Abstract

Monday, 28 February 2005

Blood-clotting-you said the earliest forms of life were single cell. According to science the earliest level is the Cambrian which were not simple organisms. On this level are invertebrates like Starfish with their complex hydraulic system and trilobites withtheir compound eyes. Dr. Richard Dawkins admits “it is as though they were just planted there, without an evolutionary history” (the blind Watchman p. 229)

Just as you seem to expect science, a method of enquiry that takes time to tease out answers about Nature, you expect Nature to leave evidencve of everything that has ever happened. The old question is “when a tree falls in a forest unobserved by anyone, does it make a sound?” For you, this is an unanswerable question because that tree that fell was not observed. Never mind that we can see any other tree that we chose in the forest falling and it certainly makes a sound. We cannot observe that one. We cannot find fossils of many single celled creatures, because fossils are not easily made by any creature, and the tinier and softer their bodies, the harder it is for them to fossilize. So, for you, the first fossils were those in the Burgess shales, and they preclude previous simpler forms, even though, we can see single celled creatures like the fertilized egg of any animals growing into a doubled celled, then multi-celled creature in only a few hours. We can see it happening, but for you, because we did not see it happening then, it could not have happened, and how could we have seen it then, since we are multi-celled animals and we are talking about a time before there were any? Scientists and rational people generally use their heads to draw conclusions about the world we live in. You tell us God made us in His own image, presumably including the heads and brains we have, and the use they are meant to be put to. God must have given us brains so that we could work things out. You ignore your brain, my friend, because the holy vampires you call ministers and pastors are sucking your brains dry to make fools of you.

As for the question in regards to Darwin stating for his theory to be true he had to find 1000s of transitional fossils you blew off the question by going about Christians. Please answer the question.

I have answered the question repeatedly, but you cannot seem to understand. You can understand fantastic things like floods three miles deep over the whole world but you cannot understand what a transition fossil is. When I give you prefectly clear examples, you just ignore what I have said, merely repeating your mantra. Ignorance is bliss is the only thing that Christians truly believe.

Lucy—as far as the finding of LUcy, experts in the field have concluded that Lucy was just a 3ft chimpanzee and not a transitional fossil.

The experts you are speaking of must be your creationist friends, because to genuine experts, Lucy is not a chimp. Perhaps it takes one to know one.

Archaopteryx—you keep classify as a transitional fossil but scientists don't. I will go with the scientists.

Once again, these “scientists” are your creationist friends. Proper scientists, that is scientists who believe in the scientific method and its discoveries and not ancient superstitions, classify archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil. Of course, every fossil is a transitional fossil, but I am accepting that you want one that is manifestly between this and that. Is the archaeopteryx, according to your experts, a bird or a dinosaur? If you say a bird, then why has it got a tail and teeth unlike birds, and if you say a dinosaur, then why has it got feathered wings? It has both because it is an in-between form, that is a transitional fossil. Now since you obviously refuse to accept this or to understand it, perhaps we can leave it. The horse will plainly not drink the water it has been shown.

Life on Mars—you said scientists have formed a hypothesis. Do you know what hypothesis means? According to the Oxford dictionary it means “a supposition made as a starting point for further investigation from know facts”. Basically it is theory that a person starts with from certain facts and investigates further to see if it is true.

Hey, you are beginning to study and learn. Congratulations. A hypothesis is a baby theory! Good! Keep it up. A theory is an explanation of some observations. All theories begin as hypotheses, that is to say, tentative explanations, for the purpose of testing them. When it passes enough tests to be held confidently as an explanation, then it is a theory. When it has been used confidently for a long time and seems certainly true within its given limits then it is a law. What YOU mean by a theory is that something is untrue. When you say pathetically, evolution is only a theory, you are attempting to tell your poor little lambs it is nothing more than a guess. What you do not tell the flock is that Christianity is also a theory in just the same sense, and a poor, poor one at that. It is a theory that no Christian will allow to be tested because it fails them.

You also stated that science does not try to prove point but disproves. I don't think so. Sometimes they try to disprove but also they may try to PROVE there is life on Mars. In the area of Forensics like CSI show they try to prove sometimes if someone has done a crime.

Science tries to disprove hypotheses. If Vilebod has committed a vile crime and is suspected of it, then some forensic scientists will try to prove it, while others will try to prove the opposite. Proof of one is disproof of the other. In either case, the hypothesis is tested, that is what proving something is. It is testing it. Something is tested by trying to make it fail. I test fabric by pulling it. I test a lens by passing light through it. The test is to find a fault. If the fingerprint is Vilebod's then all the other suspects are innocent. If it is not Vilebod's then he is innocent. Scientific method is essentially forming a hypothesis, which is as you say, to offer something to test, and then to test it. If the test succeeds, then all well and good, for the time being. If it fails, and there was no technical error in the test, then the hypothesis is no good and has to be rejected. That is what I meant. It is the way science works.

The GRand Canyon in how it was formed in taking millions of years. What scientific facts do you have? it sounds to me more like spectulation

Well, if that is so, at least this speculation has a chance of being true. A three mile deep flood covering the world only a few thousand years ago is speculation that has no chance of being true. What I suggest you do is to read a decent text book on geology. You might enjoy it, and you will find it informative, so long as you forget impossible floods.

Josh McDowell—how do you know? Have you read his book? Have you every heard him of before? responding by saying it is not true is not much of an arguement Mike. There are many atheists who have become Christians. One of the most famous was Simon Greenleaf. He is still considered the greatest source in a court of law when it came to what does the evidence say. That was his motto. He never lost in a case and had a reputation beyond reproach. He taught at Harvard and the subject of the resurrection came up. He said he did not believe in the resurrection. ONe of his students called him on his own motto and challenged him. He researched the Resurrection and ended up believing considering he was a Jewish-Atheist. Another person is from the UK is Dr. AJ Monty. He was raised an atheist by his parents. He obtained a PHd from U. of Wales. Through studying science he became a believer in God and a Christian. He wrote a book called Why I believe in Creation. Read it, you might learn something. Dr. Monty currently travels and speaks on Creation vs Evolution still today. I myself have 3 friends who became Christians who were atheist. They asked the hard questions and researched it themselves.

I do not doubt what you say, but the fact that you have found five or six atheists who became Christians sounds like desperation. The Island of Ireland of my ancestors was a predominantly Catholic Christian country until only a few decades ago. It still has a lot of Catholics but whereas once they were almost 100% of the population, now they are about 20 or 30% and many of those are token Christians. So several million Irish have abandoned practical Christianity in the last few decades. In th UK, which you seem to know about, you will be aware that not more than 5% of people attend church regularly. Christianity always dies when people get educated, though it does take some time, because those who have been indoctrinated into it cannot shake it off. They have to die physically when they have been deeply indoctrinated! In the USA, a concerted campaign, of which your man McDowell was one cog only, has been fought to win people back to Christianity. It is a political campaign, not primarily a religious one, and the election of Bush shows why. Patriarchal religion has always been used to fool people over political matters, and the great brainwashed masses of middle America are being used by the Straussists in Republican Washington exactly like sheep.

Mike you stated I quoted Scientists who would not be considered experts. The people I stated studied in their special field and others looked and still look towards them for opinions. Considering you yourself omitted your knowledge of science is limited and I don't think you can stated these people are not experts. Are you stating they are not experts in their field of study b/c they bring evidence that does not support evolution? Also, how do you know I am quoting these people out of context? Have you read the sources I have quoted or are you making accusations b/c I am a Christian?

I have read what the experts say about these matters because I am myself a trained scientist. I accept what other trained scientists tell me, not what people say who are not scientists but say they are scientists though they ignore science in favour of an ancient and faulty book. Instead of reading what confidence tricksters tell you, read what the vast majority of proper scientists have discovered. At the same time read about the scientific method that I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to explain to you. It will show you that it is impossible to believe a load of mythology and lies from a non-scientific source when you profess to be a scientist. To believe the unscientific source rather than the scientific one is to prove you reject science. Science is not just there by revelation or by the mad rantings of some supposed prophet bringing his idea of whatever God thinks. Science is built up by a method that requires a lot of testing. Any hypothesis is not a scientific one, as you seem to think, and that is why creationism is not scientific even if it deserves to be called a hypothesis. I shall continue to believe the scientists that have explained the world and made life comfortable for us privileged creatures, not the peversions of a cruel age set down as the putative word of God and that led to a thousand year dark age in history when the Church dominated and everyone lived in abject ignorance. The ignorance continues to clear, and I hope is carries on so doing despite the efforts of people like you to put us back in the dark.

AS for Jesus, I said stop scissor cutting b/c you quote things but you have to put it in the context. Jesus is called the Lamb of God. Does it mean he is a little white lamb that goes baa? No. In context he was called this b/c he was the sacrifice to take away the world's sins.

I do not believe in sacrifice, especially human sacrifice. You and all your savagely ignorant friends evidently do. That is why you are yourselves sheep, if not barbarians.

When talked to these people he was not being ruled. Like when Jesus called to a woman in John 4 in the same way. In the Jewish culture this was common. Jesus talking to woman in John 4 was a big shock b/c Samaritans were half-caste jews and full Jews traditionally won't even look at them. Jesus not only cross the race barrier but gender one too. Women in that time did not have many rights like today. So you quoting these 3 examples when put into context you will see he was not rude.

You are burbling what your vampire pastors tell you to burble. If Jewish men did not talk to Jewish women then how did they get to have sex together to have children, how did they have meals together, how did they celebrate the passover together, how did a mother talk to her son if women could not talk to men or vice-versa. And just how did Christianity do any good for women? For hundreds of years women were being burnt to a cinder because they were tied to a stake in the ground while a fire was built around them, while those who were faithful to the clergy washed their socks and underpants and the floors of churches, hoping for a crumb of appreciation. Nice Christians. So good to women! And when it comes to Samaritans, it was not a question of race, at least according to the Old Testament that is part of your own bible. Samaria was the same country as Israel, the country of the Israelites, so if Samaritans were hated by Jews, then you have to ask why the Jews should have hated the Israelites. Is the holy word trying to hide something from us? The Samaritans were a Jewish sect, and the Jews were not just a single monolithic religion at the time whatever your vampire pastors might tell their little lambs. The Jews were utterly divided into many sects, of which we hear a few in the New Testament. Pharisees, Samaritans, Sadducess, Herodians and so on were only some of them. When they fought the war against the Romans in 66 AD, the Jews started fighting among themselves, they were so divided. The sect that Jesus belonged to was just another division.

As for Jesus raising from the dead. Roman history testifies about this event. In relation, secular people like Josephus, Pliny, and many more testify.

I have asked you before in this long and repetitive debate to tell me where. You do not answer because you cannot. It is not true.

During the Roman rule many group tried overthrowing the Roman Gov. When Jesus came along in 30ad the Jews did not like being ruled by the Romans. When jesus was crucified and Buried, the Roman authorities were told by the Jewish leaders that the disciples might steal the body. IN response, they assigned 16 Fully trained Roman Guards to stand in front of the grave. NOt to mention a 2 ton stone was placed in front of the opening and sealed with Ceasar's seal.

I can read the gospels as well as you, perhaps better because more critically. You certainly have a better copy of them than I have because yours is full of lying detail that is not there in my copy and all genuine copies. You are telling lies as you always do because you just cannot stop doing it.

After the Resurrection, Christianity as a faith took off in people joining the faith. Romans hated them b/c Christians did not worship Ceasar. As a result, the Christians were killed by the Romans b/c the number of believers continued to grow. Now for the Resurrection to be true Jesus just a man.

1. had to overcome the effect of crucifixion b/c the Romans were experts.
2. had to move a 2 ton stone by himself
3. had to get past 16 Roman Guards

That would be very hard. But I believe Jesus was more than a man. He was God in the flesh. Like I mentioned to you earlier, the Christians were hated by the Romans. With Christianity growing faster than the Romans liked. To put an end to the movement, all the Jews had to do would produce the body. But they did not. So when it comes to Jesus either he is

1. a Liar—he claimed to be the only way to heaven,
2. a lunatic—thought he was God,
3. a legend—people wanted his name not to be put down,
4. Lord—he really rose.

Your choice

You have been reading Mr McDowell's book, but it is not worth tearing up and using as lavatory paper. Your four choices are nothing like the full gamut of possible choices available, and are given just to kid poor sheep who cannot reason very well either because they are too simple to do so or because they have been so indoctrinated from an early age they do not want to. In any event, there are answers to all of these lies and faulty choices on my web pages, which I again suggest you read, though I know you will not. You are too psychologically dependent on your silly beliefs ever to let them go, even though you would be better off.

As for the people in the OT being Myths, I guess you have not heard about the archeological evidence involving people like David, Solomon, etc. There has been many findings. One I gave you a while back was Noah's Ark.

Yes I have heard of this “evidence”. There is no evidence for most of them, and for the rest what evidence there is is either known to be forged or suspected of it. There is no evidence for Solomon. None. None! NONE at all! The same for Abraham, Joseph, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Samson, Moses, Joshua, and Saul. The only evidence for David is dubious.

Hittites—also The hittites and the Syrians were totally different people. Syrians were semitic people like Jews. Their language is closely linked to Hebrew. No where in the Bible is the hittites and the Syrians or Aramaneans classified as the same people group. If you are going to use the Bible check out the Facts first.

The bible refers to Hittites as Syrians, biblical Aramaeans. It never mentions the Hittite empire of central Turkey. You ought to read some real history instead of the mythologies that you have been indoctrinated into.

In summary, we are having a discussion and it could be classified as a debate but I figured a person of your intelligence would have realised when I was talking about you coming to birmingham and having a debate you would have understood the traditional view of a debate being in a room where an audience is present and we talk on various subjects. Each of us taking turns.

Debates of that nature I have seen on the internet, and Christians like yourself invariably organise them in such a way that the critic of Christianity is put at a disadvantage, something you ought not to do in fair debates. Debates have to be fair, not tilted to suit one side. In any case, You do not answer the points I raise in these exchanges of letters, so there could be no point in expecting that you would in more direct debate. Tell me, if I listed some questions for you to answer, would you do it?

Mike I have now talked to you in great length in to me your responses and wording remind me of 2 Peter 3 where it says people will scoff at the truth.

What you cannot get is what the truth is. You can never seem to understand that you might not be on the side of it, but quite the opposite. I have no doubt that 2 Peter 3 is right to say that people will scoff at the truth, but the people who are doing it are you ignorant Christians who cannot understand what truth means. For you truth is whatever your pastors and their silly and erroneous book says, but anything that can be proved by testing is lies. Well, I am here to tell you that you are mistaken, and if you seriously think that God wants you to believe lies when He gave you a brain to be critical with, then you are worshipping the wrong God. That is something else you cannot get.

Mike you tell me I am projecting! Just in your Paragraph above you sound just like people who hold to the evolution point of view. You say “no one knows” and “might have”. Science is not based on maybe or if but hard data which evolution has none. IF you say no one knows how life begun than you are omitting you are not sure and thus your theory becomes a theory/opinion. Thus your point becomes more of a theology rather than science. Remember science is measure and observing what one sees & experiences. It does not hold previous opinion/biases just reports what it sees.

I have asked you to do a bit of reading before you carry on telling me what schoolboys know but you evidently do not. If science can only report what it sees, then how can it explain anything? All explanations are what you are pleased to keep calling “just theories”. You have a theory that God appeared on earth as a man called Jesus and lifted himself from the dead to prove he was the saviour of mankind. It is your theory and you have no proof of it. Science is built on hypotheses which are suggestions about how something happened that can offer some prediction that can be observed to see whether it actually happens. The hypothesis is tested, and if it passes the test, then it is evidence that the hypothesis is correct. Your Christian theories have no tests. That is why you insist on blind faith. Evolution is a hypothesis that has been tested in literally myriads of ways, but as yet there is no testable hypothesis about how life actually began. Science does not arrive perfectly formed like the ideas of madmen, but it built up. Nevertheless, scientists are trying to make life even as I write.

Where did God come from? Mike, as the Bible states God has always existed before the beginning of time. “The Lord Reigns forever, he has established his throne for judgement”, (Ps 9:7) this is just one of many passages How did life start? If you read the beginning of Genesis it will answer your question.

What sort oif evidence is an ancient set of well edited, often undecipherable, and frequently manifestly wrong texts. You keep citing them as if they were certainly correct because these old words are your true God. If they tell you something, for you, it must be true. They are perfectly correct. That is your theory but you have no proof of it. And if God can live forever, why cannot the world itself live forever? How do you know that the world began? You do not know. You just believe what the holey book says because you have been taught to believe it. I do not believe it, and so cannot accept the silly myths it offers. To say that an eternal God made life is no answer at all because it just defers all the questions to God. If there is such a thing as eternity, then we cannot live at all. Any time as a fraction of eternity is zero! The advantage of science is that it all happens in the world we experience, and even things we cannot experience have to have consequences in the real world that can be tested.

Man was made in God image where we can reason, think, etc. it is what you call communicable. There is some things we can’t do like know all things, see all, etc. that is incommunicable. Like it says in Ps 8:4-6, “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings… You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet…” Mike you state that I am projecting? Just in your previous paragraph you use the terms in regards to life “might have” & you omitted that that no one knows how life began. I don’t think you call evolution science when you state information like that.

If you really believe we were made in God’s image so that we can reason and think, then why don’t you start to do it. Just to believe is not to think and reason, it is merely to accept whatever you are told without thinking about it. Science requires you to think and reason. You need a brain and to use it to do science. You have to be a moron, or think God is a moron, to believe Christianity. And, if you are right that we cannot know everything, something I agree with you about, then why do you keep expecting science, a process of discovery, to know everything, even though it is a historically new venture? Now just think for a moment about the passage you are quoting. It tells you that man is the ruler over God’s works. That is what science is. To a believer in God, it is humanity seeking to rule over God’s works. You ought therefore to heed what science discovers. What science has not yet discovered has to be described in phrases like "might have". You think you know how life began in that God made it, but you have no proof, and even if it were true, you do not know how God did it.

PS You have ignored most of my reply. Have you got nothing more to say? I had a crash and the emails got trashed, so, if something has been missed by me, please re-send it for me to reply properly.

Like I said to you earlier Mike, regardless of what I present you wont accept it. I don’t know what School you went to Mike but it must have been Moron university. I hate to say this b/c all you do is blow smoke in regards to evolution being hard fact Science. IF SOMETHING IS PROVEN THEN IT IS ACCEPTED AS FACTUAL! No proof = no fact Remember Science is not bias it comes from a neutral view but measures, test, observes, etc to prove if the hypothesis is true. You keep saying Christians have blind faith. I don’t think so. how do you know Adelphisophism is true? What make it so special? If you are going to believe in evolution as part of your outlook on life than you will believe anything. Man, you have been duped my friend!!!

You accuse me of not accepting whatever you present, and I have explained to you repeatedly why the views of a few Christians opposing evolution does not constitute a refutation of it. If you think it does then Christianity is multiply refuted because there are billions of people who do not accept Christianity. You then say I blow smoke about in regard of evolution being hard fact science. You obviously mean by this that you will not accept the reasons I give for evolution and the description I give about the nature of science. That is your problem. You are the one who refuses to accept reason. You cannot do it because you can only knock over the straw men you put up as being evolution and science. You cannot answer proper scientific and evolutionary arguments, only the false ones that you put in their place. We graduates of the moron university must be morons because we try to answer the points put to us, unlike creationist cracked pot Christians who avoid anything they cannot answer as if it was never raised. You have just ignored whole swaths of points I have raised, and when you make any such attempt you tell lies, or, at the most generous, you are so ignorant you cannot distinguish truth from lies. That does not surprise me as it is the prefered method of Christianity through the centuries.

You continue to erect your straw men but will not apply the rules you erect to your own case. The validity of Christianity has its own rules, or rather rule—believe without proof! Doing so is a virtue called Faith which will get you into heaven, or so you are told. If something has to be proven to be factual, then the basis of Christianity is not a fact. It has no proof. And I have explained numerous times that science does not prove anything, except that a hypothesis is not false in some given circumstances. After a great deal of prescribing the boundaries of some hypothesis, then it is accepted as true until a repeated test shows it is not in whatever new conditions have been tested. This means that you have to have the straw man before you that science is an assembly of facts that have been proven so that you can claim that nothing has been proven in science. But that is the scientific view! You tell a lie so that you can show that the true situation is not the lie. I agree, but why not begin with the truth and then try to argue from that. You cannot. Adelphiasophism is based on science, and that is why it can be believed. It is based on what we know today, not on what you would like to be true based on an ancient horror story. Finally, if evolution is a scam, what is the point of it? What worries you and all Christians is that Christianity is the scam and evolution is part of the evidence that shows it.

In regards to Christianity, Jesus being God. Question do you believe existed Julius Ceasar? If you do than here is a fact, there is more evidence about Jesus existence than Julius Ceasar’s.

So that is one of your facts, is it? I suggest you check the evidence again. There is vastly more evidence that Julius Caesar existed than that Jesus did. Not that I, myself, doubt that he did exist. It is simply that he was not the man or god you think he was. I base it on the same evidence you think shows he was a god but read in the critical way that any half decent historian would.

In regards to Jesus. First if you go to the Bible you will see there is what you call internal proof. If you read the OT you will see the 350 references of the Messiah. Born in Bethlehem, from the line of Jesse, etc. In relation, in the NT many sources refer to Jesus’ death.

How do I know that the bible is relating true history? I have a lot of pages on my website that shows the bible is not. It is a concoction made for the use of rulers from the Persian Shah who is called the messiah in the bible, to the Maccabees who have been crossed out of Protestant bibles. The bible is propaganda written for the benefit of these rulers to intimidate the people. It was common at the time that kings ruled on behalf of gods. Try learning something. Anyway, if this bible is to be accepted as proof that Jesus existed then Horatio Hornblower existed because there were a lot of very detailed books written about him, all historically accurate. But they were about a fictional character. A single source is useless in establishing history. Separate independent sources are needed for that.

Secondly, there is external sources. Roman history confirms Jesus died on the cross. SEcondly many famous SECULAR Historian record about Jesus dying on the cross like Josephus. Do you know him?

Not personally! How does contemporary Roman history distinguish itself from secular historians? If you are speaking of Roman archives, there are none, and there are none because the Christians destroyed them when they took power in the fourth century. We know there were Roman archives, if for no other reason that Eusebius, the great historian of the early church said so. But he also said they were forgeries! Eusebius is not noted for his impeccable honesty! He was a Christian. He said they were forgeries because they did not support the Christian story. Josephus has a short passage in his Antiquities mentioning Jesus as the Christ and dying on the cross in the time of Pilate, but there are few scholars, as opposed to Christians, who do not consider this a Christian forgery for many reasons, some of which are on the pages you refuse to read, and more detail still is available elsewhere on the web. Suffice it to say that Josephus could not have written it and kept his head! It is plainly lifted from the gospels, and must have been inserted by the Christians, quite probably the self-same Eusebius. Other Roman sources simply record what the Christians believed, and so are not independent accounts.

Thirdly, he appeared to over 500 people after his death. many people have testified in seeing Jesus after the resurrection. Remember the Romans were experts at crucifixion. They had been using that methods on people for 400 years before Jesus appeared. They had to make sure the person was dead or the executioner would get into trouble.

These 500 people are mentioned only in the Christian book, and the same is true of the many people who testified to seeing him, so there is nothing independent in this evidence. If Romans had killed so many people by crucifixion, and they certainly killed a lot, though not for 400 years before, does it occur to you that the Christians might have featured the wrong man?

Think about this, Christianity is not blind faith but fact faith. It is based on a historical event the resurrection.

Horatio Hornblower facts.

For Christianity to be true, it had to overcome this:

1. Jesus was executed by being whipped to death and speared in the side where his blood ran out.
2. when they put him in the tomb, they placed a 2 ton boulder in front of it.
3. The Romans sealed the tomb with Ceasar’s seal which means anyone who broke it was in deep trouble
4. They put 16 full-trained guards in front of the tomb.

So he was not killed on the cross at all. Do you understand what you are saying? How do you know the boulder weighed 2 tons? How do you know the Romans sealed the tomb at all whether with Caesar’s seal or not? How do you know there were 16 fully trained guards in front of the tomb? All of these "facts" show that you would not know a fact if it hit you in the eyes.

If you think about this there is only 4 conclusions 1. Jesus was a liar b/c he claimed to be the only way to God 2. a Lunatic, he thought he could come back to life 3. a legend, his disciples felt sorry for him and did not want his name to be tarnished. 4. Lord he really came back to life. Think about it, would you die for a liar, lunatic, or legend? I would not. When Christianity was growing during the 1st century, Christians were killed by the thousands. And the more the Romans tried killiing them the more Christianity Grew.

You have extended the famous idiocy of Josh McDowell. Clever man! There is at least one possibility that you left out, but I shall leave you to read the pages to find out about it, since they took me a long time to write, and I have no intention of repeating them without an excellent reason. The Roman persecutions always cited by Christians as evidence of their bravery and faith were grossly exagerranted, as any decent historian will tell you. It was indeed legend building, but I prefer to call it by a four letter word—lies.

You see Mike like Paul said in I Cor 15 if CHrist has not risen than the Christianity faith is false. He goes on to say let us eat, drink, for tomorrow we die. Christianity is not a blind faith but a fact faith. And facts don’t change!

How do you know that Paul is not false? Faith is false. It is you who have been duped. God gave you a brain and He told you in that same book, since you treat it as a God itself, that only He was the saviour and that false prophets should be killed. He did this because men were pretending to be God. The people they appealed to were to use their brain to reject them. They had to be killed and Jesus was! He was a false prophet because his main prophecy was obviously and grossly false. There is still no kingdom of God 2000 years later, and there never will be because there is no such thing. What happened to this “fact” vouched for by the son of God himself?

Another thing is Jesus is the most controversal person in history. Buddha and Muhammed said killed one’s enemy. Jesus said loved them (Matt 5). Every religious pointed to a system to be saved. Jesus pointed to himself. Jesus hung out with prostitutes, tax-collector (thiefs), and lepers (deadly diseased people). Also, no one knew what would happen to them. Buddha did not know. Muhammed did not know like Sura 46:9. Jesus knew where he came from and where he was going “You belong to this world here below, but I come from above. You are from this world, but I am not from this world” (John 8:23). Read the whole chapter and see for yourself. It is funny, every religion, view, philosophy accepts Jesus in some way but they never acknowledge him as God. In relation, every one tries to hard to TRY and proof the Bible is corrupt ( The Muslims, the Mormons(LDS) ) Jesus didnt die on the Cross, (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hare Bolos simliar to Hare Kristnas)

I just said that God had declared there was only one saviour and it was Him. The Church had to invent the Trinity to get over the plain fact that Christianity broke one of God’s commands. Ever since there have been any number of false gods and prophets all jumping on the Christian bandwagon. The enemies Jesus spoke of were not the Romans but other Jews with whom some had a dispute. He was trying to unite the Jews, a people who were notoriously divided. People who point to themselves are megalomaniacs. Did the son of God really recommend by his own actions what we should all do? Hang out with low life? No one honest would do it today, and Christians are always complaining about sex and prostitution as the most grievous sins. I suggest you read my webpages to get a rational view on these things. Why should anyone think that Jesus really said these words, or that they were true, if he did? Would anyone believe a man that said it today except nut cases? Perhaps the other religions accept him as a man because that is what he was, and only Christians are foolish enough to think that God would or even could, god or no god, appear as a man. If God has this wicked and powerful opponent called the Devil, how is He going to spend 30 years as a human being utterly powerless so that the Devil could kill Him and take over the world while he played about with no Godly powers? If the story is not absurd, then the Devil did precisely this and has ruled the world ever since while fooling Christians that he was the son of God. You Christians are always saying that God is infinite and almighty, but infinity is fitted into the volume of a human body, and the almighty powers must have been lost or Jesus was not a man but was a god all along, and that defeats the Christian objective. God cannot have appeared simply as a man, so He could not have suffered as a man would.

He was not God (Quakers Society of Friends, Christadelphians).

So there are some intelligent Christians.

You are too late Mike. All your information on your website is just a repeat. I guess Mike you don’t agree b/c you are like many other people you consider the Cross is foolishmenss. It says this right in I Cor 1:18. Finally is proof in people’s lives. I have meet so many drug addicts, convicts, atheist, etc. Who have been changed by accepting Jesus into their lives. One was tom Penpeno (ex-Mofia gangster). he became a Christian at age 40 after being in the Mofia for 20 years. Full of hatred, bitterness, he was changed. Tony Anthony 3x world champ in Karate from Essex. He was a body guard who even killed people. He became a Christian. Meet guy named Bob from Southampton. Drug addict for 27 years. He is now cleaned. ALL these guys were raised non-Christian. The bottom line is just like I told you Mike, people are always opposed to Christianity due to spiritual blindness. You just confirmed it again.

Why not talk about the Christians like the meretriciously prayerful US cabinet of President Bush, and UK premier Blair who remain Christians while doing unimaginably wicked things like bombing poor Arabs with 10,000 lb bombs killing myriads of them from aircraft eight miles high and rocket propelled bombs sent from hundreds of miles away from ships. Did God make a commandment, “Thou shalt kill!”? “Do not turn the other cheek but instead use any 10,000 lb bombs you have to kill as many of your enemies as you can!” Why are you Christians voting for these offspring of the Devil if Christianity is about love. You are all Devils in truth.

Forgot to mention Mike: If you think Christianity is such a joke then you are in luck. You can earn yourself some money. Look up Dr.Dino.com with Kent HOvind. He is offering $250.000 (about £130,000) to anyone who can prove evolution. The best about him is he is a Christian.

I have explained repeatedly to you that science does not prove anything but can only disprove things, so your pal’s money is safe, as he well knows.

Secondly, please tell me how you got involved in Adelphisophism? What has been so great about it to you? How do you all tell others about your beliefs?

There are webpages about it. Try reading them.

I will take it slow for you. I have only time for one point tonight. In regards to Julius Ceasar vs Jesus. My point is people will accept who Julius Ceasar was, what he said, and what he did without much hesitation. HOwever they will not accepted who Jesus was, said, and did EVEN THOUGH THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE FOR JESUS vs JULIUS CEASAR. If they are going to doubt Jesus than why don’t they doubt information on JC?

This is what I said before. Read it! “So that is one of your facts, is it? I suggest you check the evidence again. There is vastly more evidence that Julius Caesar existed than that Jesus did. Not that I, myself, doubt that he did exist. It is simply that he was not the man or god you think he was. I base it on the same evidence you think shows he was a god but read in the critical way that any half decent historian would.” The only evidence for Jesus Christ is what is in the gospels of the New Testament, and you know what? They were written by Christians so that people might believe! That is admitted by every honest Christian commentator on the bible. Now do as I say and check the evidence. Jesus Christ never wrote anything himself, as far as we know, but Caesar wrote a famous book. The events of the life of Christ are never mentioned by any independent writer, commentator or historian, but the events of Caesar’s life are multiply attested by many different people, independently. I do not expect you to tell the truth. You are a Christian, after all, and Christians lie themselves to sleep every night. You are giving me irrefutable evidence they are incorrigible liars. Thank you!

No Mike I don’t think so. It is not only a few Christians that refute Evolution but also many Scientists.

Now, it is usually a courtesy to cite what you are replying to before you reply. You have not done it, so, off hand, I have no clue waht you are talking about. We have exchanged quite a number of letters, and I don’t know where you are, but it is a point you have raised before and it means nothing. There are some peculiar scientists who also admit they are Christians, though how they square this circle I do not know. There might even be a few scientists who genuinely are skeptical about evolution, but it is up to them to suggest a better scientific hypothesis. They have not done.

“I my self am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it has been applied will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has” (Malcolm Muggeridge, British Journalist and philsopher).

Philosopher? Philosopher of what? Changing your mind? Muggeridge is a joke from his silly accent to his utter lack of principles. He was a newspaper hack and TV controversialist who suddenly thought he had better get on the right side of God, late in his life. No one could respect him, even if he could be quite funny.

“Scientist who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever” (Dr. TN Tahmisian of Atomic Energy Commission).

We have been here before. I have no idea who this supposed authority on evolution is, but he must be a Christian not to realize that Christianity is the greatest hoax ever.

I myself as a Christian am not afraid to debate, discuss with people with different views. When it comes to evidence to supporting my case I can bring which I have. You just don’t like it b/c I am disagreeing with you and you can’t support your case AT ALL!!

What then am I doing? You puff a great deal of wind with no content, and I tell you why but you have hardly mentioned a single point that I have raised, including the point that you project your own faults on to your opponents. You are the one who cannot support your case. All you can do is cite a variety of maverick scientists, mostly ones who have no knowledge of evolution anyway, and most of whom are Creationists or Christians at least, and you think that means something in relation to myriads of pages of well catalogued evidence by myriads of scientists in evolution and molecular biology. Have you ever heard of the genome? It shows how evolution works. Did you ever hear of genetic engineering? That is how evolution works. Go read about it.

As Sir Authur Keith said “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation…”

Keith was an opponent of evolution who died in 1955 aged 90, so is hardly an authority on the subject 50 years later, and 100 years after he was at his peak. He tried to suggest an alternative to Darwin’s idea, but no one thought it was any good.

As you continue your childish approach of name calling Mike it shows you only have left is name calling. Grow up and stop being a baby! You are as bad as my one year old boy. Do you need a bib?

Try explaining what you mean. I have tried consistently to give evidence for anything I have said, or point out where it is.

If you are accusing Christianity of being a scam? Get real! We are not worry about people like you b/c like I said all your website information of the Bible being corrupted, Jesus not being God, etc. is nothing new. A Christian is saved by Faith but our faith is not blind faith! Compared to evolution which you take as part of your view. You said so many so called facts are proof of evolution but it is not. I think you have the blind faith.

You cannot get out of the Monty Python sketch. This is not an argument. It is contradiction. You assert something as being true without any evidence. It is obvious why. It is because it is indeed blind faith. It is the faith that is the core of the scam. Faith is made into the salvific virtue when all it is is to ignore the brain in your heads, presumably provided by your own God. Now again we have been here before and you just ignore anything you cannot answer. Answer this. Why do you have a brain, if you are not allowed to be critical about what you are told, including the Christian scam? If God gave you a brain to be critical, then why did he then stop you from using it in relation to Christianity? Answer this too. What are the great number of irrefutable facts that prove Christianity?

How are you judging that more evidence supports JC existence than Jesus? Your own website? There are many external sources that confirm people, places, events in the Bible.

You spoke specifically about external evidence of Jesus, and I replied that there is no independent evidence of Jesus living outside the bible. Now tell me what it is. Or rather do not bother because there is none. The only evidence that might have been independent is that in the books by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus, but all of it is derived from Christian sources, or mistakes messianic Jews for Christians, or is plainly forged. Even Christian scholars accept it because it cannot seriously be denied, but the poor faithful sheep keep coming up with the same false citations. As for the rest of the bible, there is nothing in it that is not called by novelists period detail. All of the events before 900 BC at the earliest are myth, as I have said repeatedly, but you just ignore because your wicked faith will not let your God-given brain believe it.

That is good thought of reason saying Josephus lost his head. One thing, you are consistant in this claiming all the people I bring forth you keep accusing them of being crazy, losing their head, etc. Josephus was a secular historian who was also Jewish. For a Jew omit this is big b/c many Jews did not like Jesus claiming to be the messiah. Even today Jews don’t like Jesus claiming to be the messiah. As far as Eusebius who was borned in 240 AD. He does not compared to people who confirmed my view like Josephus (borned 37 AD), Origen(born 185 AD), Pliny. Josephus was borned 200 years before Eusebius. Mike one found a “So Called Christian who opposes my view. Josephus was not a Christian. He was a secular Jewish historian. So his view is not bias but neutral. You lose on this point.

Josephus was captured by Romans and allowed to stay alive because he wrote an account of the Jewish war meant to discourage others from rebelling. He would have lost his head to speak so nicely about a man who was crucified by the Romans as a rebel because that was not what he was being allowed to live for! He was supposed to discouraged rebels not encourage them. Do you understand? As for the Jews not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, does it not give you pause for thought that the people who lived there with him and knew him, still did not think he was the messiah, but poor human sheep 2000 years later and 10,000 miles away are certain they know he was? That is not using the head God gave you. And Eusebius was the first bishop of the official church in Rome and its historian. He was in charge and could heve written anything he liked into the works of Josephus. I haven’t a clue what you are saying at the end. It is gibberish.

The same goes for Josh McDowell. You can’t counter the fact a person who was once like you, saw and compared the evidence, and saw the Bible was true. Calling him names won’t help. Also, the other people like Tom Penpeno, Cliff, etc. you have nothing to say. Why? B/c you can’t.

You keep saying that I am calling you names but I am using the evidence your provide. If McDowell uses an argument that misses out some of the possibilities just so that it can seem to typically uncritical Christians as if he has won it, then either he is an idiot or the ones he thinks will believe him are. Since he probably makes plenty of money out of the others, you can male up your own mind which is true.

In regards of supporting the Bible’s accuracy, , many of sources are/have been found outside of bible. In regards to the crucifixion the Romans got the method from the Persians and started doing this style of execution in 400 BC. It is right in their history which you obvious have not read. Secondly, we did not feature the wrong man b/c at Jesus’ time, he was very well known throughout the land. Where ever he went people (Jew, Samaritan, Roman, etc) knew who he was. He was it. Do you not think the Pharisees who hated Jesus very much would have made sure they had the right man considering he was ruining their hold on power and made them look bad out in public?

You are the one who does not read. The proof is that you are telling me what I have already told you about crucifixion. I have a long page about it. Try reading it. Nor have you answered any of the points I raised about the things you knew about the burial of Jesus, even though you claim to know them well.

If Jesus was a false prophet than why did the Romans produce his dead body after killing him to show that the Resurrection of Jesus was a fraud? If they had done that, it would have stopped Christianity dead in its tracts. You saying Jesus was a false prophet, it reminds me of what I just read this morning, 2 Cor 5- Read it!

You obviously mean “didn’t”. You are so indoctrinated with your absurd ideas, you think Jesus was a Christian! Jesus was killed by the Romans as a rebel. What you do not know is that he was not a rebel, but the first Christians could not bear the idea that he had been done in and pretended he had not! There was no Christianity at the time and there was nothing to prove by the Romans except that this man could not be the king of the Jews because he was a dead man! Do you get it! He did not say he was God and says so in the bible. It is less than obvious that he claimed to be the messiah, to such an extent in fact that Christians have pretended it was a secret! You know nothing and you are telling me what to believe. Stop reading Christian fiction and start to read some alternative history and perhaps even established history. I have said to you before, and it is getting tedious, that God, taking your belief that he was the author of the bible, says in the Old Testament, in second Isaiah, that He only is God and He only is the saviour. The purpose is, plainly enough, to stop people pretending to be God incarnated, then, you say, He did it Himself! How intelligent is God then? Or how intelligent are you? Someone has fooled you that God came to earth as a man to be worshipped even though God said Himself, no one should believe that anyone other than He, the God in heaven who burns people up on sight, is God. Maybe, since you believe the Devil is a powerful and wicked being, you have been fooled by the Devil. Do you ever consider that? No! It would be to challenge your faith! So the Devil has won, dear boy, and you have had your eternal chips. Since you begin by saying you believe in almighty God, try believing He is almighty, and not an idiot like you. Your citation says that you have an eternal home in the heavens, but no one has ever seen it. Is it on Mars or on the sun? Where is it? You are always telling me to prove evolution. You prove 2 Cor 5:1, since it impresses you so much. You go on to say:

AS for Jesus kingdom, Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. In John 8:23 he said You belong to this world here below, but I am from above… and “In John 14, he said he was going to prepare a place for his disciples.”

Does he mean he is from the eternal home in the sky that no one can see, from Mars, or is he an alien from somewhere else in space? These are fairy tales for children. That is why Christians are always called children. They are encouraged never to grow up and develop the brain they have. It is all Satanic, not Godly, so your place might not be where you expect it to be.

The difference between Jesus and Hornblower is Jesus was NEVER PRESENTED AS Fictional Character.

So, if he had not been presented as a fictional character, he would have been a real caracter then? You get worse. What would you have thought about Hornblower if it was written so long ago, you did not realise it was fiction? How do you know the gospels are not like that? Julius Caesar, on this criterion is definitely real, but you were telling me there is less evidence of Jules than there is of Jesus. You cannot help lying and your lies force you to greater and greater absurdities.

As far as Paul is concerned. That is a fair question: how do I know Paul was false? I suggest you read the letters of Paul like Galatians, etc. If he is false than you will see it when compared to the rest of the Bible. Paul did not write the whole Bible. Start with Galatians. I DON’T THINK PAUL WAS FALSE!!

You don’t think it. You don’t think Jesus is false. What sort of argument is this? I don’t think the moon is made of green cheese, but it is no argument that it is not. I have read Galatians and I have read Acts and the two do not tie in with each other, so which is wrong?

Jesus said before he would return and rule many things had to take place first in Matt 24. In vs 29 it says than Jesus will return. In relation, certain things must take place like they are now like the seasons of the year would become one. The world would have ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CURRENCY which we are obviously happening, and Babylon will be rebuilt which they are doing know. Just so you know, Babylon is in as we know today as Iraq. You can find this in Rev. Read it yourself.

If you know anything about Iraq it is that the Americans have killed myriads of innocent people there, some say, 100,000, some say it is only 25,000, the American puppet government say it is only a few thousand, but the country is also being destroyed by warfare to get rid of one man, Saddam, that the Americans had encouraged for two decades throughout all his murders. And you know what? The Americans are the most Christian nation on earth with 60 million Christians helping to elect a Christian President with a Christian cabinet that prays in public that God will help them to kill innocent people. If that is not Satanic, then I do not know what is. And you know something else? The man they got rid of, Saddam, was the one who was rebuilding the walls of Babylon. But your readings of the bible show you cannot read, or cannot understand what you read. Just tell me where the bible says these things, and I will comment on them, but I am not going to comment out of the blue about your misrepresentations of what it says. Not that there need be any predictions of truth expected from a book of fiction. You have still not explained why your Christ is not a false prophet when his main prophecy was false, and remains false after 2000 years whether you believe it or not.

The Christians did not break the 1st commandment. You obviously have not researched the Bible. The word “trinity” is not in the Bible does not mean the principle is not there. Just like the word “Bible” is not in the Bible. The trinity has been taught not only in the NT but the OT too. For ex. if you read Gen 1:26 it says LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE. It is not my image or our images but OUR IMAGE. That is the only plural singular noun. This is not found in any other BC language. The word in the Hebrew is “Echad” it means “God United”. Some other places the trinity is found one famous one is Matt 28 the Great Commission. If you want the other OT and NT references I will give them.

You are getting desperate again. Neither of the words in Gen 1:26 is what you say it is, “image” or “likeness”, and the reason it is described as “our” is because ancient people believed in gods, not a single god, even if they preferred one particular one. You can see that clearly in the Jewish scriptures once you take off your Christian blinkers. The word “zelem” means a “shadow” more accurately than “image”, and that puts humanity more in its place, but cannot be used for that reason—Christians have a divine love of themselves. How do these passages agree with God being a trinity?—

“Hath not one God created us?”

Malachi 2:10

Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.

Mark 12:32

“It is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

Romans 3:30

“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

Ephesians 4:6

The bible clearly distinguishes God from Jesus Christ in the next two, distinctly a man not a god of any kind in the first:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

1 Timothy 2:5

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

1 Corinthians 8:6

Finally here is the biblical proof that faith is Satanic:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

James 2:19

James is telling you as clear as daylight that belief is insufficient because even the devils believe. Answer that, Christian. As for Matthew, that final passage has obviously been put in by the church to justify itself. Jesus was expecting to bring in the supernatural kingdom of God, heaven on earth—that was his unfulfilled prophecy and what makes him a false prophet—so why would he have been telling people to carry on making disciples, and even if he did, why should any disciples who knew their Jewish scriptures do it contrary to the plain wish of God, in the book that Jews, including Jesus thought was the word and even the unbreakable law of God? The church added that passage when it was obvious that there would be no kingdom of God to keep itself going. With regard to the word “bible” you are simply lying or ignorant as ever. “Bible” is a Greek word so could not appear in the Hebrew of the Jewish scriptures, but it appears often in the New Testament in its Greek forms of “biblos” and “biblion”, both meaning “book” which is all that bible means. Why don’t you try reading something else besides the bible and then you might start to learn something instead of spouting crap.

Jesus hung out with the low lifes but did not practiced what they did like prostitution, stealing, etc. Yes Christians hang out and help with people who are considered forgotten, not attractive, doing the wrong things. We love the sinner not the sin. Have you heard of The Salvation Army with William Booth who helped the poor in the late 1800s. Also, World Vision, Mercy Ships, CARE, Habit for Humanity. All these organisations help the poor. Provide relief for the homeless. Runs hospitals for people with aids. Build shelter for the poor. One specific example is in India they have the cast system. The Dalets. They are the lowest of the low. Even an ant has more rights than them. They are not allowed to have much of a life in India. The Christians are helping these people by providing an education, food, encouraging them that they are worth something. What is your organisation doing?

Well, you say he did none of these things but you people are always spouting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that applies here. The New Testament simply does not say whether Jesus practised any of these things, and it cannot even if it were true because it is trying to make out that Jesus is perfectly good, even though Jesus denies it himself: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” Matthew 19:17. Yes, there are some good Christians who try to be helpful to the poor, but there are millions of wicked Christians who care only for themselves, and least of all do they care about the people of the countries that the bible was set in. President Bush, the great US Christian leader, openly admits he cares only for Americans (and even that is a lie, for there are many Americans he could not care less about). It is everybody’s problem that Christianity is full of hypocrites, but when do you hear a Christian criticising their wicked co-religionists. It is rare indeed, and even when it happens it is so muted no one can hear it anyway. My organisation is openly criticizing Christian hypocrisy instead of defending it. You speak of helping Indians, but you want to start with your own sins. I have cited the metaphor of the mote and the beam to you many times, but you just ignore it. It means, for your information, that it is hypocritical to try to solve the problems of others before you have solved your own. Christians are so utterly hypocritical, that it is not worth making exceptions, they are so few.

How do you know that Jesus did not say the words found in the Bible? Were you there back in 30 AD? The Bible has been around a lot longer than you ever existed. Like I told you, you stating the words of Jesus are not true, the Bible is false other groups have already made these claims. Like you their so called information does not compare to the information that supports my position.

What is more to the point, and is the point that you do not get, is how do you know they were said by him, and that he was who the bible says he was? You are the one who believes these fairy tales, you ought to have compelling answers, but your only answer is selfishness. You think it will save you. I refer you back to what James, the brother of the Lord, Christians tell me, said. If he did not know then who on earth could? I am telling you that the attitude of most Christians today is so obnoxious and so different from the attitude portrayed in the gospels, that they would be among the critics of Jesus baying for his life, if he arose again today. Indeed, the US attitude to the Arabs is precisely the same as the attitude of the Romans to the semites who lived in Palestine then, called Jews. The modern Jews are the allies of the modern Romans, and the modern rebels are being treated like sub humans because they object to it. Everyone understand what is motivating these people to terror except the modern Romans and their Christian and Jewish supporters. It is the injustice of having you own country and / or its assets stolen by a powerful neighbour by force. Why don’t you want to solve this injustice, loving one?

The groups like the Quakers(Friends of Society), Jehovah Witnesses, Christadelphians all claim to be Christian but their core beliefs do not match what the original Christians in Jesus’ time believed and what the Bible says. None of these groups believe in a literal hell, Most importantly, none of these groups believe Jesus is God. You must realise that back then the Christians were called Christians b/c they worshipped Jesus not Ceasar as the Romans demanded. Christians are people who worships Christ. All these groups did not exist until the 1800s. All they say is the Christian faith which had been around for centuries before was wrong. Why? B/c they said so? The Bible warns many times of false prophets, believers in the NT many times. Jesus said Matt 7:15-(Read it yourself)

You ignorance is profound. When will you get it into your head that there were no “Christians” when Christ was alive. Christianity was invented afterwards. Even Christians know that, but you fundamentalists do not get it, or more likely will not admit it because it suits your silly dogmas, in fact, being one of them. If the followers of Christ were Christians, why are Christians today not Jews? Christ was a Jew! I have explained here why even Jesus did not believe he was God, and said so. If he did not believe it himself, then the Christians who deny it are better disciples of Christ than you cracked pots are. You believe what you like and call it Christianity. I have said before that Jesus was admaant that you cannot be rich and Christian, so how is Bush, the leader of the US Christian nation, a Christian? Jesus said you had to be poor in spirit to get to the kingdom of heaven. You seem to think he meant you could be rich and just feel sorry for the poor, and all modern American Christians think it because all of them are rich by international standards. That is why none of them are Christians. Listen, You are all of you constantly lying about what the Romans did to Christians, but all of US Christians salute the US flag and have them standing in the corners of classrooms. That is idolatry but is no more than the Romans wanted from their Christian subjects. Emperor worship, as you called it, meant owing a loyalty to the Roman state. Christians did not, and only a hundred years or so after Christianity took over, Rome collapsed. Roman magistrates often leaned over backwards to stop people martyring themselves, and for just the same reason that the Moslem martyrs are doing it today, they thought they would go straight to heaven. Roman judges pleaded, “Just burn a little incense”, but these fanatics would not. Yet the church was taking on board every pagan festival and practice it could to add to its popularity. Finally, since you are talking about false prophets, you have not answered why Jesus is not one, since his prophecy remains false after 2000 years.

So just b/c someone says they are a Christian, you must test them. As for USA and UK going into Iraq. Have you talked to the Iraq people here? I have. They are glad the US and UK went in. Sadam was killing people left and right by starving them. Over 60% of his country was on World Relief. Over 200,000 Kurds Sadam killed b/c Arabs hate Kurds. More people were being killed before the US went in a day compared to the US in Iraq now. Remember, the US while in Iraq are being shot at. If the Iraq are so-called Innocent people than why is there constant suicide bombers killing themselves? Why US andUK soldiers being forced to fire? Why are so many people fleeing or were fleeing countries like Iraq? The media is so bias sometimes. They only want you see about the US and UK forces shooting. Do you much footage about soldiers being shot at? Attacked? Think about it!

In case you had not noticed, Iraqis who were in the US were not being bombed by stratocruisers dropping 10,000 lb bombs from ten miles high. Most sensitive people thought that Saddam was a monster from the beginning of his rule, but he was put in place and kept there by Americans like the odious Christian, Donald Rumsfeld, even though he was killing innocent people. Moreover, is it a new principle of Christianity that you can kill innocent people by the myriad as long as you get rid of one man you have decided after all you do not like? You lot are creepy. It is a moot point whether Saddam killed as many people as the coalition. The coalition will not admit who they have killed or how many. That is a form of lying called omission that Christians are excellent at, because they do not think it is lying at all. Saddam certainly did not cause as much destruction. But the point is that the US put him there and caused a lot of bother, then had to cause more bother to get rid of him, and having done so, who remains in charge of Iraqi oil. Bush and his pals in the US cabinet, Christians every one! Ha! But it is no joke on the innocents who have died for the hypocritical Christians plotting in the Pentagon and the White House, and now in Downing Street. Rumsfeld was giving Saddam the poisons to kill people like the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, so what does that make him? and where will God send him? which ought to be his main worry, but is not because he knows quite well that it is all baloney—a performance put on for the cowboys, and rednecks. You are one of them. Just look at this that you wrote just now:

“Remember, the US while in Iraq are being shot at. If the Iraq are so-called Innocent people than why is there constant suicide bombers killing themselves? Why US and UK soldiers being forced to fire? Why are so many people fleeing or were fleeing countries like Iraq? The media is so bias sometimes. They only want you see about the US and UK forces shooting. Do you much footage about soldiers being shot at? Attacked? Think about it!”

Now, as usual, I have thought about it, but you, with your Christian principles of love and turning the other cheek, just do not understand words and deeds. Only half a century ago, we fought a major world war to stop people from taking over other people’s countries by force, but now the Christians of the US are willingly doing it themselves. That is gross hypocrisy. These US soldiers were occupying another land that was not their own by force of arms. So were the Romans when Jesus was killed by them as a rebel. You refuse to distinguish between innocence and guilt, but you bleat on constantly that the Romans killed an innocent man, supposed to have been your god. In case you had not noticed, people do not like to stand around to be killed. they flee. But they also get angry and determine to get revenge. That then becomes the war on terror, and the fascist Christians in charge start to bring in laws that were not needed for centuries by open governments, and it is the result of their hypocritical and monstrous policies world wide. We find that people are tortured and held in prison indefinitely without trial. These things have not been done in civilised countries since the Christians brought in the inquisition. Christianity is monstrous and you are monstrous for supporting it against the vast injustices that it is causing in the world. Does this mean anything to you, Christian, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven... For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again" Luke 6:37? So you had all better worry about your fate after death. The media are run by Christians, or had you not noticed? They spread the message they want you rednecks to get. Sure enough, you get it. Hate!

So you are saying people come up with a view/theory and believe it as true. Than they get around to it, they test it, and conclude if it is true? False! People test their theories/ view/etc so if it is true. What did they teach you at your so called university? Think about it, if you are testing something. Your test does not disprove it is wrong, than what has it done? Ans. PROVED IT as correct

You are talking gibberish as is quite common. You obviously went to no university unless it is what we call the baby school. The fact remains that nothing can be scientific unless it can be disproved. Christianity can not be disproved because no Christians will accept any criterion that will allow it to be disproved. That is the point. Science has to have criteria that disprove this or that theorem, and the tests scientists do on their hypotheses have to have a negative as well as a positive outcome. So a scientific test has to be one that allows failure. Christianity is not in that category, so it is a myth, a belief, anything you like, but it is not scientific because Christians will not allow it to be falsified. The reason is plain enough. the evidence against it is immense. None of it therefore can be allowed.

Mike you are a joke, I hate to say that. But your idea of science is bizarre and many NON-CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE WITH MY VIEW. I don’t think you creditability as a scientist, theologian, etc. are very good.

You are a creationist and are telling me what science is. Get real, buddy.

If you are so sure of evolution being scientific and creation can not stand to the scientific test than why are not going after Dr. Dino? You make all these accusations that Christianity is false and can’t withstand any type of test. Now you are saying his money is safe which means you can’t support your claim, you have no proof, and you are down out liar which you accuse me of being. Mike, mike, you just shot yourself in the foot! I bet it hurts!

I do not suppose a shot in the head hurts at all, does it? I suggest you reread what I said about offers of money for proof. These Christian frauds know their money is safe because science does not prove anything, it can only disprove them. Apply the same criterion to Christianity. What do you admit will disprove Christianity for you? Can Christianity be disporoved by anything?

Mike like I said before, regardless of the people I bring forth of what they have found, said, think all you say they are crazy, false, etc. I could bring you in person 10 people who would support the Bible and you still would not be satisfied. You remind me of the time Jesus talked to the Pharisees in Matt 12:38-. Read it yourself.

Your own book said Jesus appeared to 500 people all at once. Now, if he can do that after he was pronounced dead, why cannot he appear to the whole world? After all, he is God, you say. There is not the least reason I should accept what your ten people should say about the bible and Jesus unless they have a way he can be disproved. There are supposed to be a billion Christians in the world, and they all believe what they have been told. I do not believe anything that any Christian will tell me because I have satisfied myself, by a lot of study, that Christians are liars and hypocrites. They are not the solution to the problems of the world, they are the cause of them, along with their fellow patriarchal religions, Judaism and Islam. The sooner people realise it, the sooner we shall have some peace.

I am going to pray for you. JESUS LOVES YOU!!! You are so full of bitterness and anger.

Curious that. Christendom is the source of wickedness and cruelty of an enormity that cannot be imagined, yet you tell me that Jesus loves me. If to accept it meant I would be as monstrous as Christians have been in the last few thousand years, he can save his love for his friends. Christian love is proved to be the opposite of the meaning of the word love. You think about it when you have read some history.

When I go to speaker’s corner I will tell you mike you can meet me and we can an personal dialogue about the Bible being true.

I thought this was a personal dialogue.

Ps When you get some real evidence please contact me.

It will be a relief if you do not contact me, but I shall write a page about evolution and Christian beliefs, soon. I do not suppose you will read it, because it might pollute your brain cell. If you decide to plague me any more, please cite what you are talking about, in the customary way. Email software does it automatically, so I do not know why you do not use it, except that it forces you to answer what I actually say, and not the mysteries that you put up instead.

Then you sent me another email.

Just b/c Jesus did not write something does mean he is not true. How do you know Caesar wrote them. How do you know he did not ask a person to write down what he told them to write? THe Gospels were written by Christians. You are correct and we agree on this point. Congrads!

They were written by Christians in the first century AD, 2000 years ago almost, by people, as I said, who wanted to get the myths of Christianity believed. There are few Christian scholars who will deny this, but you know better than them, even though you have less understanding than the original disciples, men who were famously incomprehending, even in the Christian book. I made the point that Jesus wrote no books merely to highlight your lack of comprehension of what evidence is, since you claim there is less of it for Caesar than for Jesus. You can, and do, make it up as you go along, because that is the Christian norm—lie your head off! And when someone challenges you, demand proof. Your dishonest methods could only be approved by the evil spirit, if they are approved by any god. No good God could approve of utter lying being used to uphold him, and any god that needs to be upheld by liars cannot be good.

I have told you sources that wrote about JEsus outside of the Bible. You refuse to believe it.

You have not told me anything. The supposed sources outside the bible, I have told you, are not independent of the Christians. You are the one who refuses to believe historical truth, and that is explained by Christians being liars.

Accusations! Accusations! Christians being liars. I think you should look in the evolution camp. mike is that you have to offer this playground attitude, name calling! for a man of science I can see your brand. Child’s play!

Well, if a group of people can be demonstrated to be perpetual liars then they are liars. Do you get it? It is not name calling because the description is true. The very fact that you do not get it shows you do not understand what truth is. You, at least, are a liar then, but your attitude and method of argumentation is typical of your type.

Could you stand up to a real debate if it happened? You remind me of the Muslims downtown. They ask us questios, we bring forth the evidence and all they do is get emotional and get upset. all they do is yell at us and shouting God is Great(in Arabic). Maybe you should join them!

So this is not a real debate, then. If you think I am like a Moslem then it is further evidence of your incomprehension. You have not brought forth anything in this debate that is irrefutable, except, I seem to remember, one or two bits of science about evolution, accepted by scientists as problems not yet solved. You demand proof of the scientific hypothesis of evolution, but have none for your own prefered fancy. You cannot argue at all, but no doubt you can shout louder than me. And finally you seem to think that God is not great! Do you know what you do think?

AS for American being filled with 60 million Christians. AMerica is only 10% born-again Christians so that = 30 million. Stop inflating your stats!

Again you are talking about passages in my earlier replies without the courtesy of citing what you are talking about as I asked you and as usual. Frankly, I do not think you can understand anything, and once again you prove it in your replies which ignore almost everything I said.

I understated the figures. For you, only born-again Christians are Christians, it seems. It shows how bigoted you are.

In regards to Jesus being God you obviously don’t know the Bible. You just scissor cut the parts you want. Jesus did claim to be God. Mark 2 he claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath. According to the Bible God was Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus did not say Lords but Lord.

Well Christians know all about picking the bits of the bible they want. Since it is all mythology, it scarcely matters, but you will not even use your own myths consistently. I stated to you the instance in the bible when Jesus clearly denies he is God, and you offer me a lot of inaccurate twaddle in answer. Throughout the synoptic gospels Jesus speaks of “the son of Man”, and Christians say he means himself. In the Aramaic language he spoke, “son of man” just means man. If it was meant to refer to himself, he was being modest, openly denying he was a god because the son of a man is a man! In your example in Mark 2:28, Jesus is saying that people, mankind, men, human beings, ordinary folk are Lord of the Sabbath. It is a day meant for them. Get it, ignorant one? He is not saying he is God. He is saying God made the sabbath for men.

John 8:58. Before Abraham was born I AM. This is a special greek phrase which is EGo Eimi. this means YHWH = eternally existed. In relation, every time Jesus said he was like “I am the Bread of LIfe” “I am the Good Shepherd” (John 10) “I am the Truth, the Life, and the Way” (John 14). All these “I am” = the same as in John 8:58. Also, Jesus received worshipped from many people and never once rejected like John 9.

This is obvious Christian baloney, and was no doubt known to be baloney when it was written. You have to assume that when Jesus is using a straightforward self-identity “I am” he really means God. Pathetic! If it were true, it would make the Greek utterly ungrammatical because it would lack a verb, making Jesus sound like a moron— “God bread of life, uh”, “God good shepherd, uh”! You dopes will believe anything. What you ought to know is that John’s was the last of the gospels to be written and it is already deifying Jesus. The synoptics do not. It is why most modern Christians prefer John’s gospel which they consider the most “spiritual”! They mean it suits Christianity best. As for men receiving worship, so did the emperors of Rome and that was considered wrong for Christians because God had proscribed men from being worshipped as God. I have told you that several times but you ignore it. If Jesus had done that, then he was a blasphemer according to Jewish custom which is considered to be God's word in the bible by Jews and Christians alike.

John 10:30. My Father and I are one. it is not one purpose but the greek word means the same. If you continue reading you will see the Jews were going to stone him b/c in the Jewish law it was blasphamy for a person to claim to be God. Jesus did also in John 5:16-18.

Quite so. God had said no man should make the claim. So why do you believe this person was? Have you rejected the Old Testamant? Jesus himself said not one jot and tittle of the law would pass away, but you Christians ignore everything in the bible you find inconvenient, from both Old and New Testaments, but will stick to bigotry like hating homosexuals.

the quote you had as it says there is One God and one mediiator Jesus Christ. The Bible constantly supports the position of ONE GOD. BUt the Bible clearly supports a triune God. Jesus was a man fully man and fully God. That is why he was called the Immanuel = God with us or is with us(matt 1:23). Jesus denied his deity of using it(Phil 2). Not only did he claim to be God but backed it up by doing miracles.

I gave you a lot of examples from the bible, and not one of them mentions a triune god. You want your cake and eat it always. If God is one then God is singular, even if he is triune, but when it suits you God is three gods and appears in the plural. The whole concept is pagan, and it is taken into Christianity because they had to make Jesus into God without appearing to be polytheistic. Since God already acted in the scriptures as a holy spirit, they took the chance to merge the three. You already admitted that the bible nowhere says that God is a trinity or even is triune, but Christians believe it. As for God appearing as a man, it is so full of holes he really appeared as a sieve. The main one is that he forbade any man from pretending to be God, and then went and did it himself, you lot say. And if Jesus was God all along then he could not have been fully man, now could he? How could he have been fully a man and done miracles? Men cannot do them. How can he have been fully a man and suffered like a man with no hope of escape from the pain, when he was a god and as a god knew all the time it was just an act to be a man. For God to suffer like a man, he has to be a man, he cannot remain a God at all. But you will believe the impossible, because that is what you are taught to do every day before breakfast. The Devil can do miracles too, we are told. You are barmy!

Each personage of the trinity is God, equal. Acts 5: look and see what Peter calls the Holy Spirit.

He calls it the Holy Spirit, meaning the spirit of holiness that they were supposed to have. Where does it say the three parts are equal, then?

I don’t know what Bible you are reading but Gen 1:26 is dead accurate what I quoted. “Let us make man in our image”

I thought you were explaining to me the fine details of biblical translation, not just pointing out what the translaters have put into your own bible. Your explanation is false, but even if it were right, it says nothing about a trinity but simply shows that god is not singular. In context, it is better explained by the polytheistic beliefs of the Israelites, just like the beliefs of all their neigbours, but even Christians apologists accept that it has nothing to do with the invention called by Christians the Trinity, for they explain it as a plural of majesty. It just means that he is the god of gods, so to speak. Incidentally, why does a fundamentalist, like you have to believe Catholic inventions like the Trinity, anyway? You are not even consistent in your rejection of the Christinities you do reject.

The reason why the followers of Jesus are not called Jews is like I told you. the followers of JEsus were called Christians starting in Acts b/c they worshipped Christ. In relations, the Jews were called the Jews due to nationality (by birth). Jesus completed what the whole Bible told of a Messiah coming from the Jews so all the nations would be blessed and could receive salvation. Read Acts. Jesus himself said in Matt 28(the Great commission) “Go and make disciples of all nations baptising them in the name of the FAther, Son, and Holy Ghost”. THe Bible makes this completely clear from beginning to end.

We are going round in circles again because you will not read, but believe unquestioningly a load of tripe like an automaton. The supposed commission is obviously a late addition for reasons I have explained before. Answer the reasons I gave, if you want to continue to believe it. You cannot. That is why you ignore most of what I say. “Christian” only appears in the bible around thirty years after Christ had died, and the general evidence suggests it was used first shortly before at Antioch to distinguish believers in Jesus as messiah from Jews who did not believe he was messiah. And, if you want to think of messiahs of all nations you first have to dispose of Cyrus the Persian who was the messiah of the Jews according to the Old Testament, an emperor of a vast empire, and a Zoroastrian, a religion with a saviour called the saoshyant long before Judaism had been thought of. Again, how do you know you have the right messiah, or any messiah at all, since the Devil can wear sheep’s clothing, can he not?

The bottom line is Mike your theology is like your science. Not very good. You think your science is solid like a rock but it is more like sand. Give you a break? Give me one!

My theology is nothing like my science. Theology is based on a scam and aims to perpetuate it by trying to find excuses for the vast number of incongruities and the immense incoherence of Christianity. Unlike Christian theologians I am not a crook, and science does not seek to perpetuate lies but to get to the truth by testing propositions. You understand neither.

You show how weak your position is by misquoting the Bible to try and support your Bible. You are the same when it comes to Science by making outrages accusations towards millions of Christians whom you have NEVER Meet. calling people liars, etc. You say anything of science to support Creation is not science or the people are liars. Prime example the people I quoted from Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Princeton you said they were lunatics and so were their institutions. Man, what an accusations against some of the most prestigious public universities in the World. The list goes on.

You are lying yourself blue in this paragraph alone. You make a series of accusations against me with not a single example to back yourself up. You are an incorrigible liar because when I have demonstarted you were wrong you ignore what I say, and even repeat it later on without saying why I was wrong. You say I have made accusations against prestigious institutions, but do not say what accusations I have made or where I have said it. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of presigious institutions that have vast departments of theology because billionaire Christians give them the money for theological “research” and they feel unable to turn away such riches. But Christ extolled the virtue of poverty, and its necessity to enter heaven. Square that circle! So I actually do think there are plenty of Christian crooks in prestigious institutions. It does not necessarily make the institution crooked, just the Christians in it. Finally I repeat, yet again, that science is not a matter of authority, so it is immaterial that you can scratch together a band of supposed scientists who deny a major aspect of science. The proof is immense, so immense that there is no point in my selecting from it on these pages. There are plenty of proper books on evolution you can read once you have cast aside the tripe you do read.

LIke I told you when you keep making your habit of calling people names, etc. No adults keeps doing that. That is why I say Grow up.

Well, you have shown repeatedly that you cannot understand what evidence is, so I give up on this. Calling names is saying “yah! boo!”. Describing someone is not calling names. I describe you and Christians in general as liars for a good reason. They lie. And you prove it.

Your so-call evidence you use that I bring forth you twist. like when I brought up Jesus dying on the cross. I said there was 4 conclusions (being a liar, lunatic, legend, Lord). You completely twisted and said I was denying the Bible. No I was bring forth the reasonable conclusions of what could happen after that. So Mike, I going to say Chow! I have much to do. I am going to AFrica to help orphan kids. This debate between us 2 has been real! When I do come to speaker’s corner I will let you know and we can have another debate in person. There will be no hidding behind a name, or computer. Will you be ready? I am! For the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit… (Heb 4:12), Read also II Tim 3:16)

You prove again what I have said. You simply do not get it. I twist nothing, I give you counter arguments to your pathetic ones. I show that you are being dishonest in not offering all the possibilities, and I offer alternatives, but for you it is twisting because you cannot bear to find yourself wrong. It is a shame, but you people are dangerous, and always have been. I have pages of history that cannot be denied, though you will! Looking after orphans in Africa is noble, but you would be a better Christian if you campaigned here to stop your fellow Christians from selling weapons they use to make orphans to these people’s leaders, often Christians themselves, and to stop your fellow Christians from selling tobacco and other poisons to them, and destroying their economies by dumping our unwanted goods, ruining their industries. You just do not get any of it, but you will be teaching these orphans Christian exorcism and witchcraft.

If you every do decide to take Dr. Dino’s challenge tell me. I would like to know. You say evolution can be proven and creation cant. Than what do you have to lose?

You lie to the end. I have never said that evolution can be proven. I said science can prove nothing, which is why your money is safe. I suggest you try to learn how to be honest before you go to teach anyone, especially innocent kids.

I am praying for you, mate. Jesus loves you! For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotton Son that whosever believes in him shall not perish but everylasting life. (John 3:16)

Would it mean I had to live forever with you lying at me all the time?

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