accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour shall be saved. The blood of Jesus made it so we are NOT under the old law of the Old Testament :)

Juanita Dunes
Peoria, IL USA - Friday, October 22, 1999 at 00:33:47 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

This is a popular retort. I wonder if those who believe this also oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and courtrooms--if, after all, the Old Covenant does not apply to us, then the Ten Commandments, being of the Old Covenant, don't apply either. And while we're at it, why revere the Old Testament at all? Why include it in Bibles if it is obsolete? Of course, its obsolescence does not take away what we see here: if this is the wisdom of God in ancient days, it is just as much an indictment against his sense of decency as if it were still binding--unless we allow that God grew up and changed his mind, but then where is his apology for his unkind failures of the past? Doesn't it make more sense that the Bible, as the product of men, grew up with those men? For even the New Testament is 2000 years obsolete--it contains the wisdom of primitives by comparison with all the progress we have made since.

The difference is that the Bible says in I Corinthians 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. for it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

As for the descrepencies in the Word, the Bible says we see things darkly now but when we get to heaven, all will be clear. The Holy Spirit shows me what I don't understand now :)

Now I believe the Word. Jesus is my LORD and Saviour. I have experienced miracle healings and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit took me through the Bible from front to back and showed me things that I could never understand on my own. It is marvelous to call on Jesus and have my need answered before I have a chance to ask.

If anyone doesn't have Jesus for their Lord and saviour, why are they so caught up in disproving the Bible? Believe me, I stay away from things that I don't believe in. But, I do know that there is a space in our heart that only Jesus can fill. I believe that people are always trying to find ways to fill that space in other ways. If a person doesn't believe in Jesus and the Lord God Almighty, our creator, why this web site? Why not get on with your life? Sorry, no spell rite :)

Juanita Dunes
Peoria, IL USA - Friday, October 22, 1999 at 00:29:19 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

The compassionate will pardon us for not having extra-sensory perception. I cannot truck with a deity that deliberately blinds me or boasts of fooling the intelligent. And promisses of heavenly enlightenment after death are empty when there is no capital to back them up. I can see nothing that assures that my personality will survive the dissolution of my brain and thus I have no more confidence in your assertions that faith will secure me a front-row seat in God's lecture hall when I'm dead, than I do in Jesus' promise that faith will render me immune to poison (Mark 16:18). It is you, or those of your creed, who entangle us in disproving the Bible, by daring us to do so, and declaring that we are fools because we cannot, or are too closed minded to at least check. In my opinion, your bewilderment should shame you, for whereas you say you stay away from things that you don't believe in, we study and seek to test and understand them--how else can we claim to be qualified to disbelieve in them? Your attitude is closed minded, ours is open minded--you disbelieve simply because you refuse to challenge your beliefs. We disbelieve because we challenged all our beliefs and found all of them wanting but one: Secular Humanism.

The purpose of this website is to answer the questions of people of all faiths, to help fellow freethinkers research and study all questions of religion by providing an otherwise missing side of the story, to test and explore our own beliefs, and above all to challenge the lies, deceptions, and errors of a wealthier, more influential, and sometimes dangerous group of people who try to turn people toward superstitions and evils, and thus threaten to drag our society backward and downward into ruin.

Ideology is at the heart of all motivation and planning. If we are to preserve what we hold dear--equal rights, liberty, decency, compassion, reasonableness, science, and all the good things we need--then we must fight against all ideologies that would undermine them, and defend those that preserve them. Insofar as certain Christian creeds support these things, we do not oppose them. But any degree of superstition, and above all any belief that the word or desires of God can justify any crime, or that the interests of mankind are not first and without exception, is a threat to all that is good. Even if they defend the good today, these ideologies contain the seeds of destruction, the infamous "god said so" exception to all moral decency and compassion. We will forever oppose this threat.

Farrell Till on a Biblical Anachronism

"Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the *priest* of Mid'ian; and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. "

This was before moses returned to Egypt, long before freeing the Jews or reaching the mountain.

David Heighton <dheighto@hotmail.com >
Dayton, OH USA - Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 19:25:06 (MDT)

Kenneth E. Nahigian on "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?"

This is pertaining to the Prophecy found in the book of Isaiah with regards to Jesus. First of all I am a Jehovah's witness and Only worship Jehovah, but believe in the ransom sacrafice of Jehovah's son Jesus. That prophecy recorded in Isaiah does pertain to Jesus. True his parents never named [him] Immanuel but that name meant God is with us and Jesus being called the word was Jehovah's mouthpiece. Immanuel was a Prophetic name. He was also call Prince of peace and Eternal father,which trinitarians like to use to show that Jesus was God. But that's out of context considering that Adam was called our father and he lost our hope of everlasting life so how appropiate that Jesus is called that because he got it back.

But a Messiah was to show up in the year he did and the Jews back then knew and where looking for it. But because he didn't fullfill their expectations was impaled by both the jewish religious leaders and political ones. Jesus was said to come from the line of David and nobody back then ever denied his lineage. But since Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 C.E there is no way for the Jews to prove a Messiah nowadays. And I think it's to late. They are not even looking for it. We are living in what the bible calls the last days. Make no mistake about it scores of prophecy have been fullfilled and actually there are only a few left. If your interested in knowing them write back. Gotta go.
Tambita Polanski <Tambita@aol.com>
chgo, il USA - Thursday, October 14, 1999 at 20:54:09 (MDT)

Farrell Till on Prophecy

I am so sorry that you are not experiencing God's best & perfect plan for your life, He loves you just where you are but loves you too much to let stay there. I am Blessed that I am sure that I will spend eternity in Heaven & pray that you will be moved to stop thinking that you, a mere mortal could possibly know more than God by beleving that His Word isn't the TRUTH, which is the only truth in this world. Jesus as your personal Savior, with His indwelling Spirit, is the most Blessed way to live here on earth & pray you will find Him as your Lord of your life & let Him set you free! Praise God & may He Bless you!

Amie Stewart <amiestew@hom.com
Metairie, La USA - Tuesday, October 12, 1999 at 16:35:55 (MDT)

Jim Lippard on Fabulous Prophecies

Hi,
I have read the 'prophecies' paper by Jim Lippard. I found it interesting, but not really all that convincing. I haven't read up on it but an example, my understanding has always been that the two geneologies for Jesus, in the gospels, one was of his mother's side and one his 'fathers' side. At some point they were both of the house of David.

Also I have always been interested in Luke as a physican. I think he would know the difference between a virgin, or not.

Many of the references, outside of the Bible that were quoted, there didn't seem to be any from ancient Rabbi's. Josephus was an historian. I think there is alot of information left out there. Also, isn't it part of ancient Jewish tradition, that the Messiah had to be able to 'prove' his geneology by the temple records? Since that temple was distroyed aprox. about the time Jesus was 2 years old, it could be logical that the Messiah already had come.

I have noticed that Jewish thought seems to depend more and more on writings of more recent origin, rather than the ancient ones, and it makes one wonder why. Historically we like to locate 'older' and 'older' artifacts and writings because we tend to verify the latter civilzations, from the older ones. To me the trend to quote more of recent commentators rather than the 'old' stuff, isn't logical in the context, to verify was it 'real' and what is 'true'.

Maybe some of my inclination, not to throw the Bible out is that since I was a child evolution never 'made sense' to me. Creation makes a lot more sense. No I am not a scientific type person, but I have developed a breed of pedigreed cats, that started with a natural mutation that occured spontanously in the domestic cat population. That was pretty interesting to observe. But watching that, & the mutation, it did not turn the cats into dogs, or some other species. Which is basically what I was taught in school about how evolution is 'proven'.
Being involved in the catfancy for years now, I have to say that by far for the most part 'selective' breeding doesn't make a species better (genetically healthier) in the long run! Anyway, sorry ya'll feel so negatively, it must take a lot of energy out of you. As was noted some of those prophecies supposedly are yet to be fulfilled. So there is still opportunity for you to see potential 'evidence' personally.

Very sincerely,
 

Grace Toten
USA - Tuesday, October 12, 1999 at 18:57:23 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

The "mother's side" thesis contradicts the plain statement in the Greek that both geneologies trace the birth of Joseph, and do not connect the lines with Mary: Matthew says, translating literally, "Jacob generated Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was generated Jesus the one called Christ" (1:16), he does not say Jacob generated Mary; and Luke doesn't even mention Mary, but says "Jesus himself was about thirty years old when starting out, being the son, so it was thought, of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi..." (3:23-4). There is thus no support for that conjecture.

We have no evidence at all that Luke the physican even knew Jesus, much less Mary when she was pregnant. Indeed, the latter is almost certainly impossible. This Luke, mentioned by Paul, is not likely to have ever wrote anything that survives--the Gospel of Luke is by a much later person, and the book remained anonymous for decades. It was only attributed to an unknown "Luke" in the 2nd century.

Josephus was also a rabbi. Few other rabbinical writings, apart from the Old Testament and Apocrypha, date earlier than the 2nd century A.D. Although much of the Talmud does preserve much older oral traditions, it is very hard to ascertain which details are truly old. And I am unaware of any specific, ancient Jewish tradition that the Messiah had to be able to 'prove' his geneology by any temple records. But the temple was not destroyed until some thirty years after Jesus died, not when he was 2 years old.

