Brooks,
I answered you in red. I hope it comes out red on your system. If not, I
will be glad to reformat it so you can read it more easily.
Matt,
Answers to various questions from various e-mails:
>>I am frustrated that you will not capitulate on the issue of the
purpose of your website, but I am not indignant.
I think you are angry and indignant because I question and ridicule your
belief system. You are still sidestepping here. Because you believe that
the only purpose of Christianity is to make money for people who are
manipulating others who are foolish enough to believe them, your
presentation on your website is full of malice. If you feel this way, then
go ahead and attack those people (the ones making a living in
Christianity). This is not what you claim to be doing with your site as it
currently stands though. You are supposedly trying to help those who have
been duped.
I think that perhaps you have already found that those who you believe have
been duped are not simply being robbed. While they do give money to their
church, they are also free to give nothing. They engage in moral activities
that are hard to dispute as a waste of time. They don't suffer guilt as you
say, because they believe in grace. They are happy. They try to love others
as they love themselves. This hardly sounds like the description of someone
who is in great need of your help as you put it.
You will also find that although there are those living in the lap of
luxury because their questionable use of the Christian faith, they are not
in the majority. Those who make a living as a minister are often among the
finest examples of good morality. They visit those who are sick, help the
homeless, educate children in impoverished countries, provide medical
services for those who cannot afford them and encourage others to do
likewise. Many of them do all of these things without so much as owning a
home or car of their own.
>>On the issue of you deserving eternal torture, what makes you so special?
You have studied Christianity and know the view that God presents. You know
that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I think you no
more or less deserving of Hell than anyone else.
You believe that anyone who does not share your opinion about Christianity
deserves eternal torture. You believe that I deserve eternal torture for
not sharing your opinion about Christianity. I think your belief is sick
and dangerous. The way that you have worded this suggests that I believe
that you should be tortured if you do not believe in Christianity. I have
never said this. I believe in God. This God has stated that anyone who
knows the truth about Him and does not seek salvation has chosen eternal
suffering. To the Christian, it is not a matter of what you deserve from
the perspective of another human being. Christians believe that our very
existence is subject to God's choosing.
Your denial of the truth of Christian beliefs does not then make the
Christian who holds them evil, because of what he or she thinks God will do
to you when your mortal life is over.
If I try to see this from your point of view, I see Christians as mistaken
about the nature of their existence. Since their fictitious god can do
nothing to harm me, I have no need to take offense at the eternal
consequences they say will come my way. I can simply say that I disagree
with their assessment of reality. They are deluded.
>> You know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
No, I don't "know" this. I don't believe in "God," remember? Instead, I
view this idea as a brainwashing technique-the induction of guilt to make
people obedient and dependant. I know that you don't accept it as true.
Your argument has been that I believe that you deserve to be tortured. I
have pointed out that it is not about what I believe and it is not about
you specifically.
This whole idea of "the induction of guilt to make people obedient" is once
again suggestive of an organized evil empire sucking the life and financial
resources out of its victims. The facts don't support that view. I am not
saying that it has not happened under the guise of Christianity, but it is
not the norm.
>>Nowhere did I say that I believe that people deserve to be tortured for
what they believe.
Nonsense. See above. My words above indicate otherwise. If you deny that my
God exists, then perhaps you feel justified in ascribing this view to me.
But, in the absence of God, I would not hold the belief, so your moral
impunity in the presence of my belief is not fair or accepted by me.
>>Beyond our difference, I still value you and respect the position you
have
taken.
False. You believe that I am deceptive, that I am a liar, that I have no
reason to care for others, and that I deserve eternal torture. I respect
your right to hold no belief in God. I value you as a fellow human being.
You deserve to be loved. As our discussion has gone on, I have found it
very difficult to believe that you could act as you do and feel love toward
Christians. I have tried over and over to show why this is so. You have not
really denied what I am saying. You only point to the fact that you have
found Christianity to be false and wouldn't anyone who has found
Christianity to be false want to tell others?
You have not simply found Christianity to be false. You now seem to believe
that it is evil; a blight on humanity. You despise it. Christianity as an
institution is a very bad thing. It corrupts and brainwashes people for the
financial gain of those who are fully aware of the scam they are
perpetrating on others. Is this not a correct depiction of your position?
Why do you not point your attack in the direction of those committing the
crime? Or, why not reach out to others who have been duped with love and
compassion?
>>What I am saying is that your approach is
contradictory to one of helping poor lost souls.
[snip]
>>You have claimed that
you are trying to help Christians be saved from "untold guilt and
suffering". Such a view would involve love and compassion toward these poor
lost people. I have not found either of these on your site.
Your opinion on this matter has been duly noted. Thank you. You only wish
to note my opinion? Since you are trying to reach Christians for the
purpose of saving their lives, and I am a Christian, doesn't it bother you
that your site is having the opposite effect on me? Don't you wonder how
you can do a more effective job of reaching your audience?
>> You would never have heard from me if you had made a statement similar
to
this on your site: "Through my study of Christianity, I have found it to be
false and damaging to both individuals and humanity as a whole. It is my
intent to challenge Christian beliefs and offer an alternative way of life
that is beneficial to the individual and the rest of humanity."
I think that helping people to see through falsehoods can be "beneficial to
the individual and the rest of humanity." Don't you agree? Yes! Your
approach is just totally disrespectful. There's just no nice way to say
that.
>>You would focus on why the atheistic life provides the answers to life's
questions
and not why the Christian life is absurd.
Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or
gods. That is all. The Christian believes that there is an order to things.
I suspect that you do too. There are issues such as morality. You did not
simply abandon Christianity. You have a new view of your existence. I
certainly hope that it goes beyond the simple understanding that there is
no God.
>>It stands to reason that the superiority of the atheistic lifestyle would
win the day on its own merits.
I believe that accepting truth and disbelieving falsehoods is healthy.
Don't you agree? Yes. However, in the absence of God, there are still
questions to be answered about the nature of things. Removing God, does not
remove the questions. You believe something and you revere it to be better
than Christianity. You may even say that your personal belief is not
important to the discussion. I don't know that you feel that way or that it
is actually the case. You may say that all atheists view each other as
being equal in their right to live as they see morally correct and nobody
should be able to mandate otherwise. These are the types of belief
statements I am referring to.
Please note that there is no such thing as an "atheistic lifestyle."
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. If you disagree and care to
define such a thing as an "atheistic lifestyle," feel free to do so.
>>Even the Christian whose beliefs are successfully challenged has nothing
to turn to when you are
done with them. You haven't offered anything better, just the knowledge
that what they are believing is foolishness.
Is accepting the truth better than devoting your life to a falsehood? Yes
or no? Yes, but the refutation of Christianity is not the end of the search
for truth.
>>Proving my beliefs absurd is in no way indicative of somebody who cares
about me.
Why? Is it healthier and more beneficial for a person to believe in
absurdities or to not to believe in absurdities? If I thought your beliefs
were absurd and I demonstrated to you such a thing, why would this action
be "in no way indicative of somebody who cares about me"?
>>It is clear to me that the only thing you want with me is to use me in
your
campaign.
You asked me I would bother engaging in a discussion with you if I was
convinced that you would not change your mind, and I told you that such a
discussion would (at least) demonstrate to others that your beliefs are
absurd. So I am glad this point is clear to you, since I told you what it
was, directly, in response to your question. If your only goal is to prove
to others that my beliefs are absurd, have you not written me off as a
casualty of your war? Am I one of the members of the evil empire that you
must dismantle? Are you willing to treat me with the same disrespect and
hatred that you hold for my beliefs and those others who are just using
people? Aren't I just the victim here? Aren't you just kicking me while I'm
already down?
The fact of the matter is that you have spent a great of time hurling
criticisms and questions at me, and I have taken the time to reply to you.
Now that I would like to query you on a few subjects, you refuse, saying it
would not benefit either one of us. But on the contrary, your answers would
elegantly demonstrate the reasons for my site, and would actually serve to
answer all of YOUR questions. Maybe that is why you don't want to discuss
Christianity, because you really don't want your "questions" answered. My
reluctance is entirely related to the value of the discussion to you and my
dislike for the way you are "reaching out" to Christians. You have all of
the information you need to make a decision about Christianity and you have
made it. Why would I want to contribute to a website that I think is more
about bashing Christians than anything else? Should I feel confident that
my words would be of use to Christians visiting your site? The context of
your site reduces the likelihood that my words would benefit anyone very
much.
It seems that your point here is not to ask valid questions, to offer
helpful advice or to honestly assist me in making my site more useful to
others, but to attack what I say, and to attack my character. It seems that
you are just being cynical and disingenuous. If you were truly interested
in understanding the reasons for my site, you would agree to discuss
Christianity, which, after all, is the subject of my site. With most people
who are acting in a trustworthy manner, a straight-forward question is
simply met with a straight-forward answer. Yet, you persist in suggesting
that if I would only debate you, I would see how much you care by how
effectively you can show that the Christian faith is absurd. I see a major
disconnect here. I am questioning your honesty, perhaps to yourself more
than anyone else, in the presentation of and interaction on your website.
>>I have given some thought to the question that I submitted to you (the
one about moral absolutes). Ignore that question. The issue remains only
your stated intent for your website. Let's not start something that will
require endless emails with a known outcome that will please neither of us.
I would be happy to discuss morality with you, if you change your mind.
There is one thing I must ask you now though. You stated in your last
e-mail that I have no reason to be care about others. I can't let that
statement go, as it is just too obnoxious. My response to that is to ask
YOU a question: If you discovered there was no "God," would YOU then have
no reason to "care about others"? We have already covered this ground. Just
look at the time and energy we have put into our conversation. If you were
unsuccessful in a debate with someone like me. If they persisted in their
beliefs. What then? Would you despise them as part of the evil Christian
machine that must be dismantled?
I have been fairly assertive in this exchange. Once again, I wish to state
that these words are not said in anger. I have made assumptions about your
statements and therefore, responded passsionately at times. I feel fairly
certain about the assumptions, but if I am out in left field regarding
anything I have stated about what you believe, please correct me and accept
my apology in advance.
Brooks
Matt
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <XXXXXX>
Received: from rly-yh02.mx.aol.com (rly-yh02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.34]) by air-yh02.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILINYH23-0107143204; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:32:04 -0500
Received: from blank.com([000.000.000]) by rly-yh02.mx.aol.com (v83.18) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYH26-0107143126; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:31:26 -0500
Subject: Oops, missed a key word. Read this one.
To: Tekministry@aol.com
From: XXXXXX
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:31:24 -0600
Message-ID: <OF38C1A49E.E9685B29-ON86256B3A.0050458E@>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on (Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at
01/07/2002 01:31:26 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable