This is the March 2000 Update of this page.
Jan 4 1999
From: Marie Ilchuk
of: Tai Raj Arabians
Just found your page and find it well organized and well done. I have just finished reading "The Hiram Key" and think you would find it facinating how it pulls your work together! It's a good read for those thirsting for truth.
Continue the good work!
From: Paul Fields
Mar 18 1999
R., do you have any references on the Buddhist influence on early Christianity?
I don't necessarily subscribe to a belief that there was only one jesus, but, if there were, I would think there is some validity in statements that he spent his "lost" years in ancient India, Tibet, etc. where Buddhism was already well-established.
I love your site and visit it OFTEN!
Well, actually no. The early life of Jesus is obscured to history, and any attempts to describe it are pure speculation. As a studied Rabbi, and a spiritual seeker, he probably knew about Buddhism. In fact, if he was really God incarnate as a human, as some say, wouldn't he know about Everything, Buddhism included?
Anyway, thank you kindly for your letter...
From: JB
Date: April 5 1999
I know (or read from an orthodox site) that the Catholic Church split from
the Orthodox Church in Rome in 1054. We all know the atrocities the Roman
Catholic Church and the Reformation Churches did to people in the west, but
in your research have you found if the Orthodox Churches that grew seperately
from that of the west were involved in any tortures, etc. I've read your
sight and haven't found any thing on the Orthodox Churches. (my interest
being in the current Kosovo situation.) I enjoy learning about world and
religion history and your site seems to agree with the other works I have
read and I enjoyed reading it.
Thanks for any help.
p.s. Would then atrocities committed before 1054 be the Orthodox Churches
responsibility?
I'm not really up on Balkan history, but I would think that any fundamentalist atrocities are orthodox atrocities. "Ortho" is Greek for "straight," or "right," and "dox" is Greek for "thought." Orthodox Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, Jews, Baptists, or any others that commit atrocities are responsible for them, and especially unjustified when committed in the name of a faith based doctrine.
From: Michael Middleton
Date: April 6, 1999
I read and enjoyed your web page discussing Bible contradictions. I have recently been confronting my own frustration at the inability of people I know to think clearly about the Bible and Christianity. People about whom I care deeply, people with powerful and well-tempered minds, people who in any other field could spot a logical slip or internal contradiction in the blink of an eye... suddenly become vague and tautological when they address religion. It is as if their childhood exposure to dogma stunted their brains at that child-like level of sophistication. It is a weakness that is tightly localized to spirtual matters.
In confronting and discussing issues with these people, I have found that the gentler my rhetorical touch, the swifter my progress in opening their minds. With this in mind, I hope you will consider toning your own rhetoric down a touch. I'm not saying your page is inflammatory. It is, on the contrary, very well-reasoned and rationally centrist. However, you are so clearly sure of your feelings on the issue, that there is an underlying current of contempt for christians and Christianity. (e.g. Creationism = Cretinism).
I admire your zeal in defense of truth, but for Christians ideas such as creationism are held so deeply (and reactionarily), that it is difficult to make progress with a zealous presentation of skepticism. These are people who have been taught their whole lives to think in terms of black and white, right and wrong, us and them. If you let them fall back on these simplistic subconcious structures (by making yourself seem too critical, too foreign, and too certain), they will see you as a member of the other camp, and will glory in the self-righteousness of standing fast against ANY utterance from your "pagan" lips. Although this is a great way to make Christians look foolish, it results in no progress, and so is a defeat for rationalism.
In sum, although I strongly agree with your page, I think (if you'll pardon the cliche), you can draw more flies with honey than with vinegar. For example, understand that when a person asks that you read the Bible with an open mind, they are not (intentionally) asking that you read it with your brain off (as you have suggested). Instead, they think you are putting a barrier between yourself and something wonderful (the comfort/self-righteousness they experience from belief in Christ). Their intentions, generally, are very good, and to imply otherwise will alienate them.