Human thought learns and makes progress. Thus, to rely on more recent wisdom is far wiser than relying on ancient writings, which were written by ignorant men. Thus, the Jewish tradition makes more sense than any Fundamentalist one. We can gain from a study of ancient thinkers, but we should never rely on them, especially when we know better, and have learned something they did not know.

I sincerely doubt you were taught in school that evolution is 'proven' by a single mutation converting one species into a completely different one. No evolutionist has ever made such a claim. And the reason 'selective' breeding doesn't make a species better is precisely because you are interfering with natural selection and breeding not those qualities that improve health and survival ability, but completely vain and trivial qualities that nature has no sympathy for. Nature "selectively breeds" for health and ability, that is why evolution creates more adaptable and capable and healthy creatures, and why vain human interference in this process does not.

Jeff Lowder and the Jury Project

How can I count the ways in which the modern atheists and agnostics miss the point? In every debate I have been a part of or witnessed, I see the same pattern repeated. When they are asked the ultimately essential question, "Why do you go to such lengths to refute the claims of Christianity?," the inevitable a nswer is some variation of, "We do not want the 'evil' institution of 'the church' to be in control of our lives, to be on our dollar bills, to tell our children to pray, etc."

I submit to you that the modern atheist or agnostic has far more influence and power over our daily lives than 'the church'. In nearly every medium of communication, in nearly every corner of academia, in nearly every schoolhouse and university, and indeed, in nearly every chamber of legislature or law, some form of agnosticism holds sway. I'll give you some examples:

The "Christian Coalition" is perceived by most Americans as a group of religious right-wing, fundamentalist, gun-touting extremists who are one step away from the fascism spouted by the Nazi party (indeed, some would claim that they are closer than one step).

Relativism that denies the existence of God has so completely penetrated academia, that "Creationists" are considered ignorant and unscientific. Early church fathers, who address voiced their opinions on metaphysical topics, like St. Augustine and Clement of Rome, are considered "close-minded," and are not studied outside our nation's seminaries.

The fact that "In God We Trust" is printed on our currency is not a testimony to Christian dominance of our economy. Most Americans consider it a laughable holdover from the 18th Century no one has sought fit to change yet. Where are Christian principle's applied in today's capitalist free market? How is Paul's assertion that "You should never be in debt to another, except for the debt to love your neighbor as yourself?" These are just three examples, and if you are being honest and sincere, you would have to admit their truth.

Yet such ridiculous assertions as these are being made, in all sincerity, by atheists like Jeff Lowder, and others at the Internet Infidels.

Let's address the real issues, shall we? This is not about downtrodden agnostics and atheists claiming persecution and discrimination, touting "freethought," as if they labor in their dark basements dodging bullets of persecution from the oppressive theocracy they live in. This is about men and women who feel a deep, abiding need to claim that Christianity is fundamentally flawed, that there is no such thing as sin or eternal death, and to establish a world in which they can continue to act as they desire without regard to eternal consequences.

The truth is written on their hearts, and however much they attempt to intellectualize the divine, they are essentially building a Tower of Babel.

Charles Glenn <glennfam3@aol.com
Everett, WA USA - Wednesday, October 13, 1999 at 15:46:58 (MDT)

Jeff Lowder responds:

Mr. Glenn's remarks contain a number of inaccuracies, but let me focus on just two points. First, atheists, agnostics, and other non-Christians would not care one iota what Josh McDowell wrote in a "collection of notes for Christians to use in finding intellectual reasons for their faith" if that is how the book were actually used. But what Mr. Glenn does not realize is that many Christians have told atheists, agnostics, and other non-Christians that they are irrational because the 'evidence' in McDowell's book is allegedly so strong. The purpose of The Jury Is In is NOT to refute Christianity; rather it is first and foremost a defense of the rationality of non-Christians and second an expose of what we think are serious shortcomings in the 'evidence' for Christianity.

Second, Mr. Glenn is completely mistaken when he says that we are "persecuting" Christianity. (Talk about being "over-emotional"!) How exactly are we "persecuting" Christians? We're not trying to prevent Christians from saying or writing what they believe. We're simply documenting what we consider some very serious flaws in McDowell's work. If that's "persecution," then how could a non-Christian avoid "persecuting" Christians? By not saying anything at all critical of Christian apologists? Apparently, Mr. Glenn feels that if anyone says anything critical about the work of a single Christian apologist (e.g., McDowell), we are "persecuting" Christianity. That is absurd.

Mr. Lowder,

Thank you for your recent work "Jury is in." After reading Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," and then subsequently reading your rebuttal, I am thoroughly convinced that the Christian faith stands on perfectly sound intellectual footing. I found your rebuttal both overly-emotional and distinctly lacking in primary source reference material.

I respect your point of view, but I find it amusing that McDowell wrote that collection of notes for Christians to use in finding intellectual reasons for their faith -- and it is the agnostics and atheists who take it as a personal affront to their value system. I would have thought that many Christians who read it would be offended by someone trying to make their spiritual belief system fit into the confines of worldly knowledge and learning. But no, it is those outside the "fold" who feel the need to go to all the trouble of attacking it. I guess "freedom of speech" only applies to the secular world, but then, Christians are no strangers to persecution.

Congratulations, and welcome to the long line of men and women in the past 2,000 years who have strengthened Christianity through their "impassioned," (and often unsound) arguments.

I'll pray for you, friend. Did you know that Paul stoned Christians before he was called to serve?

Charles Glenn <glennfam3@aol.com
Everett, WA USA - Thursday, October 07, 1999 at 14:07:18 (MDT)

James Still and the Jury Project

Naturally, says Paul (Rom. 8; 1 Corinthians 2) that non-Christians cannot understand nor obey G-d, thus the Biblical data is confusing, contradictory and mindless. Please reference Cornelius Van Til (d. 1987), I'm curious as to what are your preconditions for epistemological cetainty in regard to your historical investigations; no fact is without interpretation. Why should I believe anything you say to be true? My hunch is that you and those like you are the intellectually well, let me be honest, equally bias in your disbelief; the kind that live by the faith that says, "My mind can rationally make sense out of the factuality that I experience. . ." Hume has successfully anihilated epistemological certainty in the modern and even post-modern epistemological models. How do you know what you know is true? You think its absurd and fundamentalist for a Christian to say thet she lives by faith when you yourself trust in faith in the ability of your mind to unify the many "brute facts" you sense and know everday.

Please tell me in a relativistic system how you can do this without being stultified? Based upon your Darwinian assumptions about life, how can you ascribe meaning and value to anything if the very reality you experince is the prodict of chance? Isn't your opinion no greater than mine? Apparently not since you attempt to convince others in the rightness of your views. . . so you, I see, have the right answers--how did you get them and how do you know they are right? Aren't you being the dogmatic fundementalist. . .

Joseph F. Johnson <jfj@hspower.com
na, na USA - Monday, October 11, 1999 at 09:03:59 (MDT) 

James Still replies:

Mr. Johnson, it is obvious to me that you did not even read my paper and your flaccid attempt at Pyrrhonism is most disingenuous. Ordinarily I ignore those who are so incredibly rude, but a few things in your letter intrigue me. You had a "hunch" that I sought after "preconditions for epistemologial certainty", suggesting that since "no fact is without interpretation" I am wrong to insist upon my own interpretation. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of postmodernism that I espouse in my paper! I argue against those who claim that religious propositions rest upon a firm foundation of true (certain) beliefs. In my paper, I pointed out that religious truths do not derive their meaning from the facts of the world, but rather they derive their meaning from an attitude toward life entailing faith. That's why I said, "those who insist on rational proof do so out of a craving for certainty in a situation where faith is insufficient for their lives." To believe that a fact in the world is true is a very different thing than to believe in God. The first is based on evidence or warrant while the latter is based on feeling, emotion, upbringing, the fear of death, aesthetics, and so on.

In an attempt to reduce my alleged dogmatism to absurdity, you ask how I know that my answers are true. Let me assure you that I do not suffer from the craving for certainty nor do I insist or require that my findings be absolutely certain in their truth. There are many who consider truth to be objective, but I think this is mistaken. I would say instead that truth is consensus based on experience. How do you know that fire will burn? Put your hand in the flame and you will learn soon enough. How do we know the truth of historical propositions like "Caesar crossed the Rubicon"? The evidence in the ancient writings seems credible to us and we have no reason to doubt it so we accept the truth of such historical propositions groundlessly. What about the truth of Jesus' resurrection understood as a historical proposition? This seems incredible to most of us and so most people do not accept it. And so on it goes until you exhaust the set of historical propositions. In the absence of doubt, we accept the truth of many things--Quine's "web of belief"--because they are held fast in place by other things. The world (nature; reality) is our great teacher.

As for my "Darwinian assumptions about life", which I understand to mean that humans evolved through natural selection with no particular goal in mind, let me say that I can (and do) invest meaning in the world. My life, and the life of every other person around me, has as little or as much meaning as I choose to give it. In fact, precisely because humans are able to love and to provide meaning to life the universe is a little less inhospitable than it otherwise would be. If meaning were objective and rested with God (as presuppositionalists such as yourself insist) then we are deluded if we think we can provide meaning to our own lives--we have no choice and are merely disposable means to a greater good. That's the problem with teleology: the meaning of each individual is sacrificed on the altar to God's Master Plan (or fate, which is the same thing). If God were to exist and he asserted his power, then the meaning of my life is diminished. If God were to exist but did not assert his power, then he is irrelevant. In the absence of God it is up to each one of us to inject meaning into an uncaring world.

