"God is dead, didn't you know?" "God is dead and we have killed him."

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Answers

I offer my condolences if your god is dead.

My God is alive and well and coming again!

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

I speak of your God. God's too decompose.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalms 14:1

"He has no pleasure in fools." - Ecclesiastes 5:4

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Gavin:

A cup on a counter cannot come into existence without someone creating it.

How can our intricate, beautifully designed, complex world have come into being without a Creator?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Gavin,

If you are serious about the propositon you have made, you will find several here up to the task of defending, not only the existence of God, but also the necessity of God. And not just any god, such as the one you think decomposes, but the God of the Bible.

If however, you are another one of the kind that only makes remarks when you think you can get away with it and never truly answer the questions directed at you, please find another discussion board. We are "full up" with those already.

There are several here that have cut their teeth on apologetics. In other words, we take seriously a challenge to our faith. There are many on this forum who write a lot but don't do anything substantive except use space and dance around the obvious.

My God is not dead, is very much alive and well. Man neither created him nor can man do away with Him.

The ball is in your court.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

I knew my words would be misrepresented and the supposition that I did not believe in a creator, made. I am an apostate of the Christian religion and very much a spiritual warrior. I would gladly contend your beliefs and perhaps too find some common ground. With so much to be questioned, it can be hard to know where to start. I think I will begin with an abstract taken from my website, "dissecting religion"...

I was informed by a friend that Bethlehem opened millennium celebrations with a rendition of Richard Strauss' Thas Spake Zarathustra. This piece, dedicated to character of Zarathustra (as created by Friedrich Nietzsche), was written to promote the idea of the ubermensch or superman to transcend decadent Christian values and morality. Without question, celebrators and organisers were blissfully unaware of this small detail! I believe there is a great significance behind all this. A group that can overlook such a huge blasphemous violation of sanctity, is incapable of asking deeply penetrating questions and of making acute observations. This must be true, because if these people were to look deeply into their dogmatic beliefs, they would see the inaccuracies and idiosyncrasies that shroud their religion. However, I believe these people crave delusion, because the reality outside of their make-believe world is too harsh to be faced.

Dissecting religion is a small contribution to deconstructing religion with particular bias to Christianity. Apostasy should be the grounds for building a stronger self, not as a place of confusion, loneliness and sorrow. Christianity is synonymous with primitiveness and I would like so much for this pretence to be surpassed and become something documented solely for historical archives.

------------------------------------- I shall not apologise if this offends, for I've no doubt it will, but if my words are harsh then it is only because I care enough about the world and its people that I seek to disabuse some from their illusion. Christianity is harmful, it is very much the religion of pity. My words are guided much more towards the institution of christianity then any individual.

Warmest regards,

Gavin.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

John,

If you want to resort to proverbs and clichi's may I quote Wordsworth: "If a fool were to persist in his folly he would become wise."

Your words can only serve as a compliment and for that I thank you.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

"Decadent Christian values and morality"? Not to murder, steal, sleep with another's spouse, covet another's possessions, or accuse another falsely, to live at peace with one's neighbors, love even those who despise you, strive to do good always, honor your parents, support orphans and widows, feed the hungry, care for the sick, uphold the sanctity of life ... I could go on, but how is any of these, some of the core values of Christianity, in any way decadent? With what would you replace any one of them that would be more noble?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Gavin,

I'm not sure who you think to have misrepresented you. You come making references to Nietzsche and expect us to understand your own brand of deism. I assume you are a deist from your last post. I am not trying to misrepresent you (honest). But you quoted (nearly) Nietzsche, who was an existentialist who believed that there is no God in reality. That man created God to explain the unexplained. As man developed, according to Nietzsche, he no longer needs God, hence, God is dead. Man killed Him. It is only natural that someone, just reading your first post would assume you do not believe in a creator.

Your views need to be represented before they can be misrepresented. So lets not take on a martyrs complex just yet.

If your gripe is against the Institutionalized Christianity, you and I will find much agreement. If you are speking of Biblical Christianity, you and I are on different planets. To see the chaos that the denominational "churches" present to the world, or the blatant denial of the Scriptures of Roman Catholicism and other world "Christian" organizations only demonstrates to me the effectiveness of Satan.

You got upset (that maybe too strong a word but you understand the gist) that someone misrepresented you. Imagine how upset God is by those who misrepresent Him. People like yourself (I'm assuming) look at the falsehood that calls itself "Christian" and think THAT to be Christianity. It is not.

I need to go at the moment. This is a very busy and exciting time for me and the Church I serve right now. So I am away from this board quite a bit, but I will be more than happy to "go a few rounds" with you if you will be patient. Also feel free to email me privately.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Gavin: I had a good look at your website to better understand you. I think it helped. I hope, soon, to address you through your own discussion page. And as one who lived in the U.K. for 13 years (and whose children are graduating from University there this year) I also think I understand some of your cultural background. But enough rambling.

Allow me to respond to your first comments regarding the New Year celebrations in Bethlehem. I think you will find that it was not Christianiy, but rather a secular (athiestic, often) Israeli govt. that was involved in the preparations for that evening/morning.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Gavin,

I too took a look at your web site and read thru your section on disecting religion. Is that the best you can do? Your page ignores historical documents, historical context, and makes huge leaps of assumption that have no bearing in ANY kind of fact.

Is your purpose to promote a philosophy or are you concerned about fact? That is not meant to be a argumentative question. I am sincerely asking. Many today are not concerned about what is true. They have their minds made up so don't confuse them with the facts.

If you are concerned about Truth, you will have to do better than what's on your site. There is no authentication of any of your "facts" whereas I can demonstrate historical documents that go opposite of your claims. Josephus tells about John the immerser and why he was killed. Josephus was not necessarily friendly to Christianity, although he had much to say about many contemporary events. Are you even familiar with Josephus?

I would like to know where your info concerning Pilate comes. Until fairly recently, there was debate (among liberals) if he even existed at all. I would certainly like to know your source about him being a cruel tyrant.

Once again, the ball is in your court.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

I really have too much to reply to, so youll have to forgive me if I do not have the time to respond to everyones comments; Im very much in the lions den here! Firstly if you had taken more time to browse my site you would have noticed that the section on religion is currently very lacking, hence the under construction notice that is on the main page. Secondly as I clearly stated on the real jesus christ section, these arent my words and they are offered as a suggestion on an alternative biography, not as facts carved in stone! When Scott talks of misrepresentation, the greatest injustice here is in the myths that have destroyed the true life of Jesus Christ; I would very much like to know the real story behind this man and how he took on his oppressors, no doubt he was quite the philosopher in his time too, but thanks to people such as Paul who turned him into something very false to suit his own selfish desires we may never know. I believe the film stigmata tries to address this to some extent.

When I speak of decadent values in Christianity, sometimes it is not so much the values, but the motivations lurking beneath and also the fact that many think religion is needed to define some sort of morality! Is the person without religion, immoral? Perhaps we can go beyond good and evil here, it seems to me that morality has been founded on tradition and custom that very few have actually questioned. Then again such is the nature of faith and that of virtue; the less you question outside of your dogma the more virtuous you become - what better means to keep people subservient and blind?! To myself, the majority of Christians fall into two categories - those that have been indoctrinated since childhood and/or those who have suffered, be it depression, abuse, dislike of oneself or anything where life is seen as in someway uncomfortable or unbearable. What better place to turn that Christianity, here we find answers to all our problems and in this perfect little paradise there is a beautiful place awaiting us (one god forsaken, damned place for those who do not!). I may be agnostic, but Im not apathetic, I can well understand peoples need and wants, we nearly all want something solid to grasp hold of but in doing so the delusion can run so deep that a person can never surface from this type of conditioning. To reaffirm belief, repetition is a necessity, such is the nature of prayer and the preacher. If God does not hear our requests first time round then the individual will persist, and hey, if that prayers not answered then God is sovereign so well just accept this as a sign that this request was never meant to come to fruition. The same stories and biblical passages are reiterated over and over in what is nothing short of obsessive compulsive behaviour - in other words religion is form of psychological neurosis.

Chastise me all you like, the sooner you can rebuke my words and label me misguided or flawed the sooner you can return to your humble lives, I dont really expect my words to have any effect here except perhaps for a transient feeling of mild upset. Do not worry Im sure it will pass soon enough.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

My my, aren't we the egocentric one. Everyone (mostly) that is a Christian falls into one of your two little boxes. Those that came to Christianity of their own investigation of facts, and there are many, which box do they fit into?

You are sounding much like the martyr, "lion's den" etc. I find it interesting you think we are so intellectually dull that only someone like yourself can be open to the Truth. The arguments you present are rather old and worn out. But because other arguments come about the old are forgotten about and resurrected and it sounds new. Well, it's not.

Again, you have yet to demonstrate anything that even hints at authetication in what you say on your site. I will grant that it takes some time to get everything just right on a site, I run my own site. But let's not use the "I wasn't prepared" excuse for not having info available.

You make assertions about Paul and James that have no historical basis. It is only the speculation of those with a certain agenda to try and prove.

