AW! Epistles
From Daniel Henry
Abstract
Friday, February 02, 2001
First off, I would like to make an comment on your paper as a whole. It seems to me as though you wrote it from the perspective of someone who already has a strong opinion (namely, that Christianity is a false religion), and seeks to scrape together as much "proof" as possible to support their position. Most papers are written from the perspective of someone who comes up with a theory, researches the theory, and writes up their theory along with any information they could find that supports or contradicts their theory. Usually, the theory that they finish with has to be altered somewhat in light of the information they have discovered in their research. Your paper, on the other hand starts out sounding almost like a scholarly paper and quickly degenerates into a hate-filled "sermon" against Christianity. When I first read your paper, as I came to a point I wished to refute, I would write it down for referencing when writing this letter. As I approached the end of your paper, I realized that this was almost pointless. I have read similarly venemous papers in the past and they are invariably written by fanatical atheists. Personally I consider fanatical atheism as a religion. What do you think about that? Sometimes such papers are also written by people who follow one of the pagan religions known commonly as witchcraft. Although, as I have said, it is probably pointless, I will attempt to refute some of your assertions in the following paragraphs.
Now if you had been alert, you would have noticed that the page was one of many giving a historical origin to Christianity and then showing how history became religion. It was not by accident. People did it deliberately. Saying that I am trying to ’scrape’ together proof is merely your own prejudice showing. Though you might see it as ’scraped together,’ it is at least evidence. Christians have none, merely belief, so they have no room to talk or to argue for that matter because arguments are meaningless to those who just believe. I do not feel any need to argue against my own proposition. Other people, like you if you wish, can do that. And if it were a scholarly paper then some university department should be paying me for writing it. It is reportage. I report what I have found, and give people every opportunity to write to me about it. If you tired of writing down points you wished to refute, that is up to you. You seem to have written a long enough reply anyway. Now answer me this: How does Christian venom differ from atheistic or wiccan venom? How does a fanatical atheist differ in fanaticism from a fanatical Christian? I suppose non-fanatical atheism is all right because it is not a religion. You are none too clear in what you mean, so I do not think anything about it. Finally, believe me, you are not obliged to write refutations of what I say.
1. Jesus, though born in Bethlehem, was raised in Nazareth. Joseph, Jesus’ father, is called a carpenter. Most people think of someone who makes furniture when they think of a carpenter, but it is likely that Joseph was a contractor who built houses. Why? Nazareth was a rural town that was experiencing a period of great growth at this time. Archaelogical evidence indicates that the growth was so dramatic that villages of craftsmen sprang up around Nazareth. It is possible that Joseph and his family lived in one of these villages while Joseph and possibly his sons (including Jesus) went to work building houses in Nazareth. Some people did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah because the Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem and they thought that Jesus was born in Nazareth or Gallilee. Jesus is referred to as the Nazarene because he was from Nazareth. A Nazarite (not the same as a Nazarene) is someone who has taken the Nazarite vow. Samson is an example of a Nazarite. Samson was a Nazarite from birth. When he had violated all the conditions of the Nazarite vow, the last one being the cutting of his hair, he lost his supernatural strength. Saying that a Nazarite is the same as a Nazarene is like saying a Liberal is the same as a Liberian or a Libertarian or a Librarian.
I thought you were the scholarly one. What is this ’archaeological evidence’ you speak of. No one even knows where this supposed Nazareth was. The modern Nazareth was invented in the fourth century, as everyone knows except evangelists. As for the rest of your refutation, it displays considerable ignorance born of a determination to accept only what suits you. It is all answered on my pages.
2. You claim that Jesus was angry at the Canaanitish woman who wanted her daughter healed and called her a dog. Jesus does in fact say (KJV) "It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs." Jesus often spoke allegorically. He is in effect saying that it is his mission on Earth to minister to the Jews and through them, the rest of the world, and that it is not appropriate for him to divert himself from this mission to minister to the Gentiles. It does not indicate that he spoke to her in anger or contempt. The only time Jesus expresses anger towards a human being in the Bible is when he is speaking to hypocrites who claim to serve God but in their hearts do not. You will note that after the woman beseeches him further, saying, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.", that Jesus praises the woman’s faith and granted her request to heal her daughter.
Well, if I implied to some woman on the streets of this fairly quiet town that she or her children were dogs, she would bring her husband and brothers and have me assaulted. She might even be so angry she would handbag me herself. Dogs in that society were unclean animals forbidden from the temple, so it was a much greater insult then than it is today, and it is a huge insult to a Moslem still. You have your fixed impression of Jesus as a saint and ignore the obvious. Read my pages and do not trouble me with things that I have already explained
3. You claim that Jesus was really only out to save the Jews. Jesus said that their would be many, many Gentiles in heaven and many, many Jews burning in hell. He also praised the Caananite woman for her faith as well as a Roman centurion. He said the Roman centurion had more faith than most Jews. He also said to those Jews who placed such importance on geneologies tracing their ancestry back to Abraham that such things were unimportant, and that God could take the rocks scattered on the ground into children of Abraham if he so desired.
First, you are not being scholarly again. Where does he say these things? Second, you have just written: "…his mission on Earth to minister to the Jews…" and then to the gentiles. The conception Jesus had was that righteous gentiles would come to the Jerusalem of God’s Kingdom in supplication. This is the Jewish notion, accepted by such as the Essenes, of the kingdom of God in earth—an incorruptible kingdom ruled by the Jews. Canaan was an anachronism. The only Canaanites at the time were in Carthage in north Africa. She was a proselyte. She is described as Syro-Phoenician by nation to distinguish her in terms of religion. Who were the gospels written for?—the citizens of the Roman empire—gentiles. Are these bishops going to write stories saying that gentiles were not welcome? Why can you not understand that the gospels were written for the purpose of converting gentiles?
4. You refer to the Essene’s literal belief in a "kingdom of God" on Earth. The Bible also refers to this. It is talking about the church. By "church", I mean all the saved Christians in the world, not a particular denomination. I do not know the details of what the Essene’s believed, but if they believed in a literal "kingdom of God" on Earth, then that belief does not necessarily contradict the Bible.
How do you know he meant a church? Are you like Paul? Have you had private tuition by him? In case you had not noticed, the church said he meant the church. If the kingdom of God is in heaven, why does the Lord’s prayer say it is in earth. When Jesus was crucified and no gates opened to release the hosts of heaven to cure the world of evil, the bishops had to start changing the story.
5. You claim that Jesus was an Essene and that the Essenes were militaristic zealots. They may well have been. I do not know. What I do know is that Jesus told his followers to pray for their enemies, to love those that hated them, and to forgive anyone who did anything bad to them over and over and over again. Does this sound like a militant? Paul wrote in at least one of his letters that it was wrong to curse governments and leaders because God had put them in their positions. He instead urged people to pray for their governments and leaders.
Listen! Why don’t you just read my pages and save me all this repetition? I’m not an evangelist. I tell the truth as far as I can discern it. Jesus was a Jew sent to save Jews. The kingdom of heaven, he considered to be a Jewish kingdom. So, when he said forgive your enemies, he was talking about the divisions between Jews. Jews had to forget their divisions otherwise they would not succeed in defeating Satan—the Romans, gentiles—they were not included in this forgiveness. It therefore sounds extremely militant. He wanted Jews to unite against the Romans. They did a few decades later but to no avail. It is Paul who extended the message to gentiles, because he was a Roman agent.
6. You note that Paul made relatively few references to Jesus compared to the writers of the Gospels. Let’s put this in context. Mathew (the first gospel) was written by Mathew (also called Levi), one of Jesus’ disciples. This book seems primarily addressed to the Jews as it make repeated references to the Old Testament that only Jews would have been able to appreciate. Mark is written by John Mark, a relative of Barnabas who was an associate of Paul. It is likely that he interviewed various disciples and followers of Jesus to write this book. It seems to be addressed to gentiles and Romans, because it makes few references to Old Testament prophecy and it explains many of the Jewish customs and words. That would be unneccessary if it were addressed to Jews. Luke is written by Luke (who is thought to have written Acts as well), a friend and travelling companion of Paul. It is in the form of a letter addressed to a person named Theophilus. The book of Luke seems to be addressed to gentiles because it takes great pains to explain Jewish customs and sometimes substitutes Greek names for Hebrew. John is written by the disciple John. All four gospels are meant to tell the story of Jesus. All of the "books" written by Paul are actually letters written to individuals or to churches. For example, the book of Romans was a letter to the church in Rome. The book of Galatians was a letter to the church in Galatia. The book of Titus was a letter from Paul to a fellow Christian named Titus. All of the people and churches to whom Paul wrote would have already known the story of Jesus. If they were lucky, they might actually had part or all of one of the gospels hand-copied onto parchment. Remember, they did not have printing presses back then. Paul would not have wasted valuable paper telling them something they already knew. Besides, most of Jesus’ disciples (maybe all of them except Judas) were still alive and spreading the story of Jesus, and probably telling it much better than Paul could have. Paul did make repeated references to Jesus’ character and the kind of person he was as opposed to telling stories about the things he did and said. Paul probably met the apostle Peter and perhaps other apostles as well. You seem to indicate in your writings that there was little if any continuity between the disciples of Jesus and Paul. Although they would not have been able to converse as freely as you or I do with modern technology, it is obvious that letter writing was alive and well back then (thanks mostly to Roman civilization). Also, Paul and the disciples often stopped by the major churches of the area back then (there were only a few really big congregations at that time) and probably ran into each other every once in a while. I suspect some of them actually made it a point to meet each other in person.
This is all very pious but does not hold water. No one expects to find the full gospels in Paul’s letters, but there are not even calls upon the teaching of Jesus when it would settle the point Paul is making. He gives no impression in the least that he is giving a message already preached by the incarnate god. He always makes it out to be his own message. Now, if you are interested in all this, it is covered in greater depth by Earl Doherty, than by me, but Earl does not think Jesus ever even lived. That is why Paul does not mention Jesus except as a cosmic entity called Christ or Christ Jesus or some such expression. For my own part, a historical Jesus can be explained as I have explained him—as a man justifiably crucified in Roman law as a seditionist—a man claiming an illegal authority over the people, a rival to Caesar. That was sufficient reason for all the early Christians not to mention much about the life of Jesus on earth for almost a century. So, at least I am your ally against Earl Doherty. Now considering that all these twelve apostles were supposed to be travelling the earth to evangelise the message, do you seriously think they could be in touch by letter. Letters do not fit your model, Daniel. In fact, the church was led by James in Jerusalem and he could have been reached by letter, but Paul did not get on with him, and the only letter he wrote that is preserved is called an ’epistle of straw’ by Christians, Protestants anyway. The reason is that it is contrary to Paul’s disgusting idea of salvation by faith alone. James said salvation was by works (Jas 2:14, and the rest—it is Essene). Finally, if Paul ’ran into’ other apostles during his ministry, it was not accidental. He was teaching a different message, and though Acts and the Epistles have tried to disguise it, it is still plain to everyone who is not utterly besotted by dogma. People were sent to keep him on the straight and narrow and to calm down the people he had offended. They failed because the Jerusalem church was soon destroyed.
7. You claim that the gospels have an "anti-semitic" tone to them. I suspect I know why you think this. When Jesus arrived on the scene, the Jews were extremely "religious". That should please God, right? Wrong! When I say they were "religious", I mean that they made it a point to put on the trappings of religion, to follow all the ceremonies zealously, and to put on every outward appearance of being devoted to God. Their "religion" came not from a love of God, but from a desire to fit into their very "religious" society and from a racial pride that was extreme to the point of bigotry. Jesus rebuked them for this. He made it a point to show them the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. The Jews were obeying the letter of the law, making all the right sacrifices, saying all the right prayers, but they were woefully deficient when it came to faith in God, love for God, and devotion to doing what was right. The religious scholars of the day had taken the laws given to them by God and expanded on them to the point that nobody could obey all of them unless they were a full-time priest. For example, if you were to move a chair on the Sabbath, and the legs of the chair dragged across a dirt floor making little furrows in the dirt, that qualified as plowing the soil. If you did that, you were working on the Sabbath. This rule about moving chairs was not given to them by God. It was made up by men with way too much free time on their hands. The Jews were intended to be a shining example of what it means to be followers of God. They were supposed to inspire the rest of the world to follow their example. The rules that limited their interaction with gentiles were intended to keep them from being corrupted by pagan beliefs, immoral practices, and the diseases that these immoral practices helped to spread. Instead, the Jews (as a whole) decided that they were not to interact with gentiles because they were scum and didn’t matter to God. Instead of being an example to the gentiles, they walled themselves off from them and treated them with loathing and contempt. At one point in the Bible, it tells how Jesus threw the money-lenders and merchants out of the temple. The fact that these people were lending money and selling animals for people to sacrifice was not wrong. It was the fact that they were doing it inside the temple enclosure and on the front porch of the temple. They worshipped money and greed instead of God. Another example of something Jesus rebuked the Jews for was a certain custom that was abused by the religious aristocracy. According to this custom, a person could have a piece of property (money, land, clothes, anything) that was set aside for Godly use. Such property would go to the temple when they died and, while they lived, it could not be touched by any who would lay claim to it. Some of the religous higher-ups would use this custom to avoid taking care of their elderly, impoverished parents. If the person in question had plenty of money, clothing, etc. and one of their parents asked for help, they could say "Sorry, I would like to give you some of this money, but it isn’t really mine. I’m just holding it for God. " So yes, the gospels were anti-Jewish with regards to some of the actions of some of the Jews, but they were not anti-semitic in the sense that Hitler was. Jesus’ aim in rebuking these faults was to bring them out into the light of day and get people to turn away from such behavior, not because he enjoyed insulting his fellow Jews.
You do not seem to get the point. What you cite is just the excuse for labelling the Jews as wicked. Repeatedly the NT books refer to ’the Jews’ in a thoroughly disparaging and inciteful way. Acts and John’s gospel are particularly bad but it is a general phenomenon. You are quite blind however (that is a metaphor—if you can really see physically, it is not a miracle) and must believe the Jews who were maltreated throughout history culminating in the holocausts were just unlucky. In fact ’the Jews’ are almost certainly not Jews in general but the Essenes—Jewish ’Christians’ who were in the Jerusalem church.
8. You spend quite a bit of time insulting Catholicism. Actually, I suspect that most of what you say (possibly all) with regards to the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church is right on the money. This is really rather sad. For quite some time the Catholic Church (or at least the people in charge of it) has been a very political orginization, even machiavellian in nature. Whenever I see someone who has a bone to pick with Christianity, they invariably hold up the Catholic Church as being representative of Christianity as whole. They point out the Inquisition (in which I might add, many of my Protestant ancestors died). They point out the despicable behaviour of many of the people in charge of the Roman Catholic Church through the ages, including priests, monks, cardinals, bishops, supposed saints, and even popes. However, to use these acts as examples of the typical Christian or even the typical Roman Catholic is wrong. It is nothing but an excuse to reject Chrisitianity. Show me where these evil acts are actually supported in the Bible. If I claimed to be a Christian and I sacrificed babies to Satan, would I really be a Christian? Would my committing these acts mean that Christianity is evil? No, if I did such things, it would mean that I (not Christianity) was evil or perhaps insane. It would mean that I was lying or deluded when I said I was a Christian. I am digressing a little here, but this brings me to one of my pet peeves. People who like to bring this subject up are often fond of saying something like "More people have died in the name of God than for any other reason." It might interest such people to know that more people died in WWII than in all previous wars combined and that more people died in WWI than in all the wars before that. Was WWII a religious war? Was WWI a religious war? I think not. People have a tendency to believe what they want to believe or to disbelieve what they want to disbelieve, and take any little shred of evidence they can find and force it to fit their beliefs.
Your argument is quite fatuous. You could excuse Naziism in the same way. If the church founded by God or his son results in unspeakably evil deeds then no one can say it was all a mistake. And do you suppose that if the bishops and popes of the Middle Ages had had modern weapons they would not have used them? Do you imagine that Protestant pastors incinerating witches would not have used more efficient methods, if they had them? More people were killed in modern wars than of old because the weaponry had been refined to make it possible and because the population was bigger and able to stand it. These modern weapons and wars all arose in Christian societies, whether the wars were identifiably Christian ot not. A very few Christians were known to protest when they prayed to the Christian God in public churches for victory in the war. The great majority were sanguine about it. The Germans were doing the same of course. The Nazis had a motto: Gott mit Uns. What does that mean? While they were gassing Jewish people, they were calling upon the Jewish god, though he was based on an Aryan god and spread by an Iranian prophet, apparently unbeknown to Hitler. My message is uncompromising. Christianity began as a fraud. It still is a fraud and it has led to untold evil in the world. Whoever would be a Christian has to live in their own dream world, immune to reality to let all this go by without influencing them. They do with no trouble, and perpetuate the evil in spite of themselves.
9. You refer to the persecution by Romans (in particular, Nero) as exagerated. That is possible. Here is what I know about the subject. Romans accepted almost any god as did the Greeks. In this respect, they were very tolerant of other religions. So why, you might ask, would the Romans persecute Christians? There are two main reasons. One is that the Romans revered Caesar as a god. All of the various Caesars were thought to be semi-divine and when they died, it was thought that they ascended to the status of gods. There were many temples to the various Caesars throughout the Roman empire and many statues of the Caesars that were worshipped, prayed to, and sacrificed to, as idols. Early Christians, when encountering such practices would refuse to pay their respects to such idols or might even speak out against it. This was construed as blasphemous and as treasonous. Nero had a serious problem with the thought that if Christianity spread enough, his authority (which depended in part on his perceived divinity) would be undermined. Also, Christians refused to sacrifice to the various Roman gods and even spoke out against them declaiming them as false gods. Whenever anything bad happened like a flood, a famine, a plague, a great fire, etc. the Romans claimed it was the punishment of the gods and the "sacreligous" Christians were a convenient scapegoat. Nero sent spies to infiltrate the various churches so as to find out the identities of the members so they could be executed. Christians of the time would identify each other by quoting a piece of scripture. If the person they were talking to could complete the scripture, then they must be a Christian. Nero’s spies were given scripture to study so they could pass this test. However, many of them, upon reading the scriptures became genuine converts. Nero’s spies started a different custom to prevent this. They started a custom whereby a Christian would draw half of a Christian symbol (like a fish) on the ground. If the other person could finish the symbol, they were accepted as a Christian. Nero did not have to worry about his spies converting to Christianity as a result of memorizing symbols. At some point, the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity or so it is claimed. He was originally a sun-worshipper who claimed to have had a vision (or maybe it was a dream) of a giant cross suspended in mid-air with the words "In this sign, conquer." Here are a few interesting tid-bits of information that your average person doesn’t know. The cross that Constantine saw was the looped cross or ankh. This is an Egyptian symbol that has some connections to their practice of sun worshipping. Constantine did stop the persecution of Christians IF they were members of HIS "Christian" church. Christians who did not join him were mercilessly ferreted out and destroyed. Many fled the Roman empire heading mostly towards its northern borders to avoid being killed. Constantine’s own mother was a Christian who lived in fear that her son would execute her because she knew he was a big fake. According to accepted history, Constantine was baptized on his deathbed before he died. Actually, Constantine refused to be baptized his entire life. After his death, while his body was still warm, he was hurriedly baptized. This was the start of the Roman Catholic Church. It is claimed that Peter was the first in the long line of popes, but any who belonged to the church Pete belonged to fled Rome, or went into hiding, or died when Constantine started his church.
You have part of the story here. Read the rest on my pages. But you are special pleading. This church that you decry was the original church. Who founded yours?
10. Lastly, I refer to your claim that Christians met together secretly to participate in orgies. Before I go any further, I will let you know that I am well aware of what constituted a Roman orgy. I also know about Greek orgies, particularly those of the Spartans, so I am not ignorant of that aspect of history. Doubtlessly, there were some Christians who engaged in immoral acts and wild parties. Paul, in his letters makes mentions of some truly disgusting things that some Christians did. He gave detailed instruction on how such things were to be dealt with. It was not however something that the majority of Christianity engaged in, even if their native cultures did. In my native culture, most non-Christians drink, use tobacco, and are as promiscuous as their personal appearance, charm, and-or check book will allow. Most of my fellow Christians shun these things. I wish all of them did, but sadly that is not the case. To claim that Christians met together secretly for orgies rather than to avoid being killed stems from extreme cynicism or perhaps a hatred of Christianity.
You are shooting the messenger. I do not claim the early Christians participated in orgies, I report what others believed. And you provide some of the basis for it. The ’Agape’ of the early Christians—a love-in—is accepted even by Christians as often degenerating, just as you suggest. Few Christians will allow that many Pagan religions by that time had become puritanically pious. Doubtless, like yourself, it was these pious people who objected to the love feasts. Anyway, read my pages about the persecutions.
I will make one last point before I close this letter. I have encountered many experts, scholars, theologians, etc. who have opinions on the Bible. You seem to know quite a few esoteric things about early Christianity, so I will place you in this same category. Typically, the ones that make the news, or appear in documentaries, or write an article that appears in a magazine are non-believers. They tend to focus on things like "what really happened" instead of the miraculous event(s) recorded in the Bible. They also have a tendency to focus narrowly on one little part of the Bible ignoring the fact that there are many interconnections in the Bible. Verses in the New Testament assume that the reader knows they are referring to an obscure passage in the Old Testament. Many of the things that the so-called Bible scholars say are outrageously ignorant to someone who has been reading the Bible since they were a child and has read it cover to cover on at least one occasion. It quickly becomes obvious they never consulted a rabbi or preacher or bible-believing scholar. I will make this challenge to you. If you truly wish to devote your life to "debunking" the Bible, then READ it. Read the entire thing. I don’t ask you to believe what you read. Just read it in a scholarly fashion, not as someone who loathes what they are reading. You probably won’t do this. I realize the Bible is HUGE and sometimes a little boring, but you owe it to yourself if you want to know what you are talking about. If I had blasted you on something that you said at the beginning of your paper without reading to the end of your paper and discovering that I was actually agreeing with you on the subject, wouldn’t I come across as pretty stupid? If you don’t read the entire Bible, but persist in writing about it, you aren’t going to impress anyone who has read it. I would recommend that you read the NIV version or some other version written in modern English. I have grown up reading the King James version and I have no trouble understanding it. If you are not accustomed to the archaic English used in the KJV, it will make your task quite difficult. Something that might also help you is to read Bible stories written for younger people. In that way, you can get a summary of a story that you can read in a few minutes instead of a few hours.
Your final paragraph is really quite ironic. You have plainly read scarcely anything of what I have written in a large number of pages, admittedly—but you tell me not to be discouraged by the size of the bible. Do not be discouraged by the many pages I have offered the world for the sake of truth. Truth! Pure and simple. Not God’s Truth, but truth.
You bleat that only non-believers ever get heard nowadays. That is an example of God’s Truth. It is a lie. Every newspaer has a daily column devoted to propagating Christianity. It is usually called ’Faith’ or something. The TV channels, here at any rate and I guess even more so in the US, have a weekly Christian program and pious garbage every easter, and Christimas and other times when they can fit them in. Besides this, Christianity had aboslute control on what was published and practically on what people could think for millennia. But you bleat because it is no longer the same in modern secular society. Thank God, say I, but it is still awful.
It is precisely because all people could read for centuries was the bible, that even when they were allowed to read other stuff people like you continued to bury your head in it and pollute your brains with mythology taken as history. Leave the rest of us alone. We do not want your proselytizing and missions. I am utterly confident that no Good God would save most Christians from the burning sulphur, if that is the punishment for untruth, failing to use what God has given you, and accepting manifest works of the Devil as the works of God. You’ll be all right though. You’ll just be dead. Full Stop.
As for reading the bible, I reckon that I am among the top ten percent of those that have read any of it. But instead of reading it the foolish way you do, I read it critically. Even your despised Jews realized that the Torah was on earth not in heaven, so despite their fondness of it, they knew it was not perfect. Christians of some types are idolaters. Their idol is a book!
Anyway, I write this one hour before the New Year. It was at the old Persian New Year—Easter to us—that the Persian king dressed in rags to stand for the old year and then dressed in fine clothes to represent the new one. The old year was chaos and out of it came a new creation—the new year. The Book of Esther is based on this celebration, which came to be Purim in Judaism. A wicked man called Haman was crucified for trying to trap the hero Mordecai and the Jews. Recognize any of this?
Anyway, I am leaving to join in. Best wishes and a happy new year, Mike
From AVP
How about a positive comment. Mike, I am assuming you are an atheist. Maybe I am wrong. I am not an atheist but I do know this, that most of what you do say in your articles to the best of my knowledge is truth. I grew particularly angry at John Henry’s letter to you and the self righteousness of it. All I want to say is this: John Henry, I spent twenty five years of my adult life as a Bible thumping born again Christian. You criticize Mike and say he ought to read the Bible. I have read the Bible many many times over and again. But you know what, it was not until I began to really read what the Bible says that I really began to know who Jesus really was. It was not until I began to read what Judaism says about Jesus that I really understood why what I believed was wrong.
If I could say that to John Henry, that is what I would say. When I figured out the truth you cannot believe the anger I felt. I spent most of the years of my adult life trying to live a lie. I am sure that John Henry would say, “You were never really saved to begin with”. That is what all Christians say when one leaves the flock. It is their way of justifying their decision to remain in ignorance. To that I would respond, “saved from what?”
I do not go around trying to dissuade Christians from their beliefs (too many lumps on my head from playing that game,you know , from banging your head against the wall) but I do feel a moral obligation to stand up to fraud and ignorance whenever it raises its ugly head. I am currently working on a piece of fiction that I hope will do just that. Keep up the good work Mike.