The editor weighs in:

Mr. Johnson, as to the issue of "faith in reason" see my essay on that topic, " A Fish Did Not Write This Essay ," but consider also that even if reason were the sort of thing one must make a leap of faith in order to use, it follows that both you and we have the same faith in that regard, and the only difference is that you make an additional leap of faith. Now, aren't two leaps of faith even more irrational than one?

As for certainty, it is irrational to demand such. We do not judge on certainties, but probabilities, and in that respect you and we are in exactly the same boat. And probabilities are based on evidence and the analysis of that evidence. Since some people have done more exploring and more analyzing than others, and since some have practiced and learned more skills in gathering and analyzing evidence, it follows that some people have more reliable conclusions than others. The question of bias or dogma is at first sight irrelevant: no matter where a claim comes from, all one need ask is "What is the evidence? How sound is the analysis?" But if upon exploration one finds a constant tendency to err, or even to deceive, in the claims of an author, his claims are to be treated with even greater skepticism. On whether Darwinism changes any of this, see my discussion of "Nash on Naturalism vs. Christian Theism."

In contrast with my colleague, I do not believe "Caesar crossed the Rubicon" is believed "groundlessly" but is grounded as far as any historical proposition can be, and I discuss this very example, in contrast with the Resurrection, in the fourth part of my essay "Geivett's Exercise in Hyperbole," and this entire article, you will see, exemplifies everything I have just described above.

Donald Morgan's Articles

I think Mr. Morgan is arguing against premissise that are specific to Fundamentalism. He shares the modern (ie scientific) outlook out of which that movement was born. Though I am a Christian, I am not a fundamentalist. The premise that because God "wrote" the Bible it therefore must be perfect is by no means water tight. After all, he used people. Scripture itself does not claim to be without errors, but "inspiried" ("god-breathed" in II Timothy 3:16). What exactly does this mean? I am not completely sure, but I don't think it is anything a scientific as Mr. Morgan claims.

As a Christian I am aware of various problems in Scripture. But the consistencies, the witness of history and the power of the material by far outweigh them.

I found many of the Mr. Morgan's "problems" silly (I really did laugh out loud in front of my computer). I will respond to one: That the Bible says we should both love God and fear God, and on top of that it claims that perfect love casts out fear. Context is always important. But leaving that aside, it is a well known fact that both the Hebrew and Greek words for "fear" are often used as synonyms for "respect" or "honor". Beyond this, only a flat understanding of relationships would lead us to conclude that fear and love are incompatible or that there can be no such thing as a healthy fear in the context of love.

I am somewhat dismayed at the tone of Mr. Morgan's articles. He seems more interested in bashing than thinking.

Rob Haskell <rob@doulon.net>
Bellingham, WA USA - Sunday, October 31, 1999 at 00:09:31 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

I did base my material on what could be called in general terms a fundamentalist viewpoint. The Fundamentalist movement was born in response to the challenge which the modern, scientific outlook presented to a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Fundamentalist movement sought to preserve (and correctly so, in my opinion) what were thought to be the essential doctrines ("fundamentals") of the Christian faith. One of the characters of the movement was a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Your personal belief system and mine are different. Certainly neither of us is required to agree with the other's viewpoint. As a former Christian, however, I must say that to me the fundamentalist approach to Christianity and the Bible makes much more sense than a more liberal approach. The liberal approach seems to me to amount to a watering-down of the essentials of Christianity. After all, the important elements of Christian doctrine are reflected in and/or based on the Bible. Once we start picking and choosing what we are going to believe in the Bible (and/or in Christian doctrine), we have a religion of our own making. [Thus, if you are] aware of various problems in Scripture, then you must necessarily either ignore those problems or pick and choose what you will believe if you are going to believe the Bible at all.

I have nowhere claimed "that because God 'wrote' the Bible it therefore must be perfect," thus your statement [to that effect] represents something of a straw man argument. On the other hand, those who do make that claim have good reason to do so. After all, a perfect god could certainly see to it that his Bible were perfect. (If he caused a less-than-perfect book to be written, would he still be perfect?) In my opinion, if a perfect and omnipotent god had inspired men to write a book about what he wanted, he could have, should have, and likely would have done a better job of it than the Bible.

[Also] it is always dangerous to state with certainty what the Bible does not do. There is always a possibility that you might have missed something. As a matter of fact, the Bible does say that every word of God proves true (e.g., PR 30:5). Either the Bible is or is not the word of God. If the Bible is the word of God, then according to its own testimony, every word of it should prove true. If it is not the word of God, then it is just another book. [And] when Paul penned those words [in II Timothy 3:16], the Bible did not yet exist in its present form--the Bible of the earliest Christians consisted of what we now refer to as the Old Testament--yet fundamentalist Christians still use that verse as a proof-text for the claim that the entire Bible is the word of God. In any case, Paul was likely referring to what he was aware of at the time.

"The consistencies, the witness of history and the power of the material by far outweigh them" is a statement that is either simply what you believe (and the statement likely originated with someone else) or else it is based on your own investigation. If it represents a belief, then it is simply an opinion statement and we are not obliged to give it any credence. If what you say is based on your own investigation and knowledge, however, then you must also claim that you are familiar with all biblical problems and all of history--as well as "the power" of the Bible and also that of other holy scriptures--and that an objective assessment has shown what you say to be true. Do you make this claim?

[On silliness,] what does and does not seem silly and/or laughable is a matter of personal opinion, of course. To me, much of the Bible and Christian theology seems silly and laughable. And context is important. It is in the context of the Bible as a whole that the inconsistency with regard to loving God and fearing God becomes obvious (if we limit our context to only the context immediately surrounding a given verse, the inconsistency is much less obvious). What matters as to whether there is or is not a valid inconsistency in what I pointed out is not so much what you think is well-known with regard to the usage of the Hebrew and Greek words translated "fear," rather what matters is what the specific Hebrew and Greek words in the verses in question were intended to mean. And in this, I believe that the Bible translators probably generally know better than either you or I what was likely intended. (Keep in mind that the Bible translators are experts in their field.) More to the point, however, is that the word translated "fear" in all of the following verses is exactly the same word [phobeô, see note below] in the Greek:

• LK 12:5 But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
• 1PE 2:17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
• 1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love.

phobeô in the Hellenic Greek of Paul's day indicated an extreme fear or terror, of the sort that makes one flee (it is the root of our word "phobia"). See the relevant Liddell & Scott entry. There is no clear evidence that it was used to indicate "respect" or "honor" prior to the late empire. To the contrary, the Greek words for "revere" (hazomai) and "stand in awe" (sebomai) and others came to mean by analogy "fear" (especially in respect to gods and parents), and such words are conspicuously unused in the passages noted above. But there was a Hebrew tradition of using fear terminology in two senses--that of a holy fear and that of a craven fear--which could be at play whenever phobeô is used by a Hebrew author, even a Hellenized Hebrew, and this has led many scholars to allow the word to be rendered as "revere" or "respect" (or "reverent fear"). Whether this ever excludes being frightened is a question calling for further study.

Donald Morgan on Bible Absurdities

After looking over your site when searching for a "Noah's Ark" link, I cannot help but confront the members of this blasphemous, lying society. As a strong, devoted Christian, I have seen God work many wonderful things in my life, and He has shown me the truth about the Bible and the falsity of evolution time and time again. But your members have made an attempt to do nothing but discredit the Bible by taking Scripture out of context, ignoring God's authority and being in an absolute state of denial that miracles exist. You must understand that this world had to have been created because it exists, and it has a complexity that is rivaled only by God himself, who is infinite. God created the world, and the fundamental laws of physics and common sense do not make sense because of miracles, since God established the laws of physics and breaks them during a miracle. So things which examined by scientists will never make sense to them because they are intercepted by a higher, Almighty, infinite God.

Evolutionists attack Christian scientists and religious figures because you say no one was there to record it when the answer was there the entire time -- God was the only one there at Creation, and He recorded it in Genesis 1:1, so there's what you're looking for. So it shows that Biblical stories and events when examined from a scientific standpoint, they do not make sense, but you must realize that science and logic is not all there is in the world -- there is something extra, and that something extra is God, and He rules over science and logic with absolute authority. So if God wants to make a snake or a donkey talk, or a virgin to give birth, or part a sea, or make a cane turn into a snake, or turn water into wine, He can if it is in his will.

Dr. Bob Jones, the founder of the university which bears his name, told the scientific world "to give God the benifit of the doubt" when there seemed to be a confrontation between God and science. A good example of this would be the organs of the human body. A hundred years ago, 108 organs in the human body were classified by scientists as "useless," as being waste left over from evolution's processes. One hundred years later, science has become more advanced, and now less than a dozen organs are still classified as "useless." Only with time will science uncover the mysteries of the Bible. Give God the benifit of the doubt; in time He will show you the answer.

To the people in Kansas, I have expressed praise for them, for their children will no longer be subjected to learn the ridiculous, fanciful, evidence-lacking theory of evolution, which has perverted our school system and led to the downfall of American Christian culture. The statistics show that beginning with the teaching of evolution in the late 50's/early 60's eventually brought about higher violence rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, and lower SAT scores. When there is no God, there is no morals, and drugs, sex and crime infest American high schools.

