AW! Epistles
More From Done
Abstract
Tuesday, 12 August 2003
You say, “Christians, and I mean any of those people who profess to be followers of the Christ of the bible and to use the New Testament as their Holy Book, include a large majority of people who disagree with you. I do not know what loony sect of Christianity you profess, but internal disagreements of Christians do not interest me except to show that you are all bonkers.” I am trying to tell you these men are not Christian! You are the one who cited them as reference but they are professional Religionists, not Christian. There is a distinct and profound difference. As for my “loony” sect, anyone who does not follow the premises of M. Magee is loony to you.
What then is the distinct and profound difference that will allow me or you to tell a Christian imposter from a genuine one? You all come out with this idiotic special pleading that only good people are Christian, but you have to wait until their lives are over before you can tell. If that is so, then the name Christian does not mean anything because the majority of them are not good. That is an important point that I am arguing. But you will freely admit that plenty of those you will accept as one of you are liars. You all tell lies when you argue the case for your delusion. That is also what I argue with, but as soon as being dishonest counts out anyone as Christian then there are none left. The only mitigating factor is that many do not even recognize that they are lying.
In Resurrection II you blatantly misuse and misquote the passage regarding the guards at the tomb. Then you can’t even admit you did. You pass it off as though Matthew had some hidden agenda, but never yourself. “There is no way Roman soldiers could have been bribed to say Christ’s body was stolen away by his disciples.” Of course not, Mike, because that’s WHAT IT SAYS happened and you cannot tolerate that it says it just that way.
“Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, Tell them, His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.”Mt 28:11-13
They were bribed into falsifying their own eyewitness report because if that TRUTH were made known, they had a major issue on their hands. “That is the story in Matthew, and I am saying it is impossible to believe.” It’s only impossible because you refuse to believe it. And since that remains the case and we cannot use evidence without you misrepresenting it, we’ll move on.
Well, I cannot understand what all this citing is meant to be for. I had already cited the full passage that you had picked at. I do not have to accept a story that is not consistent. You will, as a Christian, but I will not. Cutting through all the verbiage, the fault in the story Matthew constructed—it does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament—is that some soldiers saw the miracle with their own eyes that you want to persuade us is sufficient to make us Christians just to hear about it. They saw it with their own eyes, the only direct witnesses of it in the whole of the Christian bible, and what was the outcome? They accepted a bribe to pretend they had not seen it! If the hand of God revivifying His son so singularly unimpressed these eywitnesses, I ask you, why should anyone today be impressed by the story? I have shown that the whole story does not hang together because it is so full of non sequiturs that it cannot be believed, but in the end it condemns itself. The Roman soldiers were eye witnesses but the Christian book depicts them as singularly unimpressed.
It seems you’ve placed yourself on a pretty high pedestal, thinking that in your evidence gathering you have supposedly obliterated all opposing evidence. You criticize and condemn anyone who disagrees with what your mind has processed as though finally, with the advent of Mike Magee, all that was unclear before is now made clear; we now have a credible witness and all bow before the logic, reason and thinking of Mike Magee.
Well this ironical banter is not argument. If what I have just written has a flaw tell me what it is. Why were the Roman soldiers not the main evangelists of the new religion? If God arranged it that way, it would have been His recognition with His foresight that the religion was going to spread in the Roman empire, but the Holy Ghost writes these amazingly fortunate men out of the story with a bribe. Where am I in error?
I am going to submit that the reasoning of Paul the Apostle is superior to the reasoning you present. Paul’s stated case in Romans for the condition of man and our wholesale turning from the God of Creation is pinpoint accurate. You constantly require evidence for the validity of my faith so without a rehearsal of the book of Romans, the fact that every man on the planet can find himself addressed in that letter is, to me, an overwhelming evidence that more than a man has spoken. Scripture has put man in his place. Men can deny that the Bible speaks to them about their condition but that does not make it any less true.
You will submit that because you are a Christian and have to try to find something in it. As I understand it, though, Paul is not your God. Jesus is. Yet you find Paul more acceptable than your own God. The reason is that he let you off the hook. I find also that many Christians who want to refute me, actually begin by rejecting Paul as an opportunist who spoilt the simple religion taught by the Christian God the Son. I suppose these are not real Christians at all, and they say exactly the same about you. Christianity is the pick and mix religion. You all pick out of it what suits you and mix it with your own overweening religiosity.
Why do brilliant people disagree on this? Suppose a person knows early on in their thinking that God exists and then applies their own subjective rejection of that awareness, denying what they know to be true. This is fundamentally dishonest to refuse to acknowledge what one knows to be true. The awareness of God is gained but it is repressed. All the subsequent learning and all intellectual power at ones disposal is used to construct a philosophical system. The more brilliant you are; the more logically consistent you are, the further away from God your thinking will take you. That is if you begin with the false premise and develop a whole system of thought from that faulty premise. So Paul says men become “futile” in their thinking. The accusation fits. Knowledge suppressed is not destroyed.
Let me submit to you that people who think they know things because the thought entered their head and for no other reason are insane, and that is part of the explanation of why Christianity is wicked. The inquisitors knew the heretics were wicked. Their only job was to get them to confess it. President Bush, that pious man, knows that the Moslems are an evil empire and must be bombed into submission with 10,000 pound bombs dropped from seven miles high with lasers to guide them. All that technology was God given to ensure victory. Of course, the Moslems, whose God is the same God of Abraham, sees Jews and Americans as Satanic, and believe that by becoming martyrs for the holy war will go straight into heaven. These have the same serious delusion. Only religious cracked pots cannot see it, and think God is telling them directly by telepathy who they should kill next. Don’t tell me—they are not real Christians! Why not get up a petition and tell them it?
Now you may give no credence to the Apostle Paul. Do you not owe it to yourself to take into serious consideration even if you reject what he is saying? If his witness is a sober word of caution that God has manifested Himself plainly to you and you have not been honest with that revelation, you do indeed face serious judgement. The funny thing is, this idea that man has created “god” out of his fears and ignorance of the natural world; that somehow he may appease the uncontrollable forces out of this fear, is ironic and laughable given the God man “created” in the Bible.
Read the pages, and stop wasting my time. Ordinary people did not choose their God. The Hebrew God was foisted on to them, and still is being. It is not I who should be reading Paul. I can accept quite well that he admits to being a liar and therefore there is no good reason why I should believe anything he says. On the other hand there are many other genuinely noble books and beliefs, but they do not have the Hebrew God who hands out perpetual pain or perpetual joy according to the view you take.
