Born Againism Exposed
Questions From Fundies
Bitter? Life of an Ex-Fundy
The Trinity Exposed
Effectiveness Of Prayer
Biblegod's Atrocities
Jesus Isn't Coming Again
Genesis and Genetics
The Darkside of David
9-11 Where Was God?
Christian Cliches
Christian Comments
Christian Comments II
Christianity vs Unions
Bible Resource Page
Anti Christian Links
Jehovah's Witness Links
Radical Christian Links
Gay Son
My Personal Homepage


Leaving Fundyism
Gays vs Fundyism
Christian vs Unbeliever
Profound Experiences


Anti Masturbation
Anti Wanking Devices
Ask Elsie
Elsie Hamer's Site
God Hates Sinners!
Reverend Francis
About Rev Francis
About Caleb Hamer
Caleb on Queers
Caleb's Experiences
Proof God Hates Sinners
Caleb is Saved
Elsie's Hate Mail
Elsie's Hate Mail II
Women - Their Place!
Outrageous Catholics
Animals - No Rights
Bible Bedtime Stories


View Guestbook
Sign Guestbook


Comments From Christians I

by Mike McClellan

Following are letters I have received from Christians.

Alan sent the following comments to me on December 27, 2002. Most Christians do not respond a second time. I invited him to respond and waited until January 1, 2003 before posting the following dialogue.

I am convinced that many well meaning Christians send comments similar to the ones sent by 'Alan' after having been inspired by words from the pulpit. Unfortunately, they may be unaware that they are being misinformed by their pastors. Because they have not taken the time to study the scriptures on their own, they are at a complete loss to discuss matters further.

Dear Mike (?), In the event you do not read comments from us born again fools, and you may not read my responses to your writings,

Hello Alan. Thanks for taking time to send your comments. I assure you that I read all comments from writers. I consider no man a fool simply because he has embraced born againism. I wonder if your opening paragraph helps me to understand your thought process. Your very first sentence starts with sarcasm and, if I am not mistaken, not a little anger.

Then you suggest that I may be so discourteous that I would not read your responses. Since I don't know you in the least, it would be unfair for me to come to the conclusions that you are a very angry writer, your sarcasm being fueled by your anger. It would also be unfair to conclude that because you believe I may not read your comments, this may be a tendency which you own and are attempting to project upon others. You do, however, make a strong argument for those conclusions by your opening statements.

I will reduce my question to just one: Was Jesus resurrected?

You could have asked as many questions as you desired, rather than just one. And actually, you do include several more questions in the following body of your comments.

You asked if Jesus was resurrected. Your question assumes that Jesus Christ actually existed. I will answer your question further down the page.

The only "evidence" I have ever been shown which suggests that Jesus Christ existed, is from the bible. The bible is a self-perpetuating, self-propagating compendium of religious books put together in such a way as to tout Judaism and Jesus Christ. You will be hard pressed to prove that the bible is an accurate, historical document. The books included in it were generally selected by men with agendas. The doctrines set forth by the early church were set forth by men with agendas. The agenda of some of the men was nothing more than to avoid their own execution by agreeing to and voting for those concepts and doctrines which the early church 'fathers' and leaders deemed necessary for their own political survival [e.g. Emperor Constantine and the trinity doctrine].

With regard to Jesus Christ, the only "evidence" is what Christians present from the Bible. While the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, mentions Christ in his "Antiquities" (18:63-64), he never actually saw Jesus Christ - he only 'heard' about him. And even the short comments by Josephus are believed by many biblical scholars to have been inserted into his works as a forgery by another 'church father', possibly Eusebius. If you would like to discuss Josephus' writings further, feel free to write to me about them.

In response to your question, "Was Jesus resurrected?", you have the cart before the horse. The questions should be "Did Jesus Christ actually exist?" If he did not exist, your question is moot.

If you claim Jesus Christ existed, I would ask you to provide extrabiblical, historical, eyewitness evidence that he existed. With all of the miracles and wondrous deeds he allegedly performed according to the bible, there must be countless books and scrolls written by credible eyewitnesses to his existence. Surely you can name a couple of them.

