From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:09 PM
To: 'Joe Haik'
Subject: RE: ROFL
Key word with liberals and athiests is your use of the word with any situation...probably...that would be a conspiracy theory...thanks for trying. 
It's just silly to say that a lack of certainty is automatically a "conspiracy theory".
I asked you to prove why the 12 died for what they believed. You didn't. 
Learn to read. As I demonstrated, no more than two "died for what they believed". Your rebuttal?  Non-existent. My command of the relevant scriptural facts squashed your "proof" into the pavement.
You have to admit, even if Christ wasn't who he said he was, he happened to be the wisest person to walk the face of the earth. 
You're going to have to retreat a little farther than that. Jesus' alleged "wisdom" is discredited simply by citing your sacred texts:
 
In the gospels Jesus damns entire towns [Mt 11:23], compares non-Israelites to dogs [Mt 15:26], and affirms even "the smallest letter" [Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35] of the Torah. The god of the Torah tests and torments his followers, commits mass murders of e.g. Noah's flood victims [Gen 6:7, 7:21] and the firstborn sons of Egypt [Ex 12:29], creates linguistic division for fear of an ancient construction project [Gen 11:6], and curses mankind because Adam dared to "become like one of us, knowing good and evil" [Gen 3:22]. The god of the Torah promotes or demands extravagant worship, dietary taboos, animal sacrifice, repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39, cf. Heb 11:17, Jam 2:21], and mass murder of even infants [Gen 6:7, 7:21, Ex 11:5, 12:29, 1 Sam 15:3, cf. Heb 11:7,28]. In the gospels Jesus endorses the murderous flood of Noah [Mt 24:38, Lk 17:27], and promises sinners not a thousand years' unrelenting torture, nor a million or a billion, but an eternity of excruciating torture by fire [Mk 9:43, Mt 18:8, 25:41, 25:46].
(Who just happened to claim he was the Son of God) 
Thank you for not asserting the indefensible position that Jesus claimed to be God. My document explains the "Son of God" title by citing over twenty scriptural facts:
 
Jesus seems to have been illegitimate, and to have been known to be such in his community [Mt 1:18-24, Jn 8:41]. His only recorded words before his ministry concern his disobedience [Lk 2:48,51] at age 12 to his mother and stepfather, whom he denied [cf. Mt 23:9] by calling the Temple "my Father's house". He spurned his stepfather's trade of carpentry to take up a ministry proclaiming himself the son not of Joseph but of God. Despite angelic revelations [Lk 1:32, Mt 1:20, Mt 2:13, Mt 2:20] to Mary and Joseph, Mary's knowledge [Lk 1:34] of the virgin conception, and Mary's witness of at least one miracle [Mk 2], they (and Jesus' siblings) did not believe in him [Jn 7:5, Mt 13:57] and thought him "out of his mind" [Mk 3:21], leading Jesus to repeatedly stress [Mk 3:33, 10:29; Mt 10:37, 12:48, 19:29; Lk 11:27-28, 14:26] that one should choose God over one's biological family. Only on the day of his death do the gospels record a single friendly word [Jn 19:26] from Jesus to his family.
Need more convincing? Libs do. ...keep trying mr. conspiracy theorist
It's hilarious that you think that what you've written to me could be even remotely "convincing".  I'd say "keep trying" right back, but your feeble mutterings don't even constitute an initial "try".
Archaeology has proven many locations mentioned in the bible.
LOL. That an ancient text names some ancient locations hardly proves that Jesus was divine.
The dead sea scrolls proved the bible wasn't authored and many books were written before Christs birth.
We already knew that the Old Testament was written before Jesus' birth. The Qumran texts do nothing to establish any supernatural claim in the Bible.
One day to come up with your theory. THEORY. Not fact.
Only a frightened and feeble mind demands certainty where certainty is not possible. We don't have videotape of the events of Easter weekend, so we have to reason from the available evidence. You should try it sometime.
Jesus was right when he talked about how future people will see but no believe.
Every religion has such built-in self-defense mechanisms against non-belief. Contrast such belief-systems with science, which expects that absolutely anyone will believe if shown the relevant evidence. That Christianity is in this respect so unlike science, and so like all the other false religions, is damning evidence.
No matter what proof you have you will never believe. If you had a time machine and witnessed all the events first hand you wouldn't believe
I've in fact described far less extravagant forms of evidence that would convert me to Christianity, so what you say is (yet again) utterly false. However, I completely understand why you need to convince yourself of my unreasonableness. It's a self-defense mechanism, protecting you from actually thinking about my arguments.
I do know the truth. It's called having an open mind and studying the FACTS, not theories.
In my document I describe the evidence that would convert me to Christianity. Dare you say what evidence would convert you to atheism? Until you do, my mind is obviously more open than yours.  As for facts, my document contains over 100 factual citations from your own scriptures. The weight of the facts I muster simply crushes your case flat.
Lame apologetics book? So I see you are writing off books of FACTS as lame because you hate facts. 
No, I'm mocking your dismissal of the documents I cited that rebut your "book of facts". (Are you really so obtuse not to have noticed this?)  So the state of play is: you cited a document, and I cited a document that rips yours to shreds. Thus I'm winning, and you're losing, but somehow I "hate facts", and you "have an open mind". Hilarious.
You webcite debunking the facts. Lol. Didn't see the main important facts even talked about since they can't be disproven. 
So much for your "open mind" -- you claim that your case "can't be disproven", and give no evidence of having read any of the document I cited. And again: if your case is so strong, try refuting a single statement in my Arguments Against Christianity.  Go ahead -- make my day. I dare you.
 BH:  When you call them "lies" with no evidence of having read them, it suggests you're afraid of facing these arguments. (Your fear is well-grounded.) 
 
XX: Fear? LOL. I had fear a year ago when I searched for the truth. Now I have nothing to fear since I know the truth. 
Keep whistling -- you're almost past the graveyard. (And I note once again that you utterly fail to substantiate your accusation of "lies".)
In God, there is no fear. In liberalism, the fear is Christianity.

If you're devoid of fear, it's because you're devoid of thought.  That you fear my case is demonstrated by your unwillingness to face it. That I do not fear the best Christian arguments is demonstrated by how I seek them out and systematically destroy them.

The thing is, not with me, but with others you can win debates. You could win many or 99 percent of debates. That doesn't disprove Christianity. Christianity disproves your THEORIES. 

This is the first thing you've said that has a glimmer of insight. It's true that dissecting the ineffectual sputterings of people like you proves nothing about the the truth of Christianity.  I indeed recognize that answering you is a waste of my time, except insofar as it proves that I'm open-minded enough to consider (and completely rebut) even the weakest criticisms of my writings.

BH: Your repeated bleating of the word "archaeology" is hilarious. In fact, fame is what awaits anyone who can convince a peer-reviewed mainstream scientific publication of the truth of Creationism or any other supernatural theory.

XX:  So, now it is all clear. ARCHAEOLOGY is funny to you 

Learn to read.  Here, I'll type this slowly, so you can understand: I didn't say archaeology per se is funny. I said your "bleating" about it is funny.

CREATION is a book that is published with FACTS, not theories. See, science does help Christianity.

You mean Strobel's book? Again, I debate neither creationism nor Earth's flatness. If you want to see "creation science" demolished, visit http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html.

Libertarian is someone who wants less government. Liberals are people who hate Christianity and all it stands for. I think I have you pegged right.  

Keep telling yourself I and other freethinkers "hate Christianity" if that's what it takes to keep you mind closed. I don't hate Christianity, I pity it, because it's doomed to join Zoroastrianism etc. on the trash heap of history.

Also, there is the fact that your webpage (LOL) has a link to a liberal cite on it.  

Now that you've looked up "libertarian" in the dictionary, you need to look up "site" and "cite".

BH:  Fan praise on Amazon.com  is your standard of critical thinking? Color me unsurprised.
 
XX:  I see you shut out reviews off all others to your warped mindset. So, you do have a closed mind. 
I "shut out" nothing.  What I do is seek out the best of Christian apologetics, and I can tell you they aren't to be found in Amazon.com reviews of McDowell. That you apparently think otherwise is hilarious.
B H:  See the part that begins "What probably happened is ..."

XX:  NICE TRY AGAIN. MYTH. LOL. MORE LIKE FACT. NOW I SEE THERE IS NO HOPE FOR YOU. All your arguments are THEORIES. Apologetics prefer facts. 

Bzzt. (Your use of all caps is a sure sign of your frustration over losing so badly.) There are at least a _dozen_ facts about your scriptures in the two paragraphs that argue for my theory.  Such a theory is called "inference to the best explanation", and if you knew anything about apologetics, you'd know it's a fundamental reasoning technique that both sides use. Try the web search

"inference to best explanation" Jesus

and you'll find Christian apologetics that are a lot more powerful than your Sunday-School McDowell text. Study them, and come back in a few years when you can actually defend yourself, so that me deigning to converse with you won't automatically make me look like I'm bullying the helpless.

Anyone can lie on the web, you are the proof with THEORIES. Can't cite any credible books. Thought so. 

Didn't internalize my analysis of your "lie/liar" obsession. Didn't read my list of best pro- and anti- Christian writings. Thought so. (The best book in English against Christianity is the first one on the list you didn't read: The Case Against Christianity by Boston University philosopher Michael Martin. Crack open that book, and prepare to put your mortal soul in peril. Bwa hah hahhhh... :-)

I stand tall and firm in my belief. 

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe make it a daily affirmation in the mirror or something.

 I bet you hate it when Christianity prevails. 

I don't know, it's never happened in my presence. On the contrary, it's clear that one of the two of us hates how this conversation is going for his team -- and it isn't me. :-)

Oh. A friend of yours says hi. I believe SATAN was his name. 

Satan -- he's the guy wishing he could dethrone your deity, right? If Satan actually succeeded in vanquishing El/Yahweh, what course of action could be more nefarious than to pose as God?  Would he not then demand exclusive worship and extravagant sacrifices (of animals or even one's son), as does El/Yahweh?  Would he not promote or demand dietary taboos, repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39], and mass murder? Would he not want to be the wolf in lamb's clothing, appearing as Jesus to affirm the Old Testament [Mt 5:18] and promise sinners not a thousand years' torture, nor a million or a billion, but an *eternity* of torture by fire [Mt 18:8]? Would he not want to trick people into thinking they deserve the unending torture he has prepared for them? What scheme of his could be more cruel?  Tell me; I really want to know.

In fact, the five appearances of Satan in the OT make El/Yahweh seem morally inferior to him. Satan 1) truthfully encourages wisdom in Eve, 2) is minding his own business when Yahweh proactively uses him to torment Job, 3) "incites a census" in 1 Chron 21 (just as God does in 2 Sam 24), and 4) tries to buy worship from Jesus (whereas God demands worship and claims we deserve nothing). The devil also allegedly 5) "prompts" Judas to betray Jesus, but this was part of God's plan, and at any rate John's gospel isn't a reliable source about Satan. (John 8:44 calls Satan a liar, but the entire Bible doesn't record a single lie from Satan's lips.)

Oh, you don't believe in him, but he believes in you and come judgement day, he really wants to meet you.

I fear neither your imaginary demons in the dark nor your imaginary daddy in the sky.   If either exists as you say they do, then an afterlife being tormented by him might be preferable to my actual fate of non-existence -- as long as he doesn't interfere with my awareness that my moral superiority to him is proved by his decision to torment me simply for exercising my rationality.