Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Meet Jay
Jay’s testimony can be read at: http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/moretest_files/jaytest.htm.
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Jay" <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Date:
Howdy,
You don't know me, but your
letter was impressive enough to weigh on my mind for a couple days, so I guess
it's worth a response.
I ran across this article a few
days ago while perusing the web, and it left me
feeling rather astonished. Is this some kind of elaborate joke? Or perhaps an
article designed specifically to make Christians feel justified in their
rejection of atheism? I've seen a lot of things, but never an article by anyone
as well read and, seemingly, intelligent as this author (you?), who then goes
on to lump, mix, and mangle reason and nonsense together. It's like literary
fruitcake (which, as everyone knows, is an abomination). From Christian to
atheist and back again, it boggles the mind.
The views espoused in "My
Appeal to the AFS" were intelligent and well put, even though you seem to
be unable to separate emotions from concepts. If some freethinkers and
agnostics are hypocrites (is there any doubt?) does this mean that their ideas
are invalid? Conversely, if I should meet a Christian who exhibits bad behavior
(absurd, I know) does this somehow disqualify Christianity itself? It seems
that personalities (like the goodly Swindall
character) are extremely important to you. In fact, it is so much so that the
actual concepts they endorse become secondary.
There are nice Christians. I get
that. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? If you meet
a really super nice communist, would you change your political philosophy, too?
My point is probably clouded by the very real possibility that having accepted
the bible, you have already converted to it's logical
economic corollary; communism (see Acts 4 and 5). Yet you claim to be a
libertarian. Uh huh.
Ultimately, my strong impression
is that you are a typical minister, willing to exaggerate or bend (or outright
make up) any fact or history for the sake of The Cause. It's highly unlikely
that you ever rejected theism in favor of atheism, at least with any
conviction, and then somehow "forgot" all the reasons you held those
convictions.
Is it possible that you could
wake up tomorrow a Buddhist? It shouldn't be, not if you hold your professed
Christian ideology with any conviction. This article, at best, makes you
inconsistent. At worst, it makes you a hypocritical liar. None of which would
be at all unusual from a Christian website or ministry, EXCEPT (and here's the
thing) you seem to be so intelligent.
And that's what just kills me.
If a person is smart enough to
understand truth, then why don't they accept it? I guess I never will
understand this. Mental evasion IS the basis of immorality.
I was raised in a fundamental
Christian environment. Where I came from, the Bible was considered literally
true. The world was flat; the sun revolved around the earth; children were born
filthy, sinful, hell-bound creatures who would surely suffer everlasting
punishment because of someone else's (Adam) sin if they didn't get
"saved;" those who would be saved would never be "redeemed"
by anything they could ever do but by another's (Jesus) assumption of their
"guilt," and science and the pursuit of knowledge were evil (just
like in the garden). Make no mistake about it, breaking free of religious
superstition was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, and also the most
rewarding.
Today, I am an atheist. There
will never be any going back; there will never be a return to that twisted
value system. Now: Guilt is guilt; it is something one does to deserve moral
condemnation. It cannot be inherited. Once earned, it belongs exclusively to
the person who earned it, and cannot be passed on to another. Not from father
to son, not from Adam to Jay (I'm Jay), and certainly not from a person to a
god.
Redemption: Deliverance of
sinners from the penalty of their sins through the murder of their deity
against whom they sinned.
-Ambrose Bierce
Original sin is not the only
immoral concept espoused in the Bible, far from it, but at the moment it
happens to be one of the most egregious examples that cross my mind. The real
point here is that I hold my values with a conviction that is far deeper and
more important to me than anything else. They define me. I am who I am because
of my values. Who are you?
You are free to believe the world
is flat, but you are not free to be correct. You are free to believe that some
triangles are circular, but you are not free to be correct. You are free to
believe that God is both evil and all good, but no amount of mental acrobatics
will ever make it true. You are welcome to earnestly believe that human beings
are inherently evil, but you are not free to escape the fear and guilt that
this point of view will instill.
Now, I can tell you where you err
in the article that you posted on the Internet. I can point out the innate
immorality of Christian theology. What I cannot tell is what kind of person you
are at heart.
But you know. You know if you
consistently spend your time evading the moral consequences of your beliefs or
if you live with unearned guilt; or unrealistic fear; or unfounded hatred.
Are you a sincere, honest
intellect? If so, I heartily recommend that you read your Bible. I mean,
actually read it. Then put it away and spend some time thinking about what it
really says, what it really means. If you want to be honest, you can be. I am
living proof. There is nothing greater that you can achieve than integrity. I
highly suggest you pursue it.
So that's it. There's my story, well
the highlights anyway. And the only advice I can give you, is don't take my
word for it. Look for yourself. Fight with your intellect, your true tool of
cognition, and when you come out the other side you will have what it appears
that you currently lack: Conviction.
When it comes to religion,
superstition, or gods goddesses and godlets: you will
find that, like the monster under the bed, they do not exist. If only you have
the courage to look.
Regards,
Jay
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "
Date:
Hi Jay,
Thank you for making the time to
comment. I hope to have time to work my Theism.net pages this weekend. I want to comment on your political
comment. If you haven't already, can I interest you in reading my
Christian/political essay (http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/stone_files/stone.htm)? I think it explains the separating of Biblical
socialism from governmental entities.
I think your other comments were
addressed in the debate pages (http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/debates.htm).
This is brief only because I'm
working right now. I'll elaborate later.
I sincerely appreciate your
feedback.
From:
"
Date:
Thu,
To: <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Subject: Biblical Communism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jay,
I just read
Acts 4 and 5 again. I am not clear as to how someone could figure a Christian
should embrace a communistic political system. The chapters (as well as the
rest of the New Testament) simply do not command, instruct, hint or imply
FORCING those outside the fold to adhere to Christian principles.
Libertarian-ly and Constitutionally speaking,
people are free to come together religiously (or otherwise) and congregate into
a communistic cohabitation. They are NOT at liberty to force or coerce their
fellow, unwilling citizenry to do likewise.
I am
open to any feedback you deem appropriate.
From:
"
Date:
Thu,
To: <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Subject:
FWD: Re: Biblical Communism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay,
J.P.
Holding of Tektonics.org had some comments that might interest you.
Take
care and write back if you get a chance.
----------
Original Message ----------------------------------
From:
"James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>
Date:
Thu,
Howdy,
[Quoting
If Acts
4 and 5 is communist, then so was Mr. Rogers when he told kids to share. There
is a book that might interest you:
http://www.tektonics.org/porpaulrvw.html -- this offers an informative comparison of how the
ancients thought (collectively) versus we moderns
(individualistically) and it has applications to how well a communal society
would work in each setting. Acts 4 and 5 is not communism, it is collectivism,
which was engaged in by ALL ancient societies and was part of any religious,
social, or other movement. Such sharing of resources was even done by funereal
societies! It's as "Communist" as health insurance. "Socialist"
would be closer, although it was not of the governmental sort.
Hope
that helps -- take care and God bless,
YFS,
[Your Faithful Servant]
JP
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Jordan
Sent:
To: <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Biblical Communism (Possible Dupe)
Virgil
is co-founder of the Advocates for Self-Government libertarian group.
This
should be the last feedback regarding the subject matter. I don't mean to bog
you down.
From:
"Virgil L. Swearingen" <virgilDELETTHIS(AT)sugargroup.net>
To: "
Date:
Thu,
Subject:
Re: Biblical Communism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surprise,
surprise - your e-message, below, has prompted me to have some comments.
:-)
1. I
also just re-read Acts 4 - 5. The
relevant passage, I think, is
Furthermore,
as 5:4 makes clear, there was no *hint / suggestion / requirement *that
* Christian believers* operate in a communistic fashion. It was their choice. And at that time and place a bunch of
believers chose to have things in common.
Verses
In fact,
1 Corinthians 16:1 - 3 and 2 Corinthians 8:1 - 9:15 tells about Paul and some
others working with various churches in
2.
Jay's message, below, sounds a lot to me like an atheist "pot"
calling a Christian "kettle" black.
Jay has
been rebelling against his Christian fundamentalist background. I suspect there were some beliefs and
practices among those fundamentalists who were non-Christian, non-Biblical. It appears that Jay did not discover what the
Bible actually says, and thus, correct in his own life the erroneous beliefs
and practices of his fundamentalist family and friends. Instead, it appears that Jay decided to rebel
against God, the Bible, Christianity, and Christians completely because of the
errors of some Christians. This is often
called throwing out the baby with the bath water.
This is
another case of Satan, combined with a person's own sinfulness, using
imperfection in Christians as an excuse to rebel against God. It is a very effective Satanic
method. The results are tragic.
3.
Recently, I read something Bill Murray wrote. Bill is a former atheist. He is the son of former, famous, atheist
Madelyn Murray O'Hair. Her life on earth is over, and
thus, I say "former atheist." Bill was writing that he thought there
were few/no intellectual atheists. He thinks the real root cause of atheism is
sin in the heart of the person who is deliberately rebelling against God.
That
reminds me of something Aldous Huxley once said,
namely, "The reason we so readily embraced evolution is that we didn't
want God interfering with our sexual mores." (That's as close as I can remember it). I'd say that Huxley was telling the truth
there.
Well,
I'd better stop before I wear out you and me both!!! :-)
I hope
you have a wonderful Easter Season. And as Christians have said for centuries:
"He is risen."
"He is risen,
indeed."
----------
Original Message ----------------------------------
From:
"Jay" <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Date:
Thu,
Hi
Jordan,
Not to
be rude or anything, but it would appear that you are under the false
impression that we are involved in a conversation. We are not. Traditionally,
in a conversation, first one person will speak and then another person will
respond. What's happening here is that we are each having our own monologues.
Though it might be gratifying, I don't think it's very productive.
You
wrote an essay and posted it on the Internet - I responded with several
challenges, primarily in reference to Christian philosophy. You have not
responded to the bulk of that letter. I am not surprised.
It
appears that you only want to discuss economic theory. Okay. It's a fascinating
subject, I admit, but not one that I have the proper education on (as attested
by my still unread copy of "Free To Choose")
or could accurately discuss in any significant detail. I certainly didn't
intend for that small comment to become a central topic. So, having already
confessed my economic ignorance, let me just take a moment to try and clarify
the comment.
What I said: "If you meet a really,
really, super nice communist, would you change your political philosophy, too?
My point is probably clouded by the very real possibility, that having accepted
the bible, you have already converted to it's logical
economic corollary; communism (see Acts 4 and 5)."
Nowhere
did I claim or imply that the bible compels you to force communistic economic
practices on others (though I believe a case could be made for that - it's not
something I wish to do). But rather that the LOGICAL ECONOMIC
COROLLARY OF BIBLICAL THOUGHT IS COMMUNISM.
Consider:
1 Timothy 6: 8-10, [A]nd
having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich
fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts,
which drown men in destruction and perdition. FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT
OF ALL EVIL, which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith,
and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
And
since you profess to admire "that Jesus fella"
so much, further consider: Matthew
19:21-23 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast,
and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he
went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his
disciples, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the
kingdom of heaven. (Also Mark 10 and Luke 18)
At the
root of libertarian capitalistic thought is the concept that man has a right
(indeed, a responsibility) to pursue his own values and, once achieved, has a
right to keep them.
At the
root of biblical economic thought is the concept that "love of
money", or ambition, is evil. OBSERVE Matthew 6:34: "Take therefore
no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of
itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." So first of all,
according to this particular part of the bible, man shouldn't be pursuing
(earthly) values and, secondly, if by some miracle he should acquire them, he
is obligated to give them away.
These
ideas are inimical to human life on earth and, frankly, disgust me.
Now, I
could spend the next three days writing about this subject (and the gross
immorality of the next verse Mat 7:1), I could polish my letter so that the
underlying meanings become crystal clear. But here's the thing. It wouldn't
matter. Because you will not consider the idea that the bible might be wrong.
Every thing that you conceive is passed through a biblical filter, and if
something doesn't agree, you will twist and turn and research and reinterpret
it until your doubts are gone.
I know
how this process works because I've been there. The only thing that I can offer
you is what it took for me. Brutal honesty. Stop
blowing smoke on the bible and start COMPREHENDING what it actually means. If
there were a god, the tool that he gave you was not a bible, but a brain. You
were not born with a bible in your hand, you were born
with a brain in your head. But you insist on sacrificing the latter to the former.
Stop.
What's
funny is that, as I write this, I know darn well that I'm barking up the wrong
tree. (Apparently, I'm having a Botanical day, as I keep alluding to trees for
some weird reason) So let me use one more tree illustration, this one from your
favorite guy. Remember the tree that pissed him off because it wouldn't produce
fruit?
That’s
you and me, Jordan. We are not having a conversation, and even if we were,
neither of us would derive any value from it. I'm afraid our little bastard
tree is barren. You will not change your stance because with all your
brilliance, you are focused on proving the Bible to be true. And I, I am
subject to only one thing: reality. Since you cannot rewrite
reality (try as you might), you will not change me. See the priorities:
my filter = reality, your filter = the Bible. The Bible is NOT an accurate
reflection on reality and if you think that it is, you have a problem with your
ability to form concepts. Again, not something I can (or for that matter,
should) pursue changing.
Just so
you know, I do not wish to get into a debate about economics (I know my
limitations) so if you choose to respond on that specific issue, I will not be
revisiting it.
I will
leave you with one final thought that might have some significance to you, or
maybe not. But here it is nonetheless. It's a true story about a small, almost
insignificant, incident that happened to me in my freshman year at high school,
which wound up having a big impact on my life. One day I got involved in a
debate with some other religious students, and we got to talking about some
point of theology (the baptize in the "name of the father, son, and holy
ghost vs. in Jesus' name debate OR MAYBE one god in three VS three gods VS one
god VS a whole bunch of "manifestations" of god debate OR MAYBE the
free will VS predestination debate OR the salvation by faith VS works debate,
who knows) The specifics are not important. I remember talking and talking and
pleading with this guy, and then leaving feeling so sad because he was such a
nice person, and obviously sincere and it just really bugged me that he
couldn't see the truth. He was "lost", and destined to burn in hell.
That night a horrifying thought occurred to me. What if I was the one who was
wrong about some small obscure theological point, and that I was the lost one. What if I was the one to burn in hell for my sincere,
but ultimately insufficient, attempts?
That
night, and many nights thereafter, I prayed a sincere prayer that went
something like this (hold on while i scrape the
corners of my memory): "Dear God, I want to be saved. I want to be right.
If there is a deeper truth, please lead me to it." Now, this may not seem
to be a big deal to you, but to me it was revolutionary. For the first time, I
considered the possibility that I might be wrong. That the religion I was
raised in might be wrong. Wanna hear an interesting
confession from an atheist? That prayer changed my life. Not because there's an
existential god who actually reached down and tinkered in the affairs of my
life, NO, but because it worked in the way that all prayer (whether you call it
prayer or meditation or therapy) works: it helped me to change ME.
You can
have my prayer if you want, I don't need it anymore.