I have read a few of your comments about Bible error under your section designated "The Problems." I have listed several as follows:

You wrote "While we know that a human must have oxygen to live and that the digestive juices in a whale's stomach will deteriorate metal, nevertheless, the bible teaches us that Jonah lived in a whale's belly for three days and survived."

The Bible says: "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." The Bible says nothing about a whale. Also, I have read and heard numerous descriptions of how Jonah must have appeared after 3 days subjected to the digestive juices of the "great fish." Certainly I have no problem accepting that Jonah probably looked somewhat "bleached out" after 3 days in a fish.

I have received numerous comments from Christians regarding my reference to a whale rather than a fish. I have even given thought to changing the words on the website from 'whale' to 'fish'. You *are* correct. No reference is made to a 'whale'. But whether it was whale or a large 'fish', you still need to explain how Jonah survived the corrosive acid digestive juices. Fish don't chew their food. They swallow it whole and leave the digestion to the powerful chemicals in their stomachs. Yet this man survived for three days in the fish's stomach with no food or water. And of course, he also survived without having oxygen. And of course there is absolutely no way to corroborate the story. You simply choose to believe it or not.

You wrote ".Christians claim he was born of a virgin - a most unusual happening. The 'original' evidence is supported only in the gospels of Luke and Matthew. It is not supported in any historical work."

The Bible says: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Old testament. The writings of Isaiah are certainly historical.

Let's examine Isaiah 7:14. I hope you'll take that time to read this, Alan, as I have afforded you the courtesy or reading your comments.

The Masoretic text of Isaiah 7:14 states, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, ha'almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

The author of Matthew 1:22-23 interprets the word "almah" to "parthenos" in the Greek. The Greek word ususally (but not always) mean't virgin. The author had a precedent for this since the Greek Septuagint (known as LXX, a translation of the OT) was used by Greek speaking Jews back then. The Jews of the day considered the Septuagint (especially Isaiah) error ridden. By the middle ages, they had quit using it and later translations of those days stopped using the word "parthenos".

The Hebrew text which predated the Septuagint used the word "almah". The word "almah" is used sparingly in the OT and does NOT denote virginity. Proverbs 30:19 uses the word "almah" to describe the way of a man with a maiden. If you read the surrounding context, you will find that the "almah" describes the affair of an adulterous woman. It is NOT the description of a virgin woman.

(You can go here if you would like a good explantion of 'almah'.The Skeptical Review .

Like the rest of the bible, the writings of Isaiah are touted as "prophetic". The problem is, the prophecies are always explained AFTER THE FACT.

According to Isaiah 7:14, the virgin would " his name Immanuel." Jesus was not named or called Immanuel by Mary. A failed prophecy.

You wrote "Although Jesus never referred to his 'miraculous' birth." The Bible says: "I and my Father are one. (Jesus speaking)" John 10:30 Jesus is here speaking of the fact that His Father is not an earthly father, one of flesh and blood. While not making reference to a virgin birth, he is certainly claiming something out of the ordinary, you will agree.

You still haven't shown me where Jesus referred to his "miraculous" birth.

Yes, "I and my Father are one" is an extraordinary claim.

Jesus also claimed that anyone with the faith of a mustard seed could say to a mountain, "Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matthew 17:21) Although Jesus allegedly made the claim, I haven't seen any documentation where it has actually happened. Nor have I ever heard of anyone to whom "...nothing shall be impossible".

What you have verified so far is that Jesus made unusual claims. He didn't back them up.

The Bible also says (Jesus speaking): "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" John 10:36 (Jesus is here claiming God as His Father: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not." John 10:37

Again, Alan, more claims with no back up.

You wrote "It is important to realize that Christianity invented sin. Then, Christianity offers to 'fix' it so the sinner can go to heaven. Its sort of like having someone punch you in the eye and then sell you ice to keep the swelling down."

The Bible says: " If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." This reference to sin is found in Genesis 4:7, written at least 1500 years before the Birth of Jesus the Christ. Sin is mentioned dozens of times in the old Testament. Is this a test? Of whom?

And, of course, Alan - once again you attempt to use the bible to prove the bible. AKA "circular reasoning". You may be so used to doing this that you have begun to believe that everyone you use it on is naieve enough to accept it as truth.

