Infidels: Feedback : 1999 : September

September (1999)

Belief, Truth, and the Columbine Tragedy

I usually enjoy your postings on this website very much. I was surprised, therefore, when I read the Columbine article by Richard Carrier. If the myth surrounding Cassie's death was just a myth, fine. But I have a real problem with Mr. Carrier's criticism of her handling of the situation. I find it rediculous to blame the fact that she was found and shot on her religious upbringing. As an athiest, if I were in the same situation, I might be babbling "Dear God, I want to go home," myself. And to put any of the blame on Cassie for her death, and to then extend that to say she was almost responsible for her friend's death, is absolutely repugnant. Harris and Klebold are SOLELY responsible for Cassie's death, as well as the deaths of the others. To say it was partly Cassie's fault because she didn't hide well enough is contemptable. This article was really beneath you guys.

Joseph Murphy <joemurphy@email.com >
Centralia, IL USA - Wednesday, September 29, 1999 at 13:03:44 (MDT)

The editor responds:

You are quite correct. My retraction and apology has been appended to the original article, as well as a link to a better analysis by our own Stephen Welch .

I just got done reading the article about Cassie Bernall, and I think it's horrible that people published that she didn't say what was originally published. Think of her parents--perhaps the only light that they had in their grief was the fact that their daughter stood up for what she believed in. The other girl also should have been recognized--but cassie shouldn't have been disregarded.

Adrienne Krysl < the_neepernu@hotmail.com>
Blair, NE USA - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 19:07:06 (MDT)

I was sad to see Richard's usual high standards slide so low with this particular essay. "Had it not been for the unfortunate sighting of Shoels, Cassie's behavior would have been partly responsible for Emily's death" ... is a particularly disgusting statement. If Richard, or any other free thought proponent, thinks he can place himself in the Columbine Library and say that a teenage girl praying is irrational in light of the situation, then the Christians are right. He does lack a moral foundation. I'd like to know just what a rational guy like Richard would say if Klebold had the gun to his head, or his child's. There is nothing rational about 15 dead kids. Equaly as disgusting is the insinuation that Cassie's prayers could have led to further deaths, but for the killer's racism. The Salon article from which this was taken clearly states that racism played no motive in the shootings. Nor did "Jock Status," religion, or anything other than plain old malice. Cassie Bernall and the other kids at Columbine would be dead regardless of what they had answered. Trying to tie that to one dead girl's faith is amazingly low. Richard should be ashamed of this one.

Jerome O'Neil <jerome@newmedianw.com >
Seattle, WA USA - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 16:06:31 (MDT)

The editor responds:

I am ashamed of that article. My opinion was quite wrong. See the link above. But the facts remain the same. There is no known case where "what they had answered" caused any decision to shoot. And I actually stated in my article that the killers were not motivated by racism or any other hatred, just a lust for fame (and an obviously demented mindset), and I did not say their racism was a fact, but only possible, if we believe one statement by a witness. Their diary does in fact rail against races--all of them. Their beliefs were clearly contradictory and inexplicable. In this respect I was only reporting the facts as they are publicly known, even after new information had come forward with the release of the findings of the police investigation.

In response to your rhetorical question, if anyone had pointed a gun to my head I would have attacked him, and attempted to disarm him, immediately, as I have been trained to do. I do not expect a teenager to know how or even to have the steel to risk their lives like that, and I was wrong to imply anything to the contrary. But it is equally wrong to claim that Christianity made Cassie into anything more than another teenager without any guidance or knowledge of what to do in a crisis. We Americans become overly complacent about our perfect lives, oblivious to the fact that millions of teens in the world have fought in wars at least once in their lives, or have been taught, by others or by cruel experience, to handle violent and frightening situations, which are always looming for them. It is an open question whether we are failing our teens by not giving them this training and preparation, or whether doing so would settle an unacceptable cloud over our paradise. I will leave that question unanswered. We should ponder it.

I found this report so interesting. There is always so much hype about how she was shot because she proclaimed her self to be a Christian. The news never reported anything about this. Thank you!

Michelle Jones

NC, USA - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 14:54:42 (MDT)

About the Columbine article: although it's a very interesting column, the killers were NOT racist (just Social Darwinist). In fact, Dylan Klebold lists racists on his page of "things he hates", as recorded by the local police investigating a complaint by local boy Brooks Brown in 1998. He says, in fact, that he would like to break the legs of racists with a plastic spoon... "and thats both legs mind you". Hmm.

Jim Haasen <molotox@mindless.com >
Tallaru, Victoria Austraia - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 11:27:36 (MDT)

Regarding your June feedback [where you wrote]:

Although I agree with your overall point, you should know that the shooters did imply that atheism was behind their crime: one of them asked a victim if she believed in God, and when she said she did, the killer said there was no God, and then shot her. It is this that has ruffled the feathers of the religious right.

Paul Murray <pmurray@bigpond.com >
Canberra, ACT Australia - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 00:44:43 (MDT)

The editor responds:

This last letter was sent before my article of the same date, which corrected that very information. I do not think it is correct reasoning to suppose that just because the killers hated every group that therefore they were not bigots and did not target certain groups when it pleased their disturbed adrenaline-crazed psyche. I think it is clear that their reasons were indeed spurred partly by hatred--at everyone--and there is nothing to have stopped them from lashing out in accord with particular insane loathings at one group or another as they spiralled down to ruin on their mad shooting spree. I was prepared to believe that they, even with the general objective of fame and total destruction of their hated schoolmates, may have had particular spite for Christians, jocks, and blacks, but so far all the stories suggesting this have been refuted except one--the use of a racial slur before killing a black teen. That, too, may turn out to be untrue, but I have no information to that effect, yet.

Violence and the Wedgewood Shooting

Daniel Lesser's article "Violence and the Wedgewood Shooting" brought up many interesting points concerning Christianity's love affair with violence. It reminded me of what should have been a Jeff Foxworthy joke: "If your church's school bus has a gun rack, you may be a redneck."

I'm surprised that Mr. Lesser missed the obvious conclusion: since (according to various flavors of Christianity) God is the ultimate cause of everything, then then he caused the shootings. And he caused the shootings, what is the message he is sending to the Wedgewood church? And what are they doing in response to that message?

This posits a whole passle of theological connundrums. For example, if the church reacts to the shooting by installing metal detectors, etc., then can't the church be accused of attempting to thwart God's purpose, perhaps inspiring him to even greater terrorism the next time? After all, the Bible is full of accounts of God smiting his enemies harder and harder until they get the point and give in.

Robin Sheppard <robins@sonic.net>
Santa Rosa, CA USA - Wednesday, September 29, 1999 at 15:05:43 (MDT)

The name of God is blasphemed among the Infidels because of silly-headed people who feel they are Christians, like this woman.

And the Infidels, lacking wisdom, have themselves been tricked by the oldest religious trick there is in Christendom. Unable to discern for themselves what the Scriptures really teach, the Infidel naively engages in vain debate with these religious idiots. The result is an amusing pooling of ignorance which has come to be known as the "Secular Web" or whatever your label is. I mean to tell you, these dialogues are truly funny. Regarding the stupid comments from the woman about the Wedgwood incident and the pathetic Infidel response represented by Daniel Lesser, you might want to consider a thought that evidently has never entered your peanut brain: God not only allowed that incident to come about, He both decreed it to be so and made sure it was carried out to completion without any detail left out.

God has prearranged all things and all events and is carrying them out in time (Isa 46:9-11; Eph 1:11). And He has absolute control over all the wicked including the Infidels (Ps 76:10). Even the blasphemy that comes from you lips is ordained by Him. You ought to go and find out why it is so. You will be amazed if you ever discover why God deals with His creation as He does. As it is for you now, you are still glaringly ignorant. Neither you nor this woman has a clue. You are rebels without a clue.

I'm amazed at you "intellectual" Infidels. You've fallen for the religious trickery used to attempt to convince simple-minded folks that "God loves everybody". When the Scriptures themselves are so plain that even a child can see that God hates most everybody (Rom 9:13; Ps 5:5; 7:11; 11:5; Hos 9:15; Job 40:12). God is not in the least interested in sparing all men from final destruction. He is so far from desiring to save everybody that He is said to create ON PURPOSE most men and women for the purpose of destruction (Prov 16:4). He creates vessels of wrath for the express purpose of demonstrating His powerful wrath against sinners (Rom 9:21-22).

"God loves the sinner but hates the sin", they say. What gross unbelief of their own bibles which plainly state that God hates all workers of iniquity (Ps 5:5). And yet, the Infidels have also missed these plain, bold, provocative verses of the Scriptures. Instead of throwing their own Scriptures into the faces of these religious imbeciles, the Infidels attempt to engage them on their own terms: faulty human reasoning.

The fact that the Scriptures utterly refute the foolish notion that God loves everyone ought to be the very first point of debate for every Infidel when addressing these phony "Christians" who do not even believe their own bibles. See hear! The best weapon you have against these religious frauds is their own bible! Alas, this fact escapes the "great" minds of the Infidels. The best they can do is to engage themselves in endless vain debate. Both sides never make any progress because both lack understanding.

Well, here's a tip to you Infidels. Use the Word of God against these religious atheists. [That is right. They are just as much atheist as you are. They too do not believe in the God of the bible. Their own religion denies Him. You are open rebels against God. They are clandestine rebels against God. But both are natural born enemies of God (Rom 8:7). You deny God outright (Ps 14:1). They deny God in their lies about Him (Ps 58:3; Isa 48:8). Both groups are rank atheists at heart. Modern day ungodly Christendom is as much atheist as the godless Infidel. You two have much more in common than you know.] If you would apply wisdom to your debate, use the plain and simple verses of their own Scriptures to silence the mouths of these stupid, phony "Christians".

The Scriptures plainly declare that God does not in the least love all men. They declare that Jesus Christ did not come to die for all men. They utterly refute the silly notion that God is trying to save all men. God does not desire that all men come to Jesus Christ any more than He desires to see Satan saved.

So, I give to you the best information you could possibly use to utterly refute the silly-headed notions of today's foolish religions that name the name of Jesus Christ. For once show a degree of wisdom and use their own source of faith against them.

As for Mr. Lesser, tell him he is not fit to be a journalist. He demonstrates a lack of ability to discern where the truth lies in an argument. Then again, I suppose this highly commends him for modern day journalism.

Steve Baloga <balogas@aol.com>
Knoxville, TN USA - Saturday, September 25, 1999 at 07:48:27 (MDT)

The editor responds:

What an odd fellow. I must say I'm happy to see you confirm everything we have been saying for centuries: that the god of the Bible is a mean, coldhearted, manipulative bastard. Of course, he is also a hopelessly confused addlebrain, since for every passage you cite that says God does not want all to be saved, there is another that says he does. See my discussion of one example . By the way, anyone who believes in any god is a theist, whether that god exists or not, so your attempt to place Christians in the ranks of atheists is charmingly sad.

Heard Jane Goodall on NPR 9/21. She relates experiences with chimps where they show kindness, aggression, rage, cunning, love, hate, indifference, and other emotions. Goodall supposes that all primates have evolved these for good reason. Goodall has been observing chimps and baboons for 40 years. Why should we attribute any human emotion or action resultant from an emotion to some unknown "higher" or other source? A gunman in a rage is no more a tool of "satan" than a chimp ripping apart another member of its' troop.

Dennis S. Collins <dcollin2@email.usps.gov >
Springfield, MA USA - Friday, September 24, 1999 at 12:03:58 (MDT)

My only objection to the column about the Fort Worth shooting is an apparent misunderstanding of the Second Amendment and gun control (or more accurately, "victim disarmament") in general. The first misconception is that other industrialized countries have lower homicide rates because they have gun control. One word: Switzerland; they require people to own guns, but have a lower murder rate. Even here, states that allow "concealed carry" have a lower crime rate. The saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" has become something of a bromide, but it still contains a grain of truth: people who intend to murder, rape or steal don't respect other laws either. The most important reason for the Second Amendment is generally lost in discussions about gun control: self-defense, not only against criminals, but against a tyrannical government (not saying that we've gotten to that point yet, but those who know don't have to be told, and those who don't probably wouldn't understand anyway). The Nazis, for example, were big advocates of gun control. My point is that just because some gun rights advocates tend to treat it as a religion doesn't make it one. There are valid reasons for not wanting to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Larry Coleman < larryliberty@hotmail.com>
Inkster, MI USA - Friday, September 24, 1999 at 07:27:45 (MDT)

Daniel Lesser responds:

Mr. Coleman, my primary topic was not guns or gun control, but rather imputing supernatural sources to behavior. I did not directly come out and say "guns are bad, guns are evil, take away the guns." I stated that guns are an issue to be examined, as was suggested by the attorney general. You are right that I should have been more precise, as to indicate that not every gun advocate is religious about it, but I thought that it was fairly clear I was discussing right-wing religious conservatism.

To direct you to an article which more precisely deals with the "theology of the Second Amendment," I would suggest "Your Constitution is Killing You" by Daniel Lazare in October 1999 of Harper's. The Second Amendment didn't come down from Mt. Sinai, but was rather a reflection of the times.

Again, I would have a rejoinder to some of what you have to say, but the primary purpose was to highlight the problematic nature of looking up to the heavens for answers. If it is the case that Europeıs lower homicide rate is not solely due to gun control, thatıs fine--there is still likely naturalistic explanations to be found. I was referring to the caprice of God to let one person be murdered and be praised for "saving" another one. If we are going to say that, then Europe is more blessed by God by the statistics, and we should praise him for giving Europe less homicide.

Heck, if after careful consideration and research, we found that everyone would be free from all violence if we let everyone carry a ³concealed bazooka,² so be it. But the divinity of the Constitution or the Bible doesnıt cut it with me.

While the article on the church shootings was well written, the author lost me completely at the end. I was completely unsure of the point he was trying to make. Somehow he went from talking about the biological and evolutionary purpose of violence to a political commentary, stopping along the way to imply that there is no such thing as accountability for ones actions. I thoroughly enjoy this website, but one hiccough in its presentation is that many of the writers try very hard to dispell the idea of the Christian god (an easy task, I might add), but think that this also dispells all possibilities of the Divine. This makes sense, since Athiesm and Secularism are reactionary outgrowths of western monotheism, but there is more to religion and spirituality than an old white guy with a long beard sitting on a throne saying "you're a good boy, you're a bad boy" and sending divorcees and meat eaters to eternal torment.

I thank you for your time

James C. Struck <Leatheank@aol.com >
Chicago, il USA - Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 12:00:40 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Look around more. There is a lot in our modern library that addresses theism and supernaturalism in every respect, not just Christian dogmas. The article you refer to is a case in point: it was about a remark by a Christian, hence it was limited to that context. But there are many articles here that are not. The bottom line? Being merely logically possible does not make something true, and since there is no evidence, of any kind, for any supernatural divinity, there is no reason to believe in any.

Mr. Lesser might want to tone down the language. I mean, trajedy??? what??? if yare nothing but chance the shooting was no more a trajedy than if it had not hapened.

the second ammendment comment? well Mr. Lesser it is much easier to speak than do research and from your OK Coral comment it shows that is your SOP. the university of chicago has conducted studies that show after a state implements concealed carry permits for citizens, there is a 3% reduction in the murder rate a year.

Study was done by John Lott, Jr.

perhaps, you might want to READ it.

Jarrod Taylor < kingcorrect@hotmail.com>
USA - Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 06:42:30 (MDT)

Jeff Lowder on Islam

Wow, I can safely say that you do not know what your talking about when it comes to Islam. I didnt even get half way to reading what you wrote because of the simple fact that, it was all misleading and it showed me that you knew nothing of the religion.

I am not saying you have to believe in the religion your talking about but Im saying you have to know what the religion says and what its about, as well as how it originated. Otherwise you would have nothing realistic to write like you did.

First of all, your mistake about Islam is that you said "Islam's God is Allah" this is funny to me because in Arabic Allah means God, and even if you ask a Christian or Atheist who lives in an Arab Country what the word for God is in there language they will tell you its Allah.

Secondly, Muhammad (swa) the porphet for all of mankind, not only Arabs, did not recieve the Quran straight from Allah (God). Allah, through Arch Angel Gabriel gave the revelation to Muhammad (swa). Angel Gabriel would ask Muhammad to repeat, and would tell him verses of the Quran as it was formed over many years in this manner, then it would be dicated after Muhammad (swa) who memorized it would dictate it to his companions.

Third, the words Islam like the word Allah has a translation into the English language, and as we know Allah means God, (not any specific person,place or object) Islam means (Submission to Allah (God), and Muslim means (One who submitts to Allah (God) in Islam).

I think that if you knew these 3 points, I dont think you would have wrote what you wrote but then again maybe your just trying to bash Islam and Christianity. By the way Jeudism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as Atheists and every other belief, have only ONE GOD, and that is GOD. this is the main message of Islam. To believe in ONE GOD, God of all mankind, the Creater.

Sincerely,

Ahmad <NYCSuccess@Hotmail.com >
New York, NY USA - Wednesday, September 08, 1999 at 11:40:35 (MDT)

Jeff Lowder on Lee Strobel's Case for Christ

I just finished reading Jeffery Lowder's review of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and feel it is necessary to point out some problems. Space considerations prevent me from responding to all of Mr. Lowder's article, so I will limit myself to a few select items. One of the biggest complaints Lowder has is the lack of direct input from any Christian critics. Well, as the subtitle indicates, this was Lee Strobel's PERSONAL journey, not Michael Martin's or any other atheist for that matter.Strobel did not set out to be convinced of why he was an atheist but rather to find what,if any, evidence there was for the Christ of christianity.He went armed with an assortment of questions and arguments that most atheists would also have raised as objections and attempted to find reasonable answers to reasonable questions. Mr. Lowder seems to suggest that because Lee strobel isn't an . . .

[the rest of this message did not arrive--ed.]

Warrick Walker < foreverfamily@home.com>
Calgary, Canada - Saturday, September 04, 1999 at 18:15:42 (MDT)

Jeff Lowder responds:

If the book were offered merely as Lee Strobel's personal testimony, then your criticism would have some merit. But the book is not hyped simply as Strobel's personal testimony, though it certainly contains that. The book is promoted as the work of a former skeptical journalist. Thus, as a work of journalism, we would expect Strobel to at least interview the people he criticizes in his book (e.g., Michael Martin). Strobel could have still given Christian authors the last word, consistent with his goal of making "the case for Christ." Thus Strobel's book is a complete failure as a work of journalism.

The rebuttal to Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" is quite spirited. Having read the book, I found it to be very interesting and thought provoking. It was very well documented and provides an abundant listing of other reference material to research the arguments, theories and rebuttals that Jeff Lowder would like to have seen addressed. As I read the book I was grateful that Lee Stobel did not attempt to make a comprehensive and exhustive document and chose instead to make a readable book. As an apparent atheist what is the author's, Jeff Lowder, objection to? If God and/or Christ do not exist, why expend the effort to argue against nothing? Christianity seems to come under a steady stream of fire from many quarters that other religions do not. Does only Christianity raise his ire or is he equally critical of Islam or Hinduism?

Timothy Bondy <Dinka877@aol.com>
Elmhurst, Il USA - Thursday, September 02, 1999 at 13:43:44 (MDT)

Jeff Lowder responds:

Timothy, there are several reasons why I respond to Christian apologists like Strobel,

but have not responded to Islamic or Hindu apologists. First, speaking on a personal level, I used to be a Christian and many of my immediate family members are Christian; none are Muslim or Hindu. Second, I live in the USA where Christianity has considerable influence on politics; by comparison, the political influence of Islam and Hinduism is relatively small.

Third, I live in the USA where atheism comes "under a steady stream of fire from" a number of Christian apologists and philosophers. However, I am not even aware of any American Islamic or Hindu apologists or philosophers who attack atheism. For that matter, I am not aware of any American Christian apologists or philosophers who refute Hinduism, and I know of only a couple of American Christian philosophers who address Islam. And given the number of pantheists in America, one might reasonably ask why Christian apologists and philosophers are not "equally critical" of pantheists. (Although some Christian apologists do discuss pantheism, atheism clearly receives much more critical scrutiny from Christian apologists and philosophers than pantheism.) The bottom line is that, in an American context, Hinduism and Islam do not receive as much attention in philosophy of religion circles as Christianity and atheism, and the Secular Web is no exception to this trend. (Of course, this may change; the number of Muslims in America is growing.)

[Go to the August 1999 Feedback to see the last word on this subject--ed.]

Is the Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?

Concerning "Is the Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?" by J.J. Lowder:

Did Lowder consider the work of mathematician and logician Kurt Godel? Back in the 1970's, Godel proved that proof of a mathematical or logical system's validity cannot be determined within the system itself, but from outside the system. In this case, to prove or disprove the existence of God, one must be outside of the system in which God exists. Since our universe is finite, and God is supposed to be infinite, then we would only be able to prove or disprove God's existence if we were outside of God's system, which is infinite. If God and the plane in which He exists are infinite, we can't be outside of it, so the best one can do is accept or deny his existence. Proof or disproof is not possible.

Godel also showed that one doesn't have to prove something in order for it to be true. All mathematics and logic systems contain at least one unprovable statement, which is nonetheless true. Scientists and mathematicians rely on the truth of these statements purely on faith. So it is with both atheism and religion.

Why I am a Christian is purely subjective, but I am also convinced that my faith is not totally groundless, based on the reliable historical documents which detail it. My Christianity is based on faith, but my faith has lots of evidence to support its claims--more so, I'd say than atheism, which has no strong historical or scientific foundation to stand on, only logical arguments--which, because they are generated within our system of existence, hold no water against the claims of God's existence, except as pure statements of faith.

Atheism and theism are a lot alike in that way. But I've seen marvellous works done for people in the name of Jesus--more so than in the name of Kant, or Nietchze (sorry about the spelling) or Descartes--so I think I'll stay on my side of the fence. You may argue that many terrible things have also been done in God's name, but you cannot flush something because some of its human members choose to abuse it. Science has been perverted in a multitude of ways, but we do not deny its essential good value to society, properly utilized. Christianity deserves the same unbiased treatment.

Sincerely,

Michael Jones < jonesie_91304@yahoo.com>
Woodland Hills, CA USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 18:03:37 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Goedel's theorem describes the limitations of logical analysis. It has nothing to do with empirical arguments. You are confusing one kind of proof (a proof of the internal consistency of a system of propositions) with another (a proof that something exists or acts a certain way). All scientific, legal and historical investigation primarily involves the latter, not the former. No one uses as a defense in criminal court "But Goedel said you can't prove I did it!" And the verdicts of juries, scientists, and historians hardly issue from faith. On what faith vs. evidence really means, see my "A Fish Did not Write This Essay " and on the issue of empirical (vs. logical) proofs, see "Proving a Negative."

You should also get your facts straight. Goedel wrote his famous theory in 1931, long before the 1970's. And neither Kant nor Descartes were atheists. They were both devoted theists and Christians. As for your closing argument, Gandhi did marvelous work for people, yet not in the name of Jesus. Likewise, the great humanitarian projects of Muslims and Chinese civil engineers were not undertaken in the name of Jesus, nor were the largesses, public works, and massive disaster relief efforts of the Roman and Greek aristocracies in pre-Christian times. And when you turn to atheists, the civil and birth-control rights of women were spearheaded by an atheist (Elizabeth Cady Stanton), and the largest charitable donation in the history of mankind (an astonishing one billion dollars) was made by Ted Turner, a Secular Humanist. Even you proclaim the "essential good value to society" of science, which is a fundamentally atheistic venture--since it seeks all answers and solutions to human questions and problems without any appeal to, or reliance on, anything supernatural, including god--and that is exactly the founding principle of the three most ubiquitous atheistic philosophies: Marxism, Objectivism, and Secular Humanism. So you implicitly agree that "marvelous works are done in the name of" atheistic philosophies, and thus you have no reason to bet against us.

The Jury Is In

All this technical nit-picking seems like such a waste of time. Theoretically, one cannot PROVE that one isn't just a brain in a jar on some scientist's desk, receiving a stream of programmed stimuli. (I saw "The Matrix") Step back for a minute and ask "What is reasonable?" in terms of worldview. Is it reasonable to believe such a thing? Is evolution reasonable? (BTW - have you read and responded to "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson?) Did the universe in all it's glory just spring into existence. If not, is it not reasonable to believe there is a GOD? Is it not reasonable to believe that GOD would want to be admired and worshipped by beings with free will, and that some would choose not to believe? That HE would reveal himself to us in some way? (Bible, Jesus, miracles, The HOLY SPIRIT).

Relax. GOD loves you. He still insists on being GOD, though. That is why some choose not to accept the obvious truth and want to be "god" of their own existence. "I will be like the most high God", declared Satan.

Mark Spraker <mspraker@usit.net>
Pulaski, VA USA - Tuesday, September 21, 1999 at 08:56:59 (MDT)

The editor responds:

See our several responses to Philip Johnson. Lots of things are "reasonable" (Taoism, Buddhism, Deism). But being reasonable is not sufficient to warrant believing that something is true. For that you need evidence. And there is a lot more evidence for evolution than against, and absolutely none for any divine act of creation. See our modern library section on the Cosmological Argument. As for whether the Christian theory is even reasonable in the first place, see "Proving a Negative." On miracles, see my comprehensive review of that subject.

I greatly enjoyed your website and found the read was both worthwhile and similarily rewarding.

This summer; at the insistence of some Christian acquaintances who wished to have me academically refute them; I read some of McDowell's work and other similar Christian works. I found them to be predictably un-academic and therefore was startled to see the devoted following they received.

Your arguments are made without deviating from logic, [as] in irrational "anti-Christian" attacks; something which I praise highly. Instead, you thoroughly took apart the problems with McDowell's style and delivery (not debating his right to believe whatever he wants to believe). I will certainly suggest your site as reading material for my ongoing debates.

Hannah Craig < Hannah1350N@rocketmail.com>
Pittsburgh, PA USA - Wednesday, September 29, 1999 at 14:58:17 (MDT)

HI! I'am a 20 year old from Chatham Ontario. I just wanted to make two two quik points. First is that you rebut Josh Mcdowell's book because he is biased. [H]owever, you overlook your own bias. And trust me you my friend ain't no god and you do have bias. Secondly you over look the actual evidence for Christianity and God. This being the probability counts, and the difference of Christian belief as compared to all other religions.

EXAMPLE:

CHRISTIAN:

• -God Comes To Man
• -Humans saved By Grace

• -Man comes to God
• -Humans saved by works and obeying a moral code

Your Budy,

Benjaim W. Lorenowicz < ben355@hotmail.com>
Chatham, ONT Canada - Sunday, September 26, 1999 at 15:53:42 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Some people think they are being clever, when they are really making a fool of themselves. Indeed, sometimes they do this so badly that everyone who sees them is moved to heartfelt embarrassment on their behalf. This is one of those people.

The Monthly Jabs at Don Morgan

To Donald Morgan (I think)

I wanted to thank you for posting so much useful information about the Bible. The Lord is always happy when His word reaches a greater audience.

I read over much of the "atrocities" page you have developed and have only a single comment. It is not an "all encompassing" comment by any means, but I have learned that when I comment on everything I want to comment on, it doesn't get read.

So here's my comment:

The vast majority of the "atrocities" mentioned were in the old testament. The biggest purpose of the old testament is to inform mankind that we are not and cannot be perfect and that the Lord our God is. It tells us what we must do to be perfect, and it is a hard road to follow (involving eliminating all imperfection from our surroundings... ie killing sinners, lest they drag us down... which happened over and over again to the people of Israel). In fact, it is impossible for us as humans to follow that road. But we were not ready to understand how impossible it is until the time of Christ. And even then and even now, some of us still try to redeem ourselves based upon our good works and "perfection". In other words, if we want to be as perfect as God is, then we cannot allow imperfection around us. Fortunately, Jesus has redeemed us from the need to be perfect. We are instead forgiven. And if any of the individuals executed before Christ had been around after Christ, they almost always would have been witnessed to and prayed over instead of executed. Praise the Lord!

Thanks again for your hard work furthering God's Kingdom.

Tim McCabe < tmccabe@screaminglydifferent.com>
wichita, ks USA - Wednesday, September 29, 1999 at 10:02:21 (MDT)

The editor responds:

I shudder to think what kind of mind it takes to actually imagine that moral "perfection" entails mass murder.

Sir,

You have cited many parts of the Holy Bible which you think are wrong, but you sir, are wrong. God Himself wrote the Bible through people. All of these "absurd" things about the Bible are true. Most of it you have perverted and taken out of context. The Bible is full of miricles that no one understands. Everything in the Word of God was leading up to one thing...the arrival and death of Jesus Christ. I hope that you will accept him as your personal Savior and Go to His Heaven. Heaven is boundless. It is the New Jeruselum that is 1500 square miles. Read the entire chapter instead of just the one verse.

Jason Gibson < darkwingduck1@collegeclub.com>
Cyclone, WV USA - Saturday, September 25, 1999 at 02:28:35 (MDT)

In regard to " Biblical Asurdities" I can only say that your site is proof positive of how spitually blind a man can be. The true absurdity is to believe that we evolved from some primordial ooze, through the evolutionary chain (which if were true the proponents would not have to purposely falsify evidence) to the state in which we now exist. But it is easier to justify a Godless life if we simply say there is no God. I so believe that if you were to seek the truth you would find that there is a God, a real Heaven and a real Hell. To admit that we don't have all the answers is only honest, and I don't have all the answers but I do know that the answer begins with Jesus. I pray that God will reveal Himself to you before it is too late.

Wesley Jones <wj523@cs.com>
Fruitland Park, Fl USA - Monday, September 20, 1999 at 19:59:38 (MDT)

[On Jesus being a hypocrit] "Let what you say be simply 'yes' or 'no'" ( Matthew 5:37 ) thereby implying the principle of honesty.

Your assumption was incorrect, Jesus was not implying honesty here, although lying is explicitly denounced elsewhere. Jesus was trying to teach an entirely different concept: That you have no control over tomorrow so don't try to swear that you will accomplish such and such tomorrow--you may not even be alive tomorrow.

The rest of your "Jesus was a Hypocrite" commentary is filled with such assumptions, inaccuracies and misperceptions (of course, this is the first email telling you so).

Christians allow Jesus's actions and speech to DEFINE the acceptable patterns of behavior based on the events of his life, death and resurrection. The world tends to define words such as "angry" in their own minds and think that is what God would define as angry. Remember--God had gotten angry over and over throughout time at the disobedient Israelites. Anger as God allows it is a righteous indignation over evil behavior--and that is the kind of behavior Jesus expressed. We can see that righteous indignation is an acceptable form of behavior BECAUSE Jesus and God expressed it, rather than utilizing the modern concept of anger as just any heated expression of discontentment.

The things in the Bible that seem wrong and unacceptable to you but are acceptable to God are things that are ultimately bringing glory and honor to God. Such as the killing of Israelites by fellow Israelites in order to cleanse the camp of sin. Killing is wrong when motivated by selfish desires, but killing when God says it will remove sin is ok. I bet that is confusing to you--but the Christian will say I will let God define what is right rather than trying to impose my will on the one who created me (Romans 9).

A thorough understanding of Jesus's intent to bring the message to people who wanted to hear it--and to contain those who would cause him problems in doing so (such as his family at different parts of his life) will help you understand more of your own commentaries.

I know you are of course entitled to your opinions and this will probably not cause you to inspect these 'contradictions' more carefully. But have you ever prayed to God to help you understand--or are you one of the people that Jesus was talking about when he said that the message is hidden from them?

Joe Tenga <joetenga@home.com>
Omaha, NE USA - Saturday, September 18, 1999 at 16:13:32 (MDT)

The editor responds:

I think it is safe to say that this fellow, who argues that a compassionate being can kill people for no other reason than disobedience, is ill qualified to discuss hypocrisy.

Has anybody ever tried to research the connection between Vampirism between Christianity and Vampirism and present that as a valid paper? For example, let's take the whine and bread ritual the Catholics use to represent the last supper, representing Christ's blood and flesh to his disciples. That's sounds very parallel to the part in Dracula where he gives Harker a whine bottle with his blood. Also there's the crucifixion, and the resurrection, though it loosely reflects vampirism, still his nature can be interpreted as vampiric. Also today, there are also the odd phanomena of stigmata, which are those people who bleed like Christ. Also on another note, Vlad Dracula the granddady of Stoker's Dracula, was a staunch Christian, and nowadays there is a rare medical condition called "Rensfield's Syndrome," in which some suggest that Klaus Kurtens the Vampire Killer of Germany, somewhere in the 20s or 30s was alleged to have "Renfield's Syndrome" and if you don't know what that is then it's a very strong addiction to human blood. Chances are, he was Christian too, however, that may not be a hundred percent right!

Aaron Saunders <mailbox.arn.net --(email's not hooked up yet)>
Amarillo, Tx USA - Monday, September 20, 1999 at 14:00:35 (MDT)

[On Jesus being a hypocrit]

I am a 19 year old university student. In my opinion, what you have done is wrong. I would like to warn you of your words, before you have to deal with Jesus himself one day, who loves you and gave himself specifically for you. I wonder if you could tell me your exact purpose for having a web site that just flips God the finger. Do you feel threatened by Chrisians? I'm not trying to be ignorant or insult you, I am just really interested as to why. This is not a hate letter, and this is not a letter from an activist or one who considers themself even a good Chrisitan. I'm just interested.

In His Service,

Garth Neufeld <cdn.paradigm@home.com >
Saskatoon, sk Canada - Wednesday, September 15, 1999 at 19:54:27 (MDT)

The editor responds:

See our last word on this subject.

[on Bible inconsistencies] GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

Genesis is Old Testament and 2Ch is New Testament therefore the law was different and the requirements changed with the death and resurrection of Christ. If you are going to attempt to ridicule then at least play by the rules..

Please remove this from your list.........

Castor Troy <erinnyes@hotmail.com >
A, BC USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 12:44:35 (MDT)

The editor responds:

That God should ever have to change the rules is in itself an inconsistency. Unless you want to propose that God, recognizing that he screwed up and had been doing things wrong for 4000 years, eventually changed his fallible mind. That's fine with me. But evidence of this change of mind still represents evidence of an inconsistency in the mind of the Biblical God, however meritorious, so there is no reason to pretend it isn't there.

[on Bible inconsistencies again] 1CO 7:8-9 Widows should not marry (although it is better to marry than burn). TI 5:14 Young widows should marry, bear children, rule the household, etc.

1CO 8:4 There is only one God. 2CO 4:4 Satan is God of this world (therefore there are at least two gods).

These two are not contradictory what are you joking did you get tired and evasperated I do not understand a 3 year old could comprehend the meaning of both of these and that neither is in anyway inconsistant.

for the first-- Paul has a love for God and does not seek the pleasure of physical touch with a woman, but he understands the struggles of the want for companionship and that it is better to marry and fullfill your pleasures under God's guide lines..

for the second-- Satan has constantly stood in the way of God work why because the flesh is weak.... Understand... Thank You

If you would please remove these from you list of inconsistants.......

Castor Troy <erinnyes@hotmail.com >
A, BC USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 08:23:49 (MDT)

The editor responds:

That Paul should understand the struggles of the want for companionship, but God does not, yet both represent the authority of God, is again an inconsistency. And if Satan can stand in the way of God, blinding men against God's will, and is immortal and supernatural, and is for this feat called ho theos aiwn, "the God of existence," in the Bible itself, then that sure sounds like a second god to me--by all the standards of polytheism, that is polytheism. In fact, Aiwn had been a recognized pagan God since the 1st century B.C.E., as the one who ruled over the physical cosmos, by magicians and mystery religion adherents, and this was the natural Demon of Demons for Christians to identify as the chief of the evil gods opposed to their One God. This is thus a tacit admission of polytheism into early Christianity, making their monotheism merely a semantic distinction, not a real one.

[on Bible inconsistencies again] Gal. 6:2 Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3 If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, 5 for each one should carry his own load.

Can you say taken out of context. Anything that is taken out of context will be inconsistent. In verse 2 this statement refers to one opening himself up to be tool for God and building up fellow christians, in verse five the comment refers to verse 4 meaning that we all have a load to carry some small some big, when you go back to 2 you then realize that when your burden is small and you can help someone's journey easier than it is what God wills for us to do. If you want to at least maintain an air of slight intellect it would be wise to remove this accusation from your list thank you....

Castor Troy <erinnyes@hotmail.com >
A, BC USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 08:06:44 (MDT)

The editor responds:

There is nothing here about small or large burdons. Your interpretation is adding a lot to the text that isn't there, making it your opinion of what the text can mean. Thus, on some valid readings, there is a contradiction, and that makes it worth reporting for those who want to consider it.

[on Bible inconsistencies again] GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. (Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

Well if I must point it out although it is one of the most obvious things about God is that he is a personal God not a absentee landlord he wants us to put everything in his hands and enjoy the gifts he gives. God grieved because the most Important part of his being us his creation the direct object of his love was rejecting him. and turning everything that he had gived us into an abomination...

Casttor Troy <erinnyes@hotmail.com >
A, BC USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 07:53:44 (MDT)

The editor responds:

This says nothing about the inconsistency here. You have only explained how the inconsistency arose--that does not stop it from being inconsistent.

[on Bible inconsistencies again] You obviously are immature in your studies of the Bible because if you made any attempt of making a connection on the God Supports Reproduction Section on inconsistencies. As any simple minded fool would see that when God encouraged Adam and Eve it was before they ate of the apple.. and the cleansing part that you stated was inconsistant wasn't because God is Holy and Pure and we are an abomination to him. so I would if you wanted to conceal you Lack of wisdom, knowledge and intellect then you would reamove that from you inconsistencies section thank you...

Castor Troy <erinnyes@hotmail.com >
A, BC USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 07:25:23 (MDT)

The editor responds:

You will have to argue more than this. Indeed, this paragraph is only barely intelligible.

[on Bible inconsistencies again] You can not comprehend the fact that God could create light without the sun and that he could seperate it as if darkness and light were marbles. You could not comprehend the fact that God could control light in every aspect. You have not pointed anything out that is even inconsistent but rather missed the questionable writings of creation with two different accounts one in chap. one and the other in chapter 2 but that question has also been answered. You are finite in pitiful knowledge and you will never be able to understand God and his ways but rather should embrace Jesus in a personal relationship. I say this with a disappointing Joy that all of you that are part of this will know a hell that burns more fierce than any other because you knew but did not believe, you would have been better off not even caring that there was a God...

Castor Troy <Erinnyes@hotmail.com >
A, BC USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 07:13:41 (MDT)

The editor responds:

And there it is: proof that your creed is wicked indeed. For any belief that leads you to persuade others with threats of torture is the belief of a villain, not of a kind man. Pardon us for wanting to be kind rather than vicious.

[on Bible inconsistencies again] You make some good points, yet when one reads the verses, those verses do not at all contradict each other. It is easy to see that you did not research this well enough. Therefore, you are a fool, according to Proverbs.

Roger Dargartz <Flippuff@aol.com>
Toledo, OH USA - Wednesday, September 01, 1999 at 13:47:42 (MDT)

The editor responds:

And lo the Lord saith, "For when I have no argument, I shall call my opponent a fool and be done with him."

If you were so certain of the position taken why not present the opposing viewpoint? Please explain. Why spend any time arguing the point of whether there is or is not a God? It is because people like you innately know that there is but your intellectual conscience refuses to believe it. The fact that you present any argument at all or spend time and effort to persuade men that there is no God only backs up our assertion that there is. That aside, if you are right and I am wrong, what have I, as a redeemed believer, lost? I was forced to live a moral, ethical, healthy lifestyle for no reason. However, if I am right and you are wrong what is your risk? The truth is, you risk eternal separation from a God that still loves you and has provided a means of escaping the wrath reserved for His adversary. My risk is little; your risk is great! Do you pretend that you have all understanding and all knowledge? Do you infer that there is absolutely no chance of a higher power? That is a pompous and arrogant stand from my viewpoint. I am certain that I will be bombarded by emails from all the little worker bee "infidels", so if you recieve this from the queen bee don't swallow their religion. Find out for yourself. Pray. Read the Gospel of John. I will debate with you, because I possess the truth from the Word of God.

Monte J. Barlow <monteb@fesi.com>
Stillwater , OK USA - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 17:57:15 (MDT)

John Murphy on Thomas Edison

I'd love to know more about Edison's thoughts on the supernatural, but more importantly, I wish the public airwaves would echo more of these views in general. In fact: more thinking in general would be nice. 'Incurably religeous' sums up our culture to a 't'. Or should I say 'insufferably'? Why are we as a country subjected prior to every election to the non-stop hostility of the 'Christian' right, then forced to re-defend our most basic freedoms from the very beginning every every four years? It seems like as more and more people stampede for the church exit, those in power slash and burn more of our public liberties- almost as if the right wing would Force us back to the pews. I mean: never mind what great people thought in the past, never mind what people thought 1800 years ago, and never mind what anyone thinks is 'Moral'; when will we as a nation, (dare I suggest- we as a species?) wake up from our coma, our brain-ecktomy, our collective stupidity and use the gray matter we were all born with? I could so easily go off on a real rant, but I'm supposed to be brief..

Jonathan Paul <drzaiuspaul@yahoo.com >
Bloomington, IN USA - Monday, September 27, 1999 at 09:50:16 (MDT)

The "Murphy's Law" piece on Thomas Edison was great. I'd known he was somewhat antireligious but I didn't realize how much so. After reading this piece what are Fundamentalist Christians going to do? Since they believe we freethinkers are under the influence of Satan then they must feel that any of the wonderful inventions given to us by Edison may have been placed in his mind by the king of demons himself. Can't you just see them smashing all their lightbulbs and burning recording equipment, why they might even have to shut down the 700 Club, TBN and every other Fundie broadcast. Ah yes it would be wonderful! Of course I don't actually expect that to happen, they"ll go on using his inventions claiming that they are actually gifts from God given to help spread their bizarre message, Edison must be turning over in his grave.

Tom Brookman <doubtingtomb@yahoo.com >
Jellico, TN USA - Monday, September 27, 1999 at 06:50:32 (MDT)

John Murphy on the Religion of Hitler

This makes it sound like this author believes that all Christian's are mini-Hitlers. This simply isn't true as the fact that there aren't 30 million casualties every 5 years. Hitler was not an athiest, or a Christian. He was a German. He believed in the supierority of the German people and would tell anyone anything to make them agree with him. He told the Christians what they wanted to hear, he did the same to the Atheists. However, as evil as Hitler was, Moa was worse, and he was a Buddist. Religion doesn't matter worth anything, it is idealogy that matters.

Larz Welo <sigmars_power@juno.com>
Las Cruces, NM USA - Monday, September 13, 1999 at 09:49:20 (MDT)

John Murphy responds:

The whole point of the Hitler article was the point you made. Some very vocal religionists try to make freethinkers into little Hitlers. The facts concerning the religion that helped mold the man are ignored. Of course I don't think Christians are little Hitlers, but I have a right to counter the opposite of this notion. He was a Catholic and that's that. Please read the first sentence of my article-it gives you my only motivation for writing it.

John Murphy on Giordano Bruno

In '91 I was studying Philosophy at ANU. I also attended all the courses at the counselling centre, because of my fear (terror) of public speaking. To cut a long story short,in a time management course I'd been given an exercise to get to the bottom line of my procrastination: it turned out to be a fear of persecution. The next morning I did a 'focus' (Eugene Gendlin-'Focussing'- where you tune in to your body for 'answers' to what may be troubling you), and tuned in to this 'fear of persecution'.

I seemed to be sitting with my hands tied behind me, and my mouth was clamped tight. "my lips are sealed" went over & over in my head. I realized I'd slipped into a past life, and asked "who am I?"- and "Bruno" was the answer. The only reference to Bruno I'd ever had was in a book on Galileo- who "recanted because of what they'd done to Bruno". I went and got a dictionary,to find out more if I could, and when I began to read about him, I started soul-wracking sobbing until I was all sobbed out. I was 50 at the time, and when I realized I was nearly the age of Bruno when he was burnt, I again started sobbing. I was in shock for 24 hours. Later, when I looked up Bruno's work at the Uni library, I discovered that I have continued on where he left off. I also read that the transcripts of his trial had been lost for 340 years, and were found in the Vatican the year I was born-1940.

Coincidence? I was born in terror of my present father, whom I now believe was the Inquisitor General. Since that experience, my terror has dissolved (after 50 years!). I've also walked on fire on three occasions--to overcome my fear? Want to know where I've taken Bruno's work? I'm presently trying to master website creation so that I can put my ideas to the world. I've finally overcome my fear of persecution. Email me if you want to know more, or to be notified of my website when its done. I know it seems pretty far out, but I assure you, I'm serious.

Honour Leigh <honour@webone.com.au >
Canberra, ACT AUSTRALIA - Monday, September 06, 1999 at 08:45:24 (MDT)

Janet Brazill on Euthenasia

Sir,

I note this comment in the article on euthansia by Janet Brazill (15/9/99):

"This same thinking prevails in the modern-day opposition to doctor-assisted suicide, with Catholics believing that end of life suffering purifies the soul and must therefore be endured."

Could you point me in the direction of where this doctrine is found in the Cathechism or any other current church documents. As a Catholic I am surprised to be unfamiliar with it. Surely Ms Brazill is not assuming what Catholics believe on the basis of her preconceptions?

Yours,

James Hannam <bede@talk21.com>
London, UK - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 05:54:21 (MDT)

Janet Brazill responds:

As of September 15, 1999, the Vatican issued a revised handbook on indulgences, Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, outlining some modern situations in which Catholics merit eternal reward. One lists "Invoking Godıs mercy, love and protection whileŠenduring life's difficulties." Suffering in this world reduces time spent in Purgatory in the next. I donıt have the direct quote, but Mother Theresa said that the poor should offer up their suffering to God; that the poor and those in pain and the dying make it possible for less harm to occur in the world.

This correlates with something I found on the Internet under Health & Healing--Resources for Catholic Educators. Ronald Stanley, O.P, writes, "As Christians we accept our suffering as the best way to holiness." Then, speaking of those who accept their suffering, he says:

Instead of becoming bitter, they became better people. Their faith enabled them to dig down deep within themselves, to connect with a Power beyond their own, and let God raise them up above their sufferings. Christians have no easy answers to the mystery of suffering. But we do know that if there were another, better, way, God would not have let Jesus die on a cross. Jesus is our model. In His death agony Jesus experienced desolation (Mk 15:34), but He did not despair (Lk 23:46).

William Edelen on Hate Radio

In response the Hate Radio article, I don't agree that freedom of speech or the press is to blame for America's violence. Each person makes his/her own decisions, and discipline and decency must be taught and enforced into our youth at home and at school. If we stop violent radio programs then movies, news broadcasts, sporting events, (esp. boxing and hockey), cartoons, and the Jerry Springer Show will have to be cleaned up as well.

While I think that Christianity (and religion in general) is absurd, I can't place blame on that either. The article lists Columbine as an example. But it is clear that the two students, who shot a girl because she stated she believed in God, were anti-Christian to say the least [this is no longer believed true, see above--ed.].

By the way, this website is great!

Eric L. Solomon <agusi@prodigy.net >
Philadelphia, PA USA - Monday, September 27, 1999 at 05:55:16 (MDT)

William Edelen on the Sin of Silence

Just before I read this article, I wrote an essay for my web site on exactly the same theme. The point is that while the average Christian may have an excuse for the ignorance of the faults of their religion, I think all members of the clergy have no viable excuse and are guilty of perpetuating one of the most horrible and harmful con games known to the history of humanity. If I can learn the depths to which they sink in supporting the religion, it can't be that hard for others to do the same.

Eric Harrington <nemo0037@yahoo.com >
Greensboro, NC USA - Wednesday, September 01, 1999 at 09:24:08 (MDT)

Richard Carrier on Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire

Reading your essay on the Kooks and Quacks of the roman era I was suprised to see that while the witnesses to Christ's miracles are considered "unreliable", the three men mentioned who were against the deity of Christ are given complete reliability. WHY? Were they themselves just men? How can one argue against a man the fulfilled numerous prophecies, to the point of death, and beyond. We all agree the Aristotle lived and we all believe HE wrote the writings atributed to him. Why then do we have such problems believing in the Christ when His words are written down in NUMEROUS texts, even outside the Bible.

The Christ must have been either a liar, a lunatic, or what he claimed to be: Lord. Some say he was a good moral teacher, but was not God. This cannot be. A good moral teacher would follow his teachings. exemplify them for his followers and would follow gereral rules. Jesus, if he was not God, could not have been a good moral teacher because he would have spent his entire life lieing. " I and my father are one" "My father... " etc etc.

A liar... why would someone lie their entire lives..and then give their llives for a lie? NOt jsut the christ.. one man maybe.. but hundreds? The disciples gave thier lives.. andhtese werent just guys who met Jesus once and decided to call him saviour and then never saw him again.. These men spent 3 years following Jesus around. They came from all stations of life... fisherman, tax collectors, ordinary citizens. Yet they never once doubted that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. Surely after three years they would have seen through his tricks and miracles and figured out it was a lie.. yet.. they still gave their lives for it. We are left to suppose then that he wasnt lieing.

Maybe then he truly truly believed what he was saying, and was able to will things to happen, but was just a lunatic out on a power trip. Ask any psychologist and they will tell you taht lunatics are seldom completly peaceful men, who never contradict themselves, nor selflessly give of themselves to help those in need as Jesus did. Historical evidence points out that even the scribes and pharisees were awed by Jesus's grasp on the truth. A lunatic would not possess such qualities.

What are we left with? LORD. Jesus must ahve been Lord.

WHy is it so hard for us as humans to believe that God would actually love us enough to send his only son to pay the price for our sins? Becuase deep inside we know we are in need of some help, yet human nature prevents us from accepting it when freely offered. We know we are in need.. yet we recognise our filth and the holiness of God and assume that someone so clean would not Love us.

Wether we conciesly think this or not, it is the thought taht dwells in all of us.

WHy is it so hard to believe that Christ can save, that he did perform miracles? Because admitting he did those miracles would be to admit that he was right.. taht we do need him.. soemthing we as humans hate.. to need someone else.. after all we can take care of ourselves right?

Doesnt it take much more faith to believe taht I can do something to save myself.. me the one who gets jealous, who hates, who angers esasily, who belongs to the race of mankind that kills its own, who rejoices in evil, then is does to believe taht God in his great mercy has paid the price for me and is willing to love me unconditionally.. after all God can do anything. Ask yourself which takes more faith.

Then when all else is done.. look at which religions are still standing. Hve not Christians survived for the last 2000 years.. through numerous exiles, persecutions and trials. Surely some along the way have faltered butnever has the faith died out.. amidst the tranical attempts over the ages to squash it out never has is fizzled. Explain that one.. 2000 years of millions of people who have all been decieved into believing in somehting that is based on a "kook" as you call him.

Its either fact or fiction.. and as far as the fiction side goes.. well the miracles, the prophecies, the witnesses, the life storys and the dedication of the saints are all stacke against you. Consider this.. believe in Christ and its true andyou have gained eternal life. Believe in him and it turns out to be entirely falshood ( which it isnt but for hypothetical purposes we will say it anyhow) then you ahve lost nothing. Choose to reject Him and his message andfind out its true and you have lost EVERYTHING.

Heather
Canada - Sunday, September 26, 1999 at 18:20:46 (MDT)

The editor responds:

You missed the point: I did not claim that the information demonstrating the divine powers of those other men was reliable--I was claiming that they could not be reliable, and thus there were few reliable sources in their time. Do you wish to argue that these men really were endowed with magical and divine powers? If not, then you are faced with the problem of explaining why so many could be convinced of their powers. The best explanation is that people were not very critical, and were willing to believe a lot on very little evidence.

On your other points, you should know that we have identified several forgeries in the name of Aristotle, so the question about authorship is not as simple as you think. We also have evidence from many sources about Aristotle's life, and there is no reason for anyone to have invented him--there is not even a single individual who could have done so. But in the case of Jesus, it is quite possible for Paul to have invented him, and there was a definite reason to do so. Means, motive, and opportunity were all there. Nevertheless, most scholars today do not doubt that Jesus lived. They only doubt whether what is told about him is entirely true. Unlike Aristotle, Jesus did not write anything.

"The Christ must have been either a liar, a lunatic, or what he claimed to be: Lord" is called the trilemma. It is a very poor argument. See our treatments of it by James Still , Jeff Lowder, and Robert Price . The principle problem is that we only have what others wrote about him, and so we cannot say whether Jesus really even claimed anything that he is said to have claimed. Thus, we cannot really assess whether Jesus lied, or whether he was insane, except through the faulty filter of biased and uncritical authors (see my discussion of the sources). As for insanity and hallucination, see my discussion of hallucnation at the end of my review of Habermas on the appearances of Jesus. On the question of "giving one's life" for an ideal, see my discussion of witnesses being willing to die. This only proves sincere belief, which can be mistaken, and insanity is not the only cause of human fallibility--error is in fact the most common cause of it. There is nothing against Jesus or his followers being in error, and in fact the essay you are responding to proves that it was quite commonplace for people to be greatly in error about many things.

The Jews, by the way, have several thousand years priority on you, so if antiquity and survival of trials is proof of a religion's truth, you should convert to Judaism. Or indeed, Buddhism, which has endured persecution in China for almost 2000 years, and over a thousand in India, and as a religion it is almost 500 years older than Christianity. This is not a sound argument anyway--it is not wise to follow the crowd, when there are good reasons to believe the crowd is mistaken. Everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe for thousands of years. That says nothing to commend belief in it. You must have the courage and discipline to act and think on your own. I encourage you to master these virtues and to engage in open-minded investigation of the facts.

Survey all of my essays and this will give you a start. What have you to lose? If I am wrong, you will go to heaven anyway, and will have gained in wisdom and the understanding of others. But if I am right, you will have been living a lie, devoting your time and effort, perhaps even your hard-earned cash, to one false belief, when instead you could have been spending your life learning about and marvelling at all the many features of the universe and this world and life itself. And when your final days come, rather than proclaiming your life valueless in comparison with the void to come--falsely believing in a reward that you have wasted your life to procure and yet that shall never have--you will, like me, declare a profound contentment at having lived life to the fullest, having been the vessel of creation and good, as the fulfilled explorer of wisdom and truth.

Richard Carrier on Luke's Authority

Your arguments on St. Luke are circular.

The argument you attempt to attack is, "The Resurrection was believed by Luke, a learned man".

Your primary attack is that his belief in superstition undermines his "learnedness".

It does not consider that a man who learned can have faith, or can be persuaded by things he sees but does not fully understand or can scientifically rationalize.

Scott Work <swork@wcp.twc.com>
tulsa, ok USA - Tuesday, September 21, 1999 at 13:59:52 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Why are Christian critics always such poor readers? My primary attack was that he shows no signs of being learned, which is a point I both begin and end with. Only after two paragraphs of that do I bring up superstition, and then only briefly, yet I demonstrate that "being 'learned'" does not "make one less gullible or more reliable" and I give two examples outside of the Christian tradition--it is not mere superstition that is at issue, but a general ignorance common to the whole age. I suggest reading that section more carefully.

Richard Carrier on Fish and Religious Life

I have just read two of Carrier's excellent essays: "Do Religious Life and Critical Thought etc." and "A Fish Did Not Write This Essay" and I cannot clearly express my great joy and appreciation for this wonderful website and the access it has allowed me to these sources. I feel I have dreamed-up a cavern of gold and riches and woken to find it real; I had no idea I would so easily find so many sources on this topic all in one place.

I plan on visiting here regularly. I really can't tell you how exciting it is to find this place!

Tom Drake <tdrake@uidaho.edu>
Moscow, ID USA - Friday, September 10, 1999 at 14:44:52 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Thankyou, Tom, for the kind words. This is indeed why we do this. We all wanted this treasure trove years ago and could not find it, so we created it. This is the greatest thing human beings can do: to see what is failing them in the universe, and to set it right.

The point of my critique was to suggest that there are 'other' presuppositions that one can work under. I did not say he was wrong, even if it was implied. I was not defending that thesis. You think that the logical positivists share the same presuppositions as Thomas Reid and Augustine? Interesting. No, I donıt think I share the same presuppositions as Mr. Edelen. Perhaps if Mr. Edelen asked his employers whether they wanted him to tell the truth or a lie they would say the former, but that is irrelevant. Churches do not hire altruistic, post-Christian, humanists. They hire believing ministers. The historic faith with its doctrines and creeds has a bit more impact on believers than the cries of an "enlightened" minister. That latter comes and goes. And perhaps there is nothing unethical about telling the truth, but that begs the question. Mr. Edelen has little right to whine about his being slapped. He should get out of the pulpit if he has abandoned faith. I donıt put on a lab coat and jabber on with evolutionary biologists. If I did, I should not whine at their refusal of my "flood theory" and all its accompanying "facts." But I was not giving a positive argument for Christianity, as such. Neither did I imply that they wanted to be lied to. You probably understood that.

Rob Blueside <blueside@hotmail.com >
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, August 18, 1999 at 14:43:26 (MDT)

Judith Hayes on Islam

I must say as a Muslim I am very disapointed in the lack of belief showed in the article "The Happy Heretic", by Judith Hayes (May 1998). This is a clear sign from God that Islam is the true religion, and Ms Hayes mocks it. This is not something new either,Allah has also written his name on the body of a goat to show his power, and prove his existence, and superiority of Islam.

This is Allah showing us his true power, his existence. I am just saddened that we Muslims don't have any statues of saints like the Catholics do. We miss out on statues that cry blood, or statues that drink milk (like the hindus ahve). Of course Allah is all powerful, and doesn't need any milk. Also, Ms. Hayes seemed to mock the story about the tomato with God's name in it. This is also very real, as I've seen pictures. How truly powerful and smart Allah is, to realize that the only way to get the message across is to write it on the things we eat (fish, tomatoes, etc) so that we'll see it right before we take a bite. Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to the grocers and cut in half all of his fruits and vegetables and if he complains I'm gonna shout religous discrimination. God could be sending me messages through the medium of fruit and nobody has the right to interfere.

Salaam,

Said Ramadan <boxchat@hotmail.com >
New York, NY USA - Saturday, September 25, 1999 at 20:01:51 (MDT)

Judith Hayes responds:

Ramadan wrote: "Allah has also written his name on the body of a goat to show his power....How truly powerful and smart Allah is..." Truly powerful and smart?! Every day children die of starvation, are raped and beaten, drown in floods and are crushed to death in earthquakes. Yet instead of preventing such tragedies, the almighty, powerful Allah is busy writing his name on a damn goat. What a compassionate use of miracles! That is not only an insult to intelligence, but one of the stupidest things I can imagine anyone doing, anywhere, any time, for any reason.

Judith Hayes on Columbine

I just finished reading Ms Hayes Washington Post article and couldn't agree with her more regarding the religious spin that gets put on every act of violence. In a country obsessed with technology and secular entertainments, we seem to be equally obsessed with superstition (religion, spiritualism, etc., ad nauseum)as an explanation for supposedly "senseless" or "unexplainable" events. Missing from Ms Hayes article is something many of us are aware of in Colorado. The boys involved in the Littleton shootings were social outcasts. Not being members of the "in crowd" they were subject to the many great and small humiliations teens go through when thay "don't belong." While this doesn't justify their actions, it does begin to offer an explanation.

As a law enforcement professional I have tracking similar events and it appears to me that in the majority, if not all of the cases, the kids involved did not "belong." Now as a former, and still nerd, I realize that not all we outcasts (atheists, freethinkers, goths, geeks, etc) turn into rabid killers. Most of us become productive citizens; lawyers, concert promoters, and so forth. However in teens with poor coping skills, no parental support, no support from the educational system and bullied by your peers, frustation and anomie become the norm. In high schools with 3000+ students you're just another face in the crowd, and your problems become submerged in the crowd. Finally, in a supposedly "christian" nation, why are kids bullied in schools?

Dennis O'Grady < d.ogrady@worldnet.att.net>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Friday, September 24, 1999 at 14:00:55 (MDT)

James Still on Other Planets

I predict that eventually we will find that life, rather than being a rare thing in the universe, is common, and that special conditions must obtain to PREVENT life from occurring.

Ed Unger <e.unger@worldnet.att.net >
Canton, GA USA - Monday, September 27, 1999 at 19:59:34 (MDT)

Dear Infidels,

The problem with James Still's article on not needing a creator if there is other rational life in the universe is that none has yet been found,and none ever will be.

We need only look as far as our own Earth to realize that humans are special,as we are the only rational life here.

Please reply,

Tony D. < a.dipaulo@worldnet.att.net>
palatine, IL USA - Friday, September 24, 1999 at 21:16:03 (MDT)

James Still responds:

Your response is most interesting Tony because very few creationists are willing to assert so definitively that intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos does not exist. The history of Christian theism is littered with abandoned assertions as, one by one, dogmatic claims of "how things must be" have become refuted by scientific investigation revealing "how things really are." For this reason, most creationists are more cautious about their dogmatic claims and are more than willing to grant that intelligent life probably exists elsewhere.

However, they are quick to point out that such existence is not incompatible with theism and may very well be a part of God's Master Plan. My good friend Sogn Mill-Scout, a deist, pointed this out to me shortly after the article was published and indeed he is quite right. However, my argument was not atheological but rather critical of the soteriology of Christian theism in which Christ must be crucified, die, and rise again to conquer the sins subsequent to creation after the Fall.

If intelligent life exists in a billion other star systems other than our own--as indeed Carl Sagan estimates it must since Earth-like conditions are not atypical--then this fact seems to trivialize the salvific significance of the dying and rising savior motif. As I asked in the article, must Christ die and rise a billion times on a billion worlds, giving one billionth of himself on each occasion? Or was the single outpouring of his grace here on Earth sufficient for all of creation? If so, how do a people millions of light years away learn of it? And would it mean very much to them? These are difficult theological questions, which I think deserve to be taken seriously rather than brushed aside. With the discovery of several planets about other stars, we may be forced to abandon the quaint notion that intelligent life is something unique only on one small planet orbiting an insignificant third-generation star out in the backwaters of the Milky Way galaxy. The universe is very probably teeming with intelligent life.

James Still on Jesus

Your opening premise concerning Jesus casts doubts on your credibility. Don't think you considered that both accounts could be true, Judas hung himself and the rope broke. Don't have to be a Mensa candidate to figure that one out...

Bob Graham <jrgj@teleport.com>
Gresham, OR USA - Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 14:28:26 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Neither Acts 1:18 nor Matthew 27:5 mentions a breaking rope, nor does Matthew mention Judas falling and dashing out his bowels. In fact, Acts says that Judas "fell headfirst," yet a "fall from a broken rope" cannot be "headfirst," and it does not take a Mensa candidate to figure that one out.

James Still on Zealots

Greetings - thank you for your research. I am very interested in learning more about the word "Boanerges" which is supposed to mean, "sons of thunder." In the early Greek testament from which the English was translated, the word "sons" does not appear. It was added in by the translator. Boanerges is not a Hebrew word, it is also not Aramaic, Greek, or Latin. "Son of thunder" in Hebrew is Ben Ra'am. In Aramaic it is "Barabbas" (!) which leads to other mysteries. "Bas" is the reference to the "thunder" but bas means "female." Thanks for any help in this matter - Mary Sparrowdancer, san-rafael@nettally.com Mary Sparrowdancer < san-rafael@nettally.com>
Tallahassee, FL USA - Saturday, September 18, 1999 at 11:14:12 (MDT)

The editor responds:

The word "sons" does appear in all primary manuscripts which contain Mark 3:17. It was not added by any English translator. The entire phrase is uioi bronteV, huioi brontes, literally "sons of thunder." Strong's Dictionary of Biblical Aramaic says that the word Boanerges is an Aramaic derivation from baneregaz, "son of rage" (from ben reg-az), and meaning "son of thunder" by metaphor.

Dave Matson on Young Earth Arguments

Regarding Dave Matson's scholarly work in criticism of Dr. Hovind's statement that It only takes one proof of a young earth to dispell an ancient earth theory. I think Mr. Matson is correct in suggesting that no one fact no matter how compelling should be easily accepted as definitive in great scientific debates. However the simple sheer logic of finding a 1710 coin in the chest of a shipwreck setting the minimum date of the wreck is fundamentally correct. The ship could not have gone down in 1709. There is a lot of verbage about the weight of other scientist's opinions in the matter, but no matter what or how many think that the ship went down in an earlier year they would be just wrong.

In this debate I believe that Dr. Hovind presents a simple clear and winning argument. Mr. Matson, no matter how many seeds he wants to plant that opinions should prevail over facts - will have to admit someday - that they do not.

Chris Gates <adak@alaska.net>
Anchorage, AK USA - Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 22:36:20 (MDT)

Dave Matson responds:

Oddly enough, I have a coin, dated 1741, that was retrieved from a wreck off the coast of South Africa. I do feel extremely confident that the wreck occurred sometime during 1741 or afterwards. In fact, a ship was lost at that location in 1747, the acknowledged source of the coin. Of course, the coin might have been made in 1700 by a prankster. That is hardly likely, of course, but not 100% impossible.

Scientific opinion, generally speaking, is not made in a vacuum. All the available evidence, pro and con, is carefully summed up and judiciously weighed. I am at a loss to understand Chris Gates's concern that scientific opinion may be given independently of the facts. I certainly hope that I am not responsible for that viewpoint!

I am also mystified by Chris Gates's reference to a "debate" in which Kent Hovind presents a "simple clear and winning argument." I am under the impression that Chris was responding to Point 0 in my book How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?, where I dispense some common sense about the workings of science.

I am hard-pressed to see that as a "debate," and I have no idea what Hovind's "clear and winning argument" is all about. I have never received a response from Hovind to any part of my book, including the Internet version. In fact, I've never heard anything at all from Kent Hovind except for some early correspondence years ago. Even then, he refused to reply to my more probing letters.

A 1998 revised version of my book is available for $16.50 from The Oak Hill Free Press (P.O. Box 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116).

Prayer

I would lke to just give my opinion on this subject, prayer will never be taken out becasue I will always have a prayer in my heart, but I feel that Christians should have the write to speak out in prayer for a better school and less violence, it is for the good, so what's wrong with it, if it helps and it's a moral answer! I believe it should be goverment now it doesn't mean that it would mandatory they could sit there as if it is a moment of silence like they have had in schools and I believe still do. Thanks for listening.

Sincerely yours,

Shontel Hancock < sista_n_christ@hotmail.com>
Campverde, a.z. USA - Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 18:58:01 (MDT)

The editor responds:

The government cannot endorse or sponsor religious beliefs, because it must remain neutral. If we are to use benefits as an argument, then it is much more decisively proven that Zen meditation encourages thoughtfulness, concentration and contentment. A mere moment of silence has never been shown to have any of these effects, or benefits of any kind. Thus, by your reasoning, our government should encourage Zen meditation, not prayer or trivial moments of silence. Imagine how Christians would react to that proposal. Their indignance at such a proposal only betrays their hypocrisy: they think a small act of oppression can be a good thing, so long as they aren't on the receiving end of it.

School Violence

If kids were spending time in prayer they wouldn't have time to get into trouble. It's strange to me how after violence occurs in schools, the first thing people do is pray. I say let's pray before the violence occurs to keep it from happening. And "Darwin", hmmm, now let me think, wasn't that the name Endora called Samantha's husband Darrin when she thought he was full of bologna?

Angelo Dick
USA - Friday, September 03, 1999 at 17:46:33 (MDT)

The editor responds:

To all you TV illiterates out there, Darrin's mother-in-law usually called him Derwood, not Darwin--and she never called him by his real name, not because he was full of it, but because she hated him. So if you are going to use TV analogies, please check your sources first. As to the "prayer stops violence" baloney, see my remarks in our August 1999 Feedback.

James Haught

I read your article, it is right in line with my thoughts.

My fear at this time ,is the intrusion of the Christian Right into politics, They insist that all Republican candidates pass their litmus test or they won't support them, they hold the Republican party in thrall. And they are getting away with it.

If they, the Republicans, really come into power, we will suffer, no doubt. My question; How will we ever stop these people. They scare me, they should scare everyone

Don Van Haaren <dvan@tm.net>
Essexville, Mi USA - Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 07:49:38 (MDT)

Andrew Chrucky

Hi,

Just read the lengthy comments concerning the Notre Dame ad. How very trivial! I am no expert in Philosophy, but I can think "critically" enough to realize a few things. One, people can sure go on at the slightest pretext (entirely ok if there is no guarantor of an essential moral order). I'll try not to just go on.

The obvious and primary fault of the author's expenditure however is that he begs all central questions. In decrying the absolute confidence in the resurrection of Christ that underlies the university's philosophical department, all he does is manifest that he has a different understanding, one where God cannot reveal truth.

Any criticism offered implies that one knows the truth, even if the criticism is that one cannot know truth.

Far from stifling "morals, science and philosophy", isn't it much closer to the truth to point out that our author doesn't like the claim that God has and does reveal the central mystery of life through the Roman Catholic church, puny protestations notwithstanding.

Thanks,

Paul Boire <pspace@pathcom.com>
Toronto, On Canada - Monday, September 20, 1999 at 15:47:06 (MDT)

Gordon Stein on Tacitus

I understand that Tertullian was furious about Tacitus negative comment on the Christians and Jesus' death in the "Annals." If so, doesn't this mean that Tacitus passage must have been in the text earlier than the supposed date of the interpolation in the 4th century?

Thanks.

Joe Tiglath <tiglath@usa.net>
McLean, MD USA - Monday, September 20, 1999 at 11:01:22 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Tertullian only refers to a passage in the fourth book of the Histories in the context of the Judaean War (and Tertullian only assumes this passage is about Christians, since it really shows no signs of being about them at all, cf. Ad Nationes 1.11). This is not the passage to which Gordon Stein is referring, which is in the Annals, and is indeed never cited in antiquity. However, that does not mean it is an interpolation, only that it could be.

In Gordon Stein's piece on Tacitus reference to Jesus he writes:

"... it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage."

I understand that Athanasius the church father contemporary of Sulpicius blasted Tacitus for his passage on Jesus. I can't remember where I read it. If true, this would make the passage either an interpolation earlier that Sulpicius, or more likely to be genuine.

Is this a flaw in Gordon's paper?

Thanks.

Joseph Suriol <tiglath@usa.net>
Alexandria, VA USA - Tuesday, September 14, 1999 at 13:21:59 (MDT)

The editor responds:

I would like to know where Athanasius refers to Tacitus at all. To my knowledge, he does not.

The Skeptical Review

One easy question I hope you can answer:

WHY DO YOU WANT TO PROVE THE BIBLE IS NOT INERRENT?

(to make the world a better place, proving to everyone YOU are right and everyone else has always been wrong. After this discovery becomes known throughout the world, ever poor decieved soul who believed this devilish lie that the bible is the inerrent word of God, will live a better happier life, in a complete utopia, with this knowledge that you so generously fought to prove. You will recieve the noble peace prize. War, hunger, poverty and sickness will suddenly cease! Why? Because of this great discovery. I hope you understand my sarcasism)

Jason Malott <malott@hotmail.com>
Madera, CA USA - Saturday, September 18, 1999 at 11:25:15 (MDT)

The editor responds:

The aim of TSR is much less grandiose: Christians keep asking us to prove their Bible errant. Thus, this magazine is the answer they asked for. It is hardly sensible to attack us for answering a question that you asked, now is it? By the way, it's called the "Nobel Peace Prize."

Ted Drange on the Bible

I must say, I admire your knowledge of the bible and your zeal, but knowledge of the original languages help explain the 'problems with the bible'. I like the fact that you bring up many of believed contradictions, but the fact of the matter is if I am wrong, no big deal, I return to dust as you, but if I am right your up the creek.

Anonymous
Murrieta, CA USA - Friday, September 17, 1999 at 00:31:43 (MDT)

The editor responds:

See our essays on Pascal's Wager .

Regarding Scott Klusendorf's Comments, and Ted Drange's Reply, in our July 1999 Feedback

AE points out that the omnipotent omnibenevolent god-concept is inconsistent with the facts as we observe them. The argument is that if there were such a god as you describe, then we would observe things to be different than they are--babies would not get burnt to death in house fires etc.

I don't maintain that babies burning is "bad" or "good" in some absolute, trancendent sense--but a theist does, and so needs to explain why his omnipotent god does not stop such things happening. One does not onself have to hold the opinion that there are moral absolutes in order to criticise the theistic position on the grounds that it predicts things which aint so.

Paul Murray <pmurray@bigpond.com >
Canberra, ACT Australia - Tuesday, September 14, 1999 at 19:51:25 (MDT)

Ted Drange on Why Be Moral?

"Why Be Moral" by Theodore M. Drange reveals a basic misunderstanding of morality. Every living thing is moral, that it must have its own morality, for to reason or make decisions, requires a reference of morality. (see A Study Of Our Decline by P. Atkinson; The chapters on "Morality" and that about "The Mechanism Of Understanding")

The question is not "Why Be Moral" because we all are moral, but is our morality selfish or unselfish? It is a choice to have either an ever-changing or a constant understanding. That is, it is a choice between "do I manage my emotions" or "do my emotions manage me." And the vital implications of the answer to this question are also explained in "A Study Of Our Decline"

The answer is simple, crucial and easily understandable, unlike the previously mentioned work.

Philip Atkinson < smartboard@bigpond.com>
Palm Beach, Qld Australia - Tuesday, September 14, 1999 at 19:45:37 (MDT)

Ted Drange on Miracles

Who created the original twenty-seven character alphabet? And how about the arabic numerals? No one knows!! Science will not be able to come up with any answer to those two question. Well, not before me (being born) anyways. After I publish my work, you will see that through a miracle and a pencil I....that is, I created them! let me give you an example. Why does five look like 5? Why is it squaresh on the top and roundesh on the bottom? Why not look like a squaresh "s" or an "s"?

Richard E. Borja <cornchip@netpci.com >
Sinajana, GU USA - Monday, September 06, 1999 at 13:30:31 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Why are invisible clown-faced angels hiding in your pocket? I'll bet you can't answer that. So there! [sometimes you have to talk kook to a kook]

Ted Drange on Atheism

You've obviously convinced yourself that there is no God.

I believe there is.

When somebody already has a view on God no amount of convincing will prove otherwise, hence your site will remain and any refutes that have backing will not be published.

I believe God loves all man, yet he gave them a free choice.

The Bible says "I set before you life and death, therefore choose life." It really isn't a hard thing, when you get caught up in the proving of God you miss his simplicity we will find out when we die.

But you see if I die and I'm right I haven't lost anything but I have gained my eternity If you die and you're wrong then you'll spend eternity regretting it.

I feel comfortable.

God put eternity into the heart of every man, choose life. You dont have to do anything to earn it its a free gift, you just have to choose.

Ben Woodward < jd@myriadentertainment.com.au>
gold coast, Qld australia - Wednesday, September 01, 1999 at 03:54:55 (MDT)

The editor responds:

You, too, need to see our essays on Pascal's Wager . We publish or link to all rebuttals of specific documents at our website. That is a lot more than any Christian website does. So your attack applies to yourself, not us--it is you who've obviously convinced yourself that there is a God, and no amount of convincing will prove to you otherwise, hence any refutations of your claims will not be published at any of your websites. We at least examine all sides honestly and openly and carefully, and I will let that stand as testimony to the superiority of our approach.

The Encylopedia of Biblical Errancy

What does the Secular Web think about McKinsey's book "The Encylopedia of Biblical Errancy"? Any reviews? I have the book and have read about 2/3 of it -- do you know if there are any "responses" from Christian apologists specifically to McKinsey?

Bill Willis <wmwillis@ix.netcom.com >
USA - Thursday, September 16, 1999 at 15:50:06 (MDT)

The editor responds:

A review is in progress at this time.

Boy Scouts

The BSA has been around for a long time. I was a boy scout, and I held the rank of assistant scout master. As a child I attend church with my mom, I didn't have faith. I have been an agnostic for 30 years or so. I was agnostic as an assistant scout master and most of the other leaders had known this. When "god" was mentioned, I obstained, nobody cared....we where there for the boys. If the boys had "god" questions, we usually referred them to their local preacher or someone in the church. In my 30 years of dealing with BSA and religion, there isn't much to it, but some make it out to be more then it is.

If BSA now wants to be considered a religious organization, so be it. We can have another boys scouts of america group and call it boys of the world--and they can have faith or not, follow any religious sect they want, but just be boys and have fun.

If the local school wants to support BSA as a religious organiztion so what, let em. If not, let them ask the Masons or Kmart to sponsor them.

If the BSA does not support religious freedom, which includes the right not to believe or reserves the right to decide when imperical evidence is given to prove "it's" exsistance then they are dead wrong. What happened to the right to participate regardless of race, color, age, religion etc etc etc?????.....

Omikrom Seti <omikrom_seti@gnt.net >
Ft Walton Beach, Fl USA - Wednesday, September 15, 1999 at 20:55:26 (MDT)

MG responds:

BSA arguably enforces its self-declared membership 'standards' only when not doing so would jeopardize the integrity of the exclusion policy. In other words, as long as no one makes an issue of a Scout's or Scouter's non-compliance BSA can claim ignorance and thereby not jeopardize its claim that its theism mandate is necessary and sacrosanct. Consequently, the membership of non-believers such as yourself is precarious, being dependent on no one else making a complaint. Other people not as fortunate as yourself, both Scouts and Scouters, were expelled for opting to omit 'God' or for simply identifying themselves as non-believers even though they always said 'My duty to God'.

By mandating that children and teenagers engage in theistic self-identifying expression and by requiring adult volunteer leaders to sign its atheism-disparaging Declaration of Religious Principles, BSA makes itself a significant anti-atheist partisan political actor in the United States. It is a conflict of interest for government entities (such as public schools) to become owners of, operators of, or recruiters for partisan political entities that mandate a belief-orthodoxy for participation.

This is because government is itself subject to accountability through the political process in a democracy and because government has monopolistic control over important civic powers that require neutrality to be exercised properly. Government neutrality is no less important with respect to opinions that are unpopular even though upholding such nuetrality incurs the price of inconveniencing the sensibilities of a majority or a strongly opinionated subset of the majority that has become accustomed to such favoritism. There is nothing offensive about atheism and it is not just wrong but actually foolish to cave in to such intolerance.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too."

It's a common sense principle to which the BSA seems to be immunue. One one hand, it can avoid public accomodation laws by claiming to be a religious organization. On the other hand, it can claim not to be a religious organization, in order to be allowed in public schools.

Which is it?

The Founding Fathers of the United States, when drafting the First Ammendment, considered non-preferentialism, not favoring any particular religion, while allowing religion and government to mixed. The considered this, and rejected it.

This judge has ruled that since the BSA are non-sectarian that they should be allowed in the schools. This is contrary to the First Ammendment. It is not enough that no particular religion is favored. The government has no business being involved in any sort of religious activity. Non-preferentialism means that the government actively supports belief over non-belief. The government has no business to do so.

The judge also found that religion played only a small part in the BSA. Tell that to an atheist who wishes to join the BSA. For an atheist, or an agnostic, religion plays a large role in BSA. How can religion be seen as anything other than a large role when you have to believe in God - or at least pretend to - in order to get in? Those doors that look so small to one who believe in God are very large locked gates to a non-believer.

It really is a simple issue. The BSA discriminates on the basis of belief. It is unconstitutional for the government to have anything to do with any sort of religious discrimination.

Rob Lent <Antiwolf@USFamily.net >
Minneapolis, MN USA - Friday, September 10, 1999 at 09:37:32 (MDT)

Since when did the Boy Scouts recruit at the school? (I mean, that is, in an assembly in front of a captive male audience during school hours.) I never saw that growing up. Maybe I just missed it. Anyone else?

David Lamb <slolamb@aol.com>
San Luis Obispo, CA USA - Thursday, September 09, 1999 at 02:45:46 (MDT)

MG responds:

According to the official BSA publication freely distributed by the BSA External Communications Division, as of December 1998 there were 10,113 BSA units (Packs, Troops, Crew and Ventura) with 362,989 members that were chartered to public schools. BSA is structured like a franchise so that the chartering organization is, in effect, the owner and operator of the unit.

Science, Religion, and Duality

I read the above critiques of the various literature re. science and religion. Some suggested that science and religion will never meet, others agreed that within degrees of acceptability, they may. From these critical responses one factor was outstandingly obvious: all responses reflected dualistic thinking, rather than integrative, holistic thinking. Considering how long it has taken us for quantum mechanics to reach some of the conclusions which pre-Heraclitian Greeks "knew," I am not surprised we are still, and will most likely remain for quite some time, under a nebulous Cartesian (dualistic) spell. Cartesian thought had its place and its time, just as did a heliocentric cosmological theory; but, isn't it about time we move beyond such thought and embrace holisitic, unified, and complementary theories? Perhaps, as Suzanne Langer and other linguistic philosophers have suggested -- we need a new all embracive language!

Pierre Chevalier <pbean@aol.com>
Lakeland, FL USA - Wednesday, September 15, 1999 at 09:27:46 (MDT)

The editor responds:

Were it so simple as that. For one thing, we have yet to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, and that is a very serious barrier to "holisitic, unified, and complementary theories" even within science itself. It will be a milestone in history when this barrier is crossed, and scientists are working toward this aim. But as for "holisitic, unified, and complementary theories" of science and religion, we atheists already have that--one theoretical system (naturalism) explains all phenomena, religious and scientific. The theists also claim to have the same "holisitic, unified, and complementary theories" of science and religion, yet their theoretical system is entirely different from ours. Only one of them can be true. Thus, the problem is not Cartesian dualism, but the ages old issue of truth. You should also not assume that Descartes began dualistic thought. It actually originates with the Greeks, not only in the voice of Plato, but even in pre-Heraclitian thought--as Heraclitus himself attacked such dualism in Dionysian religion, and then set up his own relativistic dualism in its place (very much echoing Taoist thought also being developed at the very same time in China).

Autralian Education System (Concerning Correction in July 1999 Feedback)

I am also Australian, and I do not recall ever having state-sanctioned prayer in schools. I don't know how old Kim Walker might be. I am 33, and commenced school at around 1971.

Technically, the Queen of England is the sovereign of Australia and also Canada etc and is the earthly head of the Church of England. And so yes, separation of church and state is not constitutionally possible - although it may become so soon.

As in all civilised cultures, however, Australia does not take religion particularly seriously. No one cares what you believe. I have come out as a recent ex-christian to my coworkers, and the thing they find remarkable is that I seriously believed it in the first place.

Speaking for myself, perhaps for "the average Australian", and possibly for the average inhabitant of the non-American inhabitant of the civilised world, the American fundamentalist christian "thing" strikes me as being strange and uniquely American--as are your attachment to the imperial system of weights and measures and your third-world gun laws. The rest of the world just ain't like that.

Cheers.

Paul Murray <pmurray@bigpond.com >
Canberra, ACT Australia - Tuesday, September 14, 1999 at 19:21:49 (MDT)

The editor responds:

I could not reach Kim Walker for comment [he has since replied, see October feedback]. I can refer only to my own experience, where growing up in Ontario, Southern California, I had exactly the same experience with religion that you describe, until I left that city and discovered a very different attitude and culture in different areas of my country. I suspect Australia is no different, with variation across the provinces and cities. And although the Swiss have the same gun laws as us, and most third world countries actually ban the private possession of firearms (and many actively kill atheists), I do think your description of the oddities of American culture are generally correct, in comparison with other first-world nations.

The Missionary Position

How to get rid of Missionaries when cohabiting:

While one partner answers door and discovers faith-hawker, other partner places Kevin Bloody Wilson CD on stereo, volume: deafening.

Play track:

"The Festival of Light keep trying to save my f*cking soul"

By verse 3 they've fled in terror, or passed out cold.

Maybe it helps if one has shaved head, large beard and pierced nose.

Have Fun

Mart