Examine the obvious, but then look into the spiritual, and the miracles, and God will show you the answer if you look hard enough. I, along with the other Christians in this world, know that we have won the fight, and we can rest assure that the Bible is true, that we are saved, and the Holy Spirit flows within us. It would be a joy for me to see every one of you accept Christ as your personal Saviour, to live the good life, and to fight the good fight. Take Christianity seriously -- it's not going away, and it's the only way to inherit eternal life with God. Trust in God, and He will show you the way, because if you don't, your soul will be in danger of the fire of hell. But we Christians have already won the fight.

Ryan Blossey <blossey2@aol.com>
Orlando, FL USA - Sunday, October 24, 1999 at 00:20:37 (MDT)

Although many of the quoted scriptures appear to merit concern to the Bible's omnipotent source, it is largely due to the fact that it is taken out of its context to prove your agenda. Your 'impossibilities' are from the human standpoint. Jesus probably made the fig tree wither to show us that He won't 'make' us follow (produce fruit) against our will, but He will judge all. Perhaps you need to consider what your agenda is, why do you feel threatened by followers of a loving God to the point of trying to sway their belief?

There is only one reality. That would mean most people are wrong. You, at least for now, are one of them.

Mickey Garrison <mickey@bunko.com>
Murray, Ky USA - Friday, October 22, 1999 at 12:15:52 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

It is always interesting to me that so many Bible-believers are so willing to base a number of conclusions on premises which they have not bothered to check out beforehand.

Fact: my original agenda in studying the Bible was to learn more and more about what God wanted of us. At the time that I began my studies, I was a born-again, Bible-believing Christian. A Christian who later became the Chairman of the Christian Education Committee at a satellite church associated with a very large and well-known Bible church. The more that I studied and read, the more that I began to see the problems, problems that are best seen when the Bible is taken as a whole, i.e., in the context of the whole.

The verses to which you refer are from my "Absurdities" section. I don't have an "Impossibilities" section. Here is the passage in question [concerning the tree]:

LK 11:12-14 12 And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he hungered. 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. 14 And he answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And his disciples heard it.

Sincerely,
Donald Morgan

Mr. Morgan, If you are so insistent that God does not exist, then why do spend all of your "precious" energy trying to disprove Him. Why is it of importance to you if others do not agee with your opinions? Are you trying to convince others that God does not exist or are you trying to convince yourself? Perhaps the reason you try so hard to convince others of God's nonexistence is so you won't be all alone on the trip to Hell. It's kind of ironic that God gave you the air you breathe so you can use it to speak against Him. Your words are filled with hatred and anger which is a derivative of fear. Hitler's intense hatred and anger toward the Jews was out of the fear that they would prevent his quest for world domination. What are you afraid of? Has someone convinced you that you are not loved by God? Does your fear of not going to Heaven manifest itself in the form of anger? Please Mr. Morgan, reconsider your views. Jesus Christ died for ALL of our sins!! Repent Mr. Morgan. I am not sending you this e-mail to antagonize you. It is my duty as a Christian.

Justin Boyce < jlboyce@marauder.millersv.edu>
Millersville, PA USA - Tuesday, October 19, 1999 at 19:00:09 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

Where have I ever insisted that God does not exist? (I think you have me confused with someone else.)

As a matter of interest, it is generally difficult if not impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything let alone something as nebulous as a supernatural being. The fact is that it is a generally accepted principle that it is up to those who allege the existence of something to prove that existence to doubters. In other words, it is up to you--if you are going to claim that your god exists--to prove the existence of that god. In the absence of such proof, it is unwise for you or anyone else to believe in that particular god.

[You ask] "Why is it of importance to you if others do not agee with your opinions?" One could ask you the same question. But to answer yours, It isn't particularly important to me that others agree with me. It is important for me to disseminate some of what I have learned about the Bible as a result of my years and years of Bible study, study which began more than 20 years ago back in the days when I was a rather fundamentalist, born-again, Bible-believing Christian and was personally discipled by my pastor.

You ask "Are you trying to convince others that God does not exist or are you trying to convince yourself?" One could ask you the same sort of question: are you trying to convince others that your god exists, or are you trying to convince yourself? But to answer your question, you seem to have me confused with someone else. My area of interest is the Bible and its internal errors, inconsistencies, and other problems. It always provides me with a chuckle when Christians make their hell threat. What never seems to occur to many or most Christians is that they might have misplaced their faith, that the one, true, God has a special place of torture reserved just for them for having believed all that Christian poppycock rather than the one true religion (and of course several, competing religions make the claim to have the one true religion and the one true god).

You say "It's kind of ironic that God gave you the air you breath so you can use it to speak against Him." What is more ironic is that so many individuals who possess good intelligence misuse it, believing what they have been taught about whatever god is the popular god in the region of the world where they were born and raised. You also say my "words are filled with hatred and anger which is a derivative of fear," [but] you have me confused with someone else. Anger and hatred are not part of my makeup. Perhaps you are projecting your anger and hatred. And if you can find one place in the Bible where it is said that it is your duty to antagonize me, I will forgive you, otherwise a pox on you :-)

Sincerely,
Donald Morgan

This is regarding the Bible errors and contradictions. They are so taken out of context or are just plain wrong that they're laughable.

Casey <KCJEDI@aol.com
USA - Monday, October 04, 1999 at 14:01:06 (MDT)

Donald Morgan responds:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Of course your retort is exactly what I used to say about alleged Bible problems back when I was a Christian and I thought it my duty to defend the Bible from criticism. The fact of the matter is, however, that it is when we take the Bible in context, i.e., as a whole, that the inconsistencies and problems really stand out. A perfect, omnipotent god could have, should have, and likely would have done a better job of it had he inspired the Bible.

Don Morgan on Jesus Being a Hypocrite

Jesus was not a hypocrite! If anyone wants to argue this e-mail me, but just for a little taste of rejection, anger is not a sin! The only anger that is a sin is that which leads to action or irrational thoughts! The person who wrote this seemed to know the Bible fairly well so why don't you read a little more next time before you slap something on the web just so you can say you have a webpage! Sorry if I offend you but I like to win.

Trevor Flynn
USA - Tuesday, October 19, 1999 at 15:25:04 (MDT)

Don Morgan responds:

• MT 5:21-22 [Jesus speaking] "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire."
• MT 5:17 [Jesus speaking] "Ye fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that hath sanctified the gold?"

Sincerely,
Donald Morgan

I, Christina Marie Howell represent the Lord Jesus Christ. He is NOT crazy or hypocritical in any sense. Why don't you read the bible right. You are teaching the works of the devil. Jesus was the most sensible, patient, caring, sound-minded man of all time. I am so mad that you don't know Jesus at all! He is my whole life, and it hurts me to see you teach the weird stuff that you are. Like Jesus, I am NOT crazy. I know Jesus personally, and he is my FATHER. He is the most gentle spirit of all time. I would have loved to live in his time and had him show me his love, devotion, and the true friendship that he had to offer. None of us hold even a tiny candle to his most intelligent teachings. He is like the God (His own Father)....you know the God who made all of Heaven and earth? His name is Jehovah, and he made Jesus, so if God was proud of his own made, shouldn't we be also? Of course the devil has you teaching his stupid stuff. Get wise, or go with the traitor of all life. SATAN! I will pray this tonight. That you will get real, or live what you are teaching this very night! And that you will know where the source is coming from. I am hardly crazy.......I am lovingly, God's wife! You will know me as Christina.

Don't you dare talk about my only Father that way! Jesus was the most whole and sound-minded in the his entire life! You call us crazy for loving a father who was and is every sense of the word, real, and not a hypocrite! Quit lying on him! He is my father. I love Jesus! I love Jesus! I love Jesus! Read the bible correctly. I understand every word and action that Jesus did. God, Jesus, and their followers ARE a peculiar people. Read about all of the things that God did in the old testament. They were not always understandable, but we are unlike God, and do not have his mind. He and Jesus have all of their own reasons for their peculiar teachings. But I would never doubt any of it, nor call them hypocritical in any way! I love them, and very happy to be a part of their family. Instead of cutting his people down, reading the bible with your own simple minds, and hurting my Father, ask the one you are cutting down for wisdom of his ways. Geez, you idiots make me mad, and I am tired of being the laughing stock of the realness of God, and laughed at for my tremendous love and faith in the Christ! I laugh at your idiocy!

One more thing! I am so very tired of feeling like the foolish for loving a man named Jesus. You weirdo's all think we are weird for even talking about or serving Jesus. He is very real! So let me let you all feel a little weird for once. God is not weird, we (Jesus freaks) are not weird, we are smart, and desire to live in harmony, peace, and sinless in our next life! There is nothing wrong with us, there is most definately something wrong with you! I hate you with a Godly hatred, and pray all of you idiots would find better things to do than corrupt others and your own minds with the deceits of your own minds. Quit cutting us Christians, and God down. I am getting seriously tired of it! He will be the one to own up to in the last days, so get wise, will you! Christina

Christina Marie Howell <Miss_cellaneous1@hotmail.com>
Salinas, Ca USA - Sunday, October 17, 1999 at 23:40:19 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

Holy wafers, Batman! You need to relax. Drink a bottle of wine under a nice shady tree and breathe deep and slow, and look for shapes in passing clouds, pick some daisies, and watch the grass grow for a little while. Then maybe you will realize that it is silly to think a mortal can hurt a god, and equally silly to think that calling hate "godly" somehow makes it okay. Hate of any variety is inherently destructive of the soul. It corrupts the mind, and exploits the passions, driving us into evil and dangerous ways. It is most unfortunate that your god somehow failed to teach you this, but maybe you haven't gotten to that lesson yet. I sincerely hope you do someday.

Donald Morgan weighs in:

Christina, if you feel "like the foolish" for loving a man named Jesus, you have my empathy. Keep in mind, however, that no one can succeed in making you feel foolish for your beliefs if you yourself are truly comfortable with those beliefs. [You claim we think you are weird, but] it is rather arrogant to claim to know what all of us think unless you you are clairvoyant or omniscient Are you clairvoyant or omniscient?

[You say there is something wrong with us]. The man whom you claim to love and serve allegedly said that there is something wrong with everyone: "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" [MT 7:3] [You say you hate us with a Godly hatred]. Hate toward fellow humans is inappropriate for a Christian. The man whom you claim to love and serve allegedly said, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you;" [MT 5:43]

[Then you call us idiots]. An idiot is defined as a stupid or foolish person, a fool. Calling someone an idiot or a fool is inappropriate behavior for a Christian. The man whom you claim to love and serve said that to call another man a fool subjects one to judgement and the hell of fire: "... but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire." [MT 5:22] [About us corrupting you,] strange, isn't it, that so many religionists representing so many different religions feel the same way [as you do]--not only about nonbelievers--but also about those who hold different religious beliefs. The difference between you and me is that I feel that way about one more religion than you do; I believe that Christianity is one of the most flagrant corrupting influences in the world today. Considering that Christians are in the majority in this country, and considering that atheists and agnostics are in a minuscule minority, and considering that Christians seem not at all reluctant to cut-down non-Christians (witness your own use of terms such as "weirdos" and "idiots"), your exhortation to "Quit cutting us Christians, and God down" may fall on deaf ears amongst nontheists.

According to your own religious belief system, you, too, will have to own up to him in the last days. Better do something about your hate and your name-calling before it is too late.

Bill Edelen on Homophobes

In regards to homophobic preachers and picking and choosing from Leviticus...

It is rare indeed to find a fundamentalist Christian who has studied the Old Testament of the Bible, let alone read all of it. They have read Genesis and Exodus and the Psalms and Proverbs. But they haven't read the historical books (Joshua, Judges, Samual, Kings and Chronicles). They haven't read Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. They couldn't tell Amos from Hosea, or Isaiah from Jeremiah from Exekial.

And in regards to the New Testament, they have read the gospels and Acts and Revelation and parts of Romans and Corinthians, but they couldn't tell you the difference between the theologies or Paul, Peter or John.

No, most fundamentalist Christians have not completely read or studied their own book of faith. They rely on the pastor or the Sunday school leader or the Bible study leader or, worse yet, Paul and Jan and Benny and Hal on TBN.

When you do find that person who has studied the whole of the Bible, and still holds firm on their beliefs, then the discussion and debate can be fun indeed. I spent 16 years as an evangelical, born-again, Bible-believing Christian. I studied that Bible inside and out (That's why I am an atheist today!). I have done the mental gymnastics in order to accept the absurdities and incongruities or the Bible (especially the OT). And I now never miss an oppurtunity to call the person on the carpet who is trying to evangelize me at my door, on the street corner, or at my job.

One day the truth may set more free. Until then let's keep sharing the good word of rational thought and intellectual honesty.
Peter Perreault <pippip2@hotmail.com >
Chandler, AZ USA - Friday, October 29, 1999 at 16:28:32 (MDT)

Homophobics and Leviticus

Although I appreciate that this article was tongue in cheek, I would like to point out that most Christians would argue that the sins listed in the old testament are still sins but that Jesus Christ died to bring forgiveness for those sins. That means that if someone is using Leviticus to point out a sin, then they are saying that that behaviour should cease and that the perpetrator needs God's forgiveness by accepting Jesus as their Saviour otherwise they will "burn in hell"

Most of the old testament's function (according to Christians) is to point out that we "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." The writer of the article seems to be oblivious to this doctrine.

Di van Dyk <divandyk@talk21.com>
Farnborough, UK - Thursday, October 28, 1999 at 09:38:35 (MDT)

That is the most honest, real, and raw comment I have read about the Bible...and I agree with every word of it. Good Job!!

Lisa Atkinson <janusvier@aol.com>
Montevallo, AL USA - Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 14:44:08 (MDT)

I was disappointed in the invective, ridicule, and overall tone of William Edelen's featured article of October 24th. In the months I have been following this website, the high quality of the articles published has made me proud to be an unbeliever, rather than embarrassed by the irrational tactics of my compatriots. This scornful appeal adds nothing to the dialogue, and besides ridiculing particular dialects, it is filled with needless interjections which detract from its point -- WHICH IS EXTREMELY VALID -- that modern Christians use one verse in Leviticus to justify their prejudice while ignoring the other 600-plus proscriptions that make up the old Jewish law. Perhaps a bit of editorial input would have been helpful -- it certainly wasn't of the same caliber as your usual front-page fare.

Paul Thorman, Jr. < pault@physics.uc.edu>
Cincinnati, OH USA - Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 13:19:41 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

Some of us agree, and we are reconsidering whether we ought to publish everything Edelen writes. Yet we continue to get a lot of positive feedback--an unusual amount, in fact, relative to responses to our more measured and scholarly articles.

Hey,Your essay on homophobes and Leviticus. Doesn't it use the same word "abomination" for having lobster at your favorite seafood restaurant? I think it's Leviticus chapter 11 verses 10 and 11 and 12.....

Bob Oliver <nakura@ipa.net>
Nixa, Mo USA - Monday, October 25, 1999 at 17:42:01 (MDT)

I loved the article "Homophobics and Leviticus" by William Edelen. Actually, if you push the logic a bit further: how does Lev 18:22 apply to women? Does it tell them that they cannot lie with a man as with a woman. It does so litteraly unless the "word of God" applies only to men. I hate the thought that all heterosexual women will burn in hell. Keep up the good work.

Guy Fontaine <guy.fontaine@ec.gc.ca >
Gatineau, QC Canada - Monday, October 25, 1999 at 07:27:07 (MDT)

I think this article would be much more influential if it were written with a tone of serious scholarship instead of mocking disdain. I'm sure somewhere on the secular web is an itemized list of all of the things Leviticus prohibits. Serious commentary will always serve a cause better than belittlement.

Jerome O'Neil <jerome@newmedianw.com >
Seattle, WA USA - Sunday, October 24, 1999 at 23:07:13 (MDT)

Bill Edelen on Creationists

William Edelen does a WONDERFUL job of taking bits and pieces of the story and taking them TOTALLY out of context so that they appear to prove his misguided notions regarding religion, and the Christian religion in particular. If we're going to talk about theistic Creationism vs. anti-theistic Evolutionary Theory, then lets go straight to the best of what's available to us today, rather than taking a handfull of lines out of the 1925 Scopes Trial. (Although when studied responsibly, there is much to be learned from the Scopes trial). Why doesn't Edelen attack Michael Behe or Phillip Johnson? I would PAY to see Edelen even COME CLOSE to winning a debate with Behe, Johnson, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, or any other well-known Christian apologist.

For any of you who would like a RESPONSIBLE source on Creationism, see Darwin's Black Box, Darwin On Trial, Defeating Darwinism, Creator and the Cosmos...the list goes on...
Josh Sargent <ujsargen@tiu.edu>
Deerfield, IL USA - Thursday, October 28, 1999 at 17:16:40 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

All these books, and more, have been competently addressed by other contributors at our site. See our Creationism page. Edelen is only a featured editorial writer, not an author of scholarly articles such as are found in our growing modern library.

William Edelen in "The Circus of Creationism" says that Dayton, Tennessee was a fundamentalist town, but in fact, according to Edward Larson's "Summer for the Gods," non-fundamentalists outnumbered fundamentalists there before the Scopes trial. It was after the trial, when William Jennings Bryan College was founded, that it became a fundamentalist town. The play and movie "Inherit the Wind" has mislead people into thinking that Dayton was fundamentalist before the trial.

Mr. Andrew O. Lutes <KHHL59@aol.com
Mansfield, OH USA - Tuesday, October 12, 1999 at 20:59:15 (MDT)

Bill Edelen on Hate Radio

The bible cannot be judged by the words of actions of those who

• simply quote it
  
• claim to live by it
  

Mr. Edelen--

We live in a country with free speech protected by law, and an unfortunate aspect of that is the law usually protects the lunatic fringe. But more laws to censure or censor are never the answer. Hate is a siren song for the poorly raised, and a moron who says "kill" may have the power to cause another moron to actually kill, but we're dealing with morons here to begin with.

Once we let a governing body decide what people should and should not see or hear, we're taking a step backward rather than forward. The problem isn't that hate-mongers are on the air. In fact, I think that's a good thing for two reasons. First, it gives us a good example of how NOT to act, and second, it's always good to know who the wackos are, what they're thinking, and where they're at. Forewarned is forarmed.

The problem isn't the fact that hate is preached on the airwaves, the problem is that we have people, who are obviously unfit to have kids, having them anyway. Instead of teaching love and respect, they teach hate and violence. But the PARENT is ultimately the one who teaches a child about life, not the T.V. or the radio.

"But kids spend more time in front of television than going to school!" people cry. "By the time a child is 16 they've seen 10,000 deaths on T.V.! Censor it! Censor it!"