In your essay you write: "They claim it is 'compassion' that drives them to proselytize; but it is not. Nagging doubt presses them to convert others, for when others fall in line, the Christian mythos gets another 'yes' vote, so it must be right." Imagine for a moment that you are a Christian who genuinely believes that faith in Jesus will make people happier. healthier, more fulfilled, and will reward them with an eternal paradise. If you were compassionate, you would want to share this gift. I suspect that there are many Christians who fall into this group. Your unwillingness to account for this group might be counterproductive. Every person who either thinks this way, or knows someone who seems to, will see your statement as mere invective and will turn off to the message.
Similarly, your certainty can be off-putting. It encourages your readers to cling just as strongly to their own erroneous certainty. Allow for doubt and possibility in your writing, and they will begin to allow for it as well. If you provide middle ground, they will be more likely to cross over to it (e.g.... don't dismiss creationism, simply point out that all current evidence is to the contrary... don't say God didn't create the world, merely that if he did, it was almost certainly by means of the Big Bang... that the Bible holds truth about the Beginning, but not the TRUTH about it). If you allow for some of their beliefs, it will encourage them to do the same for you. Over time, the net result of these interactions will be their gradual conversion. It seems like a long path for a simple journey, but if it is the only way to get them moving, then it is the best alternative.
Imagine two anchored ships: if you lift your own anchor, perhaps they will do the same... then the winds of reason can do their work.
I do appreciate your implied distinction between Christians and Fundamentalists. Although the distinction isn't nearly as clear as many "mainstream" Christians would like to pretend, I have found it a profoundly useful rhetorical device. Attacking fundamentalists allows one to point out the flaws and absurdities of Christianity, but in a way that invites unbiased consideration by the vast majority of believers. Since they do not indentify with the extremists, they don't immediately put up their "faith shield" to keep out troubling thought provocation. Then, they slowly see their own flaws in a new light.
Thanks for listening.
Thanks. Yes, I will rant. Can't help it, I'm used to succinct writing, and find it difficult to beat around the bush... I'm too busy to go back now and recast all those sentences; you've said it for me. Of course I agree with you. Hence my reference to Santayana. Christianity is wonderful; fundamentalist meddling is abhorrent.
From: Chris, in England
Date: April 10, 1999
Good day.
I am currently studying Jaques Derrida and deconstruction, and I am confused. I have to write a paper on the following quote:
"There is no doubt that Derridean deconstruction was a political project from the outset, or that Jaques Derrida himself, in some suitably indeterminate sense, has always been a man of the left" (Terry Eagleton)
I have read Specters of Marx, and the excellent internet fanzine Foreign Body, yet to my shame I am still unable to understand the concept of politicising deconstruction. I was wondering if you could offer any help.
Any information whatsoever would be appreciated very much.
Thank you in advance.
Yours faithfully
Chris Wightman
England
Gads! I suppose what Eagleton means is that deconstructionism is a political effort to avoid responsibility, a supposedly leftist trope. By reducing language to meaningless grunts, and saying that nothing means anything, deconstructionists try to justify whatever unorthodox behavior they might like to engage in. The deconstructionists are not the true leftists, though, they're just poseurs. True leftist are un-apologetic; Ralph Nader, for example, is quite articulate, wouldn't you say?
From: Alacrite
Date: 4/11/99
Merry Meet Randl,
In a word..."thanx".
@>----@>----> )O( <----<@----<@
Blessings of Light and Laughter,
Alacrite' Triskele Namaste! Shalom! Mille Graci!
From: Unknown
Date: 4/11/99
You've got one HELL of a site here, I commend you for all and I do mean all it's contents from the most excellent graphics to the fundies and back again. Much food for thought and much ammo for those of us who are tired of people trying to save our souls yet cant look within their own! -----
From: Richard & Janet
Date: 4/12/99
I admit, I may have only skimmed you web page and not completely understood it all, but I do have a few questions and comments that I do not believe were included in it. First of all, I was not sure, but assume you do not believe in the writings of the bible, or any religion for that matter. In this case, where do you expect to go after death? I, among others, rely on my faith to explain the unexplainable, such as life after death and/or the infinite time in which we must deal with. Another unexplained is how things came to be as they are. Some say the earth, universe etc. have always been here, what is always? I agree that the beginning of God cannot be explained either, but who are we to question God. This is the kind of opinion that keeps people from looking into the things you have so painstakingly researched.
I condemn people for their sins and my reason for this is often the bible, which is usually somewhat hypocritical of me, but, I do it anyway. I would condemn these people even if the bible did not say these things. I only refer to the bible when it coincides with my personal beliefs. I believe this makes me a bad christian, but I see you condone this or similar attitudes, that is where I disagree with you. I realize my ideas have been organized poorly and are hard to understand, but I hope I gave you something to ponder. Duane Bergum Winifred Montana
We all find our own way, and no matter what you choose, you can never really know, not if you're honest with yourself. Uncertainty is our lot as matter-beings - contentment is a choice in the face of chaos.
From: unknown
Date: 4/13/99
I'm was pleased to read the writings of another sane individual. Congratulations for taking the time to list some of the many fundamental contradictions in The Bible.
An aspect of the origins of Christianity which is frequently overlooked is the importance of the 'Essene' movement at Qumran and it's marriage rules and traditions. Reading the gospels in context they do not describe the son of God. Any noble Jew was considered a 'son of God'.
The new testament desribes a descendant of King David. It also (despite editing of the specific words) describes Mary Magdalene as Jesus wife, not a whore. It even uses veiled language to tell of the descendants of Jesus via Mary Magdalene. A tradition which the early Catholic church fought hard to crush in Europe of the first millenia.
Anyway, enough ranting...( if you want to know more of these angles of inquiry, email me for book titles/scholars.)
Keep it up!
From: James Hatch
Date: 4/15/99
Just read (portions of it anyway) your article. I was looking for a web page on Pat Robertson but instead found the page of a grown adult still looking to make sense out of those unwisely spent years in the confines of middle class church.
How did you link up to the republican sight anyway? As for your knowledge of the Bible, it is far more superior than mine. But much like a student of music that is able to duplicate notes from a piece, yet fails to understand the notes as a whole, as a theme, you too miss the point. (What point you ask?) I don't know of anything that cannot be criticized; I doubt that you are aware of anything enjoying such immunity either. Not all outcasts have a voice, and the ones that do are rarely heard. (I'm sure you disagree). You are a reactionary to the church, to Mi'l America Christians. A point of reality: The mainstream no longer cares. Your battle, whether won or lost, is trivial in the scheme of things. But you actually lose both ways. One, if you do win and the arena remains only you and the Christians, or lose for that matter, the ripples are never felt. Two, your scholarly knowledge takes a backseat to any athiest in academia. So on both accounts it is a no-win situation for you.
Subject: Television
From: Bob
Date: 4/16/99
Thank you for your excellent article. I remember walking along the street some while ago, glancing at the flickering TV screens in peoples houses - for a moment it seemed that the TV had enchanted everone in the street. It somehow semed to DEMAND attention. Since our attention is easily distracted, the TV is the perfect vehicle for trapping the attention, because as you point out, the images are constantly changing. As a meditator, I know that my own attention is weak, but it is possible to strengthen it using various exercises. Generally speaking however, people do not want to use their own WILL to help their attention, TV watchers have become the object of someone elses will, not their own.
Bob
Subject: I'm in awe
From: Indie Lover
Date: 19 APR 2000
Dear Brilliant One,
I stumbled onto your site, and I am intrigued with the detail and accuracy of your art. Are you familiar with the Illuminati? I was raised Mormon, and was married in the temple (since divorced), and some of your art is very similar to what I experienced there. I am fascinated with the pagan religion, because of the intricacies that interconnect Christianity as we know it, and the Occult. The internet can be a scary, yet wonderful place for those of us that go deeper than the surface level. I would very much like to correspond with you, if you ever have the time.
Peace.
It's all interconnected!
From: T4XX
Date: 22 April 99
Your bitterness toward Christians, and stretching of facts make your sight laughable.
Bob Taylor
Yuk Yuk.
From: unknown
Date: 25 Apr 99
absolutely brilliant and fascinating! power to the people!
From: unknown
Date: 26 Apr 99
I agree with much of what you are talking about. I believe Christianity to be nothing more than another First Century Hellenistic Mystery Religion that has become a cash-cow for free enterprise commercialism; and a good way for government to control the masses (much like Socrates says about religion.) Christianity is the popular religion of the masses and government. -----
EXACTLY! Popular is the key word, like McDonald's hamburgers - lots of people like it, because they're joiners, holding up the edge of the bell curve...
From: David
Date: 4/27/99
Hmmm annonymous email...just a note to tell you that i find your site continously fascinating, interesting, and challenging. The amount of time, effort, research and creativity is staggering. I find it refreshing, thought provoking, etc. I have been visiting off and on for a couple years now, reading some parts, enjoying your artworks, and reading the essays. Just finished reading some of the posted emails on biblical contradictions, fascinating. I wonder how anyone can not see a contradiction between the sermon on the mount and the philosophy of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. (to be far too simplistic)
One of the main "contradictions" which i enjoy throwing in the face of fundamentalists.....is that throughout the first three books of the NT, jesus refers to himself as "the son of man" which may be interpreted as a shorthand for the society of friends belief that "there is that of god in thou". And it is only in the gospel according to john (the newest of the gospels, with more than likely three authors) that jesus is quoted as referring to himself as the son of god.
I remember as a child, being at my grandfather's home (himself a very prominent local minister) and one of the earliest signatories of a petition seeking to end the war in Vietnam, being challenged by a neighbor as unamerican, and his replying that killing is antithetical to the teachings of christ. He however also took the almost unheard of position of being a pacifist through WWII, being opposed to warfare and violence. Anyway, these are just a few ramblings from someone who has thoroughly enjoyed your website over the years.
Thanks mucho!
From: Gregory
Date: 13 May 99
I thought I liked your arguments until I read until at the end I found the quote from Homer J. Simpson. That settles it... a completely brilliant page! I come from fundamentalists on both sides of my family, so your page is a breath of fresh air.
Thanks! Your letter is also a breath of fresh air, after some of the fire-breathing dragons that write............
Subject: Thank you very very much!
From: Receptionist
Date: 21 May 99
I'm a receptionist and finding this site means I don't have to quit my job on account of boredom.
Thanks! Read on:
From: Jase
Date: 22 May 99
Your site is the stickiest thing I've ever found on the web - I just can't seem to leave it! Thanks a million!
From: Jase
Date: 22 May 99
My viewpoints closely mirror yours and I need help with something. I've
heard a quote from the Bible more than once and I want to get it down as my
favorite niece has become a religious zealot but is much more educated now,
through me, because of people like you.
The quote was something along the lines of...Do not use only the Bible for
your religious education. Read many teachings and follow your heart.
If this rings a bell, please assist me. I'd like to take the time and
discuss thus and many other issues but I know you are overwhelmed with
E-mails.
THANKYOU!!!
Sincerely,
-John Joseph Koons
There are many searchable Bibles on the web, just search for
"bible online searchable" - they are quite useful. Let me know what you find!
(You're right about the email)
I've got 400 to go -
From: Steve Trout
Subject: Thanks
Date: 28 May 99
Won't take up your time other than to say you have put up a very valuable site. Just this morning I've used it to rebut a fundamentalist who claimed there were no contradictions in the Bible and a Republican who thinks the American family is falling apart solely through a lack of Christian values.
Thanks for the ray of sanity. Steve Trout
From: Unknown
Subject: 1 Jun 99
Date:
The piece on Saul of Tarsus was indeed fascinating, how Mithraism had an influence on early Christianity--if not in actual practice, certainly in the cultic language Paul used. However, Paul's letters to the Hebrews really was a letter to them--HEBREWS, to Jews, to explain Christ's -sacrifice- in light of their own ancient traditions very clearly outlined in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The cultic practices of the Israelites included much sacrifice of animals. Paul elucidates, expands, explains those traditions as being fulfilled finally in the ultimate human sacrifice of Christ to atone for sins.
I am not saying that Pauline theology negates the validity of Mithraism, or that the ancient Hebrew practices might have been the only reference he was using in his preaching content. But he was addressing them about their own past heritage and its fulfillment.
To me, though, the interesting thing about Mithraism is that it is another example of a mythic form / archetype among people to explain their need for such an atonement. That the practice/ belief is a universal theme in all religions seems, doesn't it, to confirm our need in such a cultic process. The Hebrews knew it, the Mithraists knew it, the Dionysians knew it, the Christians knew it. I'm just saying I find it interesting that Paul drew on two different sources to explain one single mythic, archetypal past.
From: BC
Subject: You should take your comedy...
I've read as much as my stomach can handle. Whatever your reasons, what you are propagating as your belief makes as much sense as Bill Clinton defending marital fidelity. To me, it seems as though common sense has been replaced by your enormous ego.
You can have your beliefs. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of the Christian Faith, then do so. But, please, have the integrity to check out your source material before you post your objections to Christianity. The one about Paul and Mithras was so far off base that is wasn't even good fiction.
At least now I know where Carmen got some of his insanity from.
Maranatha!
Bill Cormier
Christian suppression of it's own sources and of things the church can't grasp intellectually hides details about the "mystery" religions that are sadly lost, but what we do know, and what you see in these pages, is all well documented.
From: Roland
Subject: Noah Meets Voltaire
Date: 2 Jun 99
I agree
as Voltaire said, "those who can be made to believe in absurdities can also be made to commit attrocities."
take the story of noah's ark, for example: its the classic paranoid right wing fantasy. Noah believes that God has come down from heaven and told him that he and his family are the only righteous people left in the world, and therefore they will be charged with continuing Gods work after he has genocided all the rest of creation in a flood. the only thing missing in the ark is a stockpile of guns and nukes and an American flag.
here's my point: ask the following question to a christian: "if you were in the same situation as noah, would you faithfully and obediantly go along with God's genocidal plan to kill everyone else on earth? would you accept without any doubt that you (and your religion / cult / family / etc) were, as god said, the only people left who were worthy of existence?"
considering the power of the spiritual drive in humans, one can easily see the danger of these deep rooted christian assumptions about morality and the world. in answering the above question, a Christian would be torn between disobeying God and participating in the most horrifying act of megalomaniacal destruction imaginable. I suspect that most christians would be bothered by this question, and fumble around with some kind of rationalization in the interest of quickly avoiding the subject. Only a minority (the fundamentalist types) would dutifully obey God and aid him in his genocide without question. but herein lies the problem. In just focusing on the fundamentalists, one forgets that it is not fundamentalism that is the real problem. there will always be fundamentalist-type thinkers. indeed, the real problem is the reality model itself. And as for the majority of christians who try to avoid the "noah question", they, in the end, are just as dangerous as the fundamentalists because they end up supporting these values through appologetics and quiet deferal to the fundamentalists.
so remember that moderate christians are just as much to blame for their archaic and moronic reality model. Unfortunately, I wont live long enough to see christianity die out-- that is unless Noah is armed with nukes this time.
Roland
Some of my "Noah questions" are these: why didn't the lions eat the lambs? how did they feed all of those millions of animals for 40 days? what about the fresh/salt water fish thing? Why did we keep cockroaches, and killer bees?
From: Cameron
Date: 3 Jun 99
this is a GREAT site . . . lots of very impressive research! Bravo! I really enjoyed visiting.
From: John T Morgan
Subject: thoughts
Date: 5 Jun 99
Hey, reading your cool site. Two comments. One would be to add the Society of Friends (Quakers) to your list of religions (christian sects?) that generally teach that members of other religions aren't going to hell (of course, we have our extremists too, but that's our mainstream thinking.) We feel (at least I have always heard church members talk this way) that whatever "speaks to the condition" of a person is what they should follow.
Keep up the good work!
From: Glenn Stewart
Subject: question everything!
Date: 7 Jun 99
I think it's funny that people are offended by this site. Open your minds people! You think that what was handed you in Sunday school is the only side of the story? That's a much more far-fetched notion than the idea that the pope might've been banging somebody on the side.
This site is a lot of fun, and it just might open up a tiny crack in some of the closed minds out there. Don't believe anything you read anywhere, even these words!! Keep gathering information, keep your mind open, and remember that we're all in this together, whatever it is.
Namaste,
Glenn S.
You're so right! Thanks!
From: Josh
Subject: Intolerance of Ignorance
Date: June 8, 1999
At first I was taken aback by your page, because I was raised in a Christian upbringing and certain mental pressures rise when you see what you once believed contradicted. But, I saw the good and the truth that you are trying to convey, and it is nescassary sometimes to have a force of intolerance for those things that are corrupting your nature, such as ignorance. I think once upon a time I was in a fundamental mind frame, unquestioning and untainted in my strict belief, but I think this fundamental belief system is one that is spawned either of ignorance of other beliefs and thought systems, or the cold hard selfishness of ethnocentricity in which "My beliefs are right, and yours are wrong." I myself see the mystical side of all religions after reading such great books as Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy" and works by Huston Smith, as well as a whole spectrum of others east and west. And what I have found is that most religions are started on and contain in their essense a noble truth that is corrupted and clouded by the selfish and intolerant views of exoteric fundamentalism. Christianity I think has seen the worst of this aside from Islam. But all cultures hold their fundamental views, instead of embracing truth they embrace their traditions. I am not downgrading tradition to say the least, but I am pointing out that the truth or essense should be seen in all contexts, whether that be Zen, Islam, Christianity, or quantum physics, and the traditions and mythology should be seen just as what they are representations of that truth. For people take the word myth out of context, a myth has become a synonym for a false fairy tale that has no basis in truth, when myth (like in a Jungian sense) is the best representation of that which cannot be portrayed or explained. All myths are representations of what Eckhart labeled the Ground of Being, or what Buddhists name the Void, or the Hindus Atman-Brahman. It is the essense of all things, yet no one thing can describe it. But, unfortunately fundamentalism takes the representation of the truth, to actually be the truth. And since varied cultures have different representations of this truth and different avatars and sages that spoke of it's essence, we get these narrow cultural differences turned into iron curtains of ethnocentricity and selfcentric views. A whole undivided world turned into black and white, us and them, me and you. Fundamentalism feeds off ignorance and corrupts minds to what you called a "concrete" condition, set and unchanged, and present a quagmire to minds that struggle for the answers of daily life. And since this is taken to extreme, we see to an extreme those views that fight against it, the harder you try to keep something down the more and more violent it will become to try and escape the suffocation of forced belief. So intolerance for ignorance is one thing, but bringing intolerance to other levels such as intolerance of culture and ethnic background is what is corrupting us as a whole. But also we should not generalize and stereotype if we indeed are open minded. Just because someone is a Christian does not mean that they are a fundamentalist close minded sheep that crush down other's views of truth, just as someone who practices magick isn't always (except by those dogmatic types) a satan worshiping freak that listens to heavy metal and drinks blood . Every group has it's extremes, but most overgeneralize these extremes to fit the whole group, this is dogmatism and it strengthens the boundaries between us as a whole. Well, sorry to rant and rave as you say, but I simply like to show appreciation for a sight that is not bound by dogma and ignorance, and to continue your quest for truth whatever path it may lead.
Wow! Thanks!
From: Jay
Subject: some excellent contradictons
Date: 14 Jun 99
While I believe and love the Bible, I'm aware of its sometimes contadictory nature, part of which I ascribe to poor translation.
Some of the best 'contradictions' I didn't see in your page, maybe they're there, I looked through it in about 5 mins and didn't see them. They are: Paul's vision (Acts 9, Acts 22) - in one version, he said, people with him saw the light and were afraid but didn't hear a voice; in the other version, they heard a voice but saw no man.
Judas' Death: In one version, he cast the 30 pieces of silver in the temple, went and hanged himself; in the other he purchased a field with the 'reward of his iniqity' and 'burst asunder in the midst' and 'his bowels gushed out.'
While these aren't really doctrinal, I think they shed light on the unfortunate information degradation which happens when something is re-re-retranslated...
regards,
Jay Jordan
Yes! The contradictions give us something to chew on, to wrestle with (like Jacob and the angel); they also prove that destructive, small minded literalists haven't got a leg to stand on.
The Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians
Mother Earth on the Chopping Block
Look into the eyes of the advertising demon!
Pat Buchanan: Pit Bull in Wolf's clothing
External Link:
The Hidden Jesus
maximum email size 300 words - thanks