There are, of course, further problems with your reasoning processes: What are we to do with the testimony of so many of the people that have left us their personal, written testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible. Many of those same persons are recognized as among the greatest THINKERS of history? Here is a very small sampling of those that have left their testimony:

By what line of reasoning do you reject the testimonies of men and women like Blackstone, Locke, Coke and Montesquieu, Pascal, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Rousseau, William Penn, George Washington, Samuel and John Adams, James Madison, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, John Marshall, John Hancock, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman, William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, Gallileo, Sir William Hershel, Charles Darwin (Yes, Darwin), Pasteur, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Queen Victoria, Abigail Adams, Queen Elizabeth I, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Johannes Gutenberg, Sir Isaac Newton, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein, David Farragut, Lord Nelson, Douglas MacArthur, John Harvard, Elihu Yale, Jedidiah Morse, Noah Webster, William Holmes McGuffey, Lord Acton , Edmund Burke, Charles Dickens, Simon Greenleaf (a born again Jewish Believer and the greatest authority on the Rules of Legal Evidence in western jurisprudence), Alexis DeToqueville, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, etc., etc., etc (I have not scratched the surface in terms of my "witness list.")

What evidence will you present to contradict the faith of those mentioned and so many more of the bright lights of history not mentioned?

You have identified several dozen individuals above and have then made the claim that they "...have left us their personal, written testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible." Yet you have provided absolutely *no* written evidence that even *one* of the people you named had that personal faith. Then you ask by what evidence I will refute your claim.

Conversely, if I provide the names of luminaries form the same times who were *not* Christians and who did *not* believe that Jesus Christ existed, what does that prove? Is this a contest, Alan? Does the guy with the most names win? Your attempt at proving the credibility of Christianity by providing names of believers is puerile and ludicrous.

And if I provide the names of several dozen famous men in an Islamic nation who testify to their belief in Islam and the deity of Allah, by the reasoning you have presented, their claims are just as valid as yours.

Any rational observer would laugh me to shame if I tried to counter the faith of the greatest thinkers in history; and I would be ridiculous indeed, if I simply rejected their conclusions without a reasonable examination of the evidence and a rational explanation for that rejection.

You have not provided "....a reasonable examination of the evidence and a rational explanation for that rejection". You quote one man and claim his statement covers all the rest you have named. You have provided nothing! You have provided nothing but names, hoping the reader will be gullible enough to believe that you have presented proof.

Here is the testimony of John Locke. I include it because it is representative of the Testimonies of Men like like Blackstone, Coke and Montesquieu: "The Holy Scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my belief; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say there are no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear there always will be. But where I lack the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: And I shall immediately quit and condemn any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the Holy Scripture."

Here is the testimony of Thomas Jefferson who you claim, "...left us [his] personal, written testimony of [his] faith in Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

Here is John Adams who you claim, "...left us [his] personal, written testimony of [his] faith in Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible':

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here is James Madison who you claim, "...left us [his] personal, written testimony of [his] faith in Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible':

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

And here is Thomas Paine who you claim, "...left us [his] personal, written testimony of [his] faith in Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible:

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

All statements above from
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

I will be glad to hear any further comments you have, Alan


I *will* be posting this letter to a website shortly. I'll let you know which site. I intend to hold it up until I know whether or not you'll be replying

Mike McClellan

From M. Cage:

"You were born again for 20 years? And now you are not? You were a caterpillar who became a butterfly, and then you went back to being a caterpillar again? Impossible."

Mike's Comment:

Of course you would have to say it is impossible. You have no choice in the matter. You must practice absolute and complete denial. Because to admit that anyone can de-convert would mean to admit that it is quite possibly not genuine in the first place.

Incidentally, your analogy is flawed.

As a caterpillar, I was a born again Christian. The metamorphosis came as I began to realize that born againism is nothing more than a man made invention and belief system.

When I left the born again cocoon, I left the prison of born againism behind. I emerged as an enlightened and free being with a capacity for spiritual growth.

The caterpillar could not understand any of that.

The following is an exchange Between "Bob" and I in July, 2001. He has promised to send me a reply.

My past experience is that Christians often don't respond a second time after possibly having spent all of their knowledge on their initial comments. (Note: Bob never responded)

I am not you enemy necessarily.

