Chr

responses, page 9

Subj: Brooks
Date: 10/23/2001 11:04:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

If Christianity, along with all other religions, is false, you have a lot of explaining to do. What happens after death? Why are we here? How did we get here? Whats the purpose of life? Explain these answers to me not including your personal opinion.

Thank You,

Brian

YYYYYY@YYY.com

Subj: Re: Brooks
Date: 10/24/2001 12:31:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

>>What happens after death?

We decompose.

>>Why are we here?

Because our parents engaged in sexual intercourse.

>>How did we get here?

See above.

>>Whats the purpose of life?

That depends on the person.

Cheers,

Brooks

Subj: Re: Brooks
Date: 10/24/2001 10:57:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

Those are absolutely horrible responses. I like the sarcasm though. Seems to me that you are running from the answers, you dont want to find them out because there is a chance you are wrong. All I am asking you is what are your thoughts on an afterlife and on creation. Simple questions man. If you are going to throw out ALL religious beliefs, and you know that they are absolutely not true, you must know the answers then right? You must know ALL the answers if you are going to make the blanket statement that ALL religions and their answers are wrong. So, I'll ask again, what happens after we die? Not to our bodies, but to our souls. And, since science has proven the earth has not always been here, we know that mankind has not always been here. So, what are the human origins? Its fine to have an opinion about it, but if you are going to state your opinion, please back it up with some facts or evidence of why you believe this way.

Have a nice day,

Brian

Subj: question and answers
Date: 10/24/2001 11:20:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

>>Seems to me that you are running from the answers, you dont want to find them out because there is a chance you are wrong.

I am answering you as honestly as I can.

>>You must know ALL the answers if you are going to make the blanket statement that ALL religions and their answers are wrong.

I lack belief in supernatural religious claims. This does not require or imply omniscience.

>>So, I'll ask again, what happens after we die?

And I will respond again: We decompose.

>>Not to our bodies, but to our souls.

What is a soul? Please back up your answer with facts, not just your opinion.

>>And, since science has proven the earth has not always been here, we know that mankind has not always been here. So, what are the human origins?

Humans came from similar animals that existed before them, according to the fossil and genetic record.

Cheers,

Brooks

Subj: Re: question and answers
Date: 10/24/2001 11:27:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

show me the fossil and genetic record. so you believe in evolution then? do you know for a fact that the beliefs of Christianity are wrong? It seems to me that you present it as fact that Christianity is wrong.

-Brian

Subj: Re: question
Date: 10/24/2001 11:21:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

You seemed to have missed the one question I asked you. Here it is again:

What is a soul? Please back up your answer with facts, not just your opinion.

Brooks

Subj: Re: question
Date: 10/24/2001 12:45:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

The definition of a soul is defined by the Bible, and since you disregard everything the Bible has to say, my argument is useless to you. I would first have to give you the evidence that the Bible is Gods Word, but since you seemingly have already made up your mind that the Bible is not the inspired word of God, it doesnt make sense for me to even give you the evidence right? let alone define something in terms of the Bible. If you want some evidence, Id be more than happy to give it to you. And please dont tell me that youve already seen everything the Bible has to offer.

In the mean time, show me the fossil and genetic record. so you believe in evolution then? do you know for a fact that the beliefs of Christianity are wrong?

-Brian

Subj: questions and answers
Date: 10/24/2001 1:20:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

>>The definition of a soul is defined by the Bible, and since you disregard everything the Bible has to say, my argument is useless to you. I would first have to give you the evidence that the Bible is Gods Word, but since you seemingly have already made up your mind that the Bible is not the inspired word of God, it doesnt make sense for me to even give you the evidence right?

I don’t “disregard everything that the Bible has to say.” Rather I view the Bible as a collection of books written by fallible men living in a primitive and superstitious era of human history. It clearly contains errors and mistaken beliefs. Do you agree that it contains at least some errors and mistaken beliefs?

Perhaps you could provide the Bible's defintion of "soul" and together we can see whether there is any evidence for such a thing.

>>If you want some evidence, Id be more than happy to give it to you.

If you want other people to accept your claims, you need to provide evidence for your claims. This is a very basic rule of human discourse.

>>In the mean time, show me the fossil and genetic record.

No one is hiding this information from you, except maybe your minister. Please go to these pages and do some reading:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

>>so you believe in evolution then?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. This is an observed fact.

>>do you know for a fact that the beliefs of Christianity are wrong?

I think it is a fact that Christianity is false. I don't think there can be such a thing as 100% certainty for any claim though.

>>It seems to me that you present it as fact that Christianity is wrong.

You can phrase it any way you like. I think it is fact that Christianity is false, and on my site I present evidence and arguments that I feel support this conclusion. Is there a law against this?

Brooks

Subj: Re: questions and answers
Date: 10/24/2001 4:36:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: YYYYYY

To: BBu84

While in the Bible there of course in nothing saying "This is a soul...." but we can come up with its definition by they way it is described. The book of Psalms talk about a persons soul numerous times. Psalm 42:4 says "These things I remember as I pour out my soul..." While this doesnt define what a soul is, it certainly establishes that this person has a soul. Revelation 6:9 says ".....I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain...." This passage establishes that many other people have souls. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 says "May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." This establishes that everyone has a soul. My point is, whatever a soul is, you have one, I have one, and everybody else has one. Now, in Psalm 103 says "Praise the Lord, O my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name." This seems to define a soul as a persons "inmost being." And in the passage I already quoted in Thessalonians, it seems clear that the body and soul are two distinct things, separated from each other.

So, from these passages, i believe a soul is the nonphysical element in humans.

I have looked at the evidence for evolution many times. My "minister" has not, in fact, hidden this information from me. I agree evolution is a change in the gene pool over a long period of time. I believe in evolution within a species, but not between species. Where is the link between humans and where we came from? Why are there not half human half apes running around that will eventually change their gene pool and become full humans if evolution between species takes place?

Brian

Subj: Re: questions and answers
Date: 10/25/2001 11:03:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

>>My point is, whatever a soul is, you have one, I have one, and everybody else has one.

And you believe this why? Simply because the Bible says so or do you have some other reason?

Previously I asked you to tell me if you think the Bible is entirely free of errors. Do you think the Bible is completely, absolutely free of errors and mistakes?

>>This seems to define a soul as a persons "inmost being."

And what is that? Is it an organ of some type?

>>i believe a soul is the nonphysical element in humans.

What is a "nonphysical element" and how could this thing exist without the body, as the Bible would seem to indicate? Also, various Bible passages, including one you quoted, refer to souls as things that can be seen. How can something that is "nonphysical" reflect light? Or does it emit light, even though it is non-physical?

>>Why are there not half human half apes running around that will eventually change their gene pool and become full humans if evolution between species takes place?

In the fossil record there are such animals. The evolution you describe has already happened.

Brooks

Subj: Re: questions and answers
Date: 10/25/2001 5:04:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

>>>>My point is, whatever a soul is, you have one, I have one, and everybody else has one.

>>And you believe this why? Simply because the Bible says so or do you have some other reason?

Yes, because the Bible says so. And Ive already offered to you the reasons why I believe in the Bible. Id be glad to offer that information to you again if you want to hear it.

>>>>This seems to define a soul as a persons "inmost being."

>>And what is that? Is it an organ of some type?

An "inmost being" is definately not an "organ of some type." Is an organ a being? No.

>>>>i believe a soul is the nonphysical element in humans.

>>What is a "nonphysical element" and how could this thing exist without the body, as the Bible would seem to indicate? Also, various Bible passages, including one you quoted, refer to souls as things that can be seen. How can something that is "nonphysical" reflect light? Or does it emit light, even though it is non-physical?

Why do you think that a persons "nonphysical element" could not exist without the body? In Ecclesiastes 12:7-8 it says: "....and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." This clearly states that God gave people a spirit, and that it returns to Him, without the body. You have to remember that in Revelation, the author who says he saw the souls of slain people is claiming to have a vision given to him from God. Its not like me or you can just be walking around can see a persons soul. Since God is all powerful, and can pretty much do whatever He wishes- Im sure he can grant someone the power to see somebodys soul. Remember that God can defy the rules of this world. Just because we cant see in the dark doesnt mean God cant, or that he cant give somebody the ability to see in the dark (or in the case somebodys soul). Also remember that just because we cant fully comprehend something, like the "nonphysical element" we all have, doesnt mean it is illogical or doesnt exist.

>>>>Why are there not half human half apes running around that will eventually change their gene pool and become full humans if evolution between species takes place?

>>In the fossil record there are such animals. The evolution you describe has already happened.

I read the webpages about evolution and the homonid species. On it, they even say that the "fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary." You asked me if i believe stuff "just because the bible says so." Now let me ask you, do you believe that there were half ape half men running around somewhere just because somebodys website said so?

-Brian

Subj: Re: questions and answers
Date: 11/1/2001 12:57:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

>>Yes, because the Bible says so. And Ive already offered to you the reasons why I believe in the Bible.

Whatever. I can't help you. You are a religions fanatic and can't be reasoned with.

Good luck.

Brooks

Subj: another response from Brooks
Date: 11/3/2001 8:40:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

I was going to stop conversing with you because it is obvious to me that you can't be reasoned with. However, I have decided to continue our discussion simply for the entertainment value. If it gets boring or repetitive or too ridiculous, I will stop responding.

ME: And you believe this why? Simply because the Bible says so or do you have some other reason?

YOU: Yes, because the Bible says so. And Ive already offered to you the reasons why I believe in the Bible. Id be glad to offer that information to you again if you want to hear it.

If possible, why don't you cut and paste the part of the earlier e-mail in which you offered the reasons why you "believe in the Bible." I have looked through your previous e-mails, and I was not able to locate this information. While you are at it, please tell me if you think that the Bible is completely without error. I have asked this question of you two or three times and I have not yet received an answer. Thank you.

>> Since God is all powerful, and can pretty much do whatever He wishes- Im sure he can grant someone the power to see somebodys soul.

You are talking to me as if I believe in your god. I don't. So claiming your god can do this or that means nothing to me.

You still have not defined what a soul is or why I should believe in such a thing.

>>Why do you think that a persons "nonphysical element" could not exist without the body? In Ecclesiastes 12:7-8 it says: "....and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

I still don't even know what you are talking about. Do you? Explain what a soul is.

Please be aware that the fact that something is written in this Bible is no reason to think that it is true. The biblical account of natural history provided by Genesis, for example, is obviously nonsense.

>> Now let me ask you, do you believe that there were half ape half men running around somewhere just because somebodys website said so?

I don't accept this because it is written on a website. I accept this because we have these animals' fossils, we have their tools, we have seen where and how they lived. That these animals existed is not in question.

I will correct one thing that may be unclear, however. The evidence shows that humans did not evolve directly from modern-type apes but rather that humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago and have evolved alongside one another since that time. Actually, I think humans can be considered a type of hairless ape.

Have a good one.

Brooks

Subj: Re: another response from Brooks
Date: 11/5/2001 3:55:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

I think the real question that you should ask yourself is if you are the one who can be reasoned with. It seems to me that you cant be reasoned with, not me. I can truly say that i am trying to understand your point of view. As a Chritian, either my faith will be made stronger by hearing your claims and answering them fully (or as best i can), or weaker by truly understanding your point of view and accepting it as truth.

I am sorry, I may have been unclear on some things. Ive never written the reasons I believe in the bible to you in an email, i simply meant that i have the reasons if you are interested in hearing them. I have been reluctant to put them in an email because it seems like you claim to have already looked at the evidence for the bible and have thrown it out--so i didnt want to waste my time writing all of it if you were simply going to disregard it.

From the beginning of our conversations i knew since you dont belive in the bible, my arguments would pretty much be of no use to you, since my arguments come from the bible itself. All this talk we have had about if a soul exists rests on if the bible is true or not. Im not going to go into great detail about why i believe in the bible (I will soon), but i will mention some of my reasons. I think the strongest argument for believe in the bible lies in its prophesies about the Messiah. Here are only some of the Messianic prophesies that were fulfilled by Jesus. The Old Testament says that the Messiah would......

1. be born of a woman
2. be born of a virgin
3. be born in Bethlehem
4. perform miracles
5. be rejected by the Jews
6. die a humiliating death involving:

rejection, silence before his acusers, being mocked, piercing his hands and feet, being crucified with thieves, piercing his side, buried in a rich mans tomb, casting lots for his garments

7. rise from the dead

Those are only some of the prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. If you me to give you the places in the bible where it says all of this id be glad to. For me, one of the greatest prophesies of Jesus is Psalm 22-- it goes into great detail about when Jesus was on the cross- from the people casting lots for his clothes to the very words he said on the cross. And remember, this Psalm was writting hundreds of years before the punishment of crucifixion was even invented.

You asked if i believe the bible has no errors. I believe that God can only speak truth, and that the bible is the Word of God- so yes, i believe that the bible contains no errors.

>>I will correct one thing that may be unclear, however. The evidence shows that humans did not evolve directly from modern-type apes but rather that humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago and have evolved alongside one another since that time. Actually, I think humans can be considered a type of hairless ape.

That was very unclear to me, thank you for clarifying.

-Brian

---response #8 was not found. Sorry.---

Subj: prophesy
Date: 11/7/2001 11:29:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

Brooks,

The Old Testament says that the Messiah would......

1. be born of a woman --i think the point of making this prophesy was to say that the Messiah would come in the flesh.

2. be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14; Matt 1:21 (as well as others). We can assume that Mary was, in fact, a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus because of Matthew 1:18-19. It says that Mary and Joseph were married, but Mary was pregnant "before they came together." Then Joseph wanted to divorce her because of her marital unfaithfulness and keep it quiet that she was pregnant (when he could have exposed her to public discrace). Also it says in Luke 1:27 that she was a virgin, and in verse 34 Mary herself says "i am a virgin."

3. be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2; Matt 2:1. I am also wondering why you say that "even if this were true, it would not be very much of a prophesy." To me this is an awesome prophesy- it is like me saying that I know where the 75th president of the united states is going to be born. How in the world would i know that?

4. perform miracles You asked how do we know miracles were performed. This is another argument in itself that I will not go into right now. Maybe later. But anyway, the prophesy was made in Isaiah 35:5-6, and fulfilled throughout the gospels. Look at that passage in Isiah and then look at Matt 9:35.

5. be rejected by the Jews Psalm 118:22; Acts 4:11

6. die a humiliating death involving:

• rejection Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11, 7:5, 48
• silence before his acusers Isaiah 53:7; Matt 27:12-19
• being mocked Psalm 22:7-8; Matt 27:31
• piercing his hands and feet Psalm 22:16; Luke 23:33
• being crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12; Matt 27:38
• piercing his side Zech 12:10; John 19:4
• buried in a rich mans tomb Isaiah 53:9; Matt 27:57-60
• casting lots for his garments Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24

7. rise from the dead Psalm 16:9-10, Mark 16:6

>>Do you think it is possible that people could have made up the stories about Jesus to make them appear to fulfill "prophecies"?

I have thought about this too. The gospel writers could have made this stuff up- but, that would go against everything else they believed in. The men who wrote the gospels spoke against lying. Would they lie when they spoke against lying? Possibly. But, throughout the New Testament Paul (and Luke in Acts) wrote about how they were persecuted for standing up for what they believed in, which was Jesus Christ. They suffered greatly, and it is known that almost all of Jesus' desciples were killed for identifying with Christ (for example Stephen was stoned in Acts 7:54-59). Would these men suffer so much, and die for nothing but lies?

Yes, I believe the story of Genesis as an accurate portrayal of earths history.

>>If you had been born in a Muslim country, to a Muslim family, and raised in a Muslim school, which religion do you think you would accept as true?

I know what you are getting at....... You probably assume that i was brought up in a Christian home and it has been the only thing i have ever known. Well to answer your question, I really dont know, but I can say that before i became a Christian I studied pretty much every theological thought and world religion, including Islam and evolution. I gave everything a fair chance, and Im a Christian. I hope that helps you.

Im sorry if i havnt answered all of your questions, ask again if you're not satisfied.

I have one question for you right now. I took some biology classes which taught evolution as fact. In these classes, even the professors and textbooks (who teach evolution) admit that "all life comes from pre-existing life." How do you respond to that statement?

Thanks,

Brian

Subj: brooks...
Date: 11/29/2001 9:56:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

i was wondering why you havnt responded to my last email.......or if you are not going to respond. its been a few weeks. let me know if you are going to continue our discussions or not. i was looking forward to reading your response. thanks

-Brian

Subj: Re: brooks...
Date: 11/30/2001 12:40:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

When I read through your last e-mail, I just shook my head and said "why bother?" However, I will respond to the specifics of you last e-mail tomorrow or this weekend.

Brooks

Subj: response from Brooks
Date: 12/1/01 9:24:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

The Old Testament says that the Messiah would......

1. be born of a woman --i think the point of making this prophesy was to say that the Messiah would come in the flesh.

Again, It is not much of a prophecy to predict that someone would be born of a woman.

2. be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14; Matt 1:21 (as well as others). We can assume that Mary was, in fact, a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus because of Matthew 1:18-19.

Unlike you, I don't assume that a claim is true simply because it is written in the Bible. Why should anyone assume that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth? Do we have a record of a doctor's examination? We don't even know who wrote the Gospels in the first place. The Gospels are completely anonymous. We have no idea where the anonymous writers got their information. We certainly cannot assume they were eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe. Also, only two of the Gospel writers mention that Mary was a virgin. Didn't the other two other Gospel writers think this was important enough to mention?

Furthermore, Isaiah 7:14 was only a prophecy that a "young woman" would give birth and that before her youngster reached the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated. In other words, it was a prophecy that did not extend 700 years into the future, but was instead fulfilled within Isaiah itself. Whoever wrote Matthew simply mistranslated it and used it for his own purposes.

It says that Mary and Joseph were married, but Mary was pregnant "before they came together."

Well, gee, I guess the fact that this is mentioned in one or two of the Gospels means it is true.

Then Joseph wanted to divorce her because of her marital unfaithfulness and keep it quiet that she was pregnant (when he could have exposed her to public discrace). Also it says in Luke 1:27 that she was a virgin, and in verse 34 Mary herself says "i am a virgin."

You are assuming that all these stories are verbatim, eyewitness accounts. I don't share your assumptions, however, so I don't have any reason to believe that the claims made in them are true.

3. be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2; Matt 2:1. I am also wondering why you say that "even if this were true, it would not be very much of a prophesy." To me this is an awesome prophesy- it is like me saying that I know where the 75th president of the united states is going to be born. How in the world would i know that?

I have no reason to think Micah refers to Jesus, nor do I have reason to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or, if he was, that this was a fulfillment of "prophecy." The only information we have about Jesus comes from the Gospels, and, apart from very general historical references, we have no way of verifying the statements made in the Gospels.

4. perform miracles You asked how do we know miracles were performed. This is another argument in itself that I will not go into right now. Maybe later. But anyway, the prophesy was made in Isaiah 35:5-6, and fulfilled throughout the gospels. Look at that passage in Isiah and then look at Matt 9:35.

How do you know that the writer of Matthew did not simply invent miraculous healings in order to make it appear that OT "prophecies" were fulfilled? There is no corroborating support for the miracle claims of the Gospels. That is why Christianity is accepted on faith, not on reason.

5. be rejected by the Jews Psalm 118:22; Acts 4:11

How do you know Jesus was rejected by the Jews? How do you know the verses from Psalms refers to Jesus?

6. die a humiliating death involving:

• rejection Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11, 7:5, 48

How do you know Jesus died a humiliating death? How do you know the verses from Psalms refer to Jesus?

• silence before his acusers Isaiah 53:7; Matt 27:12-19
• being mocked Psalm 22:7-8; Matt 27:31
• piercing his hands and feet Psalm 22:16; Luke 23:33
• being crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12; Matt 27:38
• piercing his side Zech 12:10; John 19:4
• buried in a rich mans tomb Isaiah 53:9; Matt 27:57-60
• casting lots for his garments Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24

7. rise from the dead Psalm 16:9-10, Mark 16:6

How do you know these verses from Psalms refer to Jesus? There are plenty of other references in Psalms which sit alongside these which clearly are not "fulfilled" in the Gospels. Could it be that the Gospel writers simply picked and chose certain elements to add to their stories to make it appear "prophesy" was fullfilled? How do you know aspects of Jesus' crucification were not simply invented by the Gospel writers based on what was written in the OT? Why do you (believe) any of the specific claims made in the Gospels? These are anonymous stories, written decades after the events they purport to describe, they are uncorroborated by people who lived in the area at the time, and they conflict with one another, and they conflict with logic, natural law and common sense. Not only that, but (they) appear to be copies of earlier mythical stories of dying and resurrected gods.

>>>Do you think it is possible that people could have made up the stories about Jesus to make them appear to fulfill "prophecies"?

I have thought about this too. The gospel writers could have made this stuff up- but, that would go against everything else they believed in.

How do you know what they believed in? After all, the Gospel writers are anonymous, remember?

The men who wrote the gospels spoke against lying.

So what?

Would they lie when they spoke against lying?

Because if they were liars, they would lie about lying.

But, throughout the New Testament Paul (and Luke in Acts) wrote about how they were persecuted for standing up for what they believed in, which was Jesus Christ. They suffered greatly, and it is known that almost all of Jesus' desciples were killed for identifying with Christ (for example Stephen was stoned in Acts 7:54-59). Would these men suffer so much, and die for nothing but lies?

People die for lies all the time. Look at the people dying for Allah in Afganistan. You don't believe Allah exists, do you?

Yes, I believe the story of Genesis as an accurate portrayal of earths history.

Then you are very badly misinformed about the facts.

>>If you had been born in a Muslim country, to a Muslim family, and raised in a Muslim school, which religion do you think you would accept as true?

I know what you are getting at....... You probably assume that i was brought up in a Christian home and it has been the only thing i have ever known. Well to answer your question, I really dont know, but I can say that before i became a Christian I studied pretty much every theological thought and world religion, including Islam and evolution. I gave everything a fair chance, and Im a Christian. I hope that helps you.

Do you agree that if you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most probably believe in Islam and not Christianity? Yes (or) no?

Im sorry if i havnt answered all of your questions, ask again if you're not satisfied.

Yes, I will ask a question again which has not been answered. Do you believe that the Bible is completely and entirely free of errors? Also, you never satisfactorily explained what a "soul" was. I still don't know what you mean when you refer to a "soul."

I have one question for you right now. I took some biology classes which taught evolution as fact. In these classes, even the professors and textbooks (who teach evolution) admit that "all life comes from pre-existing life." How do you respond to that statement?

I would say that this is too general for me to respond to. I don't know the context in which the statement was made. If it was claimed that it is an irrefutable fact that all life has come from pre-existing life throughout the entire history of the planet, I would say that such a statement would be a bit presumptuous.

I have a question for you. How do you explain the tiny pelvises and femur bones that are found in whales?

Thanks,

Brooks

Subj: Re: response from Brooks
Date: 12/2/01 1:09:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

The Old Testament says that the Messiah would...... 1. be born of a woman --i think the point of making this prophesy was to say that the Messiah would come in the flesh.

