A Firefighter from San Antonio, TX

Home

A Point-Counterpoint Dialogue

Comment

Dear Mr. Casanova, 

First, thank you for taking the time to write to me and to share your thoughts. I really enjoy talking with people from different fire departments around the world since, regardless of all our differences, we always share a close-knit familiarity in our experiences and concerns; it's almost a language in and of itself that would be easily understood if you were to walk into just about any firehouse in the world, regardless of whether you spoke the language or not.  Indeed, I can think of few other professions where diversity works so well as in the fire service (usually). Even when the relationship between two firefighters is strained or even hateful those differences are dropped when the alarm bell goes off, and each would risk his/her life to save the other if the situation necessitated it. What I'm saying is, we are all good people who, by the very nature of the profession we chose, show that we care about people and genuinely want to help others. 

[Note: Mr. Casanova's comments appear exactly as they were written by him.] 

ROY CASANOVA (SAFD, San Antonio, TX): 
Dear Brother John [Shumaker],  This is for Bruce and any and all that may be interested in my response to Bruce's sad confession. 

BRUCE MONSON (CSFD, Colorado Springs, CO): 
What you call "sad" is what I would call "thought-provoking." It's interesting that all of the Christians who have responded to my essay have done so with the false assumption that I am somehow living in agony over the death of children, when in fact I am not.  Yes, such events are heart-breaking, painful, and frustrating (because they are almost always preventable), but I am not shaking my fist at some invisible god in the sky spouting "why?!, why?!, why?!" Indeed, it is my position that I deal with such things much better than does someone who attributes such tragedies to the divine hand of a personal deity. 

I will get into this a bit more later, when you begin relating your personal testimonials as evidence for the existence of Jesus and how such tragic events are really just the higher works of Jesus in a capacity beyond our understanding. As I will further expound upon, such testimonials and wishful thinking are what truly makes such things "sad" (actually "sadistic" is a better term) and, paradoxically for the Christian, make their beloved "savior" the source of evil in the world and therefore directly responsible for such tragic and senseless deaths of the innocent. Again, more on this later. 

My Own Religious History

Before we progress further, I think I should give you a little background on my religious history:  I grew up as a Kansas country-boy in a strict conservative family; I was baptized as an infant; I went to church regularly; I was "saved" right in my own living room by a Baptist minister whom my father invited in; my parents sent me to "Bible camp" in the summer; I regularly read from the Scofield KJV Bible my mother gave me (the same one her mother had given her as a child)--well, I should say I read NT material regularly since Christianity tends to avoid the OT, save for pick-and-choose passages that support their cause (I later discovered why that is); I always said my prayers and I thanked Jesus for just about everything. I never left the house without putting my cross on, and if those WWJD bracelets had been going around at that time, you could bet I would have been wearing one. 

I believed that I was part of some special group in the world that had a lock on the "one true religion" and that anyone who didn't accept Jesus would suffer in Hell. It's interesting, however, that even as a child I had the good sense, or moral fortitude, to feel bad about those "millions of lost souls" in foreign countries who "have not been saved", as I remember being told from the pulpits (always pushing for more missionaries...); I felt bad not so much because they were not "saved" (although I did feel bad about that), but because it bothered me that a loving God would send people to suffer in Hell if they died without being saved (pretty intuitive thinking for a 10-year old).  For years, however, I bought the stock answer afforded me from the church, that "some time in their [the unsaved millions] lives, they would be given the 'opportunity' to know and accept Jesus as their personal savior and they would only go to Hell if they rejected it."; and "those children who die without having the chance to accept Jesus for themselves are taken up to heaven automatically" (sort of a catch-all implied consent theme, although, according to the NT, children are not exempt from the fires of Hell because so-called Original Sin is with them from birth, or even from conception for many sects).

For a time in my life I would happily "inform" people of the "truth of Jesus"
and the consequences awaiting them if they failed to accept it. My goodness, what arrogance! I had no idea at the time just how intolerant this position was, and what a cruel message it was for adults to instill in the mind of a child. Worse, I was horribly ignorant of the fact that there were thousands of religions in the world, and that many of them were thousands of years older than mine. I also didn't know that there were other religions that threatened me with Hell-fire if I failed to accept their truth! My belief in, and fear of, "Hell" was so strong that this knowledge would have terrified me. It's funny and ironic how Christians find those "other religions" to be mean-spirited and evil--spawns of Satan--but don't see why people in those religions should view the "believe, or else!" theology of Christianity in the same light!  O' what a tangled web we weave... 

I remained a very devout "True Christian" (because my sect was the "true one," of course) up until my mid-teens when, in high school, I began to read and learn about things I was never taught in Sunday school (and for good reason!); things like Greco-Roman mythology (btw, if you haven't read Homer's classics the Iliad and the Odyssey, you should, they are brilliant works on par with Shakespeare) and the ancient Egyptians. I began noticing similarities in these ancient tales about their gods and heroes that were strikingly, I should say disturbingly, similar to those characters I had read about in the Bible, people like Noah, Moses, Samson, Jonah, Jesus and so many others. This was all so troubling because these ancient tales were much older than the biblical tales (by millennia in many cases), and yet they were presented to me as just "mythology," "fantasy," "folklore," "literature," "legend," while I was always told in church that the Bible stories were literally true historical events. What I had not realized, however, was that to those ancient cultures these stories were not viewed as mythology, it was their religion and the people who believed in those gods and heroes believed in them with just as much if not more devotion than I did in Jesus and my own modern religion of Christianity. This led to many other questions on my part which would take too long to explain here, but you get the idea. 

Around age seventeen I broke the knot of indoctrination, a move that caused me much trepidation at first (and something I kept a closely guarded secret for more than a decade), but one I have never regretted for a moment; quite to the contrary, in fact, it felt wonderful to realize I wasn't the "sinful," "unworthy," "wretch" I was always taught to believe I was from the pulpits. I no longer had to feel guilty for things I didn't do. 

ROY: 
Dear Bruce, 

I am sorry you have been attacked or abused by what you have identified as Christians responding to your issue. 

BRUCE: 
I am not the least bit hurt by such "attacks"; indeed, it only validates how
much Christians secretly doubt their own beliefs and the fear that that holds
over them. It is not a unique phenomenon by any means, however, since you will find the same mindset in people professing belief in hundreds of different religions extant in the world today. For example, I have had discussions with many a Muslim who will easily, indeed cheerfully, discuss the "false religions" of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., and display perfect logic in discounting the existence of all the ancient gods of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and Persia that created and ruled the universe for these respective cultures for thousands of years before Islam ever came on the scene. But no sooner does the focus turn to the Muslim's own religion than the critical thinking skills are turned-off and personal testimonials and rhetoric skills are engaged. To the Muslim, just as to the Christian, his religion is not only "the truth" but it is the "only truth" and anyone who fails to accept that truth (including Christians!) will "suffer the consequences" in a horrible place of eternal pain and suffering--the Muslim Hell. Consequently, the Muslim missionary is just "doing the will of Allah" in proselytizing the "truth of Islam" to the world--he's "doing you a favor" out of concern for your future in the afterlife. 

ROY: 
Why not a little miracle. Man, have I been there. I am a 25 year veteran of
fire fighting and paramedic business in San Antonio Texas. A city of over
million people. 48 fire stations. Worse yet, I am a second generation fire
fighter like my father before me. I was fortunate in my youth I did not go to
Vietnam. Maybe you missed that too. 

BRUCE: 
I have been with the CSFD for ten years and have been in the fire/medical
services for thirteen years. I am a first generation firefighter and love it with a passion. Having just turned 34, I was a bit young for Vietnam (thankfully), but my father was there. 

ROY: 
In my career suicide, death of every kind you can image. Suicide is the worse. Almost all young in their teens. I have been there for 37 over 25 years. That's one man in 1200 with three shifts, 37 suicides. 

BRUCE: 
I don't keep count on such things, but seeing two suicides in the course of a year is fairly typical, depending on what station you're at. I know I have ran on at least 15 during my career thus far, including two last year; a man in his 50's and a girl in her early 20's. It's interesting that the girl was wearing a crucifix around her neck and there was a Bible on the floor beside her. I can't say whether or not she had been reading it prior to shooting herself, but there it was all the same. She also left behind a 4-year-old boy. Tragic. Where was Jesus for her? Yes, of course, this is all just part of "God's master plan"; a "higher good" that we simple-minded humans just cannot fathom, right? I wonder if her little boy would agree? Oh, yeah, what of this young woman's suicide? According to Christian doctrine the act of suicide is act worse than murder and will result in that person going to Hell (note: this has been the case at least since the 4th century, when a problem developed where people started committing suicide in order to leave this cruel world and get on with the new life in heaven). If so, then how could Jesus just sit by and allow this young mother to take not only this life but her afterlife as well? 

Note: Please remember that my references to Jesus here are directed at your belief in Jesus (with "your" being used generically for all Christians), not my own. I no longer believe in him or any other personal deity so I don't actually question why he cannot prevent such "tragedies" from occurring or why he cannot resurrect people from the dead. 

ROY: 
I have cried like a baby in my wife's arms and at the alter of my church. I hug my family more than most they say. Maybe that's why. 

BRUCE: 
Yeah, I have cried too over the senseless, preventable, death of children. I
also hug my family "more than most"; my wife is Polynesian-Japanese, born and raised in Hawaii, so hugging, affection and close-knit families are the norm rather than the exception (not that this means other families are any less loving than mine). In fact, were I to invite you and your family into my home to meet my family (and I would), my wife would hug you and kiss your cheek, and so would my 3 year-old daughter. Also, for my daughter, you would immediately become "Uncle Roy" and your wife would be "Auntie [your wife's name]".  My home is joyous & loving and when I'm off duty I'm with my daughter all day and all night. I hug her at least 30 times per day.  The point is that "good" people tend to be "good" simply because that's the way they are and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what religion they profess to (if any at all).   

Something I do not do is agonize at the alter of a church or anywhere else. There was a time that I did such things, however, like in High School when my best friend was accidentally killed in a gruesome chainsaw accident. His little brother found him dead in the woods. Even more disturbing was that about a year before this tragic event, this family's house burned to the ground and they lost everything. And this is a family that was deeply Christian and went to church regularly. Where was Jesus for them?  Are they better off today without their son?  Even today when I visit my own family in Kansas I will always take time to visit this family, and each time I do I see the unspoken pain in their eyes, even after all these years. 

I contemplated these events for a long time and often asked Jesus "why?"  I would try to make sense of it, but when you have it in your head that such things happen at the predestined direction of some higher power you are left in a position to forever wonder what that reason was; as such, you can never obtain closure and move on, you're always forced back on the same tired cop-out response: "it's just part of God's higher good..."  Yeah, right! 

This is a completely unsatisfying (and unhealthy) position where you're always waiting for the other shoe to drop. But once you realize there was no "divine master plan" behind such events you can finally come to grips with reality; that death is just the natural end to life and that the law of averages guarantees that freak accidents and premature deaths are going to happen, and do happen, on a daily and quite unbiased basis in society. You have no idea of what a relief it was for me to realize this. While such tragedies are heart-breaking and you feel for the family, it is grotesque to assign some special significance to the event in order to justify it with a "higher purpose." 

But as my Personal Appeal to Jesus states, all it would take for me to believe again is for just one single child to be resurrected from the dead, just one. 

ROY: 
One shift I would like to share with you in a 24-hours of my life. Just
afternoon we found ourselves making a 8 month old baby trouble breathing.  Trouble was not the word. No breathing was more like it. I did all I could and so did my partner, but the baby gave his last breath up as I held in my arms. 8-hours later a 94 year old man on his way out to shop with some ladies of similar life experience found himself falling on the sidewalk. I cradled him in my arms as his last breath left him. No good reason, just his time was up. 

BRUCE: 
I have never had an 8-month old die on me, but I have had two young children die of asthma attacks, and my worst call was being first in the door on an 18-month old that hung himself in a Venetian-blind cord right in his own crib after his mother laid him down for his afternoon nap. The hysterical mother pushed the boy into my arms and started screaming for us to "save him!" We worked this little boy for probably 40 minutes in the field and another 20-30 minutes in the Emergency Room, but it was too late. It was horrible.  Was it also "just his time", Roy?  Notice that Jesus did nothing!

Christians are fond of telling others about how they have "felt the Holy Spirit in their hearts," and how "it moves them"; how Jesus "inspired" them to do this or that, but Jesus didn't lift one divine finger to "inspire" this mother (who was in the next room) to go and check on her child:

"tap... tap... tap... this is Jesus... your child is strangling to death... go check on him."

That family was changed forever. And can you fathom the despairing guilt that mother must go through?  Even though it wasn't her fault, you will never convince her of that; she will forever blame herself for a death that was, after all, easily preventable. 

ROY: 
Next morning very early, police chace a motorcyclist till he runs into a pole.
He's body was broken in so many ways I lost count. But you know the routine. You got to work him. He was dyeing and knew it. He was screaming not to let him die. I believe I could see in his face as life left him, He could see where he was going, that's why he did not want to leave. He screamed his last breath clutching my arm. 

BRUCE: 
I'm going to interrupt here, Roy, and reply to the statement I underlined
above. Can you see the utter arrogance of this statement? Not only are you insinuating, without a shred of evidence, that there is a "Hell" but you
arbitrarily assign this person's fear of death to a fear of "where he was
going"! Are you suggesting that no "Christian" would ever do something foolish like trying to evade a police officer? Some eighty percent of Americans call themselves "Christians" in one form or another, so chances are this man was a "Christian" as well. So maybe in his dying moments he discovered, to his horror, that Islam was the "one correct religion" and that he was now going to suffer for all eternity in the Muslim Hell. Or maybe he discovered that he had picked the wrong sect of Christianity and was going to Hell because of that (note: you are aware, are you not, that there are thousands of different and mutually exclusive sects of Christianity in the world and that many of these send each other to Hell?). Or maybe he discovered that "this life" is all there is and that his was about to end, shortened by his own stupidity, wasted. Or maybe he was just afraid to die; did you consider that? War annals are full of stories relating how young men, knowing they are about to die, regress to childhood states of comfort and call out to their "mommy!" 

Whatever the scenario, if you are just going to posit such things then I will
have to demand that you provide some evidence in support of that position. Mere assertion is not proof of anything; a point I hope I made evident above. 

ROY: 
Finally, later that morning. A call for a heart attack. An Elderly man found on the floor of his home. Standing over him quietly weeping was the wife of many years and a neighbor comforting her. It was obvious to late, but what caught my attention was the expression on the old man's face. A smile from ear to ear. So content was that smile it appeared to make his face glow. I later found out the man was a retired minister. Maybe he saw where he was going and was very happy. You think? 

BRUCE: 
Is this supposed to be evidence of the Christian heaven?  I have heard similar stories in Hindu and Muslim inspirational testimonials in support of
their "truth." Shall we deduce from these that the Hindu presenting with the
same "smile" at death has achieved Nirvana, the highest transcendent
consciousness, and will not suffer rebirth into this world?; or that the Muslim presenting with the same "smile" at death has gone on to his version of heaven and is now being pleased by 50 virgins? Or perhaps this old man's "smile" was due to a much simpler explanation, i.e., the loss of muscle tone after death, resulting in gravity pulling his cheeks back, thus mimicking a "smile"?  Or maybe his wife was the nag of the century and he was just thrilled to death (pun intended) to finally be rid of her?  I'm kidding, of course, but it gives you an idea of the extremes one can take such a claim as yours with no more evidence than you presented in support of the conclusion you want to be true. 

Do you see the problem, Roy? 

ROY: 
For me, God does not owe me anything. I owe him everything. You know the story.  He paid for your life and mine on the cross. for that fact, anyone willing to accept it as payment for our lives. Lives good or bad. Unconditional. 

BRUCE: 
Just because you buy into the propaganda you have been fed from the pulpits (probably for most of your life), don't presume that that gives you the right to lump me or anyone else in with those theological constructs. Exactly what evidence do you have for the extraordinary claim that someone (or something) died on a cross for our "sins"? Just because you believe it doesn't make it so. The Judeo-Christian Bible has no more power over me than you would say the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Confucian Analects or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Tao-Te Ching, or the Dhammapada, or the Zend Avesta, or the Karma-Granthas have over you, and yet these and many other "holy texts" are considered "divinely inspired" from their respective entities or "God(s)." 

So why is it that you feel your religious texts must be bowed-down-to and accepted by everyone on the planet without question, but you do not feel that you are under any obligation to follow the divine teachings of all the other religious texts from other religions, many of which are hundreds even thousands of years older than your own? Is that open-minded? Have you ever even read any of these other "Bibles"?  Just because you choose to project a status of supremacy upon just the literature that made it into the Judeo-Christian Bible (but not all the apocryphal works, evidently) does NOTHING to make it any more valid, or special, or divine, than any other literature of the ancient world. You cannot produce one shred of evidence that even one word of the Bible is "divinely inspired" or the "Word" of any god(s), let alone the "Word" your chosen God. If you think you can then by all means proceed. 

But, yes, Roy, I "know the story" all too well, and that's exactly what it is, a story, fictional characterization, embellishment. I also know, all too well, that none of the miraculous stories you read about in the gospels are unique to Christianity, no matter how much you might hope for them to be so; virtually all of them are just retreads of far more ancient stories that pervaded Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian and Hebrew mythology, and they were well known in first c. Palestine.  Beyond that, there are all sorts of problems with your position that you clearly have not considered: 

(1) What sort of evidence do you have that (a) demonstrates the existence of some personal god(s) watching over us (you); and (b) that your version of that god (i.e., Jesus) is the one true one? Why couldn't it be any other "god"? There are thousands of religions in the world and there are millions of people who follow those religions and make the identical claims of "truth" about their own god(s) as you do about yours. So what do you have to offer in the way of evidence that shows your god to be the one and only true god; and conversely, all other gods to be just the product of wishful thinking and active imaginations by superstitious people?

(2) Please define what is and is not a "sin" for me, Roy, and how this definition transcends time and the socio-political dynamics of different cultures. On the same note, why it is that Christians and Jews alike do not follow ALL the Commandments from "God" today; commandments that your "loving God" himself would order people to be "stoned to the death" for committing, like working on the Sabbath day, or creating graven images? 

(3) And if Jesus sacrificed himself as "payment" for our "sins" then wouldn't that mean He would actually have to go to Hell to suffer for all eternity in our place? What sort of "sacrifice" is it if he only has to spend a couple days in Hell and then gets to go back home to daddy in the posh comforts of heaven?  Christians tell people all the time that they are destined to suffer "for all eternity" in Hell if they don't "believe," so if that is our "payment" then that should also be Jesus' "payment" as a true sacrifice; if it's not then it's not really a sacrifice, now is it! 

(4) And why should we be punished for Adam's sin? After all, he ate from the
forbidden fruit, we didn't; it's his problem, not ours, especially in lieu of
Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20, which says that the children shall not
suffer (or be put to death) for the sins of their parents; only for their own
sins (or crimes) may persons suffer (or be put to death). 

(5) Who or what died on the cross? If your Jesus is "God," and the one-and-only God at that, then how could he have actually died?  If he was "God" and was dead then he couldn't very well have resurrected himself from that state, now could he? If he could then he wasn't really dead to begin with. 

A Special Place for Children?

ROY:
I believe in my heart, God has special place for those little ones that don't have a chance to make that choice, like you and I have.

BRUCE: 
This only demonstrates the point I make to Christians in my discussions with them; that they are better than their religion! That you feel a child is
somehow absolved of the horrific Christian tenet of Original Sin is just the
caring humanitarian inside you trying to get out. Unfortunately, your beloved Bible is not so kind. Let me state quite clearly that the New Testament does not give a definitive provision absolving children from the "lake of fire" Christians threaten nonbelievers with, simply because they are children. That would be undermining one of the best fear tactics Christianity has to offer. 

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it does absolve children, and that there is such a thing as Original Sin (because Eve and Adam ate from a piece of seedless fruit produced by a literal Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil growing in the center of a literal Garden of Eden), and that those like myself, and Mahatma Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama, and isolated tribal cultures in the jungles of South America, and millions of other good people, are going to "burn in hell" because we don't accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior...  

Now pay attention, Roy, because this is important: if this "loving God" of
yours, as you say, "has a special place for those little ones that don't have a
chance to make that choice [to believe]" then are you not playing with fire by even allowing your child, or any child, to live? If the ultimate goal is to
reach heaven "to be with Jesus for all eternity," and a child that dies
(regardless whether that child is being brought up as a Hindu, Buddhist,
Muslim, Bahai, or even <gasp> atheist) is automatically guaranteed a seat at the heavenly table, then shouldn't every child be killed at birth so as
to "save them" from themselves later on? 

Take me for example. As someone who used to believe (and was baptized and "saved") but now do not believe, shouldn't I have been killed at birth, thereby assuring my direct passage to heaven instead of the hell where Christians threaten me with now? For that matter, if your god is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, then wouldn't he have known all of this was going to happen in advance, from the beginning of time in fact? Wouldn't he know that I would go from a state of "belief and salvation" to this state of "disbelief and condemnation"? When creating me wouldn't he have reached into his cache of souls up in heaven, inserted one in me, and then placed me in my mother's womb here on Earth with the full knowledge that that "soul" would never be returning to heaven; rather it would be condemned to eternal pain and suffering in Hell? 

If these are all true (and remember that I no longer believe in such rhetorical scare tactics), what does that say about your god?  Can a "God" that would know such things in advance and yet allow it to occur really be considered loving, kind, compassionate and just? If these things are true, it isn't love and compassion we're talking about, it's sadomasochism at its ugliest. 

Roy, do you believe that Mahatma Gandhi is burning in Hell at this very moment?  Your religion says that he is. This man was one of the greatest humanitarians to ever walk the Earth and he preached religious tolerance and nonviolence with a passion. In fact, it was Gandhi (a Hindu) who most influenced Dr. Martin Luther King Jr in his famous speeches about civil rights. Conversely, is Adolf Hitler enjoying the benefits of heavenly bliss right now? Hitler was, after all, a devout Catholic who was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" by that church. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote, "I am completely convinced that I am acting as the agent of God. I am now a Catholic and will always remain so." Under Hitler, Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools, abortion was outlawed, and homosexuality was criminalized. Pretty much everything our Republican leaders are pushing for now. Are these the types of messages you would like your children and mine to learn about the world they inhabit; messages of intolerance and condemnation for those that do not adhere to your beliefs; messages that good people will be punished (for all eternity) and bad people rewarded (for all eternity)? 

A Closer Look at Original Sin

Original Sin is one of the best psychological fear tactics Christianity has for
propagating itself: it creates an invisible mythical disease and then seeks to
convince the masses that they are infected by this disease and that it must be treated immediately because the pathological consequences are "eternal pain and suffering in a lake of fire"! After this horrific prognosis is thoroughly drilled into your mind, and typically from a very young age (basically scaring the crap out of them), the "good Christians," because of their love, offer you the antidote to the disease they themselves created. But the catch is only they have the cure, no one else does. Nice, isn't it? 

You can convince people to buy anything if you first convince then that they need it. It's a time-honored marketing ploy, and it works. The old Mafia adage, "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse!" holds a lot of psychological power, but it has nothing to do with kindness, love and reward; no, the strongest emotion is, by far, fear, and that is what Christianity is primarily based on. 

You do not offer a "free gift of life from Jesus" because if it were "free" then one could either take it or leave it, but Christianity says that if you fail to take it then there is a penalty assessed against you--eternal pain and suffering in a lake of fire with no possibility of reprieve!  Isn't that nice? Such is the "love," "kindness," and "compassion" of your God...

Roy, suppose I, as a paramedic, were to walk up to a patient and inject her with some unknown green liquid, and then "inform" her that I had just "infected her with a deadly, painful, debilitating disease" (and I did it because I didn't like something her great-great-great-great grandfather did in the Civil War); and having done this I then hold up a different syringe in front of her and "inform" her that the liquid inside "is the only cure" for that deadly disease I just infected her with.  But she's in luck because I am a kind, compassionate paramedic who loves her and cares for her well-being, and the last thing in the world I want is for her to suffer and die.  Therefore, through the kindness of my heart, I inform her that I will give her the antidote. But before I do I demand she comply with one little condition; she has to bow down, kiss my feet, and tell me that she loves me, and that she owes me her life. Now, tell me, Roy, what kind of person would this make me for inflicting such psychological torture upon another person? I'll tell you what it would make me, a monster! 

ROY: 
Now for the miracle. Do you believe there was a cival war? But you were not there. History does record it. Written by man but it is recorded. Do you believe that George Washington had wood teeth. Did you see it? Well, it was recorded. 

BRUCE: 
Well, first, there is no real evidence that George Washington actually had "wooden teeth"; that is a myth built up around him because of his notorious dental problems. It fits right in with the Cherry tree ... I cannot not tell a lie... mythology surrounding him; it makes for a nice story but that's really all it is. (Note: isn't it interesting how quickly fables and myths get built-up around our favorite heroes, all along while their unsavory sides are forgotten?)

Second, the Civil War is extremely well documented with PHOTOS and historical commentary from BOTH North and South perspectives.  There are reports from politicians, from military officers, from military physicians, from infantry in their letters to home; responses from wives and family; from other people caught up in the events, like slaves and native American Indians; and even from the leaders of other world nations who dealt in the slave trade. The point is we are not basing the historicity of the Civil War on any single, biased, perspective. We are basing it on the preponderance of supporting evidence from multiple directions. For example, if all we had to go on was the writings of Southern land owners and slave traders giving a defense of their position and providing only their self-serving propaganda, we would not get a very accurate picture of this war. Furthermore, none of these accounts are presented as being written under "divine inspiration" as "the infallible Word of God"; they are simply contemporary accounts from a wide range of people positing no particular
agenda. 

But what you are asking is that the world accept the ADMITTED propaganda portrayed within the gospels (all anonymously written! The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were titles given them many decades after the fact) and epistles as not only being "the divinely inspired Word of God" but also historically accurate in every detail of the character and events surrounding a certain Jesus figure; including the virgin birth, miracles, death & resurrection, and being God. The problem is, there is not one shred of unbiased contemporary evidence to back this up--none! There is not one mention of a "Jesus" feeding five-thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fishes; not one mention of a "Jesus" resurrecting a man from the dead in the city of Nain; not one mention of a "Jesus" resurrecting a "Lazarus" from the dead; not one mention of a "Jesus" being executed, buried and then miraculously rising from the dead and being seen by many.

Sometimes even the gospel writers seemed to have had their eyes closed for certain dramatic events. For example, in Matthew 27:50-53 we are told that, at the moment Jesus dies on the cross: 

"The earth shook, rocks split, and graves opened; many of God's saints were raised from the dead, and coming out of their graves after his resurrection entered the Holy City, where many saw them."

Now, this event was so remarkable that exactly no one noticed! No one except the author of the gospel according to Matthew, writing half a century or more later, and even then he was not himself a witness to such remarkable occurrences. How likely is it that not one contemporary historian so much as mentions this dramatic event? 

Remember, even if Jesus were a real person in 1st c. Palestine there was no New Testament that people could read and learn about him; there were no gospels about Jesus; there were no epistles of Paul; there was no Revelation of John. In fact, there were no "Christians"!  These are all documents and terms that appeared decades, even centuries, after the alleged death of this Jesus character.

So what do you have to corroborate these propagandistic tales we read about in the NT?  I can go to Civil War annals and document that a certain battle occurred at a certain place in a certain period in time by matching the
accounts portrayed of said event from both sides in the encounter, and other unbiased commentaries, and surmise an understanding of not only its historicity but what actually happened. But you cannot do that with any of the miraculous stories you read about Jesus since all you have is the admitted propaganda of some people trying to promote a new religion by making dramatic claims about their leader that went completely unnoticed by the rest of the world! 

Even the gospels themselves are riddled with discrepancies and contradictions on the very miracles and ministry they each seek to provide about Jesus. Even the most important tenet of Christian doctrine, salvation, is a mess of contradictions and incompatible themes--which is exactly why you see so many different sects of Christianity in the world; and many of these threaten each other with damnation in Hell. 

ROY: 
The Bible has recorded just some of the miracles that may have been experienced during that time. But it is conceivable that miracles were not recorded. Just as much as my friends death in Vietnam only remains in the minds of them that saw. But my friend is nto with us anymore, that is a fact. Just as much as miracles still occur today but reasons are offered rather than giving God the glory. I believe miracles come for two reasons. To bring Glory to God and to bring the lost to Christ. Otherwise, the sun rises and the sun sets. People die and children are born. 

BRUCE: 
Hmmm.  I think it would be in order for me to restate the words I underlined above:

Roy: "...Just as much as miracles still occur today but reasons are offered rather than giving God the glory."

Ok, Roy, let's just have a closer look at your conclusions about miracles. 
Jesus performs miracles ... 

"To bring Glory to God" 

I'm glad you mentioned that because that is exactly what I reminded Christians about in my A Firefighter Speaks-Out essay. I am not asking any special demands upon your Jesus that he does not himself offer to do in the gospels "so that those who see will believe" and so that "the Father may be glorified through the Son."  I simply need Jesus to "show me" in the same way he allegedly did for his disciples, and the on-looking crowds, in his resurrection of Lazarus and others. Lazarus had died when Jesus was away, and Jesus was happy about this, we are told, because it would be a good opportunity for him to perform a resurrection in the presence of his disciples "so that [they] would believe." (John 11:15) 

You remember the story, don't you, Roy? Lazarus had fallen ill (on his death bed), and Mary & Martha sent an urgent message to Jesus relaying the seriousness of the situation. In response Jesus says (John 11:4), 

"This illness is not to end in death; through it GOD'S GLORY is to be revealed and the SON OF GOD GLORIFIED."

As such, rather than rushing to be by Lazarus' side in his time of sickness, and curing him before he dies, Jesus decides to stay where he is for a few days until Lazarus has been dead and buried for four days, after which Jesus finally arrives in Bethany and is met by the despairing cries of Martha and Mary over Lazarus' death. Moreover, each of them proclaims to Jesus that "Had he been here earlier Lazarus would not have died." After that things start to get real interesting as, we are told, Jesus becomes distressed (John 11:33):

"When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who had come with her weeping, HE WAS MOVED WITH INDIGNATION AND DEEPLY DISTRESSED." (my emphasis) 

A few verses later he even "weeps"! And after this, of course, Jesus goes to the tomb (amidst some disgruntled rumblings about him), has it opened and, looking toward the sky, he asks his father (er, that would be "God,"
right?... So is he talking to himself here?) to assist him in raising Lazarus
from the dead, which he does! And why does he do this? Well, according to (John 11:42):

"...but I have spoken FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE standing round, that they may BELIEVE it was YOU who sent ME." (my emphasis)

That they may believe! 

That they may believe! 

That they may believe! 

Well, Roy, this is exactly what I need to see in order "THAT I MAY BELIEVE" . . . again!
 

"To Bring the Lost to Christ"

Yes, I hear this one a lot. Jesus performs miracles today in order to "inspire people" and "bring them to salvation." The funny thing is, his
favorite "miracle" for accomplishing this seems to be through death and
destruction! 

An earthquake kills people by the thousands, including innocent men, women, children, infants and even fetuses in the womb, crushing them under millions of tons of concrete, but in the aftermath rescuers (human rescuers!) manage to find a few survivors that were lucky enough to get trapped in pockets beneath the rubble, and they are dug out and saved. So who gets credit? Well, Jesus, of course! But what about the thousands that lay dead for every one found alive? Worse, what about the ones who were laying alive in similar pockets, scared, alone, thirsty, praying to be saved, but ultimately die before they can be found?  Is that also a "miracle"? Why do you exalt Jesus for the saves but let him off for the deaths and terror? What about the total loss that other survivors experience?

Recently, one minister I was debating brought up the Wedgewood Baptist Church shooting in Ft. Worth, Texas a couple years ago (a man just opened fire on the church congregation during Sunday services, killing seven and injuring many more before turning the gun on himself). This minister cited it as an example of how this massacre actually resulted in "thousands of people becoming believers." 

My response to that was: 

Yes, of course, this was all part of God's "higher good," just as Columbine here in Colorado was part of some "higher good" so Christians could make a martyr myth about Cassie Barnall ("she said, yes") that NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED!  

So, Jesus takes the lives of innocent people in dramatic, seemingly horrific, ways "so that others might be inspired by it and be saved!" Well, if Jesus is willing to perform "miracles" that require people to get murdered (taking of life, but for a higher cause...) as part of his "master plan," then I would like to ask why He will not (or cannot) perform like-minded "miracles" in the form of "resurrecting the dead" (just one!) in order that others "might be inspired by it and be saved"?  

Honestly, if the murder of innocent people in a church during Sunday services is enough to "bring thousands" to belief, then how many millions (or billions) would be "inspired" and "brought to salvation" if, say, just one of those people killed in that massacre were to be suddenly resurrected from the dead?

I will ask you the same, Roy, do you suppose the resurrection of just one of these people who had been gunned down would be viewed as a clear "miracle" from Jesus and that millions of people (including myself) would see that, be inspired by it, and believe?

And the minister continued: 

"Remember we believe we have a better place to go than the Earth as we 'know' it today. When God calls one of us or a child Home it ain't no bad deal."

Yeah, right!  If that's so then why do you pray to Jesus to heal people who are sick or injured?  If it's all part of "God's will" (and God predestined it to happen and God doesn't change his mind, remember), then aren't you trying to Change the course of events your God has already predestined for them?  Christians are fond of taking credit for the real miracles of modern medical science and arbitrarily giving credit to Jesus when someone walks out of the hospital after having a life-threatening illness or injury.  They say that "[their] prayers healed them 'through the grace of Jesus.' " 

So if "this life" is really of such little importance to Christians then why do they try to extend it? Why don't they pray for their loved ones to die so that they can be done with this wicked earthly existence and get on with the real life and eternal bliss in heaven?  I'll tell you why, because deep down they are not nearly so secure in their beliefs about an afterlife as they would like others to believe. 

ROY: 
In all your scripture, do you recall that our God is a jealous God. Make no
mistake about. If you were the only one that accepted Jesus Christ as Lord
though the ages, Jesus still would have gone to the cross just for YOU. 

BRUCE: 
Oh, really? And what evidence do you have for this assertion, Roy?  What
evidence do you have to demonstrate that there not only is a supreme personal deity watching over us, but also that that entity is the Christian god?  And even if he were a reality, aren't you being a little arrogant by presuming to know what this god would and would not do in a given circumstance?    

Just One Child!

My personal appeal to Jesus stands, Roy. I'm not joking. All I need to see is just one child raised from the dead, just one Lazarus, just one Jairus'
daughter (Luke 8:49-55), just one "only son of a widowed mother" (Luke chapter 7; see also Elijah in OT doing the exact same thing, 1 Kings 17:17-24, which is where the author of Luke copied the story from in order to make Jesus perform such a "miracle."). Just one child, Roy, and I will make it my purpose in life to be Jesus' greatest disciple and to "save" as many "lost souls" as I can, including my own. 

You said earlier that one of the reasons Jesus performs miracles ("today") is to "bring the lost to Christ"; well, how many of the "lost" could be "saved" if Jesus would resurrect a dead child today and return it to its mothers arms? And even assuming worst case scenario, and it turned out that only I came to believe again and be "saved," wouldn't that be enough reason for a God who "loves" me and "wants me to be with him in heaven"?  If that is the only thing that can "save" me then shouldn't Jesus understand that to be the case and provide the one thing he knows I need in order "that I may see it and believe"? After all, he is alleged to have specifically performed such resurrections in the presence of his disciples in order "that they would see it and believe." so why should I expect anything less? 

A Jealous God

As for [your] God being "a jealous God," I agree that the Hebrew Bible does teach that. The reason he is "jealous," however, is because the ancient Hebrews were not monotheistic, they were henotheistic, i.e., they viewed themselves as "the people of" a particular god (i.e., YHWH), but they recognized the potency of other gods in neighboring cultures. Yahweh was just the tribal god of the Hebrews and was himself evolved from the Canaanite pantheon of gods, most notably EL, which is why Yahweh has so many "El" names in the Bible (e.g., El- Shaddai, Elohim, Elyon, El-Roi, Eloah, El-berith among others). 

Of course this causes far more problems for you than you can imagine since the "God" of the Bible also displays every other human emotion (except humor it seems) and weakness; such as being petty, forgetful, indecisive, vindictive, egotistical, blood-hungry, and tyrannical. He would go on mass-murder rampages, killing innocent men, women, children, sucking infants and animals for even the most menial (and silly) transgressions. Worse, this "loving God" actually forces people to perform transgressions against him or his "chosen people" in order that he may punish them for the very things He forced them to do; and he does so in order to flex his muscles and "gain glory for [him]self" (Exodus 14:4). I could recite multiple pages of vivid examples here, but given the length of this response already, I will save that for a future exchange. 

You are certainly free to believe in and worship such a "God" if you like, but for myself, I cannot respect let alone worship such a monster.  It's
interesting, I think, how Christians adamantly claim that Jesus is one-in-the-
same as the God of the Old Testament, but then turn around and try to
dissociate Jesus from the countless atrocities and ruthless, bloody, acts that
were performed by or ordered by this very God in the Old Testament.  I find that very interesting indeed.

Yours in Truth, 

Bruce Monson