Interesting opening. You claim you're not my enemy but qualify your claim. Why would you be my enemy in the first place? Does the fact that we likely disagree, create an 'enemy' situation?

look Jews hate Jesus and are his enemy yet they say he lived and admit he performed miracles.

"Jews"? Which Jews? Do *all* Jews hate Jesus? How about "Jews For Jesus"? Are they also Jesus' enemies?

I would ask you to define your perception of "Jews" for me so I'll understand your definition better. All Jews do not, of course, hate Jesus. Neither do all Jews say Jesus lived or performed miracles. So you've begun your comments with two false assumptions which cause me to question your credibility and knowledge.

the romans own governmental records say a jesus lived that did many miracles. historians say jesus lived.

Please provide extrabiblical references for the 'romans own governmental records' and provide the 'historians' names and where their references may be found claiming Jesus lived.

there is more evidence for jesus than for plato of greece. do you believe plato lived?

You've made another claim so I'll ask you to provide the documentation for your claim that there is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Plato. Incidentally, according to the Bible, Jesus claimed to be the Son Of God. Plato did not.

I should mention at this point that "go to the library and look it up" or "read your history books" or similar comments is not documentation but rather an attempt to avoid providing documentation/proof for your claims.

all the followers of Jesus save 2 died for their faith in Jesus according to outside Biblical history.

Documentation? And if all but 2 died for their faith in Jesus, so what? Their deaths only confirm their belief, not any truths.

if the followers of Jesus hid his body after he was crucified why would they not produce the body to save their lives? the Jews would have produced the body to disprove the resurrection if they could have done so. would you die for a lie? die to produce a false religion?

If Jesus actually existed and what you claim is true, it once again verifies the *beliefs* of his followers. It does not verify the validity of their beliefs. You should be aware that many people have died for "causes". Their deaths validate nothing aside from their personal beliefs.

I'm, presently reading a book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent. Baigent claims, with documentation, that Christ did not die but that his living body was taken away by his followers and that Christ went on to live and even marry and have children in Europe. Interesting information.

the fools on TV are imposter's and are not real christian's. they are money grubbers do not let them ruin any chance to look at the Bible with an open mind.

You've done it again, Bob. More stereotyping. If you're speaking of televangelists, you've grouped them all into one category and then claimed none of them are Christians. You've even called them *all* 'fools'. The Bible exhorts you not to call any man a fool.

After stereotyping once again, you call for open mindedness. Your statement is an excellent example of a contradiction in terms.

the King james Bible is very advanced in many ways. a medical doctor married a christian woman.he knew there was medical and dietary laws in the Bible. so he set out to disprove the medical laws in the Bible. 7 years later he was convinced it was a divine inspired book, not written by a shepherd on a hill. he said we have only in the last 30 years or so had the knowledge to prove the Bible true. want to read his writings?

Yes. I'd be interested in his writings if you can also provide his name and his sources. I'll be looking forward to hearing more about this.

write me with legitimate open minded questions i will answer you. search for truth

Interesting that you would ask for "legitimate" and "open minded" questions. I have no idea what you consider to be legitimate or open minded. Your comments begin with two false assumptions based on you stereotypical perceptions. Since those comments are unfounded, I suspect what you consider to be legitimate may well be based on the same faulty reasoning and logic.

I would appreciate having your definition of "open minded" and how one goes about searching for truth.

My guess is that you've qualified your intent to answer my questions in order to avoid having to answer questions which may evoke answers with which you don't agree or are unable to harmonize with the Bible.

I'm looking forward to your response!

Subject: You better think more on this Subject

You said that you could not beleive in a God that you cannot see.

Actually, I didn't say that at all. What I've said is that I don't believe the God of the Bible existed. He is an invention of the Israelites with degrees of Paganism mixed in.

When was the last time anyone saw Buddah?

Buddha did not claim to be God or a god. He was a prince who abandoned all earthly possessions in search of the meaning to his life. If you haven't studied his history, you may find it interesting.

You can't see the air but you know that it sustains life

Air is a fairly all encompassing term. Are you referring to our atmosphere? If so, it can be measured. It consists of elements which are known to exist and behave in certain and distinct ways.

and for one to say that this world evolved where and how did it evolve from.