Again, It is not much of a prophecy to predict that someone would be born of a woman.

>>thats the point, that the "thing" that would save humanity from their sins would be a "someone"- a person. as oppose to some spiritual being or something.

2. be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14; Matt 1:21 (as well as others). We can assume that Mary was, in fact, a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus because of Matthew 1:18-19.

Unlike you, I don't assume that a claim is true simply because it is written in the Bible. Why should anyone assume that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth? Do we have a record of a doctor's examination? We don't even know who wrote the Gospels in the first place. The Gospels are completely anonymous. We have no idea where the anonymous writers got their information. We certainly cannot assume they were eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe. Also, only two of the Gospel writers mention that Mary was a virgin. Didn't the other two other Gospel writers think this was important enough to mention?

>>if all the Gospels mentioned every single thing the other Gospels had, what would be the purpose of writing 4?

Furthermore, Isaiah 7:14 was only a prophecy that a "young woman" would give birth and that before her youngster reached the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated. In other words, it was a prophecy that did not extend 700 years into the future, but was instead fulfilled within Isaiah itself. Whoever wrote Matthew simply mistranslated it and used it for his own purposes.

>>i'll look into that.

It says that Mary and Joseph were married, but Mary was pregnant "before they came together."

Well, gee, I guess the fact that this is mentioned in one or two of the Gospels means it is true.

>>thanks for the sarcasm.

Then Joseph wanted to divorce her because of her marital unfaithfulness and keep it quiet that she was pregnant (when he could have exposed her to public discrace). Also it says in Luke 1:27 that she was a virgin, and in verse 34 Mary herself says "i am a virgin."

You are assuming that all these stories are verbatim, eyewitness accounts. I don't share your assumptions, however, so I don't have any reason to believe that the claims made in them are true.

>>what are your reasons to believe they are false?

3. be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2; Matt 2:1. I am also wondering why you say that "even if this were true, it would not be very much of a prophesy." To me this is an awesome prophesy- it is like me saying that I know where the 75th president of the united states is going to be born. How in the world would i know that?

I have no reason to think Micah refers to Jesus, nor do I have reason to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or, if he was, that this was a fulfillment of "prophecy." The only information we have about Jesus comes from the Gospels, and, apart from very general historical references, we have no way of verifying the statements made in the Gospels.

>>i guess the Gospel writers are liars then.

4. perform miracles You asked how do we know miracles were performed. This is another argument in itself that I will not go into right now. Maybe later. But anyway, the prophesy was made in Isaiah 35:5-6, and fulfilled throughout the gospels. Look at that passage in Isiah and then look at Matt 9:35.

How do you know that the writer of Matthew did not simply invent miraculous healings in order to make it appear that OT "prophecies" were fulfilled? There is no corroborating support for the miracle claims of the Gospels. That is why Christianity is accepted on faith, not on reason.

>>again, i guess Matthew is a liar. but before you go parading around saying there is no corroborating support- do the intelligent thing and research it first. there are, in fact, non-biblical, non-Christian writings that refer to many things in the Gospels. Christianity is like you say accepted on faith. So is evolution.

5. be rejected by the Jews Psalm 118:22; Acts 4:11

How do you know Jesus was rejected by the Jews? How do you know the verses from Psalms refers to Jesus?

6. die a humiliating death involving: rejection Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11, 7:5, 48

How do you know Jesus died a humiliating death? How do you know the verses from Psalms refer to Jesus?

>>not only the Gospels say Christ died by crucufixion-which is the most humiliating death of that time. Josephus and Tacitus, both Roman historians, refer to Jesus in their writings, and say he was crucified.

• silence before his acusers Isaiah 53:7; Matt 27:12-19
• being mocked Psalm 22:7-8; Matt 27:31
• piercing his hands and feet Psalm 22:16; Luke 23:33
• being crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12; Matt 27:38
• piercing his side Zech 12:10; John 19:4
• buried in a rich mans tomb Isaiah 53:9; Matt 27:57-60
• casting lots for his garments Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24

7. rise from the dead Psalm 16:9-10, Mark 16:6

How do you know these verses from Psalms refer to Jesus? There are plenty of other references in Psalms which sit alongside these which clearly are not "fulfilled" in the Gospels. Could it be that the Gospel writers simply picked and chose certain elements to add to their stories to make it appear "prophesy" was fullfilled? How do you know aspects of Jesus' crucification were not simply invented by the Gospel writers based on what was written in the OT? Why do you beleve any of the specific claims made in the Gospels? These are anonymous stories, written decades after the events they purport to describe, they are uncorroborated by people who lived in the area at the time, and they conflict with one another, and they conflict with logic, natural law and common sense. Not only that, but appear to be copies of earlier mythical stories of dying and resurrected gods.

>>they are, in fact, not uncorroborated. it seems to me that they only conflict with YOUR "logic" and your "common sense."

Do you think it is possible that people could have made up the stories about Jesus to make them appear to fulfill "prophecies"?

I have thought about this too. The gospel writers could have made this stuff up- but, that would go against everything else they believed in.

How do you know what they believed in? After all, the Gospel writers are anonymous, remember?

>>they are not anonymous. but even if they were, even if these were anonymous writers, we still know what they believed in, you know why? because its in the bible, no matter if you think they are lying or not- we still know what they believed in.

The men who wrote the gospels spoke against lying.

So what?

Would they lie when they spoke against lying?

Because if they were liars, they would lie about lying.

>>But, throughout the New Testament Paul (and Luke in Acts) wrote about how they were persecuted for standing up for what they believed in, which was Jesus Christ. They suffered greatly, and it is known that almost all of Jesus' desciples were killed for identifying with Christ (for example Stephen was stoned in Acts 7:54-59). Would these men suffer so much, and die for nothing but lies?

People die for lies all the time. Look at the people dying for Allah in Afganistan. You don't believe Allah exists, do you?

>>are these people lying that Allah exists?

Yes, I believe the story of Genesis as an accurate portrayal of earths history.

Then you are very badly misinformed about the facts.

>>replace "facts" with "brooks' opinions."

If you had been born in a Muslim country, to a Muslim family, and raised in a Muslim school, which religion do you think you would accept as true?

>>I know what you are getting at....... You probably assume that i was brought up in a Christian home and it has been the only thing i have ever known. Well to answer your question, I really dont know, but I can say that before i became a Christian I studied pretty much every theological thought and world religion, including Islam and evolution. I gave everything a fair chance, and Im a Christian. I hope that helps you.

Do you agree that if you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most probably believe in Islam and not Christianity? Yes (or) no?

>>No. you were born in a Christian country, raised christian, but you do not believe in it right? thanks.

Im sorry if i havnt answered all of your questions, ask again if you're not satisfied. Yes, I will ask a question again which has not been answered. Do you believe that the Bible is completely and entirely free of errors?

>>i have already. maybe i was a little vague though. i believe the original manuscripts are completely error free, and our manuscripts today are about 99% similar.

Also, you never satisfactorily explained what a "soul" was. I still don't know what you mean when you refer to a "soul."

>>not satisfactorily to you. nothing is satisfactory to you.

I have one question for you right now. I took some biology classes which taught evolution as fact. In these classes, even the professors and textbooks (who teach evolution) admit that "all life comes from pre-existing life." How do you respond to that statement?

I would say that this is too general for me to respond to. I don't know the context in which the statement was made. If it was claimed that it is an irrefutable fact that all life has come from pre-existing life throughout the entire history of the planet, I would say that such a statement would be a bit presumptuous.

>>all i know is that this was taught to me as a blanket statement in school. presumptuous or not, science says all life comes from pre-existing life, but then teaches evolution.

I have a question for you. How do you explain the tiny pelvises and femur bones that are found in whales?

>>we are all Gods creation arent we?

Thanks,

>>youre welcome.

Brooks

>>Brian

its simple, you think everything in the Bible is wrong, and pretty much wont believe otherwise. you have made up your mind. eternity is a long time to be wrong about Jesus.

Subj: another response from Brooks
Date: 12/2/01 1:58:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

ME: Again, It is not much of a prophecy to predict that someone would be born of a woman.

YOU: thats the point, that the "thing" that would save humanity from their sins would be a "someone"- a person. as oppose to some spiritual being or something.

I have never seen a "spiritual being" that was born of a woman, nor have I seen credible evidence that such a thing as a "spiritual being" could be born of woman. So to predict that a man would be born of a woman is not much of a prophecy. Now, did Jesus save humanity from its sins? I don't believe that it has been established either that humanity as a whole is "sinful" in the way the Bible describes, or that humanity needs to be "saved," or that the Jesus that is portrayed in the Bible has actually "saved" humanity from its "sins."

So I don't see a prophecy prediction or prophecy fulfillment here.

>>thanks for the sarcasm.

You're welcome.

>>if all the Gospels mentioned every single thing the other Gospels had, what would be the purpose of writing 4?

On the other hand, why didn't they write just one and get it right the first time? Explain this to me because I don't get it. The fact is that there were dozens if not hundreds of gospels floating around in the first couple centuries. The four that are found in the Bible were picked out from among all these other gospels later-I think in the third century-and they were chosen by vote if I am not mistaken.

Anyway, it is not just that individual Gospels leave out important details that others include, but that they seriously conflict with one another on important details. Go here for more information:

Click here: Leave No Stone Unturned

http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html

>>what are your reasons to believe they are false?

I'll repeat: I don't have any reason to believe that they are true. But I will go further and say that since these stories speak of things that go against logic, natural law and common sense, and because they conflict with one another as well, I actually have good reason to view them as mythology. In point of fact, they include story elements that are direct copies of story elements from myths about the dying and resurrected saviors of the religions that preceded Christianity. Do you actually think this is just some bizarre coincidence?

>>i guess the Gospel writers are liars then.

Well, you tell me. When a Gospel writer gives a supposedly verbatim account of the conversation between Jesus and the Devil, is he telling the truth or making things up? Do you assume that there was a reporter with Jesus and Devil writing down what each one said after they flew through the air to the impossibly hight mountain top? Did the reporter sprout wings and fly to mountain top with them? Also, where was this mountain from which all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen? Seems to me that such an incredibly high mountain could only exist on a flat earth, yet we now know the earth is round. And did a reporter go to hell with Jesus to confirm that he was actually there? Likewise, when a Gospel writer describes a worldwide three-hour darkness that no one else anywhere in the world noticed, was he making things up? How about the story of the zombies crawling out of their graves and parading into Jerusalem? Why was this mentioned in only one Gospel, and why is it that no one who was alive at the time makes any mention of this miraculous event? Do you think it is at least possible that these stories are false?

>>again, i guess Matthew is a liar. but before you go parading around saying there is no corroborating support- do the intelligent thing and research it first. there are, in fact, non-biblical, non-Christian writings that refer to many things in the Gospels. Christianity is like you say accepted on faith. So is evolution.

Help me with the research since you know so much. Please tell me of anyone who lived at the time of Jesus who corroborates what is specifically written in the Gospels. I don't want to hear about a historian writing a half a century later who simply relates what Christians were saying about Jesus, but someone who was there who corroborates the specifics of the Gospel stories.

Please be aware that evolution is an observed fact. Faith has nothing to do with biology.

ME: How do you know Jesus died a humiliating death? How do you know the verses from Psalms refer to Jesus?

YOU: >>not only the Gospels say Christ died by crucufixion-which is the most humiliating death of that time. Josephus and Tacitus, both Roman historians, refer to Jesus in their writings, and say he was crucified.

Many people died by crucifixion, since that was the standard way of executing criminals and rebels. Is there any death by torture and execution that is not "humiliating"? How do you know Psalms refers specifically to Jesus?

ME: How do you know these verses from Psalms refer to Jesus? There are plenty of other references in Psalms which sit alongside these which clearly are not "fulfilled" in the Gospels. Could it be that the Gospel writers simply picked and chose certain elements to add to their stories to make it appear "prophesy" was fullfilled? How do you know aspects of Jesus' crucification were not simply invented by the Gospel writers based on what was written in the OT? Why do you beleve any of the specific claims made in the Gospels? These are anonymous stories, written decades after the events they purport to describe, they are uncorroborated by people who lived in the area at the time, and they conflict with one another, and they conflict with logic, natural law and common sense. Not only that, but appear to be copies of earlier mythical stories of dying and resurrected gods.

YOU: >>they are, in fact, not uncorroborated. it seems to me that they only conflict with YOUR "logic" and your "common sense."

The specifics of the (Gospel) stories do not appear to be corroborated by anyone who was actually there. The only information we have about Jesus comes from the anonymous Gospel writers, who wrote at least 40 years after Jesus is supposed to have died, and who do not appear to be witnesses but people who, at best, were relating things they had been told by others. No one who actually lived in the area at the time seemed to notice that Jesus existed. So I will repeat: These are uncorroborated stories.

>>they are not anonymous. but even if they were, even if these were anonymous writers, we still know what they believed in, you know why? because its in the bible, no matter if you think they are lying or not- we still know what they believed in.

We don't (know) who the people are that wrote the Gospels, and we do not know exactly what these people believed in. Maybe they were lying through their teeth, or were lied to by others, or were quessing, or were told stories by other people who were guessing. And even if they believed in what they were writing, their belief does not make what they believed true. Furthermore, the fact that something is written in a book does not make it true. You understand this, right?

But, throughout the New Testament Paul (and Luke in Acts) wrote about how they were persecuted for standing up for what they believed in, which was Jesus Christ. They suffered greatly, and it is known that almost all of Jesus' desciples were killed for identifying with Christ (for example Stephen was stoned in Acts 7:54-59). Would these men suffer so much, and die for nothing but lies?

Maybe, for propaganda purposes, they were lying about being persecuted . But even if they were telling the truth about being persecuted, this does not make what they believed in true. People are persecuted all the time for their religious beliefs, but I am sure you would not accept that as a reason for believing in, say, Hinduism or Islam, right?

YOU: Yes, I believe the story of Genesis as an accurate portrayal of earths history.

ME: Then you are very badly misinformed about the facts.

YOU: replace "facts" with "brooks' opinions."

Replace Brooks' opinions with biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and the history of civilizations.

ME: Do you agree that if you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most probably believe in Islam and not Christianity? Yes of no?

YOU: >>No. you were born in a Christian country, raised christian, but you do not believe in it right? thanks.

America is not a Christian country in the same sense that most Islamic countries are Islamic. I was raised a Christian, but apart from one parent, ours is not a Christian family. Finally, I did not go to a Christian school, yet in many parts of the world Muslims can only go to strictly Islamic religious schools. I was referring to this type of school. Your attempt at an analogy does not hold. Get it? Thanks.

My question, again is this: If you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most likely believe in Islam and not Christianity, correct?

ME: Also, you never satisfactorily explained what a "soul" was. I still don't know what you mean when you refer to a "soul."

YOU: >>not satisfactorily to you. nothing is satisfactory to you.

I will repeat that your "explanation" of what a soul is does not allow anyone to understand what you are referring to. Thanks.

ME: I would say that this is too general for me to respond to. I don't know the context in which the statement was made. If it was claimed that it is an irrefutable fact that all life has come from pre-existing life throughout the entire history of the planet, I would say that such a statement would be a bit presumptuous.

YOU: >>all i know is that this was taught to me as a blanket statement in school. presumptuous or not, science says all life comes from pre-existing life, but then teaches evolution.

But I don't agree with you that the statement "life only comes from pre-existing life" is taught as an irrefutable fact by science. It is not. And if your school taught this as a rule that applies to the entire history of the planet earth, I would say your school needs to have its science curriculum updated. In fact, I would very much like to see the biology book where you read this, or hear from the teacher who told you this. Really.

At one time, of course, people had the idea that maggots or mold were generated from non-life, from the material in which (they) were found, and when this was shown to be false, the claim was then made that life only came from pre-existing life. This idea was a maxim for a long time, but it did not take into account the entire history of the earth and evolution. When you go back in time to the formation of the first replicating cell or molecule, that is where this notion breaks down.

You should also be made aware that evolution does not deal directly with life coming from non-life. The idea of life coming from non-life is called abiogenesis. That is a different subject.

ME: I have a question for you. How do you explain the tiny pelvises and femur bones that are found in whales?

YOU: >>we are all Gods creation arent we?

How does this answer my question? Why would God put pelvises and femur bones inside the bodies of whales? And snakes?

ME: Yes, I will ask a question again which has not been answered. Do you believe that the Bible is completely and entirely free of errors?

YOU: >>i have already. maybe i was a little vague though. i believe the original manuscripts are completely error free, and our manuscripts today are about 99% similar.

I'm confused. Are you telling me that you have seen the original "manuscripts"? If not, how can you make this statement? Are you guessing?

its simple, you think everything in the Bible is wrong, and pretty much wont believe otherwise. you have made up your mind. eternity is a long time to be wrong about Jesus

As I explained to you, I have no reason to accept many of the claims made in the Bible, since they conflict with logic, natural law, common sense, and have every appearance of being the products of superstitious, ignorant and primitive people who were writing fables.

Furthermore, I can well understand the motivation that people have to accept the stories of the Bible for comforting emotional reasons. And I can well understand why religious people feel the need to resort to threats of eternal torture when their comforting fictions are challenged (eternity is a long time to be wrong about Jesus)

Cheers,

Brooks

Subj: response from brian
Date: 12/3/01 1:06:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

I have never seen a "spiritual being" that was born of a woman, nor have I seen credible evidence that such a thing as a "spiritual being" could be born of woman. So to predict that a man would be born of a woman is not much of a prophecy. Now, did Jesus save humanity from its sins? I don't believe that it has been established either that humanity as a whole is "sinful" in the way the Bible describes, or that humanity needs to be "saved," or that the Jesus that is portrayed in the Bible has actually "saved" humanity from its "sins."

So I don't see a prophecy prediction or prophecy fulfillment here.

>>you are obviously missing the point entirely. the point is, that the coming Messiah would be a person, NOT a spiritual being (or anything else, im only using "spiritual being" as an example of what people in old testament times may have thought the Messiah may be). by saying "the messiah will be born of a woman," they are making it clear that he will be a person. You see, when God revealed himself to people in the Old Testament, it was through things other than people (ie burning bush). people did not view God as a human being in the Old Testament. That is that point of the prophesy.......to tell people that God would come to earth in the form of a person, a human being, with flesh.

>>>if all the Gospels mentioned every single thing the other Gospels had, what would be the purpose of writing 4?

On the other hand, why didn't they write just one and get it right the first time? Explain this to me because I don't get it. The fact is that there were dozens if not hundreds of gospels floating around in the first couple centuries. The four that are found in the Bible were picked out from among all these other gospels later-I think in the third century-and they were chosen by vote if I am not mistaken.

>>i feel that one of the purposes of having 4 gospels was to appeal to all kinds of different people. some of the things we know about the 4 gospel writers was that they were different people with different backgrounds, with the abilities to write in certain ways to make it understandable to the people who were like them. show me "dozens if not hundreds of gospels floating around." never heard of them, but maybe you are correct. if you are, you are only solidifying my point of the corroborating evidence of Jesus. i remember you saying that the Gospels have no corroborating evidence. if there were hundreds of gospels "floating around", isnt that corroborating evidence in itself? and also, maybe that was another point of writing 4 gospels, each corroborating the others.

>>what are your reasons to believe they are false?

I'll repeat: I don't have any reason to believe that they are true. But I will go further and say that since these stories speak of things that go against logic, natural law and common sense, and because they conflict with one another as well, I actually have good reason to view them as mythology. In point of fact, they include story elements that are direct copies of story elements from myths about the dying and resurrected saviors of the religions that preceded Christianity. Do you actually think this is just some bizarre coincidence?

>>show me these stories about the "dying and resurrected saviors."

>>i guess the Gospel writers are liars then.

Well, you tell me. When a Gospel writer gives a supposedly verbatim account of the conversation between Jesus and the Devil, is he telling the truth or making things up? Do you assume that there was a reporter with Jesus and Devil writing down what each one said after they flew through the air to the impossibly hight mountain top? Did the reporter sprout wings and fly to mountain top with them? Also, where was this mountain from which all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen? Seems to me that such an incredibly high mountain could only exist on a flat earth, yet we now know the earth is round. And did a reporter go to hell with Jesus to confirm that he was actually there? Likewise, when a Gospel writer describes a worldwide three-hour darkness that no one else anywhere in the world noticed, was he making things up? How about the story of the zombies crawling out of their graves and parading into Jerusalem? Why was this mentioned in only one Gospel, and why is it that no one who was alive at the time makes any mention of this miraculous event? Do you think it is at least possible that these stories are false?

>>show me the passages or chapters where you are getting this from, then i'll comment on it, (ie zombies parading around). but about the "worldwide three-hour darkness". im assuming you are talking about Luke Ch23 when he is talking about what happened after Jesus died. take it from the writings of Phlegon, a Greek author from caria. He says in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (which is 33 AD), there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun", and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things overturned in Nicaea." this writer tried to explain the darkness in terms of an eclipse, but of course we know that an eclipse can not last for 3 hours, or long enough to see stars "in the heavens." isnt Phlegons writings corroborating evidence?

>>again, i guess Matthew is a liar. but before you go parading around saying there is no corroborating support- do the intelligent thing and research it first. there are, in fact, non-biblical, non-Christian writings that refer to many things in the Gospels. Christianity is like you say accepted on faith. So is evolution.

Help me with the research since you know so much. Please tell me of anyone who lived at the time of Jesus who corroborates what is specifically written in the Gospels. I don't want to hear about a historian writing a half a century later who simply relates what Christians were saying about Jesus, but someone who was there who corroborates the specifics of the Gospel stories.

>>i suggest you read "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. excellent resourse for many of the things we discuss, including corroborating evidence for the gospels.

Please be aware that evolution is an observed fact. Faith has nothing to do with biology.

>>sure it does. when there are huge gaps in the fossil record, doesnt it take faith to believe that those gaps will be filled? and im sure you have faith that the people who tell you these things are telling the truth.

Many people died by crucifixion, since that was the standard way of executing criminals and rebels. Is there any death by torture and execution that is not "humiliating"? How do you know Psalms refers specifically to Jesus?

>>again, thats the point of the prophesy- to say that Jesus would die by torture and execution, therefore being humiliating. Read Psalm 22 again. it quotes the exact words Jesus would speak on the cross, and pretty much exactly everything else that happened to him on the cross.

ME: How do you know these verses from Psalms refer to Jesus? There are plenty of other references in Psalms which sit alongside these which clearly are not "fulfilled" in the Gospels. Could it be that the Gospel writers simply picked and chose certain elements to add to their stories to make it appear "prophesy" was fullfilled? How do you know aspects of Jesus' crucification were not simply invented by the Gospel writers based on what was written in the OT? Why do you beleve any of the specific claims made in the Gospels? These are anonymous stories, written decades after the events they purport to describe, they are uncorroborated by people who lived in the area at the time, and they conflict with one another, and they conflict with logic, natural law and common sense. Not only that, but appear to be copies of earlier mythical stories of dying and resurrected gods.

YOU: >>they are, in fact, not uncorroborated. it seems to me that they only conflict with YOUR "logic" and your "common sense."

The specifics of the (Gospel) stories do not appear to be corroborated by anyone who was actually there. The only information we have about Jesus comes from the anonymous Gospel writers, who wrote at least 40 years after Jesus is supposed to have died, and who do not appear to be witnesses but people who, at best, were relating things they had been told by others. No one who actually lived in the area at the time seemed to notice that Jesus existed. So I will repeat: These are uncorroborated stories.

>>i will repeat, they are not uncorroborated. read case for christ. by the way, show me these "non-prophesies" in the psalms.

We don't (know) who the people are that wrote the Gospels, and we do not know exactly what these people believed in. Maybe they were lying through their teeth, or were lied to by others, or were quessing, or were told stories by other people who were guessing. And even if they believed in what they were writing, their belief does not make what they believed true. Furthermore, the fact that something is written in a book does not make it true. You understand this, right?

>>of course i do. thats why i look to the corroborating evidence. you pretty much accuse the bible writers of "lying through their teeth" for everything. maybe the people who go on these archaeological digs and find fossils or whatever that support evolution are liars. just because they write what they found in a book doesnt make it true. you understand this, right?

But, throughout the New Testament Paul (and Luke in Acts) wrote about how they were persecuted for standing up for what they believed in, which was Jesus Christ. They suffered greatly, and it is known that almost all of Jesus' desciples were killed for identifying with Christ (for example Stephen was stoned in Acts 7:54-59). Would these men suffer so much, and die for nothing but lies?

Maybe, for propaganda purposes, they were lying about being persecuted . But even if they were telling the truth about being persecuted, this does not make what they believed in true. People are persecuted all the time for their religious beliefs, but I am sure you would not accept that as a reason for believing in, say, Hinduism or Islam, right?

>>of course not, and im not asking you to accept Christianity just because some Christians were persecuted. maybe what these persecuted Christians did believe in false stuff, but that is what they believed in right? they believed it so much to where they would die for it. that is why i say that the Christian martyrs didnt lie about the stuff about Jesus. if they lied, they would know that what they said about Jesus were lies, and therefore not admit they were Christians, stand up for what they believed in, and die for it.

America is not a Christian country in the same sense that most Islamic countries are Islamic. I was raised a Christian, but apart from one parent, ours is not a Christian family. Finally, I did not go to a Christian school, yet in many parts of the world Muslims can only go to strictly Islamic religious schools. I was referring to this type of school. Your attempt at an analogy does not hold. Get it? Thanks.

>>never said you went to a christian school. im saying that you were raised Christian, taught it was truth, and you rejected it, correct? so it is possible to be taught one thing as truth and not accept it as truth. you have proved that for me.

My question, again is this: If you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most likely believe in Islam and not Christianity, correct?

>>ask the same question to yourself before you ask me. would you still believe in evolution as truth?

ME: I have a question for you. How do you explain the tiny pelvises and femur bones that are found in whales?

YOU: >>we are all Gods creation arent we?

How does this answer my question? Why would God put pelvises and femur bones inside the bodies of whales? And snakes?

>>i wasnt attempting to answer your question, it was sarcasm (but with a little truth). i cant explain it, im not God. and i dont question the mind of God. but just because you fing femur bones, pelvises or whatever in whales, snakes or whatever, doesnt prove evolution.

ME: Yes, I will ask a question again which has not been answered. Do you believe that the Bible is completely and entirely free of errors?

YOU: >>i have already. maybe i was a little vague though. i believe the original manuscripts are completely error free, and our manuscripts today are about 99% similar.

I'm confused. Are you telling me that you have seen the original "manuscripts"? If not, how can you make this statement? Are you guessing?

>>i have read some of them, so im not guessing. i am going to study that topic soon. have you seen the femur bones, the pelvises? if not, are you just guessing that they are there? or just taking somebodies word for it?

Furthermore, I can well understand the motivation that people have to accept the stories of the Bible for comforting emotional reasons. And I can well understand why religious people feel the need to resort to threats of eternal torture when their comforting fictions are challenged (eternity is a long time to be wrong about Jesus)

>>i guess im emotionally unstable then if i believe in the bible. and i wasnt threating eternal torture to you- i was just trying to say that if you are going to disregard Christianity (something that offers eternal life to those who believe), please be sure of it. its just i dont think i could completely throw something out the window until i know for sure that it is false. it wasnt a threat, it was a fact.

Brian

Subj: response with grammar corrected-read this one instead
Date: 12/9/01 3:11:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian

>> you are obviously missing the point entirely. the point is, that the coming Messiah would be a person, NOT a spiritual being (or anything else, im only using "spiritual being" as an example of what people in old testament times may have thought the Messiah may be). by saying "the messiah will be born of a woman," they are making it clear that he will be a person. You see, when God revealed himself to people in the Old Testament, it was through things other than people (ie burning bush). people did not view God as a human being in the Old Testament. That is that point of the prophesy.......to tell people that God would come to earth in the form of a person, a human being, with flesh.

Where is the prediction in the OT that you are referring to? How do you know it specifically referred to Jesus? How do you know that the figure of Jesus was not simply invented by the anonymous Gospels writers to make it appear that a supposed prophecy was fulfilled?

>>i feel that one of the purposes of having 4 gospels was to appeal to all kinds of different people.

Why do you "feel" this way?

>>some of the things we know about the 4 gospel writers was that they were different people with different backgrounds, with the abilities to write in certain ways to make it understandable to the people who were like them.

They are anonymous writers whose claims conflict with one another.

>>show me "dozens if not hundreds of gospels floating around." never heard of them, but maybe you are correct.

There were likely dozens, but I am not sure exactly how many there were. Here are a few of them that survived:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels.htm

>>if you are, you are only solidifying my point of the corroborating evidence of Jesus. i remember you saying that the Gospels have no corroborating evidence. if there were hundreds of gospels "floating around", isnt that corroborating evidence in itself? and also, maybe that was another point of writing 4 gospels, each corroborating the others.

The four that are canonical do not even corroborate one another, so I would doubt that the gospels that were not included in the Bible are consistent. However, I have not read them. Below is some information on how the four biblical gospels came to be accepted.

http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm:

"Our four canonical gospels did not begin their lives as the gospels of 'Matthew,' 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John.' Different groups of early Christians maintained their own oral traditions of Jesus's wisdom, as writing was a specialized skill and not every fellowship enjoyed the services of a scribe. When written accounts of Jesus's teachings began to circulate (i.e., the theoretical 'sayings' gospel Q and the Semeia or Signs source), the independent groups would supplement them with their own traditions about the savior, each believing their own versions to be 'the Gospel.' Eventually, as these expanded writings spread through other communities, some versions were viewed as having more authority than others. It was not until the pronouncement of Bishop Irenćus (185 C.E.) that Christians began to accept only the four familiar gospels as authoritative, and to refer to them by their modern titles.

>>show me these stories about the "dying and resurrected saviors."

Go here and scroll down to the "pagan christ" links:

http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/home.htm#C

>>show me the passages or chapters where you are getting this from, then i'll comment on it, (ie zombies parading around).

Try Matthew 27:52 for the zombies, and Matthew 4 for the story about the devil and Jesus on the impossibly high mountaintop. Please explain to me why no one from Jerusalem mentioned these zombies, and why none of the other Gospel writers mention this amazing miracle of the parading zombies. Also explain where this mountain is that is mentioned in Matthew 4, and who was there to record Jesus' and the Devil's conversation. Thank you.

>> but about the "worldwide three-hour darkness". im assuming you are talking about Luke Ch23 when he is talking about what happened after Jesus died. take it from the writings of Phlegon, a Greek author from caria. He says in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (which is 33 AD), there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun", and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things overturned in Nicaea." this writer tried to explain the darkness in terms of an eclipse, but of course we know that an eclipse can not last for 3 hours, or long enough to see stars "in the heavens." isnt Phlegons writings corroborating evidence?

Phlegon was not a witness to these events, he wasn't even alive at the time. He wrote in the second century.

"Phlegon merely recorded a great earthquake in Bithynia, which is on the coast of the Black Sea, more than 500 miles away from Jerusalem--so there is no way this quake would have been felt near the crucifixion--and a magnificent noontime eclipse, whose location is not clear. If the eclipse was also in Bithynia, as the Phlegon quote implies but does not entail, it also could not have been seen in Jerusalem, any more than partially, since the track of a total eclipse spans only 100 miles and runs from west to east (Jerusalem is due south)."

"In fact, the only coincidence with the gospel story is the year (although some modern scholars calculate the eclipse in question to have actually occurred in 29 AD) and time: it began at the sixth hour. Prigent suspects this last detail is a corruption by another scribe drawing from the gospel stories, although a noon eclipse is particularly startling and might get special mention (although the total eclipse would only occur at noon in one location--are we to suppose it was in Nicaea?). What is most important, however, is that Phlegon says nothing about the eclipse occuring during a full moon or lasting three hours (both physical impossibilities), yet these details are attributed to him in the lines added to Africanus. Clearly the quote has been altered over time.

Taken from here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

I will repeat, again, that the stories contained in the Gospels are not corroborated by anyone who lived at the time. The Gospel authors are anonymous and their stories are contradictory-please go here for more information:

http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html

ME: Help me with the research since you know so much. Please tell me of anyone who lived at the time of Jesus who corroborates what is specifically written in the Gospels. I don't want to hear about a historian writing a half a century later who simply relates what Christians were saying about Jesus, but someone who was there who corroborates the specifics of the Gospel stories.

>>i suggest you read "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. excellent resourse for many of the things we discuss, including corroborating evidence for the gospels.

I will read a web page or two, but not a whole book just to see this evidence. If you actually know what this evidence is, just tell me what it is, specifically.

ME: Please be aware that evolution is an observed fact. Faith has nothing to do with biology.

>>sure it does. when there are huge gaps in the fossil record, doesnt it take faith to believe that those gaps will be filled? and im sure you have faith that the people who tell you these things are telling the truth.

You brought the subject of evolution up. Why? Clearly as a distraction. I am not going to waste a great deal of time arguing about it with you. Again, evolution has been observed directly. Faith has nothing to do with it.

ME: Many people died by crucifixion, since that was the standard way of executing criminals and rebels. Is there any death by torture and execution that is not "humiliating"? How do you know Psalms refers specifically to Jesus?

>>again, thats the point of the prophesy- to say that Jesus would die by torture and execution, therefore being humiliating. Read Psalm 22 again. it quotes the exact words Jesus would speak on the cross, and pretty much exactly everything else that happened to him on the cross.

How do you know that the anonymous (Gospel) writers did not invent stories about Jesus' crucifixion to make it appear as if it was fulfilling prophecy? The Gospel writers had the OT writings to work from, so they could have just invented stories based on what they read in them. Matthew's very clumsy use of Isaiah 7:14 appears to be an example of this.

>>they are, in fact, not uncorroborated. it seems to me that they only conflict with YOUR "logic" and your "common sense."

Again, please show me anyone who lived at the time of these supposed events who corroborates the specifics of the Gospel stories. Can you do this or not?

>>i will repeat, they are not uncorroborated. read case for christ. by the way, show me these "non-prophesies" in the psalms.

I don't have the time to read a whole book for this e-mail discussion-just tell me what this book specifically says about these Gospel stories being corroborated by people who lived at the time. Thank you.

As far as non-prophecies, go here for more info:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2examp93.html

From the article above:

"What about all of those amazing examples of prophecy fulfillment? This is a question that fundamentalists almost always resort to in trying to defend their claim that the Bible is the verbally inspired word of God. Their question can easily be answered with another question. What prophecy fulfillments? Upon careful examination, these so-called prophecy fulfillments invariably turn out to be arbitrary distortions or misapplications of vaguely written or highly symbolic OT scriptures. They are "prophecy fulfillments" only in the fertile imagination of fundamentalists who desperately want them to be prophecy fulfillments."

