AW! Epistles
From the Theologian
Abstract
Saturday, 18 May 2002
Mike, I have the following comments on: The Resurrection of Christ. Myth or Reality?
I am currently about 2/3rds of the way through a theology course.
Theology is the camouflage of the devil. I suggest that you switch to something useful while you still have the chance. If you are a good man you will not want to do good for any institution with the blood on its record that Christianity has.
I have do say that the whole article was evidently heavily biased.
I expect a bit more from a theology student than this. Standards are falling! It is not biased to come to a conclusion when the evidence supports it. Sociologists refuse to come to a conclusion ever to avoid being accused of bias, while Christian theologians come to a conclusion based on negligible evidence, or even none at all. Consider the possibility, Theologian, that you are biased and I am simply giving the common sensical view.
Clearly you have the right to believe what you chose, but you do not appear to want to give the same right to Christians, nor do you appear to have give due credit to Christians for all the good that they have done throughout the world.
Tell me, what right did Christians give to anyone at all for a thousand years? Let me save you from thinking—the answer is none. You had to be a Christian full stop. In some places,in the earlier parts of the Christian tyranny, people could choose to profess Christianity as long as they did not contradict it, but as the tyranny hardened people were tortured without remorse by these loving Christians that you want to be part of. No human being can look at the instruments of torture used by the agents of the God of Love, or even consider human flesh burning for him, and ever want to be a Christian. If I am biased, it is for these reasons. Christianity has a Satanic record that only devils or fools can ignore. In the balance, the good cannot even begin to equal the evil, not least because what a Christian considers good most often is evil to sane people.
Just occasionally I have encountered arguments and lines of reasoning that posed a threat to faith, or which required some serious research in order to provide an answer. I have to say that I did not feel threatened or stimulated by your article to do anything other than point out that you need to do some more home work.
Well, I have to say that if that is your view then you are in the right business because you are a fool. I have almost 100 carefully researched pages which show conclusively to anyone not besotted by the Christian scam that it is nothing but a scam and an utterly destructive and inhuman one at that. You all make faith a virtue when it is pure idiocy to believe something without compelling evidence. No Christian that I have corresponded with for five years can tell me why their own god’s judgement should be ignored in the case of the Christian church. Nothing could be clearer than Mt 7:15-20:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Do you understand metaphor, theologian? “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.” The church did! And not just in small amounts or for a short time. I expect you theologians can find an excuse. After all you have been doing it for 2000 years, even while the smell of burning human flesh was in the air—the fruits of the Christian tree—torture and death. Hew it down!
I would also ask you to consider how much you might upset others with these unnecessary aggressive anti-Christian sentiments.
You have an appalling nerve to talk about the sensibilities of smug Christians when myriads of people have suffered the worst kind of torture and death at Christian hands and in the name of their god. Your hero had something to say about hypocrites too. Try reading the simple stuff before you turn to theological junk meant to get you out of tight corners.
Is it really worth it? Do you really want to hurt Christians that much?
Like you, I am interested in saving people from evil. But my salvation is in this world. No one who is human could go around hypocritically preaching love hearing people screaming in the background. This is the whole history of your philosophy—agonizing physical torture, and centuries of unmentionable psychological torture, too. If a neo-Nazi stood up today and claimed Hitler was misunderstood, no one would believe a word of it, least of all Jews. So it is for Christianity, the difference being that Nazism lasted only 12 years while Christianity has lasted over a hundred times longer.
From the example of your god, if there were such a thing in the real world as a true Christian, he would be supporting me not criticizing me. You cannot. You reject the poor Galilean because since he died Christians have been Pharisees. Your theological claptrap should shout out to you, “Hypocrite! Pharisee!” Perhaps it yet will, but I doubt it.
There is no doubt that many things have been done in the name of Christ which in no way represent Him. However, you have focused entirely upon the negative, and have neglected the long standing tradition of self-sacrifice, and the desire for holiness. You have neglected all the endeavours in the field of human rights, and countless other gifts to humanity which have come through the Christian Church. The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ continues to bring comfort to millions all over the world.
How you have the nerve to finish your tirade of hate with best wishes I do not understand. It makes you sound like a wind-up merchant. You seem dedicated to your cause, but you also seem to harbour a lot of bitterness and hate. Your obvious bias and clear bitterness combine to undermine your message. I would respect your opinions much more if you could see the good as well as the bad, if you could see the sincerity as well as the hypocrisy.
You talk about the weight of evidence but you seem to have gone out of your way to ignore so much of it. Consequently I see no point in presenting research to someone whose mind is not open for business. I do not dispute that you have gone to a lot of trouble to get your point across, but I would hope that you could see that if you really want to make your case then you need to distance yourself from needless prejudice.
The whole of life is based upon faith of one kind or another. Some believe that there is a God, and others believe that there is no God, but I have yet to view unassailable evidence of any kind.
Finally! In answer to the question of whether I have ever considered that I am biased? The answer is, Yes I am biased, but I am prepared to admit it! For some reason you seem reluctant to acknowledge the obvious. I would think that your cruel negative bias would even be clear to those not schooled in Christian studies. My bias appears to be much kinder, and much more even handed than yours, since I am content to freely admit that Christians by no means have a monopoly on goodness. Though I have to say that most of the really good, sincere, and honest people that I have met have been Christians. Needless to say, I would have to take leave of my senses to accept your views as common sense, or intended to do anything other than inflict distress upon Christians.
I hope that one day you will be willing to take a real look at Christianity. Don’t play about in the shallows! Engage in real dialogue! I am sure that if, and when the time comes, you will accomplish a lot more than you are now. When you have something to say I am sure that people will listen.
Well, you chose not to address any of the points I made but merely to iterate that some Christians are sincere. There are probably a greater percentage of sincere Moslems but the Christian President of the Western World thinks they should be nuclear bombed into another world that both Moslems and Christians think will be better than this.
I must be too naïve for these religions. I think that the life of a single innocent person is worth more than the smug hypocrisy of a thousand million Christians or Moslems. From what I understand of the Jewish scriptures which you all claim to revere, the same is stated there quite clearly.
Why should I see the good in Christianity when there are tens of thousands who will never see anything again good or bad because Christians murdered them in horrific cruelty. What good are human rights for dead men? You say nothing that convinces me you are not smug and hypocritical. That you think it is prejudiced to contradict Christianity proves it.
You can only argue with the already convinced, you Christian theologians. You are bookmakers. The punters often lose but you always want to win, so make the book so that you do. You are supposed to be a theologian but talk about “unassailable evidence” that something fanciful does not exists. How can you prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist? The point is that God is superfluous.
You end up with this:
Finally! In answer to the question of whether I have ever considered that I am biased? The answer is, Yes I am biased, but I am prepared to admit it! For some reason you seem reluctant to acknowledge the obvious. I would think that your cruel negative bias would even be clear to those not schooled in Christian studies.
I simply do not understand what you are talking about. Someone somewhere has a link to my pages with a comment to the effect of: “I warn you, these are interesting pages, but the author is very biased.” I have never challenged this person about this but since you raise it let us consider it. Am I biased to say that the sun will rise tomorrow rather than that tomorrow there will be no sunrise because the world will have ended? You must think I am, but why? when within a one grain of sand in a beach I am certain of being right, as you must agree.
You have the postmodernist idea of bias—you must not come to a conclusion because any conclusion is biased. The absurdity and indeed impracticality of this proposition is obvious. In short, there is no bias involved when there is a large amount of evidence for some belief. My “bias” against Christianity is supported by tracts of evidence that I have placed open for criticism on my pages, but Christians can only come up with the sentimental blatherings that you do because Chriustianity is based on no evidence at all. Kierkegaard, said in On Absurdity: “Faith is the holding of a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
You also say:
My bias appears to be much kinder, and much more even handed than yours, since I am content to freely admit that Christians by no means have a monopoly on goodness. Though I have to say that most of the really good, sincere, and honest people that I have met have been Christians.
Smug, eh? So, you mean that Christians have a near monopoly on goodness. A goodness cartel. “This people honoureth me with their lips.” He meant they are hypocrites. You do not mean what you say. It sounds humble to say that Christians have no monopoly of goodness but you do not really mean it, as you go on to prove. If God is omniscient, he knows what you are doing. Watch out!
Needless to say, I would have to take leave of my senses to accept your views as common sense, or intended to do anything other than inflict distress upon Christians.
You have already voluntarily taken leave of your senses in rejecting a mass of evidence that Christianity is evil to become one. And are you concerned about the distress caused to Arabs by Westerners treating them as untermenschen? They are merely the sons of Ishmael not Jacob. Again, I am only a simple man. I believe there is only one race.
I hope that one day you will be willing to take a real look at Christianity. Don’t play about in the shallows! Engage in real dialogue! I am sure that if, and when the time comes, you will accomplish a lot more than you are now. When you have something to say I am sure that people will listen.
We are patronizing, aren’t we? You are a theologian. Then theologize! I have produced enough evidence to satisfy me, but an angel handing it to you on a tablet of gold you would reject as the devil. What you cannot consider is that the devil has already appeared as an angel and you all did believe and continue to believe while the devil laughs up his sleeve at you all killing each other in God’s name.
Since you do not care to accept my best wishes, accept my kind regards.
Clearly you did not like the tone of my replies, and for obvious reasons. If you did not know before, hopefully you now understand the kind of reaction your approach to Christianity provokes. No serious minded Christian will take you seriously, and anyone who does not share your bias will perceive it to be unbalanced. 100 pages of investigation is an achievement but hardly ranks you among serious scholars.
Once you start finger pointing you need to be aware that people will take a long hard look at the issues that you are defending. Rightly of wrongly the needless cruel murders of September the 11th said more about the nature of Islam to the modern Western world than almost anything else in living memory. The activities of National Socialism and Communism, and the excesses of Capitalism have put a serious question mark behind the concept of life without God.
Every answer you have given to me so far only serves to reinforce my first impression of you. Your arguments are as ill considered and inconsistent as your methods of presenting them. You cannot insult a whole class of people, and then pose as a responsible man of compassion; nor can you launch an unnecessarily harsh attack upon someone’s beliefs and then offer them your best wishes. Your good wishes will mean a great deal more if don’t couch them in a series of ill founded, one sided accusations. Try to understand people and help them, consider their feelings, and show them respect. Then you will find that the will listen to you, and even help you get your message across. Nevertheless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and thank you for your kind regards, although there were no obvious signs of kindness in any of your arguments.
You are certainly the theologian because you again avoid addressing any issues. You avoid them. I cannot blame you. Your position is indefensible.
You don’t seem to have realised that I have clearly addressed the most important issues regarding your work. Firstly, your prejudice against Christianity, and secondly your one sided treatment of your subject matter.
One of the ways that I have made my point was by giving your comments similar treatment to that which you give to public information regarding Christianity. I ignored the main substance of it. You have objected and stated your belief that I have avoided the main issues. This is precisely the point that I am have consistently made to you. You are either avoiding, or simply do not understand the main issues. I do hope that you get the message now.
I hope that your scholarship will improve with time, and that you will moderate your attitude. These are the first and most important issues that you need to deal with, before you launch any other attacks upon people who in all probability would care enough to pray for you if they knew you.
We shall have to disagree. I have addressed the important points that I see about Christianity but you are entitled to your own delusions. Taking a decision based on a mountain of evidence is not prejudice, and laying out that evidence is not one sided, especially when the other side is cruel deceit, lies and taking emotional advantage of people to live a comfortable life at their cost. Since you are one of those doing this, I do not expect you to agree, but, if you are indeed right about God, I cannot see how you are deceiving Him.
