Chr

responses, page 8

This page consists of a single discussion with a Christian apologist. The topics discussed include biblical slavery, the Ten Commandments and the definition of the term "God."

Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com
responses 1
responses 2a
responses 2b
responses 2c
responses 3
responses 4
responses 5
responses 6
responses 7
responses 8
responses 9
home

Subj: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/18/2001 1:14:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I would label myself as a free-thinking Christian with fundamentalist leanings. I have always prided myself in my undying efforts to always consider *both* sides of issues. However, I was hard-pressed to find a SINGLE instance in any of the information (propaganda) presented on your website where I could identify that you clearly evaluated *both* sides of an issue. Furthermore, the ultra-high level of anti-Christian bias (religious bigotry) displayed in your commentary destroys any possibility for objectivity. Honesty and objectivity are contingent on non-bias.

Even though I anticipate your closed-minded, anti-Christian agenda to force objectivity to take a back seat when considering my answers, I am confident that most (if not all) of your arguments can be either refuted (where proof is involved), or debunked (where alternative interpretations are possible). The biggest deception espoused by your material is the fact that you always assume that there is no alternative way to interpret the Bible, history, doctrine, theology, social issues, etc. other than the one you provide. (which aims to destroy Christianity). I ask you to assemble your best arguments against Christianity and/or Theism and send them to me so I can readily dismember them. Thanks.

Have a nice day.

Brandon

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/18/2001 11:05:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

####" However, I was hard-pressed to find a SINGLE instance in any of the information (propaganda) presented on your website where I could identify that you clearly evaluated *both* sides of an issue."####

I have considered both sides of the issue-I used to be a Christian. After a while I just couldn't buy into it anymore. On my site I offer my own views on Christianity and include articles from other people who share my viewpoint. On my site I also provide the opportunity for Christians to present their case-I have a guestbook for visitors, an open discussion board, and I post e-mails from Christians. Besides this, I have a page where I describe Christian arguments and then point out their failings.

####" I ask you to assemble your best arguments against Christianity and/or Theism and send them to me so I can readily dismember them.####

What has to be understood about this whole subject is that theists have the burden of evidence since they are making the positive claim that "God" exists. Atheism means without theism, without a belief in "God" or gods. It is the absence of a belief. Let me demonstrate why this point is important. Aleprechaunism means without a belief in leprechauns. I am certain that you are an aleprechaunist, you are without a belief in leprechauns. Certainly you can see that it is not your responsibility to do the impossible and "prove" a negative-that leprechauns do not exist-to persistent leprechaunists. Likewise, it is not my responsibility to prove the nonexistence of "God" to you. If it is your aim to convince me of a positive claim, that "God" exists, then it is your obligation to actually argue for your claim.

So I would be very interested in hearing your case. However, there is one thing that needs to be done before you argue for "God." The term "God" has never been adequately defined as far as I know, so before you go about demonstrating that "God" exists, you have to make clear what, exactly, you are talking about.

"The biggest deception espoused by your material is the fact that you always assume that there is no alternative way to interpret the Bible, history, doctrine, theology, social issues, etc"

Like everyone else, I interpret the Bible based on my own education, knowledge and life experience, all of which tell me that it is a human book, a fallible book, and one which promotes a primitive morality. Because that is my opinion of the Bible, that is what is presented on my web site. So where is the "deception"?

Brooks

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/19/2001 8:54:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

I have considered both sides of the issue-I used to be a Christian. After a while I just couldn't buy into it anymore. On my site I offer my own views on Christianity and include articles from other people who share my viewpoint. On my site I also provide the opportunity for Christians to present their case-I have a guestbook for visitors, an open discussion board, and I post e-mails from Christians. Besides this, I have a page where I describe Christian arguments and then point out their failings.

It should be noted that guestbooks, discussion boards, or emails from nebulous Christians do not constitute "presenting both sides of an issue", especially since my comment was referring to YOUR articles. Furthermore, the page you have that supposedly describes "Christian" arguments does no such thing. It describes your *interpretation* of Christian arguments. I would that you called it your "straw man page" since it contains nothing but straw man Christian arguments that you set up yourself, and then proceed to knock down, all the while ignorantly thinking you've accomplished or refuted something.

What has to be understood about this whole subject is that theists have the burden of evidence since they are making the positive claim that "God" exists.

This is all elementary. However, your statement overlooks the fact that there are different *types* of claims, and therefore different *types* of proofs. Some claims are philosophical, some are metaphysical, and some are scientific. The age-old error of atheism is that it falsely requires *scientific* evidence for a "metaphysical claim". The notion of God is a metaphysical notion. To require physical or scientific proof for a claim that is, by definition, - *metaphysical*, is about as absurd as someone demanding metaphysical proof for something that is proposed to be physical.

Atheism means without theism, without a belief in "God" or gods. It is the absence of a belief. Let me demonstrate why this point is important.

While the definition of atheism is debatable (since atheists have changed it in the past few decades), I'll accept your definition. (Which is of recent vintage, by the way...)

Aleprechaunism means without a belief in leprechauns. I am certain that you are an aleprechaunist, you are without a belief in leprechauns. Certainly you can see that it is not your responsibility to do the impossible and "prove" a negative-that leprechauns do not exist-to persistent leprechaunists. Likewise, it is not my responsibility to prove the nonexistence of "God" to you. If it is your aim to convince me of a positive claim, that "God" exists, then it is your obligation to actually argue for your claim.

It should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of basic logic why your above argument is invalid. It is invalid for the following reasons: 1) It failed to define "Leprechaun" and "God". 2) Failed to define and describe what "proof" means, and what would constitute it, 3) Compares the two undefined entities using a singular, undefined standard of proof. (Falsely doing so since they are *different* claims for different *types* of entities, and therefore would necessitate *different* standards of proof).

So I would be very interested in hearing your case.

All claims that are held for a reason can be argued for. Therefore, I look forward to hearing your case for atheism, that is, unless you have no *reason* for your "lack of belief".

However, there is one thing that needs to be done before you argue for "God." The term "God" has never been adequately defined as far as I know,

That statement begs the question of what you consider "adequate" to mean, and how it is applied. Remember, the numerous satellite photographs of earth and even live video footage from orbit is not "adequate" to convince a member of the Flat Earth Society that the earth is round.

so before you go about demonstrating that "God" exists, you have to make clear what, exactly, you are talking about.

Of course. This is a no-brainer. How could someone argue for something they haven't even defined?

Like everyone else, I interpret the Bible based on my own education, knowledge and life experience, all of which tell me that it is a human book, a fallible book, and one which promotes a primitive morality. Because that is my opinion of the Bible, that is what is presented on my web site. So where is the "deception"?

You, *unlike* most objective people, gave their personal take on an issue but then failed to leave the door open for different interpretations. The deception rests in the fact that there *are* other interpretions, but all of your opinions on the material (as false, and unnecessary as they are) of the Bible NEVER acknowledged this fact. Even a toddler understands that reality extends BEYOND one's own personal experiences and understandings, so I can only assume it is deceptive that you failed to acknowledge to do the same.

Lastly, I did challenge you to give me your "best" arguments against Christianity, which you failed to do. Perhaps you will provide them in your next message.

Brandon

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/19/2001 10:12:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

"Even a toddler understands that reality extends BEYOND one's own personal experiences and understandings..."

Whatever. I am just providing my understanding of the facts. Hopefully you can see that my web site is an expression of my views, and is not meant to be smorgasboard of views of every single belief system and religion.

Let's start with basics and have you describe what "God" is so we know what it is that you believe exists.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Atheism, Christianity, and Misinformation
Date: 3/19/2001 3:08:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brandon,

"Even a toddler understands that reality extends BEYOND one's own personal experiences and understandings..."

Whatever. I am just providing my understanding of the facts. Hopefully you can see that my web site is an expression of my views, and is not meant to be smorgasboard of views of every single belief system and religion.

Understood, however, there is no doubt that your "understanding" of facts (as presented on your website) have been totally tainted by extreme anti-Christian bias and prejudice. This is evidenced also by the fact that you've drawn all of your ideas from the same "well". (the secular web). That alone totally disqualifies your views from the arena of honest objectivity. So the question remains - why should any honest person accept your skewed views knowing that they are totally biased?

Let's start with basics and have you describe what "God" is so we know what it is that you believe exists.

(Not pending the fact that you neglected to respond the rest of my previous message), I define God as: "the supernatural, timeless, intelligent being that created the universe".

Perhaps in your NEXT message, you'll give me your best arguments against Christianity.

>Thank you.

Brandon

Subj: need more info
Date: 3/20/2001 11:14:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

You claim that it is a “fact” that I have gotten all my ideas from one source, the Secular Web. Even if I did, what difference would it make? Would that mean that all the information was false? In any case, the Secular Web is just one of many references I use on my site. Perhaps the most the most useful source of ideas is the Bible itself.

####I define God as: "the supernatural, timeless, intelligent being that created the universe".####

What do you mean by “supernatural”? What do you mean by “timeless”? Are we really aware of any “beings” that are “supernatural” and “timeless”? When you say “intelligent being,” are you referring to a carbon based, biological entity that resides on the planet earth, that breathes and eats and excretes? As far as I know, these are the only “beings” we are actually aware of. If you are not talking about a “being” such as these, then what, exactly, are you referring to, and how do you know that it exists?

As I said before, you are making the positive claim that this thing exists, so it is your responsibility to explain what it is and why you believe it exists. Once you have done this, then we can see whether there is any reason for anyone else to accept your claim.

I understand your desire to have me argue against Christianity so that you can “dismember” my arguments, but don't you agree that we have to understand what it is that Christianity, at its core, is claiming, before we can have an intelligible discussion on the topic?

Thanks.

Brooks

Subj: Re: need more info
Date: 3/20/2001 2:28:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

You claim that it is a "fact" that I have gotten all my ideas from one source, the Secular Web. Even if I did, what difference would it make? Would that mean that all the information was false?

You have criticized Christians for only getting their information from one source (the Bible), yet you cannot see the obvious problem with getting all of *your* information from one source? I guess you apparently have one standard for Christians, and another for yourself. Also, getting information from one source wouldn't make the information "false" per se, but it would seriously call into question the objective integrity of such information.

In any case, the Secular Web is just one of many references I use on my site. Perhaps the most the most useful source of ideas is the Bible itself.

I clicked on almost every link, and they all led me to other sites on the Secular Web.

####I define God as: "the supernatural, timeless, intelligent being that created the universe".####

What do you mean by supernatural?

(This should be self-evident) Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.

What do you mean by timeless?

Without time. Eternal.

Are we really aware of any beings that are supernatural and timeless?

"We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something. Besides, this question begs the definition of "aware". There are many forms of "awareness".

When you say "intelligent being," are you referring to a carbon based, biological entity that resides on the planet earth, that breathes and eats and excretes?

No of course not, nor is there any reason to think that we are the summation of all intelligent life; either in the physical or metaphysical universe.

As far as I know, these are the only beings we are actually aware of.

"As far as we know" is not a problem at all since we know less than .0000000000001% of all possible knowledge of the universe. If you are basing categoric dismissals of theistic possibilities based on what we "are aware of", then you are sorely at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the divine creation of the universe was an ancient event that occurred ONCE. Ancient events (or any event) that occur only once is called a "singularity". These are, by definition, unobservable. Therefore, it should be no big "surprise" that we are unable to "observe" God creating the universe. There must be literally trillions of singularities that have occurred throughout the universe's 15 billion year history, and none of them are observable or repeatable. But that does not mean we ignorantly assume they never happened simply because we haven't been able to observe them with our physical eyes!

If you are not talking about a "being" such as these, then what, exactly, are you referring to, and how do you know that it exists?

I've already defined the being that I am referring to - an intelligent, supernatural, timeless being. This being was the first cause of the universe.

As I said before, you are making the positive claim that this thing exists, so it is your responsibility to explain what it is and why you believe it exists. Once you have done this, then we can see whether there is any reason for anyone else to accept your claim.

The "effect" that exists today is the universe. By studying the effect (the universe) we can deduce many things about it's cause. The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product. Therefore, since the universe contains these fundamental attribtutes of intelligent design, it is *more likely* that the cause of the universe was an intelligent designer, as opposed to some blind, natural phenomena.

I understand your desire to have me argue against Christianity so that you can "dismember" my arguments, but don't you agree that we have to understand what it is that Christianity, at its core, is claiming, before we can have an intelligible discussion on the topic?

You don't know what Christianity is claiming even though you used to BE one?? *laughs* How about you quit beating around the bush and give me your best arguments against Christianity.

Cheers,

Brandon

Subj: response
Date: 3/20/2001 4:03:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: mailto:XXXXXX

Brandon,

#### You have criticized Christians for only getting their information from one source (the Bible), yet you cannot see the obvious problem with getting all of *your* information from one source? I guess you apparently have one standard for Christians, and another for yourself. Also, getting information from one source wouldn't make the information "false" per se, but it would seriously call into question the objective integrity of such information.#####

I do not base my rejection of Christianity simply on the Secular Web, and I do not use the Secular Web as my only source of references. So your claim is false. I critcize Christians for accepting the Bible for the very simple reason that the Bible is filled with patently false claims and highly questionable morality, to put it mildly.

####(This should be self-evident) Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

This is an example of a negative attribute. It is telling me what “God” is NOT: It is NOT natural, it is “supernatural.” It is NOT biological, it is somehow above biology and natural laws. This is not telling me what God actually IS. Let’s say that I told that “blork” existed. Puzzled, you asked me to explain and define “blork.” I told you that “blork” was supernatural-above natural laws, and that it was eternal. You still wouldn’t know what I was talking about, would you?

####Without time. Eternal.####

You are giving me an unlimited attribute, which is meaningless. What is an eternal, supernatural “blork”?

Me: Are we really aware of any beings that are supernatural and timeless?

You: "We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something.

This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. A lot of people believe in something, so therefore it is true. It is a bogus form of argumentation. And in any case, these people believed in different gods than the one you are arguing for. In fact, most of the people in the world in the past and today were not and are not Christians.

####No of course not, nor is there any reason to think that we are the summation of all intelligent life; either in the physical or metaphysical universe.####

Back up a minute: what is the “metaphysical” universe? You are bringing a new term that has not yet been defined. Even if you can show that it is likely that life exists on some other planets in THIS universe, these forms of life would be somewhat different than the form of life you are trying to argue for, correct?

####But that does not mean we ignorantly assume they never happened simply because we haven't been able to observe them with our physical eyes!####

I agree that we do base out knowledge only on what we see directly. We also base it on evidence and logic. The problem here is that you are attributing the creation of the universe to your god. This is simply an assumption, not something you can use as evidence for your god.

####The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product.####

This is another assumption, that the complexity we see in the universe is the result of intelligent design. There is no reason to attribute it to an intelligence. Furthermore, once one posits an intelligent designer, one has to explain what designed the designer. A designer would be more complex than it creation, and thus, if complexity requires intelligent designer, the designer of the universe would also require a creator.

###You don't know what Christianity is claiming even though you used to BE one?? *laughs* How about you quit beating around the bush and give me your best arguments against Christianity.####

When I was a youngster and went to church, I believed that there was a god, just like everyone told me. I believed that this god somehow heard my prayers. When I got older and put some thought into the subject, I discovered that I really did (not) know what this god was supposed to be. I further discovered that Christians could not explain what this thing actually was.

I am not beating around the bush. We cannot argue intelligibly about the claims of Christianity until such time as we understand what those claims are. If you really cannot contain your eagerness to “dismember” my arguments against Christianity, perhaps you can select some statement I make on my site which you think is false, and challenge it. If it is shown to be false, I will admit my error and amend it.

Brooks

Subj: Re: response
Date: 3/21/2001 8:27:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

#### You have criticized Christians for only getting their information from one source (the Bible), yet you cannot see the obvious problem with getting all of *your* information from one source? I guess you apparently have one standard for Christians, and another for yourself. Also, getting information from one source wouldn't make the information "false" per se, but it would seriously call into question the objective integrity of such information.#####

I do not base my rejection of Christianity simply on the Secular Web, and I do not use the Secular Web as my only source of references. So your claim is false.

As I mentioned before, your website has a proponderance of references to sources on the Secular Web. The only neutral source of information I could find was the links to online Bibles. Therefore, it would be quite evident to anyone who analyzes your site that my claim is quite accurate.

I critcize Christians for accepting the Bible for the very simple reason that the Bible is filled with patently false claims and highly questionable morality, to put it mildly.

Which "patently false" claims are these, and upon what historical evidence are you resting such a dogmatic conclusion? "Highly questionable morality" is a subjective judgement, AND would not make something "untrue", so that aspect of your charge is meaningless.

####(This should be self-evident) Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

This is an example of a negative attribute. It is telling me what "God" is NOT: It is NOT natural, it is "supernatural." It is NOT biological, it is somehow above biology and natural laws. This is not telling me what God actually IS.

This is just a "flip-wilson" semantics tactic that can be turned on itself. For example, if we used your standard evenly, "natural" would have to be considered a negative attribute since it would mean: NOT supernatural, but "natural", NOT nonbiological, but "biological". "Natural" would be telling us what humanity *isn't*, not what it actually IS. What you described is a bad standard because it is based on word games and term-twisting.

Let's say that I told that "blork" existed. Puzzled, you asked me to explain and define "blork." I told you that "blork" was supernatural-above natural laws, and that it was eternal. You still wouldn't know what I was talking about, would you?

With only that info, I would assume that "blork" is what you call your god.

####Without time. Eternal.####

You are giving me an unlimited attribute, which is meaningless. What is an eternal, supernatural "blork"?

Time is a component of 4D spatial dimension. It had a beginning, as did the universe itself. If there was a point when "time" did not exist, then "timelessness" is real. Therefore, "without time" *does* have scientific meaning. (If you know anything about cosmology, that is).

You: "We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something.

This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. A lot of people believe in something, so therefore it is true. It is a bogus form of argumentation.

*laughs* I guess you like to jam false arguments into my mouth, and then quickly say "see, fallacy! Fallacy!" If you'll notice, I never said that because billions of people believe in God, it is therefore "TRUE". What I WAS implying is there is good reason to believe that all of these billions of people were aware of something in order to have a such a wide-spread common belief.

Furthermore, you should note that your charge of "argumentum ad populum" fallacy is severely limited since it overlooks an important form of evidence - legal evidence. For example, say there was a guy who killed a woman in broad view of 100 people. In court, the prosecuter brings in all 100 people who said they saw him kill the woman, and the killer's defense attorney brings in *1* witness who says the man *didn't* kill the woman. How far do you think the killer's defense would get in a court of law if he argued that the testimony of the 100 witnesses is invalid and should not be accepted over the testimony of his *one* witness because it would be an "argumentum ad populum"? The point is, in terms of legal evidence, the testimony of 100 people is far stronger than the testimony of one person. This is something that "argumentum ad populum" totally overlooks.

And in any case, these people believed in different gods than the one you are arguing for. In fact, most of the people in the world in the past and today were not and are not Christians.

Irrelevant. The existence of ANY god or gods falsifies atheism.

####No of course not, nor is there any reason to think that we are the summation of all intelligent life; either in the physical or metaphysical universe.####

Back up a minute: what is the "metaphysical" universe? You are bringing a new term that has not yet been defined.

"Metaphysical" means immaterial, or incorporeal. Not all aspects of the universe are physical. Take "time" for example. It is an immaterial, incorporeal dimension of the universe. Furthermore, superstring theory posits the existence of *10 or more* active dimensions in the universe, only 3 of which are "physical". (width, height, and depth).

Even if you can show that it is likely that life exists on some other planets in THIS universe, these forms of life would be somewhat different than the form of life you are trying to argue for, correct?

Correct, but if I chose to argue for ET life, it would not be for the purpose of arguing FOR God. It would be only for the purpose of showing your previous claim (that "intelligent being" can ONLY apply to humans) is a hyper-presumptive claim at best, or false at worst.

####But that does not mean we ignorantly assume they never happened simply because we haven't been able to observe them with our physical eyes!####

I agree that we do base out knowledge only on what we see directly. We also base it on evidence and logic.

Agreed.

The problem here is that you are attributing the creation of the universe to your god.

That's not a problem at all. In fact, it's a quite plausible proposition.

This is simply an assumption, not something you can use as evidence for your god.

Since the creation of the universe is an ancient singularity, ANY theory, nor matter how many fancy scientific words it uses, would be based on unverifiable assumptions, and not used as "evidence". This is true of most origin theories, including evolution.

####The universe is extremely complex, balanced, and structured under a government of ordered laws. Complexity, balance, structure, and ordered operation are the fundamental attributes of every "known-to-be" intelligently designed product.####

This is another assumption, that the complexity we see in the universe is the result of intelligent design.

To assume the complexity we see in the universe is NOT intelligently designed, but the result of random incidence is an even GREATER assumption.

There is no reason to attribute it to an intelligence.

Yes there is - All "known-to-be" intelligently designed entities (such as the things created by humans) contain the SAME attributes as the universe - complexity, order, structure, and a conserving governance of laws. Therefore, it is more probable that the universe's creator was an intelligent designer, as opposed to a blind natural process.

Furthermore, once one posits an intelligent designer, one has to explain what designed the designer. A designer would be more complex than it creation, and thus, if complexity requires intelligent designer, the designer of the universe would also require a creator.

No, none of that is necessarily required because you are falsely meshing the natural laws of causation into the metaphysical realm and trying subjugate it to the same limitations. What scientfic basis do you have for claiming that metaphysical dimensions are bound by the same causal limitations as physical dimensions? Unless you can show that these limitations apply, we have no reason to believe they do.

###You don't know what Christianity is claiming even though you used to BE one?? *laughs* How about you quit beating around the bush and give me your best arguments against Christianity.####

When I was a youngster and went to church, I believed that there was a god, just like everyone told me. I believed that this god somehow heard my prayers. When I got older and put some thought into the subject, I discovered that I really did know what this god was supposed to be. I further discovered that Christians could not explain what this thing actually was.

Do you have any idea how many theological discourses are available at your local bookstore or Christian bookstore? There are THOUSANDS of them dating all the way back to the second century AD! I find it hard to believe that you based all of your knowledge of Christian doctrine on what "sister Florence" at church said when you asked her a couple questions.

But this is a common thread - most atheists seemed to be pissed off ex-Christians that were forced to go to church by their patriarchal mommy and daddy, and now have a life-long mission to destroy Christianity. (Or at least bitch and moan about it until Jesus returns). I find it very interesting that SCARCELY can you find any atheist website that attacks Islam, or Buddhism, or Shinoism, etc, or sets out to show how the "Avesta" or the "Quran" holy books are false.

I am not beating around the bush. We cannot argue intelligibly about the claims of Christianity until such time as we understand what those claims are.

Anybody who has spent even 2 minutes looking at your website would know that you are being disingenuous by pretending that you don't know what Christianity claims.

If you really cannot contain your eagerness to "dismember" my arguments against Christianity, ...

There is no "eagerness" with me at all. The fact is, I have asked you to provide me with your *best* arguments against Christianity three different times. That request is still pending now after four email exchanges!

... perhaps you can select some statement I make on my site which you think is false, and challenge it. If it is shown to be false, I will admit my error and amend it.

That would be quite difficult to do since your website is a huge amalgamation of claims, interpretations, selective quotes, tasteless photos, links, lies, truths, and everything in between. I was hoping you would give me what you think are your *best* arguments against Christianity. We can take it from there.

Thanks,

Brandon

Subj: got your e-mail
Date: 3/22/2001 3:00:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I have received your latest e-mail, but I am getting ready for a trip this weekend so I will get back to you next week.

Talk to you later.

Brooks

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 3/23/2001 12:32:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I have found that these discussions often mushroom out very quickly and I end up talking about ten different subjects at the same time. That is what is happening here. I still want you to define "God" much better than you have, and I want to examine this word "supernatural" that you keep using in reference to "God." I would like to get back to all the subjects that have been brought up, but for right now I would like to focus on biblical morality and the historical reliability of the Bible:

####Which "patently false" claims are these, and upon what historical evidence are you resting such a dogmatic conclusion? "Highly questionable morality" is a subjective judgement, AND would not make something "untrue", so that aspect of your charge is meaningless.####

But Christians claim that "God" (whatever it is) is morally perfect and above reproach-therfore it is quite justified to examine the morality of the biblical "god" to see whether it actually deserves such high praise. The biblical "god" supports slavery, it orders the murder of women and children, it murders women and children itself, and, of course, it subjects people to eternal torture for their opinions. Do you believe the morality of the biblical god is admirable and sets a good example for youngsters?

I would also like to know if you think the biblical flood is a real historical event or not.

Thank you.

Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 3/23/2001 11:46:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brandon,

I have found that these discussions often mushroom out very quickly and I end up talking about ten different subjects at the same time. That is what is happening here.

I understand. We can narrow it down to one or two topics at a time. However, the mushrooms still may occur unless we set a limit on the length of discussion for each topic.

I still want you to define "God" much better than you have, and I want to examine this word "supernatural" that you keep using in reference to "God."

I'm not sure what basis you have for asserting that my definitions are insufficient. Supernatural means "beyond, or transcendent to the natural order of things". I will define "God" once again - God: the Supernatural, timeless, intelligent being (consciousness) that has sufficient power to cause and conserve the existence of the physical universe.

Now, exactly *why* is that definition insufficient?

I would like to get back to all the subjects that have been brought up, but for right now I would like to focus on biblical morality and the historical reliability of the Bible:

Very well. Let's go....

####Which "patently false" claims are these, and upon what historical evidence are you resting such a dogmatic conclusion? "Highly questionable morality" is a subjective judgement, AND would not make something "untrue", so that aspect of your charge is meaningless.####

But Christians claim that "God" (whatever it is) is morally perfect and above reproach-therfore it is quite justified to examine the morality of the biblical "god" to see whether it actually deserves such high praise.

Now that I have defined "God" twice, there should be no more need to put it in quotes.

The biblical "god" supports slavery,

Not all slavery, and certainly not the slavery of his chosen people. Also, it should be noted that not all slaveries are abusive. Furthermore, food, shelter, clothing and other physical provisions can be considered "payment" for work performed, and all slaves receive such provisions. Those two facts alone cut into the validity of moral arguments made against *all* slavery.

it orders the murder of women and children, it murders women and children itself

This is an interesting argument because it gives special exception to a certain gender (women) and a certain age group (children). In order to properly answer this, you will first have to demonstrate exactly how and *why* the life of one gender and age-group is more valuable than others. If you can't support this, then you will be guilty of age-group and gender discriminations and your singling out of "women" and "children" will have to be considered prejudice.

Secondly, it should be noted that the giver a life has the right to be the taker of life as well. If God gives all life, then all life belongs to God. If all life belongs to God, then his act of taking something that he already owns could not be considered immoral. It's a logical impossibility.

and, of course, it subjects people to eternal torture for their opinions.

No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws. Since there is no question that all of mankind is guilty of crimes against God's laws, and since God has even provided the means by which all mankind can be forgiven of these transgressions, there is nothing inherently unjust about Hell. Given these conditions, the only possible way people can end up in Hell is through choosing to reject God's provisions to avoid it. The situation is similar to this analogy -

Suppose all humanity is lined up in their cars on a mountain road. There was a major break in the road (Adam's fall) that left a huge hole that leads to the bottom of the mountain. God saw everyone heading for the break in the road so he appeared on the scene to redirect traffic and warn everyone about the break. As a solution he gives them an alternate route that goes around the massive hole in the road. As each car approaches the hole, God tries to redirect them to the alternate route and warns them of the hole. Each person has the choice to either listen to the warning, or say "the old man is nuts" or "you have no PROOF for this hole", and keep going down the original route.

Therefore, if the people who choose to ignore the warning end up driving through the break in the road, thus tumbling to their deaths, whose fault is it?

Do you believe the morality of the biblical god is admirable and sets a good example for youngsters?

None of the material in the Bible was written for children, so you are begging the question. The Bible suggests that parents teach their children about God in ways that are appropriate for their level of understanding. The Bible was not addressed to children. That's why there is no verse in the Bible called " 2 Children 1:1 ".

I would also like to know if you think the biblical flood is a real historical event or not.

Absolutely. The natural record of the earth reveals that many great catastrophies have occurred - including massive floods, earthquakes, ice ages, storms, and even life-terminating meteor impacts. The Flood of Noah is merely another example of a natural catastrophe and there is no reason to conclude that it was a "worldwide" flood. The arguments on your website inadvertently assumed that the "worldwide" interpretation is the correct one. The biblical flood was a massive local flood that applied to the inhabited regions of the near east. (where Noah lived) This was a major fact that your entire diatribe against the flood completely overlooked.

Brandon

Subj: back from trip
Date: 3/27/2001 12:25:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I want to reiterate that you are asserting a positive, therefore it is your responsibility to explain exactly what you believe and why you believe it. The biggest hurdle to overcome here is to provide an understandable definition of “God.” Your current explanation of “God” is incoherent because it revolves around this term “supernatural.” The “supernatural” is, by definition, outside of our knowledge. Perhaps this “God” exists, but, based on your “explanation,” no one could say what it is. The following excerpt describes the problem in greater detail.

“Consider the nature of an explanation. An explanation builds a conceptual bridge from the known to the unknown, linking the unexplained to the context of one's knowledge. A new idea must be integrated within one's conceptual hierarchy in order to qualify as knowledge. An idea that cannot be so integrated exists in a conceptual vacuum; it cannot be comprehended because one lacks the conceptual framework necessary for comprehension.”

“The process of explanation consists essentially of integrating a new idea or concept within the context of one's present knowledge. Because men differ with regard to their context and scope of knowledge, an explanation is relative to the person seeking it. What is a satisfactory explanation for one man may not be satisfactory for another. For example, we simplify our language when explaining something to a child in order to compensate for his limited sphere of knowledge. Also, a scientist may understand an explanation that explains nothing to a layman who lacks the required technical background. An expla- nation must provide understanding, and one cannot understand something that lies beyond one's conceptual frame of reference. While the particulars of knowledge differ among men, all men gain knowledge within one broad context: the context of the natural, knowable universe. Removed from this framework, knowledge is impossible and explanation is unintelligible. Recall that the supernatural cannot be grasped by man's consciousness. When the theist posits a supernatural being, he is not merely positing the presently unknown that may be grasped with a greater degree of knowledge. The theist is positing the unknowble, that which is beyond man's comprehension, that which man will never be able to understand regardless of his degree of knowledge. Since the supernatural must remain forever outside the context of man's knowledge, a ‘supernatural explanation’ is a contradiction in terms. One cannot explain the unknown with reference to the unknowable.”

(From Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, page 229.)

So, to be clear, calling “God” the “supernatural” creator of the universe is not an understandable description of what “God” actually is, and it never will be. Before you can show that this thing exists, you have explain what it is.

####Not all slavery, and certainly not the slavery of his chosen people. Also, it should be noted that not all slaveries are abusive.#### etc.

So the there are different types of slavery? If so, what type of slavery would you find morally acceptable?

Here are two quotes from the Bible which touch on the subject of slavery:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

In this quote, the Christian god gives the Israelites the right to pass slaves down to their children, to keep them as a “possession forever.” Is this a good form of slavery?

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Christian god-Exodus 21:20

In this quote, the biblical god tells slave masters that they may beat their slaves to death and not get punished. This god describes slaves-human beings-as “money.” Is this a good form of slavery?

In other places in the Bible, a master may force a slave to become his wife, and women and children can be separated and sold off to others. This is condoned by the biblical god. Slaves are gathered during war raids on villages by the Christian god’s chosen people, with this god’s blessing.

####No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.###

What, exactly, are these laws and how did YOU judge them to be “perfect”? I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in “God.” Are there any Jews or Hindus in heaven? Please explain. (You can hold off on these questions because I see I am expanding the number of topics we are discussing. I just can’t let this claim go unquestioned.)

#### “Secondly, it should be noted that the giver a life has the right to be the taker of life as well. If all life belongs to God, then his act of taking something that he already owns could not be considered immoral. It's a logical impossibility.####

So if someone or something creates life, this thing or being is somehow above morality, just on principle? If “God” created endless generations of puppy dogs and kittens and (tortured) them to death for trillions of years, is it “logically impossible” to call “God” immoral?

You asked me to present examples of patently false biblical claims, so I offered the biblical flood as an example. You asserted that the biblical flood was a massive but natural local event.

####The Flood of Noah is merely another example of a natural catastrophe and there is no reason to conclude that it was a "worldwide" flood.####

Really?

Genesis 6:13: “ I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them...”

Genesis 6:17 “For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.”

Genesis 7:4; “For in seven days I will send rain upon upon the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”

Genesis 7:17-8:1 “The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.”

How do you reconcile your claim that this was a “local” flood with what is written in the Bible itself? How can a local flood cover all the mountains and kill everything on the earth?

Thank you and have a nice day.

Brooks

Subj: Re: Response
Date: 3/27/2001 4:54:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I want to reiterate that you are asserting a positive, therefore it is your responsibility to explain exactly what you believe and why you believe it.

Okay, and I want to reiterate that you have a reason for your atheistic position, correct? If so, then you need to make a positive case for why your position is worth holding. If you can't, or won't, then I can only assume that you have no case or reason to hold your position.

The biggest hurdle to overcome here is to provide an understandable definition of "God." Your current explanation of "God" is incoherent because it revolves around this term "supernatural." The "supernatural" is, by definition, outside of our knowledge.

I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true. So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true. If you can't, then I can only dismiss your charge of incoherency as a result of purely philosophical prejudice or mere personal incredulity.

Perhaps this "God" exists, but, based on your "explanation," no one could say what it is. The following excerpt describes the problem in greater detail.

Since the premises that led you to this conclusion are false, this conclusion is invalid. (See previous rebuttal).

"Consider the nature of an explanation. An explanation builds a conceptual bridge from the known to the unknown, linking the unexplained to the context of one's knowledge. A new idea must be integrated within one's conceptual hierarchy in order to qualify as knowledge. An idea that cannot be so integrated exists in a conceptual vacuum; it cannot be comprehended because one lacks the conceptual framework necessary for comprehension."

"The process of explanation consists essentially of integrating a new idea or concept within the context of one's present knowledge. Because men differ with regard to their context and scope of knowledge, an explanation is relative to the person seeking it. What is a satisfactory explanation for one man may not be satisfactory for another. For example, we simplify our language when explaining something to a child in order to compensate for his limited sphere of knowledge. Also, a scientist may understand an explanation that explains nothing to a layman who lacks the required technical background. An expla- nation must provide understanding, and one cannot understand something that lies beyond one's conceptual frame of reference.

While the particulars of knowledge differ among men, all men gain knowledge within one broad context: the context of the natural, knowable universe. Removed from this framework, knowledge is impossible and explanation is unintelligible. Recall that the supernatural cannot be grasped by man's consciousness. When the theist posits a supernatural being, he is not merely positing the presently unknown that may be grasped with a greater degree of knowledge. The theist is positing the unknowble, that which is beyond man's comprehension, that which man will never be able to understand regardless of his degree of knowledge. Since the supernatural must remain forever outside the context of man's knowledge, a "supernatural explanation" is a contradiction in terms. One cannot explain the unknown with reference to the unknowable."

(From Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, page 229.)

That entire line of reasoning is based on two unsupported assertions: 1) If something is supernatural, it is "unknowable", and 2) Naturalism is true. - I have been given no reason to believe that either assertion is valid and therefore, I have no reason to believe the conclusion drawn from the assertions, is true.

So, to be clear, calling "God" the "supernatural" creator of the universe is not an understandable description of what "God" actually is, and it never will be. Before you can show that this thing exists, you have explain what it is.

Only if we accept the unsupported assertions. (See previous rebuttals).

####Not all slavery, and certainly not the slavery of his chosen people. Also, it should be noted that not all slaveries are abusive.#### etc.

So the there are different types of slavery? If so, what type of slavery would you find morally acceptable?

As pointed out, the fact that "slaves" were given shelter, food, and other physical provisions cuts into the whole definition of "slavery". It still "technically" may be the case that someone can be labelled a "slave" if they are not paid a monetary wage, but I do not think the label would be worth much. In this context, I see nothing wrong with someone working for another as long as they are: 1) treated unabusively, 2) have all physical needs provided for, and 3) given reasonable work tasks.

Here are two quotes from the Bible which touch on the subject of slavery:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." Christian god-Leviticus 25:44

In this quote, the Christian god gives the Israelites the right to pass slaves down to their children, to keep them as a "possession forever". Is this a good form of slavery?

Nothing in that Scripture violates the criteria I gave for an acceptable "slavery" arrangement.

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Christian god-Exodus 21:20

In this quote, the biblical god tells slave masters that they may beat their slaves to death and not get punished.

I thinks it rather obvious that you convienently did not mention the fact that the Scripture does not *tell* masters to beat their slaves, nor does it say it is "moral" to do so. In fact, the exact opposite is said. Furthermore, you are failing to interpret slavery in this cultural context. For example, there was not a McDonald's on every corner or a grocery store on every block. The labor produced by slaves back in these ancient times enabled survival for not only the slaves themselves, but the families of the community as well. Of course, we wouldn't expect a hyper-modernist that lives in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (like yourself) to even comprehend what it was like to survive in ancient times or the amount of work that was necessary just to support a local community.

This god describes slaves-human beings-as "money." Is this a good form of slavery?

It is not an insult nor a put-down - it is a FACT that slaves function as money to the master. If the master had no slaves, he had no laborers. If he had no labors, he had no products (such as food, vegetables, textiles, etc.) If he had no products, he had nothing to sell or trade. If he had nothing to sell or trade, he had no money. It's as simple as that. To add a further thought on this which is relevant to our modern times - "employees" of ANY company can be considered "money" to the company. Without the employees' labor, the company would have no way of producing a product or service, and therefore, could not make money. It is in the context of this basic principle that God described slaves as "money".

In other places in the Bible, a master may force a slave to become his wife, and women and children can be separated and sold off to others. This is condoned by the biblical god. Slaves are gathered during war raids on villages by the Christian god's chosen people, with this god's blessing.

Without the specific scripture, I have no way of knowing whether or not it actually says that a master could "force" a slave to become his wife. If you'll notice, slaves were free to come and go as they please as far as God was concerned. There is no mention of God approving of "forced" labor. No where in the Bible did God give laws or instructions on how a master should "punish" a slave that escaped and was recaptured, or that was taking refuge. In fact, God instructed to do the opposite:

Deuteronomy 23:15,16: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. [16] Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."

But of course, I couldn't expect you do mention that verse now could I?

####No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.###

What, exactly, are these laws and how did YOU judge them to be "perfect"?

I am talking of God's fundamental moral laws - the 10 Commandments. They are "perfect" in terms of being "totally complete". I judge them to be so by observing the fact that every single one of them was designed for mankind's good. God's moral laws are not arbitrary because they all are conducive to mankind's survival as a family, society, and race. They serve practical purposes and create civil order in a community.

I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in "God."

Nope. "Sin" is what separates someone from God. Hell is separation from God. People who end up separated from God (in Hell) are only those who refused to resolved their condition of sin, despite the fact that God has provide the means of doing so.

Are there any Jews or Hindus in heaven? Please explain. (You can hold off on these questions because I see I am expanding the number of topics we are discussing. I just can't let this claim go unquestioned.)

It is not my ability or place to answer such questions. Only God could answer that question.

#### Secondly, it should be noted that the giver a life has the right to be the taker of life as well. If all life belongs to God, then his act of taking something that he already owns could not be considered immoral. It's a logical impossibility.####

So if someone or something creates life, this thing or being is somehow above morality, just on principle?

No, not unless that being is *GOD* to whom all life belongs.

If "God" created endless generations of puppy dogs and kittens and tortures them to death for trillions of years, is it "logically impossible" to call "God" immoral?

I do not understand this question at all, nor can I see how it could be considered relevant to anything we are talking about. It is meaningless to begin on a downward tirade into the depths of "what ifs". We could play around with "what if" hypotheticals for all eternity and resolve absolutely nothing.

####The Flood of Noah is merely another example of a natural catastrophe and there is no reason to conclude that it was a "worldwide" flood.####

Really?

Yes.

Genesis 6:13: "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them..."

Genesis 6:17 "For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die."

Genesis 7:4 "For in seven days I will send rain upon upon the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."

Genesis 7:17-8:1 "The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."

How do you reconcile your claim that this was a "local" flood with what is written in the Bible itself? How can a local flood cover all the mountains and kill everything on the earth?

The Hebrew word for "earth" used in all of those verses you just quoted is: "h'adamah", which means = ground. The Hebrew word for "earth" when applied to the actual "entire world" is always notated with a "polysyndeton" which is a repitition at the beginning of successive clauses. However, the same Hebrew word ("h'adamah") (earth) is used to speak of local regions but is notated with a "Asyndeton", which lacks the emphasized repitition.

When the Flood account in Genesis records that "all" perished, it was not referring to "all" on the "entire earth," (polysyndeton) but rather, all in that ground or that part of the "earth". (asyndeton). This is supported by the context of Genesis chapter 6, as well as other passages. For instance, in Luke 17:26-29, Jesus likens the "days of Noah" with the "days of Lot". In each case, the people experienced a catastrophe which "destroyed them *all*". Yet, everyone acknowledges that "in the days of Lot" *all* the people on earth were not destroyed, only "all" the people in Sodom were. Likewise, "all" the people in the Flood were destroyed, not all the people on the "entire earth". The usage of the word "earth" and it's respective meaning is contingient upon the notative context in which the word appears. There is no notative context for "earth" to mean the entire earth in Genesis 6, 7. Therefore, the biblical flood as described in the Bible can only be understood as a massive local flood. Acknowledging this fact nullifies all of the other problems that your webpage cited, such as Ark size, animals, etc. The only animals in need of preservation would have been the animals that were local to Noah's region (Which was to be affected by the Flood).

CHEERS,

BRANDON

Subj: need to confirm definition
Date: 3/28/2001 8:08:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

#### I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true. So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true. ####

I am going to respond in greater detail to your last e-mail, but first I need to confirm what your defintion of "supernatural" is. I looked through your previous e-mails, and the only definition that you provided for "supernatural" appears to be this:

####Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

If you have a more expansive definition for "supernatural" that you would like to provide or that I have somehow missed, please let me know what it is.

Thank you.

Brooks

Subj: Re: need to confirm definition
Date: 3/28/2001 11:25:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Brooks,

I am going by the standard definition of supernatural. Here it is:

supernatural (s¡´per-nàch´er-el) adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I hope this helps.

Brandon

Subj: comments and questions-minor correction
Date: 3/30/2001 3:09:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I initially wanted to focus on just one or two topics, but I wasn't successful. Maybe next time around.

####Okay, and I want to reiterate that you have a reason for your atheistic position, correct? If so, then you need to make a positive case for why your position is worth holding.####

I am without a belief in a god or gods primarily because god-believers have not provided coherent descriptions of what such things are, nor have they been able to provide compelling reasons why I should believe in such things.

####So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true.####

It is obvious that the natural world exists. You accept that it exists. Are you asking me to prove that the supernatural does NOT exist? That is asking me to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible in any case, but especially in this case since you have not adequately defined what the supernatural is.

####I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true.####

But how can anyone know about anything outside or beyond the natural universe?

####Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

And, therefore, beyond human understanding.

I agree that this “definition” does gives *some* linguistic meaning to the term “supernatural,” but it does not tell us what the supernatural actually IS. It tells us what it is NOT. You have criticised my objection to negative definitions, but your criticism only demonstrates my point----

####This is just a "flip-wilson" semantics tactic that can be turned on itself. For example, if we used your standard evenly, "natural" would have to be considered a negative attribute since it would mean: NOT supernatural, but "natural", NOT nonbiological, but "biological". "Natural" would be telling us what humanity *isn't*, not what it actually IS. What you described is a bad standard because it is based on word games and term-twisting.####

It should be clear that this is NOT how we define nature or biology-we can not “define” them that way-so your objection is a straw man. You are simply creating double-negatives and demonstrating my point, yet again, that negative definitions are useless. Stating that “natural” means “NOT supernatural” (NOT not-natural) is incoherent. Telling me that “biological” means “NOT nonbiological” is incomprehensible since it simply negates the word in question.

You provided a second definition of “supernatural” in response to my last e-mail, for which I thank you:

####1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.####

Once again, this is a negative definition-the supernatural is NOT natural. Does anything actually exist outside of the natural world? This is the whole matter under discussion, so using this as a definition is simply circular.

####2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.####

Same problem.

#### 3. Of or relating to a deity.####

Remember that the reason why we are trying to understand what “supernatural” means is because you have used it as a key word in your description of “God.” Therefore, this is simply circular.

ME: Perhaps this "God" exists, but, based on your "explanation," no one could say what it is.

YOU: Since the premises that led you to this conclusion are false, this conclusion is invalid.

You have yet to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about when you speak of the supernatural, so I stand by my statement.

~excerpt from book~

####That entire line of reasoning is based on two unsupported assertions: 1) If something is supernatural, it is "unknowable", and 2) Naturalism is true. - I have been given no reason to believe that either assertion is valid and therefore, I have no reason to believe the conclusion drawn from the assertions, is true.####

You have not explicitly defined the term “supernatural,” much less demonstrated that the supernatural exists, or that it is inherently “knowable.” Therefore, your objection is premature.

I know that you think I am just playing word games here, but I am not. This is a critically important point. We cannot argue about the existence or non-existence of something until such time as we know what it actually is. Theists have struggled with the issue of what “God” is for centuries and have still not come up with a good explanation of it. Some have admitted the obvious-that “God” is unknowable-while others have developed exceedingly esoteric and abstruse descriptions that seem designed only to confuse people. If theologians cannot explain what they believe in, why should anyone listen to them?

ME: In this quote, the Christian god gives the Israelites the right to pass slaves down to their children, to keep them as a "possession forever". Is this a good form of slavery?

YOU: Nothing in that Scripture violates the criteria I gave for an acceptable "slavery" arrangement.

So you think it is okay for people to be held against their will and forced to work without pay for their entire lives?

#### As pointed out, the fact that "slaves" were given shelter, food, and other physical provisions cuts into the whole definition of "slavery". ####

Slave owners who did not give their slaves food and shelter wouldn’t be able to get any work out of them because they would die. I don’t understand what your point it.

####Furthermore, you are failing to interpret slavery in this cultural context.####

I would say that you are failing to interpret the Bible in its cultural context.

#### For example, there was not a McDonald's on every corner or a grocery store on every block. The labor produced by slaves back in these ancient times enabled survival for not only the slaves themselves, but the families of the community as well. Of course, we wouldn't expect a hyper-modernist that lives in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (like yourself) to even comprehend what it was like to survive in ancient times or the amount of work that was necessary just to support a local community.####

What would you say to the Christian slave holders who, during the last 17 centuries, used exactly the same arguments to justify slavery in Europe and America?

####Without the employees' labor, the company would have no way of producing a product or service, and therefore, could not make money. It is in the context of this basic principle that God described slaves as "money".####

Please note the REAL context of this quote. “God” says that a man may beat his slave to death and not get punished for it. Why? “God” tells us it is specifically because “the slave is his money.” Regarding your analogy of slavery to employment in the modern world: How many companies in America allow managers to force captive people to work, without pay, and then to beat them to to death?

####If you'll notice, slaves were free to come and go as they please as far as God was concerned.####

If “God” really felt this way about slavery, then why did he tell the Israelites that they could own slaves “forever” by passing slaves down to their children?

Why does Jesus incorporate slavery into his parables and NEVER speak out against it?

ME: I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in "God."

YOU: Nope. "Sin" is what separates someone from God. Hell is separation from God. People who end up separated from God (in Hell) are only those who refused to resolved their condition of sin, despite the fact that God has provide the means of doing so.

And, what, exactly, are the means by which one resolves one’s “condition of sin”? Is it possible for one to “resolve” one’s “condition of sin” without believing in “God”?

In response to my question about “God’s” murder of women and children in the Bible, you explained that the “giver (of) life has the right to be the taker of life as well.” Who gives “God” that right? Can “God” torture and murder anyone he/she/it wants to without anyone calling “God” immoral? How does that work? If parents toss their toddlers off cliffs, can we excuse their actions because “the giver of life has the right to be the taker of life”? If not, then why are things different with “God”?

I am a little confused about the idea of the biblical flood being a local event. The Bible says that “God” created the flood because “the earth (Middle East) was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth (Middle East) was filled with violence. And God saw the earth (Middle East), and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (Middle East).” (RSV, Genesis 6:11.) So things were only corrupt and violent in the Middle East? God wiped out only the people in the Middle East, but left the rest of the people on the planet to go about their lives because they had not become corrupt? Is that an accurate description? Also, please tell me when, exactly, this great Middle East flood took place. Thank you.

YOU: No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.

ME: What, exactly, are these laws and how did YOU judge them to be "perfect"?

YOU: I am talking of God's fundamental moral laws - the 10 Commandments. They are "perfect" in terms of being "totally complete". I judge them to be so by observing the fact that every single one of them was designed for mankind's good. God's moral laws are not arbitrary because they all are conducive to mankind's survival as a family, society, and race. They serve practical purposes and create civil order in a community.

I don’t think these laws are “perfect” and I will explain why:

“You shall have no other gods before me.”

This goes against the freedom of worship, something which we value in our society. In this country, people of differing faiths can all worship without the fear of being persecuted. If you study history, you can see how Christians who were trying to enforce this commandment persecuted and killed Jews, Muslims and other Christians.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”

Looks like all the churches with religious icons are in big trouble.

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Same rule as first one, with a twist. God will hurt the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who don’t worship him. Where is the justice in that?

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”

What does this mean, anyway? If I strike my finger with a hammer and say “goddamn it!” have I committed a sin?

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.”

Saturday, right? Do you keep Saturday holy? If we are to follow this Exodus rule then should we stone to death anyone who works on a Saturday? The following excerpt from another web page expands on this idea:

“What punishment do decalogue displayers recommend for those who do not keep the Sabbath day holy? Should everyone who works on the Sabbath be put to death, as the Lord commands (Exodus 31:12-17), even for kindling a fire (Exodus 35:1-3)? And how about death by stoning for anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)? Will decalogue displayers cast the first stones?”

“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.”

So are people who work on Saturday or Sunday violating a “perfect” moral rule? One good thing here, though, is that slaves get a rest.

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

What if your parents are incestuous child abusers?

"You shall not murder.

What is murder? What is justified or unjustified killing? According to the OT, people who pick up sticks on Saturday or children who talk back to their parents must be killed. Is that murder? When is killing justified and when is it not justified?

From the same previously cited web page:

“Does this commandment mean ‘kill’ or ‘murder’? Since the Hebrew word used here means either to kill or to murder, how can we know which is meant? Does it apply to abortion? suicide? war? capital punishment? euthanasia? Does this commandment, like its counterpart in Buddhism, forbid the killing of animals? Whatever it may mean, it did not prevent Moses and the Levites from slaughtering about 3,000 of their own sons and brothers for worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:28), even though the people did not yet know the law against idolatry on the tablets Moses was bringing down the mountain. Would decalogue displayers go so far as to punish people on the basis of laws not yet in effect? Would that be ‘a fair and just society’?”

"You shall not commit adultery.

Well, it is almost always a bad idea, but at least it is between two consenting adults. If this ranks as one of the ten big ones, where is the commandment against incest and rape? This commandment brings up the question of polygamy. All the OT heroes have dozens of concubines and wives. Apparently a married man can sleep with as many women as possible. In the "historical" context of multiple wives and concubines, what would actually constitute adultery?

"You shall not steal.

The Israelites stole from their neighbors. They also murdered them and forced them into slavery, all with “God’s” blessings. So this rule is hypocritical.

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”

This is a good rule.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

How is it possible to prevent desires and feelings anyway? Also, it is quite interesting that we should not covet our neighbors slaves. Is this rule applicable today, in our hyper-modern society?

I know I have asked a lot of questions, but this is because your claims seem to be either unclear or contradictory. Feel free to ask me any questions if I seem to be unclear or contradictory.

Thank you for your time.

Brooks

Subj: Re: moving out west
Date: 4/2/2001 9:45:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com

Hi Brooks,

Just wanted to let you know that I will be offline for about a week becauseI am moving to Nevada this week. I will respond to your latest message onceI get set up at the new place.

Have a great week. Godspeed,

Brandon

Subj: back online
Date: 4/12/2001 11:27:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com (Brooks)

Brooks,

Just a note to let you know that I am finally back online. I am going to work on responding to your last message so you should have it within the next day or so. My new email address is: XXXXXX

Thanks,

Brandon

Subj: Fw: comments and questions-minor correction
Date: 4/14/2001 11:00:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com (Brooks)

Brooks,

I initially wanted to focus on just one or two topics, but I wasn't successful. Maybe next time around.

* No problem.

####Okay, and I want to reiterate that you have a reason for your atheistic position, correct? If so, then you need to make a positive case for why your position is worth holding.####

I am without a belief in a god or gods primarily because god-believers have not provided coherent descriptions of what such things are, nor have they been able to provide compelling reasons why I should believe in such things.

*So your "reason" in essence is you feel that theists have not provided sufficient "reason" to believe. Theists do in fact have sufficient reason to believe in God and this is the very thing that I will present.

####So, before you can certify that my definition of supernatural is actually incoherent, you first need to prove that naturalism is universally true.####

It is obvious that the natural world exists. You accept that it exists. Are you asking me to prove that the supernatural does NOT exist?

*No. Naturalism is not simply the a belief that natural things exist.Naturalism is a philosophy which categorically assumes ALL events, actions, reactions, causes, effects, etc., are exclusively confined to, and explicable only within, the terms of purely natural laws. This is quite a grandiloquent position considering less than .000000000000000001% of all phenomena in the universe is observed.

That is asking me to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible in any case,

*That's not what I am asking you.

... but especially in this case since you have not adequately defined what the supernatural is.

*I have now defined supernaturalism three times, including a direct excerpt from the dictionary. You only consider this to be inadequate because of your unrelenting insistence on writing the definition off as nondescriptive or confusing it with the word "unnatural".

####I have already defined "supernatural" and the definition does not include anything about "outside of our knowledge". This is your personal assertion which is based on naturalism and automatically begs the question of whether or not naturalism is true.####

But how can anyone know about anything outside or beyond the natural universe?

*The definition of supernatural says nothing about "knowing" something. "Knowing" implies that something is 100% factual. There are very few things in the natural sciences that are 100% factual. When you get into the origin sciences, the percentages drop even further. We do not "know" that the universe came to be as the result of a violent Big Bang, but most of the residual evidence within the universe supports such a conclusion. Likewise, we do not "know" that God supernaturally created the universe, but the residual evidence within the universe supports such a conclusion.

####Supernatural means : Beyond, or transcendental to natural law and limitations.####

And, therefore, beyond human understanding.

*You have yet to support this assumption.

I agree that this "definition" does gives *some* linguistic meaning to the term "supernatural," but it does not tell us what the supernatural actually IS.

*Yes it did. It seems that you are demanding that supernaturalism meet an objectist definition requirement. But Supernaturalism is not an object, like a pencil. Therefore, such an objectist requirement is false. Supernaturalism is a state of existence that transcends the physical realm, and it is positively defined accordingly.

It tells us what it is NOT. You have criticized my objection to negative definitions, but your criticism only demonstrates my point----

*Apparently, you don't understand the differences between the prefixes "un" and "super", since your entire argument is against the word "unnatural", not "supernatural".

[SNIP]

####1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.####

Once again, this is a negative definition-the supernatural is NOT natural.

*See previous response.

Does anything actually exist outside of the natural world? This is the whole matter under discussion, so using this as a definition is simply circular.

*Since whether or not anything exists outside the natural world is the whole matter under discussion, your support of naturalism would be equally circular, would it not?

Same problem.

*See previous rebuttals.

Remember that the reason why we are trying to understand what "supernatural" means is because you have used it as a key word in your description of "God". Therefore, this is simply circular.

*This is the dictionary's definition of supernatural, not mine. I given it three times because you've repeatedly asked for unnecessary clarifications.

ME: Perhaps this "God" exists, but, based on your "explanation," no one could say what it is.

YOU: Since the premises that led you to this conclusion are false, this conclusion is invalid.

You have yet to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about when you speak of the supernatural, so I stand by my statement.

*No, *you* have demonstrated that you do not understand the difference between the definitions "unnatural" and "supernatural". Therefore, it is safe to say that you do not know what you are criticizing or what word your arguments actually are against.

You have not explicitly defined the term "supernatural," much less demonstrated that the supernatural exists, or that it is inherently "knowable." Therefore, your objection is premature.

*One can only ponder what you consider to be "explicitly defined". I disagree that my objection is premature because I have "explicitly defined" supernaturalism three times for you, including a direct excerpt from the dictionary. You are voluntarily choosing to obfuscate the provided definition by fallaciously mangling it with the term "unnatural".

I know that you think I am just playing word games here, but I am not. This is a critically important point. We cannot argue about the existence or non-existence of something until such time as we know what it actually is.

*Agreed. However, there is nothing wrong with the definition of "supernatural" as I have supplied it.

Theists have struggled with the issue of what "God" is for centuries and have still not come up with a good explanation of it.

*This is your personal judgment based on your personal perception, not fact. I do not see theists "struggling" with the issue of theology. Certainly, many theist thinkers have pondered differing ideas as they relate to the incommunicable attributes of God, but that in no way means that *none* of their explanations were good. It seems that you have a naive "all or nothing" standard for theistic explanations.

Some have admitted the obvious-that "God" is unknowable-while others have developed exceedingly esoteric and abstruse descriptions that seem designed only to confuse people.

*It would be "obvious that God is unknowable" *only* if we first accept your ridiculous assumption that only natural things are "knowable". Indeed, you have no merits for such a sweeping assumption, but if you do, I ask you to present them in detail.

If theologians cannot explain what they believe in, why should anyone listen to them?

*Since theologians can explain what they believe in, and have done so countless times throughout the ages, people should listen to them.

YOU: Nothing in that Scripture violates the criteria I gave for an acceptable "slavery" arrangement.

So you think it is okay for people to be held against their will and forced to work without pay for their entire lives?

*Nothing in that scripture states that anybody was held against their will. You are inserting your own words into the passage and then proceeding to criticize your own straw man. Try again.

#### As pointed out, the fact that "slaves" were given shelter, food, and other physical provisions cuts into the whole definition of "slavery". ####

Slave owners who did not give their slaves food and shelter wouldn't be able to get any work out of them because they would die. I don't understand what your point it.

*Not true. If a master did not give the slaves food or shelter, it is tenable that the slaves would fend for themselves. However, my point is that in ancient times (such as the Bronze age), food, clothing, and shelter were considered almost as valuable as money (coins). Since slaves received food, clothing, and shelter, it can be said that their labors were not without some form of payment.

####Furthermore, you are failing to interpret slavery in this cultural context.####

I would say that you are failing to interpret the Bible in its cultural context.

*No, you have it backwards. You are interpreting slavery in the context of our modern society (with the moral issues it would induce today) and applying it to three-thousand-year-old cultures as if they are comparable to our modern society. Obviously, that is a problematic approach.

What would you say to the Christian slave holders who, during the last 17 centuries, used exactly the same arguments to justify slavery in Europe and America?

*First of all, it is readily apparent that you are deliberately singling out "Christian" slave holders in order to create a stigma. However, it should be noted that slavery is a system that has existed in all parts of the world and has been employed by many different religious cultures. Also, there have been atheist slave holders in history as well. With that clarification enacted, I submit that *any* slave holder in the last 17 centuries who used the argument (observation) I presented would be painfully ignorant of how communities were supported in the Bronze, Copper, Iron, and Stone ages. Furthermore, since such individuals of the past 17 centuries did not live in such primitive times as did the ancient Israelites, they're appeal to the arguments would fail.

Please note the REAL context of this quote. "God" says that a man may beat his slave to death and not get punished for it. Why? "God" tells us it is specifically because "the slave is his money."

*This is almost a comical spectacle of gross misinterpretation and outright scripture mangling. I suggest you diversify your biblical readings to incorporate a variety of translational versions. Here is what the passage is saying. (NIV)

EXODUS 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, [21] but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

*According to the NIV (a better rendition), the passage does not say anything about the master killing a slave and getting away with it. It says the opposite (see verse 20). The passage says that the master should not be punished if the slave does not die and is healthy (gets up) after a day or two. Perhaps you'd care to recant your latest misinterpretation?

Regarding your analogy of slavery to employment in the modern world: How many companies in America allow managers to force captive people to work, without pay, and then to beat them to death?

*See previous rebuttals.

####If you'll notice, slaves were free to come and go as they please as far as God was concerned.####

If "God" really felt this way about slavery, then why did he tell the Israelites that they could own slaves "forever" by passing slaves down to their children?

*Slaves also had children, and their children had children. After a while, generations of the owners and slaves would continue to live together. It is feasible that the slaves became "part of the family" heritage, if you will. That is all this scripture is describing. This simple fact in no way negates the reality that slaves were free to come and go.

Why does Jesus incorporate slavery into his parables and NEVER speak out against it?

*Slavery was somewhat rare in the time of Christ as they were living in the pinnacle of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, a parable is simply a make-believe story that is contrived in order to illustrate a greater principle. Therefore, the subject matter of the parables is not to be taken literally, but only the principles they espouse.

ME: I thought that people went to hell simply for not believing in "God."

YOU: Nope. "Sin" is what separates someone from God. Hell is separation from God. People who end up separated from God (in Hell) are only those who refused to resolved their condition of sin, despite the fact that God has provide the means of doing so.

And, what, exactly, are the means by which one resolves one's "condition of sin"? Is it possible for one to "resolve" one's "condition of sin" without believing in "God"?

*God has offered the solution to sin through the atoning work of Jesus. This is what Christianity is all about. Also, it is not possible to accept the saving message (which resolves sin) if one does not believe in the messenger, now is it?

In response to my question about "God's" murder of women and children in the Bible,

*Actually, God cannot "murder" anyone. Murder is a legal definition that applies to a certain human-to-human societal relationship. For example, a tornado, a tree falling, or a meteor cannot "murder" a person, nor can an infinite God. (But you are free to beg your own questions if you'd like).

... you explained that the "giver (of) life has the right to be the taker of life as well." Who gives "God" that right?

*God, by definition (the supreme Creator) is not "given" "rights" in the first place. God as a perfect being already possesses all "rights" and therefore, is himself the giver and taker of all "rights".

Can "God" can torture and murder anyone he/she/it wants to without anyone calling "God" immoral? How does that work?

*See previous two responses.

If parents toss their toddlers off cliffs, can we excuse their actions because "the giver of life has the right to be the taker of life"? If not, then why are things different with "God"?

*It seems that you are committing the age-old atheist error of demoting God to the level of being just another finite creature (like humans) and proceeding to criticize him morally based on that false categorization. (Also, human parents can only procreate, not create life like God, so your analogy fails to apply to God. Since our capabilities to procreate have also come from God, God also owns all life that is produced from the reproductive systems he created).

I am a little confused about the idea of the biblical flood being a local event. The Bible says that "God" created the flood because "the earth (Middle East) was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth (Middle East) was filled with violence. And God saw the earth (Middle East), and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (Middle East)." (RSV, Genesis 6:11.) So things were only corrupt and violent in the Middle East?

*You are not reading the Genesis account accurately. The account does not state that God brought judgment because things were simply "corrupt" or "violent". The Genesis account states that the wickedness in Noah's land was "exceedingly wicked". Consider:

GENESIS 6:5 - The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

God wiped out only the people in the Middle East, but left the rest of the people on the planet to go about their lives because they had not become corrupt? Is that an accurate description?

*No, God judged the people in Noah's area because in that part of the earth, wickedness had grown to be "very great". This doesn't mean that people in other parts of the world were perfect or not corrupt. (Another example of your "all or nothing" mentality). It simply means that their corruptions were not severe enough to warrant such severe judgment.

Also, please tell me when, exactly, this great Middle East flood took place. Thank you.

*The date of the flood (based on the genealogies) was around 2550 B.C. There is geological evidence of a massive flood from that time which effected the entire Tarim Basin near India. (which is close to where Noah lived)

I don't think these laws are "perfect" and I will explain why:

"You shall have no other gods before me."

This goes against the freedom of worship, something which we value in our society. In this country, people of differing faiths can all worship without the fear of being persecuted. If you study history, you can see how Christians who were trying to enforce this commandment persecuted and killed Jews, Muslims and other Christians.

*Freedom to worship a God that is not the true God would freedom of idolatry. Assuming that Yahweh is the true God, (which you are for argument sake, right?) it would have been an act of permitting deception if God was to allow people to believe in false gods and worship them as if they were true. So your criticism does not damage the first commandment at all, but in fact illustrates its moral value. Secondly, Jews, Muslims, and atheists (Joseph Stalin) have killed millions of Christians, so your attempt at stigmatizing Christians *once again* fails miserably and can be rendered moot.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."

Looks like all the churches with religious icons are in big trouble.

*There was no such thing as an "idol" that was not worshipped at the time that God gave this commandment. This commandment in principle is closely related to the first which says that false gods (idols) are not to be worshipped. I don't know of any churches that "worship" the symbol of the cross, but if they do, I would agree that they are violating this commandment.

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Same rule as first one, with a twist. God will hurt the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who don't worship him. Where is the justice in that?

*Actually, this isn't one of the 10 commandments. It is additional detail for the second commandment. Furthermore, the punishments for breaking God's moral laws were implemented with a ripple effect. This was an attribute that was given as a deterrent to those who may have considered violating the law in Israel. This was a specific severity that applied to the Israelites of that time only because they were living under a theocracy with theocratic stipulations.

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

What does this mean, anyway? If I strike my finger with a hammer and say "goddamn it!" have I committed a sin?

*This commandment addressed the issue of respecting the name of God. A similar law exists in America today since it is illegal to burn the American flag. (showing disrespect) Nothing you've said challenges the validity or value of this law.

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy."<P>

Saturday, right? Do you keep Saturday holy?

*It may or may not be Saturday, depending on whether you use the Georgian, Roman, or Jewish calendars going back through time. (The Jewish calendars do not correspond to ancient Israel's calendar of feasts, BTW)

If we are to follow this Exodus rule then should we stone to death anyone who works on a Saturday?

*No, you are once again mangling theocratic law with the 10 commandments, which are moral law. Do you even know that there are three different types of law given in the old testament? There is no commandment (in the 10 commandments) that says: "Thou shalt stone transgressors of the Sabbath". You are confusing two different laws that have two different contexts and two different applications.

The following excerpt from another web page expands on this idea:

"What punishment do decalogue displayers recommend for those who do not keep the Sabbath day holy? Should everyone who works on the Sabbath be put to death, as the Lord commands (Exodus 31:12-17), even for kindling a fire (Exodus 35:1-3)? And how about death by stoning for anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)? Will decalogue displayers cast the first stones?"

*As would be expected, this skeptical chestnut bounces around in the bible, and isolates passages outside of their contexts while playing 5-minute bible scholar. Those passages quoted simply explain that under theocratic rule, there was capital punishment for Israelites who broke this commandment. Nothing you've said shows that God had no right to make this law, or that the Israelites had no ability to follow it. Therefore, there is nothing "imperfect" about this commandment.

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."

So are people who work on Saturday or Sunday violating a "perfect" moral rule?

*The 6th commandment had different applications throughout history, but the underlying principle of "resting" one day of the week should be followed. It is good for man to rest from work and people who don't are violating the principle of the Sabbath law.

One good thing here, though, is that slaves get a rest.

*In ancient times, the families who owned the slaves worked too, by the way. (Perhaps you have an exclusively southern, aristocratic, American, 19th-century-plantation view of slavery?)

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."

What if your parents are incestuous child abusers?

*What if the sky is green? Do we make laws based on the exceptions or the rules? Perhaps we should have no speed limits on our streets because on rare occasions a man may need to speed his laboring wife to the hospital? You see, your tact here is a worthless pursuit that leads to a logical dead-end. Do you really want to begin on a downward tirade into the depths of "what ifs"? I don't. But I do know that laws are based on the rule of society, not the exceptions.

"You shall not murder."

What is murder? What is justified or unjustified killing? According to the OT, people who pick up sticks on Saturday or children who talk back to their parents must be killed. Is that murder? When is killing justified and when is it not justified?

*Murder is when one human deliberately takes the life of another human for no reason. A tree cannot murder, a dog cannot murder, a flood cannot murder, nor can God.

From the same previously cited web page:

"Does this commandment mean "kill" or "murder"? Since the Hebrew word used here means either to kill or to murder, how can we know which is meant? Does it apply to abortion? suicide? war? capital punishment? euthanasia? Does this commandment, like its counterpart in Buddhism, forbid the killing of animals? Whatever it may mean, it did not prevent Moses and the Levites from slaughtering about 3,000 of their own sons and brothers for worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:28), even though the people did not yet know the law against idolatry on the tablets Moses was bringing down the mountain. Would decalogue displayers go so far as to punish people on the basis of laws not yet in effect? Would that be "fair and just society?"

*God did not have to disclose any laws to anyone at any time in order to either give or take life. All life comes from God and all life belongs to God, regardless of anything else. God does not owe anybody anything. The laws God disclosed to Moses were an act of grace. Once again, this commentary falls prey to the ancient atheist error of miscategorizing God to the role and stature of a fallible human and proceeding to criticize his actions based on that demotion. Sorry, but that is fallacious reasoning.

"You shall not commit adultery."

Well, it is almost always a bad idea,

*No, it is ALWAYS a bad idea.

... but at least it is between two consenting adults. If this ranks as one of the ten big ones, where is the commandment against incest and rape?

*Adultery is not defined strictly as marital unfaithfulness. Adultery was a fluid, all-inclusive term that applied to all acts of sexual misconduct, including incest and rape.

This commandment brings up the question of polygamy. All the OT heroes have dozens of concubines and wives. Apparently a married man can sleep with as many women as possible. In the "historical" context of multiple wives and concubines, what would actually constitute adultery?

*Polygamy is a form of marriage so cannot be considered sexual misconduct, nor is there evidence that every wife or concubine was slept with. The Bible did not approve or disapprove of polygamy but simply records that it occurred. But we do know that God did not design the family unit to be polygamous:

GENESIS 2:24 - For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Therefore, polygamy is outside of God's will and should not be practiced.

"You shall not steal.

The Israelites stole from their neighbors. They also murdered them and forced them into slavery, all with "God's" blessings. So this rule is hypocritical.

*laughs* So you are basically claiming that this rule is wrong by appealing to it! Obviously, you are alluding that it was not right for the Israelites to have "stolen" from their neighbors, which only demonstrates that you support this commandment ! Furthermore, God is not bound by any human laws he has ordained, so there is nothing hypocritical about this rule.

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

This is a good rule.

*So are all the others if we weed out all of your false criticisms.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

How is it possible to prevent desires and feelings anyway? Also, it is quite interesting that we should not covet our neighbors slaves. Is this rule applicable today, in our hyper-modern society?

*Covet means to "long after". This law is commanding that we should not long after other people's things. It is quite commonly known that thoughts lead to desires, desires lead to contemplations, and contemplations lead to actions. This command, if followed, eliminates the process that leads to sin early on, so in that regard, it is applicable to us in our hyper-modern society and we'd be far better off as a culture if more people did not covet things that do not belong to them. If everyone followed this law, there would be no such thing as adultery or theft!

I know I have asked a lot of questions, but this is because your claims seem to be either unclear or contradictory. Feel free to ask me any questions if I seem to be unclear or contradictory.

*I don't mind the questions at all, but like you, I want to try to keep this exchange from ballooning into a huge amalgamation of numerous subjects. We should try to narrow it down to just a few topics at a time if possible. But don't let this hinder you from responding to any of the points I've made so far.

Thank you for your time.

*You too.

*Brandon

Subj: two minor corrections
Date: 4/20/2001 2:39:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXX

Brandon,

I am not going to reply to each and every statement you have made, but I will instead concentrate on two or three topics.

####No one goes to Hell (separation from God) for their opinions. They go to Hell because of what they are. That being, of course, transgressors of God's perfect moral laws.####

The very first one of these rules is to worship the Christian god and the Christian god alone. So if someone was of the *opinion* that this god was not real and therefore did not worship it, this person would necessarily qualify as a “transgressor” against “God’s perfect moral laws” and would be sent to hell. Therefore one can indeed be sent to hell simply for one’s opinion.

It is unclear how it is possible to call these rules “perfect moral laws” Among the Ten Commandments there is a rule against swearing, along with a rule that one must honor one’s mother and father, and a rule against working on Saturday. I am unable to understand why violating these rules deserve eternal torture. If one does not honor one’s sexually abusive parents, (does this lack of respect deserve infinite punishment)? If a person says “goddamn it,” will that person go to hell? If a person works at a day care center or a hospital on a Saturday, does this warrant eternal torture? If you hedge and say these rules are not absolute, then how can they be “perfect”? How do we know when it is right to follow them or not to follow them? What if we have to work on a Saturday to feed our families? Will we be barbecued eternally for that? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call these "The Ten Suggestions” rather than "The Ten Commandments.”

ME: And in any case, these people believed in different gods than the one you are arguing for. In fact, most of the people in the world in the past and today were not and are not Christians.

YOU: Irrelevant. The existence of ANY god or gods falsifies atheism.

Your original appeal was the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Let’s read it again, shall we?

####We" may not be aware, but the billions of people throughout the ages who believed in god apparently were aware of something.####

When I pointed this fallacy out, you attempted to deny that you were using it:

####If you'll notice, I never said that because billions of people believe in God, it is therefore "TRUE".####

You were clearly saying that the popularity of a belief in gods (plural) makes the existence of the Christian “God” (singular) more likely. This is, again, a fallacy. (Your appeal is invalid) for the following reasons:

1. The existence of ANY ONE of the thousands of other gods that people have believed in over the centuries would make Christianity false. It would, of course, “falsify” YOUR atheism in regards to this other god.

2. Most people do not believe in the Christian god and most people have NEVER believed in the Christian god. Your view of the Judeo-Christian god is a minority opinion, so even if the appeal to popular opinion was valid, it would go against your belief system.