Well, if you let the television raise your child, you might have a problem. But I raised my kids, not the T.V. And when they watch T.V., they realize it is pretend. And when they see some jackass in a KKK uniform on Jerry Springer preaching about racial purity, they can figure out for themselves that hate is wrong. But even if they weren't sure, if they didn't understand, that's what I'm here for. To explain. To teach. And a child from a stable, loving household can recognize right from wrong more often than not even at a very young age. But not because there is an absolute moral right: simply because teaching a child is a long process involving constant repetition and re-inforcement. Kids are like modeling clay. For a child to grow up a hate-monger, some very serious problems occurred during his formative years, and they occurred over and over and over again.

Let the lunatics stay on the air. Just teach your children to recognize lunacy when they hear it. The mentally unbalanced who go out and "aim for the head" because Gordon Liddy said so were probably going to do it anyway. Everytime I hear about a killer or rapist who blames pornography for their crimes I shake my head. Porn doesn't make you rape. Porn makes you jerk off. A deep-seated hatred of women makes you rape, and you only get that from being raised wrong.

I don't believe in censorship in any way, shape, or form. A well-balanced individual can look at ANYTHING and it won't make him freak-out and go on a shooting spree.

So, the next time some high school kids have a massacre, let's not blame porn, or television violence, or the school system, or radical hate groups. Let's blame the parents. And then let's try and convict the parents of child abuse at the very least. If you don't know your kid is building bombs in the basement, you should be convicted of something.

As for making more laws that restrict information, opinion, or any media, that's a slippery slope. Repression, in any form, is dangerous, because who decides exactly what is allowed and what isn't allowed? Where does it end? Once one person's views aren't allowed to be heard, we can throw our Constitutions out the window and start boarding soldiers again.

Even when taken to extremes, freedom of speech must continue to be free. The ability to communicate and share ideas is what makes the human race so successful (well, that and opposable thumbs). Besides, when you get right down to it, the media is just a form of enterainment.

And always keep this in mind: We have more than the freedom of speech. We also have the freedom of choice. If you don't like what you're hearing... turn it off.


Joe Konrath <haknort@webtv.net>
USA - Friday, October 22, 1999 at 01:55:14 (MDT)

In response the the comments about hate radio, and "the fact that it is what obviously what led to a number of hate crimes", I have a question. Do you believe that television and movies cause violence, or that Heavy Metal leads to Satanism, and that they are both a cause of evil, as opposed to a method of expression? Certainly I hope not. These are simply modes of expression. That is a two way street. This hate radio, no matter how repugnant, cannot be held any more to blame for the actions of murders than Ozzy Osbourne can be held responsible for teen suicide.

Brendan McGinness < citizenx@serialkillers.net>
New Orleans, LA USA - Thursday, October 21, 1999 at 00:46:11 (MDT)

This is a sad commentary of "so-called" Christians. Hypocrites! There are so many of them. I wish it were not so. Gandhi said "I would be a Christian if it were not for the Christians." However, there are some of us, who genuinely care for the souls of men, who do not have a personal agenda, but simply wish to carry out the great comission that Jesus Christ gave in Mark 16:15. I do apoligize for such things (listed in your article) done under the name of Christ. They in no way line up with the New Testament Christianity that Jesus Christ established. A person must choose for themself whether to accept or reject Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, however, the consequences are eternal according to the Bible. So, choose carefully.

Prayerfully sent,

Richard A. Zawadzki Jr. < Razluke137@aol.com>
Pontiac, MI USA - Tuesday, October 19, 1999 at 19:40:55 (MDT)

While I agree with the sentiment that the hate and stupidity in such broadcasts is likely to serve as a justification for some fools acting out in violent ways, I see no way to put an end to something like this without infringing on the right to speak and think freely. The only thing that can legitimatly be done is to speak out against such stupidity and do what we can to expose the activities of such persons. The only really legitimate way to fight this is by not letting such statements as the article mentions pass unnoticed and by confronting such persons with their own words in as public a way as possible. There will always be fools who will use such speach to justify their *acts* of hate and violence, but as a society we tread on very dangerous ground if we begin to limit what kind of *speech* is 'allowable.' The more exposure and rope these people are given, the more their own words can be used to 'hang' them. Freedom is of greater value than 'safety.'

Scott Bowen <hastur@execpc.com
Milwaukee, WI USA - Friday, October 08, 1999 at 09:47:56 (MDT)

Reference Hate Radio -- We have to be careful not to condone censorship -- as repulsive as these brain-dead radio people are, they have the right to spew their inanities. What sensible people have to do is find out who sponsors these programs and boycott and hold them to task -- the bottom line is advertising revenue and ratings. The fundies have used this tactic succesfully in the past -- let's give them a taste of their own medicine.
Ted Nieves < 103350.1412@compuserv.com
Riverhead, NY USA - Friday, October 08, 1999 at 07:16:00 (MDT)

Bill Edelen on The Sin of Silence

I enjoyed reading Edelen's experience in the seminary, and have often wondered how many of the clergy really knew it was all a big hoax, but wouldn't dare say so as long as they wanted their job.

In the book "The Mind of the Bible-Believer" it helps substantiate Edelen's views on the clergy on what they truly believe. In the book it cites that a poll done out in California showed that among the more mainline denominations that about half of the clergy had serious important doubts about the existence of God. Only one-third firmly believed in the divinity of Jesus. Half didn't even believe in a fiery fate. But let these preachers share these views with their flock next Sunday, and see how many will be without a job.

Regards,

John Lile <johnlile@wf.net
Wichita Falls, TX USA - Friday, October 08, 1999 at 19:20:26 (MDT)

Molleen Matsumura on the Minnesota Atheists

I'm afraid Molleen Matsumura takes the Minnesota Atheists ad the wrong way. (Full disclosure -- as an MN-A member I helped Marie with proofing and seconded her decision to run the ad.) Our quarter-page ad was in response to a half-page ad from local religious right organizations. Nowhere does our ad say that anyone should apologize to Governor Ventura. It does say that organized religion ought to apologize for its own bigotry and intolerance.

Freethinkers of good will can differ on whether Governor Ventura should apologize for his remarks in the Playboy interview (though it won't matter because he probably won't do it), just as we can differ on whether being a nontheist inevitably implies support for one-world government (as Prof. Paul Kurtz, Ms. Matsumura's patron, argues in his latest manifesto). But I see no reason for differences between over whether we need to take every opportunity to put our message before the public. I'm afraid Ms. Matsumura's article will only stir up division between us when what we need is to work together to advance our common interests.

As a practical matter, the ad has more than paid for itself and secured more names for our mailing list.

Yours,
Douglas A. Gray
St. Paul, MN USA - Friday, October 29, 1999 at 13:59:22 (MDT)

Molleen Matsumura responds:

"Nowhere does our ad say that anyone should apologize to Governor Ventura." Well, I guess if we split very fine hairs with a microtome, we could find a difference between that and the inference to be drawn from a headline that says, "Religion should apologize, not Jesse"; the "cc: Jesse Ventura"; and multiple references to Ventura, including, "... You insist that Gov. Ventura apologize for his 'bigotry.' But it is you who must apologize! Apologize for the church's exploitation of the poor that led to Gov. Ventura's religious skepticism!"

"It does say that organized religion ought to apologize for its own bigotry and intolerance." Yes, it does, and my main point -- which you completely ignore -- is that "organized religion ought to apologize" is a seriously mistaken over-generalization, since many denominations and their members DON'T express such bigotry, and even deplore it. I gave one dramatic example and could give many more.

"Freethinkers of good will can differ on whether Governor Ventura should apologize ... I'm afraid Ms. Matsumura's article will only stir up division ..." Whether Ventura should apologize is his concern. I spoke to different issues, one being whether freethinkers should defend his statement. Indeed people of goodwill can differ, and I did; now I'm puzzled by a paragraph that begins by saying we can, yet ends by suggesting that offering a different view will "only stir divisions." I'm even more puzzled by the digression to Paul Kurtz's opinions on world government. If you want to write about that, maybe you could ask Jim Still whether he wants an article on the subject. I'll just take the opportunity to mention that Free Inquiry erred in listing me as an endorser of Kurtz's statement.

"As a practical matter, the ad has more than paid for itself and secured more names for our mailing list." As a practical matter, it is possible that an ad of a different size, and/or one printed on a different page, and/or one that was differently worded, could have raised MORE money and generated more responses. It's [in order to] find such things out that people hire PR firms. As it is we don't know. But we do know that you could have written an equally forthright ad that didn't tar all "organized religion" with the same brush; for example, you could have introduced your examples (which, you recall, I said were well chosen) by asking the people who wrote the first ad why they didn't speak out when these things happened, and whether their failure to do so didn't make them hypocrites.

As a practical matter AND as a matter of principle, perhaps you could reconsider whether you should generalize in this way, when coalitions including religious individuals work hard to defend the rights of freethinkers. When Micah White's school refused to let him start an atheist club, it was Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization of both theists and non-theists, that successfully fought for his rights.

The article "Should Freethinkers Defend Ventura?" misses the point. I would prefer that ALL politicians refrain from issuing religious statements. But we do not live in such a world. Politicians and candidates continually use their position to extol the virtues of faith. Or, to be more accurate, they use religious statements to further their political ambitions.

What did Jesse Ventura say that was so offensive? President Bush said that atheists should not be considered citizens. For a President to make such a statement is bordering on treason. Yet, President Bush's statement was [... words lost--ed.]. Jesse Ventura never questioned the citizenship of believers, nor did he question the rights of people to participate in orgainized religion.

Some people in Minnesota want to have Governor Ventura impeached -- just for expressing his opinion on religion!

Governor Ventura's thoughts on religion are hardly new. They can be found in the writings of Voltaire, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, as well as many other thinkers. I do not think of Ventura as being a great mind, but that isn't terribly relevant.

Also, it is important to make a distinction between religion and believers. Organizations can be responsible for actions that the individual members of the organization are not.

Rob Lent <Antiwolf@USFamily.net >
Minneapolis, MN USA - Friday, October 29, 1999 at 13:12:56 (MDT)

Molleen Matsumura responds:

I had my points to make, and if you want to make others, that's fine -- it just doesn't mean I missed "the point." But I'm glad you got some of mine. Yes, it was wrong for Bush to say what he did; that's why I pointed out that "two wrongs don't make a right."

I'm glad your site posted "Should Freethinkers Defend Jesse?" As much as I dislike religion, I had my problems with his comments in Playboy. People are religous for various reasons. Sure some are "weak minded," but there are people who believe for other reasons. Maybe they've never considered that there may be no God. Maybe they think the existance of God is reasonable. As the article says, we can't paint all religious people with one stroke, just as we can't paint all freethinkers with one.

After reading the interview, it seems like Ventura tries to belittle anyone he doesn't like. Besides religious people, he also attacked poor people, fat people, and feminists. Ventura lives in a very black and white world, where anyone who disagress with him should be ridiculed.

While I really want to support a politician who is unapologetic in his support for the seperation of church and state, I can't support his sterotyping.

William Brinkman <wbrink@xnet.com>
Bolingbrook, IL USA - Thursday, October 28, 1999 at 22:45:11 (MDT)

Molleen Matsumura responds:

"While I really want to support a politician who is unapologetic in his support for the seperation of church and state, I can't support his sterotyping" I know what you mean! That's why I pointed out the difference between the time he got it right by refusing to sign a religious declaration, and the time he engaged in stereotyping.

This is in feedback to Molleen Matsumura's article "Should Freethinkers Defend Ventura?" I agree with Ms. Matsumura's reasoning. Governor Ventura's willingness to speak his mind is resfreshing in a system where politians take polls to determine what tie to wear. But if anything, Governor Ventura has shown himself to be somewhat paranoid and, for lack of a better word, strange. In the same interview, he said he believed conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination that make Oliver Stone or the craziest nut in the Internet look sane.

Governor Ventura is a (very!) big boy. He can defend himself.

Ms. Matsumura is correct that there are more important issues than Governor Ventura to be concerned about. And she also is correct that freethinkers cannot tar all the religious with the same brush, as they often tar us. We must be willing to accept that religion has done some good things but arguing that the good of religion has not outweighed the bad.

For better or worse, we live in a republic in which officialdom is ultimately answerable to the people. The people of Minnesota are the ones who ultimately must decide whether the Governor has gone too far.

Anthony Calabrese <riverman10@aol.com >
Arlington, VA USA - Wednesday, October 27, 1999 at 07:13:58 (MDT)

In your article (which I found to be quite good otherwise, so perhaps I am nitpicking here), you stated that the American Legion exludes unbelievers. In the 5 years that I have been a member I have never been asked about my religious beliefs, nor asked or required to sign any statements regarding my religious beliefs. None of the documentation sent to me by the legion when I joined mentions religion except for the preample to the A.L. Constitution which begins "For God and Country we ...". I have also searched this website for articles refering to discrimination in the American Legion and could find none. In fact I don't think I have heard a conversation about religion in my post ever. So far as I know the only membership criteria is the requirement of wartime service. In Fact, I happen to know that there are many homosexual Legionaires and I have never heard of the A.L. leadership having a problem with them. Don't most groups that discriminate on the basis of religion also discriminate against homosexuals? Are you sure you have the right organization here? If I am wrong I would appreciate your pointing out some relevant articles.

Thank You for Attention
Patrick Monagin < pmonagin@mailcity.com>
Northville, MI USA - Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 15:56:48 (MDT)

Molleen Matsumura responds:

Thank you for the correction. In an article that was originally an advertisement paid for by the Minnesota Atheists, which you can read here, two members wrote, "Insistence by Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion that god beliefs be part of the definition of patriotism, thereby refusing membership to atheists...," and I took these words literally. Perhaps they meant "refusing membership" in some other sense than literally denying membership, but you'll have to ask them. I've visited the sites of both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and both define membership eligibility in terms of actual military service, without stating any requirements of religious belief (see VFW membership and AL membership ). However, the membership application for the VFW states clearly "I certify that I am a citizen of the United States, that my U.S. Military Service was honorable, that I have never subsequently been discharged under other than honorable conditions, and that I believe in God." Will they allow someone to cross that out on the application? Your guess is as good as ours.

The Ad

Sirs,

Thank God (oops, sorry, I didn't say that) I find a web site that really supports my point of view. My opinion of all these right wing bigots trying to push their beliefs upon me. After all, we do live in a free country--right?--and in my opinion let's push these types out of their opinion. Let's try to control their thinking because they do not think the right way--right? I am in 100% support of the ACLU for pushing religion out of the public school and now our children can attend schools without some weirdo pushing their bigot ways on our children. Now our children can attend schools and can make up their minds to shoot or not to shoot. When an argument [arises] amoung our kids they are free to determine what course they want to do. I think we should try a new course instead of math and English, let's try Popping-a-cap course. And when comes to sexual identity, let's say a course on You Can't Help It, You Were Born That Way.

After all that is why our school system was sit up for, so our children can find out what sex perference they will prefer--right? All these problems, why don't we just have sex out in the open like dogs do because after all we are only animals. Wouldn't that just be wonderful? Boy all of these hang-ups and no where to go with it. I wish it was the 60's again and these perverts (oops that opinion was not correct) these people come and take over like Jesse Ventura or President Clinton. And just think about it by legalizing drugs we can stay at home and take trips. Maybe Governor Ventura has something there and maybe he should try to run for President. I hope he decides to run some day and boy would this country go on the right path. After all we are free and we do live in a free country. Well I must end this letter and waiting for this letter to appear in your web site.

Being hip in the 90's

Terry Pickering <terrypic@flash.net >
Ft. Worth, Tx USA - Saturday, October 23, 1999 at 11:51:19 (MDT)

I feel it is ludicrous that some people have gotten so outraged over Governor Ventura's remarks. He merely answered certain questions honestly. Would the naysayers rather have had him lie, thus saying empty, meaningless words just like the rest of the political community does on a continual, daily basis? Frankly, I am in awe of his honesty and courage and hope he never stops speaking his mind and I hope more politicians learn that what the citizens of the U.S. want and need is an honest politician, not a parroting puppet.

Barbara Buttram < leglegls@cybertyme.com>
Gadsden, AL USA - Thursday, October 21, 1999 at 19:11:17 (MDT)

Even the most devout fundamentalism should appreciate a politician who is HONEST. Besides, Jesse is right on.

Doris Mussil <dmussil@webcombo.net >
Spokane, WA USA - Monday, October 18, 1999 at 22:56:57 (MDT)

The letter, "Religion Must Apologize, not Ventura" is very moving. It's about time somebody defends Jesse Ventura's ideas! My American Government class was having a discussion in class about Ventura's interview with Playboy. When the class was asked if it was fine for him to speak his opinions about relgion, I was the only one that raised my hand to say that it was! Immediately the majority of the class started whispering, obviously in disgust. My teacher asked me what I thought. I said, "Ventura's beliefs have nothing to do with how he governs a state." He replied, "But the people of Minnesota say that he does not represent them now, he should leave office now, right?" I replied firmly with, "I am Atheist, should I recieve an 'F' in this class because I do not share beliefs with the rest of you? The constitution calls for a seperation of the Church and the State, we all learned that, this is no exception." He simply agreed, and moved off of the subject. I will share this letter with my teacher to see what he thinks, maybe he'll understand. Thank you.

Matt Percool <CoolPer311@aol.com>
JAX, FL USA - Friday, October 15, 1999 at 16:06:45 (MDT)

re: Features: 1999: Religion Must Apologize, Not Ventura

I had the opportunity to read Ventura's Playboy interview in its entirety, and as much as I was tickled to read a couple of lines that were critical, I found Ventura's "wisdom" to be on a par with that of a high school jock.

Clearly the man is anti-education; he thinks college basketball players shouldn't have to take classes, and when asked about the value of a college education, claims that the world needs mechanics and telephone repairmen, too. (As if mechanics and manual laborers are condemned to a life of ignorance.)

As someone who values education, I am at odds with Ventura. And since I take his criticisms of literature, media, college and actors with a grain of salt, I must also take his "evaluation" of religion with a grain of salt. As much as I would like to hear a politician speak up against religious injustice, I'm not as interested in hearing it from Ventura. It takes at least bit of self-education to see the inaccuracies and flaws of established religions. If educational values are not supported, then the movement from religion to atheism would simply not be possible.

As an atheist, I have therefore chosen to be silent and neutral on Ventura's comment, and the reaction it caused.

John Rockwell < brewbitch@earthlink.net>
Moreno Valley, CA USA - Friday, October 15, 1999 at 10:28:48 (MDT)

Ventura was wrong when he said in his interview in a magazine that exploits women that he "understood" the Tailhook scandal, saying that those who "live on the . . . edge and defy death" don't consider groping a big thing. What if rugged homosexuals who worked in dangerous professions groped Ventura? I doubt that he'd be "understanding" about it! But that kind of explotation the women took in the Tailhook incident is exactly the equivalent kind of exploitation Ventura would feel if homosexuals groped him. Freethought groups shouldn't defend Ventura! I Am An Atheist,

Mr. Andrew O. Lutes <KHHL59@aol.com>
Mansfielf, OH USA - Friday, October 15, 1999 at 04:50:45 (MDT)

Weren't Jesse Ventura's comments in the Playboy Interview great! The courage he showed in telling it like it is concerning religion whas so refreshing. I knew he was outspoken and courageous, but I never expected this.

Terry Gabriel < tgabriel@bellsouth.net
Raleigh, NC USA - Saturday, October 02, 1999 at 14:44:06 (MDT)

Jerry Borchandt on Skepticism and McDowell's "Proof"

With regards to the article on Josh Mcdowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict, the article's writer may not be aware of what Mr. McDowell's background is, if he did, he might not just throw away the arguments as easily as he has here. Mr. McDowell was the ultimate Skeptic before he wrote Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He had set out to destroy the Christian and Jewish Faith by destroying the credability of the Bible. He spent 5 years studing archaeological and other evidence, and when he was done, he not only had not provent the Bible to be inaccurate, but had found himself conviced in its truth. I have heard him speak and present his arguments in person, and he does not shy away or try to skirt Skeptisim, he addresses it. I suggest that if you don't agree with him, go through the steps that he went through. Travel to the Middle East and study the evidence first hand for several years. If you disagree with him, fine, but maybe you'll find that you come to the same conclusions that he did. Who knows.

Charles Klabunde <hkyrules@aol.com>
Northglenn, CO USA - Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 20:10:49 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

This is a lot like what many fundamentalists and apologists claim (going all the way back, in fact, to Paul of Tarsus). It has a suspicious rhetorical air of cliche, and though I don't doubt that McDowell was a "doubter," I do doubt whether he is telling you the whole truth about his conversion. I have never believed the "I tried to refute it but couldn't!" argument, not even from my fellow atheists and skeptics. Indeed, it should be a clue that the most common use of this sort of argument is in infomercials and investment scams, and the second most common use is in New Age religion. Very often, if it is not a lie, the subtext is: "I secretly wanted to believe and saw only what I needed to see to justify believing." I have even encountered atheists whose atheism was rooted in such biased psychology (instead of sound research and reasoning), so it is a human reality, not just a religious one.

Tax-Paid-Prayer Protest

Perhaps your thought is not so free after all. Ideas usually have results.

Bruce Thompson
Jefferson, OH USA - Tuesday, October 26, 1999 at 08:22:39 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

To paraphrase Bruce Lee, "And horses usually whinny, and starfish usually crawl, and backwards is reverse, and forward is straight ahead!"

Jan Brazill on the Population Explosion

Responding to reflections on 6 billion. Why would the Pope oppose birth control? One need not seek complex psychological reasons, such as vicarious fatherhood in a celebate old man. The answer is simple. If he changes past doctrine (i.e. admits they were and are wrong) in this area, he opens the door and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. THAT is what he is afraid of. I suspect privately he acknowledges the crisis of overpopulation, but, of course, I have no way of knowing that.


Peter G. Roode, M.D. < a_skeptic@hotmail.com>
Gainesville, FL USA - Saturday, October 23, 1999 at 05:00:04 (MDT)

I was disappointed to see Jan Brazil's article on the Pope's psyche. I first found myself looking for her credentials or background as a psychologist fit to make comments such as these. But, from the article, I would guess that she has none. I don't say that in preface to debunking her assertions, because she made little more than a lay comment on the subject. It was an unsubstantiated attack on the Pope's character. It was unscholarly and totally unfit for publication by II. I hope we can do better than this in the future.
Jason Torpy <nephilim1@hotmail.com >
NY USA - Friday, October 22, 1999 at 09:24:57 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

You should never confuse an editorial with a scholarly paper--not here, nor in journals, magazines, or newspapers. The purpose of an editorial is to voice an opinion, not to demonstrate a fact. Although editorials will refer to facts the author believes to be true, this is generally to show why they hold the opinion that they do. In contrast, scholarly articles (such as among the pieces in our modern library) aim either to demonstrate facts in order to argue for a conclusion, using references and analysis, or to point out flaws or omissions in some other article or argument. You should recognize at once the difference between this and an editorial. And it is important to grasp this distinction, because it exists in newspapers and magazines the world over, and you should be prepared to read editorials in mainstream media as no more than an explanation of opinion, not as a scholarly argument or demonstration.

I found Jan Brazill's article on the Catholic hand in the overpopulation of the earth to be very much on the mark. I have very often taken issue with the Catholic stance on birth control, and--attending a Catholic University--it tends to spark quite a debate.

In the interest of seeing the essay be as strong and sturdy as possible, however, I have one major comment: the statistic cited from the U.N., giving the number (120 Million) of women who could avoid pregnancy if exposed to proper birth control, is missing one major piece: is that 120 Million annually? 120 a day? 120 million since the Church first took a stance against birth control? The time period involved is very pertinent in this issue. I know that the number 120 million is impressive enough to shock many people, but the proper scholar goes right past the shock to see that without a time period, the number is essentially meaningless.

Matt Lampert <Archas@aol.com>
Scranton, PA USA - Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 20:28:55 (MDT)

Richard Carrier responds:

I read the sentence "120 million women would avoid pregnancy" to mean that 120 million women on Earth right now would use birth control technologies if they had access to them. As to what year's data this conclusion is based on, that is a valid question, but not entirely necessary to answer in an editorial--unless the data is more than five years old, it is reasonable to project it into the present year, unless increased access has been achieved in the past five years and this increase has outpaced population growth. Jan has more to say below.

Re: Six Billion.
I am not a fan of the religious ban on birth control. I do not, however, believe that the real problem is that we simply have too many people in the world. In a word POVERTY. If resources were handled in a humane manner, I do not think that population would be a problem. Perpetuating a world system in which there is a yawning gap between the haves and have-nots is a worse sin perpetuated by the church. How dare religious leaders tell people to accept their lot in life, and speak of a better world to come when there is so much that could still be done if we were not so afraid to let science and technology do its thing.

I, too am guilty. I am a have. I could certainly do more to alleviate the suffering of my fellow earthlings. Secular people, such as myself, are unwilling to lose anything, or to be inconvenianced, even if it would help someone else. While the pope is certainly espousing something very unhealthy, I am not comfortable, in this case, to lay the true problem of overpopulation at the feet of religion.

Kindle Family < kindlefamily@yahoo.com>
USA - Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 13:08:20 (MDT)

Jan Brazill responds:

First of all, I would like to make clear that my short piece, "Reflections on 6 Billion" was not intended to be a scholarly tome--hence the name "Reflections." This was an observation meant to engender thoughts on the subject, and in that, I seem to have been successful!

While I, myself, am not a psychologist, one who is read this and offered the opinion that "The premise is not too far fetched, and with some of the insanely ridiculous Freudian hypotheses I studied in graduate school, Jan's formulation is not at all an unreasonable consideration. The article makes suppositions, and does not attempt to present them as hard facts."

One critic calls this an "unsubstantiated attack on the Pope's character." So let me clarify my reasoning. Various NGO's (non-governmental organizations) connected with past United Nations population conferences have told how the Holy See (the official term for the Vatican) has used its privileged "nation" status at the UN to block and derail UN population conferences and prevent consensus on matters of reproductive health care. In this way, the Pope has blocked progress at getting contraceptives to women around the world. I say that makes him indirectly responsible for many births.

According to Dr. Sadik of the U.N., 350 million women, many in the developing countries, still lack access to modern family planning methods. 585,000 women die each year as a result of pregnancy, and another 70,000 lose their lives due to unsafe, often illegal abortions. Besides opposing artificial contraception, the Pope fights against legalizing abortions and against using condoms to stop the spread of HIV (each year 5.8 million become HIV Positive and 2.5 million die from AIDS). So in my opinion, the Pope is also responsible for many deaths. That is why over 300 NGO's are backing a campaign to petition the UN to assign the Vatican the same NGO status as other religions. (Sign on to www.seechange.org to add your name to this petition.)

As for the fact that my figure of "120 million" did not specify the time period, I did notice that omission in my source, but since I was simply looking for a number of women who say they would have avoided pregnancy had they had contraceptives, 120 million was enough to make my point.

One critic does not agree that we have too many people in the world. I would suggest such doubters access www.sixbillionandbeyond.org, a site which will inform and also give links to many population organizations. We need to realize that overpopulation exacerbates every other problem society faces.

Of course religion is not the only cause of overpopulation, but when it comes to the use of effective contraception to reduce population and prevent disease and famine, religious opposition has played an obstructionist role, and it was this I was addressing. Furthermore, this situation has been allowed to get so bad that, even though the birth rate is falling in many places in the world, population growth now has the momentum of a runaway train. While the last billion increase took just 12 years, the next billion will take even less time with 3 billion people in the world under the age 25 and with medical advances increasing the number of elderly. So it really comes down to a choice of "quantity of life" or "quality of life." This could be the most important issue of the 21st Century.

I wa