ME: We don't who the people are that wrote the Gospels, and we do not know exactly what these people believed in. Maybe they were lying through their teeth, or were lied to by others, or were quessing, or were told stories by other people who were guessing. And even if they believed in what they were writing, their belief does not make what they believed true. Furthermore, the fact that something is written in a book does not make it true. You understand this, right?

>>of course i do. thats why i look to the corroborating evidence. you pretty much accuse the bible writers of "lying through their teeth" for everything.

I didn't directly accuse them of it. What I did was present evidence that shows it to be highly likely that these stories are fictional.

My point, again, is that you don't know who wrote these stories or for what purpose, and you have not, so far, shown corroborating evidence for the outrageous claims in these stories, yet you pretend that the stories are absolute undeniable truth. I don't understand why you think this, but I am hoping that, at some point, you will enlighten me.

>>maybe the people who go on these archaeological digs and find fossils or whatever that support evolution are liars. just because they write what they found in a book doesnt make it true. you understand this, right?

An extremely inept analogy. If scientists lie, they get found out. If scientists make mistakes, they eventually get corrected.That is precisely why science is so effective. Scientists who make false or mistaken claims have their claims torn apart by other scientists doing the same work. Have ALL scientists who studied biology. genetics, paleontolgy, and geology lied about their findings? Are you going to actually claim that there is a worldwide conspiracy of all the biologists, geneticists, geologists and paleontologists to falsify their research in order to fool people into accepting evolution? If you believe this, please present the evidence for it. Thank you.

>>of course not, and im not asking you to accept Christianity just because some Christians were persecuted. maybe what these persecuted Christians did believe in false stuff, but that is what they believed in right? they believed it so much to where they would die for it. that is why i say that the Christian martyrs didnt lie about the stuff about Jesus. if they lied, they would know that what they said about Jesus were lies, and therefore not admit they were Christians, stand up for what they believed in, and die for it.

People can be deluded, and people can believe in lies and people can die for lies. I don't see your point. David Koresh's cult members believed he was their savior, and they were willing to die for him. Did this make him a messiah sent from God?

ME: My question, again is this: If you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most likely believe in Islam and not Christianity, correct?

>>ask the same question to yourself before you ask me. would you still believe in evolution as truth?

Maybe. Many Christians accept evolution as well as many Muslims. Now, please answer my question.

>>i wasnt attempting to answer your question, it was sarcasm (but with a little truth). i cant explain it, im not God. and i dont question the mind of God. but just because you fing femur bones, pelvises or whatever in whales, snakes or whatever, doesnt prove evolution.

But how can you explain these features as being the product of a designer? You can't, can you? You brought the subject of evolution up, but when you are presented with evidence for it, you respond with the shopworn "God's ways are mysterious" rationalization. I am not impressed.

ME: Yes, I will ask a question again which has not been answered. Do you believe that the Bible is completely and entirely free of errors?

YOU: >>i have already. maybe i was a little vague though. i believe the original manuscripts are completely error free, and our manuscripts today are about 99% similar.

Where are these original manuscripts that you speak of, and why do you believe they are error free?

ME: I'm confused. Are you telling me that you have seen the original "manuscripts"? If not, how can you make this statement? Are you guessing?

>>i have read some of them, so im not guessing.

Where are these original manuscripts, how many of them are there, and when did you read them?

>> i am going to study that topic soon. have you seen the femur bones, the pelvises? if not, are you just guessing that they are there? or just taking somebodies word for it?

I have seen the whale pelvis in museums. They can also be seen in whale fossils and in whale carcasses on whaling ships or on beaches.

ME: Furthermore, I can well understand the motivation that people have to accept the stories of the Bible for comforting emotional reasons. And I can well understand why religious people feel the need to resort to threats of eternal torture when their comforting fictions are challenged (eternity is a long time to be wrong about Jesus)

>>i guess im emotionally unstable then if i believe in the bible

I didn't specifically call you emotionally unstable, rather I said that I can understand the emotional reasons why someone would accept the stories of the Bible.

it wasnt a threat, it was a fact.

I don't put a whole lot of stock in your claims, so you will forgive me if I remain unconvinced of this.

Brooks

Subj: brooks...
Date: 12/21/2001 12:54:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

sorry i havnt responded to your last email yet. i actually mustve accidentally deleted it- so, if you still have it, please send it to me so i can respond.

-Brian

Subj: Re: brooks...
Date: 12/22/2001 2:00:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

Here is my last e-mail to you. My older comments are in purple.

Cheers,

Brooks

Subj: brooks
Date: 12/25/2001 10:49:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

>>They are anonymous writers whose claims conflict with one another.

show me the conflicts and i'll comment on them. id like them one by one. its too much to read an entire website and break it down point by point.

>>The four that are canonical do not even corroborate one another, so I would doubt that the gospels that were not included in the Bible are consistent. However, I have not read them. Below is some information on how the four biblical gospels came to be accepted.

When written accounts of Jesus's teachings began to circulate (i.e., the theoretical 'sayings' gospel Q and the Semeia or Signs source), the independent groups would supplement them with their own traditions about the savior, each believing their own versions to be 'the Gospel.'

the statement "the independent groups would supplement them with their own traditions" is nothing more than this writers opinion, there is no evidence of this.

by the way, some of the links you gave me i tried to click on, but it wouldnt take me to that page. im still trying to get to these pages.

you also asked about the "zombies." first of all they arent "zombies" like you would see in Michael Jacksons Thriller, they are people that have been risen from the dead. Jesus raised people from the dead (Lazarus), so why is this impossible? why didnt another gospel writer write about this? i dont know, but it still doesnt make it impossible- Matthew is probably not interested in satisfying those questions we have about the ressurected bodies, but pointing to the awesomeness of Christs work. why didnt other people in Jerusalem write about it? we have to understand that we do not know how many saints were raised or how many people they appeared to. so its not like there were "hundreds of zombies parading around the streets of Jerusalem" as you may be thinking.

>>I will read a web page or two, but not a whole book just to see this evidence. If you actually know what this evidence is, just tell me what it is, specifically.

im not asking you to read The Case For Christ (by Lee Strobel) just for our conversations. it is an excellent book, and if you are truly interested in the claims of Christianity you should read it for your own good.

>>You brought the subject of evolution up. Why? Clearly as a distraction. I am not going to waste a great deal of time arguing about it with you. Again, evolution has been observed directly. Faith has nothing to do with it.

not as a distraction at all, i was interested in your answers. just as "evolution has been observed directly," the men who wrote the gospels observed for themselves the miracles, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

>>How do you know that the anonymous Gospels writers did not invent stories about Jesus' crucifixion to make it appear as if it was fulfilling prophecy? The Gospel writers had the OT writings to work from, so they could have just invented stories based on what they read in them. Matthew's very clumsy use of Isaiah 7:14 appears to be an example of this.

if the Gospel writers had lied about Jesus fulfilling prophesies, they wouldnt have willingly died for something they knew was a lie. Do you think the gospel writers, and the rest of the writers of the NT (paul, peter, james) (and all the early Christians) all got together and devised a huge lie to deceive everyone? you also seem to think that if the gospels stories arent corroborated by nonchristians who lived at the time, they arent believable- on the contrary, dont you think that if the early christians were lying about all this, that there would be people present to say without a doubt that certain stories were absolutely, without a doubt, not true? if the gospel writers had lied, people at the time who knew these stories were lies would have shouted from the roof-tops that they were liars, and present substantial proof that Jesus did not perform miracles, be crucified, or rise from the dead.

>>Scientists who make false or mistaken claims have their claims torn apart by other scientists doing the same work.

exactly. likewise, if the gospel writers had made false claims, they would have had other people revealing their lies at the time.

>>Have ALL scientists who studied biology. genetics, paleontolgy, and geology lied about their findings?

did all the people who wrote about Christ lie?

>>Are you going to actually claim that there is a worldwide conspiracy of all the biologists, geneticists, geologists and paleontologists to falsify their research in order to fool people into accepting evolution? If you believe this, please present the evidence for it. Thank you.

was there a conspiracy by all early Christians to corroborate and falsify their writings in order to fool people into accepting Christianity? what in the world would be their motive?

i dont have time right now to answer the rest of your questions, forgive me. i'll try to get to them soon.

-Brian

Subj: Re: brooks
Date: 12/26/2001 2:01:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY

Brian,

I will wait for you to respond to the rest of my questions before responding.

Brooks

Subj: Re: brooks...
Date: 12/26/2001 2:30:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: YYYYYY
To: BBu84

>>My question, again is this: If you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most likely believe in Islam and not Christianity, correct?

maybe. and true Christians do not believe in any concept of evolution. evolution is in no way shape or form a teaching of orthodox Christianity. i cant say the same for muslims who believe in evolution.

>>But how can you explain these features as being the product of a designer? You can't, can you? You brought the subject of evolution up, but when you are presented with evidence for it, you respond with the shopworn "God's ways are mysterious" rationalization. I am not impressed.

do they need an explanation of being the product of a designer? this does not prove evolution, or disprove God. And, i did not respond with "Gods ways are mysterious," i said that who are we, as merely men, to question the thoughts or creations of God? Read Job. i dont need to come up with an answer to this question. I do not pretend to be an evolution scholar, but i do know enough about it to reject it.

>>Where are these original manuscripts that you speak of, and why do you believe they are error free?

these manuscripts are such things as the dead sea scrolls.

>>Where are these original manuscripts, how many of them are there, and when did you read them?

read ch 3 in case for christ.

-Brian

Subj: from Brooks
Date: 1/1/2002 11:30:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: YYYYYY
Brian,

I would like to point out here that you still have not explained how you have determined that there are fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. This point is important since you cited fulfilled prophecies as the major reason why you accept the Bible as true. If you cannot explain why you accept that the Bible contains fulfilled prophecies, are there any other reasons why you accept the Bible as true?

>>>ME: They are anonymous writers whose claims conflict with one another.

>>YOU: show me the conflicts and i'll comment on them. id like them one by one. its too much to read an entire website and break it down point by point.

It is not an entire web site, it is just a single, easy to read article. You didn't even bother to check out the link, did you?

>>>ME: The four that are canonical do not even corroborate one another, so I would doubt that the gospels that were not included in the Bible are consistent. However, I have not read them. Below is some information on how the four biblical gospels came to be accepted. When written accounts of Jesus' teachings began to circulate (i.e., the theoretical 'sayings' gospel Q and the Semeia or Signs source), the independent groups would supplement them with their own traditions about the savior, each believing their own versions to be 'the Gospel.'

>>the statement "the independent groups would supplement them with their own traditions" is nothing more than this writers opinion, there is no evidence of this.

Wrong. History shows that there were competing groups of Christians early on who had very divergent views of Jesus, and had conflicting gospels about Jesus. The surviving non-canonical gospels, which I linked to in my last e-mail, demonstrate this fact.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/gospels.htm

>>by the way, some of the links you gave me i tried to click on, but it wouldnt take me to that page. im still trying to get to these pages.

If I gave you a hotlink, the hotlink always had its associated URL right next to it, so all you had to do if the hotlink did not work was simply cut and paste the URL into your browser address bar. If you have any questions about this procedure, let me know and I will further clarify my instructions so you can find the pages I provided the links for.

>>you also asked about the "zombies." first of all they arent "zombies" like you would see in Michael Jacksons Thriller, they are people that have been risen from the dead.

How else do you describe rotting corpses that crawl out of their graves? If they were not zombies, did they resume their lives in Jerusalem and die again later, or did they just crawl back into their graves that day, and cover themselves up with dirt?

>>Jesus raised people from the dead (Lazarus), so why is this impossible?

You assume Jesus raised people from the dead, but why? Is it just because this claim is found in an anonymous, ancient story? Every statement you make assumes the truth of the Bible, yet the truth of the Bible is precisely what is under discussion here. I don't understand how or why you accept such an outrageous claim when we don't have any reasonable way to investigate it 2000 years later.

>>why didnt another gospel writer write about this (ed.-zombies)? i dont know, but it still doesnt make it impossible- Matthew is probably not interested in satisfying those questions we have about the ressurected bodies, but pointing to the awesomeness of Christs work. why didnt other people in Jerusalem write about it? we have to understand that we do not know how many saints were raised or how many people they appeared to.

The quote states that "many" saints were raised from the dead and that they walked into Jerusalem and appeared to "many." Yet no other Gospel writer mentions this, and apparently no one from Jerusalem thought it was important enough to make note of. In light of the lack of support for this claim by "Matthew," do you think it is true or false?

>>so its not like there were "hundreds of zombies parading around the streets of Jerusalem" as you may be thinking.

I never wrote "hundreds of zombies." There were "many" zombies, which appear to "many" in Jerusalem, according to the Bible.

I do not see any effort on your part to answer my questions about the conversation Jesus supposedly had with the Devil, so I will repeat my questions: Who recorded the conversation Jesus and the Devil had, and where is the mountain located where they had their conversation? This is a mountain from which, according to the Bible, ALL the kingdoms of the earth could be seen. I am not aware than any such mountain exists, or has ever existed. Do you know where it is?

>>ME: I will read a web page or two, but not a whole book just to see this evidence. If you actually know what this evidence is, just tell me what it is, specifically.

>>im not asking you to read The Case For Christ (by Lee Strobel) just for our conversations. it is an excellent book, and if you are truly interested in the claims of Christianity you should read it for your own good.

I don't have the book-can you summarize what information Chapter three has about contemporaries of Jesus who corroborate the details of the Gospel stories? Since you have claimed that such eyewitness accounts exist, I would very much like to know what (this information) is. Thank you.

>>just as "evolution has been observed directly," the men who wrote the gospels observed for themselves the miracles, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Why do you believe this? We have no reason whatsoever to believe that the writers of the Gospels were eyewitness to the events they describe. The Gospels were written many decades after Jesus was supposed to have died, even as late as the second century, and the writers themselves never claim to have been eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke clearly copied much of their stories from Mark.

>>if the Gospel writers had lied about Jesus fulfilling prophesies, they wouldnt have willingly died for something they knew was a lie.

We don't know who wrote the Gospels, so we don't know either that they believed what they were writing, or that if they did believe in what they wrote, that they died for believing. Even if we did know who these writers were and even if we did know that they died for believing these stories, that would not be a reason for us to think that the Gospels are true. People die for false beliefs all the time. Dying for a belief does not make that belief true.

>>Do you think the gospel writers, and the rest of the writers of the NT (paul, peter, james) (and all the early Christians) all got together and devised a huge lie to deceive everyone?

No, not necessarily. They could have been promoting claims that they believed were true, but which were actually false.

The writings attributed to Paul, Peter and James provide little in the way of specific information about Jesus. In fact, these writers seem ignorant of virtually all of the details about Jesus supplied by the anonymous Gospel writers. This is very strange, since at many points in their writings, these writers would have every reason to cite the words or the actions of Jesus to give authority to their arguments. But they are silent about Jesus. A perfectly reasonable explanation for this phenomena is that these writers were not familiar with the life of Jesus, but believed in him perhaps only as some sort of symbolic mystical redeemer. Certainly this was how the early Gnostic Christians portrayed Jesus. If this is the case, then what they wrote was not a conspiracy to deceive others, but simply an expression of their faith in claims made by others, a faith in assertions that they themselves had no direct knowledge of.

Here is something else to keep in mind. There were various groups of Christians early on, with varied and conflicting understandings of Jesus. There were the literalists and there were those-the Gnostics-who interpreted the stories about Jesus symbolically. The literalists would later form the Catholic church, and persecute and attack all the other groups of Christians. History clearly shows that the Catholic Church early on forged stories and letters, it edited and rewrote the writings of other groups, and it destroyed the works of other sects in order to further its influence and power. We actually have direct quotes from Christian "Fathers" condoning the use of lying to further the cause of the Church. The early history of Christianity is clearly riddled with duplicity and deception.

>>you also seem to think that if the gospels stories arent corroborated by nonchristians who lived at the time, they arent believable- on the contrary, dont you think that if the early christians were lying about all this, that there would be people present to say without a doubt that certain stories were absolutely, without a doubt, not true? if the gospel writers had lied, people at the time who knew these stories were lies would have shouted from the roof-tops that they were liars, and present substantial proof that Jesus did not perform miracles, be crucified, or rise from the dead.

Once again, the Gospel writers are anonymous and the earliest Gospel story was not written until at least 40 years after Jesus was supposed to have died. It does not appear that ANYONE who lived at the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived even noticed his existence, so it is very hard to imagine that there would have been anybody around 40 years later to dispute stories about events that no one was aware of in the first place.

>>>ME: Scientists who make false or mistaken claims have their claims torn apart by other scientists doing the same work.

>>exactly. likewise, if the gospel writers had made false claims, they would have had other people revealing their lies at the time.

No, obviously not, for the reasons stated above. The Gospel stories were not written until decades after Jesus is supposed to have died, and no one seemed to be aware that Jesus existed at the time he was said to have been alive, so it is highly unlikely that people from forty years earlier, if they were still alive, would have been able to dispute claims made about Jesus, if they were so inclined. It is unlikely that that many people even paid attention to the Christians, as there were numerous religious cults and sects proclaiming various things at the end of the first century. Christianity was just one religion among many, and was itself divided in competing groups. It is unlikely that most people would have paid much attention to what various Christian groups believed or said at the end of the first century.

>>ME: Have ALL scientists who studied biology. genetics, paleontolgy, and geology lied about their findings?

>>did all the people who wrote about Christ lie?

It is not necessary to for people to lie for their information to be false. If you look at all the non-Gospel references to Christ in the Bible, you will see that the references are generally very vague. None of these writers seem to know much of anything specific about Jesus-instead they appear to be relating information they heard from someone else. So whether people lied about Jesus or () whether they repeated things they heard from someone else, the information about Jesus found in the Bible does not appear to be particularly reliable. And this is why claims about Jesus are believed in not on the evidence but on faith.

>>ME: Are you going to actually claim that there is a worldwide conspiracy of all the biologists, geneticists, geologists and paleontologists to falsify their research in order to fool people into accepting evolution? If you believe this, please present the evidence for it. Thank you.

>>was there a conspiracy by all early Christians to corroborate and falsify their writings in order to fool people into accepting Christianity?

According to history, yes, absolutely.

>>what in the world would be their motive?

Money and power.

>>ME: My question, again is this: If you had been born in a Muslim country, raised in a Muslim family and educated in a Muslim school, you would most likely believe in Islam and not Christianity, correct?

>>maybe.

Wrong answer. You would most likely believe in Islam and not in Christianity. I think it is clear that religious affiliation is largely determined by where we are born and by our cultural indoctrination, and has little to do with reasoned appraisals of the facts.

>>and true Christians do not believe in any concept of evolution.

Do you know that the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians accept evolution? They view evolution as God's method of creation. Are these people not true Christians? Are fundamentalist Christians the only true Christians?

>>ME: But how can you explain these features as being the product of a designer? You can't, can you? You brought the subject of evolution up, but when you are presented with evidence for it, you respond with the shopworn "God's ways are mysterious" rationalization. I am not impressed.

>>do they need an explanation of being the product of a designer? this does not prove evolution, or disprove God. And, i did not respond with "Gods ways are mysterious," i said that who are we, as merely men, to question the thoughts or creations of God?

Which is just another way of saying: "God's ways are mysterious." I am sorry for putting those words in quotes before because it made it appear as if I was quoting you, when I really meant to paraphrase you.

>>Read Job. i dont need to come up with an answer to this question.

No, you don't, but it certainly lessens your credibility when you rail against evolution as a falsehood, yet are unwilling to address the evidence for it.

>>I do not pretend to be an evolution scholar, but i do know enough about it to reject it.

No, you quite obviously don't know enough about it to reject it. It actually appears that you know absolutely nothing about it, yet you were the one who brought the subject up, not me. If you don't want to talk about evolution, stop trying to interject it into the discussion.

>>ME: Where are these original manuscripts that you speak of, and why do you believe they are error free?

>>these manuscripts are such things as the dead sea scrolls.

So you have read the Dead Sea Scrolls? What books are included in the Dead Sea Scrolls? How well do they correspond to versions found in the various Bibles floating around today? If the Dead Sea Scrolls don't represent the entire Bible, what other "manuscripts" from the original Bible did you read?

>>ME: Where are these original manuscripts, how many of them are there, and when did you read them?

>>read ch 3 in case for christ.

I don't have the book. Can you just briefly summarize what these original manuscripts are? Does chapter 3 of Case for Christ contain the original manuscript of the Bible?

Brooks

Subj: A response to your website
Date: 1/13/2002 12:30:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Dear Sir,

In order to further understand the world around me I have often visited websites that offer differing points of view then my own. I would first like to say that I am a devoted Christian and I am deeply concerned about your thoughts that you displayed on your webpage.

I feel that your webpage seriously misrepresents Christianity and its beliefs, but it is yours to do with as you wish. The reason for this response is because I have a few questions that I would like to ask.

First of all, what do you believe in? Do you believe in science and its teachings of evolution or do you find that teaching to be incorrect as well? I also am curious about your use of morality. You claim to be a moral person, but you are an intelligent person and must also understand that our morality in this world is based on the teachings of religion, whatever that religion may be. Basically they all have the same teachings when it comes to morality (not killing, stealing, respecting each other, etc.), but if you repudiate religions of all kinds then you must also repudiate their teachings of morality. What I'm trying to get at is your morality is based on the morality of God. If there is no God then who is to say what is moral and what is immoral, what is good and what is evil?

I also have a response to your Bible quotes (referring to slavery and the like). I feel that these are blatant misrepresentations of the Bible and I would be more then happy to give you my interpretation if you would like.

Finally, I have one last question. You have clearly stated that you do not believe in God. My question is, what is it like to have no hope, nothing to look forward to but what is in this world, no hope for salvation, no hope for eternal life, no hope for true happiness, and true love? Personally, I feel that that thought would be enough to drive anyone into a deep depression if they truly believe that there is no hope at all.

These are just a few questions that I have for you and I would appreciate anything that you have to say that would help me to further understand you logic. If you would like I would be more then happy to create an open dialogue discussing our differing ideas. I am curious about yours and by the admission of your site you are curious about mine.

One last thing, if you do believe in evolution and the big bang then you must understand that there was no beginning. Time has always been around, thus the big bang happened an infinity amount of time ago, thus allowing life to evolve for an infinity amount of time. Because of this endless amount of time, evolution would have been able to correct any defects that might occur (disease, evil, etc.), but as we both know this hasn't happened. Would you care to explain as to why it hasn't happened?

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Grant XXXXXX

XXXXX@XXXXXX

Subj: response from Brooks
Date: 1/13/2002 11:32:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Grant,

>> First of all, what do you believe in? Do you believe in science and its teachings of evolution or do you find that teaching to be incorrect as well?

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge, it is not a belief system. Biological evolution is a change the gene frequency of a population of organisms over time, and this has been observed directly.

>>I also am curious about your use of morality. You claim to be a moral person, but you are an intelligent person and must also understand that our morality in this world is based on the teachings of religion, whatever that religion may be.

Why do you believe this? In any case, I believe that all religions were created by humans.

>>Basically they all have the same teachings when it comes to morality (not killing, stealing, respecting each other, etc.),

The Bible supports slavery, child murder, misogyny, the eternal torture of people for their opinions, etc. Thus it cannot be said that Christianity "teaches" a particularly advanced morality.

>>..but if you repudiate religions of all kinds then you must also repudiate their teachings of morality.

That is a false dichotomy, for two reasons. To begin with, religions do not necessarily provide coherent or good moral rules, and secondly, even if it could be argued that they do in some cases, rejecting one religion or all religions would not necessitate a repudiation of whatever moral advice these religions might happen to advocate. I am confused as to why you would believe such a thing.

>>What I'm trying to get at is your morality is based on the morality of God.

A blatant assertion, without any supporting evidence. This claim is something you need to demonstrate rather than just assume.

I believe religions were invented by humans, so I believe the thoughts and words attributed to gods are simply the thoughts and words of human beings.

>>If there is no God then who is to say what is moral and what is immoral, what is good and what is evil?

You are assuming that a god somehow delineated in the Bible what is moral and immoral. I do not agree with this view. I think the Bible is the product of ancient, primitive people, and as such it condones many things that people today find morally reprehensible.

At the most basic level, morality is based on what helps or what harms people.

>>I also have a response to your Bible quotes (referring to slavery and the like). I feel that these are blatant misrepresentations of the Bible and I would be more then happy to give you my interpretation if you would like.

If you are referring to the Biblical Stupidity page, then I don't know how I can be accused of misrepresenting anything, since all I have done on that page is post quotes directly from the Bible, without any comments.

>>Finally, I have one last question. You have clearly stated that you do not believe in God. My question is, what is it like to have no hope, nothing to look forward to but what is in this world, no hope for salvation, no hope for eternal life, no hope for true happiness, and true love?

This is an example of a loaded question. To directly answer it, I would be validating all the assumptions that you have loaded into it. I do not agree with your assumptions, so there is nothing for me to answer. I will only say this: I don't miss what was never there in the first place and this world is more than enough for me. I am sorry that this world is not good enough for you.

>>Personally, I feel that that thought would be enough to drive anyone into a deep depression if they truly believe that there is no hope at all.

What drives me into a deep depression are Christians who can only find joy in waiting for death.

>>One last thing, if you do believe in evolution and the big bang then you must understand that there was no beginning. Time has always been around, thus the big bang happened an infinity amount of time ago, thus allowing life to evolve for an infinity amount of time. Because of this endless amount of time, evolution would have been able to correct any defects that might occur (disease, evil, etc.), but as we both know this hasn't happened. Would you care to explain as to why it hasn't happened?

The evidence points to the universe beginning in a so-called Big Bang some 13 to 20 billion years ago. So there has not been an "endless amount of time" during which evolution has taken place. In any case, I do not really understand what you mean when you say that biological evolution, given "endless time," would correct "any defects that might occur (disease, evil, etc.)"? Could you explain this idea in greater detail? What biologist proposes this?

Thanks.

Brooks

Subj: Your purpose
Date: 6/13/2002 12:23:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XYXYXY
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hello Brooks,

Bear with me while I give you more than you ever wanted to know about Brett before I get to the point.

I'm a non-believer since the age of 12. I was questioning my "faith." What was that anyway? I didn't have any idea. No one could give me an even slightly meaningful answer to that. Not my childhood peers or adult role models. I was considering believing just so I could say I believe. One day, I found myself "praying" for God to let me kill rabbits on tomorrow's rabbit hunt. It was just too comical, but in hind sight not so out of line with what I should expect from our baby killing God! That was the end of that. I was mature enough to realize that as a child, I didn't have the authority to believe what I wanted. The solution for me was to not believe, but to outwardly maintain the facade.

I was perfectly fine with that strategy until I was in my mid-20s. I was approached one day by an older guy to attend church. He was really nice and friendly. He offered the "fellowship" of church including socialization with people my age. That approach was very appealing. I did remember going to church as a child and the fun social aspects of it. I felt like I was missing that, and this nice friendly guy and the prospect of meeting friendly people really did appeal to me. So I started going.

Did you ever see the Star Trek episode where there's this planet of these weird believers in this god like guy Landry or something? Kirk and the landing party come down and the people are this weird, sickly, pleasant, cheery beyond belief, all good, see no evil society. Soon, they realize "you're not of the body are you?" That was me in church. Despite the cheery facade, there was no place for me there.

I walked away from that permanently I thought, and life was good. This was until I got into long term relationships with women. In my first, I covered my belief system with profession of agnostic views. I tried to leave the door open for "conversion." Christians love a misguided and lost soul with an open mind. On the other hand, if you close the door with atheistic views, that's another problem altogether. I didn't care what she believed as long has she left me alone in my beliefs. As the relationship went on, I couldn't hide my feelings well enough though, and my atheistic viewpoints leaked out enough. She viewed this as the root cause for everything as our relationship went down the toilet. "You're not of the body are you?"

Then I got married. At first, my wife professed her Christianity, and seemed to accept my "agnostic" views without indicating it was going to be a big problem. We didn't go to church. We didn't argue about it. Life was good. Then I had kids. Now we have their "eternal souls" to worry about don't we. She started to go to a Southern Babtist church and has become a real bible thumping born again Christian fundie. This has included a lot of pressure from her, her family, church, and soon to be my children for me to do the same.

I put up with a lot of that Christian crap for a couple of years, being drug into church to avoid having my family split right down the middle. Sucking up and keeping my mouth shut. Being told that I just don't live up to the standard of the chosen few. That my beliefs are the root of all evil in our marriage, and "One day you'll figure it out and it will be too late." That I'm some sort of defective evil person because I'm "Not of the body." And of course, the implied ultimate threat: one day I'll pay for it in hell.

If you're still with me, here is where I came to your web site. I finally got fed up with this load of crap. Being told it's real simple; just read the bible and open your mind. You're just not getting it, and if you were a better person, you would. We really feel sorry for you. Fine. I know this is horse shit. Then I opened up my browser right there on my desk, and I discovered religion on the Internet.

Yep. Just dare to type in atheism on Yahoo. It's all there. Plain as day. The history of free thinking going back hundreds of years. The history of the Bible. Real analysis of what it says, and concrete illustration of the crap that it is. I read on the Secular Web, American Atheist, Infidels.org, The skeptic's annotated bible, etc. What an eye opening experience. I was enlightened. No longer did I feel the need to hide my feelings and cower to these Christian holier than thou zealots/idiots.

I enjoyed your site, and how you have slammed this load of crap and the idiots, by definition, that believe it. I particularly like the name. "Christianity: Bogus beyond belief. How dare you! I mean, it's really eye opening to see the audacity! How could you be so bold? I read some dialogs between you and the idiots where they attack your purpose. Just remember. Your purpose is not for the Christians in these debates. They have thrown away logic, intelligence, and reasoning by definition. It's the audience my friend. That's one of the eye opening statements I read recently on one of these sites, maybe yours.

The audience is growing, and they are watching and listening closely. Must we really believe this crap? They have sat in the pews forced there by their parents, families, spouses, and society. They don't want to be there, but they don't have the courage to stand up and walk out. People are walking out quietly all over the country though. You should hear my wife's Babtist preacher whining about it. Right along with it, he's whining about struggling to make payments on his new multi-million dollar church and blatantly insulting the members that just aren't quite good enough Christians to cough up the money.

We don't have the inquisition or the Puritan culture anymore, and the press has even dared to report that Catholic priests are raping our children. What has come of our Bible based American culture? We have the Internet now. You are blatantly and boldly spreading a message that has been hideously squashed by the church for two thousand years. Christianity is bogus beyond belief. The message is now out there for all to see at the click of a mouse. That is your purpose.

Relish in the profound, shocking, unprecedented, and historic nature of your freedom.

BC

Subj: re: Your purpose
Date: 6/16/2002 10:50:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XYXYXY

Brett,

Thank you very much for the e-mail and your kind words. I am very sorry to hear what you have had to put up because you are not part of the cult. It must be incredibly frustrating to be surrounded by family members who think you are going to Hell. It certainly would be nice if your wife could be deprogrammed-I can't imagine being in your situation. A few years back I met an older, formerly-Catholic couple who told me that figuring out Christianity was nonsense together was one of the best things that ever happened to them. They had never been happier since making the break from religion.

Since you were nice enough to share some of your personal experiences with this cult, I'll tell you some of my experiences. About ten years ago I thought there was something wrong with me because I couldn't accept Christianity. I mean, I didn't know of anyone else who thought the way I did. The Internet was not really around then. Eventually I managed to discover a few dusty books of skeptical literature in the library. It was such a beautiful thing to find that other people felt the way I did. I remember that I was practically dancing for joy when I stumbled across the book "Atheism: The Case Against God" in a college bookstore. The book clearly showed that the problem was not with me but with Christianity. By this point I had gotten so sick and tired of people treating me like I had a contagious disease because I doubted Christianity that I just wanted to expose Christianity once and for all for the sham that it was.

Since I have gotten the chance to discuss Christianity at length with Christians who visit my site, I have been amazed at the lengths some people will go to preserve their religious delusions. I didn't get this kind of perspective when I went to church. I was not aware of the level of fanaticism that exists. I get the impression that some Christian apologists would deny all human knowledge outside the Bible, redefine each word of every language and carve their own eyes out before they would acknowledge that the Bible contained even a single mistake. You can't reason with such people, any more than you can reason with Muslim fundamentalists. The best you can do, I think, is to have these folks speak in a public forum in order to showcase the emotional and mental damage that religion can inflict on people. That is one of the things I try (to) do on my site.

Anyway, I thank you very much for your great e-mail. I will post it on my site-with the last name and e-mail address removed (unless you would want me to keep them in when I post it).

Have a good one.

Brooks

Subj: re: Your purpose
Date: 6/17/2002 8:00:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XYXYXY
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

Thanks for the reply. It's been really nice hearing the honest views of other people that think the same way. I've always kept my views hidden. It's kind of like being told you're hideously ugly, accepting it, and covering your face your whole life. Finding all this on the Internet has made me realize that the Christians are the ones who should cover their face in shame, and it's given me the ammunition to confront them about it. I would just as soon be left alone, but when confronted, I intend on standing up for myself.

I still smile when I hear you talk about this. "Redefine each word of every language and carve their own eyes out." That's funny because it is so true. I was reading a dialogue with you and a guy. I think it was you. You were asking why it was OK for women to be stoned because they weren't virgins at their wedding, and how you would tell. You'd ask these simple naive questions, that are just funny. And the poor Christian guy has to answer, and that's even funnier.

I'm going to get that Case Against God book. I'm going to keep it on my nightstand, opposite from my wife's night stand with A Case for Christ. When she or anyone else dares me to open my mind and read the Bible, I'll be ready. I'll remind them I am reading the Bible. Now you do the same. Just open your mind and type atheism into any search engine. Be afraid. You're doomed to living a lie! It's all right here in this book. I dare you to read it!

Keep it up.

BC

home | history | biblical stupidity | bible | some reasons | christian arguments
moral argument | faith | tough questions | more questions | W.L. Craig | J. McDowell
radio call-in #1 | radio call-in #2 | apologist e-mail | real ethics | impossible god (link)
bible problems | quotes | killbilly | responses 1 | responses 2a | responses 2b
responses 2c | responses 3 | responses 4 | responses 5 | responses 6
responses 7 | responses 8 | responses 9 | frames | links | updates | discussion board
top of page | sign guestbook | view guestbook | old guestbook | search site

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com Most recent update: 7/26/03