Evolution is, in general, a theory. When you speak of the world evolving I assume you're speaking of the multiverse of universes which exist. I suggest no one has the answer to the origin of the universe. Certainly not the Bible which is one of the most inconsistent and ambiguous books in existence. That's not to mention its many contradictions.

and what of miracles..I choose to beleive in a God of love, I can understand the atrocities in the Bible God told His people what would happen and he allowed it and You know what He could do just that Why because He is God..

MIKE Your God of love slaughters infants, children, adults and the elderly. He also advocated and caused the abortion of living fetuses which he said he would dash to the ground. His generals executed little boys who were prisoners of war yet took their virgin sisters and used them sexually as they saw fit. Biblegod behaves much as a spoiled rotten five year old who doesn't get her way and uses temper tantrums to gain her ends.

and Yes Jesus will be back again..refer to Luke chapter 17 verse 26 and many more of the same

MIKE I would ask you, Susan, to disprove what I have written with regard to Jesus' return. Paul felt such an urgency that he urged believers not to marry and not to accumulate belongings. Jesus told his disciples he would be back before all of them died. They all died. He didn't return.

and as far as the Trinity The Bible said There are Three that bear witness In Heaven 3 what does that tell you??? No it does not actually say the word "Trinity" the meaning of trinity is 3..

I understand the use of the word "trinity". Again, if you've read about Constantine, you understand that the "Trinity" was voted upon. It was not a doctrine or teaching until the pagan emperor decided it should be doctrine. It was a political process. It lost favor and gained favor again. It is man's teaching and doctrine.

As with many other Christian doctrines and practices, the Trinity concept was borrowed from Mithraism.

My Friend Jesus said that one day every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.. And the Bible also says that the Fool says there is no God..Not calling you a fool but so says the word of God..

You use to Bible to prove the Bible. This is called "Begging the Question". Proof of a historical Jesus is little and none. And with regard to the resurrection, there is no extra biblical proof or evidence that it took place. You stop and think, "my friend", wouldn't such an earth shaking event draw more attention? Yet no credible historians have discussed the resurrection as fact. And the Bible relates several very different accounts of how it happened depending upon which Gospel or book you read.

My friend I pray that you never speak against the Holy Spirit because the word says you can talk against God and you can talk against Jesus but to speak against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin..I Pray peace and Mercy on your Life..God Bless..Susan

Again, you beg the question. You attempt to use the Bible to prove the Bible. If the trinity exists and the Godhead is equal, why can I speak against God the Father or God the Son but not God the Holy Spirit? Is not speaking against one speaking against all? Why does the Holy Spirit deserve special status?

The entire thrust of my website is not to take anyone away from a belief in which s/he is comfortable but rather to be supportive to those who have walked away from Christianity, are in the process or leaving or who are considering leaving. I also moderate an email support group for the same folks who want out. If you're comfortable spiritually with your beliefs then that's where you need to be. I have no need to convince you otherwise.

Subject: Wrong

dennis, (1) i read your article on the flood and some of the stuff you come up with is so wrong,

Hi Brian -
I'm not sure which article you're referring to. I haven't cited any of the following scriptures you quote below regarding Noah's Ark. Is it possible you went to an offsite link on my website and mistook it for something I wrote? I notice you refer to me as "dennis" rather than by my name, Mike. Was the article written by Dennis McKinsey?

like you said in (Gen. 6:16) says "A window shalt thou maketo the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above. You asked the question of how could all the animals breath with just one small opening in the ark, well i will answer that question but first where in the Bible does it ever say that there was just one small opening? Now my answer to your question would be that the Bible does not say that there was just one small opening. In fact, the Ark is said to have a window and a door (Gen. 6:16) and a covering (Gen. 8:13).

But where are additional windows mentioned?

In addition, various Ark sitings indicate the presence of a sort of "catwalk" on top of the Ark which would have provided some kind of ventiliation. It would not be assumed that the Ark would have been anymore "airtight" than an automobile or a home with the windows and doors closed.

I'd be interested in knowing the specific book(s) and verse(s) "indicating" a sort of catwalk. As far as not being "airtight" referring to an auto or a home, imagine either one being closed for just 2 weeks and animal urine and feces being constantly produced on the floor. Not only would the odor be bad, the methane and ammonia would be overwhelming.

In addition, the Bible does not say that the window remained closed for the 190 days, but since it was in Noah's power to open the window (Gen. 8:6) it is likely that he could have opened it sooner if the need for additional ventilation arose.

Even with the window (and the door) open part of the time, there wouldn't have been sufficient ventilation to clear the accumulating odors and gases. I notice you're referring to the window as "it" indicating that you also accept the notion of one window.

(2) (Gen6:17)say's "I do bring flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die. Then you asked the question how could a flood destroy sea animals,such as whales, etc.....that are living entirely under water? If you would just look and search what your actually studying then even a little toddler could figure this out.The Bible clarifies the meaning of "everything" in (Gen6:17)by stating that it indluded "all flesh wherein is the breath of life" and in (Gen 7:21-23) it is further explained that only land animals were taken on the Ark.

Interesting observation. Assuming this is correct, how do you explain where all of the animals in the oceans, lakes, rivers and streams came from the second time after the alleged flood waters receded? Did they evolve? The bible doesn't mention a second 'creation' of them.

BRIAN Well I have some more to disprove you with but I'am not going to waste my time, next time try to figure something out a little more belivable than these questions, there just to easy,

So far Brian, you haven't disproven anything. The problem is - you're attempting to prove the bible by quoting the bible. The bible is a self perpetuating book. It claims to be the word of God because it says its the word of God. You assume the flood account is accurate because the bible says it happened. This is called 'begging the question'. Most biblical scholars agree if there was a flood such as described by the bible, it was localized and did not encompass the entire earth.

BRIAN oh ya your the head of AAA?

I'm not sure what this means. Sarcasm? If you meant Alcoholics Anonymous, the acronym is "AA". Just two A's. Automobile Associaton of America doesn't make any sense either.

BTW - check the date on your computer. The year is coming up as 2001 on your Email.

Subject: Study More

It is evident that you are confused about some biblical truths. You may need to go back to the original language before making your proclamations as stone fact. You are a bit off course on your interpretation.

Furthermore, 2 Peter 3: 3, 4 says, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

Jesus has not broken any promises. He will return as he promised. You have some misinterpretations that you are holding to as fact. 2 Peter 3: 5 begins by saying, "For this they willingly are ignorant of..."

Read 2 peter chapter 3. You will find that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Also, if you look at the events that were necessary for Christ's return, it would be clear to you that they had not yet happened when the scriptures were concluded. As of now, I cannot find one prophesy that needs to be fulfilled before his return, outside of the completion of the age of the Gentile.

If you view Christ as a breaker of promises, then I am sorry to say, you will have your part in the lake of fire. Be sure about what you are denouncing before you denounce it.

Subject: you are totaly lost

The bible warns us that in the last days prior to the coming of Christ many, (like Mike McClellan) will deny the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He takes many passages of scripture out of context, but yet fails to mention 2 Peter 3:3-4: " Knowing this first, that there shall come scoffers(mockers) walking after their own lust. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers, (early church fathers) fell asleep(died) all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation"...

That sounds like you Mr. McClellan and many like you. The bible is the most accurate and up to date ever revealed to man because it is the WORD OF THE LIVING GOD. The bible warns us that in the end times many would, " twist the scriptures to their OWN DESTRUCTION", (2 Pet 3:16). I believe you need to trust in Christ as your saviour. I believe in the infallible, inerrant, and authority of the word of God. In which you will be judged by someday Mr. McClellan. And that's why you can call me a FUNDAMENTALIST.

You have a problem, and only Christ can help you. Pastor August Rosado. P.S. I would love to debate you on the end times and the rapture of the church.


Subject: A Poor Soul

You probably read my first e-mail concerning the SOON return of Christ. I read your commentary concerning bible believing Christianity, the authority of God's word, ect.

You add fire to my faith as a born again bible believing Christian. ..Why? Jesus said in Matt 16:18: And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock( J- esus) I will build MY CHURCH, and the GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. For 2,000 years the church of Jesus Christ has been under attack, and she is still here(not for long) PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. You can go on attacking, but well did Jesus say about you and others like you, "

But this is your hour, and the power of darkness" ( Lk 22:53). Mr. McClellan, God has a message for you. He loves you, and sent his son Jesus to die for you. Open your heart to him, and he will take the hatred, the hurt, and the anger away. And change your life.

I don't hate you, but love you with the love of Jesus.

Subject: Letters on Web Site

Yes, it is tough to leave fundamentalist Christianity. I am in the process now and it is difficult on so many levels. I realize now that I have been, for lack of a better word, programmed into feeling guilty whenever I read materials from other religions or when I point out a contradiction in the Bible. But, all through childhood,

I was innundated with the "importance of church attendance" and the "eternal consequences of disobeying God". No wonder I felt guilty and miserable about religion-- I was bullied into believing that thinking for myself would send me to a fiery Hell. I have, at the present, found a warm and wonderful community in Deism and it makes much more sense to me than my Southern Baptist upbringing has.

I appreciate sites like yours because they let me know I am not alone.

Thanks for visiting my website and your kind comments. Most of the letters are "the worst of the worst" but they do convey the mindset of some folks.

The thrust of the site is to be supportive to folks who have left or are in the process of leaving born again fundamentalist Christianity. Its a difficult road to walk alone!

Subject: Are You The Man

What suffering you must have gone through with a GOD that would not allow you to have wild sex, party with drugs and alcohol, or use language and words that fit every occasion.

He probably doesn't want you to contact your feminine side and explore an intimate relationship with another man. The Bible probably even made those that rob, murder and molest look like bad people.

Face it a GOD like that just doesn't want people to think for themselves, or experience things for themselves.

What could HE probably think He is protecting people from?

The idea, not wanting you to get aids, clap, gonorrhea, syphilis or some girl pregnant out of wedlock. To think HE tried to keep you from alcoholism or drug addiction so you wouldn't wreck your life, marriage, or family. Hey, if you get mad or fed up it is your right to just go out and kill someone, you might even rape them first if you want, right?

I mean if your going to go to prison or get the death penalty you may as well go for the gusto.

Just think of it, all of the fun GOD has kept you from and HE even used you to keep others from having all that fun, sure there are some consequences to suffer, but if it feels good do it.

I hope you can get through this message and before you respond, sleep on it, OK?

You feel free to lead your life the way you see fit, and you, and all those you lead can suffer the consequences of your mistakes.

You are trusting you with answers of life and eternity, you are encouraging others to trust you for the answers of life and eternity, and you have already made countless mistakes and been wrong more times than you can imagine, but you are smarter than GOD that sees the big picture. If you are wrong about the Bible and you are wrong about GOD and you are wrong about heaven and hell, then you will probably be wrong about Salvation in Jesus Christ.

It will be by your own will, not GOD's will that there will be hell to pay and an eternity to remember those who suffer because of you, maybe even those you love.

If the Bible is not true, and if there is no GOD, then still no man, no family, no government, and no nation could find a better book to aid them in a joyful, peaceful and prospering life. No book of law can compare, no book of parenting can compare, no book of charity can compare and no book of love can compare. With no Heaven and with no GOD mankind would still be better off living according to the Bible than in their own footsteps or even yours.

I know what it is to live in your footsteps and my life still bares the scars. If you are not saved, then all of your efforts for GOD were exhausted in your own might. You exhausted yourself doing good for GOD and now you serve a new fresh desire, a new master, but with the same old story.

You are burnt out on the Bible, burnt out on GOD and now you are living in the power of human reason. The next time you read the newspaper you will see the results of human reason.

I would rather be wrong believing the Bible, than wrong not believing it.

GOD asks nothing of us that is not for our own good, physical or spiritual.


I am not as sorry for you as I am for those you might influence. Are you trying to face or conquer a deep down hurt by blaming GOD? That would be nothing new.


Hello BK

If I understand your comments, anyone who doesn't hold your beliefs as truth:

Has wild sex
Abuses drugs and alcohol
Uses inappropriate language
May be a homosexual
Robs, murders and molests
Acquires sexually transmitted diseases
Wrecks their marriage and/or family
Causes pregnancies out of wedlock
Satisfies physical desires no matter the consequences

All of the above sound like stories right out of the Bible.

It has become popular among fundamentalist Christians to impute immoral and inappropriate values and acts to anyone who fails to embrace their convoluted belief system. It may surprise you to know that non-Christians also practice morality and obey the laws of the land.

After I was born again and became involved in fundamentalist Christianity, I no longer had to think for myself. The Bible dictated the life I was required to live as interpreted by the other fundamentalists who didn't waste anytime "helping" me to understand the Bible's true meanings.

You state that I'm trusting myself to find the answers to life and eternity and that I'm making mistakes. Would you define the questions and the mistakes I've made so we'll both know what you're talking about.

If you read my page on the atrocities Biblegod committed in the old testament, you'll understand why I don't agree with you that the Bible is the literature we should look to, to enjoy peace, prosperity.

If you read Leviticus, you'll understand why I don't agree that it is the perfect book from which to learn law. The last time I burned the required bull on my altar, the neighbors complained about the stench , the pools of blood and the flies, and my cruelty to the animal when I sliced his throat while he was conscious.

The following is an excerpt from a letter written by "Strike" whose website can be found at

The Bible says that God changes his mind - in which case 'he' cannot be trusted and his assurances/promises cannot be relied upon.

To sum up, , the Bible depicts a deity who is unstable and erratic:- God is responsible for confusion - Isa 45:7 (Contradicted by 1 Cor 14:33). God himself lies and is responsible for lies/deliberate deceit- 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chron 18:22, 2 Thess 2:11 (Contradicted by Num 23:19, Titus 1:2).

God 'repents', i.e., regrets an action/changes his mind/ acknowledges that he has made an error - Gen 6:6-7, Ex 32:14, 1 Sam 15:35, 2 Sam 24:16, 1 Chron 21:15, Jer 18:8,10, 26:3,13,19, 42:10, Joel 2:13, Amos 7:3, Jonah 3:10 (Contradicted by Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29).

Its unfortunate that you have accepted the Bible as the word of any God when it is such a contradictory, errant and evil speaking book. But my guess is you're where you need to be right now spiritually. Its always easier to accept a prescription for spiritual beliefs written and promoted by someone else than it is to explore and seek truth actively on your own.

Finally, why is it that Christians so often attribute leaving Christianity to a "deep hurt"? I enjoyed being a Christian and except for the usual disagreements we all have in life, there was no hurt inflicted or received. Its simply a matter of realizing that the Bible is no more the word of God than is what I've written here and on my website.

On the other hand, your letter conveys anger, sarcasm and frustration. Why?



god forgive you for you know not what you say.




I can't count how many times it has been suggested to me by born-again Christians that I was never saved. At the time I was 'saved', I was watching Billy Graham on TV. At that time I realized I was a sinner. I asked god for forgiveness and I asked Jesus to come into my heart and life and to cleanse me from my sins. I asked god, in Jesus name, to make me a new creature in him. I asked him to lead me and guide me in my new life and walk. I asked all of these things with a sincere and contrite heart.

If, after that, I still hadn't received salvation, then the bible lied. biblegod doesn't answer prayer as promised in the bible and the TV set was the only one who heard my sinners prayer.

As I wrote in my website, the more I studied the bible, the more contradictions, errors and inconsistencies became manifest to me. I questioned how the word of an omniscient, omnipotent, all pervasive god could leave an imperfect 'book' by which man would be expected to live his life. The extreme confusion caused by the bible is evidenced by the hundreds of different denominations which now exist. That is not to mention all of the murders and wars attributed to the god of the bible. Did god deny his 'truth' to all of these people who have diligently searched his alleged word, seeking spiritual truth(s)?

Your allegation that I don't know god is really the only explanation you can come up with to explain why a born-again believer would leave the fold once "saved".

Your bible tells you not to judge others but you have chosen to cast that command aside and judge me by the standards of your own personal religious belief system. I rather imagine you think your belief system is completely valid to the exclusion of all other beliefs with which you don't agree.

One of my non- Christian friends lead me to your site. Frankly, what I see here makes me sick- although I can not deny you your First Amendment Right to speak out.

I suppose I just wanted to let you know that what you are doing is evil and I have found that most of the time, when someone is SO obsessed with proving a Christian wrong and they spend all their time and energy trying to disprove it- they are actually seeking and seeking hard. I pray for you- that you will eventually take this site off the web.

By the way, God loves us all- just because someone has a typo or misspells something, doesn't mean a thing- God loves all types - from the most educated to the babies....

Page Updated: