Ok, I stole this from Ed who stole it from Christina who stole it from someone else. It's interesting so I decided to join in the fun. These are questions that are all anwered by lyrics from one band that you like. These are all lyrics from The Cure (of course). Sorry that it's slightly depressing...but that's just how The Cure is.

1. Are you male or female?:

I wish it was all true /I wish it couldn't be a story /The words all left me /Lifeless /Hoping /Breathing like the drowning man

He'll never /Never turn away /Happy the man

Night time night time /Sets my house on fire /I'll turn into the melting man /I'll lose my life /To feel I feel desire

2. Describe yourself:

i'm running out of time /i'm out of step and closing down /and never sleep for wanting hours /the empty hours of greed and uselessly /always the need to feel again /the real belief of something more /than mockery if only i could
/fill my heart with love

3. How do people feel about you?:

Every night I burn /Dream the crow black dream

4. How do you feel about yourself?:

I try to laugh about it /Cover it all up with lies /I try and Laugh about it /Hiding the tears in my eyes /'cause boys don't cry /Boys don't cry

but there are long long nights when i lay awake /and i think of what i've done /of how i've thrown my sweetest dreams away /and what i've really become /and however hard i try /i will always feel regret /however hard i try /i will never forget

No I won't do it again /I don't want to pretend /If it can't be like before /I've got to let it end /I don't want what I want /I've had a change of head /But maybe someday /Yeah maybe someday

5. Describe your boyfriend/girlfriend/crush:

he waits for her to sympathize /but she won't sympathize at all /she waits all night to feel his kiss /but always wakes alone /he waits to hear her say /forget /but she just hangs her head in pain /and prays to hear him say /no more /i'll never leave again /how did we get this far apart? /we used to be so close together /how did we get this far apart? /i thought this love would last forever

6. What would you rather be doing?:

Staring at the sea /Staring at the sand

7. Describe where you live:

Don't say what you mean /You might spoil your face /If you walk in the crowd /You won't leave any trace /It's always the same /You're jumping someone else's train /it won't take you long /To learn the new smile /You have to adapt /Or you'll be out of style /It's always the same /You're jumping someone else's train /If you pick up on it quick /You can say you were there /Again and again and again /You're jumping someone else's train

8. Describe how you love:

"If you die", you said /"So do I", you said /And it starts the day you make the sign /Tell me I'm forever yours /And you're forever mine /Forever mine...

9. Share a few words of wisdom:

The further we go /And older we grow /The more we know ... /The less we show ...

It's time for everyone to groan in disgust as Grant gives his opinion on (somewhat) recent movies he has seen or bought. Why should you listen to my opinion and see movies I say you should and shy away from movies I say are crap? Because...um...if you don't...you'll regret it. Seriously.

Austin Powers: Goldmember: I'm almost ashamed to say I saw this. Ok...no...I am ashamed to say I saw this. I was just never too big on the Austin Powers movies in the first place. But there I was with three friends who were bent on taking away my drive-in-movie-virginity. So I saw this at my very first drive in movie. And it sucked. You know that Barenaked Ladies song It's all been done before? Yeah. That's all I have to say.

Eight Legged Freaks: Ok...once more I am ashamed. I saw the previews and seriously thought this would be a funny Bruce Campbell type spoof movie on all the stupid giant spider movies out there. No. It was just another stupid giant spider movie. Go watch the trailer...because that was decent. But please don't spend money on this. Sigh...I had such high expectations.

Minority Report: If you like Speilburg films...go see it. It's much more decent than AI which just sucked. It was fun to watch. Nothing Academy Award worthy. But fun.

The Royal Tenenbaums: Yes, I know it's been out a while...but I bought the DVD. This movie is fantastic. It really should have won some more awards. I find it incredibly funny and fresh compared to all the bad movies lately.

Amelie: Yeah, that one came out a while back too...but I just bought the DVD. This movie just plain rocks. Jean Pierre Jeunet is an incredible director and you should all see City of Lost Children as well as Amelie. Great movie.

I'm sure there are more. But this is probably incredibly dull. Time for user interaction! What movies have you guys seen, and were they decent or not. Do tell.

Many a year ago slogans were a whole differant story than they are today. Here are some I've run across:

--Feared by more people than ever before.
Buckley's cough medicine

--For headache and exhaustion drink Coca-Cola
--The favorite drink for ladies when thirsty, weary, and despondent
--Whenever you hear "Have a Coke," you hear the voice of America.
coca-cola

--Pepsi-Cola - It Makes You Scintillate
--It's a Great American Custom
pepsi-cola

--I dreamed I went shopping in my Maidenform bra
maidenform

--It's different...and I like it.
Dr. Pepper

--Take your girlie to the movies (if you can't make love at home)
old theatre slogan

Before I get down to business I wanted to mention a few things. One, I added a little photography section over on the left. I took those for my cinematography class. I'm new to this...give me a break. And two, it seems that the Breakfast Epiphanies website has been given a flash intro. And nobody told me. I really feel like part of the group guys. Really in the loop. Yeah...I'm really wanted here. FINE...I'm LEAVING. Ok, no...that was a lie. I'm sorry.

And on a random note (like I make any other kind), if you like energy drinks that give you lots of energy for like 30 seconds and simultaneously take away a year of your life by the can, try Sobe's Adrenaline Rush. It tastes allot better than Red Bull. And it has a slogan that sounds like a Viagra add: Get it up. Keep it up. Any questions?

On another random note I'm working. And I have once more been bestowed with the awsome responsibility of holding the key to the entire Valley Christian High School. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Muwahahaha.

And on my third and final random note, I have nothing of any importance or interest to say (as you all have probably figured out by now) so I'll just stop.

You know you have reached the pinnacle of your summer fun when you find yourself partaking in the activities that have consumed the last couple days of my life. I swear, take away my ability to do normal activities and my brain just turns into this comatose mush that finds hours of amusement in the simplest of things. Kind of like when you were a kid and you could just jump on the bed for hours on end and not be bored. Or when you would take a magnifying glass and follow little bugs around the backyard and fry them with the intensified rays of the sun. Oh wait...I still do that. But anyway. Here are some of the things I have been doing lately:

-Playing with fire. Fire is always a great entertainer. Especially when you have thousands of matches (literally). My brother's restaurant has unknowingly supplied me with about 70 boxes of matches. Each box containing a little over 30 matches. So what do I do? I tape a line of about a hundred matches together, set them straight up, light the first one and watch gleefully.

-Watching educational shows on TV. I think those people who decide what is going on TV have joined a conspiracy against all the lazy kids of America. There is nothing on TV. I really hate TV for the most part. There are just a couple shows that I really enjoy. But when you can't find anything else to do, watching educational shows is very entertaining. Today I watched a soap opera worthy show about monkeys. It was this huge rival between a warlord male monkey and a gang of vagabond ruffian monkeys. The warlord had his women who he used to make lots of little monkeys, but no older males were in the group. The "lost boys" as the show deemed them (aren't they just so creative) attacked this colony and chased the alpha male out of the city. He was considered banished and left on his own to live in the wild and die. The leader of the ruffian monkeys let his boys have a few hours with all the lady monkeys, but then he wanted to reign and not have to fight with the other males. So he chased them out too. Then he killed off all the baby monkeys because the females wouldn't mate with him if they still had a baby. I'm telling you, it had these gripping shots of the females holding dead baby monkeys in their arms. It was really sad. Or maybe the boredom has affected my emotions.

-Trying to figure out ways out of jury work. Yeah, I was supposed to go a while back, but I told them I was a full time student and therefore couldn't be a voice for the people. Sure it was partly a lie since I am not in classes all summer, but it's still partly true, since I am a full time student. The problem is this: the time they have given me to make up for my lack of juryness last time is truthfully in the way of school. It overlaps with my first week of classes. So here are my proposed plans:

**Show up with dark body paint on and when they call my name I will say, "OH...Grant Paige? There must have been a typo...I'm Brant Paige. See look, that thing says I'm white. Do I look white to you?"

**Show extreme racial prejudice. They won't keep prejudice people on the jury. Even if the guy convicted is white. I'll walk in and start screaming: "You honkey! Come on white bread, you gonna convince me that your white butt don't belong in jail?"

**Wear inappropriate attire. They won't let you in the courtroom if you aren't wearing the right clothing. I figure I'll wear a loincloth. I'll tell them I'm part Indian and they can't stop me from wearing the official garb of my people. Or maybe I'll wear one of those toxic waste suits with an oxygen tank strapped to my back. Either way, I figure they won't want me on their jury.

I was younger. Obviously young enough to not realize the possible danger of sitting on a slick tube and speeding down a hill of ice for fun. Plus I wanted to be manly, like the twenty or so older men from the group we had gathered on top of this hill. Someone came up with the great idea of linking together all the intertubes to make a "train." Within minutes this train, which was more of a giant ameba, was all set to go. Everyone else was large enough to fit snugly in the tube. I however was small enough that my butt would be dragging on the snow if I sat normally. So instead I was sprawled out across this thing like it was a lounge chair. Right in the front. One guy hooked his leg through my tube to anchor me to the rest, and we shoved off. I was majorly disappointed at the measly speed we were moving at. But in no time we were gaining more speed than anyone else on the hill, like a semi-truck going down hill. One guy at the back of the train accidentally let go, and I remember that we were moving so fast it looked like he was going uphill compared to our speed. Cold air whipped in my face, snow blinded me, ears completely numb, and I was having the time of my life. Then things went terribly wrong. We hit a large mogul. The problem was that when my tube went back down, I did not. Kind of like when an airplane drops from turbulence and you stay up in the air. Plus I was moving forward. So there I was, looking down at nineteen tubes as I did my best superman impression and landed in front of the ameba. Then it hit me. All I remember is complete chaos and lots of pressure. Then I was rolling down the hill at an incredible speed. All I could see was sky, ground, sky, ground, sky, ground, sky...you get the idea. I finally stopped and tried to sit up, feeling more dizzy and nauseous than ever before. Tears streaming down my face. Then I hear fffsssssssssss behind me, so I look back. That one guy who let go earlier...he was on a collision course with my small and fragile body. Soon I was rolling again and all I could see was sky, ground, sky, ground, sky, ground, black...........and I was being carried to a little house with a red cross on it, only I didn't remember being picked up, and black.............and some guy I've never seen before had a hand in front of my face. "How many fingers do you see? What's your name? Where do you live? What's your phone number?" All I was thinking was "shut up...my head hurts and your talking is making it hurt more." The next thing I remember is drinking hot chocolate in the ski lounge. And my dad gave me some quarters to play video games. I loved video games, and I probably wouldn't have gotten to play them if my dad wasn't having to try and make me feel better after I revived from my concussion.

The letter was laying there on his dresser. But this wasn't just an ordinary letter, it was something bad. James sat facing away from his dresser just to get it out of his sight. It made him nervous. He knew it was something bad, but he didn't know how he knew. And this wasn't just some ordinary letter, it seemed to have this supernatural ability to always be in his line of sight. Right now he could see it in the reflection of the blank tv screen. Brilliant white like reflective tape in direct sunlight. James scrawled in the thick line of a sharpie pen. This was on top of a stack of previous letters, all of which had his name delicately penned in fancy handwriting. She liked to use calligraphy and even tried to teach him once. He picked up a lighter and clicked the flame on and off, contemplating burning the letter. But that wouldn't help his situation. He picked up the phone and got six digits into her number before he hung up. There really was only one real solution, and all he was doing was stalling. But James knew what he was stalling. He knew that even the wracked, stressed, tense feeling inside would be nothing compared to what he would feel after reading whatever the letter said. Or maybe he was wrong. He picked up the letter hastily, nearly completely tricking himself into believing for an instant that the letter could be something other than bad. Diving headlong into ripping the envelope open he unfolded the page and began scanning the lines:

"I don't believe you when you say you'd do anything for me and risk anything for me. I think your a liar. I don't beleive it I think your too scared to take a step or a leap of faith. I think you'd be ready to let go if I said so and I think that you are just to weak to do it yourself. Your too scared and you won't risk anything for me because you are afraid of getting hurt again, of getting rejected again. And I can't take it anymore I can't take wondering and I can't take your hope for the future and I can't take you. I can't take that you don't have enough faith in us. Whens the last time you did something really really nice for me? Whens the last tiem I really really felt that you cared, that you did something totally out of the blue and made me feel special?

I can't even remember.

So I say to you: fuck off. If your not ready to be who you say you are then I don't want to talk to you ever agian."

The letter hit the floor at the same time as the first tear did.

So there you are. Drinking a bloody mary with no vodka because it's healthy, or maybe because you have no Stoli or Kettle One left and you won't lower yourself to drinking vodka that comes from a plastic bottle. But you do have plenty of pepper, so you make sure to add a more than necessary amount. Oh, and you're out of celery so you find some other green vegetable like a cucumber and try and make the drink look presentable. Only it's hard to look presentable yourself when you keep having to chew your drink because you only have a fresh pepper grinder so you end up gnawing on little chunks of pepper and then trying not to cringe as the wave of spice clears your already cleared sinuses.

You sit back and realize...this is my life. This is what I have amounted to. This will probably consume the next eight or nine or ten years of my life until one day I will look back and realize that my day to day routine has been nothing more than settling for mediocrity, dealing with problems by not dealing with them, and complaining that there are no solutions even though I haven't tried even one to its fullest.

So you sit back and philosophize. Maybe you plan on writing a book about all the fresh and new ideas that surely nobody else has thought of. Especially stuff about love and relationships since any book on the subject will hit the top ten at some point in its existence. Nobody really understands the stuff. They all just like having others who pretend to understand it tell them in vague terms and sentimental stories what they're doing wrong. The first book will be called Men are from Mars, Women are...no wait...that's been done. Well, at least the book has an original idea. You see, up until a certain age, girls date a certain type of guy. The kind of guy they know they will never end up with. Either this guy is completely afraid of commitment, so he will never settle down, or he is just the completely wrong type. And guys, up until a certain age, date a certain type of girl. The kind they know they will never end up with. Either this girl is the kind the guy could never get completely attached to, or she is the kind who will basically hand him reasons to break up with her. This is sure to make millions.

But until those millions are made and you can spend your days (and nights) drinking bloody marys with vodka, you'll have to put all your energy into trying to look presentable even though you know you are not.

I'm back. So you get to hear about my trip. Or at least the interesting parts. Or at least the parts that I found interesting. Or at least the parts that I found interesting that I also thought you would find interesting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
thoughts - actions - and events from my little road trip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I hate traffic. And LA is one of the worst places for having it. All the traffic I endured reminded me of my earliest memory of traffic. I saw all these cars moving much slower than usual trying to go as fast as usual. It seemed perfectly logical that there would be no traffic if the really slow person at the front of the line would just let everyone pass. You see, I envisioned all these cars piled up behind one person slowing everyone else down. I'm not sure, but I think I thought this because of one of those informative Disney cartoons about driving. This cartoon talked about drunken driving, driving while tired, changing lanes without using your blinker, and most anything that causes accidents on the road. Why? I still can't figure it out because the people watching this cartoon were most likely a good five years (if not much more) from driving. But that's not the point. In this cartoon they talked about traffic. In the traffic segment, most likely as a visual gag, they showed that all the traffic was due to a woman driving while putting on makeup and swerving back and forth. What did this teach me? That women are bad drivers and traffic is an easily solved problem.

***as a side note, Disney has all kinds of great informative cartoons. Check out Education for Death to see some good ol' American propaganda.

*Right before golfing with my brother, he got a call from my dad. There was a death in our family and my dad wanted Chad to know right away. It seems that his 13-year-old, blind, deaf, overweight pug had died. This was his first dog (of 2), so he wanted to bury it somewhere special. But he's in LA. So the dog is in our freezer in a plastic bag until Chad can come home to give it a proper burial.

***as a side note, Chad golfed his best game ever after that call. and I birdied my first hold ever.

*It occurred to me while looking at the many fine entertainment facilities of LA that one particular business in general seems to be misnamed. The strip joint. No, I don't think that "strip joint" or "strip club" or "tittie bar" are misleading. What I find confusing is "gentleman's club." I kind of always thought that "gentleman" carried with it a sense of chivalry. Well, I guess that if ogling naked women is chivalry then I've been going at being a gentleman all the wrong ways.

*I saw The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys. I went to this movie with no knowledge of what it was about. For all I knew, it was about the recent Catholic Church scandal. But it wasn't. And I thought it was fantastic. The writing and acting were both extremely good. I would recommend seeing it. And I picked up The Royal Tenenbaums and Amelie on DVD. And if you have yet to see those. Go see them. Now. Stop reading this and go rent them this very minute. And if the movie store is closed...break in. Just don't tell the cops that I told you to do it.

*I met a guy named Tree.

*I was buying a shirt at French Connection (just because) and couldn't find the size I wanted. Small. Now this is a totally different subject, but it is the biggest pain having to find pants that fit my waist and shirts that fit right. But I won't go into that now. The particular shirt I wanted came in black or white. I asked the sales girl and she went into the back to check if they had any smalls. She came out carrying one of the black shirts. She handed it to me and said, "I like the black one. I think it will good on you." Um, since when do the sales people pick my clothes for me?

*I got some job hookups with a guy who just finished working on The Hulk, and is now in the middle of working on a new Kevin Spacey film. I'll be doing some camera work for some feature length Hollywood films if all goes well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
end of thoughts - actions - and events from my little road trip
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roadtrip. Be back later.

So the last few entries have been long, tedious, and just plain tiring. I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that this is not going to suddenly turn into some site with a crazy religious guy spouting off about Christianity constantly. Instead I would like to talk about spiders.

From what I know, most insects don't attack you unless they are threatened. Right? I mean, a bee won't sting you unless you hit it or hurt it. But some insects will just go after you the first chance they get. Ticks (the insect I hate the most), mosquitos, and spiders. I woke up this morning, scratched my arm, and went into the bathroom. I put on my contacts, scratched my arm, and brushed my teeth. I fixed my hair, scratched my arm, then finally looked at my arm. I swear, some spider was just feasting on me last night. I've got five bites in about a six inch radius. Three of which are in the triangle shape, the other two are rogue bites. My first thought was general disgust at the thought of some little spider casually dining on my arm while I slept. My second thought was wondering why spiders bite in threes for the most part, and in a small triangle shape. I tried looking it up on the internet, but couldn't find anything. My brother just told me he thought it had to do with blood flow, or getting more blood, or something like that. I just wonder what I would do if I woke up to find some huge spider making a midnight snack out of my arm.

letter #3

Disclaimer
Nothing that is written in this write-up is intended to insult the readers for their religious or personal beliefs or otherwise hurt the reader’s feelings. I attempt to back up all of my statements with factual information; however, the subject matter of this debate is something that really is impossible to prove. I hope that you read this with an open mind, regardless of what your current beliefs are.
End Disclaimer

Let me begin with my religious background, because that is an important way to make you understand where I am coming from. I grew up in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. For those of you on the west coast (or Australia, etc…), people in Massachusetts are very closed-mouthed about their religious beliefs. Everything here has always been more academically based and I grew up focusing on academics and concrete things instead of spiritually related things. In general, we have fewer schools which are religiously based. I went to Shrewsbury High School, which is a public school where they do not bring anything spiritual into the curriculum. I was never exposed to discussions about religious beliefs until I came to Chapman, and it came as quite a shock because of a number of reasons. But I’ll get to that after.

We have a few churches in my town: Saint Mary’s, Saint Anne’s, a Lutheran Church, First Congregational Church, some other churches which I fail to remember the name of, and a church which doesn’t meet in a building but actually meets in a clearing around a big cross stuck in the ground. I don’t know what’s up with that but whatever. There are also hundreds of churches (very beautiful, I might add) in the city next to us, Worcester. From what I can tell, my town is primarily of the Catholic faith.

I am not Catholic. I grew up believing in “God” because I was taught to believe. I was never given any other choice but to believe until I became old enough to think for myself and met other people who had opposing view points. Apparently it was my mother who wanted me to be brought to church, because I recently found out that my father has very much the same beliefs as I do (he never intruded when I was younger so it is interesting how my views are the same and I only find these out now). I became confirmed in the First Congregational Church, which I grew up believing was Protestant, but it turns out that the actual name of our denomination is Congregational or United Church of Christ. I was confirmed in ninth grade, which was far before I even began to question organized religion and Christianity.

When I first took communion at the end of our year-long course at my church, I didn’t really think about what I was doing when I took that grape juice and that bread. When I said the “Lord’s Prayer” or sang hymns during the service I never thought about what I was saying. For me, being confirmed in the ninth grade was at the wrong time, because I was too young. I was more worried about fitting in at my high school and hoping that boys would like me and that I would get good enough grades to go to a good college someday. I didn’t really pay attention that being confirmed is a contract for life. This really doesn’t worry me very much now, because there are practical reasons for being confirmed, such as the ability to be married in the church and things of that nature that I might care about later. But it does bother me that I was confirmed so young, before I really knew what my beliefs were. My beliefs are still evolving today, and I really don’t know if I would make the choice to become confirmed in the church or in my particular church if the question was posed to me at this moment.

I can say that I do believe that there is SOMETHING out there. Not necessarily a “God” in the sense of the Judeo-Christian belief system, but there is something spiritual. I believe this because I have VERY weird experiences all of the time (ones that I would rather not discuss here because that will open up a whole slew of topics). These started when I was about seven years old and they have been getting more noticeable as I have gotten older. As for the values set up by the Bible and the Christian belief system, I agree with them wholeheartedly. Do I believe that the ten commandments were written on slabs of stone by Moses as God spoke to him? Not particularly, but the ten commandments are a good set of morals to live by. But so are the writings of Confucius. I find Christianity to be a very moral religion. I grew up under that belief system, and I think it made me a good person. However, I do not think that it is necessary to follow a religion (or a book) to have these beliefs. I know many people who were not brought up in a religious family who have wonderful morals. As for the Bible (of the Christian belief system)….yes it exists, nobody can deny that. I believe that much of the stuff in the bible could’ve happened, but one reason that I do not like Christianity is the fact that the religion is very much grounded on a book, like so many other organized religions.

Basically, I am an agnostic. An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. Since nobody can take “God” and pick Him (or Her? Or It?) up and prove to me that “God” exists, I am not going to believe either way. Until I have hard evidence that “God” exists, I refuse to take a firm ground in believing (having “faith”, however you want to put it).

Many people wonder why I am so passive about religious topics, and it is because I have very different views from most people at Chapman. My friends at home have no interest in talking about religion, and when I came to Chapman, it was a shock to find so many young people who are passionate about Jesus and God and getting their religious beliefs out in the open. In my town, if you talk as openly as people at my college do about Jesus, you are dubbed a “Jesus-freak” and kind of laughed at because here we just don’t talk about those things. They’re considered as personal as which candidate you voted for in the election.

For me it is interesting to listen to people talk about their Christian roots, but it is very uncomfortable for me to talk about my religious beliefs because some people just are unable to understand where I am coming from. I grew up in a very different background than most people at my school. I also find it nearly impossible to explain to people my beliefs without them pushing theirs on me. I hate it when others try to push their beliefs on me without backing them up. And since there really is no way that I can see to back up either of our beliefs, it is silly to argue about.

But here goes…

Statement #1

There is no God (of the Judeo-Christian belief system).

Definitions

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions

Judeo-Christian: Being historically related to both Judaism and Christianity

Judaism: the monotheistic religion of the Jews, tracing its origins to Abraham and having its spiritual and ethical principles embodied chiefly in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud

Talmud: the collection of ancient Rabbnic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara

Christianity: the Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus

Christian: professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on his teachings, showing a loving concern for others, humane

My Initial Thoughts/Questions

Prove that there IS a God. Both proving that there is not a God or that there is a God is impossible.

Why are you grouping the Jewish people with the Christian people? Based on the definition of Judeo-Christian, and the definitions of the two separate religions, it is better to say that they are just that….two separate religions. I am going to research whether or not a “Christian” God exists, rather than a Judeo-Christian God, since the definition of Judeo-Christian brings into question a lot of other topics.

If there is just one unified God under the Christian belief system, why are there so many other religions in the world and why are there so many separate Christian denominations? Wouldn’t this “supreme spiritual being” want all of his creations to believe in the same things? And how do the Christians know that they are the one true religion?

Statement #2

Christianity is false.

My Initial Thoughts

Wait, you want me to prove that ALL of Christianity is false? Well that’s just impossible because any religion that has this much grounding in the World is going to be partly true….there’s no way that ALL of Christianity is false.

Research and Facts

The first thing I did was to try and prove to myself that there IS a God under the Christian belief system. I went out and read a bunch of articles on the internet which were trying to prove to me that there was a God. I found that none of them were successful in proving to me with hard evidence and facts that there is a God; however, they succeeded in proving to me that there could be the existence of a God, which actually taught me nothing new, because that was my belief beforehand.

One of the articles told me to sit and ask God to give me a sign that He exists. I did. I sat for about an hour…and I did not get a sign. But I didn’t give up trying to make myself believe…so here’s a bit of my thoughts about the articles.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
“A Practical Man’s Proof of God-Does God Exist?” The author did an excellent job of explaining why an atheist was wrong to say that we have always existed but not why I should believe that the Christian God does exist. Yes, there is practical evidence that our earth began somewhere, but the author of the article failed to prove to me that it was GOD (and the Christian God in particular) who created it. The article was a sad attempt at using scientific evidence to prove the existence of God. It stated factual information, but the factual information had nothing to do with whether or not the Christian God is the one true God. The only point that the article succeeded in making to me was exactly what I believed beforehand-that something has to exist because we all started somewhere. Okay, so atheism is out of the question. I knew that already.

http://www.pccorner.com/ato/ato_ch12.htm
This story kept my attention for a bit, because it did come close to proving that God exists. But it lost me:
“OK," Bill agreed, "but if God is the cause of the universe, don't we then need something else to make God? After all, God would be an effect which requires a cause."
"Yes. But God is different from the universe in one very significant way. Whereas the universe is not eternal, God is. Something somewhere has to be eternal, and cause-and-effect requires that something to be a someone--a personal God. Since God is eternal, we don't need to ask about His cause. How could anything eternal have a cause? By the way, the God describe in the Bible is that kind of God."

The preceeding argument simply assumes that God does exist. If they are arguing that something must have started the world, it May have been God, but if it was, who says that He is eternal? Where is the proof of Him being eternal? For all we know He could’ve been created by something/someone else and that someone else could’ve been created by something/someone else and we could be living under a God who is living under a God who is living under a God….and it could go around in a circle. Maybe something somewhere is eternal, and maybe something is not-everything could go around in a circle much like the food chain. There is no way to prove that God is eternal, or that anything is eternal because we ourselves are not eternal, and will not be around to see if something is actually in truth “eternal.”

As far as I’m concerned at this point, God is a theory-something which has never been proven false, but is not necessarily true.

After I read those articles, I went out and looked at the different religions in the world. I found a top-twenty list of different religions in the world. Christianity is unarguably the largest religion in the world, it is followed by (in order of population in the world according to www.adherents.com): Islam (Muslim), Hinduism, Secular/Non Religious/Agnostic, Buddhism, Chinese traditional religion, primal-indigenous, African Traditional & Diasporic, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Judaism, Baha’I, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Scientology. I looked up the general definition of each of these religions because of my lack of knowledge on most of them. Each religion differs in their beliefs. Some believe in reincarnation after death, others believe in more than one God, a few follow the works/lives of a prophet(sounding similar to Christianity but with a different prophet). There are all kinds of different beliefs out there. This is where two topics are going to overlap.

Just the fact that there are hundreds of different subcategories (denominations) inside Christianity makes it a little bit difficult for me to believe in it as the one true religion. How can something that is supposed to be the one true religion have so many different sides? I’ll just list a few major ones and their differing beliefs:

Baptist: I read the Baptist Faith and Message which can be found here: http://www.utm.edu/martinarea/fbc/bfm/2.html. From what I read, Baptists believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (triune God) I quote: “There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. . . God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.” Well what about the other people who do not believe in Jesus Christ? Shouldn’t God still be considered their “Father” if God created the universe? Iffy.

Catholic: I went poking around on a Catholic Youth Center website and found some interesting things which I already knew a little about, but found out some more. Catholics also believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit like the Baptists. Catholic religion centers around the New Testament of the Bible, and if there is ever a question on something, the New Testament is consulted. Priests have the ability to pardon certain kinds of sin in the Catholic church. Other kinds of sins (which violate moral law-a “rule of conduct set up by competent authority”) such as abortion are punished by excommunication (which prevents the offender from taking part in certain sacraments-sacred activities- and from ever becoming into office as a priest etc…) It just doesn’t seem right to me that a person can be excommunicated from their religion.

United Church of Christ/Congregationalist: http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/whatis.htm. The major difference between the UCC and Catholic religions is that the ministers are not considered as figures of authority but rather as spiritual guides. Although the UCC is considered to be one unified body of churches, each individual church is allowed to set down its own beliefs, and share the beliefs with others. There are only two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s supper) in this church as opposed to the seven in the Catholic church. So inside of this denomination there is even more separation in beliefs. The collective idea between these churches is to spread faith in Jesus but to also confirm the individualism of the person.

Jehovah’s Witness: Okay. They call God by a different name than the previously listed religions and are known as being somewhat irritating to some people due to their uninvited visits to homes. I went to this site to read about them a little: http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm. Apparently they call God, “Jehovah” because they believe that it is a special name, because God can be referring to many other different Gods. Similarly to previously mentioned denominations, the goal of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to spread the “good news” of Jesus. They believe that all religious beliefs should be subjected to a test of agreement with the Scriptures of the Bible. They take everything in the Bible literally unless something is obviously meant as a symbolic type of thing.

Lutheran: http://www.lutheran.net/faith.php. Lutheranism is a sub-denomination of Protestantism. Things are getting so complicated! Lutherans believe that the ultimate authority is the Word of God, as found in the bible, and that Christ is the key to understanding the Bible and salvation. Salvation is not earned or bought in the Lutheran religion like it is in the Catholic, but it is a gift of God, based on faith. The Lutheran faith, like UCC has only two sacraments, because they were the only two supposedly instituted by Christ. When the Lutheran’s take communion, they believe that the bread (which everyone is allowed to have as opposed to the Catholics where only the priests are allowed it) is actually the Lord and not that it is a symbol of the Lord. The UCC generally believes that the wine and bread is a symbol of the Lord and not the actual Lord.

Church of Latter day Saints (Mormon): http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1598-1,00.html. This church also believes in the trinity (God as Father, Jesus Christ as Son, and the Holy Ghost). They believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s “transgression.” They also believe that men (not women) can become figures of authority for the church. The LDS believes in teaching from the Bible and also from The Book of Mormon, which is a separate book that they say has old writings from prophets. They also have a number of other beliefs which are complicated and I’m getting sick of reading about them so I’m done.

Anyways, those are only a few of the different denominations, and a tiny snippet of what they agree upon and what they do not agree upon. The general agreement throughout the denominations is an acceptance of Jesus Christ and belief in his crucifixion and resurrection and teachings. They all believe that love (for everything) should be the basis of life. And they all believe in some part of the Bible.

I’m going to steal from Grant a little bit now….

There are three (not two-the world is not black and white, and there can be middle grounds) ways to see this:
1. Christianity is true.
2. Christianity is false.
3. Some parts of Christianity are true, and some are false.

If Christianity is true, then ALL parts of Christianity should be true. As shown above, there are agreements between the many denominations (characterized by a belief in Jesus Christ and the Bible); however, there are differences in what each denomination believes. If Christianity was the one true religion, there would not be so many discrepancies between different denominations and sub denominations. Why do Lutherans believe that the communion wine and bread is physically God while the United Church of Christ believes that communion is a symbol of God, while Catholics believe that only figures of authority are allowed to have/give communion, while some Christians do not believe in having communion at all? Why do most denominations believe that one has to be baptized in order to be a Christian? If the Christian God is the one true God, wouldn’t ALL people in the world be accepted as Christians without baptism/christening? If we are all God’s children as Christianity claims, why would we have to go through a baptism/christening to be considered for salvation? What one denomination says is true, another may say is false, or incorrect. It is impossible for ALL of Christianity to be true.

If Christianity is false, then ALL parts of Christianity should be false. However, there is significant historical and scientific evidence that Jesus Christ existed and that many events in the Bible did happen. There is no way that ALL of Christianity is false. So that statement is incorrect.

Thus, some parts of Christianity are true, and some parts are probably false, although we have no way of proving which parts are false. So we cannot say with conviction that Christianity is false, because it is not completely false, and we cannot say with conviction that Christianity is true, because not all parts of Christianity are true, although some parts may be.

Statement #3

The Bible is false.

My Initial Thoughts

No contest here. I know that parts of the Bible have been proven to be true (no use researching that because it will take too long), so that statement is incorrect. Maybe a better way to ask that question would have been to state a certain part of the Bible to argue as false, but I cannot argue the whole Bible as false…similarly to the argument about Christianity. So I will say that there are probably parts of the Bible that are false, although I do not know.


Closing Thoughts

Christianity is neither false nor true from what I have seen. I have no problem with any Christian (or other religious believer, unless they try to shove religious sap down my throat), because it seems to be a respectful belief system and if it comforts them in this world of unknown (which is what I personally believe religion to be), well, then that is good for them.

God. Well, I can neither confirm His (or Her, or Its) existence. To those who have the faith, well they are lucky. I have not found this yet, if I ever will in this lifetime
To each his own. I have my own personal beliefs (formed from my own experiences) about what happens after death and about the way I should live my life. As for how we got here on Earth, I don’t think it matters too much because we’re here and we can’t deny that, so I don’t worry about it too much.

All I can really say is that I try to live my life to its fullest because there really is no way to know for sure what happens after death.

A philosopher/poet whom I have found very inspirational in my life lately is Kahlil Gibran. He was very much like me because he did not have deep roots in religion, but was a very spiritual person. I have found comfort in many of his writings (instead of an organized religion) and I always try and remember that “These minutes are more precious to us than the crowns of kings and more sublime than the thrones of angels.”
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

my response which is miraculously not as long as letter #3

Anything said here is not a personal attack…just so everyone knows.
______________________________________________
First off I will explain what I meant by saying “Judeo-Christian.” I did not mean Judaism and Christianity as they are today, meshed together. Judeo-Christian is a term meaning “historically related to both Judaism and Christianity.” This is because Jesus was Jewish and Christians follow Him. Therefore, those who do prescribe Christianity and Jesus are prescribing to the Judeo-Christian belief system. So no, I did not expect you to cover Judaism too.
______________________________________________
Now on to the first question. I asked for proof that there is not a God. So, in return, you asked me to prove that there IS a God. What I would then say is, “Hey, I asked you first.” But don’t worry, I will answer you. You can’t. At least not in the traditional sense of proving. No, I cannot give you physical evidence of the actual being of God. But can you give me physical evidence of your mind? How about your thoughts? How about your emotions? Well, if we are to follow the same logic, saying that since you can’t prove God’s existence physically, you can’t know if He is real or not, then you also will have to agree with me if I say that you have no mind, thoughts, or emotions. Now is when you say, “But I DO have emotions…it is obvious because I laugh and cry.” But wait, that is not physical evidence of your emotions, those are results of your emotions. It’s the same as trying to prove that wind exists. You can’t physically prove it beyond its effects. You see trees move. Your hat flies off your head. Etc. In the same way, God can be proven. Certain aspects of our universe have no other explanation, therefore leaving no other option but God, therefore proving His existence.

You then said “If there is just one unified God under the Christian belief system, why are there so many other religions in the world and why are there so many separate Christian denominations? Wouldn’t this “supreme spiritual being” want all of his creations to believe in the same things? And how do the Christians know that they are the one true religion?”

Why are there so many religions? Because man has free will. He can choose to believe in whatever he wants to. Therefore, it is inevitable that many religions will pop up. And why there are so many denominations, I will cover later.

Yes, or course this supreme spiritual being, otherwise known as God, wants everyone to know the truth. But, once more, man has free will. So God will not force everyone to believe in the truth.

And how do Christians know they are the one true religion? Well, it comes down to reason, logic, and faith. Now don’t start to scoff because I brought up the “f” word. Faith is a very valid topic. When you sit in a chair, do you hold your breath and hope that the chair holds you and doesn’t break? No, because you have faith. Every time you take a step do you hold your breath hoping that gravity doesn’t give out sending you hurtling into space? No, because you have faith. And much like you see the effects of wind in trees, I see the effects of God in my life and the world around me. For more on faith go to Kevin’s site.
_________________________________________
For the second main question, no, I did not want you to prove all of Christianity false. I realize this is impossible. What I meant was for you to prove any of it wrong. Because if you can prove any of the main points wrong, then it is all wrong.

You then said that you did research, and none of the articles gave you hard evidence. I redirect you to my previous shpeal. Give me hard evidence of your mind, and I will then accept your argument about no hard evidence for God.

You said that another article told you about God’s eternalness. You asked how we know that God is eternal, and how do we know that some other being didn’t create Him, and some other being create that being, and so on and so on. Well, you would have to get to the top of the chain somewhere, would you not? And would not that being have to be eternal? If that being was at the very top, it has to be eternal. So, if we are assuming that there is some kind of being out there that did some kind of creating, it is pure logic that tells us it has to be eternal. It is true that if everything goes around in a big circle, the circle of life (not stolen from the Lion King, it’s an actual belief system) that there would not have to be a creator. Nothing would have to be eternal. But then you are faced with the question of where the circle started. Yes, it is a circle, a never-ending loop, but there had to be a creation of this circle. Was it evolution? Or a creator, who would just so happen to be eternal. And if it was evolution, please do tell because I will write about that too, and how evolution is just as much of a faith based belief system as Christianity is. If not more so.
____________________________________
Now to talk about the denominations. I will answer the questions you had about each one:

Baptist
You asked “what about the people who don’t believe in Jesus.” If you look at the major beliefs of Christianity, you will find that those who do not believe in Jesus are not Christians. That is a major tenet of the Christian faith. And you said that God should still be considered those people’s “fathers.” Well, He is. I’m not sure where you found that Baptists believe that God is not the father of those who don’t believe in Jesus. He is definitely their father, but that does not mean that they are Christians automatically.

Catholicism
Your main discrepancy here was that people can be excommunicated from the church. You will find that this is only in Catholicism, and is not even practiced widely. It was a major tenet of Catholicism hundreds of years ago, but excommunication is not commonly practiced today. And if you look at the beliefs of Christianity, you will find that there is nothing that can reverse the process once you become a Christian. You can’t be excommunicated from Christianity.

You didn’t seem to have too many discrepancies with the UCC, so I won’t go into it.

Jehova’s Witness
Well, they aren’t Christian’s, and are not even considered one of the denominations of Christianity, so I’m not sure why this is in here.

Lutheran
You brought up the Lutheran’s beliefs about communion. But I think you are confused. The Catholics are the ones who say that the bread and wine become the body of Christ. Though that is also not nearly as widely taught today. And anyone in Catholicism can take communion, not just the priests.

Mormonism
Once more, this is not a denomination of Christianity, so I’m not sure why it is in here.

I see what you mean about middle ground, and about the third choice. There is a reason I did not include that third choice. Because it doesn’t matter. That was not meant to sound harsh, but here is my reasoning: If Christianity is true, then it is the only way. But if it is only partly true then it is garbage, other than being some nice words to live by. If it is only partly true, there is no point in following it. And that goes for it being partly false. If it is partly false, it is pointless. A belief system that says it is the only way has to be completely true.

And now your questions about denominations.

You said that there would not be so many discrepancies between denominations if Christianity were the one true religion. I don’t follow your reasoning. You see, truth is truth. Grass, when healthy, is green. Correct? Well what if there was a group of people who would not budge on the belief that grass is indeed purple? Does that change the truth just because someone has a different belief? In other words, it doesn’t matter if one denomination has a different belief, it doesn’t take away from the truth.

And I’m not sure where you got your information about most denominations believing that you have to be baptized to be saved. Baptists are the only ones who say that, and normally do not any more. Baptism is not part of the salvation process. Baptism is a public showing of the changes you have made in your life. That is all.

You asked why all people wouldn’t be considered Christians if God were the one true God. Simple, free will. God gave us free will to choose Him or not. How well would it work if everyone were considered a Christian? Would you want that title? Would someone who practices witchcraft want that title? If someone does not want to be a Christian, he or she has that choice.

You then asked why someone would have to go through a baptism or christening. The only thing you have to do is make a change in your heart. You have to lay your life aside and be willing to follow God. It is a decision, not an action like baptism.

“What one denomination says is true, another may say is false, or incorrect. It is impossible for ALL of Christianity to be true.” Once more I am not following your reasoning. It may be impossible for ALL Christians to be correct, (which it is since there are subtle points that are not necessary to salvation and many have varying opinions), but just because of disagreements between denominations does not by any means mean that all of Christianity can’t be true.

You say that some parts of Christianity are true, and some parts of probably false, although we can’t know which parts are false. I fail to see how we could not see which parts are false. That is like saying parts of a mathematical equation are false, but it isn’t possible to tell which parts are false. It is literally impossible to say that parts are false unless you know at least one part that is false. Then you added, “not all parts of Christianity are true,” so I would ask you to point out which parts those are.
____________________________________
I did not mean that you needed to prove the entire Bible false. That is, like you said, impossible. I meant to prove ANY part of it false. Which is, from what can be shown, equally impossible. If you can prove to me one piece of the Bible that is false, I will denounce God and Christianity here on this spot. Since you said that parts are probably false, then I ask, once more, for you to point those out.
_____________________________________
The main tenet of what you have said is that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. You called yourself an agnostic, and are therefore probably familiar with Emmanuel Kant’s works. Here is the problem: Agnosticism says that there is no way to have any knowledge about reality (in other words, truth). You can’t figure it out with reason or logic. Which is what you have said in this letter. The problem is that this is a self-refuting belief. The statement that you can’t know the real truth about reality is indeed a truth about reality. Geisler stated, “The fundamental flaw in Kant’s hard agnostic position is his claim to have knowledge of what he declares to be unknowable. In other words, if it were true that reality cannot be known, no one, including Kant, would know it. Kant’s hard agnosticism boils down to the claim: ‘I know that reality is unknowable.’” Agnosticism is saying that one knows enough about reality to know that one cannot know anything about reality. So for you to claim that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not is actually self-refuting.
_____________________________________
Once more, this was not meant to be an attack. This was a rebuttal to arguments, like in a debate. Please, ask questions. I would love to answer if I can.

I apologize in advance for the extreme length of this. But I think it's interesting. I tried to cover WAY too many topics at once, so if something is unclear, please ask and I will do my best to explain better. So delve in if you have the time. And feel free to send rebuttals to my rebuttals, hate mail, praise mail, or free cash and prizes. Let's get it on:
________________________________________

letter 1

There is no God. It's one of the biggest conspiracies in the world. It's the product of a handful of people’s cunningness at the beginning of time who saw the beginning of civilisation as a big opportunity to start a big lie and continue it along as long as they can. The way they saw it, the only way one such great fabrication as the concept of a “God” could survive the thousands and thousands of years of speculations and doubts of years to come is to start the lie right at the beginning so that if there should be any non-believers that should influence many people, they too will still have tiny inklings of doubts in their minds about “God” because of the fact withstanding that He(God) has been known about and has been talked about since the beginning. And for what can all this planning be for? To be able to have control of all human’s highest level of thinking and to trick them into such things that they’ve made up such as “enlightenment” and “peace”(This would be years later defined by Maslow as “Self-actualisation” being the highest level in the now well-known Hierarchy of Needs).

They also knew that there would be great financial benefits in such an operation. People would shower them with money and expensive things because they are perceived as holy and in charge of their “spiritual” well being.

At the beginning they had an idea, but didn’t really know the full extent of what they had embarked on, that “God” would be both the greatest selling commodity and selling tool that could ever be in the whole existence of man. The population of God-believers keep growing over the years, the knowledge of “Him” spreading over remote areas strengthens the lie more.

“God” is indeed made in the image of men. It is a sham created by a few men who concocted all of it for their personal gain way back when people’s ideals were young and impressionable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

letter 2

as far as proving that the god of christianity doesn't exist, i don't think i can convince you of that. if i could, i would feel a lot more secure in my beliefs than i do. but let me share a few of my thoughts. suppose: before anything else was, god was. before heaven and hell and earth and good and evil, god existed. then god created all these things, and i don't know a lot about the emergence of hell and of satan, but i know that lucifer supposedly fell, and i am supposing that his separation from god was absolute. i am also supposing that this happened before god created the earth and man. anyway, god abhors sin, it's his antithesis. yet god supposedly created something that had the ability to sin, even though this is abhorrent to him, even though he loved his creation called "mankind." now, god's one desire was to spend eternity with man, god loving man unconditionally and man worshipping him eternally. not only that, but god was not constrained by the dimension known as time, he knows what we think of as the past, present, and future, even if we don't. so god knew that man would turn against him immediately, or at least fairly soon after his creation. he knew that man was susceptible to the temptations god set before him. but because god "loved" man, he gave him a choice. but if man makes the wrong choice, god loves man enough to eternally separate them from each other, supposedly either placing man in a great deal of physical pain or torturing him instead with separation from god, the ultimate punishment. and this makes sense .... because? if god was omnipotent, and sin was really that abhorrent to him, and he loves us that much, why in the world would he create a being that he knew would sin against him, especially since he is the one who apparently "decreed" that sin would separate god and man forever unless man did certain things? either god didn't love us so much after all, or he's not omnipotent, or this is just another story contrived to explain things that man doesn't understand.

let's take a look, for a second, at all the religions, faiths, beliefs, ideas, and creeds that exist in this world. heck, look at the multitude of differences that occur just within the sphere of christianity. or the differences in belief that occur between hindus or muslims sects. and don't forget all the people who believe that they are a part of god, and that god is made of different things. and what about those people who don't believe in a god at all? and what about the beliefs that have come and gone, the gods of the greeks and the romans and the rites of the pagans (yes, i know some people still adhere to this today, to some degree), etc etc etc. what about emperor worship? will the belief systems of our time eventually be considered outdated and ridiculous as well? so what really gives us the right to say that we are right, they are wrong, any of us (i know, this sort of goes against the whole premise of this contest, but this is my view)? what are the chances that one of us is right, really? well, i could sit down and calculate it for you, but i think judging by the enormous amount of different beliefs out there, i can safely say that the probability of this is very, very small.

now, something you didn't mention in your contest information was the authenticity of the divinity of jesus christ. i had to read a whole long essay in theology class about the different things jesus could have been: lord, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. and of course the person that wrote this essay "proved" that christ could not be liar, lunatic, guru, or myth based on - dun dun dun - you guessed it, passages from the bible. naturally, basing the argument on this book would convince any red-blooded agnostic such as myself that christ is indeed divine. but someone could easily prove that christ wasn't divine - i mean, look, they have four possibilites that he isn't and one that he is, doesn't that say something right there? and i won't even get started on the subject of the resurrection, because frankly i think that i should not touch it. i would have to get into the subjects of delusional behavior and the madness of crowds, neither of which i know enough about to really convince you of anything, just enough to convince myself. the madness of crowds stuff also deals with the subject of christ and the miracles he performed before hundreds of people. i mean really, be practical. be realistic.

this leads us into the next part of the contest, the authenticity of the bible. if the bible isn't even real, then we don't even have to bother with the rest of it really. this year i wrote a paper on the writings of the apostle paul, and i was quite interested to discover that of the thirteen books of the bible attributed to the apostle paul, 80-90% of experts believe that three of these books (the pastorals: I and II timothy and titus) could not have been written by the man believed to be the apostle paul if he lived in time the bible claims he did. most critics strongly disagree about the authenticity of colossians, ephesians, II thessalonians. even the books that they consider to be authentically written by paul do not necessarily contain true information. and that's only the writings of paul! a christian does not consider the holy books of other religions to be holy. why? because everyone else is wrong. everyone believes everyone else is wrong! it's a huge mess.

then there's the subject of man's psychological need for religion. just read some of william james's or sigmund freud's thoughts on the matter. and don't forget that psychologists and scientists, depending of course on their beliefs, will either justify or condemn religion. now personally, at this point, i'm left a bit confused. who's right? my baptist friends, my methodist parents, my teachers at an episcopal high school who were required to teach us that christianity is right, the scientists and psychologists, my theology teacher or my atheist friends? frankly, i'm starting to think that none of them are right, because i think you can't be "right" about something like this. or at least i don't think i can be. each person can only be right for him or herself. so grant, even though i personally don't think that christianity, the bible, or god are right, authentic, or real, respectively, i respect your beliefs even if they do not concur with mine. i do not believe that i could convince you otherwise, and honestly i would feel wrong trying to do any more than present you with alternative points of view. so i guess i don't really deserve to win any prize (unless you want to give it to me, of course), but at least i emailed you. i hope this makes a little bit of sense, i really didn't put a great deal of thought or research into this, so don't anyone tear me apart for my views, ok? just stop and think about your own beliefs, that's all i ask.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My overly long reply

In reference to the first letter, I would need more information to aptly reply. I am not absolutely sure who is being referred to when the ‘handful of people’ is talked about. And I am not sure what the time period is being talked about either. So I hope to cover what was said in response to the second letter.

Now for the second letter. What is being discussed in the first section of the letter is what has been aptly named “the problem of evil.” This goes along quite nicely with “the problem of pain.” Now you might have heard of these because they are slowly becoming well known topics. I’ll put it simply. Christians believe that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent (all good, all knowing, and all powerful). So simple reason would show us that:

1. If God is good, He would want to stop the suffering and evil in the world.
2. If God is all knowing, He would know how to do this.
3. And if God is all-powerful, He could do it.

With that ground, and the word “evil” being described as sin, pain, etc, I will now go into why this argument is not valid:

The Deductive Problem of Evil

This form of the problem of evil argument says that since God hates sin, God is all-good, and therefore it is logically impossible to assume that God could create something that had the ability to sin. Therefore, there is no God. So to look at each part of this problem, I will use Plantinga’s reply (he’s a well known philosopher…check out “Warranted Christian Belief”). First we examine the problem:

1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent
3. God is omniscient
4. God is omnibenevolent
5. God created the world
And
6. The world contains evil

The first question to ask is, “Where is the contradiction?” A contradiction is a proposition that conjoins two contradictory claims. From what is being said here, there is no contradiction, unless one wants to say that it is implicitly contradictory, not explicitly.

So we then tackle the question of God’s omnipotence. The first assumption that is made is that God can do anything. Though it sounds odd, this is not true. There are actually limits to God. “Ha,” you should all now be saying, “then God is NOT omnipotent!” This is, however, not true. There are two types of impossibilities: physical impossibilities and logical impossibilities. If one goes into the physical possibilities of a divine being, he or she will find themselves in a viscous circle of saying that God is omnipotent because He can do what He can do. Which tells us nothing (Thomas Aquinas). So we must then look at logical impossibilities. The things that God cannot do are pseudotasks. Like creating a square circle. No, God cannot create a square circle. God cannot create two mountains without a valley in-between them. These are logical impossibilities. And according to Aquinas, and other philosophers, a beings inability to perform a pseudotask does not count against its power. So it is better to say that a pseudotask cannot be done, rather than say that God cannot do a pseudotask.

Don’t worry…if you bare with me this is actually going somewhere.

Now the question of whether a good being would eliminate evil as far as it can. According to Ron Nash (well known philosopher), if I hit my thumb with a hammer, that causes pain, or evil (not spiritual evil, but evil under the original description). If I then amputate my arm, I will have no more throbbing in my thumb, but at what cost? At a much greater cost to good than necessary. This can be associated with God and his ability to take away sin. If God was to take away sin, he would have to take away free will. When God created man, man was given free will so he would not be a machine doing what the electrician programmed him to do. So would it not be logical to say that God might let some evils exist because the removal of those evils would allow a much greater evil to exist?

The common argument at this point is well spoken by Mackie (well known philosopher). He argues that God could create a world in which man can only choose to do what is morally good. Therefore, he is still ‘choosing’ to do good, and there is no evil since he cannot choose to do evil. Plantinga replies by showing that it is not possible to create a being with the ability to do moral good without also creating the ability to do moral evil. Example: Once light was created, it was inevitable that there would also be dark. Darkness is the opposite of light, so if light exists, darkness must also exist. In the same respect, you cannot have moral good without moral evil. They are two sides to the same coin. So if God wanted to give humans free will, He would have to create a world in which evil was possible.

Does this then answer the question of why would God create man if He is omniscient and knew that man would sin? Let’s simplify:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good
2. It was not without God’s power to create a world containing moral good without creating one containing moral evil
3. God created a world containing moral good
4. Therefore, God created a world containing moral evil
5. Therefore, evil exists

The Inductive Problem of Evil

Once philosophers stopped arguing that it was logically impossible for evil and a good God to exist, they moved on to the inductive problem of evil. William Rowe said, “There remains, however, what we may call the evidential form - as opposed to the logical form - of the problem of evil: the view that the variety and profusion of evil in our world, although perhaps not logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God, provides, nevertheless, rational support for atheism.” In other words, this is going from saying “Theism is logically false” to saying “it is probable that Theism is false.” The argument is much lessened.

The argument goes like this:

1. If God exists, then all evil has a justifying reason
2. But it is not the case that all evil has a justifying reason
3. Therefore, God does not exist

This is obviously a valid argument. But it is only valid if the premise is proved true. William Hasker (guess what? A well known philosopher) said, “God exercises…a meticulous providence – that is, a providence in which all events are carefully controlled and manipulated in such a way that no evils are permitted to occur except as they are necessary for the production of a greater good. The only gratuitous evils that could be allowed would be those already mentioned, consisting of the morally wrong choices of free beings and of the immediate consequences of those choices.” In other words, there is no such thing as evil that is not justified. Therefore the argument for the inductive problem of evil is invalid.
____________________________________________
You ask how any of us could possibly say that someone else is wrong in his or her belief system. How, with so many sects, religions, and belief systems, could one person say that he or she has the absolute answer? The end all. The truth. Sounds pretty ridiculous huh? I can explain very easily. With so many different beliefs, you have probably noticed a little bit of contradiction. So, let’s use some simple logic:

1. Christianity says it is the only true belief system
2. This is either true or false
3. If false, Christians are closed-minded and trusting in the wrong thing
4. If true, every other belief system is wrong, and those who do not follow Christianity suffer eternal consequences
____________________________________________
Whether Jesus Christ was real or not, and whether or not He did what the Bible says he did is a huge foundation in the Christian belief system. You said that what you heard about him being a liar, lunatic, etc was all founded in the Bible. I have also heard that argument and thought it very reasonable. BUT, like you said, it was purely from the Bible. So I will offer you these historically accepted men’s quotes, who you can look up yourself:

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120)

“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that price could bestow, nor all the atonement which would be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Tome also.”

Lucian of Samosata

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

These get long, so I won’t go much further. You can do further research yourself:

Suetonius- talks of Christians dying for their beliefs

Pliny the Younger- talks of religious ceremonies and beliefs of Christians

Mara Bar-Serapion- talks about God justly handing out punishments

The Talmud (which is even Jewish)- talks about the Passover, the crucifixion, etc

Josephus- talks about the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth, AND talks about Him appearing to His disciples after the third day in the tomb. This man is a non-Christian Jew, and he said that Jesus rose from the dead.

So, I believe that it is safe to say that Jesus did live, do miracles (or works of some kind), and was crucified. These men’s works are recognized as historically accurate. They talk about Jesus. And what they say is confirmed in the Bible. And I will also not go into the resurrection very thoroughly right now (although I could) because it would take forever. I’m sure you’ve heard all the possibilities. His body was stolen (but if so, then why would the apostles ALL die for their beliefs that Christ rose from the dead? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t die for something that I wasn’t 100% sure happened), there was mass hallucination (but only certain psychological types have hallucinations, and the crowds that would have seen Christ were not of one particular psychological type, therefore how could a huge crowd have a mass vision of the same thing happening?), He wasn’t really dead (but when he was stabbed in the side, blood and water came out, separately, which is scientific proof that he was dead). Etc. Etc. Etc. I’ll go into it later if you want.
___________________________________________
Ah yes, the Bible. True, if the Bible is not real, then we can toss Christianity into the garbage can. If it can be proved that anything in the Bible is not true, then hey, I’ll give up Christianity. But so far, that has not been done.

The books that were chosen for the Bible were tested for their canonicity. They were lined up with the canon to see if the book was written by a prophet of God. To see if the works talked about were confirmed in other places. Was it accepted by the people of God? Etc. Truths like whether or not books were written by prophets of God were cross-referenced with other writers who’s works were outside of the Bible. I can also go into the Talmud, the apocrypha, etc, but this could go on and on and in many circles. Once more, if you would like more justification, please ask and I will write specifically on this topic.

The Bible has never been proven historically wrong. Many other books contain historical landmarks, sites, cities, towns that cannot be found. But where the Bible talks about a city or historical landmark, even if it had not been found yet, it was right. Historians have used the Bible to find cities and civilizations. Everything about the historicity of the Bible is completely true, down to rulers names, types of money, positions of bodies of water, gravesites, and much more.

One of the best proofs is in the prophecies. Though other books claim to be holy, or inspired, or written by God’s workers, these books either change constantly, or have been proven wrong. Books like the Koran and the Book or Mormon and parts of the Veda say they are inspired, but those books do not contain predictive prophecy. The Bible, however, has thousands of predictions. Every single one of the predictions, up until this time, have come true. Even predictions thought of as crazy, insane, impossible, have come true. The only predictions that have not come true are the predictions that are of our future. The Bible has never been proven wrong on any front. If it ever was, Christianity would unravel. But from what historians, philosophers, and logicians can tell, it can’t be.
_________________________________________________
You asked me to look at man’s psychological need for religion. Especially from the brilliant minds of Freud and James. I am glad you brought up some non-Christian philosophers, because it is always good to get both sides of the story. Freud said, “These [religious beliefs], which are given out as teachings, are not precipitates of experience or end-results of thinking: they are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes. As we already know, the terrifying impressions of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father; and the recognition that this helplessness lasts throughout life made it necessary to cling to the existence of a father, but this time a more powerful one. Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the dangers of lie; the establishment of a moral world0order ensures the fulfillment of the demands of justice, which have so often remained unfulfilled in human civilization; and the prolongation of earthly existence in a future life provides the local and temporal framework in which these wish-fulfillments shall take place.”

In other words, man needs protection from his father when young. This feeling of needing protection carries over. So man creates “God” to fill the role of a more powerful father. Freud calls this “wish-fulfillment.” He calls believing in religion ‘infantile’ and says that he hopes mankind will some day rise out of the sad condition of having to use a crutch like God. This is much the same as Marx’s beliefs on religion. And Freud and Marx weren’t even the first brilliant thinkers to say that religion is a condition of the mind. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said it was from the corrupt culture. David Hume came up with a Freudian realization about religion before Freud did.

So what is being said? Theistic belief, so say Freud, Marx, Darwin, etc, is not warranted. Freud says that theistic belief is wishful thinking, and therefore expects us to completely disregard it since it is only wishful thinking. But this is, however, not true. I will not go into proving that Christianity is warranted, since this is already long and Plantinga spends over 150 pages on logically proving that belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus is warranted. However, like I have said before, if you would like to hear some of this I will go into details in another letter.
____________________________________________
One of the last things said was that you yourself cannot make the decision of what is ‘right’ for others. This begs the question of what is right? Is there such thing as absolute truth? Is there some kind of truth that is true for all people, in all places, at all times? Or is truth something that I can personally develop and mold? Can anyone tell me what truth is? I will argue that there is such thing as absolute truth, and will say that anyone can know the truth. The problem with moral relativism (what’s right for me is right for me and what’s right for you is right for you) is that nobody holds it 100%. I have never met anyone who believes this so firmly that they will not waver. Why? Because if someone holds this belief 100% I can rape their wife, or steal their car, or sexually exploit and then brutally murder their children…as long as it’s right for me. If I can make any kind of argument that something is right for me, then nobody could tell me otherwise. If I believe that murder is the best form of catharsis and that I cannot live peacefully without killing, then a true moral relativist will have to agree that I’m right in killing. So I will say that anyone can know the truth. It is just a matter of finding THE truth. If everyone is saying everyone else is wrong, they can’t all be right. If Christianity says that Jesus is the only way to go to Heaven, and Mormonism says it’s through good works, they CAN’T both be right. It is not possible. So in other words, there are beliefs that are not true. And just like before when we talked about there being light and dark, it’s the same here. If there are false beliefs, there are true beliefs. Two sides to the same coin.
___________________________________________
I truthfully do not expect this to drastically change anyone. I am not trying to shatter anyone's worldviews. I am merely asking the same thing asked in the second letter, "Please take a look at what you believe." I have. I know what I believe. I have done so much in depth research that I am sure of my beliefs. So no, I will not bash people's beliefs, but I will say that if they can look at the facts I have given, and then come up with some rebuttal that is logical, then I have done all I can to try and give an alternate point of view. Thanks for listening.

Sources are Alvin Plantinga and Ronald Nash (both have multiple books, you can find them online if you want to see where I got any info)

Just so y'all know, this 'contest' is underway. I have two e-mails so far, and will be writing up some of my own stuff as soon as I have a little bit of time. No names or e-mail addresses will be posted with the e-mails for a little anonymity. And no worries...I'm not planning on trying to personally attack anyone...just some theological, philosophical debate.