And before you think it, I am more than willing to give you a hearing and listen to your arguments. Do not come in this forum, which you did of your own free will (yes dbvz, free will) and start accusing us off writing you off as misguided, etc. Yes, I believe you are misguided, but if your arguments are true then you can demonstrate otherwise, so quit playing the martyr. This forum is an exchange of ideas dealing with the Word of God. The claims you make go at the very heart of what we believe, and I for one, am willing to discuss it with you. You knew there would be many responses to your post or you would not have posted it, so quit playing games and let's get on with it.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Gavin:

I think I can address this.

I come from a 'devout agnostic' background. In my home, usually the only time my father used the Lord's name, it was in vain. My mother had been brought up in a strict Baptist home, but was not a believer. They were good parents, though, from the world's standpoint. They were loving, they providded for our material and emotional needs, and our educational needs. (In spite of great odds, sometimes).

When I say my mother had been brought up in a strict home, I think that part of her propriety was from her Southern upbringing. She didn't believe in the virgin birth, the Divinity of Jesus, nor the miracles.

So when I became a Christian, she was upset. But she still thought she was a Christian ~ even though she didn't believe any of the precepts of the Bible!

But because her ancestor baptized Roger Williams, she was a strong Baptist. This is when I came to the conclusion that she'd rather be a Baptist than a Christian. As I have since found Catholics who would rather be Catholic ~ etc., etc., etc...(All groups who think they have the only and all of truth.)

And this is where many denominations are today, including the CoC ~ they have these pet theories, and not even the Word of God is going to dislodge them. Like convincing their followers that baptism is not a work, because they, confusingly, mouth that we are not saved by works. Talk about confusion! Of which God is not the Author.

That is why, though I don't want to be proud of it, I am thankful for my church, which is completely non- or un- denominational ~ we have no affiliation with any other church at all, other than other churches which are made up of members of the 'body of Christ' ~ combining sometimes (but not very often) for community outreach ~ such as the 'Prayer Breakfast' each year.

Denominations get into error, and then instead of 'holding fast to the Head' (Christ) they hold fast to their traditions. I feel that the requirement of baptism for salvation is in this category ~ and I know I give heartburn to the various posters here when I say that. But that is not my intent.

My intent is for them to really look at what they are teaching ~ something in addition to Christ's shed blood.

In your case, you haven't even taken 'step one' which is faith in Christ. I know many people with a lot of education and intelligence who HAVE believed it, not because it is mystical, but because it is TRUE.

Christ CAN meet you where you are, and I think you are searching. Don't resist Him. You DO have to suspend all the propaganda you have been fed your entire life, even if it might be of a religious nature, and even if you are the one who fed it to yourself.

He will be the best Friend you will ever have, even if you have many.

You will be in my prayers.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

John, from your initial response I knew youd found my words injurious and sought to attack me by any means possible. Im not here to score points or battle egos, its a shame you think me so shallow, neither do I hide behind a pretense of offering something completely unique or new, although perhaps it can be considered new in the context of your biased viewpoint. Although I expect you to vehemently deny it, I believe your latest contention lies in my comments that many Christians come from two positions and I have little reservations that you come from one or both of these. Regarding my website - Again, I will have to reiterate for you - the section is NOT my work, but the ideas of others. There is strong historical context; you previously asked about pilate - pilate was very well documented by at least two renowned philosophers of the time that is why so much is known about him. It was never my intention to enter into your forum, I was at the time looking for digital photography, but perchance strolled across this discussion board and after reading several entries felt a desire to add my own cognition, welcomed or not. It strikes me more than a little ironic that you should label my arguments old and worn out!! I suggest if you find my words obtuse, ignore them.

In repsonse to Connie: indeed I have taken step one faith in christ. When I was younger I had amazing faith in Christ and believed my whole life would serve a purpose if I could save just one person. When you read the words I now write you may want to believe that my faith was perhaps lacking, or I slipped by the wayside. All I can say is that my faith was forged with stronger bonds than my own life, far from being superficial it consumed me; I think the difficulty for people here is why would someone leave this unless their faith was not really strongly rooted? From inside Christianity, it is hard to see beyond it, just as it is hard to see beyond the ideologies of todays. A position from within a religion is prejudiced and biased of that there can not be any doubt; once you begin to learn of a world that transcends religion, religion itself becomes something smaller. How can you build beyond yourself when you are trapped within set parameters? The lure of heaven and the fear of hell is a drug too sweet and a castigation too bitter for most to ignore. When you speak of education and intelligence I think you have to be very careful - the two do not go hand in hand. I do not even know what real intelligence is. I do know that you cannot make the statement that Christ is believed in because it is TRUE, this is merely personal feeling which unfortunately cannot be trusted. I can no further prove your God a fallacy as you can prove him! not. It is reasoned argument that are our only tools. All I really ever came into this chat room to say is question everything, even those darkened avenues that scare you; if you are truly honest with yourself and freed from self-delusion I think you may find something greater than religion. I fear too few are brave enough to venture this unmarked route, Christians all too readily believe they are walking the long, twisted, hardened road when all along theyve been walking the straight, widened easy path.

Gavin.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Gavin,

I believe you were responding to me rather than to John. I did not find your words injurious nor did I attack you by "any means possible." It's just you come in and immediately place everyone in a box (actually 2 boxes) of your own creation. And there is no meanness attached in my responses, just matter of fact.

As far as the arguments, the stuff I read from your site, the claims about Paul and James and Jesus are old and worn out. They were new about a century ago. That does not negate the fact that they should be discussed, so I am not and will not tell you to go elsewhere.

My only reason for responding to you in the manner I did was to try and get you to discuss the issues without trying to give yourself a handicap. We are on a level field, as far as I am concerned.

You are more than welcome to discuss things on this forum. It is not mine to say one way or another - but I would rather you stick around and discuss these statements you have made (or the ones you have placed on your web site) at length. Christianity is not nearly so bleak as you make it out to be.

You say that a person cannot build himself up inside set parameters (that's not a quote, but as close as I get from memory - no misrepresentation intended if there is any). Don't you see that you have simply moved your parameters? Only in your framework, you have rejected Christianity.

You are absolutely correct in the difference in educated and intellegence, they do not necessarily go hand in hand. And you are correct in that, in a philosophical way, one cannot absolutely prove anything at all. So the question that must be asked is "What is reasonable?"

I say that Christianity, as presented in the Scriptures, is reasonable. I believe in absolute Truth. My guess is, and please, let me know whether I am right or wrong, you believe all truth to be relative depending on perspective and circumstance. Is that true? I am only trying to get a grasp of your position, I'm not accusing.

If I am self-deluded, please show me. I am not trying to be obnoxious. I am sincerely wanting you to discuss these things with this forum. I for one, am not afraid of the Truth - wherever it may lead. It's just I've examined the evidence, I've worked through the works of the skeptics, including the material on your web site (I know it is not yours but it represents your view else you would not have it on there). I found them all lacking when the light of scrutiny was placed upon them.

I hope you will continue to respond. As I stated before, no game playing, just honest discussion about the real issues.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Let us make this a three-way debate. I do not believe either side of the arguments. The Restoration Movement writers did not believe in either side of your argument. Here is the third position, from the Bible, and not from vain men with vain babblings. Jesus is alive -- today -- on earth! The Protestant Reformers believed this obvious fact, as did the Restoration Movement leaders. And -- get this now -- the congregation of my youth believed this fact. Then came the Great Apostasy in 1948, and Jesus was ushered out the door, and they threw the Bible out after Him. Why do you people all deny Jesus' Revelation? Do you know? Let me share the truth with you: It is because the Pope teaches to deny Revelation! There is no other reason. A man of God, in 1943, taught me that Satan was coming to attack the congregation of the Lord. See: Rev 20.7-10. The Protestants and the Restoration Movement writers mostly taught that this would happen, after Armageddon, which was World War I (see: B.W. Johnson and Halley's Bible Handbook), and after the "thousand year reign with Christ." Gog and Magog murdered the Millennium in 1959, and -- I was there! Trust me, God and the Lamb are on the throne in New Jerusalem, and have been since AD 77. The Bible is beautiful! You should read it sometime. See our web page: "The False Prophet Teaches: 3 = 2." And -- you believe him! http://www.holyspiritmath.com Check out: "Receiving the 7 Spirits of God." http://www.jesusbornagain.com Think in the present tense, fellows. Jesus lives! -- today! -- on earth! See: Heb 13.8, Jas 1.17, Rev 1.18, and throughout. Sid Williams

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Sid,

I am seriously trying to get Gavin to have a legitimate discussion over some very real issues. Then you come in here with this comic book stuff that is from the land of Oz (or somewhere similar). If you want to start another thread, please do so, but this discussion is not about when Jesus will return (or his current address). It is about the most fundamental question that a man can ask, Does God exist and how does He interact with man.

If you want, I will talk to you at length about what you posted, but do it on another thread, please!?!

As a matter of fact there are a couple of threads that are already in existence that would be better suited for your thoughts, the "Amillennial man" thread or the "Premillenialism" thread. I will be more than happy to meet you there, but I, for one, will not respond to you on this thread. And I would ask the other forum participants to do the same thing. Keep this thread on target.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

That is, I would ask the forum participants not to respond to Sid's remarks on this particular thread. I'm not trying to hog the thread all to myself, as it may have sounded above. My only concern is remaining on target on this thread.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

I agree, Scott. We allow too many threads to stray off topic. Lets keep this a two way dialog, not a three way or five way or umpteen way.

I think that Gavin might be surprised to learn that most of the posters here are well educated, as well as very intelligent, well versed in both apologetics and philosophy, are as down on religion as he is --- yet are all believing Christians, who have come to their position after carefully weighing the evidence for and against and daring to scrutinize the skeptics' arguments. He might be asking himself how that is possible.

As one of my favorite ministries says, Christianity [is] worth thinking about.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Gavin:

You have said:

I knew my words would be misrepresented and the supposition that I did not believe in a creator, made. I am an apostate of the Christian religion and very much a spiritual warrior.

Garvin, in your words above you say that you knew your words would be misrepresented. Of Course you did because it was you intention to have them be misrepresented because you were deliberately vague with your initial words. And you intended that we should appear to be misrepresenting you. But the truth is that your words certainly did not represent your position clearly. They were therefore open to interpretation by your own design. But the truth is that no one has misrepresented you at all. For you tell us that you are an apostate from the Christian religion. You cannot be an apostate from the Christian religion Garvin until you have first been a Christian. You have not proven or established by any evidence whatsoever that you have ever been a genuine Christian therefore we are not likely to believe your thus far unproven claim to be a apostate from something that you have never been a genuine part. I do not say that you have not been a Christ I only challenge your yet unsubstantiated claim to have been one. Apostasy is not something new, Gavin, and we have seen it before but you seem more like one who has yet to even understand Christianity much less one who had ever been one.

Then you claim, with a touch of arrogance to be very much a spiritual warrior. To this I only reply, let no him that puts on his armor boast as he that takes it OFF! We shall see just how much of a spiritual warrior you turn out to be! Let it be known by all who are willing to think that in order for there to be a spiritual war there must be at least two sides that oppose each other and that in this case there is the side of evil and the side of Good. Gavin, if you are a spiritual warrior who is an apostate from genuine Christianity, which I doubt very seriously, you may be a spiritual warrior but you are surely not on Gods side. Which I think you will agree. But how much of a warrior you truly are yet to be seen. Now if you have propositions that you wish to affirm then state it clearly. I challenge you concerning Christian values. You say they are decadent. I challenge you to state your proposition clearly and meet me in a formal organized and moderated debate concerning this matter with formal rules of discussion agree to by the both of us and let us discuss this matter fairly in a format that requires EVIDENCE to support your claims. Now if you are willing to do this let me know and we can agree upon the wording of the propositions and the rules of discussion and chose moderators to ensure that we all follow those rules and you can affirm as many proposition that you like against Christianity and I will be happy to meet you on all with which I disagree. You will affirm and I will deny and then on each proposition I will also be able to affirm and you must deny. This will require you to either offer evidence to support the nonsense you are claiming to be true or be clearly shown to be on who is merely asserting things that he cannot prove and expecting sensible people to agree with him.

Having said that we must agree to a time for such discussion. I am presently moving from Birmingham, Alabama to Atlanta, Georgia and I cannot engage you in such a discussion for about two weeks for lack of time but I will be more than happy to meet you on the polemic platform since you claim to be such a spiritual warrior you most likely would be more than happy to meet me in these discussions as well. If you agree to such a discussion you cannot continue to cry and complain that you are just a poor soul in the lions den being miserable misrepresented by a bunch of ignorant people who can go on with their humble lives as if you are so superior on the one hand and so out gunned and helpless and misrepresented on the other. For in this case you would be discussing this matter one on one with me and you cannot claim to be outnumbered or in the lions Den. So what do you say? Are you prepare to affirm your propositions, state them clearly and define the certainly and defend then competently or do you just want to babble about things that you know little or nothing about! The choice is yours. If you refuse to debate these matters then I will draw the conclusion, as will others, that you are not the warrior that you claim to be. After all you have said, I would gladly contend your beliefs and perhaps too find some common ground.

Then you said:

I shall not apologies if this offends, for I've no doubt it will, but if my words are harsh then it is only because I care enough about the world and its people that I seek to disabuse some from their illusion. Christianity is harmful, it is very much the religion of pity. My words are guided much more towards the institution of christianity then any individual.

You will not find me asking you to apologize for offending me. I do not need your apologies. So do not come crying and begging me to apologize to you for anything for I shall not do so. Your whining about being misrepresented when you intended to offend everyone without regret is pathetic coming from one who claims to be very much a spiritual warrior. Then why do we hear all this crying about misrepresentation? Stop your whining and represent accurately what you affirm and contend for it. You say Christianity is an illusion. Well we wait for you to prove it! I challenge you to do so in a formal debate in this forum at a time convenient to all. You assert but do not prove that Christianity is harmful. Well we wait for you to prove it and grant you the opportunity to do so in a formal debate with me in this forum. You say that Christianity is a religion of pity. But you offer no proof that such is true. I am now challenging you to PROVE that it is a religion of pity in a formal debate with me in this forum. You say your words are directed at the institution of Christianity rather than any individual. I do not care if it is directed toward me as a Christian or the institution of Christianity itself I challenge you to PROVE your assertions. For thus far all you have done is assert without offering any evidence to support your false assertions. I challenge you to PROVE your assertions in a formal debate in this forum. I do not intend to defend any sect or denomination or Christianity as false teachers throughout the past 2,000 years have perverted it. I intend to defend it as it is found in the pages of the Holy Scriptures. Those Christian principals that are found in the pages of the New Testament are not a religion of pity as you assert but do not prove. However, I challenge you to PROVE it in a formal debate in this forum.

Then you say:

Im very much in the lions den here! For one who claims to be such a spiritual warrior this statement is pathetic. You poor thing all dressed up in shining armor ready to challenge the entire army of God and trembling at the sight of a few Christian lions that he claims are so pitiful and absorbed in their humble lives. So afraid of lions that you have already boldly affirmed to be mere toothless and pitiful! What a great warrior you must be! Why I just cannot understand why the Queen of England has conferred knighthood upon you for your bravery and boldness against these toothless lions that make you tremble so.

Then you complain of the myths that have destroyed the true life of Jesus without describing clearly just what myths you are referring to nor proving that they are in fact myths with these words:

When Scott talks of misrepresentation, the greatest injustice here is in the myths that have destroyed the true life of Jesus Christ;

I challenge you to define what you mean and describe the myths of which you speak and prove that they are in fact myths and that these so-called myths have in fact destroyed the true life of Jesus Christ in a formal debate with me o=in this forum on these matters.

Then you talk boldly without evidence or the slightest shred of proof about your imagined decadent values of Christianity with these words:

When I speak of decadent values in Christianity, sometimes it is not so much the values, but the motivations lurking beneath and also the fact that many think religion is needed to define some sort of morality!

At least here you attempt to explain just a little of what you mean by decadent values of Christianity but you have failed miserable to do it. I therefore challenge you to clearly define your position in a formally stated proposition and defend that proposition in a formal debate in this form with me on these matters.

Then the great warrior complains that these humble saints chastise him with these words:

Chastise me all you like, the sooner you can rebuke my words and label me misguided or flawed the sooner you can return to your humble lives, I dont really expect my words to have any effect here except perhaps for a transient feeling of mild upset. Do not worry Im sure it will pass soon enough. words to have any effect here except perhaps for a transient feeling of mild upset. Do not worry Im sure it will pass soon enough.

We do not need your permission or great warrior to chastise you. But it is not you that we shall chastise. It is your arguments if you ever manage to actually make against Christianity that we will abundantly and soundly chastise! Our humble lives seems to bother you in some way but our lives, humble or not are our business and we shall do with them as we please. However, if you wish to persuade us to go after something better than Christianity as you pretend to do we shall demand PROVE and EVIDENCE that there is anything even comparable to genuine Christianity as it is described in the pages of the word of God. But you offer no proof and we therefore reject all of your assertions until you establish that they are true according to the facts. You are correct in your expectation that you words will have little effect. For unless you prove them to be the truth they will have no effect whatsoever among discerning men whether Christian or not.

No need to concern yourself with our feelings. For we are not unfamiliar with fools who say there is no God or agnostics who just do not know anything about it but are always telling us what they think. Now I have challenged you to enter a formal debate at a convenient time. My email address is at the end of this post. You can reach me there to discuss the details of such a debate. Remember that I cannot enter the debate for two weeks because I ma moving to Atlanta but when I am finished with that necessary task I challenge you to discuss these matters in a way that prevents you from hiding and requires you to PROVE everything that to affirm with hard evidence and does not allow you to merely assert things without proof. Assertions without proof are meaningless. We can prove what we teach to be the truth and are more than willing to do so.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Gavin:

'You must be born again'. Get into your Bible and don't listen to anyone else for awhile. I'll be praying for you. 'The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life'.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

To my Christian? friend? Lee,

Its interesting the way youve tried to belittle me here; its begun with the deliberate misspelling of my name garvin which then become gavin the third time around (the r is not even close to the a key!) to a plethora of little words with no substance

-cryand complain -poor soul -Your whining -You poor thingall dressed up in shining armor ready to challenge the -entire armyof God and trembling at the sight of a few Christian lions -For we are not unfamiliar with fools

You have twisted my words, misrepresented them in an amazing carriage of injustice and to be honest I just ended up laughing at your lack of integrity and the shallowness of your retort. Let me clear up a few things here so that you may better understand my position. I did not come here telling people they were ignorant; the ignorant person is one who has done absolutely no questioning but possess to know certain truths. I would also like to address this issue of spiritual warrior that I have used metaphorically because God only knows how youve contorted this. Isnt it just a little oxymoronic that we speak of spirituality and you sarcastically make mention of the Queen!!! Knighthood and royality, two very frivolous and contemptable ideals that are in no way related to spirituality; where on earth are you coming from Lee or has anger consumed your sensibility?! Spiritual warfare is largely an inner battle and trust me, Christianity is just part of the fabric in a much larger framework running alongside similar worldy religions, capitalism and other unconsciousness. You have tried to paint a very black and white picture of two sides battling, and this just isnt the case.

