Abstract

Monday, 03 May 2004

Concerning Edwin Yamauchi and the Heart of Evangelism—God’s Truth or Pious Lies? Science or Religion? AskWhy! Publications. After reading your article and the two email conversations that followed it, it saddens me that you completely blow your credibility by sounding like the one who “spouts what he ‘knows’ before he knows what he’s talking about”. Yours is the uninformed, emotional response. The people who wrote you come across as rational thinkers who have researched and considered their point of view. Every time you respond, you destroy your credibility as a real and critical skeptic, and you undermine your own arguments. Your responses did more to convince me that your views are illogical than anything the other writers said. You would do your cause a great service if you would cease to argue your point until you have become a true researcher and rational thinker.

It is impossible to answer this for the reason you criticize in me. It is “an uniformed, emotional response”. You like my critics’ message better than mine, but you say so merely as an opinion with no reasons. You say the critics were more rational but do not say why or give examples. I do not have to restate in my replies what I have already said in the article. I point out that Yamauchi’s claim to be a scholar is bogus. He is no scholar but uses a disguise of scholarship to uphold the view he holds with no scholarship at all. My arguments cannot be optimal for all readers, but many of those who do not like them have their own presuppositions—mainly Christian ones. I therefore suggest you consider your own standpoint.

If you want to pick on specifics that I can answer properly, please do so, and let us discuss them, but I can only answer an emotional response in general terms.

Regardless of my views, I can’t find any specifics in your viewpoint to pick on. I do hear a lot of anger—not sure where that comes from. Usually its come out from being hurt, and if that’s the case I’m sorry. Have a great day.

Thank you. I will. But if you cannot find anything specific to argue with in tens of megabytes of criticism of biblicists, then you are not concentrating. I am surprised that Christians get angry when Sun Moon or some other barmy sect wins over their children to their cranky views, but they cannot see that Christians began it all. If I am angry, it is because Christians tell people that they know things they do not, and weak and naïve people are inclined to believe them. When people tell you things for which they have no proof or even evidence, then they are dangerous liars and confidence tricksters. I do not like seeing people tricked.

I am definitely with you there. Nothing makes me angrier than watching a TV preacher give a “word from God” and then ask viewers to send the largest amount of money possible to their “ministry”.

I am delighted that we agree on this, but you puzzle me that you cannot see that this is the purpose of Christianity, if not all religion nowadays.

The evidence that gives me the greatest proof of who God is and what Jesus came to do are the quiet, unnoticed lives of those around the globe who sacrifice everything to follow Him. None of these people get on TV, trick others, or force their beliefs on anyone. They simply live their lives loving others sefllessly, often at great personal cost. Their stories occasionally get told, but more often than not they spend their lives for others because of the God who spent His life for them.

Well, you say “to follow him” in their quiet lives of self sacrifice, but there are many many people who do that from different religious viewpoints and from none at all. It does not require Christ to motivate it. Moreover, there is a balance sheet involved, and unfortunately the downside of it is extremely grave indeed for Christianity. For me, it cannot be compensated for by any supposed upside. A simple example is currently in the spotlight—the film by Mel Gibson called the Passion of the Christ which goes into gory detail about the torture and suffering on one man—Christianity’s founder. In my own simplicity, I would have thought this would have been a great lesson to Christians who would therefore be utterly opposed in every respect to murder, and particularly to cruel murder through torture. Yet Christians have cruelly murdered tens of thousands if not millions of people in its existence. If Christ spent his life for these Christians they have repaid it myriads of times over in other people’s blood. For me, it is impossible to apologise for this or excuse it. Christianity is wicked—evil, to use the most popular excuse that Christians have for killing others.

Though I understand your scorn for the horrors men have committed in the name of Christianity—I am well aware of them—I can’t understand blaming Christ (and therefore God) for them. I hope that you, as an athiest, will indulge me a moment in this argument:

God created men with the gifts of free will and reason. In doing so, He created the possibility for good and for evil. Through the ages men have chosen both, often in the name of religion. Because of the evil we have chosen, men have been separated from God since the beginning and we act largely on our own desires—separate from God or His desires for us. The only way back to God for us was provided by the sacrifice and—just as importantly—the resurrection of Jesus, the only one perfect and therefore able to take on the sins of humanity. Yes, it was evil men that killed Christ, but only as He chose to give His life up. God used the evil in this world to accomplish His plan. He still does, so that instead of evil being senseless and victorious, it is ultimately overcome by being used for good. There’s much in the world I don’t understand and won’t begin to explain away. But I have experienced God’s power in my life and know that He is good and can be trusted. I live my life each day to bring Him honor and others the hope of new life in Him. I have never and will never use the name of Christianity for personal gain. As I said before I know there are prominent people in all religions who do, but I have never known anyone personally who does.

It’s funny that I’m already starting to hear your response while I write this. I know it doesn’t make sense to us apart from God revealing it—so that’s my prayer for you.

If you know my replies before I send them, you sound as if you are God yourself! In fact, you should not need to have a reply because it has all been said on my pages. If you have read some of them, it might be why you know what the reply will be. I think, though, that you have not read them and simply mean you know what the tenor of my reply will be, and you ought not, by now, to be wrong about that.

Anyway, the first point is what you expect. You tell the stories that we are all familiar with, but when did God reveal them to you? I heard these stories at school. Many Christians hear them from their parents or a persuasive pastor, but whoever they come from, they are invariably human beings. I admit freely, I just do not understand why Christians are so trusting of other Christians, especially when they, like you, recognize that Christians are just as likely to be wicked as non-Christians. Indeed, in a page I have on the social psychology of religion, I cite compelling evidence that some religious groups are worse than the average un-Christian non-believer. You therefore believe these things with no assurance they are true, and at least equal likelihood they are false. Despite that you will go about saying it is not only true, it is God’s Truth.

The second point is that the whole story of evil being brought into the world is fraught with difficulties that most Christians, encouraged, as they are, not to think too deeply about their faith, will not consider. For example, if God cannot stop evil in the world because he has promised us free will, then He is not almighty. You cannot therefore honestly say, God is almighty when you have proved He cannot be! I would challenge the story at root. How can God have given us free will when He then tells us that we must choose what suits Him or we shall be burnt forever in hell? I suggest to you that we do not have a free choice at all, as long as we can only choose what God wants us to choose without an absolutely Satanic punishment that lasts forever and ever. That is not a good God. I know you will not listen to such matters, but the point is that your beliefs are not properly thought out, by you or your pastors.

You say evil was needed for God’s plan, but that makes God into a sadistic torturer if Christ is human, a masochist if Christ is an aspect of God, and an idiot if an almighty being that can create the universe can only come up with an utterly stupid and incredible plan. All of it shows that the supposed plan is a plan to control some people and to make other people rich. It is a human plan and not a godly plan, and God Himself, if we believe the Jewish scriptures, told you not to believe anyone who pretended to be God.

I’ll save you more of this except that, nowadays, you all tend to say you have had personal experience of God’s goodness or compasion but those who have experienced God’s wickedness, in permitting evil being done to them, often cannot make any counter claims. The 3000 people who died in the Twin Towers atrocity are not in a position to complain about God’s plan of having wickedness in the world. Myriads of Arabs have been killed since 9/11, but God’s agent of revenge, President Bush, has no idea whether these people had anything to do with the crime He has taken upon himself to punish. They are as innocent as the 9/11 victims. If God is responsible for all this wickedness, then I cannot see how any individual favour would turn God from being satanic into being good. I am a simple man, but I cannot equate wickedness with goodness at all. God seems to me to be wicked to have allowed the world to experience wickedness. He is supposed to be almighty, so Christians must think there is no excuse for it. There must have been a better plan.

One, God didn’t plan wickedness, nor is He not capable of stopping it. He has chosen to allow it, because that is the only way to allow us to choose good.

Come on! Read what I said. How do you know what God has planned or what he is capable of? You do not like my comparing you with all Christians, but you are one, so how can I not do it when your behaviour is typical. You all KNOW exactly what God thinks. You do not even know what your husband thinks. I am telling you that you are deluded.

Two, God does allow us to choose Him or to reject Him. Why would He violate your choice when you die? Any who don’t want to have anything to do with God are respected and allowed to be separate from God here and after death as well. God does not desire that anyone choose that, but if they do, He respects their choice. If someone rejects Him in this life, why would they even want to spend eternity with Him? He doesn’t force anyone to choose Him or reject Him. But He does stand by His promise to let us choose.

That all sounds quite nice, but you are ignoring that we have all been told over and over again that we cannot fail to choose God without spending an eternity being burnt on hot irons, or whatever, in hell. I have said that God lets us choose but only allows us one choice, and to choose what he does not like, the Christians tell us, results in us being tortured forever. Is that what a Good God would do? If you want to re-write Christian doctrine, then I will not object, why should I, but do not pretend that what you think in these gentle, non-tortuting terms is Christian.

You also seem to be very good at predicting what I will consider, respond with and believe. You presume to know that I have never deeply researched or pursued for myself what I believe. I guess that’s an automatice conclusion when you think all Christians have been “fed” what to believe and are afraid to analyze it critically. Those conclusions really make it impossible to have an open discussion, which is too bad. Your points are well made, and I have heard and considered them before from many angles. I have come to my own conclusions after much private study and thought as well, but since I’m being clumped together with “most Christians” that you have evaluated and judged as not being willing to think for themselves, then it’s pointless to continue.

You are projecting—a common Christian habit. YOU said you could hear my response before I sent it, not me. I do not recall saying that you had not researched what to believe, although Christians just believe, and are proud of it, so in believing for a reason, you are unusual. If you have critical points to make, then why are you so coy about it? It is impossible to have a discussion with those who will not discuss, and they are Christians, as you prove. You have decided, you say from careful consideration, to be a Christian, but resent being lumped with the rest of them, and refuse to explain what this deep research was that led you to being one with the rest of them, ignorant though they might be. You do not want to talk because you cannot argue your corner adequately, but make excuses that suggest it is my fault. It is a cop out, AC.

I just had a couple more observations to make, then I’ll leave you alone. Both of us have seriously and thoughtfully considered God through many different avenues. I assume from your arguments that you have reached the decision on you own that the God of the Bible or of any religion is not palatable to you, and you have rejected Him on that basis. I have reached the opposite conclusion on my own. Neither of us will change the other’s convictions ( if indeed that is even what we have tried to do). Regardless of what conclusions we have reached, it is rather humorous for either of us to think that what we believe about God changes or threatens Him in any way. If He does exist, our conclusions only matter in regard to our own personal destiny. If, as you believe, He doesn’t, they are moot. People have been coming to their own decisions about God for all of human history. Some receive Him, some reject Him, and some make Him into what they want Him to be for their own personal gain. I can’t change the damage they do, but ultimately it does not damage those who honestly seek the truth. You and I will continue to disagree on what that truth is, and that’s ok. I will continue to pray for God’s blessing on you,

Plainly, we disagree about God and Christianity, but surely it is easier to agree on what truth means, or ought to be, were it not for the fact that you, along with all Christians, think truth is precisely what you believe and nothing else. Truth cannot be merely what someone thinks for then there is no truth but millions of them. I think truth generally must be indivisible. If it is merely what someone thinks, even if it is you, it is not demonstrably true. Some of my pages are called, God’s Truth, Pious Lies. All Christians think they have the truth but cannot prove it. It cannot therefore be the truth. Quite the opposite, it is their opinion and nothing else. Opinion expressed as truth is lies!

I already noticed that you were tiring of the discussion, doubtless because it is hard for you to maintain, and all things come to an end, except for the Christian after-life, of course. So I am happy to end it, if that is your wish. I can only conclude that you are another Christian, claiming what is impossible to show. Anyway, I enjpyed our little exchange.

I want to clear up a couple other things—In saying it’s ok for us to disagree on what is truth, I am not suggesting that there are many truths. I think truth must be indivisible as well. I just know that truth will never be accepted by everyone.

Unlike Christians, I do not think I have the only truth there is. I know I do not, and I know that truth changes but you do not. What is true can be distinguished from what is not true on all matters except those of opinion. I accept tests for truth, but you have none. I said in my previous post, “You, along with all Christians, think truth is precisely what you believe and nothing else.” When something can be shown to be true, but contradicts your beliefs, you prefer beliefs that must be false.

As far as KNOWING what God thinks, I don’t presume anything. I have and will continue to make careful study of what God says and reveals about Himself in the Bible.

Here is clear evidence of what I just said. You know the bible is true because you say it is “what God says and reveals about Himself”. If you do not know that, you presume it. If you know it, I would like to know how you know it is what God says about Himself, and how you KNOW it is not a 2000 year old fake written by men like David Koresh.

And because I depend on the Bible for an accurate picture of God, I have done research into its reliability. When measured by standards of reliability used to evaluate all ancient writings, the Bible stands up under scrutiny much more strongly than any other ancient text.