Jay
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Jordan
Sent:
To: Jay
<wiseguyz@hotmail.com
Subject:
RE: Biblical Communism
Hi Jay,
For some
time now, I've been considering an “E-Mail Mail Bag" so to speak. In that
forum, readers could comment on letters such as yours, and have their comments
posted. My initial comments would be brief, merely presenting the issues I see
in the mailing, then it's left to the readers to
interpret and comment on at length.
With
your permission, I'd now like to start that forum with your correspondence, or
would you prefer I post it anonymously (considering it could produce
unsolicited e-mail to you)?
From:
"Jay" <wiseguyz@hotmail.com
Subject:
like water off a duck's back
Date:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My
intention was to communicate with you. Since you have declined to respond, it
seems that further communication is somewhat pointless. If you want to post the
E-mail I sent to you, you may (after all, it's yours). One favor though, please
use my alternate e-mail address, wiseguyz@hotmail.com, and NOT this one for any follow up from persons other
than yourself.
Thank
you,
Jay
From:
"
Date:
To:
"Jay" <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: like water off a duck's back
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay,
You were
clear in your comment, "Not to be rude or anything, but it would appear
that you are under the false impression that we are involved in a conversation.
We are not. Traditionally, in a conversation, first one person will speak and
then another person will respond. What's happening here is that we are each
having our own monologues. Though it might be gratifying, I don't think it's
very productive."
Your
later comment, "My intention was to communicate with you. Since you have
declined to respond, it seems that further communication is somewhat
pointless."
Now,
Jay, it's this simple: I am NOT going to repeat myself. Only your political
comment was un-addressed in my previous debate material. There are other people
standing in line with ORIGNAL thoughts and questions.
Cheers,
From:
"Jay" <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Subject:
you are correct
Date:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are
correct; my comments followed by commentary betrayed my ambivalence in speaking
with you. After reading through my prior E-mails to you, it seems my tendency
to get somewhat emotional about these things served only to polarize the points
I was trying to make. I apologize for that.
If you
would be so inclined to respond, I'm still a bit confused: Will you be starting
up an e-mail forum on your website? And if so, will you please list my
alternate Email address, wiseguyz@hotmail.com? If you could advise me on this account, I would greatly
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Jay
----------
Original Message ----------------------------------
Date:
“…get
somewhat emotional about these things served only to polarize the points I was
trying to make.”
I hate
it when I do that.
“Will
you be starting up an Email forum on your website?”
Yes.
I'll be e-mailing the Theism.net Webmaster soon as to how to format it. My only
delay is in whether I upload my latest response to Locks, or proof it further.
Currently, it's awaiting review by my previous opponent, Temy
Beal. He and I have become friends and confidants since our debate began. When
Locks is "frank" he's just being honest. When I'm frank, I'm a nasty
Christian. Temy is going to give me an atheistic view
as to my approach. Based on your level of interest and/or time constraints,
your view would be valued and respected. Let me know if you'd care to get your
two cents in before I upload it. I'd be more than happy to return a similar
favor, should the occasion ever arise.
. .
.
“P.S.
that you are so popular as to draw masses who form
into lines must truly be a heady experience. I must try it sometime :)”
No
masses, no lines. Only one line that always seems to have
someone else behind it. Try it if you must but I don't advise it (friendly
chuckle).
Cheers,
Subject:
RE: Mail Bag
Date:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
for the quick response. Honest inquiry and debate is, I suppose, a good thing
(most days, but not all, I feel that way). I will contribute what I am able and
what I think is productive and/or relevant. There are many subjects about which I either know very little, or else have very little
interest in, so, honestly, you might not see much out of me.
I
sincerely applaud your honesty. Be a "nasty Christian" if that's what
it takes to maintain your integrity. And I completely concur with most of your
political views, although how you get there from a Christian philosophy remains
a mystery to me. Though I deny theism, Christianity, Greek mythology, Santa,
and all other super-natural mystical concoctions; there is no doubt that if the
rest of the religious population (from Buddhists to Pentecostals) would line up
behind you, the world would be a far better place. And I'm sure that we can
both agree on one thing: There is definitely life BEFORE death.
. . .
Someday,
I will finish a book, and then I hope to masses lined up at Barnes and
Noble.... cash in hand!!
Regards,
Jay
----------
Original Message ----------------------------------
Date:
“There
is definitely life BEFORE death.”
I HEAR
THAT!
Attached
is the response (locks3.htm)
I plan to upload. Again, it's my attitude and how I come across that I'm
concerned about.
Actually,
Jay, I suspect that you and I may wind up knowing each other in a mutually very
beneficial way for a long time.
Cheers,
From:
"
Date:
Thu,
To:
"Jay" <wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Mail Bag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jay,
That was
very considerate of you to read and comment, thank you.
You
raised some thoughts that I've commented on. E-mail me anytime for elaboration
if you like.
I'll
keep you posted on the E-Mail Bag forum as it progresses.
Take
care,
Jay
wrote:
I read
quickly through the Email, and it looks fine to me. Honestly, though, I
seriously doubt that I'm the right guy to ask about this kind of thing, as I've
always been of the don't-give-it-to-me-pretty,-give-it-to-me-straight school of
thought.
Agreed, as are most skeptics. Steve, however, is the first to take offense so quickly
and easily. I think it's time for me to "take the ball and run with
it." Temy will be the last proof-er before I upload it.
Jay
wrote:
But one
thing struck me as I read: it seems that we can get so involved splitting hairs
on these small detailed issues, that we lose sight of the big ones (issues,
that is, not hairs).
True, and it's
possibly an oversight on my part at times. I need to be more conscious and
sensitive to that. In your opinion, is comparing "collective
delusion" to "mass hallucination" and "absent body" to
"empty tomb" within reason? By the way, I've never seen a BIG hair (a
long one perhaps), have you? [Insert chuckle here.] Your parenthetical humor
was appreciated.
Jay
wrote:
If you would humor me for one brief moment...
Indeed,
I would.
Jay
wrote:
If you
accept that God made everything, and set forth the rules (physics and
otherwise) that govern the universe, AND regularly flouts those rules and
creates exceptions (i.e., miracles: like the resurrection) what does that say
about: a) his perfection b) his
intention, and c)
his culpability. And what about Malachi
3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Well,
are science's laws absolute? Does science not contradict itself? Case in point:
Substances shrink when frozen. Ah, but quite contrairé
with water; it expands. Good for us(!), considering
the polar caps and our existence.
Jay
wrote:
Do you
view God as a perfect entity? Is his creation perfect? If not, does
responsibility for the imperfection lie with the creation or with the creator
who purposely (and, some would say, maliciously) created it? Romans 9:20-21
seems to indicate that he created some "vessels" specifically to be
dishonorable.
Actually,
the question presumes that we would KNOW perfection if we saw it. We as a species
may have our collective perception of perfection; and as separate organisms,
individual perceptions of perfection. That is not to say that any are accurate.
If Christ, indeed, resurrected, He would obviously know more about these
matters than we. I am convinced that He resurrected, which is why I defend the
Resurrection's veracity. Therefore, my shift in faith went from faith in
scientific man to a risen Savior. Both offer seeming un-pleasantries,
contradictions and wonderments. I accept that I will lack omniscience
regardless of whatever belief system I embrace.
Regarding
Rom.
Jay
wrote:
Anyway,
I imagine that you've probably responded to these ideas, or perhaps outsourced
them to someone who specializes in them somewhere on the web. But I'd like to
use a true quote I once heard...
"Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great
minds discuss ideas."
My point? The
resurrection is an event. Rejection (or embrace) of a philosophy (Christian or
otherwise) should be based on it's IDEAS, (i.e.,
conceptually).
I think
that my response to the body of this message would indicate that I agree.
Nonetheless, I remind you of what was (pre-conversion) and remained (post-conversion)
a valued thought presented by one of the world's most prominent intellectuals:
"We
should take care not to make the intellect our God; it has, of course, powerful
muscles, but no personality." -Albert Einstein
Coupled
with one of Christianity's most prominent converts:
"Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwell-eth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and
power."
-Colossians 2:8-10
As I
pondered the harmony in those statements presented by seeming adversaries of
truth, someone else challenged my basis for rejection of the Resurrection. I
could not back up my claims. To date, no intellectual skeptic has, either. For
a guy to stretch his intellect so far as to have to concede that he had been
wrong for over a decade regarding his deeply, steadfastly-held belief system,
then be considered by the intellectual community as a closed-minded person
believing only what he wants to, is a miracle in itself.
Jay
wrote:
The
winner of a debate doesn't have anything to do with Truth, nor does popular
opinion. Just ask Galileo.
Regards,
Jay
Agreed. Now,
though the popular opinion among intellectuals may be non-God-belief, the
Resurrection must be fully understood, for if it is factual, it changes things.
If I am to be ostracized by my fellow intellectuals over my unpopular opinion,
well, so be it.
Cheers,
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Jordan
Sent:
To:
“Jay” <mailto:wiseguyz@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Your Testimony
Jay,
I've
started a testimonies page. I wish to include skeptics also. Any chance I could
persuade you to type up a one, two or more page testimony that I can include at
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/moretest_files/moretest.htm
?
I've
also added the e-mail E-Bag link. I'm wrapping up the testimonies page first.
From:
"Jay" wiseguyz@hotmail.com
Subject:
Testimony
Date:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Jordan,
Thank
you for inviting me to tell my story. Very progressive and open minded of you.
I'm thinking about it, I guess I'm trying to decide if it would be a productive
thing... At the moment, I'm leaning in favor. I'll try to come up with something
in the next few days. If I'm able to come up with anything print-worthy, I'll
e-mail it to you when it's done.
I trust
all is well with you? As you know, I continue to disagree with your
philosophical premises, but I deeply respect your libertarian-ish 'secular' stance on civil issues (and your honesty)!
Live long and prosper :).
Regards,
Jay
P.S. I'm having to make a real effort not to respond to Robin,
her invitation is just so... tempting!
-----
Original Message -----
From: Dan
Sent:
Subject: Z. Jordan Mailbag
Howdy
sir,
I'm glad to meet you. I'm Dan,
Cheers,
-----
Original Message -----
From: Dan
Sent:
Subject: Re: Theism.net E-Mail MailBag
Howdy,
I
just now read through the first couple of Jay's emails to you in your
mailbag, and the below is some of my responses to them. I'm going to send this to
Jay, but I wonder if you might not want to post this in your mailbag.
Howdy,
I
just now read through the first couple of Jay's emails to you in your mailbag,
and the below is some of my responses to them. I'm going to send this to Jay,
but I wonder if you might not want to post this in your mailbag.
Jay
wrote to you:
The views espoused in "My
Appeal to the AFS" were intelligent and well put, even though you seem to
be unable to separate emotions from concepts.
If
a person fails to realize all 100% of the things that pertain
to a given topic, and which serve as premises, either implicit or
explicit, for arguing for a truth about that topic, then the person
will be convinced that any argument upon that topic and with
which he disagrees is made on emotional grounds. This error is so common and so
easily made that, if the person has not duly noted his own track record in
this regard, then he will fail to notice that he had made this error when he
finally learns anything fundamentally more about the topic. If a person were to
come to convictional conclusions about all matters of which he is aware, and to
do this at every moment, then he would have to eat his hat, so to speak, many
times a day. But, if a person is predisposed against something that is actually
true, then this can prevent him from reaching a point where he is on
the cusp of some fundamentally new insight into the thing and, thus, he fails
to gain even a hunch of a hunch about its truth. And, so, he comes to a
conclusion which he is certain is rock solid when, in reality, he is
missing some important facts. This is nothing unique to a particular point of
view of a particular subject, but is one of the facts of life-as-we-know-it.
If a person is smart enough to
understand truth, then why don't they accept it? I guess I never will
understand this. Mental evasion IS the basis of immorality.
If
humans invented the idea of theism, and if theism is an immoral idea, then humans
are immoral. Mental evasion is a secondary consideration, since, without an
immoral idea to start with, mental evasion of an immoral
idea is possible.
I was raised in a fundamental
Christian environment. Where I came from, the Bible was considered literally
true.
There
is a lot more to literality than simple the fact that it is not
symbolic, metaphorical, or what have you. The problem with all instances of
hyper-criticality (and of ignorant hypersensitivity as well) is that the mental
ability to deal with the rich field of literality simply breaks down. I've seen
this happen with so many subjects, most of them having nothing whatever to do
with religion. Literacy, musicology, philosophy of mathematics, you name it. It
is so much a strictly human failing that it "even" happens in the 'brattiness' that often exists between siblings, which just
shows how basic it is to the human condition.
Jay
continued:
The world was flat; the sun revolved
around the earth; children were born filthy, sinful, hell-bound creatures who
would surely suffer everlasting punishment because of someone else's (Adam) sin
if they didn't get "saved;"
We
seem to inherit even death from our parents, so I would say that either there is
something very wrong with us, or death is not wrong. Of course, if death, by
definition, is not wrong, then killing, by definition, is not wrong, either.
Jay
continued:
those who would be saved would never be "redeemed" by
anything they could ever do but by another's (Jesus) assumption of their
"guilt,"
Redeemed
from what? Jay seems to leave this rather ambiguous even in his own mind.
Jay
continued:
and science and the pursuit of knowledge were evil (just like in
the garden).
If
a person reads the account in Genesis which Jay is referring to, and reads it
literally and as if for the first time, with no "religious"
preconceptions about it, then he could not come the conclusion that that
account is saying anything about empirical and logical pursuits, but rather is
saying things about the mistake of not taking a father's word for the
fact that poison is poison. If children were to be as "scientific"
about everything that their elders tell them as are atheists about the Bible,
then the world would end tomorrow. Thankfully, children are born with more
implicit integrity than they may cumulatively lose from that point,
on. Children's innocence seems to point to the kind of world that humans
originally were made to live in. In reference to something that Jay mentioned
above, the fact that children lose this innocence, no matter what are their
parents' core beliefs, shows that humans learn evil ways as a basic fact of
their being "human". This seems to me to logically necessitate the
inference that humans are basically evil, not basically good. To equat the mere ability to recognize some good with the idea
that humans are basically good is an erroneous equation.
Make no mistake about it, breaking
free of religious superstition was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life,
and also the most rewarding.
Here
Jay equates the escape from a kind of insanity with the gaining of a basically
accurate view of reality. This is not correct, and even some atheists are born
into an atheist version of insanity, only to gain sanity in some form of
theism. The problem is thus one of human nature and how this nature affects
human reasoning. There is simply no basic theory of reality, however accurate
or inaccurate, that cannot cumulatively or immediately be twisted by corrupt
human nature into an insanity from which its victims then need to
escape. The concept of the ultimate depravity of man is shown, by
common-sense reality, to mean "in the long run", not in all
cases to mean "serial murderer". As most any computer specialist
knows, the idea of corruption is not the idea of a presently complete state of
error, but rather the idea of one of more errors present in an otherwise
functional system. This is how humans can still agree to the Golden Rule, for
if a person rejects the Golden Rule and lives his life without regard for
another soul, then he will act on any feelings he has and become a
serial murderer. Fear of being caught and punished is indeed a
motivating factor in our avoidance of doing evil to others, but for most
of us this is actually not the primary factor: our appreciation of the
Golden Rule is the primary factor. Though the human body clearly has
physiological errors, resulting ultimately in death, the fundamental error in
the human system is undeniably pride, and pride seems to all appearances to not
be mechanical. Curiously, this very error, which so many evolutionary atheists
charge theists with (and often rightly so), is taken by evolutionism itself as
having evolved as part of a specie's struggle to survive.
Further
along in Jay's email, he said:
Original
sin is not the only immoral concept espoused in the Bible, far from it, but at
the moment it happens to be one of the most egregious examples that cross my
mind.
It
would almost appear that the atheist view is that theism and its associated
doctrines are the original sin, for, theism is most certainly charged by many
atheists as the very worst sort of evil possible. If "religion" is an
incorrect model of reality, then it was atheists, natural or otherwise, who
invented this greatest of all evils and, thus, the real problem is placed
squarely on the question of human nature anyway. If atheists want to say that
humans are basically good, and that humans only need the chance to prove it,
then I have to ask what is the definition of good that is going to be used?
Jay
continued:
You are free to believe the world is
flat, but you are not free to be correct. You are free to believe that some
triangles are circular, but you are not free to be correct. You are free to
believe that God is both evil and all good, but no amount of mental acrobatics
will ever make it true. You are welcome to earnestly believe that human beings
are inherently evil, but you are not free to escape the fear and guilt that this
point of view will instill.
If a human, as a human, is defined as the Bible defines it,
then a human is not an evil entity, but an entity that was made (and I quote)
"very good". That is what it says in Genesis 1:31, and the entire Bible
supports the idea that humans were not in any state of physiological or
psychological error when they were first made. A human, by definition, is not
evil. But, if the innocence of children is to be taken as any indication of
true humanity, and if the human condition as we know it is to be taken as any
indication of the very idea of wrongness, then it is empirically undeniable
that humans are, shall we say, really messed up. In other words, that humans
are corrupt, and doomed to 100% error if not even enough occasional and
incomplete repair is made. On the other hand, if humans, by definition,
are an evil entity, then humans are not messed up at all, since humans today
are simply doing what humans do. Godless evolutionism has no objection to this.
I
hope I have established some groundwork here, so that I can now better address
what Jay began his email by saying:
I ran across this article a few days
ago while perusing the web, and it left me feeling
rather astonished. Is this some kind of elaborate joke? Or perhaps an article
designed specifically to make Christians feel justified in their rejection of
atheism? I've seen a lot of things, but never an article by anyone as well read
and, seemingly, intelligent as this author (you?), who then goes on to lump,
mix, and mangle reason and nonsense together. It's like literary fruitcake
(which, as everyone knows, is an abomination). From Christian to atheist and
back again, it boggles the mind.
The
history of the human species, according to modern popular atheism, is that
humanity had begun as atheist, and then had become largely theist or some other
kind of "supernaturalist," only now to
begin to return to atheism. What is Jay's purpose for mentioning your (
In
Logos,
The
real-world Data
Daniel
From: "Daniel Pech"
To: jordan@theism.net
Subject: Dan's typos on the Meet Jay page
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:07:23 –0700
Hey, Jordan,
I saw that my last email posted in response to Jay's email to you has a typo or two. Below is the untypo'ed version in case you have the time to post it in stead of the typo'ed version with. I'm going to be referring someone to the post and do not want to confuse them with one of the typos, since the text is rather dense/notational as it is already for many people.
Howdy,
I just now read through
the first couple of Jay's emails to you in your mailbag, and the below is some
of my responses to them. I'm going to send this to Jay, but I wonder if you
might not want to post this in your mailbag.
Jay wrote to you:
The views espoused in "My Appeal to the AFS" were intelligent
and well put, even though you seem to be unable to separate emotions from
concepts.
If a person fails
to realize all 100% of the things that pertain to a given topic,
and which serve as premises, either implicit or explicit, for arguing for
a truth about that topic, then the person will be convinced that
any argument upon that topic and with which he disagrees is made on
emotional grounds. This error is so common and so easily made that, if the
person has not duly noted his own track record in this regard, then he
will fail to notice that he had made this error when he finally learns anything
fundamentally more about the topic. If a person were to come to convictional
conclusions about all matters of which he is aware, and to do this at every moment,
then he would have to eat his hat, so to speak, many times a day. But, if a
person is predisposed against something that is actually true, then
this can prevent him from reaching a point where he is
If a person is smart enough to understand truth, then why
don't they accept it? I guess I never will understand this. Mental evasion IS
the basis of immorality.
If humans invented the
idea of theism, and if theism is an immoral idea, then humans are immoral.
Mental evasion is a secondary consideration, since, without an immoral idea to
start with, mental evasion of an immoral idea is impossible.
I was raised in a fundamental Christian environment. Where I
came from, the Bible was considered literally true.
There is a lot more to
literality than simple the fact that it is not symbolic,
metaphorical, or what have you. The problem with all instances of
hyper-criticality (and of ignorant hypersensitivity as well) is that the mental
ability to deal with the rich field of literality simply breaks down. I've seen
this happen with so many subjects, most of them having nothing whatever to do
with religion. Literacy, musicology, philosophy of mathematics, you name it. It
is so much a strictly human failing that it "even" happens in the 'brattiness' that often exists between siblings, which just
shows how basic it is to the human condition.
Jay continued:
The world was flat; the sun revolved around the earth;
children were born filthy, sinful, hell-bound creatures who would surely suffer
everlasting punishment because of someone else's (Adam) sin if they didn't get
"saved;"
We seem to inherit even
death from our parents, so I would say that either there is something very
wrong with us, or death is not wrong. Of course, if death, by definition, is
not wrong, then killing, by definition, is not wrong, either.
Jay continued:
those
who would be saved would never be "redeemed" by anything they could
ever do but by another's (Jesus) assumption of their "guilt,"
Redeemed from what? Jay
seems to leave this rather ambiguous even in his own mind.
Jay continued:
and
science and the pursuit of knowledge were evil (just like in the garden).
If a person reads the
account in Genesis which Jay is referring to, and reads it literally and as if for
the first time, with no "religious" preconceptions about it,
then he could not come the conclusion that that account is saying anything
about empirical and logical pursuits, but rather is saying things about
the mistake of not taking a father's word for the fact that poison is
poison. If children were to be as "scientific" about everything that
their elders tell them as are atheists about the Bible, then the world
would end tomorrow. Thankfully, children are born with more implicit integrity
than they may cumulatively lose from that point, on. Children's
innocence seems to point to the kind of world that humans originally were made
to live in. In reference to something that Jay mentioned above, the fact that
children lose this innocence, no matter what are their parents' core beliefs,
shows tha
Make no mistake about it, breaking free of religious
superstition was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, and also the most
rewarding.
Here Jay equates the
escape from a kind of insanity with the gaining of a basically accurate view of
reality. This is not correct, and even some atheists are born into an atheist
version of insanity, only to gain sanity in some form of theism. The problem is
thus one of human nature and how this nature affects human reasoning. There is
simply no basic theory of reality, however accurate or inaccurate, that cannot
cumulatively or immediately be twisted by corrupt human nature into an insanity
from which its victims then need to escape. The concept of the
ultimate depravity of man is shown, by common-sense reality, to mean
"in the long run", not in all cases to mean "serial
murderer". As most any computer specialist knows, the idea of corruption
is not the idea of a presently complete state of error, but rather the
idea of one of more errors present in an otherwise functional system. This is
how humans can st
Further along in Jay's
email, he said:
Original sin is not the
only immoral concept espoused in the Bible, far from it, but at the moment it
happens to be one of the most egregious examples that cross my mind.
It would almost appear
that the atheist view is that theism and its associated doctrines are the
original sin, for, theism is most certainly charged by many atheists as the
very worst sort of evil possible. If "religion" is an incorrect model
of reality, then it was atheists, natural or otherwise, who invented this
greatest of all evils and, thus, the real problem is placed squarely on the
question of human nature anyway. If atheists want to say that humans are basically
good, and that humans only need the chance to prove it, then I have to ask what
is the definition of good that is going to be used?
Jay continued:
You are free to believe the world is flat, but you are not
free to be correct. You are free to believe that some triangles are circular,
but you are not free to be correct. You are free to believe that God is both
evil and all good, but no amount of mental acrobatics will ever make it true.
You are welcome to earnestly believe that human beings are inherently evil, but
you are not free to escape the fear and guilt that this point of view will
instill.
If a
human, as a human, is defined as the Bible defines it, then a human is not an
evil entity, but an entity that was made (and I quote) "very good". That is what it says
in Genesis 1:31, and the entire Bible supports the idea that humans were not in
any state of physiological or psychological error when they were first made. A
human, by definition, is not evil. But, if the innocence of children is to be taken
as any indication of true humanity, and if the human condition as we know it is
to be taken as any indication of the very idea of wrongness, then it is
empirically undeniable that humans are, shall we say, really messed up. In
other words, that humans are corrupt, and doomed to 100% error if not even
enough occasional and incomplete repair is made. On the other
hand, if humans, by definition, are an evil entity, then humans are not messed
up at all, since humans today are simply doing what humans do.
I hope I have
established some groundwork here, so that I can now better address what Jay
began his email by saying:
I ran across this article a few days ago while perusing the web, and it left me feeling rather astonished. Is this some
kind of elaborate joke? Or perhaps an article designed specifically to make
Christians feel justified in their rejection of atheism? I've seen a lot of
things, but never an article by anyone as well read and, seemingly, intelligent
as this author (you?), who then goes on to lump, mix, and mangle reason and
nonsense together. It's like literary fruitcake (which, as everyone knows, is
an abomination). From Christian to atheist and back again, it boggles the mind.
The history of the
human species, according to modern popular atheism, is that humanity had begun
as atheist, and then had become largely theist or some other kind of "supernaturalist," only now to begin to return to
atheism. What is Jay's purpose for mentioning your (
In Logos,
The real-world Data
Daniel
e-mail:
jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster