Questions About Christianity


It's best to let the page finish loading before using.
(approx. 2 minutes w/ 28,000 modem)
Trust me - it's worth it!

Click the button for any Subject Title below,
or scroll down and read the letter in it's entirety:
Updates as of 12/8/97
(Updates are also added in the body of this letter in red text!
This link is included for those who have already read the letter.)
Buy The Book
Submit Your Own Questions Or Comments
About This Website
Introduction
These Letters Are Based On...
Stigmas
Problems With Christianity
People Perceive That Christians Have A Pervading Lack Of Tolerance For Opposing Beliefs
Hypocrisy
Misconceptions
Truth: Objective Vs. Subjective
The "What If" Philosophy
What About Those Who Never Hear About God?
American History & Law
Jamestown
Founding Fathers
America Was Founded As A Christian Nation
The Constitution
School, Prayer & Your Rights
Separation Of Church And State
A Final Thought On America
Calling His Bluff About Biblical Historicity
Historical Accuracy Of The Bible
Translational Accuracy
Bibliographical Test
History And Christianity
Short Questions & Answers: What Is The Nature Of God / Man?; Is God Male Or Female?; When The Bible Is Used To Validate Itself It Becomes A Circular Argument; Reliability: Science or Bible?; Where Is Heaven?; How Are Miracles Possible?
Dimensions
Does Where You Grew Up Influence You? (What If You'd Been Born In India?)
Other Religions
Islam
Mormonism
Jehovah's Witness
Similar "Legends" In Other Cultures/Religions: A] The Belly Of The Whale; B] Virgin Birth; C] Rituals; D] The Taurobolium / Baptism; E] Resurrection; F] Sacrificial Death Of A Deity

Two Examples Of Biblical Supremacy In Same Story Accounts:: A] The Long Day; B] The Flood
The Ark
Where Is The Ark?
The Resurrection
Jesus: Savior Or Liar?
The Apostles
Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled
Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled
Archeology
The Archeologists Speak
Science
Scientific Method
Scientists
General Relativity
Stephen Hawking/The Theory Of Everything
Responding To Some Of Sagan's Quotes
Order Of Creation
Scientific "Discoveries" In The Bible
Circumcision
Thermodynamics
Darwin
Evolution
Fossils
Mathematic Probability Of Evolution
DNA
Chromosomes
Dinosaurs
Old Earth/Young Earth Creation
Evidence For A Young World
Carbon 14
Embarrassment From Young Dates
Blind Faith
Intuition
The Bible Codes
Mathematics: God's Fingerprint
Closing
Bibliograpy

About This Website:

Andy Amidon and I are old friends - we've known each other for over twenty years. When we were kids we hung out in the same social circle, but we didn't become very close until about four years ago. He is one of the warmest, most sensitive men I know, and I hold him in very high regard. For the last year, he has been working in North Carolina, but he is expected to return to Southern California sometime in the spring of 1998.

I've always known he was interested in Eastern cultures and religions, and in fact, I think if he could actually have an operation, he would make himself a Korean! A while ago, we had our first phone conversation about religion. He subsequently sent me a short letter on the subject, and I responded with a short response. In retrospect, I was slightly embarrassed with my response, not because the intent wasn't there, but because I was not able to respond with real evidence. He then sent me a much longer, more in depth letter. I had no idea he had put so much effort into developing his beliefs, and realized that his effort far overshadowed my own. I felt immediately challenged by Andy (and God!) to further my knowledge of Christian Apoplogetics. This challenge led to my second response, which, at 109 pages, makes up the bulk of this web site.

When I finished my letter, I realized it would be easy to make this information available to anyone who wanted it by creating this website. In the Subject List, you'll find headings that relate to particular questions he brought up.

Please remember: These letters are between two very close friends. Sarcasm abounds, and we write the way we talk to each other - somewhat full of bravado, and safe from worry about hurting each other's feelings.

I have not rewritten anything with the website in mind, so it is important for you to remember that much of what you read is in response to his letters, which you do not have access to (yet). Still, everything should make sense without reading his initial statements. I have, however, added a couple things to make more sense for the website.

About 15% of the information I wrote back to him with was directly quoted from other authors. I have tried to give credit where due, but may have missed a couple. Since this was merely to supply him with information, and not intended for publication, it wasn't a top priority. Hope you find the answers you seek!

Introduction

The Bible instructs us, in 1 Peter 3:15, to "Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

Sadly, I have not been able to do that well in the past. In fact, very few Christians actually study the "facts" behind their beliefs. Aside from the Peter's statement, few even feel the need to. Their belief is so strong simply from the events in their own lives, and they rest in knowing the answers are out there and others are doing the work. But unfortunately, the secular world's impression of Christianity comes from the wierdos on the street corners, the loudmouth preachers on college campuses, and worse yet, television evangelists.

What non-believers are equally guilty of, however, is not knowing the facts. Same as with Christians, very few people actually study the facts behind evolution, for example. Society, peer pressure, and culture all dictate that it is okay to base your beliefs on rumor, speculation and half-truths. Few non-believers have taken the time to evaluate the concept of God from an evidential standpoint. It is certainly much easier to ignore it, but it is far less intelligent. In very few areas of our lives are we willing to ignore basic research. You would never buy a car without test driving it and others. You wouldn't go to a doctor without knowing he was qualified. You wouldn't eat food or take medication without some knowledge that it wouldn't kill you. And yet, most people leave their Bibles on the shelves! If there is a God, and Jesus is real, it is the single most important aspect of human existence. Why do we settle for His nonexistence without giving it at least the same level of interest we give to buying a car?

The study of the facts behind Christian belief is called "apologetics". People are often confused by its similarity to the word apology. Are Christians trying to apologize for their beliefs? No. In the New Testament era, the Greek word "apologia" was used to describe a formal courtroom defense - weighing evidence against evidence. That is what I've tried to do in this letter. The closest I have for an apology is a statement from my friend Mike Long : Apologetics simply means, 'I'm sorry - you're wrong...'.
- Tony Guerrero, November 17, 1997


This letter is based on these 10 facts:

1. The Bible has never, by anyone, at any time in history, been proven to be in error. Many things over the centuries have been disputed, but when the factual, indisputable evidence has been found, it has 100% of the time been in favor of the Bible.
2. No other religion in the world can make this claim.
3. Science, whenever relevant, actually proves the Bible to be accurate.
4. There is no proof for Darwinist evolution. While there is evidence to back up the "theory", its basis as fact lies in the "missing link" (any sign of transitional species, from any era since life began), which, after a quarter of a billion cataloged fossils, is still missing.
5. The Bible has been correctly translated throughout history.
6. Cosmology supports the Bible.
7. History supports the Bible.
8. Medical research supports the Bible.
9. Archeology supports the Bible.
10. Logic and human intuition support Christianity.
Now, with all this, there is still room to allow that within Christianity we still have unsolved issues. One relatively big issue is language. Many ancient words had several meanings. For instance, I mention in the letter the Hebrew word "yom" for day. It could mean a twenty-four hour period, or a period of time. This has caused two different, but both Biblically plausible, theories about the length of creation. So, while the internal discussions will continue forever, or at least until the Second Coming, all the above remains true.

If you'd like to take the "easy" way out, ignore the rest of the letter. Your challenge now would be to show me where any of these facts above is a false statement. I'm sure that the first statement alone gets you riled up - but I also know you can't show me any differently. However, I also challenge you to read this letter. It offers you many reasons to rethink your position. I may not convince you I'm right, but you can't possibly read all this and believe your last two letters were.
Sadly, most people would read a document like this and brush it off by saying that since the sources are Christian, the information is biased. If they actually took the time to research that which they doubted, they would be forced to admit its truth. It is hard to understand how anyone can essentially stake their life on something they are not even willing to research.


Stigmas
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1Cor. 1:18
The first thing we need to do in an intelligent discussion is remove all the stigmas that have been placed on the "Christian", or "religious", world. Yes, the church is full of hypocrites, fallen pastors and priests, money hungry evangelists, back-stabbers, deceit, etc. However, chances are that the same is true for whatever profession you are in, and yet you are still able to take it seriously and pursue your profession as worthwhile in your life. The church is made up of imperfect human beings, just like the business world, entertainment world, politics, etc. Okay - so can we remove the unfair stigmas for a moment and continue our discussion? Great!

Problems With Christianity

First off, you listed these as your problems with Christianity. Remember that Christianity is the "following of Christ". Do not confuse that with how imperfect people can screw up the way that a church or its people in the world act. "Religion" is probably the worst thing to happen to Christianity! The problems you list are not with the true meaning of Christianity, but rather with the apparent actions of people claiming to be Christians.

People Perceive That Christians Have A
Pervading Lack Of Tolerance For Opposing Beliefs

This is pretty simple actually. How could you wholeheartedly believe one thing, which in itself is all consuming and belies any contradiction, but still accept that there may be another truth that is different? Doesn't one truth generally cancel out any other possibilities? Can we say "There is a God" and then accept that "There is no God"? If we, as Christians, believe that the only way to salvation is through Jesus as the Bible clearly tells us, how can we accept the notion that there might be other ways? If you knew for a fact that a chemical was deadly, wouldn't you stop someone from drinking it, even if they believed that it was okay? Simply put, when one thing is true, all opposing views are wrong, no matter how many people believe it with all their heart.

Quite frankly, be it Christianity or something else, why would you even give a second glance to someone who was not steadfast and firm in their beliefs? I couldn't believe in or trust a Christian who said, "I believe this, but sure, your beliefs are probably okay, too. Tra la la la la."


Hypocrisy

This is not an evidential issue, but I think it is important to approach the issue of Christianity, and what it means to be a Christian, owning a clearer understanding than the average person. I touched on this in my previous letter, but I realize that most people's argument against Christianity, and their willingness to believe opposing viewpoints without knowing all the facts, is based largely on misconceptions about Christians, as opposed to Christianity.

A recent study of college students revealed that most people, when asked for their first reaction to the subject of Christians, answered "hypocrites". While this is horribly shameful, at the same time, and in a very odd way, this reaction is almost a badge of honor for a Christian. Let me explain.

Christians are 100% human. We can never be perfect, no matter how much we try. Our Bible tells us that we will all fall short of the glory of God. It is only through God's grace that we might be saved. It was His grace that laid out the provision (the death and Resurrection of Christ as payment for our sins) for our salvation. But to be a Christian is to admit exactly that - we are sinners. For some, sin is in their actions, for everyone, it is in their thoughts and attitudes.

I'll bet you know at least a few non-Christians who are also hypocrites, or who have been at one time or another. Everyone knows a hypocrite. They are everywhere, not just in Christianity. And yet, the subject of hypocrisy rarely comes up, until we start discussing Christianity. The college study shows that Christians, essentially, are held to a higher moral standard. The reason is that even non-Christians are aware that Christians strive for something much more noble than the average person. We strive for perfection in our lives, deeds, relationships, etc., and when we fail, as we are guaranteed to do, people label us hypocrites. We have set standards so high that most of them are unattainable. We have higher standards of love, service, community and peace. People expect a lot from Christians, and people react loudly when we fail. I am proud, as a Christian, that people expect more of me.

However, be very careful not to stereotype. Not all Mexicans are here illegally. Not all men are pigs. Not all white guys are horrible dancers. And not all Christians are hypocrites. A hypocrite is someone who 'preaches' one thing and does another. But you cannot assume to know the heart of the individual. You don't know if the attempt and intent was honest. And you certainly couldn't know the heart of every Christian. Some Christians are hypocrites simply to justify their own immorality. Some simply because they truly don't understand their error. And all are hypocrites because we are human. A true Christian should know full well that he is not morally or spiritually superior to anyone else. You've heard the saying, "There, but for the Grace of God, go I." The only thing that separates me from the criminal, the prostitute, the addict, etc., is not that I am morally or spiritually superior, but rather that I know God.

As in every walk of life, there are good and bad examples. So, to open-mindedly look at what Christianity truly is, we need to first look at the first Christian: Jesus Christ. Look at how perfect Jesus was portrayed in Scripture. Jesus, in fact, attacked hypocrisy more than adultery, lying and stealing. To judge Christ and Christianity by someone who hasn't lived up to what Jesus taught or lived is unfair and senseless, and in fact, foolish.

The examples you pointed out in your letter (Constantine, Theosodius, the Dark Ages) are not at all representative of what Christianity is about. In the example you gave of Constantine (that he tolerated pagan rituals), we have clear evidence that he is not representative of the true Christianity talked about in the Bible.

So, how much sense does it make to deny God, deny your own 'future' and salvation, and deny the truth because of the actions of some of those that claim to follow? Who gets short changed there? Should I avoid playing jazz music because many jazz musicians were drug addicts? Should someone avoid football because O.J. Simpson is a murderer? (Okay, I know he was aquitted, but you get my point.)

A good friend told me, "You don't throw the baby out with the bath water..." As I referred to in my first letter, this is one of the stigmas people need to let go of.

Misconceptions

As I mentioned before, most people's objections to Christianity are based on misconceptions. Usually things are heard out of context and then grow into major misinformed issues. One of may favorites is one that I presented to your sister D. Jae and James on their wedding.

How many times have you heard a feminist or NOW representative shouting about those 'old, antiquated, one-sided, oppressive, chauvinist wedding vows'? You know, the one that says women should "submit to your husbands...in everything".

Anyone who took the time to read and understand the entire passage (Ephesians 5:22-33) would easily see that it is actually more in the women's favor! They don't realize what they are fighting for!

The only thing a woman needs to do, according to this passage, is honor, trust and respect her husband as the head of the household. In return, he is supposed to essentially give his life up for her. We are told to love our wives as Christ loved the church - He died for the church! In all his decisions, he is to put her needs ahead of his own, and at the very least, love her as much as he loves his own body (when do we ever intentionally do anything against our bodies? {not including masochists...}). If he does his part according to God, what woman would have a problem trusting her husband?
The only way this is lopsided is in the woman's favor, and yet everyone seems to think the opposite. Now, you may still disagree with the philosophy, but at least get the facts straight! There are so many other examples like this.

Truth: Objective vs. Subjective

"Truth is truth, to th' end of reck'ning."
- Shakespeare

You claim my belief in God is subjective. I'll accept that maybe my "belief" is. A subjective truth is one that applies to the knower, such as "I believe that is the nicest house on the lot". An objective truth is one that is true regardless of the knower's feelings, such as "That house is the biggest one on the lot". So, while my truth may be subjective because it is mine, the fact (for argument's sake) that there is a God, remains objective. Whether I believe or not, God exists. Believing in an objective fact does not render that fact subjective.

The "What If" Philosophy

What you've mostly given me is what I call the "what if" philosophy. By this I mean, no matter what I say, you'll be able to ask, "well, yeah, but what if this?". I say the car is yellow, and you say, well, what if it's blue? Huh? Prove to me that its blue, or accept that [1] you either have some more studying to do, or [2] my (or the Christian) argument might actually hold water.

This "what if" philosophy is applied by almost every non-Christian I know. Because we can create so many hypothesis, and because so many different ideas are thrust upon us, it is easier for most to ignore the subject altogether. In my opinion, any intelligent being that doesn't wholeheartedly pursue all the knowledge available about such an obviously important subject matter (because of its overall effect on civilization and its "alleged" effect on our souls and afterlife) is a fool! I do not, by the way, accuse you of this. After all, it is an indisputable fact that Jesus Christ is, after almost twenty centuries, still the single most central figure of the human race. All of the armies that have ever marched and all the governments that have ever ruled have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that one man.

No one can logically claim to be a truly educated person if he does not understand
who Jesus is and the influence he has exerted upon humanity.

You're right, Andy - the Bible is still the most widely read and discussed book of all time. That should certainly make someone think! Isn't it amazing how many intelligent people haven't even read it? A book can hit the New York Times Best Seller List, and suddenly everyone's got to go out and read it. But here's a book that we've been hearing about since our birth, has had worldwide and historic implications, and is known to actually change lives for the better, and yet, it sits on people's bookshelves. No matter how much you disagree with what you've heard about it, anyone who considers themselves intelligent should at least be checking it out. I guess people are mostly just afraid they'll have to give up too many things - "what I don't know won't hurt me". Sad.

Now the same argument could be given for the Koran, since it is the second most widely read book in the world. I agree - even Christians should understand what it's about. However, I also believe that the Bible is so overwhelmingly provable and complete in its truth, it essentially cancels out the need to learn about other religions, short of plain interest or missionary work. But, I am an intelligent person, so I want to learn it all. As I've said before - if the Bible of Christianity can't be tested and continually hold water, then I am a fool to follow it.

The fact is you seem to me to have, for all your study, no real direction for your thought. You believe in a god, but what is the nature of your god? You say you are not dismissing Christianity altogether, but seem to accept that all the religions are basically true, or hold enough truths among them to be usable as a combined whole. How does one claim belief in a god, yet accept no religious ties to that god? Are you starting your own religion? Are all religions in the world wrong and inferior to your own superior way of thinking and your own personal version of truth? If your god exists, does he (would he) not proclaim one truth? Or can he be a god of many, contradicting truths? This of course, is an impossibility.
I, too, have gained my knowledge and beliefs from 31 years of introspection, observation, conversation, books, interviews, lectures, seminars, etc., and you may be surprised to know that it has not been all Christian based! But this shouldn't become a competition about who knows or has read what. Rather, it should be about whose facts are correct!
I will try to address every point in your letter, not with merely my "ideas" or "beliefs", but rather with factual, provable matter. And per your request, I will not use the Bible to validate itself. Instead, I will attempt to answer you with scientific and historic fact. Of course, expect me to quote the Bible in order to show its accuracy.

What About Those Who Never Hear About God?

Many people believe that the Bible makes the path to Heaven unfairly narrow because it claims that it is only through Jesus Christ one can be saved.
The Bible teaches that God will show Himself to everyone, and since I know that I am no higher in rank than, for example, the unsaved tribesmen in the jungles of South America, I should trust that God has shown Himself to these people also. That they don't sit around a campfire singing "Kumbaya" is probably okay with God (He's gotta be sicker of that song than we are - imagine how many times He's heard it!!).

In Romans 1:19,20 it says "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

In 2 Peter 3:9, it says "none should perish but that all should come to repentance". This shows that God also cares for those persons who have not yet heard the gospel.

In fact, He sent His son to die for sinners, proving He loves even the lowest of us:"While we were sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

The Bible teaches that God is going to judge the world fairly and righteously. "Because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness" Acts 17:31. This means that when all the facts are in, God's name will be vindicated and no one will be able to accuse Him of unfairness. While we don't specifically know how God will deal with people who haven't heard, we do know He will be fair.

The Bible even talks of people who only had very limited knowledge of God, and yet were accepted by Him.

Rehab was a prostitute who knew very little of God, but the Bible refers to her as a woman of faith, and her actions were commended. (Joshua 2:9, Hebrews 11:31)

Naaman was granted peace with God because he exercised faith even though he lived in the midst of a pagan culture. (2 Kings 5:15-19)

American History & Law

Further study of basic American history has forced me to tell you: Get your facts straight! Now, this goes back to your first letter, but it is important to call you on this, because either the books you've read have misled you, or you're merely making things up from a memory that has failed you. Since you're too young to be senile, I'll assume the former. I'll admit, I'm a little embarrassed that I couldn't answer you better when I responded to your first letter, since this information was so easy to find, but better late than never! Sadly, many Christians, myself included, have just rested comfortably in knowing the answers are out there and we can get them when we need them. Evidently, I now need them!
Since the issue of American history has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God, or whether or not the Bible is His Word, I struggled with how much I should deal with it in this letter. I decided that for you to make such bold statements as truth, you are either trying to smokescreen me, or you really just don't know.

The end result is I spent a lot of time on this issue, and here are my findings, which completely dismantle your statements.

You wrote, "Christians love to claim that our country was founded by God-fearing, Christian folk, yet nothing could be further from the truth."

Allow me to pummel you with some facts about American history.

Jamestown

Your first error, while not crucial to our discussion, was in stating that Jamestown was founded by the Pilgrims circa 1635. Jamestown was founded in 1607, and the Pilgrims did not come until later.

Jamestown was, in fact, established by the London Company, who chose the site for its strategic military location. About 100 settlers, under Capt. Christopher Newport, arrived on May 14, 1607. It was not founded as a Christian or religious colony, but as a military outpost (and, I believe, as somewhat of a prison. This I simply remember from school - my reading did not confirm it, but I asked a couple people who also agreed - not important).

The "Pilgrims" (they actually called themselves "Saints" - the name "Pilgrim" was first used by William Bradford in 1799, who called them the "Pilgrim Fathers") originated in the village of Scrooby in Nottinghamshire, England. They were considered "Separatists" once they broke away from the Church of England, having accused the church of not finishing the work of the Reformation. Many people think they came straight from England. Actually, one specific Separatist congregation, led by William Brewster and the Rev. Richard Clifton, first relocated to Amsterdam in 1608, and then Leiden in 1609, where they enjoyed complete religious freedom for twelve years. In 1617, due to pervasive Dutch influence and financial difficulties, they arranged, through Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company and a good friend of Brewster's, for the authorization to settle in the northern part of the company's jurisdiction. In the end, fewer than half the Leiden Separatists chose to leave. They sailed back to England to hook up with another Separatist group, and after many delays and disputes, set sail aboard the Mayflower on September 16, 1620 (346 years and 4 days before my birthday...). According to Grolier's Encyclopedia, they committed themselves to a life based on the Bible.

Our Founding Fathers

Your second mistake is a doozy. You said that "George, Thomas, Ben and John were not practicing Christians, did not attend church..." Geez, did you make that up? It is documented so differently I almost feel you were pulling my leg!
George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the large majority of our founding fathers were absolutely Christians!! Franklin and Jefferson were open "Deists", and were outstanding supporters of evangelical Christianity. Ben Franklin's Christian based writings are very easy to find (see below), such as his opinion that all children should be required to study the Bible! Jefferson passed many laws promoting Christian ideals as their base. It is well documented that when George Washington would disappear for a period of time (and this happened often), his servants knew they could find him in the woods "on his knees in prayer". Since Washington, every President has been sworn in with his hand on the Bible (do you see this country ever electing a president that didn't at least claim to believe in God?). Our money states "In God We Trust". Our Pledge of Allegiance refers to America as "One nation, under God." Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say "...that they are endowed by their Creator...".

"There is a book worth all other books which were ever printed"
- Patrick Henry (referring to the Bible)

"The studious perusal of the sacred volume will make
better citizens, better fathers and better husbands"
- Thomas Jefferson (sounds like a Promise Keeper!)

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labore in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
- Ben Franklin, speaking to the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787
(Yeah - he's not a Christian...)

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
-Thomas Jefferson, 1781
(Him either...)

"Great is my veneration for the Bible."
- John Quincy Adams

America Was Founded As A Christian Nation

Before Jefferson would sign the Treaty of Peace and Amity at Tripoli on June 4, 1804, he required that a particular clause, Article XI, be removed. The clause stated that the United States "is not, in any sense, founded on Christian religion."
Was this country founded as a Christian country? You say no, but according to a 1892 Supreme Court decision, the answer is yes! Of course, I am aware that this is not a subject that speaks directly about Biblical authenticity, but you brought it up...

* The Supreme Court Decision 1892 - Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian... This is a religious people. This is historically true." The Supreme Court answered this question and cited fifty historical examples to prove America was indeed a Christian nation. These are just a few:

* Governor Bradford, in writing of the Pilgrim's landing, describes their first act: "Being thus arrived in a good harbor and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of Heaven..."

* The New England Charter, signed by King James I, confirmed the goal of the first settlers to be: "to advance the enlargement of Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty."

* The goal of government based on Scripture was affirmed by individual counties, such as is found in the Rhode Island Charter of 1683, which begins: "We submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given us in His holy word."

* Benjamin Franklin stood and addressed the Continental Congress with these words: "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor...Have we forgotten this powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an entire empire can rise without His aid?

* George Washington, in his inaugural address to Congress as the first president of the nation stated: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency..."

* One of George Washington's first official acts was the first Thanksgiving proclamation, which reads, "Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor..." It goes on to call the nation to thankfulness to Almighty God.

* Thomas Jefferson said: "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

* President John Quincy Adams: "The first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is the Bible."

* Andrew Jackson: "Go to the Scriptures... the joyful promises it contains will be a balsam to all your troubles."

* From Abraham Lincoln's Proclamation for a National Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, April 30th, 1863: "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

Remember, these are just a few of the fifty examples cited in the Supreme Court decision.

In spite of these statements, many people today say that the Founding Fathers never intended for religious principles to be a part of public life or public affairs. They add: Doesn't being a Christian nation really threaten pluralism? Interestingly, the Founding Fathers discuss that and they felt that it enhanced it:

* Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too often or too strongly that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians; not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ... It is for this reason that people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."

It must be concluded that our Founding Fathers did believe in God and founded America as a Christian nation.

Abraham Lincoln, while not one of the founding fathers, was an agnostic until he reached the age of forty. Upon reading Dr. James Smith's brilliant "The Christian's Defence", he said, "My doubts scattered to the winds and my reason became convinced by the arguments in support of the inspired and infallible authority of the Old and New Testaments"
This is another quote of Lincoln's that I love: "It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their independence upon the overruling power of God...and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proved by History, that those nations are only blest whose God is the Lord."

"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."
- Alexander Hamilton's last dying words, July 12, 1804

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
-James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution

"...the Bible...is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature and need of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation."
- President Woodrow Wilson

The Constitution

When the Constitutional Congress first convened in 1774, their first step was to seek God in prayer as a united body. At the time, the word "states" was the emphasis in the name "United States". They were all individual "nations" uniting not to become one country, but to be a force together under a non-binding agreement.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention's duty was to form one government to which each state would be committed, without losing their individual sovereignty. Each delegate represented their state under that state's own constitution. Let's look at a couple of those constitutions:

Delaware, 1776 - Everyone appointed to public office must say, "I do profess faith in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, on God and blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."

North Carolina, 1776 - "No person who should deny the being of a God, or the truth of the Christian religion or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who should hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, should be capable of holding any office or place of trust in the civil government of this state."
New Hampshire, 1776 - "That morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, would give the best and greatest security to government, ...therefore the legislature is empowered to adopt measures 'for the support and maintenance of public [Christian] teachers of piety, religion, and morality."

In short, 52 of the 55 delegates and signers of the Constitution of the United States of America, had all publicly and voluntarily professed their faith in Jesus Christ!

(An interesting side note: Unlike the first in 1774, the 1787 Convention did not open with prayer, and they did not acknowledge their dependence on God's guidance. After five weeks of debate, no progress had been made towards the new Constitution. On June 28, Ben Franklin addressed the delegates, urging for their combined prayer [The quote is included in the previous section) . Four days later, Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey wrote this in his diary: "We assembled again; and every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of reconciliation had been cultivated." The body of the Constitution was completed shortly thereafter.)

School, Prayer & Your Rights

"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty, our student's perusal of the
sacred volume will make us better citizens."
- Thomas Jefferson, when he was Chairman of the School Board in D.C.

You talk about how allowing prayer in schools or teaching creationism alongside evolution would somehow infringe on your rights. Did you know the Bible was the nation's first school textbook? How's that for keeping prayer out of schools?
You were right about one thing - my guess that approximately 50% of America would like to see creationism taught alongside (at least) evolution was just a guess at a figure. According to George Barna, the following statistics were true for America in 1991:
94% of Americans believe in God 84% of Americans believe that Jesus was either God or the Son of God 64% of Americans believe Jesus rose from the dead 43% of Americans believe attend church each week 33% of Americans claim top be born again 77% of Americans believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God

I couldn't tell you those figures are exact, but if anywhere close to 94% of Americans believe in God, and 77% believe the Bible is inerrant, how come the Bible's version of His creation of the universe isn't taught in schools? Is this really "fair"?
Please bear in mind that Christian's rights in schools are severely infringed upon. In 1962, the Warren Supreme Court essentially ruled against "forced" prayer in school (the term 'forced' is used as in being "forced" to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Many schools opened their day with a short word of prayer). Following that decision, many other activities have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, among them:
1] Voluntary, non-denominational prayer in schools 2] Students are guaranteed the freedoms of speech and press, except when the topic is religious 3] For a student to pray over their lunch if another student can hear 4] For students to talk out loud if another student might think it's a prayer 5] For kindergarten students to ask, "Whose birthday is celebrated by Christmas?"

I have a further list, but these seemed the most ludicrous. How, exactly, do these get deemed unconstitutional? How do they infringe on your rights? Trust me, your rights are in no danger here. The Christian (or religious) side, however, has every right to stand up and fight.

But since you based your argument on the founding father's intentions, let's examine them.

Many go right to the First Amendment. It reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As you can see above, Congress has made laws restricting this freedom. The amendment, aside from protecting freedom of speech and press, prevents Congress from making any law regarding the "establishment of religion," but this clause has been interpreted either as barring the government from giving preferment to any particular religion or as requiring a complete and total separation of church and state. The actual intention of the founding fathers was to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. This was why their forefathers separated from the Church of England in the first place.

To prove this was their intention, we can look to the Northwest Ordinance. There are four "organic laws" of the United States: the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest Ordinance was ratified first on July 13, 1787, and re-ratified on September 25th, 1789, the same day that Congress approved the First Amendment.

The Northwest Ordinance says, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, [therefore] schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Our founders believed that "religion, morality, and knowledge" should be provided through public schools! Certainly the ordinance would not have been re-ratified if it conflicted with the amendment they were passing on the same day!

Please, Andy, look this stuff up! Show me this is all wrong! I will be truly shocked if you can't agree that I've just handed you more than enough evidence to make you retract your statements regarding this subject in your first letter.

Separation Of Church And State

"There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."
- William James

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not appear on any official document of the United States government, yet many think it is an amendment to the Constitution. Its origin lies in a sermon by Baptist minister Roger Williams, who used it as a metaphor. In it, he describes the heathens tearing down the wall which separates the Garden (Church) and the Wilderness (State). Jefferson used this metaphor in 1801 to ease the minds of the Danbury Baptist Association, who had heard rumors that the Congregationalists were naming their denomination the official state religion of Connecticut. He was showing them, through metaphor, how the First Amendment prevented this from happening.

The phrase did not surface again until a Supreme Court case nearly 80 years later. In Reynolds v. U.S. 1878, the Supreme Court used it in context to rule that Mormon polygamy was a violation of the Constitution. The court decided it was responsible for upholding civil laws based on Christian principles. According to the court's decision, separation of church and state applied only to Christian denominations, not Christian principles. Since polygamy violated Christian principles, it was unconstitutional.

It was not used again for nearly 70 years, when it was used out of context in Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. There was no precedent for their decision, which essentially ruled that the Federal Government did have the right to overrule a sovereign state's choice of religious practice. Without going into further detail, it is from this point on (1947) that the phrase began to take on a different meaning from that which Jefferson had intended.

By the way, the communist Constitution of the Soviet Union reads: "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."

A Final Thought On America

Let's face it - this country would be better off if it really was a Christian country, at least in spirit and action. Can you imagine what it would be like if our leaders felt morally obligated to be honest and forthright? If every husband's priority was their responsibility to family? If kids grew up with morals? Really, what have we gained by, for example, encouraging kids to follow their hormones? More teen pregnancies than ever, more sexually transmitted diseases. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You can demand all the freedom you want, and yell about the so-called Moral Majority, etc., but if this country would actually follow God's plan to the letter, we'd probably be living in Eden. The same is true of our personal lives.

Calling Andy's Bluff About Biblical Historicity

You said in your letter, "...everything in the Old Testament and almost everything in the Koran come directly from the Torah...and the differences between the three (Torah, Bible, Koran), initially are minimal."

First of all, Islam is based on four "inspired" books: The Torah of Moses, The Psalms of David, The Gospel of Jesus Christ (New Testament), and the Qur'an. "Almost everything", as you said, is incorrect. They certainly place more value on the Qur'an, but the other three, including the Christian New Testament, are equally a part of the Islamic teaching. The New Testament, however, professes only to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and nowhere does it contradict it, unlike the Koran. That the "differences between the three, initially are minimal" is a misleading statement. Naturally, the Torah is the same no matter who uses it. The Bible and the Koran, however, are vastly different.

"...at least in terms of Old Testament scripture, the Bible is no more or less historically accurate that the Koran or Torah..."

First of all, if you are claiming the Koran and Bible share the same root (Torah), the differences should be nonexistent in terms of Old Testament scripture. To say the Torah is historically accurate in terms of Old Testament scripture is like comparing an apple to an apple - its the same book! (Torah, a Hebrew word meaning "instruction", in its broadest sense, refers to the entire body of Jewish teaching incorporated in the Old Testament and the Talmud and in later rabbinical commentaries.) And there is little evidence to back up the Koran historically, but overwhelming amounts that back up the Bible. This is not to say the Koran is 100% inaccurate historically, but to compare evidence against evidence greatly favors the Bible.

"...and very little of all of them can be substantiated historically anyway."
Absolutely does not apply to the Bible.

"And to my knowledge (which is quite formidable, if I do say so myself), what little bits of historic events are hinted at in the Koran to tie it together with contemporary secular accounts of history are every bit as accurate as the little bits of historic events hinted at in the New Testament."
"..I fail to see Christianity's claim of superior historical accuracy over the other major religions at all."
Really, Andy? Can you stand by those statements with proof? After you reread my sections on archeology and historical accuracy, please show me how this is true. And certainly, the term "little bits" does not apply to the Bible.

"...claiming to be the sole proprietors of Truth is really saying something, and if you're gonna go around sayin' it, you better be able to back it up, don'tcha think?"
What page are we on...?

Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

One of the first tests we apply to the Bible to test its divinity is the test of historical accuracy. Does the Bible accurately portray history? If it had, at any point in time, been proven to be in error, it could not have lasted this long with the same impact. Obviously, it has never been shown to be in error.

The historical accuracy of the Bible can be determined with the following tests. Not all are approached in this letter, but the ones that pertain specifically to questions or comments in your letter are discussed in some detail. The ones that are not discussed include a short description here. The Bible, by the way, passes all with flying colors.

1] The Bibliographical Test (translation and transmission) - discussed in letter

2] The Internal Evidence Test (textual accuracy) - With this test we look to see if perhaps the Bible authors contradict themselves (not discussed in letter), or if biblical accounts contradict archeological, scientific or historical data (discussed in letter). The answer to all of these is 'no'. One of the main accusations is that the Bible contradicts itself. Serious study has proven that in no case is this true, but the myth will continue as long as people are willing to rely on rumor over evidence.

3] The External evidence Test - (corroboration from reliable sources outside the New Testament) There is much, and some of it is discussed in this letter.

4] Corroboration from Non-Christian Sources - this letter is based on this!

5] Correlation from Archeology - discussed in letter

6] Corroboration from Enemy's Silence - for all the enemies the Bible and Christianity has had over the last two thousand years, not one has been able to offer any proof that the Bible is invalid in any way.

7] Corroboration from Eyewitnesses - Just as we could not report inaccurately about the Vietnam War due to the large number of surviving eye witnesses, neither could the Bible authors have lied about current events. Hundreds of eye witnesses could have stopped these stories from getting too far if they would have been falsely reported.

8] Corroboration from Date of Authorship - Without going into detail, much evidence is available to prove without a doubt the Bible authors wrote their contributions when they said they did.

9] Corroboration from Critical Methods Themselves - if two hundred years of higher criticisms of the Bible have proven anything, it is that the Bible is inerrant.

10] Corroboration from Legal Testimony and Former Skeptics - Many times the Bible has been tested legally, as if in a court case. It has always won. Certainly former skeptics, who now are Christians, offer more evidence than someone who has believed from birth. Many are discussed in this letter.

If you were to rigorously put the Bible to any or all of these tests, you would learn firsthand that it is what it says it is: the inspired Word of God.

Translational Accuracy

You said, "I could go on about translational accuracy...", but, alas, you didn't. Why didn't you? I can only assume it's because you don't know about all the evidence that exists to prove the Bible has been translated accurately since its birth. What proof? Let's discuss...

You stated that "few people know the dead languages of Aramic and Old Greek". Let's change that to a few thousand people. There are so many serious Bible students, scientists, linguists, and teachers around today that do know those languages. We are assured they (the languages) are not in jeopardy of being lost anytime soon, if ever.

Many people tend to discount the Bible simply because it has been translated countless numbers of times over a two thousand year period. This is a fair concern, based on human imperfection. It is most likely true that if I give you and nineteen other people a paper I'd written on, say, "How To Make Friends", and asked you all to copy it, word for word, I'd end up with twenty different versions. Some would contain misspellings, some would skip sections, others would be missing specific punctuations. Some might even alter or abridge the text.

Now, if I phoned all twenty people and asked them to simply write their own paper on the same subject, I would end up with twenty completely different papers in text, material, opinion, etc.

Keep in mind that the Bible was written separately by 40 different authors in a multitude of places over a 1500 year time span, and yet, every author speaks of the exact same theme (God's grace and redemption of man) with startling consistency, technical accuracy and historical accuracy between writers.

Still, the question remains, how can we trust that the translated text of the Bible is accurate since we do not have the original manuscripts?

According to military historian C. Sanders, there are three tests for proving any piece of historical literature is accurate or reliable:
The Bibliographical Test
The Internal Evidence Test
The External Evidence Test
Because you only brought up points related to the bibliographical tests, we will discuss that here. We will touch on certain aspects of the Internal and External Evidence Tests throughout the letter.

The Bibliographical Test

How can we trust the accuracy of the countless copies of translations of the Bible from the original manuscripts to the currently existing copies? The Christian New Testament is the most frequently copied and widely circulated book in history. As I've stated elsewhere, the Bible is, to this day, the most widely read book in history.

Keep in mind that here we use the literal meaning of the word "manuscript" - written by hand. There are currently in existence 5,300 Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, at least 9,300 other early versions, and more than 24,000 copies of portions of the New Testament. That's 48,600 hand written (and might I add, textually identical) manuscripts! The closest document from history is Homer's "Iliad", which can boast only 643 manuscripts in existence. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the thirteenth century. Somehow, I bet you never thought to question Homer's work?

By comparison, the time span between the Bible authors and the earliest existing manuscript copies is about 250 - 300 years. While this is considerable, it is less of a time lapse than for any of the classical authors, according to Sir Frederic G. Kenyon of the British Museum (an authority for issuing statements about existing manuscripts). He also adds, "the Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries."

The following is a further list of authors, the amount of years between their death (or writing) and the earliest existing copies of their work, and the amount of copies available.


Plus, there are also over 24,000 existing manuscripts of portions of the New Testament. So, how often have you questioned the validity of Aristotle or Plato? Some of these writers were the same historians on whose work we base our knowledge of world history!

Returning to the example of Homer's Iliad, there was a time when both it and the Bible were considered "sacred". However, there are only 40 lines in the Bible which have ever been questioned on the basis of translational accuracy, compared to 764 lines in Homer's work!

So, how can we be sure the 48,600 Bible manuscripts still in existence were translated accurately? Well, aside from the fact that they were all copied at different times, in different places and by different people and still remained identical, let's examine the guidelines by which they were copied.

We'll look at one group of people whose work was solely to transcribe the Bible. The Talmudists were transcribing scripture from as early as A.D.100 until around 500.

Read this "manual" they used to assure there would be no human mistakes made:
1] A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals 2] (They must be) prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. 3] These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. 4] Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. 5] The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines; and the breadth must consist of 30 letters. 6] The whole copy must first be lined; and if three words were written without a line, it is worthless. 7] The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other colour, and must be prepared according to a definite recipe. 8] An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. 9] No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him... 10] Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene; 11] between every every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants; 12] between every book, three lines. 13] The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so. 14] Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress; 15] wash his whole body, 16] not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, 17] and should a king address him while writing that name, he must take no notice of him.

Any manuscript in which any of these rules was not observed, was condemned, buried in the ground, or burned (although some were used in the synagogue schools simply to teach reading).

The Massorets (A.D. 500 - 900) went as far as numbering each verse, word, and letter! They calculated the middle word and middle letter of each, determined and cataloged every verse that contained each letter of the alphabet, or a certain number of them, and so on. They were determined that not one letter or dot be lost.

Until the late 1940's, the only proof we had to verify the accuracy of these manuscripts lay in comparing them to ancient clay tablets from Babylon and to Egyptian papyri. Then in 1947, in caves along the northwest corner of the Dead Sea, we found the Dead Sea Scrolls. These "copies" of scripture went back 1,000 years earlier than all previous versions. In one manuscript of the Hebrew text of Isaiah (dated by paleographers around 125 B.C.) consisting of 166 words, only one three letter word was in question after 1,000 years of transmission. This word, by the way, in no way altered the meaning of the passage.

We can be absolutely positive we have what was originally written!

History And Christianity

Your "history of Christianity" lesson was pretty limited. That's not an insult, obviously I don't expect you to recite the whole history of Christianity in a letter. However, your limited statements present a very skewed version. Let's remove the emperors you mentioned (even though one of them -Constantine - can be disputed by the fact that he attempted to combine and allow pagan practices, which is very much not like the existing Christian church you claim was a partial result of him). Would Christianity have existed today without their mandates of Christianity as law? Well, perhaps we should ask the many martyrs who died in the name of Christianity during that time. Perhaps we should study the tremendous growth of the church back then. Come on - Christianity did not depend on being, as you put it, "brutally enforced by two successive emperors of one of the largest empires the world has ever seen."

The most uninformed statement you made regarding Christian history was, "Jesus probably existed as well, though virtually everything we know about Him is of Biblical origin (contemporary Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions Him once, in passing)." This is so bogus.

By the way, I've read the book from which you took the quote "contemporary Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions Him once, in passing" . I can't remember the name of the book, but once again, you are basing your opinion on the smallest bit of out-of-context trivia. And it's not even true! Let's talk about what Josephus does say. You'll agree that it wasn't "in passing".

First of all, the statement is absolutely false because he discusses Jesus and His disciples not once, but three times. Josephus (a Jewish priest and non-Christian by the name of Joseph ben Matthias, later given the Roman name Flavius Josephus, born 37 A.D.), in his commissioned history book "Antiquities of the Jews" (bk. XVIII, chap. 3, sect. 3), talks about Jesus as "a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him: for he appeared to them alive again on the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Hmmm...what do you know - an actual non-Christian history book that describes Jesus and His resurrection as fact! This is an important historical reference to Jesus because it's from a source that can hardly be considered biased. Some have argued that this section of his book was added later by Christians wishing to alter what was regarded as perhaps the most accurate history available, and yet, they can offer no proof of this. Evidence actually points to the contrary - every ancient manuscript of this book that has ever been found, in any language and in any part of the world, contains the same passage as written.

Josephus, who has been rated among the five greatest Hellenic historians, also offers much historical evidence about other Biblical "stories", including Jesus' brother James and John the Baptist. Aren't you sorry you brought him up?

Other Ancient Jewish Sources:
(The fact that these are Jewish sources is important, because the Jewish people had a lot to lose if the world accepted Christ. It would have been very easy for them to erase his name from Jewish history.)

From A.D. 200 to 500 ancient rabbis compiled their commentaries on the Bible, Jewish social customs and historical events in the Talmud (There are actually two Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud, compiled by the Jews in Babylonia, and the Jerusalem Talmud compiled by the Jews in Israel.). Because it was compiled by rabbis who were leaders in rabbinical academies, the Talmud is considered to be very authoritative by Jews even to this day.

In the Babylonian Talmud there are numerous references to the historical existence of Jesus. In the tractate Sanhedrin, 43A, there is a fascinating historical reference to Jesus:
"It has been taught on the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshua (Jesus). And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days saying, 'He is going to be stoned because He practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover."

In this remarkable reference to Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) a number of aspects of Jesus' ministry are confirmed. First, the fact that He performed supernatural feats, which they attribute to sorcery, is confirmed cause of His rejection. Secondly, the fact that He was crucified (hanged is an idiom for crucifixion) on the eve of Passover is a remarkable confirmation of the historical events recorded in the New Testament Gospels.

Again, the value of this reference stems from its unbiased source. Certainly no one would argue that the ancient rabbis, who despised Christians, would bolster the claims of the church by making such reference to a man who never existed. In the first century A.D. a Jewish priest by the name of Joseph ben Matthias (later given the Roman name Flavius Josephus) was commissioned by the Roman government to write a history of events in Judea. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews,

Among the writings of the ancient Romans and Jews there are dozens of additional historical references to Jesus of Nazareth.

You are obviously not aware of the many other non-Christian histories confirming Jesus (emphasis on NON-Christian):

Cornelius Tacitus - Roman Historian ca. A.D 112 and Governor of Asia (Turkey); Suetonius - Official historian of Rome in A.D. 125;
Pliny the Younger (Plinius Secundus), Governor of the Roman province of Bithlynia, ca. A.D 112 (In his "Epistles X96", he states that the Christians would not worship Emperor Trajan and would not curse their leader, Jesus Christ, even under extreme torture. He was actually killing Christians, yet He described them as people who loved the truth at any cost.);
Lucian of Samosata, ca. second century A.D.;
Julius Africanus, ca. A.D 215., who recorded the writings of another historian, Thallus, 52 A.D. (Thallus reported the miraculous darkness that covered the earth at the Passover in A.D. 32. He describes it as an eclipse, which Julius disagreed with because a solar eclipse could not occur at the same time as the full moon, and it was the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died. Modern astronomers concur. However, this pagan history by Thallus confirms the Biblical account of the supernatural darkness at the time of Christ's death.)
Suetonius, ca.A.D. 120
Tertullian, ca. A.D. 197
Phlegon, ca. First century
Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion (to his son, Serapion), ca. A.D. 73
Justin Martyr, ca. A.D. 150
The Jewish Talmuds

Again , there is so much more, but I'll stop here. Show me all the historical documents confirming the Hindu god. Or Joseph Smith's writings. The works of all of these non-Christian historians are highly regarded, even today, as first rate historical accounts. Naturally, non-Christians tend to discount just one part of all their work.

Answers To Basic Questions

Your argument with the second point in my "Why I Believe" section ("Knowing this, I must ask....") was based on semantics, not a factual disproving of what I said. This is a pointless way to argue if the goal is conclusion. Let me paint an example of your response:
You say "Hello, my name is Andy Amidon". I respond: "How do I know that's true? What if you are a habitual liar? Am I to assume that your full name is Andrew Amidon? Andy can be a girl's name - are you male or female? What is your nature? By saying it is your name, do you solely claim ownership, or can someone else claim the name equally?"
Now, I know this is a goofy example, but you can see how frustrating that line of questioning can be. Still, I'd like to attempt to answer some of the questions you asked in the following section.
(By the way, in my earlier 'chapter' on The "What If" Philosophy, it may appear that I pummeled you with similar questions regarding your 'god'. However, they had nothing to do with the mere semantics in your writing. Don't think I wasn't very careful about that, since I knew I was going to "attack" you on this subject!)

Answering Single Questions From Your Letter:

1] What is the nature of God? - I thought I had an easy answer to this by just describing Him as the Bible does. You know: God is all powerful, loving, forgiving, omnipotent, all-knowing, etc. But I realized this question sets up another line of thought. It also addresses your question, "Did we (man) create God in our image?"

Let's begin by addressing yet another question: What is the nature of man? History records that has far back as we can go, man has always been essentially greedy, prideful, self-serving, arrogant, jealous, adventurous, and sex-driven. Sure, we have the ability to be loving, generous, and the opposite of all the above. But truly, what is our nature? For example, the average person who gives generously has at least the base thought of 'keeping it for himself'. Therefore, our root is essentially greedy, and we must first have the desire to overcome that greediness in order to become generous. Of course, this is a broad generalization, but you get my point.

So, what in the world would cause man, however primitive at the time, to create a God that would essentially demand him to act opposite his nature? Surely, the search for and subsequent creation of an explanation for how we got here could have been created without all the social demands. For example, if the average Joe today decided to create a God, wouldn't you expect his basic definition to be: "God created us and the earth, and said 'Go forth and party!'" or something equally self-serving? Isn't that more often than not our nature? What would be the point of contradicting our own nature?

Now, let's assume someone did make up the notion of God with all the demands for essential goodness and self-sacrifice. Can you tell me what society of man, in any era from history, would accept it? Would die for it? Even today, most people who don't accept God (and many who do!) refuse to give up many of the things that are easily of our nature, such as premarital sex, greed, etc. "Don't tell me what to do" has been the mantra of man since his creation.

According to the Bible, man was created into a perfect environment where none of these attributes would be necessary, because God had given us everything we needed to be happy. But, in this creation, we were also given free will. Even then it is shown that we must have had some of the same rotten characteristics, because we chose to eat the fruit, despite direct orders not to! It was, according to the Bible, our fall from grace that put us where we are.

As far as I can tell (which happens to be how the Bible also describes it!), man must have known God before the "fall from grace", because human nature shows that we would not have created Him this way. We must have known of His supreme power and nature from our inception. Did we create Him in our image? Impossible. Maybe physically, we imagine Him to look like us (an old man with flowing white hair and beard, not unlike Zeus was imagined), but it's pretty obvious that if we did create Him, we created Him in our exact opposite image! How likely is that?

2] Must God be either male or female? - The Bible says God is the embodiment of both, but if our argument is to be about whose got the facts, this point is unnecessary.

3] ...why is it unlikely that he would choose to abandon us? (I had written to Andy: "If He created us, it is unlikely that He would desert us") - Because He made provisions to save us (assuming we're talking about the Christian God!)

4] ...when the Bible is used to validate itself it becomes a circular argument. - It is because of this statement in your letter that my letter is so long. As you'll see, I have avoided just quoting the Bible throughout as its own validation, but rather have given you scientific and logical answers to your questions. However, in response to this statement, no one in history has ever been able to disprove or invalidate the Bible!! This establishes it as a factual document, hence other proof would be unnecessary.

As for your example that you wouldn't list yourself as a reference on a credit card application, this is true simply because the 'bank' would not take the time to get to know you, your trustworthiness, or your financial habits. For example, if you were to give me a credit card loan, wouldn't you, as my friend, not require me to give you our other friends names to validate me? You would validate me yourself based on your knowing me. You would, if you knew the Bible and the "secular" facts that back it up, not need any other validation than its own word.: (Added 11/27/97): It is important to remember, however, that to claim the Bible's validation of itself is circular is to assume that the Bible is one book. In fact, the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, written by 40 different authors on 4 different continents over a 1,500 year period. That they all came from such diverse origins and many authors who never could have met, and yet still all are in precise agreement with each other regarding history, doctrine, philosophy and prophecy, is strong enough validation in itself!

5] (Is ancient religious doctrine) more reliable than the science that forms the groundwork of our society? If so, then how? and why? - In this letter, I'm showing you why my answer is yes. Can you show me where science is more reliable than the Bible? I didn't just ask you to show me where science is reliable, I know it can be. But disprove the Bible's accuracy. Then explain why scientific ideas, theory and knowledge are constantly being changed, altered or disproven. That science "checks itself" is great, but when it does, it often gets disproven. While I do accept science as valid, it would be foolish to always blindly accept it as truth, since much of it ends up changing. When the Bible is checked, it has always, throughout history, been proven, unless you can show me where that's not true. So you tell me, which is more reliable?

6] ...could your exposure to exclusively Christian thought have anything to do with your decision to become a Christian? Did you really even have another option for religious expression and fellowship? If that were all it took, wouldn't all America (as you describe it) be Christian? Looking on my past, the biggest influences in my life should have led me to, at the very least, agnosticism. I will answer this more thoroughly in the next few sections.
(See also: "Where You Were Born")

7] (referring to Christian claims) ...there is nothing to back it up. - Nothing, Andy? Really? The single most history affecting, life changing concept in the world is based on nothing? I've got this letter, a thousand books, science, history, archeology, and millions of people to disagree with you.

8] ... I'm prepared to accept what science has to tell me... I hope so, Andy.

Miracles
The following section discusses the possiblity of miracles,
but it is discussed further in a section called
"Similar Legends"


9] From what observations should I conclude that there is a point in space and time where heaven exists? - This question also leads to other questions, namely "Where is God?" and "Are miracles possible?", because the answer I'll give in the following section on "Dimensions" applies to all three.

Dimensions

Except in mathematics, we can only speculate about dimensions other than the four in which we live. Everyone seemingly agrees that if God exists, he is not within our frame of reference - we can only imagine Him. And yet, people still rest on the "I can't believe what I can't see" philosophy (Luckily, this doesn't stop us from breathing the oxygen we can't see...). The latest findings in the study of quantum physics have indicated at least 7 other dimensions beyond space and time. We can't even get a grip on the dimensions we do live in (like the notion that time is endless, space is "nothingness"). So certainly, we can't even begin to fathom what those extra dimensions (as described by the scientific community) are like.
What ties this all in together is that scholars have long recognized 7 extra dimensions in the Bible. Freaky, huh? Perhaps God & Heaven exist, and miracles are possible, in these extra dimensions. Science has shown the extra dimensions do exist, so we can't argue that point, now can we? Some reports actually suggest up to eleven extra dimensions. And if they exist, something must exist within them, right?

As for your question, Heaven does not appear to exist in "space and time". I know that would make it easier for our feeble brains, but alas, God is much bigger than that.

One of the authors I'm reading, Ralph Muncaster (he is actually an engineer with advanced degrees and a strong base of science, mathematics and logic, and was very opposed to the Bible as fact), is very good at creating analogies, and I've included a couple in this letter. This one helps to illustrate the complexity of, and our inability to comprehend, God in other dimensions.

3-D God, by Ralph O. Muncaster
One way to relate to the impact of extra dimensions is to imagine a world reduced to only two dimensions (like a tabletop). Imagine further, the existence of several tiny "flat" human beings. The "flatpeople" would view each other as only a fine line. They could get an idea of the total shape of each other only by moving around each other. They would NOT have the total view of a 3 dimensional observer (as if you were looking at the "tabletop").

Let's call such a 3 dimensional observer "3-D God". 3-D God would be able to view an entire flatperson at once. Likewise, the 3-D God could place a finger a fraction of an inch above a flatperson and the flatperson would never know he was there. 3-D God would be totally invisible in the world of 2 dimensions, unless he chose to insert himself into it. By placing a finger on the 2 dimensional plane, 3-D God would appear as one line to the flatpeople. Placing three fingers on the plane would appear as three lines. In either case, the flatpeople would have very little concept of the entire 3-D God. They might even be puzzled at how such a 3-D God could exist as both one and three lines at the same time.

Likewise, the 3-D God could know much more about a flat individual than the flatperson would know about himself. 3-D God could also observe the totality of all flatpeople at once, even when the flatpeople were far apart. And 3-D God could do things that would be considered miracles in the two dimensional space.

Such a simple illustration provides some insight of the impact of adding only one dimension. A real God existing in many dimensions outside of time and space could presumably produce incredible miracles beyond our understanding.
~~~~~

Now, let's get past that very complicated line of thinking. When you realize, based on all other evidence, the only truth is the Bible, you understand the importance of believing His word. If you mean "observations" like your having seen a photograph, then I guess I don't have an answer for you right now. God has revealed himself to this world (and you!) more than enough, and He continues to do so. Would you expect Him to send you a postcard with a photo of Heaven saying, "Wish you were here?". If everything else He's given us has proven to be true, why would we choose not to believe Him now? We believe there is a Heaven because He says so in His (provable) Word.

There is also much talk regarding near death experiences - you know, "I saw a light...", but that's a topic for a much later discussion.

(If you are interested in a more in depth answer, I can point you in the direction of some very intelligent books that discuss this very question. I decided that I would not get into it too far in this letter and wait until we get past all the "prerequisite" subjects.)

Where You Were Born (What If You Were Born In India?)

You posed the question, "what if you'd been born in Northern India? Wouldn't you be a Hindu?" First of all, this is another "what if" question, so I personally place little importance on it. But I will answer it!

To begin with, your statement that America is a predominantly Christian place seems absurd today. Its religious background may be predominantly Christian based (Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, etc.), but out of the hundreds of people I've called friends throughout my life, probably 10% went to church. Less than half of them lived their faith. Claims of being Christian do not always mean Christianity is being practiced. Maybe you meant that America is predominantly "religious", which could include all non-Christian faiths and practices. That may be more likely. For this letter, however, this was not important enough for me to research. The fact is, my surroundings were not all that Christian! When I look back at my childhood, the influences I had from my friends, T.V., school, comic books, music, culture, etc., were anything but Christian. The true wonder is, how did I end up a Christian!?!

But let me examine the question from another angle. I grew up a Catholic. Why am I not now a Catholic? I went through a period in my life when I all but ignored God. Why am I not now an agnostic or atheist? It sure would have allowed me to have more "earthly " fun, which is all I was seeking at that point. If you and I, as you said, grew up in similar environments in the same town, etc., why do we now have differing beliefs?

As for "what if" I was born in India, why don't you ask that of any of the thousands of Christians in India? Or any of the Christians in Russia, where as late as the 1970's (that I know of) people were beaten and killed by the government for worshiping God? Or ask any Christian in China, or Japan.

In fact, did you know the largest Christian fellowship in the world (The Yuido Full Gospel Church, 700,000 members in one church!) is based in your beloved Korea? Isn't that a Buddhist country?

I have a book you could check out in which Christians from all religious backgrounds and from every country in the world discuss how they found God, and compare their inherited religion with their new one. You're welcome to read it.
You'd be interested to read about Sundar Singh, a former hard core, born and bred Hindu who was so opposed to Christianity he actually burned Bibles. Later in his life, he was killed in Tibet for preaching the Gospel.

Or you might be interested in John A. Subhan, a former Muslim who claims that after reading the Bible, (which is essentially outlawed in the religion of Islam - more on that later) he found that none of the Muslim claims about it were true. Here's a guy who only had a Muslim background, Muslim friends, and was living in an entirely Muslim culture.
Hmmm...what did these guys find out? How would they respond to your question?

God shows Himself to everybody, and enters the hearts of anyone who honestly seeks Him. That should answer your question, as well as any hypothetical question along this line of thinking.

Other Religions

It may surprise you to know that, yes, I have studied most of the world's major religions, and at the university level, I might add! Yes, it is doubtful that I could talk at length from memory about, say, Hinduism, quite as masterfully as you, but you are not dealing with someone who hasn't pursued the issue. While I was a university student, I shrugged off important music classes that pertained to my degree just so I could take upper-division (300 level) classes, such as History of Religion. Mind you, this was not at a Christian University. In fact, one professor's great claim was that after taking his class about all the world's great religions, most of his students would leave as atheists.

So, yes, I could tell you a lot about the history and founding of Buddhism, including the story of young Siddharta Gautama and his voyage into nirvana under the bodhi tree. I know about Theravada Buddhism (uses the Pali canon, based on three groups of "holy" writings known as "The Three Baskets" [Tripitaka: includes the Vinaya Pitaka - discipline basket pertaining to rules for a higher class of Buddhists, the Sutta Pitaka - the teaching basket, containing the discourses of the Buddha, and the Abidhamma Pitaka - the metaphysical basket, containing Buddhist theology]) , and Mahayana Buddhism (the standard editions of Mahayana scripture [Chinese canon] encompass over 5,000 volumes, originally based on Sanskrit, later added to in Nepalese, Tibetan and Chinese. The high volume of scripture forces Mahayana Buddhists to select certain writings they refer to exclusively, since familiarity with all scripture would be nearly impossible) the five Buddhist precepts, the other precepts that apply only to monks and nuns, Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism (a largely Japanese sect of Buddhism that has grown tremendously over the last fifty years) , and Zen Buddhism, (developed, as opposed to divinely inspired, over 1,000 years after Buddha's death. Based largely on meditation as a path towards enlightenment, part of Zen's appeal is that one is not required to be responsible in evaluating anything in the world , or even one's own thoughts. It releases the responsibility to think logically and critically).

Now, there's no way I could recite all that from memory during our next phone conversation, but does "knowing" that information prove or disprove Christianity?

I could also talk to you intelligently about Hinduism, Mormonism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Judaism, Islam, Secular Humanism, Marxism, Jehovah's Witness, Hare Krishna, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Shinto, Taoism, Sikhism, Dialectical Materialism, Transcendental Meditation, The Worldwide Church of God (Armstrongism), the Occult, Satanism, Astrology, Scientology (now there's a whacked religion!), Agnosticism, Atheism and Humanism. Not to mention all the major religions based on Christianity (Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, Baptist, etc.). Could I speak as an expert from memory about all this? No, I am far from an expert, but I own literature on all these, and have read quite a bit of it. And no, it is not all Christian based. I even own the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon, and have read from both of them.
So, on what do I base my opinion of Christian superiority? Facts, baby!! Provable, immovable, indisputable, huggable, lovable facts! Facts to left, facts to the right, stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight!

You gave me information on the theology of other religions, but no factual reasons why I should accept them as truth. It doesn't prove anything for me to tell you that God loves you, or that Jesus died for you, if I can't back it up factually.
Here's something you probably hadn't thought of. Are you aware that most of the world's other religions actually claim the Bible is true and valid, up until their prophets had a revelation from God? Their 'books' are meant to be additions to the Bible - so even their teachings are essentially saying the Bible is truth! This is true of Mormonism, Islam, and many others. Sun Myung Moon actually claims that Jesus appeared and asked him to finish His work, since He apparently failed in His task. The problem, as you'll see in my discussion about Islam, is that their additions tend to contradict most of the Bible teachings. How could that be valid?

The end result is that most other religions are based on self-improvement or self-service. Christianity is based on accepting Christ as God's son and as the resurrected Lord. It also places on you the responsibility of humbling oneself in to being a servant to others, before yourself. That is quite the opposite of most other religions. All the above mentioned religions are also the same in that they are all based on "works" or "deeds". They are all easily and humanly attainable. The Christian way is based on aspiring to the absolute perfection of God, and since we can never be as perfect as God, it may appear that we are in some sort of Catch-22. It is interesting to question, again, why would 'man' create a religious ideal that was impossible for 'man' to attain? As I mentioned, all the other religions are based on 'works' and are humanly attainable, if you just go through the motions (very little in the way of salvation in other religions, if any, is based on actual faith).
So, how do we get to Heaven? The Bible teaches, as I mentioned earlier, that we get there through faith in and acceptance of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and through accepting that He died for us and paid our price, so to speak. Does the Bible offer enough evidence to believe this is all true? My initial response is yes, but let me examine it from where you stand. While we must first decide whether or not the Bible is factual, which we will discuss shortly, it may appear to you more that the Bible merely recounts a 'story', as opposed to a miraculous event.

The Bible teaches that, as I put it in my last letter, God will judge the world fairly. This, and the fact that He is a loving God, gives us comfort not only in our own salvation, but in the possibility of salvation for others, including those who may not appear to be "Christian" - it is up to God. This addresses your question about the South American jungle tribes ("What about people who never hear of God?" - funny, this is always asked by people who have heard of God, as if it applies to them!). However, it also teaches us that once you are "aware" of God, it is your responsibility to pursue the knowledge of Him.

Allow me to put it this way: Let's transplant someone from three hundred years ago into our modern society. If you were to tell him, "Yesterday, I flew from Europe to America", he would, based on his experience, consider you a lunatic, because "man cannot fly"! However, if everyone he met began telling him of their own flying stories, he would, provided he was an intelligent man, begin to research and seek out whether or not this could possibly have happened. This parallels the Christian situation. Provided there is enough evidence that the Bible is a factual account (and there is!), we then know for a fact that there are many eye-witness accounts of the resurrected Jesus. Even still, we find it hard to swallow, because from all we know, man does not come back from the dead!

But, we weren't there, so, is there enough evidence to prove it happened exactly as it was written? Yes. This letter will address much of the evidence, but remember, it is all in summary - if you really check this stuff out, you'll be amazed.
I will admit, if you merely lump Christian philosophy (as opposed to historicity) in with many of the above named religions, it might appear to be on an equal plane. In fact, many philosophical points between Christianity and, say, Buddhism, appear to be pretty much the same. It hardly seems important where you learned not to kill, just so long as you don't kill!

I should also point out that your beloved science actually disproves the Hindu religion and its off-shoots (Buddhism and the New Age religions). Their doctrine relies on an "oscillating universe", one that expands and contracts, and science has proven that the universe is only expanding. This, although I haven't described it at length, defies their claim of reincarnation.

Let's examine some of the things we find in other religions (and believe me - this barely scratches the surface!!):

Islam

Islam (the Muslim faith) is the second biggest religion in the world, and the Koran (Quran) is the second most widely read book. Shouldn't anything that big deserve a second look by Christians, just to be sure? Well, let's take a look at some basic problems with Islam. The Koran is supposed to be divinely inspired, having been sent down from Allah, through the angel Gabriel, to the prophet Muhammad. The Koran tells us, "We have sent down to thee the Book (Koran) with the truth, confirming the Book (Bible) that was before it, and assuring it." It also states, "This Koran could not have been forged apart from God; but it is also a confirmation of what is before it..."

Right away we have a problem (and this will be my focus on the subject of the Muslim faith, although there is much more) - the Koran claims to be a continuation a