You are utterly confused here. The bible has been a religious book for 2000 years counting the Christian part alone, and believers like yourself made an effort to preserve such books because they were considered sacred. So, what you say is true in the sense that many more copies of ancient bibles have been preserved than copies of ancient cookery books. What you are confused about is that the careful preservation of these books does not mean that what was in them was true. That is what you Christians simply cannot understand because you are so indoctrinated and besotted by your fancies.

Archeological discoveries support what’s in the Bible more and more all the time.

This is simply utterly false. I have pages and pages about biblical archaeology which you are too smug to read, but you ought to, even if it is to stop you telling lies. I say often that Christians are unrepentent liars, and this proves it in your own case. I am very happy to discuss with Christians but it often comes up against this stumbling block. Christians believe and transmit “truths” that are false yet they believe them. That is why I say you are all deluded. I cannot see how any God wants His disciples to be liars. That is why I am not a Christian.

On being able to prove what I believe, science builds a stronger case for intelligent design with almost every new discovery it makes. I haven’t heard you offer any proof for your beliefs.

Here is yet more pure falsehood. Science does not offer any proof of intelligent design, and if you believe it, then you are doing the usual—you are believing what you like and not what is true. As for my own beliefs, the pages are chock-a-block full of them, but you are too arrogant to read them.

I thought you had opted out of this discussion, but am glad, if you have opted in again. Anyway, I’ll hear from you when I hear from you.

I have read a good bit of your pages, but they’re just a repeat of so many others like them.

I am glad you have taken up the debating challenge again after seeming to opt out. I want to draw your attention to this line here because you go on to present arguments that show you have missed the answers to them on these pages. It would save us both a lot of time if you read the pages properly before you send emails purporting to refute them, or presenting evidences that have already been refuted.

I believe you said in a previous email that you believe truth to be indivisible. Now you are saying that truth changes? Sorry, you lost me there.

Persist. It is not hard. If I tell you the time here in the UK now, it is 00.44am. If I wait a while it might be 00.54am. Both times are true but the truth has changed. You see, you think only in terms of some big “truthº you call God and think that God cannot change, but if God can think of creating the world, then changes must be going on in His brain, so even your transcendental truth must be changing to formulate the words of His mouth that He creates with. Quite apart from that He admits in His Holy Word that He changes His mind. He calls it repenting. What is true is true under given set conditions, like the times I mention, and truth can be determined and tested. That is what shows it is true. Your TRUTHs cannot be.

The tests for the reliability of the Bible as an ancient text have nothing to do with how it’s been preserved or copied. It has to do with literary analysis that includes among other things: the “embarassment” factor, comparisons within parallel eye witness accounts (that do include minor differing details—which, by the way, is considered more authentic than identical accounts would be), dating of the material which puts the writings well within the life span of those who were around when the events occurred, making it impossible for them to be legendary or mythical, and having corroborating evidence from non-biblical accounts. Analyses such as this have been done for the Bible by scholars from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives.

All of this, except whatever the embarrassment factor is (possibly, I suspect I know what you mean, in which case it has been answered), I believe, has been addressed on my website and all of it is special pleading and false argument. My page on Apologetics shows how dishonest many Christian arguments are. Here for example you make a virtue out of the fact that the “eyewitness” accounts are contradictory and incompatible in substantial ways. You would never get away with any such argument in a proper court of law. Substantial differences like these would be taken to show one or other of the witnesses was lying.

The dating of the gospels shows that Mark is the earliest and the most reliable. But even Mark was written around 40 years after the events, and according to tradition the author whatever his name, simply wrote down his memories of what Peter had preached. Let me take you back to the law courts. This is called hearsay evidence and is very rarely admitted in evidence, and then usually in civil cases and not serious or criminal ones where the standard of evidence is important. Matthew and Luke were another twenty years on, and John was later still about 100 AD meaning that this witness was a very old man (90?), if he is the biblical disciple, but few scholars think he really is. So these words were written by a man in his dotage or by one of his own disciples, and again this is not eyewitness material but hearsay.

Why do you Christians always cite this nonsense about eyewitnesses, when most of your own scholars deny it? You wonder why I am being insulting to call you liars. I am trying to make some of you understand that you cannot tell you are lying when you are. You assert the the material cannot have been legendary or mythical, presumably because you have been convinced that the authors were eyewitnesses. Now that you realize that they were not, could you imagine it being legendary now? Could you imagine that the man called Jesus was precisely what the Romans said he was—a rebel against Caesar? My pages and book on the Hidden Jesus upholds the historical reality of Jesus, but it is an historical Jesus not a supernatural one. It does mean though, that the central events in his life are true but reported distortedly.

Now when you speak of corroborating evidence, you are back to Christian lying. There is no such evidence, but I am not going to repeat what has been said in detail, though you cannot bring yourself to read it. You are right that the bible has been deeply analysed, but you just will not honestly read the conclusions.

As far as scientific evidence that supports intelligent design, there is a growing number of discoveries that are impossible roadblocks in the theory of evolution. Many non-Christian scientists are conceding that there is no evolutionary way to explain what they are learning. You have been too blind to see the trend in science of evolutionary scientists either reconsidering their position or making huge leaps of blind faith to assumptions that are not supported by anything observable or measurable.

Well, you are not citing any of these discoveries, and I know of none. Who are these scientists who are happily agreeing that there is a god after all? I will reconsider on the basis of any new evidence presented but not on empty claims.

And about your reasons for rejecting God: One was because God allows so much evil in the world that He can’t be powerful or good. The other was because God will ultimately bring justice to an evil world by letting evildoers go to hell. I don’t know if you can see it, but those are two contradictory premises. Either God is powerless and not good or He is powerful and just. Which is it?

Are you going back a bit? I can see, it but you cannot. My arguments were about the incoherency of the Christian view of God. You have misunderstood my exposure of the Christian contradictions for some gash presentation of my own view. I do not need to reason about rejecting God. The scientific view is that there is no necessity for making the hypothesis that there is a God. It is up to those who think there is a god to explain the evidence for their hypothesis that God exists. As I have said, the reasons given are all contradictory.

If I am too arrogant to investigate your position, aren’t you too arrogant to investigate my position that there are authentic Christians who base their faith not only on facts, but also on their life-changing personal encounters with the living God? You would have to get pretty close to at least one Christian (not a “TV” or visible Christian, but just an average Joe Christian) to do this. It’s much safer to just lump us all together and judge us from afar. When all is said and done here, nothing you can say will ever disprove what I have experienced in the privacy of my own heart, and that is a personal, daily, dynamic, life-defining relationship with the God of the universe. The power of God’s love changed me in a way that no human wisdom will ever be able to disprove. Have you ever considered how much of your life has been focused and centered on the God you don’t believe in?

You now are making the assumptions, not I. What do you suppose all of the pages I have put online are about? They are not about the Cargo Cult or the beliefs of the Confucians. I have read a lot about Christianity in the last few years because it keeps me out of the pub, and lets me exercise the noddle inside my cranial cavity. I have not noticed that Christians do the same. What makes you think too that I have no Christian friends. I have. Mainly they have given up talking to me for the same reason that you wanted to. They cannot argue the case for belief. They just believe, and they have no adequate arguments that will justify it. When they do argue about it they get impatient because they do not have any rational reasons for their unreasonable belief, and will not try to argue to me a rational case. I know they continue to do it to others as Christians always do because they are dishonest. They pretend to the gullible they have reasons, but in the end it is just belief, or your own psychological comforter. If I had lived a few hundred years ago, I would have been burnt at the stake by Christians for saying what I am now saying. I have no confidence that Christians are now good after centuries of the most outrageous cruelty. So, naturally I spend my time on this God. He has been responsible for so much cruel suffering, and it continues today, that He can only be evil, if he exists at all. I do not think He does exist, but those who believe he does inevitably, in time, become monsters.

I must say that I would enjoy our discussion a lot better if you didn’t personally attack “us” Christians and would just stick to intelligent arguments.

I am only able to give the unintelligent arguments that I do, and have explained why I attack you. I am doing nothing original in exposing Christianity as historically wicked, and based on fantasy. My point is that it needs doing because the Christians have all the money, publish acres of unrelenting rubbish, so that critical readers find it hard finding any nuggets of truth among it all, have countless people writing in newspapers and magazines and have rich churches and TV stations run by manifest crooks. Christians are happy to be associated with all this roguery, presumably because they think it is all God’s will, or part of His plans, or whatever. They should insist that these con-men be arrested and then reconsider everything that they were teaching.

Hi Mike. I do this alot, don’t I? Guess I don’t think as quick on my feet as you do. You said in your email that you cannot see how any God wants His disciples to be liars. You know, for God to not want that, He would have to exist. And if He exists, then His disciples wouldn’t be liars. A bit of a conundrum, isn’t it?

It seems that it is to you. You have just offered this syllogism:
If God exists, His disciples would not be liars.
God’s disciples are liars.
Therefore God does not exist.

That is my point. A good God, supposing He existed, could not possibly have created and sponsored Christianity which has lied utterly throughout its history, and has got into such a state today, that even ordinary Christians do not realise that they are constant liars about their religion and its beliefs.

Just did some more research into archeology and it’s discoveries about biblical events, places and people. I thought you might be interested to know what I found.

No not really, AC. You can find all of this, or most of it, anyway, on my pages all presented and argued on the basis of fact and not fancy. So, to remind you of the passage I highlighted at the beginning of this reply, you have not been reading the pages, and then have the discourtesy to tell me what I have already explained in some detail. I suggest you read what you say you have read. Christians are liars, remember. I shall go through these points quickly just to show you I have at least read them, tedious though it is to have to read what has been dealt with.

Jericho: Did “The Walls Come Tumblin’ Down"? The Old Testament story of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:1-25) is a good example of a specific biblical event for which archaeology has provided striking confirmation. The Bible relates God’s dramatic intervention for His people after they enter the land of Canaan. The Israelites storm the city of Jericho after its fortified walls miraculously collapse allowing them to march straight up into the city.

There is no evidence that any Israelites conquered Canaan. The evidence is getting quite overwhelming that the cultures of the Hill Country were continuous throughout the LBA and the Iron age. Read the pages.

In the past, many critics relegated this story to the genre of faith-promoting myth. However, excavations done at the site have revealed a number of interesting details which support this biblical story. The archaeological evidence is summarized by scholar Bryant G. Wood in the March/April 1990 Biblical Archaeology Review. Dr. Wood comments:

"The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative is substantial: the city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20); the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10); the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1); the siege was short (Joshua 6:15); the walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20); the city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18); the city was burned (Joshua 6:24).”

This is covered in several places on the pages. Read them. As for Wood, I have a short page specifically about this. He is no scholar but a professional Christian no different from TV evangelists, who makes his money, among other ways, by taking Christians on archaeological tourism in Israel. If these archaological sites are at all valuable, this is pure vandalism, and if they are not, he is getting money from gullible Christian punters on false pretences.

Solomon’s Lavish Empire: For years critics considered the Bible’s lavish descriptions of Solomon’s empire to be greatly embellished. Today most of those critics have been silenced as a result of archaeological discoveries which substantiate a number of specific details of the Solomonic era, including:

1. His use of a naval fleet to gather wealth (1 Kings 10:22)
2. The existence of copper mining and ore refineries for smelting copper and manufacturing bronze (1 Kings 7:13, 14, 45-46)
3. The specific towns and cities that comprised much of his empire (1 Kings 9:15-17)

Where do you get this stuff? It is pure baloney, and the diametric opposite of the truth. All of it has been refuted and most of the refutations are on my pages. Read them.

Archaeologists have sometimes discovered evidence for small details in the Bible which previously seemed inconsequential. For example, the writer of 1 Kings 9:15-17 mentions in passing Solomon’s construction work on the towns of Jerusalem, Hazor and Megiddo and the rebuilding of the town of Gezer after its destruction by an Egyptian Pharaoh. Prof William G Dever, though disdainful of biblical Christianity, has noted that this passage was considered of little significance, “…until modern archaeologists uncovered similar Solomonic city gates and walls at Hazor and Megiddo, and then discovered an Egyptian destruction and nearly identical city walls and gate at Gezer”.

Prof Dever goes on to say, “Here we have confirmation of a neglected, rather laconic footnote to biblical history, the more dramatic because it was totally unexpected: No one had set out to prove the historicity of this text.”

Again, where do you get it. Dever has been obliged to recognise uncomfortable truths but still silly quotations are bandied about by Christians, who prove by it that they are liars. None of these city gates can be dated to the times when Solomon is supposed to have lived. They were assumed when discovered to have been the very gates mentioned in the bible, and perhaps they are, but if so, it proves the bible is describing ancient gates still visible when it was written, centuries later not contemporary accounts of them. No one now thinks these are Solomonic, except those who just refuse to accept what is in front of their nose.

As for the rest, I have at least one page on it, and much of the rest is dealt with in context on different pages. You have to realize this, and you can read about it in some detail on the pages if you dare. There seems to have been no Israel until about 850 BC, when it was founded by Omri, a king who is hardly mentioned in the bible. From 850 BC to about 720 BC, Israel had a brief existence as a small independent state. It then got taken over by Assyria, the time when the myth of the lost tribes stems from. There is little evidence until then that another state, smaller still, called Judah existed. It might have done at the very end of the existence of Israel, but was probably the rump of Israel that was not taken by the Assyrians and incorporated into their empire. This little state existed only for about another 100 years until it was taken over by the Babylonians in 587 BC. Both states hardly had an existence at all, but they both did exist briefly. So, there are things in the bible that the Assyrian and Babylonian records confirm. No one disputes it, but note how late it all is. Moreover, most of it was surely accessible to those who began writing the bible under the Persians when they took over from the Babylonians, and set up the temple in Jerusalem, about 420 BC. The Persians were defeated by Alexander the Great in 330 BC and only from then on did anything about the amazing temple in Jerusalem and the bible appear. No one ever talks about all the wondrous biblical events until about 300 BC, even though Moses is supposed to have written a lot of it in about 1400 BC. Why the delay? So, the things in your list below that are true, are all in the last few years of the existence of Israel and Judah. All of it is already on my pages so you are being utterly discourteous to be citing it back at me. I will just say, finally, that some of the things you mention, like the coins prove that the bible was written much later than it pretends. The Persians introduced coins from Lydia, so they could not have been around before the Persian conquest. Even your proof tests are actually proofs of the falseness of the bible.

In addition to the examples described above, all of the following places, names and objects and many more besides, are historically confirmed parts of the biblical narrative:

1. Jehu, king of Israel - name inscribed on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (1 Kings 19:16-19; 2 Kings 9-10)
2. Hezekiah’s Tunnel - cut through solid rock and discovered in 1880 (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30)
3. Heshbon - city mentioned 38 times in the Bible. The site is known today as Hisban and pottery found there dates back to 900 B.C. (Numbers 21:25 ff; Joshua 13:17)
4. Darius, Persian monarch - ancient texts dating to 498 B.C. confirm both his existence and identity as described in Ezra 4-6.
5. Claudius, Roman emperor - Two literary archaeological discoveries link him to the New Testament, where he is mentioned in Acts 11:28, and 18:2
6. daric, drachma, denarius - Persian and Roman coins mentioned in the Bible, now verified by archaeology.
7. Asherah, Baal - Prominent Canaanite gods attested to by mythical literary materials discovered at Ugarit dating to biblical times, as well as a figure of Baal carved in limestone dated at least to 1650 B.C. The morally depraved practices associated with these gods are in keeping with Old Testament condemnations of anyone associating with them (e.g., Judges 3:7, 1 Kings 18).

Baal means Lord. Yehouah is always called Lord, so he is Baal, and Asherah was Yehouah’s wife. Didn’t you know that? Archaeology has proved it! Look on my pages where there is even an illustration of the find.

Because of the vast amount of one-to-one correspondence, the Bible has earned widespread respect among archaeologists. Prof William G Dever of the University of Arizona (non-Christian, quoted above) has stated: “The Bible is no longer an isolated relic from antiquity, without provenance and thus without credibility. Archaeology may not have proven the specific historical existence of certain biblical personalities such as Abraham or Moses, but it has for all time demolished the notion that the Bible is pure mythology. The Bible is about real, flesh-and-blood people, in a particular time and place…”

He would say this, wouldn’t he? Dever resents the fact that everything from Genesis to Omri, except the Tower of Babel, has been shown to have no basis in history. He has been forced to accept it, and so now defends what remains as true history. He falls back passionately on the bits that no one disputes has some historical truth in it. I mention William Dever quite a lot on my pages. Try reading them.

Listen, AC, I like talking to you, but do me a favour and take you head out of the bucket, find out what I have already said before telling me it, or some other version of it. It would be far more productive if you read a page and criticized that rather than finding utter garbage on the web and expecting me to repeat a large amount of stuff that already exists on my pages.

Best wishes, and nice to hear from you no less than three times, even if some of it was tedious.

Speaking of tedious, Mike. That was the most pretentious, emotional, convoluted mess of assumptions I’ve ever heard.

Which ones?

You claim that your interpretation of facts is somehow superior to those of people with opposite opinion, but it’s no different at all. It’s based on research you’ve done that’s much like mine—that is, unless you’ve been to all the archeological sites and done the work of determining dates, authenticity and context of discoveries made, and unless you’ve worked in a biological research lab or a cosomological research facility. You pick and choose the experts you want to quote and the opinions that best line up with your beliefs.

Well, I do not pick Christian rogues making money out of the pilgrimage archaeology business, but many of the people I cite on religious matters are religious experts. That is why they are studying it professionally. Most of us cannot be bothered studying a load of ancient mythology until we need something to amuse us in retirement.

Don’t insult me by saying that I have missed the answers you give in your pages. I saw lots of them and they aren’t answers or refuting of the evidence at all. They’re the vague, presumptious opinions of “experts” that sound just like you.

Like what? Give me a for instance? If what you say is true, then there are an awful lot of them, on my pages alone.

You know as well as I do that both of us can find experts that line up with our beliefs and interpret findings the way we want to hear—your stand is as much a belief as mine and you know that if you’re ever honest enough to admit it.

Belief based on evidence, of course, not just belief, or belief based on what other believers tell you in a perpetual chain of lies.

It’s pointless to name any on my side of the debate (and yes, I do have many whether you believe that or not),

I will believe you when you name them and tell me what they have said. You named one, and he is as reliable as a timeshare dealer.

because I’m sure you know all about them and you will immediately point out that they are biased by whatever: belief, background, etc. I would say the same thing to you about your experts. Everyone of them that I’ve read have strong core beliefs that completely color their opinions.

Who are they and what are their core beliefs that are untrue, or whatever. Generalities is all you can spout.

You’re a liar if you deny this.

Please, God, let me not be a liar. You are right that there are always two sides to a story, sometimes more than two, but you do not seem to have a clue what the point of discussion and offering evidence is. It should not surprise me. Christians do not need evidence, and, faced by it, come out with rants like this. I have said repeatedly on my pages that I am offering evidence. If anyone disagrees with what I say then they can offer counter evidence. All you offer, when you offer anything, is a lot of already discredited garbage. There are experts and experts, sure enough, but some ARE better than others, and those with a religious axe to grind are often no good because they put axe grinding before truth. That is my constant point. Christians think that those who have attached their names to various books in the bible are infallible experts, a citation of whom stops all argument. The truth of the matter is that if you could argue you would, but all you can do is offer excuses.

Explain bacterial flagellum, the origin of matter, the language-like arrangement of DNA strands that have specifically coded but nonsequential ordering (like the alphabet in words and sentences) and can’t be self-ordering because if they were, they would be repetitive and never be able to make the multitude of shapes (puzzle pieces) required to build the many parts of a living cell. In fact, explain vast amount of information required to make and operate just one living cell, much less a living organism. And then explain the Cambrian explosion in terms of the amount of information needed to bring it about.

Sure, some of this is on my pages, and perhaps more will be when I get time, though I prefer to leave it generally to the many good pages that exist about evolution—as long as they are not Christian pages. And since you think all these inexplicable things can be explained by God, then you explain Him.

And what is that 2nd law of thermodynamics? “in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.” This is also commonly referred to as entropy , a measure of disorder. Nothing ever observed has become more ordered over time without the intervention of an intelligent outside source.

You are in error. When energy DOES enter a system then the potential enegy goes up. You get ordering. Eventually it leads to life and evolution of it. Typically of Christians, you only offer one half of the story. You are, presumably, again suggesting God in this last remark, but no Christian cares to think where any entity—as sufficiently complicated as God must be to be able to order everything else—came from in the first place. You invent an infinitely ordered superbeing because you cannot be bothered thinking how order and ultimately life and evolution arise naturally. Ah! You will say, He is eternal! Then why cannot the universe be the same? The whole point of this debate is that there is no need of God, so why invent Him?

I’m sure this is all in your pages and pages of evidence and proof, so forgive me for not finding all of it.

Well, you do not need to—you know, of course. You are a Christian and doubtless God tells you all you need to know without your having to do anything at all.

What I found was presumptious opinion. I got really tired of wading through your so-called arguments.

Unfounded opinion can be easily demolished. That is what Christians do not like. I repeat to you that, if you have any counter arguments, then let me have them. All you can say is that you cannot be bothered. It is too tedious. My tedium threshold must be higher than yours. Perhaps, if you pray, God will send you convincing answers, with no tedium involved.

It’s hilarious to me, Mike, that you judge Christians to be cruel liars. Where do you get your standard of measurement?

It is very simple. I ask, “Would I like it done to me?” If the answer is, “No!” then I try not to do it to others. My recollection is that your own God told you the same thing, so why have Christians earned themselves such a reputation for cruelty and dishonesty?

I’d think you’d say that in the course of evolutionary history, human minds are just trying to stay ahead of each other by making themselves the most fit to survive. There’s no right or wrong, is there? Isn’t it just who can figure out how to stay in the game longest? How can you judge groups of people as being bad when there is no such thing in your world?

No, I wouldn’t. Yes there is right and wrong, but God cannot prescribe what it is because there is no God interested in doing it. As to staying in the game longest, it might be getting back that way, under our present Christian leaders. And, who said there is no such thing as bad in the world? Are you trying to imply I did. Dishonesty again. You make up your own claims and pretend they are mine for effect, because you cannot answer what I actually do say.

It seems to me that if you’re going to present a “truth” that all of life came about completely by chance out of nothing that there is a burden of proof on you to verify it by observable and measurable means or it’s not really truth, since that’s what you require of those who believe in God.

Good point, but you do not understand evidence, and so will not accept it. You believe in God without evidence.

And don’t give me all that “evidence” that every evolutionary believer cites, because it has been refuted time and again.

There you go again. You will not accept it, so why should I cite it. Just believe it. It is more believable than God. It has been refuted but you do not say how. It is because you do not want to understand science and particularly scientific method, just as you dishonestly tried to prove the point about order by omitting half of the premise.

There have been many observations and measurements that verify evolution, including the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. Why did God do that, do you think? As far as morals are concerned I thought I had said—but perhaps it was somewhere else—that we chose ourselves as social creatures to live under the law because it saves us a lot of unnecessary time and energy by allowing us to divide our labour. The baker then does not have to be a policeman and the butcher does not have to be a soldier. We agree to restrict our rights by having others undertake certain duties for us, while we undertake certain duties for them. If we were to be all liars, then the system would break down. Regrettably, one section of the community has realised that they can lie and get away with it because they can pretend they are saying what God told them to say.

Why in the world would I want to debate a specific page on your website? I haven’t found anything intellectually honest in any of them.

Fine, then prove it. Show that a page is not intellectually honest. You are all projection and bluster. You cannot!

I know, I know, I don’t want to see anything, therefore I don’t. I suggest that you get your head out of the garbage can of opinion that it’s in so you can really evaluate things.

My opinion is backed up with evidence from the real world, not just faith, the idler and cheat’s cop out.

So far, all you’ve done in the way of answering my questions about your conflicting philosophical statements is rearrange the words or tell me I only think in terms of big truths and that I’m a liar. And your example of time being a changing truth? I don’t think so. The truth you illustrated is that time moves in a measurable constant way. That doesn’t change. Not much of a debate, Mike. Borrrrrring… ..

Too bad your tedium threshhold is so low. How do you ever manage to stay awake in church? Perhaps you cannot understand what I say because you cannot understand plain English, though I think not. You are simply not willing to offer anything except generalities because you cannot uphold them. Perhaps time moves in a constant way, but, if so, each time I cite as current is a truth. You have not confounded what I said. You have merely explained that these truths are related. You are suddenly trying to be a scientist. God will turn out to be the formula that expresses the Theory of Everything. Anyway, you began the discussion again, when I thought you had already given up. You might as well give up because you will say nothing, when you do write, and on the few occasions when you have, it has been old, old discredited Christian lies regurgitated. You simply refuse to listen. That is why you have the bucket on your head.

“No! I will NOT hear you!! Go away, or I’ll snore and snore!”

Ok! As you wish. Just stop snoring, it makes me yawn.

I must say, Mike, that when I finally answer in the same tone you use, you say I’m ranting. You might think about that. Anyway, I do need to apologize for the way I did speak, so I’m sorry.

Well, you plainly think I am ranting and I do not. Ranting is blustering on in violent and emotional language. The trouble about ranting is that it is often not too coherent in the sense that evidence is not offered and the conclusions to be drawn are not properly explained. I think my tone is mostly measured and not ranting at all, unlike your own was in your last post. Anyway, since you felt the need to apologise, I accept it.

A few things: Going back to something you misquoted me on, I did not say that substantial detail were different between the gospels, I said minor details, and none of them change the account.

It would be useful and courteous if you cited the passage you are referring to, since otherwise I have to search through my previous replies to find out what you are talking about. You said minor and I said major (sounds like a cue for a song) so it depends on how you categorize the differences. I, for example, think that the difference between one angel and two angels is quite major, but you do not. It is quite an important thing when it comes to claiming a man came back to life after being dead, so the credibility of the supposed eye-witnesses is itself important to establish. Marked discrepancies do not give anyone, other than gullible folk, confidence in the accounts. Anyway, I have covered it on the pages, so there is no need to do it again.

I did not say that you said there is no such thing as bad, but it seems to follow that if there is no moral entity outside of ourselves that everyone’s idea of good and bad, right and wrong would be different, so which one is right?

Did you read what I wrote? I explained why societies agree to accept restrictions on their individual’s freedom for their mutual benefit. These restrictions are moral codes. I agree with others that I should not have the freedom to kill them so that they will be restricted in their freedom to kill me. The same is true of the rest of morality. No God sent them or looks after them. Look at the God-fearing USGIs in Iraq, humiliating naked captives by making them masturbate in front of a leering woman soldier. Any Christian condoning this is a hypocrite and the chief ones are the wonderful believers, Bush and Blair, who set it all going.

I agree that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics allows for new energy put into the system to move matter toward order. That is my point exactly. New energy has to come from somewhere outside the system. Without an outside force acting on it, the law would have to be indefinitely suspended for matter to order itself into evolving life forms.

It is not what you said. There is no new energy coming into the universe. If it were then the universe would not be the universe at all, because this source of energy has not been included. When we talk about these systems we are talking about local regions in space and time within the universe. In the solar system, the sun provides the energy that allows the generation of local order, and that allows life to form and evolve. Life can maintain itself and evolve wherever there is a source of energy. It happens in the oceans where there are volcanic vents providing heat. You never give the full story. That is a form of lying called the sin of omission.

In one of your pages you express frustration that the public doesn’t ever hear about scientists and their discoveries specifically—especially those who disagree with Christians ( I think you were referring to a scientist at Oxford), and that the Christians who have all the money can propogate their lies. Yet either later in the same page or in another, you claim that Christians have adopted an “ if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” philosophy because evolution is so widely accepted. Both of these things can’t be true.

This is one of those places where a citation or a reference would be useful. I assume you are talking about the pages that examine a book by a man called Fuller. He is one of the modern “scientific” theologians. They are the Christians who think “if you can’t beat them join them". These supposed scientific Christians, supposedly trying to find ways in which science is compatible with Christianity, get funding to do the opposite—to obfuscate science. A great Christian benefactor called Templeton has given a chunk of his millions for it. The scientist who is on the other side of the fence is Richard Dawkins, a man you will hate, who is the professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, and points out that Oxford is trying to get him to improve the public understanding of science while running courses financed by the Templeton gelt that do the opposite—confuse the understanding of it. So what I said was correct. I make a general point too that the media have regular columns called Faith or something like it, often daily columns, but report science on a scoop basis—only when it seems remarkable or distasteful. Science has all the success on its side, but in this distorted world today, where everything is dumbed down, science is not properly reported whereas, in the UK, only 5% of the population that attend Chruch are regularly pandered to as if they were important. Of course, it suits people like Templeton and the news media owners to keep people ignorant and confused on science refuting religion.

And everyone has heard and read bold statements in the media about “conclusive new discoveries” that scientists, in reality, are actually still very cautious about.

I do not disagree with this. It is true, and is an example of the scoop mentality of the newspaper barons. Everything has to be sensational for them, though you are right that good scientists are cautious, until the evidence beggars doubt.

Much propagation of the evolutionary theory was done and is still being done in the public eye and in widely used textbooks by using “evidence” that has long been rejected by the scientific community. (Stanley Miller’s experiment, Haeckel’s drawings of embryos—proven falsified)

You will have to tell me what is false about Miller’s experiments. I cannot see modern textbooks using Haeckel’s old drawings, partly because they are old drawings and partly because they are inaccurate, and modern textbooks want better ones. Remember Haeckel was a friend of Darwin and he died almost a century ago. He was an enthusiast for evolution and saw in the growth of embryos what he called “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (thanks here to Graham McRae for correcting a childish error). In this he was broadly right, but better techniques and modern instruments have shown that the detail of it that Haeckel thought he saw was not there. You seem to regard this as a plot, but science does develop, you know. Once astronomers thought there were canals on Mars. Was that a plot to provide the material for thousands of science fiction stories? Schiaparelli thought he saw them with the instruments available to him, but they are not there. Schiaparelli was a contemporary of Haeckel. Their optical instruments were not as good as they are now, but, when they improved, so did the science.

The “expert” I mentioned was not a Christian and just because one statement he made doesn’t line up with your opinions, he’s discredited?

You are at it again. Cite the line please. I do not know what expert you are on about. The one I was discrediting was the one you mentioned regarding Jericho, and he IS a Christian. You also mentioned W Dever, who has been everything and now apparently says he is agnostic, but an agnostic with a strange fervour for upholding the bits of the bible that have not already fallen down.

Your pages discredit people who make statements contrary to your beliefs by throwing out wild accusations: you discredit a number of scientists for statements they have made about the inexplicable nature and complexity of the universe by saying they are motivated by money. How is it you know this? And please don’t start in about all the lying Christians with all the money pulling all  the       s.

Something seems to have dropped out at the end of this paragraph. At the beginning you speak of things I cannot recognize. Which scientists making statements about the nature of the universe have I said are motivated by money? You are making it up again, and, if you are not, it would help if you cited the sentence or paragraph. Your mailer deliberately copies the letter you are replying to, so that you do not have to copy every word yourself. You are meant to use this to save you having to pick out bits to cite. They are already there, and all you have to do is comment on them inline. Why do I have to teach you good manners? I thought all Christians already had them.

I’ve been on numerous sites about evolution, Christian, neutral ( no bias against Christians), and ones with blatant agendas against Christians. Nothing out there is conclusive. Period.

If you think that, it is because your powers of discrimination are lacking. It is not surprising. Christians are taught to believe anything their ministers tell them. You are meant to use your head.

There are great discrepancies in the interpretation of paleontological evidence on all sides of the debate. Paleontologists in the field are very competitive and at odds with each other often. Mary Leaky and Donald Johanson to name just two. I have heard scientists from both sides discredit each other. I ended up on the most neutral sites that put forth the evidence for evolution from the fossil record. Nothing is clearcut. Evolutionary scientists differ greatly on where to put the fossil evidence into the evolutionary line-up. They even disagree on the divisions to use. In fact, to make the evidence even fit the evolutionary process, you have to start with the assumption that it exists. It is more rational to make sense of it all in light of what we observe today, such as apes, chimps and humans existing together, disease such as rickets causing oddites in bone structure, and large variances in the “normal” ranges within species.

Utter nonsense. You have been reading too many creationist or, what seems to be your own preference, intelligent design, books. You would learn a lot more if you first tried to understand science. Unlike religion it does not come as a revelation perfectly formed. It has to be discovered bit by bit, and proposed explanations, called hypotheses, have to be argued for and against. Such hypotheses can be fought for by their proponents with some passion. In my book on dinosaurs, I call scientists, “gladiators of the Bunsen burner”. Hypotheses in studies like evolution and history often have to be based on incomplete evidence, and so cannot immediately be distinguished, but eventually the evidence for one or another accumulates, or some discovery is made that shows one is wrong. God or empty headed ministers are not invited to give an infallible view based on no evidence at all. I can see it is a lot easier for some idle people to to be told something rather than having to struggle with the pros and cons of what is not yet fully clear, but science at its margins is often unclear, as opposed to theology which is crystal clear about nothing at all. Evolution is not just a hypothesis. It is a large number of hypotheses and physically proven facts, like the DNA double helix, that show conclusively that the basic tenets of evolution are true. There is no room for intelligent design because for it to be true, evolution has to be wrong, and it is not. I asked before why God would have made DNA as a double helix. The answer is precisely so that it can unwind and be copied as offspring. As soon as you get copying, you get copying errors, and so you get evolution. Wake up!

There are so many accusations flying around on both sides that it’s becoming clearer and clearer that no one can adequately give positive support to his claims. The fossil evidence is not being conclusively deciphered by either side.

You are fixated on the fossil evidence when it is only part of the evidence and not the main evidence for evolution. I just explained it, but if you do not know it already, it must be a wilful intent not to learn.

There are, however, many observable phenomena in nature today from cosmology to microbiology that statistically and logically refute evolution. I’ve named a few already.

You have named some aspects of these sciences, but do not explain what you are talking about. Evolution occurs in steps, not all at once. That is what you people will not properly consider. Now, explain the double helix.

You know them and are working on them, so I’ll leave you to that. These evidences are not only contrary to evolutionary theory, but strongly support intelligent design. Archeological finds have been made to support the Bible ( photographed, recorded, and acknowledged by reputable scientists from both sides) regardless of what you claim to refute.

There is no archaeological evidence for any kings in Israel until Omri. The Jewish scriptures, from the reign of Omri, as I have said several times, is based partly on Assyrian and Babylonian records. Otherwise they are fantasy. You always say you have these astounding items of evidence, but you are strangely coy about what they are. The reason, I suspect, is that you know they are phony and have been discredited, or come from the Assyrian records. But where is the archaeological evidence for the main event of the Jewish scriptures, Moses and the exodus from Egypt. I have about six pages on this in two different sections of my website. I challenge you to show me that what is in them is scientifically refuted by anybody, and therefore Moses is a fact of history. Moses, the Exodus and the Conquest of Israel are all myths. Adam and Eve is a myth refuted by the bible itself because God created women when He created men. If you don’t believe me then read your bible—Genesis 1:27. Explain these things.

“Our own scholars” do regard the Gospels as historically authentic (only a few fringe scholars, widely dismissed by respected ones, question the Gospels based on faulty assumptions).

Coy again. What are these faulty assumptions and how do you know they are faulty and not your own? What do you mean by historically authentic? Is the film, Gladiator, historically authentic? There was a Jewish rebel who was crucified by the Romans. That is the authentic part. That he woke up again along with a load of other dead men is just the teeniest bit fabulous, don’t you think?

These, though, are not the evidences I base my belief on because there are much greater ones, some of which I’ve explained to you; the scientific ones just add to what I already believe. This, I think, is where your Christian “friends” and those “otherwise intelligent” people who believe may be. They have evidence that you can’t understand—they don’t just claim to know and believe irrationally. You say you don’t understand it. Maybe you should start asking what they have that you’re missing.

Gullibility? Believing in imaginary superheroes is something mature people grow out of when they are about ten. Others never manage it, usually because they are indoctrinated by their parents and parsons. That is why most people believe any religion whatever it is. It is not a rational choice by sensible adults. The reason why professional Christians want to indoctrinate kids is because they know they cannot persuade adults as easily. They have to get them young, and they do. It makes it hard for them to break away, but some still do, so the clergy redouble their efforts to get the next generation of kids and lean on weak willed adults to convert. It is child abuse.

I really must end this discussion (from my end at least—you’re free to continue it), but one more thought: It’s true that there have been people claiming the name of Christ through the ages who have done cruel things. But there have been many, many more who don’t just bear His name but His character who have led lives of humility, compassion and love, changing others all around them. And there have been hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocents martyred and massacred for their faith—more every day right up to the present.

How do you know the proportions of the good and wicked Christians? You are making things up again. You prove out of your own words that Christians cannot help lying. Truth is what you want it to be. As for martyrdom, you are speaking now of the Moslems, I take it. Few Christians ever did it, and now I suspect they have learnt a little sense and none will.

You are welcome to dump me into your pot of Christians who walk away because they can’t argue their side. It doesn’t make any difference to me. But the lies you are propagating in the name of truth will hurt people. My prayer is that your eyes will be opened before more are hurt and it’s too late for you.

Truth? In this email, you, apparently quite inadvertantly, commit the sins of omission and commission, proving that Christians are inveterate liars. Only Christians have the sheer gall to call patent lies truth. You just cannot help it. If God is good, He cannot condone lies, whether they are outright ones or just missing out the bits that are uncomfortable. You should pray to have your own eyes opened. Cast the beam from your own eye, your God said, before you try to get a speck out of your neighbour’s.

And what about Moses?

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0400Moses.php http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0402Moses.php http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0404Moses.php http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/340Lichtman.php http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/350Exodus.php http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/355Exodus.php

Too hard, I expect.

Skeptical Resources—Internet infidels | Jesus Never Existed | Steven Carr’s Website | Christianism | Early Christian Writings | God is Imaginary | “Religion Detoxification” | Our Judaio-Christian Heritage | Archaeoastronomy | No Deity | No Beliefs | Evil Bible | Bible God | ex-Christians | Jesus Police | Islamic Faith Freedom | Atheist Experience | American Atheists | Jovial Atheist | Askwhy! books
Other Resources—Early Christian Docs | Resources for Study | Traditional Bible-History | Traditional Bible World History | Traditional Bible History | about.com biblical history | Apologetics web sites | Advent Ch Fathers | Orion center links | Wikipedia | Traditional Jewish History