You appear to have compounded your errors with your last reply. If your web site represents the so called mountain of evidence against Christianity, then I would have to say that it looks much more like a mole hill to me.
You wrote with the same empty rhetoric as your other replies. All along you have been saying that my writings are full of blatant errors or whatever, but you are very coy about listing any of them even though you make out they are innumerable.
I have looked at your last reply, which confirms my previous conclusion that you are prone to jump to wild conclusions. Since you evidently know nothing about the way I earn my living it seems incredible that you should make such sweeping statements about it. Theology is my chosen field of study, not the way that I make my living. A significant number of the preachers and bible teachers that I know do their work at their own expense, and often at considerable inconvenience to themselves, but they do so out of love for God and their fellow man. If you had taken just half as much trouble to understand Christianity as you claim, then you would already know this.
If there is this significant number of people spreading falsehoods, then I bow to your personal knowledge of it, but there is nothing wild about concluding a theological student aims to be a theologian. If you think so, it is your lookout, but says something about your own illogic. If you were intelligent you would study science. If you were talented you would study art, drama, literature or art. If you wanted to waste your time you could be a trainspotter, or play cards. Does theology as a hobby get you a fast track to heaven?
If I were to catalogue the blatant errors contained just within your replies to me, then this short process would produce a list of errors all of similar quality to the above, and that’s before I even consider examining your web site. Please try to be better informed, and if you can’t then don’t make it so easy for people to discredit your arguments by throwing around baseless accusations. It does you no credit at all.
I suggest the one who needs informing is the one who is ignorant. Theology never made anyone wise, and the ignorance propagated by the church for centuries, and still propagated by people like you, is proof of it.
You are being coy again. No doubt my accusations, whatever they are, are baseless because my ’mountain’ of evidence is only a mole hill, but you cannot refute a sentence of it. So far, your replies have been futile. Can I suggest that you actually reply to something, or carry on reading the collected works of Karl Barth. Barth at least was brave enough to defy the Nazis. What are you doing that is useful? You plainly do not like what I say, but no one forced you to read it. If the evidence I present is a mole hill then it should be of no concern to you. In that case you can clear my bandwidth. If you have any arguments, then it is time you produced them instead of huffing. Either put up or shut up.
I have formed the conclusion that if you do not already understand your most fundamental error of bias that any correction of your Web Site by me would be a waist of my time. However if you are really serious about gaining an understanding of your subject then I recommend that you undergo some formal theological training, since it does not appear that you have had any. It will bring you into contact with the many good points of Christianity, and there would also be ample opportunity to examine those shortcomings which you are evidently so keen to exaggerate.
When you engage in serious study then you will observe for yourself the number of inaccuracies and the high level of misrepresentation of the facts that can currently be seen in your site. You will then understand why I do not take it seriously, and hopefully you might find it in your heart to apologise to all the good, kind, and gentle Christian people that you currently seem so intent on upsetting. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect you to study the subject if you are trying to pass yourself off as being well informed in it.
Clearly you do not know very many theologians, or you would not have formed the assumption that if someone studies theology they are obviously going to make their living as a theologian. This only happen in a minority of cases, and so is another error which you could correct with formal study of your subject. You would have the added advantage of meeting people who have some understanding of the subject to guide you into one of the many possible avenues of service to the community which people who have studied theology tend to enter. I hope that this helps you towards a more constructive view of Christianity and the world in general.
Since you are so fond of Science I hope that you understand the great debt of gratitude which modern all branches of modern western science owe to religious foundations and Christianity in general. Modern science came to birth as a way of understanding the wonders of God’s creation. If you do decide to commence serious study of Christianity then you will receive tuition on ways of applying scientific method to your investigations. The instruction in the application of the scientific method which you would receive as a theology student will be sufficient to enable you to transform your site from ’a waste of space’ to ’a pause for thought’, and even ’an opportunity to learn’.
This covers the main issue of your site which is its obvious bias. This is not pure rhetoric it is a serious commentary on the most obvious aspect of your site. Your answers indicate that you have no intention of addressing this important issue, but I would be delighted if you would prove me wrong in this respect. I respect your right to disagree with me, but I do not accept your right to needlessly attack others. In your last reply you praised the life and work of the German Christian Karl Barth, that is a step in the right direction. If he were here today he would tell you that he was one of an army of notable Christian men and women who have had the courage of their convictions, but strangely you did not see fit to mention this in your web site. Although you evidently know very little about me, or Christian people in general, you are content to attempt to bring them into disrepute. While you are appealing for me to do something useful, perhaps you might consider it, and get rid of some of that pointless anti-Christian bias.
I note that you will not engage in any purposeful discussions but can only speak generalities. I have just uploaded a piece on some musings of a Christian theologian called John Polkinghorne who used to be a scientist but has made a total conversion to dishonesty and has become a theologian. http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/330Polkinghorne.html Take a look at it. It ought to be about subjects that you know something about.
I was pleasantly surprised by your last email which did not contain any of the usual meaningless blanket insults to the Christian community or their leaders.
The web site which you referred me was clearly written by someone with a strong faith in what he believes. It was encouraging to hear that another reputable academic has chosen to follow Christ. The author of the web site clearly has an axe to grind, and equally clearly has little or no knowledge of Christian things.
Is disagreeing with the Christian view having ’an axe to grind’? Is disagreeing with Christianity having ’little or no knowledge of Christian things’? Let someone disagree with a Christian and somehow the person is unfair or ignorant. Christiansity has been able to get away with perfidy for too long, and few have been willing to challenge it largely because Christian propaganda was that sincere beliefs should be respected. As no one could tell whther any Christian held their belief sincerely or not, everyone gave them the benefit of the doubt. That is no longer the case. The argument will not wear any longer. It has worn too thin.
In my opinion any attempt to portray sincere converts to Christianity as deliberate liars is in itself inherently dishonest and naive. The author may not like it. That’s his choice! He may want to strongly object. That’s OK too! No problem there. But to intentionally make false statements about those that he disagrees with, undermines his credibility, and exposes his pretence at scientific objectivity.
I am puzzled as to what you mean. Lies can be by omission as well as by commission as I have already said and you must know. If someone tells a lie, then they are undoubtedly a liar whether it is deliberate or not. A man who is an FRS and tells a lie can be reasonably assumed to be telling it deliberately.
A story which might be of interest to you is that of Frank Morison, who dedicated himself to the task of finding conclusive proof that the resurrection never happened. After weighing up all the evidence which he found, he ended up becoming a Christian, and writing a Christian classic called ’Who Moved the Stone?’.
This was one of the first apologetic books I read and it is utterly dishonest. Morison was already sufficiently a Christian not to require much persuasion, and his so-called investigation is a travesty. Though Morison pretends that he was some sort of skeptic he admits that it was the miracles of Jesus that left their skeptical mark on him. He says he had ’a deep and reverent regard’ for the life of Jesus himself, and was ’stung to the quick’ when anyone said anything against the man. How is it possible for anyone who cannot bear to hear their hero criticized to come up with a critical conclusion. Morison’s could never have come up with a criticism of Jesus by his own admission, and so there was only one outcome. Yet he pretends otherwise. Simple unanalytical people would be fooled. That was the aim. Morison is dishonest. Let me put it in the blunt terms you do not like. He is a liar.
You might also take a look at two works by an American academic called Professor Josh McDowell who wrote ’Evidence that Demands a Verdict’ and ’More Evidence that Demands a Verdict’. He has made an excellent presentation of the evidence in favour of Christianity. This would be a good way to start a meaningful exploration.
I fear not! McDowell is another man who is utterly dishonest, and if men like this can get to be professors of anything, the world is in a sad state. I have both of these books and they are at best full of appeals to authority, the worst form of argumentation, but one beloved of Christians, and at worst it is simply sophistry and lying. If theologians these days are being brought up on this sort of trash it is a reflexion on the state of Christianity. I have not wanted to get into the sport of putting McDowell down because there are plenty of others closer to him who have already done it better than I can. You should be able to find them easily on the web notably at the Internet Infidels. You expose yourselves as being shallow and certainly no theologian if you think McDowell is profound.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do think that you can accomplish a great deal more for your beliefs if you disagree agreeably. A little respect for others, even those whom you strongly disagree with, goes a long way.
In earlier posts I heve explained to you, and you can read it at your leisure on my pages, that Christianity does not merit respect. Anyone who can respect an institution that has murdered and tortured large numbers of innocent people cannot be respected even if it now claims to be sorry for its previous crimes. I have already said that no one can expect to believe a Nazi saying sorry. Naziism was too horrific to be forgiven. Why should equivalent Christian crimes be pardonable? In my view, because Christianity claims to be God’s own institution, it is worse that Nazism.
If good people want a religion to reflect their goodness, they would not choose Christianity. There are many less blood splattered religions and many of these have the advantage of requiring people to have a duty to their fellow men and the world at large, not some figmentary expectation of a selfish immortal reward in a dream world.
In view of your last comment I am not sure whether I should give you the benefit of the doubt assume that you are expressing beliefs that you hold sincerely. Or perhaps I should do what most people would do when they encounter such pathetic arguments and assume that you are out of your depth.
I want you to try to understand that I am not accusing you of bias because you criticise Christianity, I am simply stating something that is obvious to anyone who sees your web site.
I have given to you good guidance on how you can improve your web site.You cannot expect rational people to do anything other than reject your best arguments, and most cogent thoughts until you improve your attitude.
As an amateur web theologian you should expect your more studious trained counterparts to instruct you regarding the best way to make progress.
You plainly have nothing to say, from the elevated position that you think you have. You are utterly incapable of understanding that to take a view based on a large amount of evidence is not a bias. Bias is to take a view based on no evidence, the very thing that Christians do. You say you are offering me guidance on how to improve my website. You mean you want me to change it to suit yourself. You do not even understand what you think you are studying. You call me an “amateur web theologian” when there is only enough theology on the pages to allow a critic to engage with Christianity. What I present is historical evidence, and reason. You, though, claim to be studying theology and so can understand neither history or reason. Theology is empty speculation on premises that are untrue, and no doubt that is why you refuse to talk sense. This is all getting repetitive, so go waste someone else’s time, not mine.
There you were happily criticising those who engage in the study of theology, little realising that in order to comment upon it you would have to become an amateur theologian yourself. It is unfortunate that you did not realise what you are. It is equally unfortunate that you do not appear to have referred to the works which I recommended to you. They take a serious look at the evidence in favour of Christianity. This would help you to bring some balance to your web sit.
Perhaps it would help you to know that along with scientific method, most theology courses, including mine require the study of history. Looking at your web site I really think that you could also benefit from this. I can’t help but feel that it is somewhat ironic for an amateur web theologian like yourself to be unclear about what a theologian is, and how and what he studies.
In order to balance out your quote from Byron you might consider investigating the number of Christians who have sacrificed themselves and have even given their lives for the benefit of mankind. Or perhaps you can tell me the number of Christians who leave the affluence of the west to provide education and medical relief in third world countries. Your short sighted diatribes seem to be curiously lacking in reference to the positive side of Christianity. I don’t know how you have the nerve to accuse me of ignoring evidence or facts in view of this serious defect in your site. I realise that judging by your past record you are likely to simply dismiss their gift to mankind with some curt irrelevant comment, but I feel that I should at least try to advise you on how you might advance your interest in theology, and improve your outlook.
Ho hum! When Christians start to offer a balanced assessment of their own mania, there might be an argument for balance from others. I suggested we end this correspondence last time. Let’s do it.