The atheist also denies out of fear besause if there is this God there may be demands upon the human and He just may be something to be feared. So God is rejected out of fear. Strange.
It certainly is strange because it makes no sense. Atheists in your view are putting a bucket over their heads so that they can pretend the God they know is there is not. The truth is the precise opposite. Christians are so scared that there might be a God that they believe it even though they can see it is foolish, and so they make foolishness a virtue. Paul the liar once more. They put the bucket over their heads so that they cannot hear sense.
And why a God of Holiness? If the pagan wanted a god to conjure, he most certainly would not ascribe the concept of holiness. Psalm 4:2 asks “How long will you love worthlessness and seek falsehood?” Our debate can go on and on, neither of us running out of thoughts, persuasions etc but those two questions are what I leave with you for this session.
Holiness is an adjective that describes God, so how can God not be holy? To take God out of it, you might say it means free of sin, but that simply means free of what is not acceptable to God, so the circularity cannot be escaped. As for the Pagan, I doubt very much that you are right. The Jewish religion derives from Persian Zoroastrianism, in which there were two equal gods, one perfectly holy and one perfectly sinful, and it was the battle between these that we experienced in the world, and in our natures. The Christian God is supposed to be the only God, but Christians persist in believing in an evil god too, called Satan, just as powerful as the good God in practice, although the good God is supposed to be assured the ultimate victory. Zoroastrianism was exactly the same! Satan controls the evil empire that Christian politicians use as an excuse for taking over the world’s assets. Was Zoroastrianism Pagan? It gave rise to other children besides Judaism and Christianity like Orphism and Mithraism. My guess is that these religions were no different in their concept of holiness. As for “How long will you love worthlessness and seek falsehood?” I suggest you meditate on this.
“That is why I call professional Christians used car dealers. I cannot see how this is only one man’s perspective. It is the perspective that has allowed us to learn what we now know after over amillennium of abject ignorance. Anyone who wants to encourage us to return to that sorry state is either dishonest or is ignorant anyway.”
That is an incredible statement. You make it sound like no one knew much of anything until the 20th century and now we’re here (or rather you are here) to set things straight. I expressed disdain for that display of arrogance in previous letters but nonetheless, it remains.
Well, I have said before that Christians are always shocked that anyone should question their delusion. To be called arrogant for doing it is typical.
I had stated, “Reality is neither proven nor refuted by what we desire the truth to be.” Your reply: “I do not see that we have to argue for or against reality. It is real by definition. God cannot be found in it, and so God is not real and does not exist.”
No “honest” atheist can say dogmatically that God is not real and (absolutely) does not exist. It must be qualified to say one “does not believe” that God exists. You hammer on the point that it is not a matter of belief, only fact, and that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. I may be an “amateur” in the field of psychology (never claimed to be an authority) but I know BS when I hear it and I understand bias. Supposition and preference is precisely what is being displayed in your statements.
No doubt I have to read on to find something other than supposition and preference in what you are saying, but this is not argument, it is contradiction. First you tell me what I can and cannot say with no supporting reasons to show you have the authority to do this. Perhaps I have to infer that Christians are authorities on dogma. I do not believe that God exists for the reason I gave. God cannot be found in the real world. What cannot be found in the real world does not exist, or at best is imaginary. If this is BS, as you assert, then again I suppose I have to bow to the authority of a Christian who knows all about such things, but I am trying seriously to show to you that this BS is the way we have been able, in the years since Church authority was abandoned, to discover about the world as it is and not as the clerics want it to be. God is not in it, He is in the heads of the clerics and the people they have fooled.
It was revealing, was it not, what Hans Blix said at the UN in his final report. Talking about the persistent statements from Bush and Blair that despite their failure to find the causus belli, the much vaunted WMDs of the Iraqis, they would be found, he said that merely because something cannot be found does not mean it must exist. This is wonderful understated sarcasm that gets both at the idiotic lies propagated to initiate the war, and the underlying Christian self-deception of the warmongers.
I cannot say that you do not present some compelling arguments, Mike. I have been given some things to ponder and I thank you for those but any counterpoint is ignored or misconstrued. e.g. “You see now you are admitting the true purpose of religion without apparently realizing it. It was used in ancient days as the basis for law and order. It was easier for rulers to persuade the people they ruled to behave when the people believed an omniscient god saw everything they did, and would ensure they were suitably punished for it. The obvious punishment was applied by the state, but more subtly, the simple people of those days really thought, as you do, that a god was watching their every move, so they had better be good.”
I want you to define for me what “good” is and how any human being has any sense of what it is, when to display it or why it ought to be displayed.
The answer to this is obvious from the scriptures that Christians stole from the Jews, even though they had no use for much of them. The authorities in those days told people what ’good’ was by including in their holy books laws that had to be obeyed. The Persian colonists of Judah began with a book of law called Deuteronomy, and we are told that Ezra read it out while the people cried. The Jews quite openly call it the Law still, and Christians more generally and less honestly speak of God’s law. To obey the law was to be good or righteous, to use the word they preferred, and to disobey them was to be a sinner. Ignorance of it was no excuse. To make sure that no one had any excuse for not knowing what the law was and what God (ie the Shah) demanded of his people, the laws were read out at every service of the temple and the local priests were to read them in their villages in a cycle of readings that spread over the whole year. Everyone knew the law.
Who told you there is something shameful in cheating on your spouse? Why is it considered universally wrong to abuse a child? Why is it right to show compassion for a wounded victim? No one holding to the evolutionistic, atheistic, dehumanizing relativism can attempt to claim man has conjured any sense of decency. You actually expect me to believe that the thing that crawled out of the slimepit developed a sense of responsibility over several million years (or however long it took.) So when I say atheists magnify and elevate themselves to the position of gods, I mean exactly what I say. The slimepitgod has made his own rules over the course of time because he “sensed” there was a right and wrong way to “do things”. And you are going to laugh at me? Don’t tell me that is not the atheistic position. You have no alternative.
You have a poor impression of humanity. Yet you think evolution is God working out his will over time. So God is responsible for the awful mess that you see in the world. I have said before that laws are perfectly sensible ways that intelligent beings make a blood and guts world more tolerable. God made the world as it is, you say, and human beings try to make it easier and less hazardous to live in. Incidentally we are talking about several billion not million years. Why you say atheists are magnifying themselves, I do not know, except to set up straw dollies perhaps. Atheists are simply explaining that, not only is God not to be found in the real world today, there is no need to invoke the hypothesis of a God as a factor in evolution or history.
“Law is something that everyone wants to make life tolerable, and therefore they accept it.” What fairy tale land are you living in? “Everyone” wants law? That is the last thing we want. “Everyone” wants exactly the thing I described earlier, autonomy. Law is an imposition of someone’s will over and above someone else’s. You say we accept that? Pick one you don’t like and try to change it. If you succeed, congratulations. You’ve just imposed your will on me. You’re happy; I’m not, and vice versa.
You are beginning to sound like a redneck. Incoherent and dangerous. You are now denouncing laws yet God, in your own holy book, imposed the laws I have referred to above on His Chosen People for 3000 years. Doubtless that is all right because it is God’s will. Who then kept altering them, and what of all the various amended, added to and struck from laws are the ones that God personally provided? Just the ten commandments. There are not ten, and they differ in different parts of the story. And having imposed them, why should we believe that he cancelled them? Did, the son of God cancel God’s laws, so that the proper religion of today should be the one that you seem to want? Lawlessness! There is nothing God-like in any of this. Whether you want to live in a world in which you can do freely as you like, the men who wrote the Jewish scriptures knew full well that men needed laws to avoid anarchy. Now that God is George Bush, we have it anyway. He does as he likes.
“Law is injustice when sought by individuals and groups for their own benefit or some else’s disadvantage.” I cannot believe my eyes! You use this as though by stating it openly it will never occur. Laws that benefit groups or individuals are inherent in government. But this has nothing to do with the fact that a moral standard has been established for man, and that from outside himself.
You are offering even more evidence that God is a figment. If this universal God has been offering a single moral standard for 15 billion years give or take a billion or two, what has gone wrong? The world was never worse than it was when Christianity had absolute power in the part of it where it ruled. Laws are indeed made by human beings, and greedy or foolish people try to use them for their own ends. Wise rulers always have tried to be fair rulers. Christianity has nothing to offer in this respect. Some Christian rulers have been wise and fair, but arguably most have been the exact opposite, while some rulers who disdained Christianity or had never heard of it at all have been excellent. Christianity has only one moral standard as far as I can see and that is to lie their way out of everything. Christians are liars. Their own sacred book says their God told them anything they said would be true. Blair certainly believes this of himself.
“If there is only one true God then who kept people honest in pre-christian days when the gods were Orpheus and Hercules?” Orpheus and Hercules were “gods” who were no-gods, but mere fantasies by your own description. Yet something did indeed weigh on the conscience of men and it was not slimepitgod’s decree that “Thou shalt Evolve into a being whom you shall have no being above yourself.”
They did not differ from the god you now believe in. I suppose it is a mystery of God why He allowed Orpheius and Hercules to fool millions who otherwise would have been getting saved. In those days, God was so modest that He was happy to let others take the credit, and the world was at least guiltless, if not blissful. Then God decided that He deserved the credit and made everyone feel guilty to be sure of getting His own way. It sounds moronic because it is.
“…and Bush illustrates the point.” For the last time, Bush is not a Christian icon. Stop using him as a classic example of whatever point you try to make with him.
You sound as though you are getting annoyed. Bush says he is a Christian. He also is in the position of being the most powerful of them in the world. Why should I believe you and disbelieve Bush on this issue. I do not hear you protesting that Bush is using the Christian religion as a cover for his Satanic policies. If you were doing that, I might be more inclined to believe you. It would show at least some degree of indignation that Christianity throughout history, and still, is a cover for wickedness.
I had stated, “Replace God with anarchy, with evolutionary “survival of the fittest”, with the “super-race” of Nazi Germany or with the intolerance of the Inquisitions and men will destroy one another with a smile on their faces.” You replied: “The Inquisitions were Christian as you well know, and denying it is only your own post hoc justification. Nazis were Christians with the motto Gott mit Uns.” As I said earlier, the Inquisitions were carried out by the Roman Catholics. There is a difference. If you have a problem with that take it up with the Pope. As for the Nazis being Christian? “Hey! Lookit me!. I’m a Belch Beer bottle that someone slapped a Fenton label on. I must be…a Fenton!”
Here you are doing it again. Christians cannot be wicked. You say that Christians can only do good and that is how they are judged. So, no one knows who are Christians until they die. You are therefore judging Christians on their life works, but Christians keep telling me that it is really their faith that makes them Christians. I have asked before: What then does it mean to be called a Christian? I keep giving the answer. It means nothing! Christians do not have to be good. They only have to have faith in their god. Most of them are indeed Belch Beer pretending to be a Fenton, and no one can challenge them except God. Well, I am sorry, pal, but if I taste the beer and it is shit then I know that the Fenton is Belch Beer. That is what my pages are all about.
“What then is the distinct and profound difference that will allow me or you to tell a Christian imposter from a genuine one? “ Matthew 5 - 7, John 14:15, John 15, I Timothy 6.
To reply to these citations would take a whole letter of its own, but, even so, where are the people that do all these things? There are none. The sermon on the mount refutes the Christian rejection of the Jewish law (Mt 5:18)! It is plain why. Because Christianity was originally Jewish and was never intended to be anything but Jewish. Then gentiles became Christians and Jews began to be hated and Christianity eventually rejected Judaism. Marcion wanted to have all of the Jewish scriptures rejected, a logical step, once Judaism had been rejected, but the traditionalists of his day kept them. Now what in all this does God want?
“Cutting through all the verbiage, the fault in the story Matthew constructed—it does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament—is that some soldiers saw the miracle with their own eyes…” Wrong again, Mike. They saw nothing after the appearance of the angel because they were as dead men. They went and told of THIS occurrence…that the tomb was OPENED and was EMPTY. Then they were PAID to tell a lie.
As soon as we get on to the words written in your own holy book, you start to lie your soul out, presumably because you have to. Shame that your lies must have lost you to any salvation that a truly good God has to offer. The passages in Matthew are clear enough to me. Need we recap them again. “Some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” (Mt 28:12). This is what the holy book says, but you tell me that they were dead men or as dead men, presumably unconscious. So, they could not have shewed the chief priests all the things that were done. Matthew is lying, according to you. Your defence that the watch were dead or whatever is invalid. The angel appeared towards dawn on the Sunday, according to this version, and was seen by the two Mary’s. They presumably were also able to see the watch quake and the men become as if they were dead out of fear. The angel tells them that Christ had already risen and was no longer there. So your excuse of unconsciousness among the watch was at a later time than the actual miracle of the rising. The saw the rising, all the things that were done, and were able to report that they had seen them. They were obviously no longer dead or as dead men when they reported to the priests. Nor is your excuse any good anyway, theologically speaking. If God would not let the gentile watch see the miracles and be converted, then the salvific message cannot have been intended for gentiles. If He had so meant it, I repeat, the soldiers would have been the very best of all witnesses and should have been the true evangelists.
“They saw it with their own eyes, the only direct witnesses of it in the whole of the Christian bible, and what was the outcome? They accepted a bribe to pretend they had not seen it!” Liar! Matthew specifically has the women there before the guards are mentioned. But correct on one point: they accepted a bribe. Money over the truth. They had no interest in whether or not Jesus was the Messiah to the Jews. And they would be put to death for dereliction of duty. Which would YOU prefer? Death or a few thousand buck$? They cared nothing for spreading the truth. They saved their own necks. Can you not see that? God chose His own to spread the message.
Now you have to call me a liar, compounding your own mendacity. I wonder whether you can actually read clearly. The guard is mentioned when Pilate appoints it in Mt 27:65, when the two Mary’s have only been mentioned in connection with Joseph of Arimathea laying the body in the rock tomb. These lines are included to avoid the accusation that the disciples went to the wrong tomb, but in any event, they are mentioned here before the miracle of the resurrection. The two women see the angel who roles away the stone just at dawn on Sunday with an earthquake. I repeat, that then is when the watch was terrified into being as dead men (Mt 28:4). Jesus has already been resurrected by then (Mt 28:6). Then at Mt 28:11, the supposedly dead men enter the city to say that they saw all the things that were done. If they were as dead men all night, which seems to be what you want the story to say, they would have seen nothing and would not have needed to be bribed to say they had not seen what they had not actually seen. You are getting into a bigger and more dishonest tangle than Matthew.
“If what I have just written has a flaw tell me what it is. Why were the Roman soldiers not the main evangelists of the new religion?” I just told you.
Read it again honestly.
“Christians are so scared that there might be a God that they believe it even though they can see it is foolish, and so they make foolishness a virtue.” If a man lives in abject fear that God may exist, to reject the notion would alleviate the fear. Your statement is silly.
I don’t get your point, but there is no denying that Christians have to be foolish. It is said repeatedly in the Christian part of the bible, especially by Paul. Christians think it is profound, but it is so obviously a gull that it does not bear examination. The refutation is the fact that Christians take mankind to be made in God’s image. God therefore gave them a brain for use. Tricksters then use it to invent a scriptural basis why believers should not use it—quite the opposite, it is virtuous not to.
The last thing for today, but this one puts on display the reason you lack credibility when discussing anything in the Bible. You say, “The Christian God is supposed to be the only God, but Christians persist in believing in an evil god too, called Satan, just as powerful as the good God in practice, although the good God is supposed to be assured the ultimate victory. Zoroastrianism was exactly the same!” Let Zoroastrianism or Mithraism etc. state that. For you to define Christianity in those terms proves you do not now, nor did you ever properly understand what you attempt to refute. We do NOT believe in an evil, just-as-powerful god named Satan. Satan is no god.
You are trying to use semantics for your dishonest theological purposes. You want to find out what words mean before you start basing your own arguments on them. Of course, you will not because you are a Christian and ignorance is bliss. I am using words properly and you are seeking to undermine them. Is an angel a god? You will say, No! because that is the excuse you have for Satan not being one. Anyone who is not a Christian will not accept any such ruse. God cannot defeat Satan. If He could do, then he would do. Wouldn’t He? He is supposed to be kindly trying to save us all, so His objective could be achieved instantly by destroying the evil spirit. Human beings ought then not to be tempted and we would not need to accept a barbaric human sacrifice to save us, would we? He cannot do it, and if you read carefully, which you never do, relying on God to tell you everything you need to know, you will see that I wrote “Satan, just as powerful as the good God in practice”. The fact that God is supposed to be the ultimate victor is no argument that Satan is not just as powerful a GOD in practice until then. A dictionary I have at hand says: god—a being conceived of as having supernatural attributes or powers; an intelligence controlling the forces of good or evil. Liars for God tell us that Satan does not fall into either of these categories.
You’ve YingYang-ed yourself into such a flawed definition it’s no wonder you hate it. When it comes to God and the Bible you simply don’t know what you are talking about. That is the one thing that galls me: antagonists trying to give exposition of texts of scripture when they haven’t the means or desire to study it correctly. Say what you will. When it comes to giving credence to your reasoning from the scriptures, you have no right or authority. It should be that you honestly question and deal with difficult passages while affirming those obviously verifiable, but your exposed blatant lies show your predilection toward contempt. I really did not intend for my letter to take on a sarcastic tone, but when I got to the “evil god Satan” part it just did me in. I can’t imagine where we will go from here but, man, this was a doozy.
Ho hum! I do not know what I am talking about. It must be because I rely on the flawed organ in my head that you say God created me with. I ought to abandon it, have a pre-frontal lobotomy and become a Christian. No thank you, mate! If your God exists and He made me with a brain, He did not intend me to be tricked by used car dealers into believing the opposite of everything that is sensible. I don’t know what a doozy is, but I expect everything is for a Christian.
I recognize when I have been unkind and I apologize. While we both get frustrated with one another, I ought to maintain respectability.
If you were unkind, I had not noticed. Respecting someone is more feasible than loving someone when they are doing or saying things you do not like. I agree that we should respect each other as human beings, but we do not have to respect each other’s views. You plainly do not respect mine, and I cannot respect an institution with the evil history of Christianity, nor should any decent human being.
With that said, I am troubled that you gave no answer to a couple points from my June 2 letter.
Wel, I noticed the same thing about you, but evidently you can only see fault in others. I suppose it is because Christians are prefect, in their own eyes, but quite an important point unanswered is that about the ’jot and tittle’ in the seromon on the mount. Perhaps you need time to work out an answer, to ask your minister or tell your teacher. OK, I’ll wait, but you have less excuse for not answering this point than I have your own. Which seems to be…
It seems you think we all should “normally” disallow the concept of God. What is “normal” in this world? Who is totally integrated? Who is not off-center somewhere? How is there any comfort in our “average-ness” when attempting to discover “normal”? Genius and imbecile are both abnormal.
I looked through my reply trying to find this ’normal’ or ’normally’ that you quoted but could not find it. You are arguing with yourself again. Whether things are normal or not in the sense of believed by the average human being is not necessarily a good criterion of truth. People are conditioned by minorities to believe all sorts of absurdities including Christianity. In our societies, a few wealthy people own newspapers and broadcasting media, and condition us all into thinking what they want us to believe… er, including Christians. For many centuries Christianity had this role unopposed. They were disastrous centuries. So, in the last few hundred years clever men have worked out ways of establishing truth. They should be taught more effectively in schools instead of being depicted as too hard, or nerdish. It is those discoveries that show that there is no God in the real world. In today’s Observer I find Blix quoted precisely: “It is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for.” I feel sure his irony was directed at the Christian madmen who rule us.
You had written “It is the perspective that has allowed us to learn what we now know after over a millennium of abject ignorance. Anyone who wants to encourage us to return to that sorry state is either dishonest or is ignorant anyway.” I replied “That is an incredible statement. You make it sound like no one knew much of anything until the 20th century and now we’re here (or rather you are here) to set things straight.”
You ignored my comment with verbiage.Will you only address a point in topic when it suits your overall goal?
This was not your comment. You ended it with: “I expressed disdain for that display of arrogance in previous letters but nonetheless, it remains.” I therefore took it that your point was the supposed arrogance, and replied to it in two sentences. If that is verbiage, then again your use of language defeats me. Words mean just what you want them to, no more and no less! So your complaint is that I make it sound “like no one knew much of anything until the 20th century and now we’re here (or rather you are here) to set things straight”. This is what you wrote, so you mean you make it sound like that. You have quoted earlier what I said, which is that we had to suffer over a millennium of abject ignorance—under Christianity. Now we know better. In between was a period of about 500 years in which the ignorance had to be cast off and principles of truth discovered in the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. The present state is the state we have as a consequence of the last 500 years. You try to make something perfectly sensible sound absurd, because you only argue against your own straw dolls.
You are a happy and content atheist and that is fine, but it would do us both good to recognize and agree on this: We, as are all men, finite beings, each aberrant in one direction or another. Is it not possible we are all in some respects “brainwashed” into believing one thing or another?
Indeed, we are, as I mentioned above. Some of us are trying to guard against it, however imperfectly, and others are trying to encourage it. The criterion is to test whatever is asserted not simply to believe anything you are told.
The second point you did not answer: “I want you to define for me what “good” is and how any human being has any sense of what it is, when to display it or why it ought to be displayed.” Your answer was your definition of Christian “good” stolen from the Jews (???) So again, how do YOU have any sense of what good is, when to display it or why you ought to display it?
Believe me, your attempts to change the goal posts with your every letter is getting tedious. You did not ask for an abstract or personal definition of ’good’. Your request for a definition immediately followed this: “The obvious punishment was applied by the state, but more subtly, the simple people of those days really thought, as you do, that a god was watching their every move, so they had better be good.” Following on with your request therefore plainly and obviously put the ’good’ in this context. I answered that quite fully, no doubt with verbiage so far as you are concerned because you do not really want the answers to any questions that you ask, but always some other one, as soon as you have had the answer.
I asserted that the atheistic position cannot make the statement “God absolutely does not exist.” but that they must state it as a belief based on their own gathering of information. You said, “God cannot be found in the real world. What cannot be found in the real world does not exist, or at best is imaginary.” How will you then direct me in this scenario? Suppose you were on a sightseeing adventure. If you came across a cave with elaborate writing and pictures on the inside, you would know that someone had been there. Suppose that someone had been me. You were so impressed with my design that you spent the rest of your days looking for me but never found me. Since what cannot be found does not exist, what of me? I ask that with sincerity and no sarcasm whatsoever. How would you answer?
You answer your own scenario. “You know that someone had been there.” Of course I do, because only human beings can write, and make realistic pictures. I do not have to find you personally to know to my own satisfaction that a human being like you had been there. Doubtless, I will not find you, but I am already convinced of your existence, and that is surely your point. I wait on you telling me that God really wrote the writing and made the pictures. Now let me elaborate the scenario a little. Suppose I had not seen the cave, but had been told of it by some passer by. Should I then believe that you exist? Should I believe in you even when I cannot find the cave the stranger described?
Furthermore, is there any such thing as the supernatural realm? If you believe there is no such thing, all my comments have been in the wrong context.
It sounds as though they have! Let me repeat something. There is no basis for accepting the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. It is possible that something that is not manifest really does exist, but Hans Blix has it absolutely right. Read again what he said. If we were to believe everything that was possible, we should have no knowledge at all. Knowledge is not anything at all, it is what we have evidence for. In the scenario above, I have no basis for believing you exist if I cannot find the mysterious cave that you supposedly decorated.
Whatever the impetus for our existence, are we truly alone in this one-dimension, hereafter to vanish from any known conscious existence? Forget all the debate over the person of Christ, the scope of Christianity and even the notion of god. If there is nothing offered after this life, then my question becomes this: Whatever I choose to do with my life - if I conduct myself in selfish ways that harm others and be incarcerated for life or if I make my aim nothing but philanthropic endeavors - what does it matter if it is only a further human multiplication of zero? Since there was no absolute standard by which I should judge my own behavior, my selfish gratifications were no more or no less “acceptable” than anyone else’s. As I said before, the “law” is then merely someone imposing their sense of right over mine when neither of us have any basis.
I know this is a great difficulty for you people, but what is true is not anything that you hope is true. I would like to know why life should have a purpose at all. If human beings had never appeared on the earth, would the rest of life have had a purpose? If the human race destroys itself in the next 200 years, would the remaining life on earth have had a purpose, and would the brief existence of humanity have had a purpose? From what you say, the purpose of your life is simply to have some more of it. What is the purpose of that then? Are you sure that eternal life is a reward for whatever you think ought to be rewarded, and not, say, a punishment for worshipping a man instead of God? Eternal life would drive any thinking entity insane long before eternity is reached.
There are no absolute standards, even within your own delusion. At Sunday school, we are taught, “Thou shalt not kill”, and it sounds eminently sensible to we kiddies who do not want to be killed! A few years later, if we have remained interested in all this baloney, we begin to read things like, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. That’s all right, though, because we are not witches. Other people are! Examples can be multplied. The standards are what are agreed among sensible human beings. The child did not want to be killed, so it is sensible to pass a law saying, “Thou shalt not kill” Full Stop. That is entirely human. God does not come into it. The proof is that we are then urged to dispose of someone we are encouraged not to like.
“You are beginning to sound like a redneck. Incoherent and dangerous. You are now denouncing laws…” and “ Did the son of God cancel God’s laws, so that the proper religion of today should be the one that you seem to want? Lawlessness!” Mike, you totally missed my point although it was perfectly clear. I am saying that because mankind desires autonomy, he despises the laws imposed upon him.
Well, you sounded to me as if you were asserting what everyone wanted—autonomy—as if you approved of it at the expense of law. In any case, I, and many other people disagree with what you are saying. You say it because it suits you. Most human beings, I would say, agree with law. It makes sense, as I have shown just now. People might get discontent about pernickety laws in the modern state, but even many of those are meant well. The papers that I see are always demanding new laws, even the tabloid ones meant to be for rednecks. People appreciate law, but I agree that sensible people like me, and perhaps you, like laws to be minimal to allow us safety and security while still allowing us the maximum possible autonomy.
Then you insist “Laws are indeed made by human beings, and greedy or foolish people try to use them for their own ends.” I plead with you to see that is precisely the reason man desires to be a law unto himself. THIS is the world’s problem: “Do Not Tell Me What To Do.”
But please tell me what to do, Lord! You are trying to have your cake and eat it, in typical fashion. You will accept law as long as it is God’s law—you think! But not if it is honestly presented as made by human beings for their mutual benefit and advantage. I told you before, laws are all made by men. In the olden days the makers of the law knew that superstitious people were more ready to accept them if they thought they were God’s laws, not the king’s—especially a foreign conquering king. What is remarkable is that sophisticated people like you still think that these ancient and quite obviously singular laws are made by God. What do you make of all the sacrificial laws in Leviticus? Why is it in the Christian holy book? Are we bound to hold to them? If not, what else in the Holy Word can we ignore? Your argument is extremely holey!
You say “Christians are liars. Their own sacred book says their God told them anything they said would be true.” Conveniently taken totally out of context.
So here is something else in the Holey Word that we can safely ignore. Professional Christians nevertheless take Christ’s directions to his disciples to apply to them precisely. They consider themselves to be his disciples and so their interpretation is entirely in context. Blair and Bush think they can utter any lies they like because they are both convinced that God is motivating them. For me, they are candidates for the asylum.
For the last time, Bush is not a Christian icon. Stop using him as a classic example of whatever point you try to make with him. Since no one is perfect, you can find flaws in each of us. I’m just asking that you not set up GWB as the prototype you assume we “follow”. We do not look to him to see what our Christian conduct should be. Understand?
No! You are the one who does not understand. I do not recall saying that Bush was someone that you all follow. What I am saying is that, although you plainly do not like it, he presents himself as a conviction Christian, like his poodle, Blair, and he is undoubtedly the most powerful one of you in the world. He therefore is a Christian icon even if you do not like it. I again repeat: I know of few Christians indeed doing anything like protesting that this powerful Christian is behaving in a manner that ’true’ Christians disagree with. Ultimately, you are all unprincipled, because you adjust your principles just as you like despite the supposed absolute standards set by your God.
You make a category mistake with my example of the Belch Beer Bottle and Fenton glass. “I have asked before: What then does it mean to be called a Christian? I keep giving the answer. It means nothing! Christians do not have to be good. They only have to have faith in their god. Most of them are indeed Belch Beer pretending to be a Fenton, and no one can challenge them except God. Well, I am sorry, pal, but if I taste the beer and it is shit then I know that the Fenton is Belch Beer. That is what my pages are all about.” Call it semantics if you will, but once again you miss my clear point. A dressed-up, cheap beer bottle remains a cheap beer bottle, i.e. your “Christian Nazi”. I wasn’t referring to the beer itself. But if you like, the Nazis were then sewer water in a Sauternes bottle.
Needless to say, you missed my point. There is no category mistake unless you will put Christians into an entire category of their own. I do not. “A dressed-up, cheap beer bottle remains a cheap beer bottle” whether it is metaphorically a Christian or a Nazi. It is pretending that the contents are something they are not. Both are convinced that ’God is with them’, and both have historically committed the most atrocious, appalling and unforgiveable crimes. If God is good, He is obviously not ’mit’ either of them, and both are equal in their deceit.
OK. Now you tell me where it says that anyone “saw the rising.” No one “saw” the resurrection (and no, that does not prove your point). They saw the earthquake and the angel. I never said they remained as dead men so could not report. It is YOUIR theology that is void. You have imposed upon the Gospel your wish for how it should be to satisfy you. The fact is, it is not your Gospel, it is God’s. Repeat and repeat if you must that the soldiers should have been the Evangelists. That’s not how it happened. Ungodly men took money to fabricate a story and cover their own butts and those of the chief priests and elders. Ungodly men. Men who could be bought. You choose to read into my words meaning that suits you. Further, the undisturbed, unruffled grave clothes remain a problem for you.
“Mt 28:11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.” You accuse me of being “the one who has the elaborate reconstruction of the text”. This text strikes me as quite clear. Only someone determined to misunderstand it can find a way of doing it. The watch were there specifically to observe that nothing untoward went on at the tomb, and after the supposed miracle they report “all the things that were done”. If the miracle indeed occurred, as you insist it did, then these men are saying they saw it. You are wriggling like a speared eel, but your lack of principle is simply showing you up. You will now tell me that “all the things that were done” somehow did not include the miracle, and I will agree with you because there was no miracle. Only a Christian can write these words without shame: “You choose to read into my words meaning that suits you”. You, as usual, are the one who does this, but think that you can just accuse your opponent of your own trickery and get away with it. It shows the extent of Christian dishonesty. I see no reference here to grave cloths. Are you talking now about something else?
I said “If a man lives in abject fear that God may exist, to reject the notion would alleviate the fear. Your statement is silly”. You reply, “I don’t get your point, but there is no denying that Christians have to be foolish”. You don’t get my point? If man fears that a God exists, he then only has to disregard his “notion” and VOILA!—no more fear of God. What’s not to get?
You wrote in response to: “Christians are so scared that there might be a God that they believe it even though they can see it is foolish, and so they make foolishness a virtue.” Where is there any suggestion of them rejecting the notion of God? I did not suggest it. Your dishonesty is boundless. They are scared that God exists despite the absence of evidence, because they might not get the eternal life promised if they were to believe, in accordance with the evidence, God does not exist. It therefore is a virtue for you Christians to ignore the evidence of your senses and believe anyway. In short, foolishness has to be a virtue for Christians to have a basis for any self-respect once they ignore their brains and senses. It does not seem to me that foolishness could possibly be a virtue, but Christians can make it virtuous because they persuade themselves it is what their God wants. That God gave them brains so as not to fall for such trickery never crosses their minds—it is not foolish enough.
“You are trying to use semantics for your dishonest theological purposes.” So are you. “I am using words properly and you are seeking to undermine them.” As you have done mine. “He is supposed to be kindly trying to save us all,” Once again, you are not equipped to handle Christian theology. “His objective could be achieved instantly by destroying the evil spirit. Human beings ought then not to be tempted and we would not need to accept a barbaric human sacrifice to save us, would we? He cannot do it, and if you read carefully, which you never do, relying on God to tell you everything you need to know, you will see that I wrote “Satan, just as powerful as the good God in practice” I never read carefully? I’ve read your material carefully. That’s why I began this whole quest to nowhere with you. I understood that you were misrepresenting scripture to suit your personal beliefs. As for you consulting a dictionary? Big deal. The created being Satan is not God, not A god and is not equal in practice or otherwise. He is a creature being permitted to carry out wickedness in the spiritual realm (If you are able to believe in such a realm…I’ll have to wait and see.)
Well, the first part of this is childish, and the normal Christian projection. Then you get annoyed because you are shown, as plainly as possible, to be dishonest again. You are the one who uses words wrongly to try to win arguments, yet you say I am. When I turn to the dictionary to show who is using the word ’god’ correctly, you understandably get narked. You can say what you like, but if God is so powerful then He would eliminate the source of wickedness in the world and would not do anything so futile as arranging his own cruel death. You try to escape by saying God permits this created being to carry out wickedness. Why does He? And, if He has a good reason, and it is part of some plan He has, then why should it be a concern to Christians. God wants the world to be wicked, on this theory, and creates Satan to keep it so. OK! God, So be it, Amen. You are getting close to being a Gnostic, and that was heretical, my friend.
“If your God exists and He made me with a brain, He did not intend me to be tricked by used car dealers into believing the opposite of everything that is sensible.” ’If’ is a good start that you cannot allow for yourself. But indeed, IF God gave you the brain and you are misusing it, would you not be accountable? I submit it as POSSIBILITY. You reject it out of hand as absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. Again, I say you can only believe that, if you must, but no one is able to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Thanks for telling me these wondrous things. I know that Christians are desperate to justify their delusion with whatever is ’possible’, but it is no argument at all, as I have shown above. Your own Holey Book tells us that all things are possible with God, and so we should believe everything that is possible. I cannot see how that would help Christianity at all. For example, you were beginning to sound Gnostic just now. By the token of possibility, surely you must allow that Christianity went in completely the wrong direction with its acceptance as the state religion of Rome, and the Gnostics had the true Christianity. That might indeed explain why Christianity for all these centuries has been Satanic. It is Satanic, because Satan, in the form of the ogre and wife murderer, Constantine, took over Christianity, and misled you all ever since. It is ’possible’, even likely, based on the evidence—but, I forget, using evidence is not being foolish enough.
It is possible that I might be misusing my brain, but it seems less likely—since I am at least using it—than that Christians utterly reject theirs as an organ of the Devil. If Satan has captured Christianity, he would want his followers not to use the organ God gave them. It is obvious that he would not want anyone to consider it as a possibility that Christianity is Satanic, isn’t it, Don?
Hey, Mike! Remember me? Here in the US, we recently had a Texas anti-sodomy law overturned and now we have a major denomination elevating a homosexual priest to status of Bishop. Judge Roy Moore of Alabama continues to be threatened if he doesn’t remove the Ten Commandments. Looks like your plan is working perfectly. Congratulations. Soon we’ll be a second-rate country too. Still think man has not made himself to be God?
You are positively regressing. I once thought you were intelligent, if gullible, but you seem intent on proving your idiocy.
What have your bigoted, and intolerant remarks to do with the page you cite? What is my plan? I was not aware that I had one. Christians have a plan and it is to make everyone the same as themselves. They are so proud of it they call it God’s plan, but it seems God is not willing to help it.
No doubt the UK is a second rate country, and it is because it has passed its imperialist phase. The US is just entering its. Empires so far have never lasted, and we can bet with assurance that the US empire will not either. Frankly, my impression is that most US citizens do not want to be imperialists but they are led into it by their Christian leaders. As I said, Christians are determined to make everyone like themselves. I should have added that when they cannot, they kill them! You might like to meditate on these words by Herbert Butterfield, a Christian historian:
“Statesmen… promised that by a victory in war they could secure for the world freedom from fear; but it has not taken us long to realise… that there are occasions when God mocks.” (Christianity and History, 1949)
Bush and Blair have plainly not read this. As for the things that really trouble Christians—what consenting adults want to do in private—they claim biblical authority for being anti-homosexual. It fully illustrates Christian dishonesty. Rich people cannot get to heaven except by a miracle, the Son of God tells us, whereas the poor are automatically blessed. You do not go around ranting about the rich, do you? You want to be like them, rich, and so far as you are concerned, bugger the poor and the blessed, to use an apt phrase in this context.
You find reasons why homosexuality is forbidden by God and you find them in the Jewish scriptures, that otherwise you say your son of God has abrogated. Christians are never circumcised for religious reasons, because you do not believe the Jewish law—God’s law—but you will insist that what the Jewish priests added to the law concerning homosexuality is still God’s wish. You are hypocrites every one, Mr Don, and you cannot even see it, you are so stupid and besotted. You illustrate perfectly why the world was so awful when it was called Christendom, and people were killed for reading their bibles.
It is time you grew up and began to use your brain, my friend. At present you are an ignorant bigoted dolt.
Yowee! The passage of time has made you abusive! You didn’t use to treat me that way.
You did not used to sound such a bigoted ass.
Actually, I didn’t cite that page. It was the default topic when one wishes to email you from that link. Calm down.
The links are provided with that default information so that I know what you Christians are talking about when you write to me with some criticism or slander of my site. From experience I found that most did not have the intelligence or the courtesy to say what page they were referring to.
I never knew or felt you thought I was intelligent. In a matter of 2-3 months I have become an idiot and you have become abusive. Why was I not allowed to state something with a little sarcasm mixed in? It is a valid literary technique.
It is also an excuse to hide crass and overt bigotry. That is what your ‘sacrcasm’ sounded like to me. It did not sound like the particular virtue that Christians like to boast about but never cultivate.
Plus, as a citizen of the USA, Christian or not, I have the right to disagree with and state my opinion of our issues.
You have, but I hear from a lot of US correspondents who are not Christians that they are unable to state their views and keep their job, or not be blackballed by their neighbours. Young kids from high school tell me that they get attacked by gangs of Christian kids if they say they are atheists. Do you actually live in the USA, my loving friend? Freedom of opinion, speech and expression does not mean freedom to say what everyone agrees with, but freedom to say what they do not agree with. Many of you just do not get it.
The fact that I do so AS a Christian infuriates you but you don’t have a problem when any other common man objects to the same issue.
You are getting past me as usual. Many right wing Christians hold your obnoxious views but so too do others of different persuasions. I do not agree with racist and exclusivist views by anyone. History shows what trouble it leads to, but only people who believe established and proven facts can believe history, and that does not include Christians who believe what has been disproven.
Am I to view myself as a second-rate citizen in my own country?
You can view yourself as you like, but do not expect to be able to spout odious crap and be admired.
You have no plan (or agenda)? If you contend you do not have one, then why maintain your website? Your articles are very much for the purpose of exposing what you see as lies and fiction. That is fine. But to tell me you have no plan… ? Yes, we as Christians have a plan too, as do doctors and lawyers, political activists, entertainers, sports stars, atheists etc. So what? Do not political activists wish to make everyone the same? (We DO NOT wish this but to follow your assumption… )
If having a desire to offer the truth to people who are being blatantly gulled is a plan, then I must have one, but I cannot see how it is a plan nevertheless. As I understand it a plan is a scheme or a design with several parts and an intended outcome. All I am doing is showing that the complete system of lies that Christians persist in telling people, to keep them in control and coughing up their hard earned dollars, is manifestly and demonstrably false. They do not need to believe it and they often do not even believe what their own God told them, because their shepherds want them to believe something more profitable or convenient to them. If mine is a plan, then let it be.
Mike, my friend (of sorts), “Frankly, my impression is that most US citizens do not want to be imperialists but they are led into it by their Christian leaders. As I said, Christians are determined to make everyone like themselves. I should have added that when they cannot, they kill them! ” Once again your blanket statements are unfair and untrue. I do not wish for you to be just like me. Can you accept that?
We have been into this before and it gets tedious to repeat it all. Christians plainly want everyone else to be Christians, and have a missionary duty. They therefore want everyone else to be like themselves, and they will tell any lie to succeed in converting one single person because they think it gives them brownie points with St Peter. The next best thing is to lacerate or incinerate the opposition.
I will repeat one thing I asked for long ago: Please do not attempt to accurately exegete scripture to me. It is impossible for you to accomplish and I do not accept it. Case in point: “Rich people cannot get to heaven except by a miracle, the Son of God tells us, whereas the poor are automatically blessed.” I know to which you refer and it is abuse of the text. That is not at all what is intended. It’s not even quoted correctly.
This is a prime example of what I mean, dishonest one. I can read as well as you can, and I can read what the supposed son of God is supposed to have said. It does not need exegesis. Exegesis means that the shepherd will ‘abuse the text’ to force his own interpretation on to the poor sheep. You cannot even recognize that I was not quoting anything. I was saying what the text said. Here is the quotation for your information: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Exegesis? Ha! Comedian. Nothing could be plainer than that he said it required a miracle for a rich man to enter heaven.
I do not wish to be “rich”. Now you’re telling me what I want.
Read your gospels, brother Don. You are rich! You are also smug. What makes you think you will ever get to heaven?
“You illustrate perfectly why the world was so awful when it was called Christendom, and people were killed for reading their bibles.” Ummm, don’t you also want us to stop reading our bibles?
It seems to me that I quote an awful lot of these bibles on my pages, so I am obviously happy that people should read them—and understand! Protestants have the chance to do it, but instead of reading them themselves, they are no better off than the Catholics. They have to accept what the divines of the Church tell them, and when the bible was in Latin and most people were illiterate, they could get away with it. One of the protests that distinguished Protestants was the right to be able to read ‘God’s Word’ for themselves, and now they have it. But what do we find, exemplified by your worthy self. You do not believe what you can read with your own eyes, and instead only believe what some professional shepherd tells you. Why should I think that you are anything other than a gullible dunce?
Don’t you want to see us become as you are—free from the confines of an archaic system in order to pursue the avenue of enlightenment of the human mind?
Certainly be free of a load of ancient hogwash, and hogwash that everyone today ought to know is hogwash but they are still so duped by tricksters that they think have some sort of direct line to God.
You say I am a hypocrite and can’t even see it. I say neither can you see when the same argument is turned back upon you.
You are losing me again. You are hypocrites because you claim some sort of sanctity for the bible, both parts, when you have to believe from part two that part one is no longer true, and then you also pick out whatever you like and reject whatever is too hard or inconvenient from part two itself, while adding in some things as essential that are in the abrogated part one. You show that for all your supposed piety you have no regard for God at all. That is hypocrisy. How can this argument be turned back on me?
Can you honestly tell me you do not wish I would join your ranks? You have before specifically asked that of me, you know. What is the difference? Before you answer, don’t bother because there is no difference no matter how you dance around it. You desire, by the whole of your website, to cause Christians to dismiss as myth these stories in the bible, dismiss God and Christ as frauds and become something else so that you do not have to deal with it any longer. You breathe easy when someone condones and promotes all you believe. You want the whole world to be free of the Christian influence. There is no difference in what we do. There is no difference.
Well, so you say, but the fundamental difference is that I do not present my case based on a mass of lies. That is the difference. What I say is based on evidence that can be checked in reality, whereas yours is based on evidence that can only be checked in unreality.