Another twisting of my words... actually this its not even that, youve obviously completely misunderstood me, though I dont see how. To quote yourself: I do not need your apologies. So do not come crying and begging me to apologize to you for anything for I shall not do so. Lee, please tell me where Ive asked for apologies!!! Please tell me where Ive cried and begged?!!! I dont want apologies, if you were to offer them youd loose complete integrity in my eyes, although at present you carry very little anyway. How could you have misunderstood so badly when my words here were so plain to see?

Lets look at your further injustices and put-downs. You claim I was not a Christian. It doesnt surprise me that you would say this, but please, why do you think you know me so well? What is it that defined me not to be a Christian? How have you measured my previous faith, my biblical readings, my attendence to church, my perpetual belief, my sincerity and ernest in prayer You do not want to believe I was ever a Christian, perhaps because you see yourself as the epitome of what it is to be christian, your modesty may speak differently because you are lowly and unworthy in your Gods eyes, but personally I think youve place yourself on a pedestal and believe you are the good little Christian fit to judge others - thou shall not judge?!. Show me evidence of your faith, and your Christian-ness - you cant can you? So how can I prove how deep my belief in Jesus was?!

Christianity as a religion of pity! It is so ironic that you have answered this question to some extent yourself and yet you cannot even see it! Ill reiterate the use of your words, turned to degrade me

cryand complain, poor soul, Your whining, You poor thing, , for we are notunfamiliar with fools

You have painted me a pitiful creature, and in doing so you have only reduced yourself to something very small.

Even God has his own hell: that is his love unto men. God is dead; he has died of his pity for men. Isnt the word prayer derived from the latin word - to beg ?!!!!

I see the way in which you wish this contention to lead with a formal laying down of things you can easily grasp and refute. Youre waiting for me to list passages and apparent biblical contradictions because at least then you have something manipulable. I have lost track of the discussions I have had on this unlevel playing field for theologians and studiers of Christianity have contrived rational answers to nearly every conceivable argument. The problem here lies with rationality because rationality can be twisted and used for any means and to suit any purpose, hence it is really, irrational. If I quote a passage I question as flawed or malevolent, you will counter-argue with even the most implausible of answers and you will not see the better reasoned argument. And they say God is not the God of confusion.. I do laugh.

You shall have to be patient my fickle friend. Christianity is based on virtues, is not patience a virtue? Do you expect me to write all my views on Christianity in a few messages - you truly do ask for miracles. I would like to approach this from a more psychological position - why people have a need for religion, how religion was born and developed. Perhaps a historical context would be interesting to, especially in the christianizing of Plato and Aristotle. If you want something more forthcoming in the mean time then I shall offer you this very basic fundamental question which to me shows the irrationality of the Christian mind

It strike me that belief in heaven and hell is a prerequisite of all Christians, anyone who repudiates this should not be classified Christian. I doubt there are many Christians here who believe they have a definite place up in heaven, but then I would not believe any have condemned themselves to a position in hell! Christians believe they will make it through the pearly white doors, its just their modesty and a humbleness that speak contrarily. When you imagine of your life in paradise, how do you rationalise your feelings of those suffering and condemned in a tormenting hell?! Will you pass them off as unbelievers whose lack of guidance and moral values led them into the hands of satan? Will you on occasion, sit, reflect and pity them? If I could place myself in your position, my heaven would become a hell in knowing the infinite suffering of tortured souls - where goes your compassion then, or does rationality make you blind and turn you away from your virtues? How can you claim your God to be benevolent?

Gavin.

p.s. Lee, if you reply again with such shallowness and lack of understanding, distorting my words beyond recognition, I shall not bother to reply. I think your anger stems from suppressed self-doubts that you refuse to acknowledge.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Gavin,

When Christianity was Plato-nized it ceased to be Christianity. Through Augustine, and later through Calvin, Christianity has been twisted and contorted to an irrational and cruel institution of man's own contrivance. But that is not Biblical Christianity.

I wish to discuss with you Biblical Christianity, as presented in the Scriptures. Are you willing to discuss these things on a level playing field? We can do it privately thru email if you like, but I believe you paint with a very broad brush and lump everything that even remotely claims "Christianity" together. I take a much narrower view of the Church.

Before someone builds a car, you begin by putting together the frame, not by putting air in the tires. The questions you have asked Lee concerning heaven and hell, to me it seems, is like inflating the tires before you have a car to put them on. Your questions have answers but we have nothing to attach them to just yet. We have some more fundamental questions to answer first: Does God exist (or still exist)? Does He have a relationship to His creation? Can He be known? I answer yes to all of those. These are just the beginning of putting together the frame.

On a personal note, do you have any wav or midi files of your guitar playing? I would enjoy hearing some of it. From your site, you seem to be fairly good at it. And don't prejudge what kind of music you thnk I like. I might surprise you :o)

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Anyone who likes the Lumberjack song is likely to have very interesting musical tastes. =)

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Gavin:

Unfortunately, 'many false prophets have gone out into the world' and it sounds as though you have met your share.

Don't judge Christianity by its adherents, (we are ALL imperfect) but by its Savior.

He will fill the void in your life.

Of course, I don't know what your experience has been, and you may not want to tell it, but Hebrews 6:4-6 comes to mind: [AMPLIFIED]

4: For it is impossible [to restore and bring again to repentance] those who have been once for all enlightened, who have consciously tasted the heavenly gift, and have become sharers of the Holy Spirit,

5: And have felt how good the Word of God is and the mighty powers of the age and world to come,

6: If they then deviate from the faith and turn away from their allegience; [it is impossible] to bring them back to repentance, for (because, while as long as) they nail up on the cross the Son of God afresh, as far as they are concerned, and are holding [Him] up to contempt and shame and public disgrace.

It may be too late for you. 'Pray' or 'Beg' ~ I will be doing both for you.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Connie,

The only time it is too late for anyone is when they have amade up their minds about something and do not want to be confused by the facts, much like you have done with baptism. This passage does not teach what you are implying (it has been discussed on another thread).

Please, until you figure out what the real issues are on this thread, do not muddy the water with issues that are not here.

I say this as respectfully as I can.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

O.K., Scott, but I wanted to say one more thing to Gavin:

From II Corinthians 6:2:

'Now is the day of salvation; now is the accepted time'.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

I understand the division within Christianity; it's evident from this discussion board alone. It is this lack of cohesion and unity that is, and will be, Christianity's undoing. Even with these differences there are some fundamental beliefs that must be common to all denominations otherwise they could not be defined as 'Christian'.

You seem to be dancing around my question of 'heaven' and 'hell' in an apparent attempt to evade it. What can proceed this question that could possible provide a reasoned response?

If you won't answer the above question, then please do tell me your ontological theory and how a known God implicitly refers to the biblical God.

Don't worry Scott, I've not prejudged your musical tastes! I've known a few Christians who like some pretty hardcore, alternative music albeit Christian music and not something like Nine Inch Nails. There are some VQF downloads - I think it's page 18 on my music guide - these are playable with Winamp, but there's not that many examples with guitar.

Gavin

p.s. Connie, do you not think this need for 'redemption' is a personal , psychological one?! I think you have some bad love for yourself.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

"... a known God ..." Are you implying by that phrase that you believe that God exists, you just don't accept (or perhaps understand) the God of the Bible?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

Gavin:

Since you addressed me, I will respond.

I believe our (my) need for redemption was and is real.

Does that make it personal and psychological? Probably.

I do not understand 'bad love'. I only know the 'good love' of God, family, and friends.

Can you explain the term?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

Gavin,

I apologise for not getting back to you sooner. I have had a very busy couple of days and tomorrow is no different. I have started the last couple of days early and finished very late - same thing tomorrow. It is now 1:15 in the morning here and I must get to bed. When I have a clear head I will answer your questions. I do apologise though for making you wait.

I have not even had a chance to check out your music yet. But rest assured, I will, and I expect to hear some talent. Good night.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I know what it's like to have scarce free time on your hands. I shall wait patiently for your reply.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

Galvin, I see that you are caught in a spiritual battle that you are despirately trying to flee from, otherwise you would not have come to this forum. Let me state as Paul stated that "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the POWER of God " (I Cor. 1:18). I think that I understand that you are disenchanted with organized denominational religion that seeks to find it's faith in traditions made by man's hands. THe problem ther is that they like the Pharisees in Jesus' day have found comfort and peace in the rite and glamor of formality, rules, and regualtions. But, if a revolutionary like Jesus comes along then they are labeled and crucified.

See, I do not seek after "religion" but I do seek after a radical Christ like lifestle, that is willing to give up all that I own and all that I am for the sake of Christ. Perhaps that is what makes us different... I am seeking to glorify God and are allowing Him to direct me each and every day, where as you (sorry if I sound harsh) seem to have all the answers. You want more than "religion" but you are so disenchanted that you will not look further, thus you close your mind off to Christ and His calling for a radical sold out life. Christianity is not about do's and do not's but about a relationship that will lead one to the cross if necessary. Look at all the martyrs thoughout history, they did the same- sold out for Jesus. Yes, many were products of their time, but they refused to let religion blind their real faith in Christ Jesus.

Galvin, you will never get it unless you are willing to sell out to Jesus. You must be so radical that your faith will lead you to be Baptized (as connie often attacks) and you must be willing to be led to the outermost parts of the world if He so desires. But you must be willing. But, until you are willing in your faith (or at least psudo faith) will never grow until you let yourself be willing to accept Christ and the cross He brings. Jesus is not a peace loving hippy nor is He a candy dispenser for your desires, Jesus came to set a world on fire- to turn families against each other- to bring a sword- to bring a cross. Many expect the key to the city, but true sold out faith in Jesus will give us a dark damp muddy prison cell. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell it all to be a disciple and gain eternal life. Unless we are willing to do this- then we cannot have eternal life and we can never be a disciple.

Galvin- you are lost and you are trying to find the light. Let Jesus give you that light. I pray that as you read the Word of God- that you do not read it with blinders, nor with philosophical or denominational eyes- but read with an open heart. Read the book of John read all the pages of the Bible- not to argue but to learn. Ask of God and you will receive! Do you want to know the real Jesus- He is in their- but it boils down to faith.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

AKelley: I think its "Gavin," not "Galvin."

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

Sorry- type o.... thanks John.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

Gavin...

Just a question. Are you an atheist? Yes or no will do. I would like to engage you in deeper discussion but I need to know this first. Thanks in advance.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2000

Gavin said earlier, "...please do tell me your ontological theory and how a known God implicitly refers to the biblical God." I assume he was implying by the phrase "a known God" that he believes that God exists, he just doesn't accept (or perhaps understand) the God of the Bible. However he didn't answer my inquiry so I am not certain. (I am sure it is because he was distracted and not because he was ignoring my question. I do that alot myself.)

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2000

Gavin,

Thanks for being patient with me.

To respond to the issue of Heaven and Hell: You seem to have rewards and punishments as your primary emphasis. This is common thought among many  both the average Joe in the pew as well as many a theologian. But that is only a secondary concept of Heaven and Hell.

According to the Bible, God created man as a very unique creation. Man is the only one that is created in the image of God. Mankind was unique in that what God wanted to have an intimate relationship with him. A relationship in which man would choose to love God in return. The Bible also states that God walked in with man in the coolness of the day. The concept of eternal life was present from the very beginning of creation. There was a tree of life placed in the Garden of which man was not allowed to eat. God offered them a choice, to love Him or to reject Him. There was only one thing they could do in order to reject God  eat of the tree. They chose to reject God. One of the consequences for that rejection was that there would be a separation from God  called death.

To make the answer to this as short as I possibly can (in which I will wait for you to respond): Heaven is simply the eternal location of those who have chosen to follow and love God. Hell is the eternal location of those who choose not to. Yes there are rewards, and there are punishments, but those are secondary.

There are many absurd and ridiculous theories and speculations about all sorts of Biblical concepts. One of the reasons I reject so much of Protestantism (and Catholicism) is because they take away a very essential part of the real picture, mans option to choose or not choose to love God. If there is no choice, there is no such thing as genuine love.

I have a suspicion that you have dealt with quite a few of these theories and speculations, and not the actual Biblical concepts  maybe Im wrong about this. Example, you asked Lee if patience wasnt a virtue. There is no place where there are numbered a list of virtues. Yet there are many, brought up in the traditions of denominationalism of some sorts, that will say thats in the Bible. Patience is spoken of, and seriously encouraged, but there is not a list of virtues, just like there is no list of seven deadly sins.

You also touched on a very real question. I am not afraid to tell you I have wondered about how we will feel in heaven knowing that many of those we love are in Hell. That is a tough question. That does not mean there is not an answer, but I cannot give you a thus sayeth the Lord. My own personal opinion is that God will block out those thoughts from our mind. Heaven will be a place of no tears or sorrows. Those in Hell made their decision to be there by rejecting God.

Gods benevolence is seen that even though mankind, each individual, has sinned (broken Gods law which requires separation from God), God created a plan in order to satisfy His own Justice as well as His compassion.

I will await your response, for I dont want to drift too far from your immediate questions. I still maintain that, given an honest look at the evidence and reasonableness of the Scriptures and the teachings therein, the overwhelming conclusion is that not only is God alive, but is the God of the Bible.

Just for the record, there is some pretty weird stuff on this forum that goes against the clear teachings of Scripture. Please, do not let anyone speak for me other than myself. I do not think you will, but I wanted to state that up front. Thanks for your patience.

I will now go to your page and try to listen to your music. I do not have Winamp but will see what happens.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2000

Perhaps when one says 'seven deadly sins' people, if not thinking of those listed by the RCC are thinking of the 'six, nay seven, things God hates' from Proverbs 6:16-19:

16: These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him:

17: (1) A proud look, (2) a lying tongue, and (3) hands that shed innocent blood;

18: (4) An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, (5) feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19: (6) A false witness that speaketh lies, and (7) he that soweth discord among brethren.

H-m-m. Lying is mentioned twice.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

I've taken a copy of everyone's replies and will try and respond soon. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

Yeah, very funny with the name spelling thing! :o) It's become a little worn now - Garvin, Galvin or Gavin, call me what you like.

I don't have as long as I would like to reply to some of the responses, but I shall give it a try I shan't reply to A Kelly's response, goodness knows how they understand me.

To try and answer Michael's and John's questions. To rephrase - 'Am I an atheist?', 'If I speak of a God, does it subsequently follow that I believe in one?". Firstly I ask for to try and not categorise or place things under labels (not that I am making accusations of this now); I know this can be a practical human trait, but it can lead to confusions. With that said, no I am not an atheist, do I believe in a 'known' God - the answer again is no. From a teleological viewpoint (purpose and design in nature) I think it becomes impossible to ignore the idea of a creator or creators, but this doesn't necessarily draw positive conclusions about our existence, nor negative. When I think of the quote "God is dead" I think not only is it vilifying Christianity, but also saying, if there is a sentient being referred to as God, then it plays no significance in our lives. I would personally choose not to use the word 'God' as it has too many connotations.

Scott - As you mention Adam and Eve, can I also ask if you believe in the creationist theory, and also put forward the suggestion that if Adam and Eve were the first, then we are all the results of incest? I would put it to you that there is no such thing as 'genuine love', and this 'choice' you speak of is a fallacy. This choice is very black and white - belief+faith+ernest=life. dismissal, scorn, apathy or reasoning that contradicts christian philosophy=(well it's not even death is it - it's eternal suffering)! I'm sorry, but there really is no choice in what you propose; those who believed it would be driven by fear alone.

Your own opinions on coping in heaven are dark, twisted and perturbing. Can you remember me talking about the dangers of rationalisation? In your own mind you are guilty of the most monstrous and irrational rationalisation. With this idea you hold now, does it not bother you that God would want to take such thoughts from you?! Does it not concern you that God would actually want to blind you from 'truths'? You seem to take some sort of solace in this blindness which furthers my belief that followers of Christianity crave a delusion of sorts. I no longer know how to speak to someone who holds such detestable, nefarious thoughts. I am glad I do not share them.

Gavin.

p.s. God's - "benevolence" ?! It sounds like an oxymoron to me.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

God's Benevolence? God is far more benevolent, especially to you, than you know!

In a way, you sound an awful lot like one of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis. He was an atheist and skeptic at one time, before he fully understood Christianity. He once wrote something like this: "I was, like most athiests and anti-theists, awash in a flood of contradictions. I was angry that God did not exist. I was also angry at God for not existing. I was equally angry at Him for having created the world."

In some sense, we are very much living in a "Star Wars" universe. There are two very real powers battling over this planet, a Force for Good and a force for evil. (The opposition leader is clearly insane, since the King he opposes is All-powerful and unassailable, but that is beside the point.) Before Mankind ever came into being the conflict erupted, and continues to this day, although the decisive battle has been won. And the King has decreed that all rebels, once dealt with, are subject to the penalty of eternal banishment.

Unfortunately the enemy through trickery has embroiled Mankind unwittingly into this battle, engaged us all as rebels with him. Often 'rebels without a cause,' but rebels all the same, for we refuse to bend our knee to the rightful King of the Universe. But the King cares so much for this puny pathetic race that to Mankind, and to Mankind alone (sorry, no other rebels need apply), He offers a full and free pardon. The amazing Benevolence He displays is that as long as you live, as long as you breathe in the life that He Himself bestows upon you, as long as you stand there defiantly and spit in his face with that very breath, He still offers His pardon to you, and His appeal to switch sides and join in His forces of occupation. And He continues to offer this pardon to the entire World, even though it mocks Him. Even though He Has announced that a full-force invasion of the planet is nigh, and at that time the enemy will be crushed and all will be set right, He still waits. For you, my friend. But when He sets foot on the Mount of Olives with the full host of the invasion army at his side (for He is "Lord of the Hosts") it will be too late to accept the pardon. As C.S. Lewis wrote in 'Mere Christianity,' "When the Author walks onto the Stage, the Play is over."

WE choose to go to Hell; God does not decide that. The choice has been given to us: accept His pardon, on His terms, or die with the rest of the 'rebel scum.' As C.S. Lewis wrote in 'The Great Divorce', "All who go to Hell, choose it. You can either say to God, 'Thy will be done' [join His side, in other words] or in the end, God will say to you, 'So be it: THY will be done.'" If you wish not to accept God's offer of truce, the consequences are on your head, not on His. But do not talk of God not being benevolent. He does not owe you anything, yet He offers you everything, and keeps giving you life in the meantime. Talk about benevolence! All He asks of you is that you lay down your arms and surrender to Him. Is that really so much to ask?

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Gavin, I do feel sorry for you- for until you submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ then you will never know the joy, peace, love, and fulfillment that we here know and experience. You are a sad individual, and even worse than that- the day you make the discovery that we were "right" will most likely the day you face the God whom you choose to ignore. Yes, you will face Him and give an account like every person on this earth will someday do. The only difference that will change your outcome is your faith and obedince to Jesus CHrist, for He is the Way, the Truth and the Life! I fear for you and I will pray for you for I do not want to see you enter eternity with out God.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Gavin:

I see you are angry at God, but your throwing a tantrum will not get Him to change His mind.

It has to be the other way around; you have to change YOUR mind.

I pray for your sake that you do it.

The things you seem to hold against God are not necessarily His fault. People, even Christians, are most often responsible for some things God gets blamed for. HIS WILL BE DONE, not our wills be done.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

I am reminded of what Paul said:

"Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who made it, 'Why have you made me like this?'"

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000

Gavin;

In the interest of accuracy, here is the first quote I mentioned above (the above was my paraphrase): "I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world." - C.S. Lewis, 'Surprised by Joy'

Another quote by "Jack" Lewis which might interest you:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'

I would highly recommend both these books, 'Mere Christianity' and 'Surprised by Joy.' But be careful ... as Bill Cosby used to say on the Fat Albert show, "If you aren't careful, you might learn something." <grin>

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000

A Kelly - your reputation precedes you. I was forewarned about you and Lee, and it is true; your attempts to patronise, condescend and belittle at the same time as twisting words is both amusing and pathetic. I shan't reply.

Connie, I still think you are mistaking what I have said. How can I be angry at an unknown God? I am not angry at God, I simply hold contempt for Christian dogma and the arrogance in proclaiming to know of a known God. When I speak of Gods' malevolence, I am trying to see from the viewpoint and persona of a Christian's stance. Also, because text cannot express emotion or tone, you have labeled my cognition a 'tantrum' which, like Kelly and Lee is trying to reduce me to something disparaging and therefore dismissible. You are mistaken.

It's interesting that you refer to God as having a 'mind', and the implication that it may be changed although not through a 'tantrum'. Not only does the bible portray God to throw tantrums (don't you think "he" would be a little beyond human emotions like anger and jealousy?!), but that "he" has a mind that can be changed - can we not therefore say that God is not sovereign? How could a "lesser" being change "his" mind through something like prayer?

John, did you know C.S. Lewis harboured a sexual interest in children? It's no doubt a can of worms that people do not like opened. Perhaps you should look more into the person who inspires you so.

Gavin.

p.s. Enjoy your chocolate eggs.

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000

Matthew 5:11,12:

11: 'Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12: Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.'

I have heard of C.S. Lewis for 41 years and have never heard any such allegation against him. It COULD be true, but what is your proof?

I'm sure he wasn't perfect, and he said he was a sinner, but an allegation with no proof is bearing false witness, and I believe God will judge you.

Besides that, our own sins are the ones we should be concentrating on, not others' sins. Deal with your own, and then you might be able to see clearly to deal with others'.

God is just, which would require that we be struck dead, but he is even more merciful, which, if we accept His provision, covers our sins. (There is none righteous, no not one).

Still praying for you,

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000

Gavin:

I will now respond to some of your comments in which you have referred to me. In your continual flow of mere assertions without proof, you say:

A Kelly - your reputation precedes you. I was forewarned about you and Lee, and it is true; your attempts to patronise, condescend and belittle at the same time as twisting words is both amusing and pathetic. I shan't reply.

This I shant reply is becoming a mantra for you isnt it? We are hearing it because you are reserving room for those terribly painful moments that you know will come when you cant reply. Then you will fall back on your promise that you shant reply.

Now in this statement you speak of a reputation that precedes both myself and Brother Kelly and that you were forewarned about him and me and you assert that those forewarnings were true but you do not prove them to be true. Mere assertion without proof is of little value in any discussion. I cannot imagine anyone in this forum that would put Brother Kelly in the same category with me in this reputation for belittling others is concerned. He is truly undeserving of such and I doubt that anyone ever forewarned you about him in this regard. That he has a reputation of belittling others is just not true. Anyone who said otherwise concerning him is plain stupid. Which is something I would say that Brother Kelly would never say! SO it does appear that you have completely fabricated this so called reputation.

In some of your original comments on this forum you were belittling the very idea of God to those who sincerely believe in Him by saying,

"God is dead, didn't you know?" "God is dead and we have killed him.".

Now you began this thread with this assertion, which you have offered absolutely no attempt to prove, which was clearly calculated to belittle the belief in the living God. But we have not belittled you in any way whatsoever in response. I have challenged you to debate the subject in a formal way and you avoided affirming a proposition and attempting to prove it and allowing us to examine the evidence that you offer in favor of your assertions. It is easy for you to merely assert that God is dead and boldly claim that you are one of the spiritual warriors that has killed Him but it is impossible for you to prove it and you know that your assertion cannot stand the scrutiny of a fair and honorable debate and you therefore are deliberately avoiding such a discussion. Your excuse is that we are belittling you. In an organized debate with one person you can defend yourself from any unjust treatment so there is no need to worry about being belittled.

The truth is that you are not so sure that your proposition that God is dead can withstand the test of an open and honest debate. You claim metaphorically to be a spiritual warrior but I have thus far seen nothing in your words indicative of one who is either spiritual or in the least like a warrior either metaphorically or in actuality. Your deliberately avoiding the challenge that has been put to you to discuss your assertions in a formal debate leaves you with even less credibility than you had when you made this yet unproven assertion that God is dead. Neither have you proven that we have killed Him which is yet another assertion that you are afraid to put into the form of a clearly stated and well defined proposition and give evidence that it is true and allow us to scrutinize your arguments and test their validity.

You refer to Connies words as follows:

I see you are angry at God, but your throwing a tantrum will not get Him to change His mind.

You even say in response, Also, because text cannot express emotion or tone, you have labeled my cognition a tantrum, which, like Kelly and Lee is trying to reduce me to something, disparaging and therefore dismissible. You are mistaken.

When someone perceives your words as being a tantrum your response is that text cannot express emotion and therefore we cannot be certain from your written words that your cognition is a tantrum but you are more than able to determine from Brother Kellys and my written words that our cognition is filled with the intent to reduce you to something disparaging and therefore dismissible. Gavin, I have responded to your assertions that remain unproven for you refuse to offer any proof to sustain their truthfulness. Your assertions are therefore already reduced by your own unwillingness to even attempt to prove or defend them, to something that is at least dismissible if not also nothing more than angry disparaging remarks of one who is afraid of God. But you see we cannot tell for sure because you are unwilling to clearly affirm and define your proposition and offer evidence to support it in a formal debate where it can be examined. You are simply continuing to complain that we are misrepresenting you. We cannot misrepresent you more than you have failed to clearly represent your assertion. You are even unwilling to clearly state it, define it and defend it.

This is the case with most agnostics. They find it all so easy and convenient to allow the Christian to bear the burden of proof that there is a God, which we have always been and remain willing to do, but when the atheist and agnostic or one who asserts that God is dead is as asked to bear the burden of proving his assertion most of them, with the exception of men like Robert Ingersol, are completely unwilling because they fear that they are unable to sustain their contentions. You came into this forum to contend our beliefs and we are willing to contend with you about them. But we also reserve the right to contend against your beliefs as well but you are so offended when we challenge you to discuss your false assertions in the format of a formal debate with agreed upon propositions and rules of discussion that will ensure that you are treated fairly and not unjustly belittled. Gavin, I have belittled your words and your patronizing comments concerning our humble lives and your assertions that you refuse to defend in honorable debate, and your efforts to be unapologetically harsh toward us because you care about us. But I have not belittled you as a person. I chastised you metaphorically for claiming metaphorically to be a spiritual warrior and appearing to tremble at being in a metaphorical Lions Den filled with toothless Lions. All of which was a play on your own metaphorical words rather than a twisting of them.

I do not doubt that you sincerely perceive yourself to be an apostate from the Christian religion but I do very sincerely doubt that you are an apostate of the genuine Christian faith as described in the New Testament. But it is possible that you are such, though I very much doubt it, and such would cause me no alarm for you would not be the first such apostate nor would you be the last. But my saying that I doubt that you are an apostate of the Christian religion was not designed to belittle you but to assert my doubt concerning your claim which you have not proven to be true that you are an apostate of the genuine Christian religion as described in the pages of the New Testament. However, it really does not matter whether you are an apostate so far as this discussion is concerned because being an apostate is no evidence against Christianity. For if Christianity is proven to be true then your apostasy would only prove that you were not faithful to the truth and if Christianity proved to be false it would only show that you could justify your apostasy. But you apostasy itself proves nothing concerning the truthfulness of the Christian religion. Your informing us that you were an apostate was nothing more than an attempt to leave the impression that you can genuinely understand our position and to bolster your illusion that we are just too humble and pitiful to rise to a level where we can comprehend your "superior" insights.

Now your words and nothing else has left this impression upon some of us and you think we are misrepresenting you. But I have given you the opportunity to represent yourself more clearly by challenging you to state clearly your propositions, define them and defend them with whatever evidence you think sustains them. But instead of accepting this challenge you merely ignored it and continued to complain that we are deliberately misrepresenting your position and twisting your words. I do not expect to nor do I wish to correct your false perception that I have belittled you and we have misrepresented you. You even think that my misspelling of your name was intentional but you do not prove that it was such.

You characterized my response to you thus:

I think your anger stems from suppressed self-doubts that you refuse to acknowledge.

Now you have no more ability to see anger expressed in my text than Connie has to see it in your text when she said that you have been angry with God and throwing a tantrum with these words:

I see you are angry at God, but your throwing a tantrum will not get Him to change His mind.

You defended yourself concerning Connies assertion that you were angry with God and throwing a tantrum by saying:

Also, because text cannot express emotion or tone, you have labeled my cognition a tantrum, which, like Kelly and Lee is trying to reduce me to something, disparaging and therefore dismissible. You are mistaken.

Now, according to you text cannot express emotion or tone but when you read my text you are able to see that it expresses anger. I had no anger when I wrote my response to you and I have none as I write this response to your words. But even though I tell you that I was not angry you may come back and say that you have found the emotion of anger in my text even though you believe that text cannot express emotion. I suppose that it is your text that cannot express emotion while ours is more than capable of expressing it.

Concerning suppressed self-doubts, I can only wonder how one who believes that his cognition was mistakenly dubbed as a tantrum because text cannot express emotion is able to correctly surmise from text an emotion of anger which is evidence that my cognition is plagued by suppressed self-doubt. But even this matter is beside the point. Most men have moments of self doubt but this is not one of them for me. I certainly have absolutely no doubts about the existence of God and that he is real and very much alive for I am willing to assert such and offer evidence to support that assertion in a formal debate wherein you can examine in detail the evidence that I offer to sustain the assertion. You, on the other hand, merely assert that He is dead but you seem to doubt your own assertion because you are completely unwilling to engage in a formal discussion and allow us to hear and carefully examine your evidence that you claim supports your mere assertion. You completely avoid my challenge to you concerning these matters and that, Gavin, is a clear indication of at least the possibility of self-doubt on your part.

You state:

Christianity is synonymous with primitiveness and I would like so much for this pretence to be surpassed and become something documented solely for historical archives.

Garvin, you are not the first one to wish that Christianity could be surpassed and become something documented for historical archives. Voltaire not only wished the same he even predicted that within a hundred years of his time there would not be a copy of the Bible found in any other place but the archives. Yet, within that time frame the Bible Society bought his home and used it as a warehouse for copies of the scriptures. His home was filled from the floor to the ceiling in every room with the precious word of God. He was a far greater and more capable opponent of Christianity that you have shown yourself to be and he failed miserably to reach his aim and his hopes for the future of Christianity has been dashed. Your feeble attempts pale in comparison to his and he failed and so will you.

You can believe that I have been belittling you from the beginning if you must and that Brother Kelley and I have an awful reputation of which you have been sufficiently forewarned but I have challenged your assertions and called for you to put them in the form of formal propositions, define them and defend them. You have made these assertions and the burden of proof rest with you to prove them to be true. Here are just a few of your assertions that I am prepared to discuss with you in a formal debate in this forum. You have asserted:

1.) God is Dead.

2.) We have killed Him (God).

3.) Christianity is harmful.

4.) It (Christianity) is very much the religion of pity.

5.) Christianity is synonymous with primitiveness.

6.) Gods benevolence is an oxymoron.

7.) Christian values are decadent values.

These are some of your assertions that you have made no effort to prove and that you are unwilling to affirm in a formal debate. I therefore challenge you once again to contact me concerning these above assertions and agree to a formal debate wherein you affirm them and I deny them and I will give you a list of propositions that I will affirm and you will deny. We can settle on the rules of discussion and proceed to engage in a discussion that requires that the participants present evidence to support and sustain the propositions that they have agreed to discuss. If you wish to discuss the question that you asked about heaven and hell then write out your proposition concerning heaven and hell and we will debate it. But I will hold you to that subject and nothing else until our debate is finished. I will do the same with every proposition that we agree to discuss. I will not apologize for demanding proof of your false assertions that are still lacking proof and you are welcome to demand proof of anything that I affirm. But we will do it in the format of an organized debate so that you are not allowed to change the subject and jump from one matter to another when you cannot answer. Now you can run and you can laugh, and you can cry that you are being mistreated and you can claim that I am shallow and that you will simply not respond to me but one thing you cannot do is hide the fact that you are merely asserting things without proving them and running from those who strongly challenge you. I am simply seeking to have a fruitful debate with you instead of wasting time exchanging mere assertions without taking the time and effort to form arguments based upon evidence to prove that our assertions are true. But I will not go into all of that work unless you also are required to PROVE your assertions. But you appear to be afraid that there is no proof for your assertions because you have deliberately excused yourself from a formal debate upon these matters with these words:

I see the way in which you wish this contention to lead with a formal laying down of things you can easily grasp and refute. Youre waiting for me to list passages and apparent biblical contradictions because at least then you have something manipulable. I have lost track of the discussions I have had on this unlevel playing field for theologians and studiers of Christianity have contrived rational answers to nearly every conceivable argument. The problem here lies with rationality because rationality can be twisted and used for any means and to suit any purpose, hence it is really, irrational. If I quote a passage I question as flawed or malevolent, you will counter- argue with even the most implausible of answers and you will not see the better reasoned argument. And they say God is not the God of confusion. I do laugh.

Now I have said nothing of the things I can easily grasp. I have asked for the formal laying down of things that you merely assert. It is easy to assert but proof is far more difficult task. I have simply challenged you to debate these matters and you chose the propositions that you wish to affirm write them in your own words define them so that those of us with lesser minds than yours can comprehend your meaning and provide evidence to demonstrate or establish the truthfulness of the propositions that you have chosen to assert.

Then you say:

Youre waiting for me to list passages and apparent biblical contradictions because at least then you have something manipulable.

This is simply untrue. You are welcome to avoid that subject if it is so painful and difficult that you cannot deal with it. I have not mentioned it and never do until some agnostic who just does not know wants to explain it to me. You seem to think that I am looking for something with manipulability. You have made assertions and I have challenged you to prove those assertions in a formal debate with rules that apply to both sides. You can leave your assertions in their present form if you wish and we will discuss them as you have stated them in this forum but I felt that it was only fair to allow you to restate them in a better form as you might wish to do in the case of a formal debate. I do not seek to manipulate anything. Your flimsy arguments are sufficient in themselves for my purpose. The truth is that you fear any clear statement that you can be shown to have either proven or failed to have proven.

Then you say:

I have lost track of the discussions I have had on this unlevel playing field for theologians and studiers of Christianity have contrived rational answers to nearly every conceivable argument.

I am not a theologian, if that is what you fear. I am an ordinary Christian man who believes in the living God that created all things. I am willing to discuss these matters with you in a way that keeps you on the subject at hand instead of running away when you are unable to answer the questions that I will ask you for I do have many of them. My agnostic friends from England, China, Russia and the United States have been unable to answer and in fact some of those are now Christians. But you see you do not want to answer questions you want to ask them. You are used to asking Christians difficult questions and I am willing to allow you to do that to me but I want you to answer some questions as well but you fear that now dont you? Now that we do have answers to your every argument and questions I do not doubt but whether they are contrived you would have to prove. A formal debate would give you the opportunity to prove that all of our answers to agnosticism and atheism are contrived. On the other Hand you do not have answers contrived or otherwise for the questions that we Christians will ask of you. For you are clearly one who has gotten by on the luxury of being allowed to ask all the questions. I want to have you face the questions that agnostics and Atheist wish to avoid. In a formal debate you would not be allowed to avoid them. So I can understand why you wish to avoid a formal debate. You are carefully maintaining some way to run and hide when the going gets tough. You therefore do not seem to have a genuine interest in truth but rather a terrible inordinate fear of it. You fear that an honest debate with rules and a moderator and clear objectives is an unleveled "playing field! It is only level if you are able to ask all the questions and assert without being required to offer proof while at the same time demanding that the Christian side carry the burden of proof for their assertions while you are allowed to sit on the sidelines and throw tomatoes and rocks. But it is unleveled to require that you carry the burden of proof for your assertions? That is just not fair now is it? You have asserted that God is dead Mr. Gavin and I have challenged you to prove it in a formal debate that requires both sides to carry the burden of proof of all that they affirm and assert through their propositions. Now that is a level as you can get. But you see, it is not really a level playing field that you want is it? In fact it is the level playing field that you fear. I have invited you to the level playing field of the honorable debate and you do not want to play. Now you have a problem with rationality as expressed in your following words:

The problem here lies with rationality because rationality can be twisted and used for any means and to suit any purpose, hence it is really, irrational.

Well you could not rationally conclude that rationality was irrational without being rational about it, now could you? You are appealing to our reason to prove that reasoning is unreasonable. This is the type of absurdity that you use to avoid a fair and honest debate? It is interesting to me that agnostics depend on reason until it begins to work against them and then rationality is irrational and reason is unreasonable. Truth is important to them until it begins to work against them and then suddenly they assert the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths! How laughable this would be if it were not so absurd!

Then you try to pretend that you know exactly how this debate would go and even how the arguments would be made as follows:

. If I quote a passage I question as flawed or malevolent, you will counter-argue with even the most implausible of answers and you will not see the better reasoned argument. And they say God is not the God of confusion. I do laugh.

You claim that if you quote a passage that you question as flawed that I would counter argue with the most implausible of answers. But, Gavin, you do not know how I would reply. You certainly do not know and cannot prove that my reply would be the most  implausible before I make that reply. If it we so terribly implausible a man with you superior intellectual acumen should be able to easily dispense with such laughable absurdities, shouldnt you? Then you mention reason again because now it is useful and convenient to you. You have already said that rationality is really irrational. So why do you complain that I will not see the better reasoned argument? I thought you said that rationality is the problem and if that were true then the better-reasoned argument would be the one filled with more rationality and thus riddled with that awful problem that you call rationality. The truth is that you fear rationality and reason while at the same time claiming that you have rejected Christianity on the very basis of your superior intellectual ability to reason and think rationally. A person could not be more self contradictory that you appear to be with these statements and yet you will reason and tell us just how contradictory the very word of God is. You surely do not appear competent to judge rationality, reason, and the integrity and harmony of the scriptures when you are a mass of contradictions yourself.

Then you find all of it laughable. I am happy that you have derived at least this benefit from Christianity. It certainly is something of which the snobbish world of the atheist and agnostic provides little for itself.

You state:

Christianity is synonymous with primitiveness and I would like so much for this pretence to be surpassed and become something documented solely for historical archives.

Garvin, you are not the first one to wish that Christianity could be surpassed and become something documented for historical archives. Voltaire not only wished the same he even predicted that within a hundred years of his time there would not be a copy of the Bible found in any other place but the archives. Yet, within that time frame the Bible Society bought his home and used it as a warehouse for copies of the scriptures. His home was filled from the floor to the ceiling in every room with the precious word of God. He was a far greater and more capable opponent of Christianity that you have shown yourself to be and he failed miserably to reach his aim and his hopes for the future of Christianity has been dashed. Your feeble attempts pale in comparison to his and he failed and so will you.

However, if you wish to relegate Christianity to the archives then you must be willing to do more that merely rail against it with unsupported assertions and simplistic questions that you assume have no answer and throwing up a self designed straw man that you can easily defeat instead of facing a real opponent who may present arguments that you cannot possibly refute and cause you to face the real possibility that God is alive and just as you were unable to create Him you are completely helpless to kill Him and you must either yield to him or spend the rest of your life in fear of him. God will not pity you and neither shall I.

You are being given an opportunity to seek the truth on this matter if you dare to do so. But if you are afraid to face the possibility of knowing the truth then live your life in fear for you will fall into the hands of the living God one day and that is a fearful thing for those who rebel against Him.

A Christian,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2000

Gavin, I would like to say a couple of things, then ask a few things. First, I would like to comment- I have not been trying to belittle you in anyway. In fact I preach and teach the TRUTH from the scriptures. If you find the TRUTH offensive, then fine. For you are find in the very word of God offensive- you can take that up with God when you one day meet Him face to face. All I have stated is an observation that I find your comments and yourself to be sad- for you deny the very God whom you seek. I have tried only to state TRUTh... if you find what I said offensive, then I can only appologize for calling you sad- I cannot and will not appologize for anything else! Second, I want to ask you, who in this forum have "forewarned" you concerning myself? If someone has anything against me... I would like that person to email me so we can resolvethe difference.

Gavin, Lee is right. You have ignored all of our plea for you to converse with us to prove your claims. I am reminded that all of the demonic forces know scripture, yet they are afraid of the TRUTH and they are afraid of those who posses the TRUTH. Jesus came to set the world free from LIES. We are offering to you Jesus- who will set you free from demonic lies to the TRUTH He offers.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2000

Interesting .... to everyone posting here, Gavin, you either decide not to consider what they have to say up front, without being intellectually honest enough to weigh their arguments (such as Lee and AKelley, whom I have never found to be offensive as "someone warned you" they were) or you make ad hominem attacks against the sources (your unproven attack on Lewis, who by the way raised two stepsons after his wife's death, and you can personally contact Douglas Gresham and ask him if you like, I'm sure he will set you straight) and thereby still refuse to be intellectually honest enough to weigh those arguments. (What do the validity of the arguments have to do with the persons personal preferences or pecadillos anyway? That's just a straw man, my friend, an evasion.) I was more than willing to enter into a nice discussion with you, but if you do not really wish to examine the truth, pardon my being blunt, but what the HELL are you doing here? (And I think my choice of words appropriate.)

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2000

Gavin:

You have asserted that God is dead but you have also shown that even you do not believe that he is dead with these words:

I would also like to address this issue of spiritual warrior that I have used metaphorically because God only knows how youve contorted this.

You tell us here that God only knows how I have contorted your claim to be a spiritual warrior. It is interesting to watch for the numerous occasions wherein agnostics (those who just do not know) or those who claim that God is dead have these Freudian slips wherein they speak of God as a person behaving as one who is very much alive and real. If God is dead Mr. Gavin then just how is it that he is the only one who knows anything? If your theory is true then the dead know nothing at all. But you tell us here that God only knows how I had contorted your words. Interesting indeed! You have betrayed your complete faith that God is living and knows things that the rest of us cannot know! Amazing that you could contradict yourself in the heat of battle this way! It reminds me of what I have often seen on the battlefield with those who claimed that they did not believe in God or that God is dead. When the mortar rounds are coming close and people are dying on every hand I have heard them instinctively cry out to God as if he were real and very much alive and able to help them.

You however are not under such pressure therefore you merely demonstrate further that you are self- contradictory. You claim that God is dead and that you have killed him but yet you refer to his being real and alive enough to be the only one who knows just how I had contorted your words.

Then you contradict yourself further as you proceed to explain just how I had contorted your words about your false claim to be a spiritual warrior. You proceed to explain for us these things that you claim God only knows. Now, Gavin, if God only knows how is it that you can explain it to us. For if God only knows then you could not also know, yet you explain it to us anyway.

Yes, Gavin, it is true that you need to make up your mind. Either God is dead as you falsely claim and would have us to believe, and therefore he cannot know anything or he is very much alive and is therefore able, according to your own words, to know things that the rest of us do not know as you have claimed concerning his being the only one who knows just how much I had contorted your words.

This is just one of many places where you have betrayed your true deep seated inherent knowledge that God is alive while you are in the very process of claiming that he is dead and have deluded yourself into thinking that you are one of those who has killed him.

I can therefore see why you wish to avoid a formal debate on this subject. You would not last very long with such self-contradictory statements in a formal debate!

It will not do for you to say that you were merely speaking metaphorically for there is nothing in your statement even slightly hinting of a metaphor. Nor will it do to say that this is just a familiar saying that has been ingrained in our consciousness from childhood for one who has just recently killed God would have been able to discard all such references to his omniscience. If God is truly dead in your mind, how is it that he is still able to speak out through your own lips things, which you yourself do not believe? Yes indeed you say God is dead but at the same time you unwittingly demonstrate with youre your own words that he is very much alive and that you cannot ignore it! But you persist in talking of how feebleminded we are to continue to believe that God is alive.

However, I still challenge you to prove your assertion, which you have demonstrated that even you do not believe, that God is dead, in a formal debate concerning it. I also continue to challenge your other propositions, which I have listed in my last post to you, to a formal discussion.

A spiritual warrior,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2000

The proofs for the existance of God come down to this: Either an eternal Creator exists; or matter, energy, time, and order existed for eternity. Even scientists who believe they understand that the Big Bang originated at some spot in space, will admit that "God only knows" where that spot came from.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2000