Dialogue/Forum on
Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of
Christian Atonement

About this forum:

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to Davis D. Danizier. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted.
In most cases, Davis D. Danizier will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from Davis D. Danizier directly via e-mail, it may sometimes take several days before the response is included in this forum.
Most recent additions are shown first.

Comments from correspondents are shown in BLACK.
Replies by Davis D. Danizier are shown in GREEN.

Notes:
1. While comments in agreement and disagreement are shown, this forum is a commentary on the article by Davis D. Danizier. The editors will try to present a balanced dialogue, but do not claim to be impartial and cannot ensure absolute objectivity.
2. Entries are presented in a dialogue format -- i.e., a series of related entries by a single writer are grouped together, along with Davis D. Danizier's replies to specific comments.
3. The entries included in this webpage are those specifically responding to the web page about the Christian doctrine of Atonement. Other dialogue pages responding to other religious commentaries by Davis D. Danizier may be found as follows:

Commentary: Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement - http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
Forum: this page

Commentary: Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
Forum: Discussion about Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dpforum.html

Commentary: Bible Contradictions, Flaws and Failed Prophecies - http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dbforum.html

Forum on General Christianity or Combining various topics:
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dxforum.html

Dialogue with Lee
Lee writes on 9-25-03:

I wish I'd met you before my years in the ministry. Your challenging commentary is superb. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

What would be the Christian theological perspective on the following? Am I just playing with words or do I have legitmate point?

Define of the word give/gave as in Jn 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son". Dictionaries define give/gave to mean: the transfer ownership; to present without expecting, demanding, or having any rights or anticipation of return; a permanent relinquishment of control as to give a deed of real or personal property. In other words, once a property or person is given, it's transfer is permanent.

According to Christian theology: Jesus, the Word made flesh, through Mary's miraculous virgin birth, was sacrificially punished by a brutal crucifixion for mankind's sin , but was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, the Father. Jesus, the only begotten Son given by the Father has returned to God the Father as anticipated "before the foundations of the world". The gift of Jesus was not only not permanent, but the gift was returned as pre-ordained through God's engineered omnipotence.

Thus, shouldn't Jn 3:16 read "For God so loved the world that He premeditatively loaned His only begotten Son" to more accurately reflect the facts as alleged?

If "loaned" is correct, then what are the implications as to the signifcance of the the atonemnt, the import of sin, and the moral fortitude of both Jesus and the Father?

DDD reply: You raise an excellent editorial suggestion for the corrective rewriting of John 3:16. However I don't agree it should be, corrected, since whoever produced the work attributed to John clearly wrote after Paul and was Paul's disciple. Thus, the innocent dupe accurately reflects Paul's perspective, except that he doesn't go as far as Paul in divorcing faith or belief from works; note the importance (in terms of salvation) that "John" ascribes to "deeds" in the same paragraph division, in verses 19-21. The one that really needs a re-write is Paul ... unless you harbor the suspicion that he found a more devious way to undermine and destroy Jesus' beautiful teachings than by direct persecution.

Lee continues on 9-29-03:

My "loan vs give" thought was tonque in cheek, meant to give fundies a twit. So far their best answer is to say that Give is aorist tense thus meaning the giving is a continuum. Then I ask them to reconcile that with Heb 9:28 "Christ was ONCE offered" and the converstion ends. So the many contradictions and illogic you so well articulate continues.

DDD reply: Actually, the more I reflect on what you write, the more I like your "loan vs give" thought, especially in light of Heb 9:28, a connection I had not made. Again, notwithstanding your "tongue-in-cheek" demeanor, it does not address the verses from other writers who helped promulgate Paul's undermining of Jesus, but it does present a lighter view of the serious manner in which Paul undermined Jesus. However "light" it may be, I can imagine that this would certainly be a line that would bring Paulian defenders to a tongue-tied halt.

L: Following are a couple articles I wrote you might find of interest:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/5/015relig.html
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=250

DDD reply: I checked out and read both your articles and found them to be quite worthy. Certainly, yours reflects a deeper level of theological education and sophistication, while mine is just the simple compilation of inconsistencies, contradictions and logical fallacies that caused a once-devout follower to stray from absolutist orthodoxy (while maintaining a quaint affection for the teachings attributed to Jesus as reported in Matthew and Luke in which he encourages an expansive, liberal view of universal compassion antithetical to the harsh narrowness of Paul's bitter, small-minded world -- I hope that affection shows through at some level, very few readers seem to catch it though a few do).

I particularly enjoyed your comments about the "success rate" of prayers. I have long noted that when Paulians pray, if the outcome is that which they wanted they are being blessed, and if the opposite outcome occurs they are being "tested." I suppose when the conclusion is decided in advance, all evidence reinforces it.

Dialogue with Joe
Joe writes on 7-11-03:

I have also had concerns that the doctrine of atonement, expressed as "paying the penalty for sin," either in the sense of the satisfaction or ransom theories, did not make sense.

DDD reply: Yes, any person who rationally considers this concept in light of even the most basic concepts of justice and morality, not to mention logical consistency, cannot escape the reality of its absurdity!

J: I further understand that no official council of the Church has every made a definitive statement of the doctrine of atonement--the popular teachings are officially just speculation.

DDD reply: You say "the Church" but don't say which one. There are many churches. And most of them, such as evangelical (fundamentalist) Protestants, as well as Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, most certainly do have "official" positions on the atonement. If you are referring to the Catholic church, I am not familiar with a specific pronouncement in an official "creed" however the Catholic Church widely does accept the concept that, in some way, "Jesus died for our sins." Words to that effect are included in the liturgy of every mass.

J: I have found the "exemplary" position taken by Peter Abelard more acceptable but perhaps not entirely satisfactory.

DDD reply: I am not familiar with Peter Abelard. If his position (and I'm just guessing now) is something to the effect that Jesus sacrificed himself (because he taught universal compassion expressed in action, knowing that it would offend the established religious orthodoxy and thus place him in physical jeopardy) and therefore is a good example of standing up for one's beliefs, I could go along with that. But that would not distinguish Jesus from any other person who courageously sacrificed himself or herself to save another, and is also a good example though no one holds them up as a "savior" or "redeemer" from sins.

J: Nevertheless, one is left with the question: Was it necessary for Jesus to be crucified?

DDD reply: It depends on what you mean by "necessary." If you mean, was it necessary in some "cosmic" sense to expunge our sins from some great volume of justice in the skies, then such a concept is ridiculously and childishly simplistic and would have to be rejected for the reasons I outlined in my commentary. If you mean, was it necessary for Jesus to risk his life in order to stand up to the contemporary, established religious orthodoxy which also held some measure of public authority (at the pleasure of the Roman conquerors), then it might be necessary in the same sense that it is necessary for someone to stand in front of an oncoming car to push others out of the way, or for a soldier to die by jumping on an incoming grenade to save 9 of his buddies. But in such cases, while we honor the examples of these courageous heroes, we do not anoint them saviors or claim that their noble acts have erased the sins of those whose physical lives they have spared.

J: And necessary or not, why did he go through it?

DDD reply: A couple of possibilities:
a) he was a murder victim who was powerless to stop the murder; or
b) it was the inescapable consequence of actions he had to take in order to get his message out.

J: One line of reasoning I had explored is this:
By his sacrifice, Jesus earned the right to forgive sins, and offers himself as a "broker" for forgiveness.

DDD reply: But other heroes who sacrifice their lives to save others don't become "brokers" for the forgiveness of the sins of those they save. They may earn the gratitude and even, perhaps, some measure of cosmic obligation at the scales of justice, but they don't gain the absolute dictatorial ownership of the futures of those they have saved and certainly not the right to "broker" the forgiveness of those others' sins.

And now you have switch gears from salvation to the forgiveness of sins. They are not the same thing. You seem to be echoing the widely-held Christian belief that no person who is "in sin" can enter the "kingdom of heaven." This still treats "sin" like a physical object. You either have this contraband on your person (or spirit) or you don't. You are either sinful or not. I address this at great length in my commentary. If you say that no one can enter the presence of god who has any "sin" then you make god a very weak and impotent deity indeed. And, more to the point, sin is NOT a physical attribute, but a defect of character. There is no way to remove sin. It simply is the historical record of our shortcomings. I committed a sin. It happened. There is no way I can undo that fact. What I can do, and what Jesus so excellently taught us through universal compassion expressed in action, is to reform my flawed character so that I would not in the future have even the inclination toward repeating such a flaw.

J: I haven't yet worked this position out in rigorous detail, but the tentative outline goes something like this: If I sin against someone, causing that person to suffer, perhaps irreparably, how can a third party "forgive" me of that sin?
Particularly if it is one for which it is impossible to make amends, e.g. murder (although in fact it is unlikely that we can truly make amends for even the most modest suffering--that moment of other person's life has been irretrievably damaged, regardless what may transpire subsequently). Would not justice demand that only the victim can forgive?

DDD reply: Certainly only the one who has been injured has the capacity to "forgive" -- however, your constant reference to "forgiveness" overlooks the fact that even "forgiveness" does not make the fact of the sin go away, though it may be part of the process of helping the sinner reform his character and change in such ways that he would not be the same person with the same inclinations as he was when he demonstrated such imperfection.

J: By enduring suffering from man's sins--my sins--at least equivalent to anything I might have inflicted on the victim, Jesus establishes "forgivable interest" in my sins. If he can forgive our torturing him to death, a fortiori any lesser suffering I might have inflicted can also be forgiven.

DDD reply: Here is where your logic gets even murkier. You suggested that only the victim can forgive, and I agreed. So now you say that by becoming an additional victim, by drawing additional suffering upon himself, Jesus obtains a "forgivable interest" in our sins (what "controlling legal authority" came up with the quasi-legalistic-theological concept of a "forgivable interest"?). As to the issue of "forgiveness" (which is still distinct from either reform of the character or making the sin actually go away, which is impossible), this might have had some merit IF Jesus actually transferred the suffering entirely from the victim to himself. Let's imagine the worst possible crime: an evil, malicious man kidnaps, molests, tortures and ultimately murders an innocent young child. The child suffers terribly through every phase of this crime. The fact that Jesus died on the cross does not undo or eliminate the fact of this child's suffering. Even a smaller crime, like schoolyard bullying or taunting someone who is "different" -- the victim has suffered. Even if you believe that Jesus somehow took upon himself that suffering, as well as the suffering of every other sin against every other human who ever lived or will live, I have never even heard anyone even suggest that Jesus' "taking upon him those sins" in any way also took away the suffering of those victims. At the very best, if you can even believe that he did that, all you have is a single instance in which you simply double the amount of suffering in the universe (once by the victim and again by Jesus when he re-experiences all this suffering). You have not taken away the victimhood of the original victim, and that it is THAT victim who retains the sole right to forgive, which again is different from either making the sin go away or reforming the flawed character. If Jesus could take away the pain and suffering of those victims, and transfer the entire victimhood away from them and solely to himself, your point might be a little closer (though still misses on the issue of the relation of sin to salvation). But we all know that didn't happen. No one has ever claimed that all the victims were relieved of their suffering, since everyone of us has endured some level of suffering for others' sins against us so we all know that it didn't happen. If Jesus just added another instance of that suffering to himself, then all you have is an increase of suffering, and for what? Sorry, but I just can't see an all-knowing, all-wise deity working that way.

J: Per the "Lord's Prayer", we can be forgiven only if we forgive.

DDD reply: Well, that concept would be consistent with Jesus' teaching that real salvation, the reformation of our flawed characters, is rooted in universal compassion expressed through our actual behavior. But it still is not true. Someone could commit a wrong against me. And even though that person never ever forgives anyone who has ever wronged HIM, that does not prevent ME from rising to the occasion and forgiving him. If you adhere strictly to the statement above, then my ability to forgive others would be contingent upon their willingness to forgive others, and I don't think I could believe in a doctrine that puts my ability to forgive into the hands of others.

And by the way, you misquoted the Lord's Prayer. It does NOT say we can be forgiven only if we forgive. Addressing the Lord, it says, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us." It does not say that we can only be forgiven on that basis; it instructs us to ask God for forgiveness commensurate with that standard.

J: I argue that Jesus in effect says: "I am your creator, and theirs, therefore I have full power to forgive them and you. Furthermore, I have suffered more than you have from those who sinned against you, and more than they have from those you sinned against. Therefore, I can, and in fairness, make you this offer: In exchange for your forgiveness of them, I forgive you on their behalf. [For if they have not also forgiven you, by virtue of their unrepentance of their own sins, they have forfeited their right to withhold forgiveness.] And because I love you, in consideration of your repentance, I forgive you on my own behalf."

DDD reply: No need to address this since it is a restatement of the points I have already addressed (thoughtful and eloquent, but nevertheless a restatement).

Joe continues on 7-21-03:

Since I had personal questions re: the Atonement, I had earlier undertaken a study of the subject myself.
Why? I believe, as the scriptures say, Jesus suffered and died for the forgiveness of my sins.

DDD reply: In each case that I cite scripture, I always cite the specific chapter and verse I am referring to (of course, I have to, since many erroneously perceive my comments to be hostile to "scripture" so I have to back up anything I say). I don't doubt that there are scriptures that make this claim. But can you find one from Jesus in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and John? Or are you relying on Paul, who I have already documented as contradicting Jesus extensively in my website on that subject? Please cite specifically the scripture you are referring to, that I may fully respond to its authorship and context.

J: Since it was clearly such a serious and important issue to Jesus, I should like to appreciate that seriousness and importance, so I could be truly grateful for what He did for me.

DDD reply: I do not find any evidence that the modern interpretation of atonement, whether Protestant or Catholic, had any importance whatsoever to Jesus, or that he even considered it at all. I find the entire concept created out of whole cloth by Paul, not Jesus, as I noted in my commentaries. I do find, however, that Jesus did offer a tremendous gift, in his teaching of salvation by universal compassion (for friends, neighbors, enemies, lepers, those who were rejected and despised: the "least of these") expressed actively through deeds. I further find that those who replace Jesus' teaching with that of Paul, however well-meaning, have rejected Jesus' gift in favor of accepting a poor substitute that appeals to those "greedy Christians" who want something to be easy: that they can claim as a matter of belief but don't actually have to DO anything for.

J: But I'm left with a couple of as-yet unresolved questions:
1. Why did God/Jesus consider it necessary to undergo such a torturous death in order to forgive my sins?

DDD reply: And as I noted previously, I do not believe that he did undergo this torturous death to forgive sins, but rather as the price of standing up against the established religious orthodoxy to preach his revolutionary message, which was promptly undermined by Paul and those who follow his doctrine of blood atonement for the remission of sins.

J: 2. Granted that he did, how does that save me?

DDD reply: I can't respond to this, because I absolutely reject the "given" that you take for "granted."

J: Since you seemed to be struggling with similar questions...

DDD reply: I went through a brief initial period 30+ years ago when I struggled or wrestled with these questions. I no longer "struggle" since coming to what is now such an obvious conclusion: Paul contradicts Jesus (and his brother James), and the atonement is a complete fabrication of Paul that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and in fact is a further part of Paul's contradiction which undermines what Jesus taught as I note in my commentary on Paul vs. Jesus.

J: ...I thought you might be interested in my reasoning and tentative conclusions, or even in continuing to explore the topic. If that is not the case, I do not mean to badger you with my opinions--we can simply abandon this discussion.

DDD reply: While I have resolved this issue to my satisfaction, I still find it fascinating that so many people are taken in by Paul's contradiction, and always enjoy pursuing the topic, as time and energy permit.

J: I said: There has been no OFFICIAL church doctrine of the Atonement. You said: Which church? I respond:
I'm of the opinion that God, by which I mean the God of the Bible, has only one church. Of course, since Abraham there have been five major divisions: Judaism, Catholic, Moslem, Orthodox, and Protestant. And the Protestants have never stopped splitting among themselves. So as to which church, let's just say anyone who claimed to speak officially for the Judeao-Christian tradition, i.e. including the Catholic church and the major Reformation movements.
Re the specific "churches" you mentioned:
"Evangelical" is not a denomination but rather a loose affiliation. On the Atonement, the NAE statement of faith [www.nae.net] says they believe in " [our Lord Jesus Christ's] vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood." I'm not sure when that position was approved, but I'm suspecting it was not before the 19th century at the earliest; in other words, SINCE the Reformation, since I don't recall the Atonement ever being a major issue of the Reformation. In any case, I think that wording leaves a lot of room for any of the popular theories, or perhaps some new inventions; it doesn't even mention "sin" or "forgiveness.". As for the other three denominations you mentioned, they are not usually considered "mainstream" Christians; I don't think anyone but themselves would say they speak for ALL Christians, and they themselves would say so only to the extent that they believe there are no Christians other than themselves. By contrast, statements in the Apostles and Nicene Creed presumably represent a much earlier and more universal understanding among Christians.
The Apostles Creed does not offer a reason for Jesus' death; the Nicene Creed says only that Jesus was crucified "for our sake" and "for our salvation. The scriptures [Paul] add that the reason was forgiveness of our sins:
"Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." [I cor 15:3] and
"we have redemption through his [Jesus Christ's] blood, the forgiveness of sins" {Eph 1:7; Col 1;14].

I think it would be fair to say that most Christians agree that in some sense Jesus died in order that our sins could be forgiven.

DDD reply: This statement follows references to various scriptures (and to that extent addresses my earlier comments requesting specific scriptural references). But note, that every one of the verses cited is from PAUL. Nothing from Jesus. This supports my position.

J: The issue, in my mind, is not the fact of the Atonement, but WHY did it take the form of a torturous death of an innocent man, and HOW does it effect forgiveness of my sins.

DDD reply: But the issue I have framed in my website and these discussions does question the very fact of a blood atonement (as distinguished from a death on the cross, which was merely one of many in those days, or a voluntary sacrifices, which is rare and noble but Jesus is hardly the only one). I question the fact that one man could die and assume the sins of others. Your questions about its form as a "torturous death of an innocent man" and "how" it can forgive sins only lends credence to my doubts about the atonement as a theological concept.

J: My point to you is that one would be mistaken in rejecting Christianity on the basis of ANY specific theory of the doctrine of Atonement, because "Christianity" has never made a formal statement of the Atonement, particularly not the Ransom or Satisfaction or Penal/Substitution theory. If you choose to reject one of the Protestant denominations on this point, so be it; but keep looking--there is likely to be another denomination that does not teach that theory! Of course, many Protestants would agree you are free to construct your own theory based on the scriptures. That is what I had started trying to do. But I have been trying to construct one that also makes sense.

DDD reply: I am not concerend with whether "Christianity" has a formal position on the Atonement. The fact is, that there are a variety of positions on the Atonement and, whether official or not, they are widely debated and discussed, and I am adding my meager voice to the dialogue.

J: RE Abelard -- You said: "I am not familiar with Peter Abelard." I respond: From what you said on the webpage, it seemed to me the ideas of Peter Abelard were most consistent with your views, so I thought you might want to look into it further. He was quite famous in his day [1079-1142], and is still of interest to scholars to the present time [there are 68 listings on Abelard on Amazon.com], but his views were never accepted by the mainstream.

DDD reply: Thanks for the reference. I am always pleased to find another scholar who has independently stumbled across the same conclusions. Actually, I have been surprised by the number of people who have written to say that they also noticed the contradictions between Jesus and Paul and were glad to find that they were not alone in their conclusions. Once one has carefully and objectively set aside prior biases and looked at the evidence freely, it is amazing how obvious the conclusion is, and surprising that even more don't come to this conclusion.

J: You seem to have the general idea of his position, except I think that there is a further implication that Christians should imitate Christ in that spirit of self-sacrifice.

DDD reply: I don't think the idea of emulating Jesus in the spirit of self-sacrifice is at all at odds with my position. Clearly Jesus made a sacrifice, in openly standing up to the religious orthodoxy he knew had the power to order his execution. He chose to do this as the price of teaching us the principles of universal compassion expressed in action, just as you might choose to sacrifice your life when you jump in front of an oncoming car to push three children out of its path. But in doing so, Jesus does not use his blood to "pay for sins" any more than you do. Jesus never made such a claim, and just because Paul says so (at the expense of Jesus' opposing statements on salvation) doesn't make it so.

J: Jesus and the Father thereby demonstrate their supreme love of us, in order to elicit our reciprocal love for them. As I understand the theory, this implies Jesus saves us by showing us the way, not by taking it in our stead.

DDD reply: Yes ... "greater love hath no man...." (attributed to Jesus) and all that. Again, this applies as much to the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save the others in his company as it does to Jesus. It refers to sacrifice, but not blood atonement for the remission of sins.

J: It's been a while since I researched this, so I may have oversimplified Abelard somewhat. He had been accused of teaching that we are saved by our own works, but he did not accept the validity of that criticism, so there are perhaps some subtleties that I have glossed over.

DDD reply: Again, I am not familiar with Abelard, however I absolutely take the position that Jesus taught salvation by DEEDS (rooted in universal compassion) while Paul specifically took a position that was in direct contradiction to Jesus. I cited extensive specific scriptures to support my position, especially in the commentary on Paul vs. Jesus.

J: Abelard [1079-1142] represents one extreme of Atonement theories. The oldest theory is the Ransom theory, championed by Origin [182-251], which says God offered Satan the option to take His Son Jesus in exchange for mankind, whom Satan had captured through Adam's sin; Satan agreed, but couldn't get Jesus to sin, so Satan lost out.

DDD reply: So I'll repeat some of the questions from my website about "ransom":
If Jesus "paid" this "ransom," WHO DID HE PAY IT TO? Is it to the Devil, who owns our souls because we are imprisoned in sin (Satan has "kidnapped" our souls) -- would God pay off a ransom to a criminal? Or does Jesus pay this "ransom" to God -- the supreme judge of the eternal court? Does God extort the payment of ransoms like a common kidnapper? If Jesus is God, is he paying the ransom to himself?

The idea of God paying a ransom to the devil harkens back to an extremely primitive view of theological reasoning, probably owing to its origins in more primitive and simple times.

J: At the other extreme from Abelard is the Satisfaction theory proposed a bit earlier by Anselm of Canterbury, [1033-1109; this is the Anselm most famous for his proof of the existence of God]. In more recent times this seems to have evolved into the Evangelical's Penal-Substitution theory, the one you are likely to see in hand-out tract so. Essentially, it says "Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins."

DDD reply: This is the one I have most specifically addressed in my commentary, though my points also apply to atonement theories of the Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, even though each of these differ in some particulars. But the idea that Jesus in some way paid for our sins, as distinguished from showing us the path for overcoming sin, is common to all of them. Still, if I were discussing this specifically with a Catholic, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, I would frame my points somewhat differently. In any case, you cite the various perspectives, but you do not address the points I made on my website that address each of those points.

J: Seven years, two moves, and two computers ago, I wrote a term paper on Ablelard's view of the Atonement. If ever locate it, I will send you a copy.

DDD reply: Your thoughtfulness is appreciated and I would be pleased to consider the ideas of someone who (at least in your interpretation) may have stumbled across some of the same concerns that I and a number of others have also felt uncomfortable with.

Joe continues on 7-25-03:

How do we know what Jesus thought was important?
When asked, he said: Love God, Love your neighbor [Mk 12:30-31].

DDD reply: You answer your own question quite well, though incompletely. The only way we know what Jesus thought was important is in the words left behind, written by his followers. Yes, when asked (and even without being asked) Jesus repeated emphasized themes of universal love, and stated that salvation was rooted in this universal love expressed in actions. So this is what was most probably important to Jesus. The fact that he is not reported to have talked about a vicarious sin transference (atonement) not even a single time doesn't bode well for those who think it was important to Jesus.

J: I suppose I believe what I've been taught. I was taught that Jesus's death was important.
But besides that, risking torture and death is not something most people would take lightly.
It seems Jesus would rather not have died that way, but he did it in obedience to his Father [Mt 26:38-39].

DDD reply: PLEASE, PLEASE do not use references to Jesus' death as being synonymous with the atonement. Lots of people have been executed (or murdered) on crosses without assuming anyone else's sins and lots of people have sacrificed their lives for others, without taking upon themselves the sins of those people or even the right to judge them.

That said, I would NOT dismiss Jesus' death as unimportant. He sacrificed his life. He felt his teaching of salvation through universal compassionate love actively expressed was worth risking his life by preaching contrary to the established religious orthodoxy of his time. He was no dummy. He knew exactly the risk he was taking. So in that sense he gave up his life, he sacrificed himself for others -- for their salvation -- not because he assumed their sins, but because that was the cost of teaching them the means of real salvation, which was promptly undermined by Paul.

Please note that I was also taught that not only Jesus' death, but also an alleged blood atonement, were important. I didn't come to my ultimate conclusions until I could honestly come to that conclusion on my own and, with deep regret, I had to abandon some of the teachings that people very dear to me, in great sincerity, had taught me.

J: But he also expects his followers to do the same, i.e. "take up their cross" and "lose their life" . [Mk 8:34-35]

DDD reply: And don't forget ... "greater love hath no man..."
EXCELLENT POINT! Yes, Jesus expects us to show our universal compassion, even unto the point of sacrificing our lives as he did. Now, do you think Jesus is suggesting that the followers he is teaching to "take up a cross" or "lose their lives" will assume sins of others? So your own example makes my point so well: Jesus himself distinguishes between self-sacrifice and a blood atonement that assumes others' sins.

J: So, while Jesus may not have explained what was going to happen to him, or why, it seems reasonable that his followers would speculate on the question post-mortem.

DDD reply: Oh, but those who wrote about Jesus say that he did explain what was going to happen to him. There are a number of references to statements by Jesus about his coming death and resurrection. But they only talk of death and life. Until Paul comes along, there are NO REFERENCES to the assumption of others' sins.

J: According to Jesus, his teaching is not the end of the story. He said he would send to Holy Spirit to lead his disciples into all truth. [Jn 16:12].

DDD reply: Yeah, and how disappointed he must be that they listened to Paul instead of the "comforter." Oh well, he allowed them the free will to go a different direction. But it's sad, though.

J: Let me try to restate your position to be sure I have it right:
1. Jesus taught that we must DO something, e.g. live according to his example of "universal compassion", to be saved.
2. Paul taught that we need only BELIEVE, but need not live a righteous (universally compassionate) life
3. But regardless of what Jesus taught, he was just a human, setting a human example;
he had no authority from "God" to promulgate the correct way to live,
nor did he have power or authority from God to "save" any humans, regardless of how they lived.

If I understand you correctly, you are replacing what you consider a costless salvation with what I would consider costly wishful thinking.

If you don't believe that Jesus is God (or at least officially speaks for him) and therefore offers a real and objective salvation (by whatever means), then how does your "universal compassion" get you anything but dumped on and a "sucker of the century" award?

DDD reply: First of all, you assume that compassion = sucker. I disagree. I believe those who are truly compassionate (not just doormats, but truly good-hearted and filled with compassionate joy) find salvation not just in the next life, but in this one as well.
Secondly, one does not have to believe that Jesus is God to point out the contradictions (carefully and very specifically documented) between what his followers claimed he said and taught and the writings of Paul that have been preserved.

J: If you truly follow Jesus's example, aren't you likely to end up like he did? Instead of getting salvation from someone else's suffering, you get suffering for nothing.

DDD reply: Even if you don't accept Jesus as God you can think him in a mighty good place after a mighty good life. In any case, we no longer live under the Roman empire or the Jewish Sanhedrin. We can teach compassion without the likelihood of being sentenced to death for it.

J: Now I'm sure, being a rational person, you don't see it that way, but I'm curious to know what you think IS the value of Jesus, and of emulating his way of living.

DDD reply: Well, that is a much more complicated treatise. I do believe that compassionate joy is a practical standard for living. One of my favorite explanations for it is the book "Extro-Dynamics" by Douglas Dunn, who hosts this site and graciously allows me some webspace. You can see more about that book at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/exdyn.html
I think you can even view or download some sample chapters free.

Dialogue with Dreamer
Dreamer writes on 4-20-03:

You asked a couple of questions on your website, and since I know the answers. I thought I would share them with you.
"Why are we, in any way whatsoever, held 'responsible' for the sins of Adam and Eve?"
You are not held 'responsible' for Adam and Eve's sin. Period and that is not what any writer in the bible means.
[You asked:] "How can a person be 'guilty' of something they didn't do, which in fact was done thousands of years before they were even conceived?"
You are not 'guilty' for anything that Adam and Eve did a thousand years ago. Nothing, Nada and no writer in the bible means that.
[You asked:] "In any case, how can you be responsible for something you had nothing to do with?"
Again you are not held responsible for something you had nothing to do with.
If my father and mother do something wrong, why do I get punished for that?

DDD reply: I'm glad you share my view on this point. Many denominations, however, do teach that the fall of Adam introduced sin to the entire human race and that babies are born in sin (until baptized) and that if they are not baptized then they will, in fact, be "held responsible" for the sin of Adam and Eve. Such denominations seem to, in my view, kind of blur the role of Jesus as atoning sacrifice for sin -- as to his sacrifice for individual sins or the collective state of sinfulness introduced by Adam. Some other denominations do not teach this, and to those who don't teach it (such as yourself) my argument is clearly not against them. Obviously, I reject the concept of sin as a physical property against our physical bodies; rather, it is a character flaw on our souls, not physical in nature. Washing it in water, even symbolic or sanctified water, cannot erase it, though it can be a symbolic token of our voluntary commitment to take the steps needed to change our spiritual perspectives and embark on a path of character reform. Similarly, the idea that killing an innocent man can somehow transfer the sin physically from one person to another is simply ludicrous.

D: The Bible says that some people because they were never punished in their life time [because it was God's will to leave them in power, etc] are punished by what He does to their children. In otherwords when God strikes you, it will hurt your parents.

DDD reply: Sorry, but I cannot accept as justice any teaching in which God allows an evil person to continue to do their evil and then, because God didn't stop the evil (when he/she had the power to do so), punishes the innocent offspring, even if they had nothing to do with the evil, on the outside chance that maybe the suffering of the children will indirectly cause some punishment to the parents.

D: [You asked:] "Is sin a moral issue or a birth defect?"
Birth Defect, if you were born into a family that believed in devil worship, you would worship the devil from an early age. Thus it is a birth defect, something you were born with and nothing you had a moral choice in.

DDD reply: Your analogy doesn't work. The fact of being born to the devil worshippers (or cannibals, or ritual murderers, etc.) does not, itself, render you a part of their evil. In fact, if someone came and took the newborn infant out of that environment, and raised it in a loving, moral, spiritual environment, it would NOT assume the parents' condition of sinfulness just because it had been born to them. In your example, the transmission of sin from the parents to the children is NOT because the children were born to them, but because the children were raised by them and socialized to their sinful values. In other words, the children were NOT born to the sin, but adopted it through a pattern of their own individual experience. Perhaps they had little to do with the conditions that exposed them to it, but when the acquired those conditions of sin that they were not born with, then those conditions became their own character defects and moral flaws. I do not agree that sin constitutes any kind of "birth defect" whatsoever. I absolutely maintain sin to be a condition of moral or spiritual imperfection, and that it has nothing to do with physical properties. Thus, killing an innocent man, or washing the sin away with water, has no literal value in the amelioration of sin and cannot be a substitute for the character education and moral training to address the actual nature of the defect. This is where Christian human sacrifice mythology fails so badly.

D: [You asked:] "Should babies born with birth defects be punished? Should we require abortions if the fetus is deformed?"
Yes, in my opinion, we should or at least put the baby to death after it is born. I say that because I have worked with babies born severely deformed. The baby is in misery. The baby can not talk, walk, dress or feed themselves or change themselves or bathe. The babies grow up in this condition for 30 or 40 years and then they die. I feel extremely sad for these babies [adults deformed since birth] as they cry and cry and cry, I mean with tears down their face. They can never say why they are crying even if they are 30 or 40 years old. After working there for years with them, I say a person is inhumane and cruel and a terrible parent and person for ALLOWING the babies to live and go on in that crying painful situtation for 30 or 40 years. The parents should have had mercy to kill the baby at the hospital. Instead they send them away to be taken care of in a nursing home, and there is no point in them visiting because the baby does not and never will recognize them or any other person. Even if they did recognize them the baby could not show it.

DDD reply: Thank you for that clarification. I don't think that reflects the mainstream Christian view, however. Nor does it explain how you can equate a physical defect with a moral or spiritual flaw which is NOT physical in nature.

The atonement mythology of bloody human sacrifice is the creation of primitive tribalistic people who weren't able to distinguish between physical and spiritual properties, and mixed the two together in ways that simply do not compute rationally. The substance of this as well as my points about the logical failures of blood atonement simply have not be addressed.

Dialogue with Tom
Tom writes on 3-27-03:

Hell is not eternal death, just separation from a loving God.

DDD reply: I was referring to the evangelical Christian doctrine based on what Paul wrote ("The wages of sin is death" [Romans 6:23]). In other words, whether it is "eternal death" or "eternal separation from god", that is the price we pay. If "Jesus lives" and/or "is at the right hand of god" then he is neither dead, nor is he separated from God. He has NOT "paid the price" that we would have to pay if we don't "accept" him, as a vicarious, substitutional mediator in our stead.

Tom continues on 4-1-03:

For some reason, your arguments do not see Paul's statement as permanent for man, but tempoary for Christ. I guess only faith can make this distinction.

DDD reply: You summarize my position correctly that I can't accept that the price of sin is permanent death for humans, but temporary death for a messianic Jesus as "Christ." I think it is intellectually absurd to treat man and Christ differently as respects the price to be paid, if you follow the traditional Calvinistic Christian line of reasoning based on Paul's doctrine of atonement (which is illogical to begin with):

1. The price of sin for mortal humans is eternal death (this is, in itself, an absurd proposition, as I note with extensive discussion on my web page and which you have not addressed).
2. Jesus is without sin, which makes him different from other mortal humans.
3. Because Jesus is without sin, he is not subject to the debt of paying that price, which liberates him to the capacity to assume that price for others.
4. Because Jesus, being without sin, can pay the price for us, we can have our sins transferred to him and we can obtain full and unconditional forgiveness (again, the notion that sin -- a quality of character and being, can be transferred to another person as if it were a physical commodity, is completely absurd, as I discuss on my web page and which you have not addressed).
5. The main point as respects this specific, narrow issue on the table (and overlooking all the other illogical dimensions of the Christian position that I have raised), is that the price we pay for sin is eternal death. Jesus pays the price in our stead. If Jesus pays our price, it must be the SAME PRICE. If the price that WE would pay is eternal death, then for Jesus to pay it he would have to die and STAY DEAD. If "he lives" and is at the "right hand of god" then he has not paid the same price we would have to pay. If a lesser price (temporary death of just a few hours) is adequate to pay the price for all sins of all people, then if that is the price, then that is what we have to pay. Yes, if Jesus is going to pay our price for us, then it has to be the same price we would pay. On what basis do you claim that the price of death for sin should be permanent for man, but temporary for Christ? And don't say it is because he is without sin. That is what qualifies him to pay the price for others in the first place, but it does nothing to change what that price should be. Explain why it should be that there is one price we pay, but if someone pays the price for us they pay a different, much lower price. And then, once you have explained that, then go back to my web page and explain all the other points of rational failure that I have identified.

T: Paul sums up the Christrian doctrine when he says, "...that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself ...(2 Cor 5:19) However God chose to join me to Him is His choice, not mine.

DDD reply: And exactly what is the basis for that "reconciliation" if we owe a specific price for our sins (eternal death) but if Jesus pays the price for us, that isn't the price he has to pay?

T: I am only blessed that as it says in John, that God send Jesus for all who would believe.

DDD reply: Jesus was a great blessing to those who would believe what JESUS taught, about universal loving compassion expressed through DEEDS. Unfortunately and tragically, this was completely undermined and reversed by Paul, who taught a doctrine of salvation based on faith and belief, not on deeds as Jesus taught. In my website about how Paul contradicts Jesus (http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html) I note in great detail the extent to which Paul repeatedly and completely undermines and contradicts Jesus. Since Paul was intelligent and educated, and with his long prior history of persecuting the followers of Jesus, it is doubtful that this extensive contradiction was innocent or coincidental. The most logical explanation is that Paul finally found a more effective way to undermine Jesus and his teachings. And since most of Christianity completely ignores what Jesus taught, but follows blindly the opposing doctrines of Paul, it seems that Paul won and Jesus lost.

Tom continues on 4-2-03:

Paul says the way of the cross is absurd to those who are pershing. I guess he is correct.

DDD reply: I tried to determine which verse of Paul's you were referring to, but using a computerized concordance was not able to locate this phrase. Perhaps you are citing a different version of the Bible and could assist me by citing the precise reference (as I always do when making claims about what the Bible says).

In any case, while awaiting your response, I'll trust that you are quoting accurately, or at least getting Paul's general point. If he really wrote this, you can see how clever the educated, smooth-talking Paul is! Even he admits that what he teaches is "absurd" but then gives honor to absurdity. You still fail to respond to the many ways I have cited in which Paul DIRECTLY and REPEATEDLY contradicts Jesus. Jesus never claimed his teachings to be "absurd" or that absurdity leads to salvation.

T: God's plan is absurd, but if I accept it by faith, I can live today and tomorrow in peace knowing that my sins have been paid for, and that I need not fear God or death.

DDD reply: You're welcome to believe whatever you want. You are the one who wrote to me first and I am giving you the courtesy of a response. However, if all you can say is that your teachings are "absurd," you have given me absolutely no reason to choose your silly faith over that of the Moslems, Buddhists, Mormons, or those who worshipped the deities of ancient Greek, Roman or Egyptian mythologies. You (and Paul) may ridicule intelligence and thoughtful questioning, but without it we have no basis of discernment in separating that which is absurd from that which is sane. Enjoy the fruits of your admitted absurdities.

Tom continues on 4-3-03:

What a joy to have dialog with you. In the NKJ try these verses:
Gal 3:22; Rm1:16; 1 Cor 1:18; Is 55:8; Probably your greatest interest is 1 Cor 1:18, but others help the picture of how God has chosen to do things.

DDD reply: I have the KJV, RSV, NIV and "Today's English" versions, plus the Jesus Seminar's "Five Gospels" translation of the gospel portions of the New Testament, but regrettably I don't have the NKJ on my shelf. Reviewing my other versions, I do not agree that the verses in Galatians or Romans that you cite say anything that is substantially equivalent to the phrase "the way of the cross is absurd to those who are perishing." The message in Isaiah at least notes a difference between God's ways and human ways, but doesn't call God's ways "absurd." In any case, Isaiah was not written by Paul, who you were quoting.
However, you hit the nail with I Cor 1:18. My versions respectively use the terms foolishness, folly, foolishness and nonsense, but none of them uses the term "absurd" which is why I couldn't find it in a computer search on that term. Otherwise, substituting these functional equivalents, this verse, which is by Paul, does say exactly what you said it did.

T: Specifically, Jesus said: Jn 3:14-17; and Jn 14: 6.

DDD reply: These passages do NOT include any statement by Jesus that remotely suggests that God's ways are silly, foolish, folly, nonsense ... or absurd. Paul stands alone in this ABSURD statement, which merely reiterates my point: Paul, who was born to high position (a Jew who was also a Roman citizen) and educated far above the average for those times, knew that what he was writing was not only contradictory, but would be seen as absurdity. The best defense is a good offense: Paul set up the ways of god as some kind of sacred folly by which he would seek to belittle the rational people who might be just impertinent enough to point out that his message made no sense and, moreover, directly contradicted the teachings of Jesus.

Tom continues on 4-4-03:

Once again you have locked onto a word to hold ground that pits Jesus against Paul. 'Absurd" is my word, foolishness is the word in Corinthians,

DDD reply: My comments acknowledged that your word "absurd" was functionally equivalent to the other words used in other versions. I was agreeing with you. I did not "lock" onto a specific word; I agreed that your use of it was equivalent to the word used in other versions and merely explained that your use of that word, while accurate, was what caused me difficulty in identifying the verse.

In my commentary on Paul vs. Jesus (http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html), I cited extensive examples of direct and repeated contradictions between Paul and Jesus. This was not one of them. Dismissing my whole point about Paul (which I doubt you have even read) by referring to an example I didn't even use is a cheap dodge and shows you are unable to confront these issues candidly and directly. Of course, we both know why this is so.

T: unknown or not understandable is an equal.

DDD reply: The word "absurd" is equivalent to "foolish, silly, nonsense, etc." It is NOT equivalent to "unknown" or "not understandable." The former is contrary to knowledge or reason; the latter is beyond human wisdom or knowledge or reason, but not necessarily contradictory to it.

T: Jesus referred in v12 to heaven things. In verses 3-7, Nicodemus argues that he doesn't understand, but Jesus says being born again is like the wind - you can see the results, but the wind itself. Gods ways are not mans ways. I can't argue with His ways. Somewhere in the God design one must accept that not all is understandable and Jesus was God reconciling Himself to man.

DDD reply: I have no problem with this concept. A human cannot expect to grasp divine or ultimate knowledge any more than a pet fish can expect to understand matters of human knowledge. But this is what Jesus says, that some things are beyond our grasp. No problem. What Paul is saying is substantially different: not only of matters beyond our ability to grasp, but that things that are within our level of reason but which are clearly absurd (or foolishness, or nonsense, or silly, depending on translation) have to be accepted. It is one thing to say that we cannot grasp the forces of the universe that hold the stars and planets in their rhythms or provide deeper spiritual truths and meanings and quite a different matter to say that obvious inconsistencies or logical absurdity has to be accepted. Jesus is saying the former; Paul the latter.

What you are saying is that we have glaring inconsistencies or other obvious logical failures that a hyper-intelligent (omniscient) deity should clearly be able to resolve, but we have to accept them on "faith" even though it is not merely beyond our understanding but contradictory to the most basic principles of reason and logic. You have given no positive reason to offset the clear violations of logic, other than that is based on "faith." This is no different than the Moslems or other primitive religions, but you don't accept the same logic when Moslems, equally committed to their faith and motivated by equally powerful personal religious experiences, ask it of you. The Judeo-Christian Bible and belief system offers much of value as the wisdom of its ancient peoples, but those peoples were primitive nomads and their simplistic, irrational system of mythology reflects that. The issues I have raised are not about things that transcend human reason, but that which is well within the bounds of human reasons and which contradicts it. A higher deity could do much better.

Tom continues on 4-7-03:

Dave - This may be our last interaction because Jesus said faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Probably illogical.

DDD reply: So you realize that you are not the conduit of the "word of god" for my hearing; either that, or the real reason is that you cannot respond to the substance of the points I have raised on my web site (from which YOU first contacted me).

T: Jesus also said that no man comes to the Father except by me (Jesus). here is where other religions fall flat -- No Jesus. No attonement by His blood. No resurrection to show that His suffering and death were acceptable as a sinless sacrifice to a Holy God.

DDD reply: Your continued misrepresentation of scripture is why I am not interested in your book about it. Jesus gave teachings of morality and spirituality which he said were the way back to the Father through him. There is not one single place that Jesus or anyone else spoke of a blood atonement by which one person would assume the sins transferred from others, except Paul. Paul was alone in this doctrine which he completely invented on his own, and which, as I repeatedly noted, is not only completely illogical but also directly contradicts everything Jesus actually did teach about salvation. Since Paul already had a strong history of not only opposing, but also persecuting the followers of Jesus, his sudden change of heart, infiltration, then teaching a doctrine that succeeds in doing what he could never achieve by direct opposition, is highly suspect. You have not addressed a single one of these carefully-documented points.

T: All I know is that when up is down, and man's logic is replaced by faith, it all ( life that is) makes sense.

DDD reply: But up is NOT down, except in the Orwellian world of doublespeak designed to intentionally deceive. The fact that you think this "makes sense" shows that you only believe what you want to believe; you certainly have offered no reason why any nonbeliever would accept the "absurdity" of your silly nonsense.

T: Jesus said those who would save their life will lose it; but who will lose his life for My sake will save it (Lk 9:24). Jesus must be a part of my life, and since I never saw or talked to Him, I must accept that what He did, Who He says He is, and what He said by faith.

DDD reply: On the contrary. You do NOT accept Jesus at all. You give lip service to him (as he warned of in Matt 7:21-23; Matt 15:8; Mark 7:6) but you reject the basis that Jesus actually gave for salvation. Instead you rely on that which was taught by Paul, who opposed and contradicted him. But you accept this because, after all, in your Alice-in-Wonderland Orwellian world, "up is down." If YOU believe Jesus to be the messiah, then YOU should consider the extent to which, in accepting Paul to take his place, what that means to your belief system.

Tom continues again later on 4-7-03:

Ok one more - I reject the basis Jesus gave for salvation. If I missed it, please let me know what it is. I hope I can atain it? I thought He said "be ye perfect as my father in Heaven is perfect (Matt 5:48).

DDD reply: I know you were responding to my commentary about the logical and scriptural problems of Paul's doctrine of atonement (the idea of a sin transference or assumption of others' sins never ever once mentioned by Jesus or any other Bible writer), so perhaps you did not see my commentary on Paul in which I discuss at great length Jesus' criteria for salvation and contrast it with Paul's, which is opposite.

Jesus repeatedly and unambiguously sets the criteria rooted in universal compassion expressed through actions ("Be ye therefore perfect" is consistent with that, but wasn't one that I cited because it doesn't specifically state at that precise point that it is a criterion of salvation). Because I have already cited numerous specific references to both Paul and Jesus in my article on Paul, rather than repeat them all here, I would direct you toward that webpage, which is at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

I think if you actually refer to what Jesus said (at least as reported in the Bible) and what Paul is reported to have said, you would have to agree that they are not only different and contradictory, but in the opposing claims, you come down on Paul's side, against Jesus. That is what I meant.

Tom continues on 4-8-03:

Before Paul, the church grew and thrived in Jerusalem to 5,000 or more.

DDD reply: And after Paul there were many, many more, at least in numbers. But tragically, even though they still called themselves "Christians," they had substituted Paul's doctrine for Jesus' and so, in a real sense, after Paul there were NO MORE true Christians following the actual teachings of Jesus.

T: Therefore let me ask you some questions that trouble me: Why did Jesus say the apostles were to wait for the Holy Spirit?

DDD reply: Since I no longer claim to be a Christian, I am not going to engage in debates about why Jesus taught this or that, especially on the many points where there is no contradiction. My point is not so much the merits of what Jesus taught, though I think his doctrine of universal compassion expressed actively in deeds is probably the most pure and perfect message yet given to the world. My point is that it was contradicted and undermined by Paul, and that Christianity today bears no resemblance whatsoever with what Jesus taught, and everything with what Paul taught.

Teachings about the Holy Spirit as a guide to discerning truth can be claimed by both sides, since it addresses a feeling of conversion or belief, but does not actually address the substance of the belief system. It has nothing to do with the direct and specific contradictions between Jesus and Paul, which I addressed specifically and in great detail and which you conveniently chose not to address.

T: Could they not become compassionate children of God on their own?

DDD reply: Maybe they could; maybe they couldn't. A true believer of Jesus could easily say that they needed his divine teaching and guidance to make that transformation, which is his pure and unconditional gift to humanity, to all those who accept it by putting it into action, not in what they profess or claim or merely believe. But the point is that the transformation is something that occurs within the person, not a salvation through vicarious sin transference, which is something Jesus nor any other Bible writer ever taught ... except Paul.

T: How did they rec'd the Holy Spirit? Did they do compassionate works? How many?
Why did the apostles continue with the breaking of the bread?
Why did the apostles speak of the resurrection rather than the word of Jesus and promote compassion and good works to recieve God's blessing?
Why did the Apostles say that the name of Jesus was important? In Acts4:12 they said no other name

DDD reply: Paul was smart enough not to make his attack on Jesus that obvious. For the most part he overlapped with Jesus. He gave lip service to some of Jesus' teachings and rituals. He just moved them out of "first place" -- the basis of salvation (or justification) -- and only made subtle but sinister changes in the key points where it served his cause, such as when he moved his own bizarre doctrine of human sacrifice through blood atonement into first place. He never said all of Jesus' teachings were bad, he just moved his own in front of Jesus' and let his doctrine become the new priority. The one place where he did directly contradict Jesus was in teaching that the basis of salvation taught by Jesus was NOT the basis of salvation, and replace it with his doctrine of blood atonement.

T: What is the Gospel? Good news that if you are compassionate all the time (I'm not; are you?) will briing you a home in heaven.

DDD reply: Where did JESUS ever say "all the time." I think you just made that up, though it resonates with Paul's doctrine that any sin, no matter how small, can keep you out of heaven. So once again, you follow Paul, not Jesus. JESUS never said any such thing. Jesus did tell us to aspire to perfection (Matt 5:48) but did not say, as Paul does, that the penalty for any slight deviation from that perfection is an eternal death penalty. Can you imagine how ridiculous it is to say that the smallest white lie merits the death penalty? No rational person would consider that to be either justice or mercy. Jesus never said that the consequence of every smallest sin was death; Paul said that. Jesus taught us that we can be forgiven of our sins not by transferring them to someone else, but by cleansing our own souls through the transforming power of active compassion.

T: AND - How was Phillip able to lead the Ethopian to Jesus from Is 53:7. He may have started in Is 55:5, but comes to the same conclusion. All this happened before Paul, actually Saul was mentioned in the Scripture in Acts 9.

DDD reply: Please be more specific as to the specific New Testament chapter and verse you are referring to about Phillip, and its relevance to this point.

T: Please answer these questions.

DDD reply: I note that you still have not addressed the key points of my atonement commentary, nor any of the direct and specific contradictions between Paul and Jesus (backed up by his brother James).

I have addressed all of your questions in all of your messages. I will not be able to show any interest in your works until you can at least do the same ... especially since you are the one who initiated this dialogue.

Tom continues on 4-9-03:

I believe you have met your match. Paul could not differ from Jesus if he was to be accepted by the Christians in Acts (Acts 9:27 and 13:2-3)

DDD reply: I have demonstrated not only differences but numerous direct contradictions, clearly, with specific scriptural references from the words written by Paul and those attributed to Jesus (as well as the writings of Jesus' brother James defending Jesus against Paul's contradictions). It is a FACT, clearly proved and demonstrated by their own words, that Paul opposed Jesus (and James). The fact that he was accepted by Christians, and even became one of their top leaders, merely shows how gullible the early Christians were. Once Jesus was gone, their foundations quickly crumbled and they were easily taken in by a snake oil salesman like Paul. You have not addressed a single one of these. There are many possible explanations for how the early Christian leaders could have accepted Paul despite his differences from Jesus; it doesn't matter which reason(s) are valid, the point is that the existence of these extensive and substantial contradictions has been provided, and you haven't even tried to address those points, knowing that you can't. (For more discussion about the specific contradictions between Paul and Jesus/James, I refer you to my separate web page at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html).

T: You know some of Jesus and Paul, butyou do not know the Bible.

DDD reply: I do not claim to be a Bible scholar. But heck, if someone like me who is practically a Bible illiterate can present these very clear and obvious contradictions that none of the so-called scholars have been able to refute, then they must be pretty substantial. How about not trying to argue about who "knows" the Bible best, and concentrate on citing specific evidence. Of course, I guess this is more desirable when one actually has evidence to offer. (For more discussion specifically of the Bible as a whole, I refer you to my separate web page on the Bible at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html).

T: You did not answer my question about Phillip leading the Ethopian to Jesus by using a reading in Is 53. Phillip by the way (Acts 6) came before Saul, but knew of Paul (Saul).

DDD reply: Again, that there is some agreement on some points is irrelevant to the points on which there is disagreement. If you believe in a God who is perfect, then all it takes is just one example of a pure contradiction to show that the work, however otherwise meritorious, is not from that perfect deity. If you feel there is some relevance, please cite the exact chapters and verses from Isaiah and Acts that you find relevant. When I cite a scriptural claim, I always back it up with a full and precise scriptural reference, but then again I have the confidence to know that if someone looks up my reference it will make the point I claimed it would.

T: I have read your satments, but I don't agree. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

DDD reply: I notice that out of all this "too much evidence" you claim exists, you couldn't cite one single piece of it. If there is so much, then obviously you couldn't cite all of it -- just, perhaps, the best two or three examples. Out of all the "many" that exist, the top two or three should be pretty compelling pieces of evidence. But of course it is one thing to say that so much evidence exists, and quite a different matter to actually produce it. Again, the professions of your mouth (or keyboard) fail to be evidenced in your actions.

T: Many Churches do not adopt a doctrine unless it was taught by Jesus, practiced in Acts and mentioned in the Epistles.

DDD reply: Again, this is simply NOT TRUE. Many churches claim this, but like you and Paul their words are not backed up by their deeds. Many churches have doctrines and practices that are ONLY written of by Paul, NOT JESUS or Luke (who wrote Acts). Unlike you, I'll give a specific example: many evangelical and conservative Protestant churches teach salvation by "faith apart from works" -- this is taught by Paul, but was NEVER taught by Jesus or the other apostles. Yes, they taught that faith was important, but not the basis of salvation: compassionate deeds are.

T: I myself can usually find support for a particular doctrine in the Old Testament, such as Numbers 21 for the attonment.

DDD reply: I have reviewed Numbers 21 and I find nothing that supports the doctrine of a literal sin transference to a human sacrifice offered for blood atonement. If you disagree, then please be more specific and tell me exactly which verses from this chapter you think make this point, and explain how you come to that interpretation (if you can).

Tom continues on 4-14-03:

Your argument to choose to look at the contradictions of Scripture rather than the content is not new. Anyone who chooses not to face God may choose this path.

DDD reply: I did not claim anything new, other than my specific collection and discussion of the many contradictions, flaws and failed prophecies in the Bible that have been known for hundreds of years. Making a big deal about whether they are old or new is a poor substitute for the fact that you can't respond to the substance of the point: there are HUNDREDS of contradictions, flaws and failed prophecies throughout the Bible.
And you further err is stating that calling attention to the contradictions somehow fails to address the content. This is especially inappropriate since I was raised as a Christian, and my first exposure was as a believer seeking only the content from a Christian perspective. Discovering the contradictions and errors came much later, and only after much initial resistance. Furthermore, all of my discussions address fully the substance, context, and content of the material. If you disagree, cite an example of where I have failed to do so.

T: If God lies or His Word is infallible than I can find no assurance for a purpose or final destination for my life.

DDD reply: This fails for several reasons.
1. It does not matter whether you like it or not, or if you find "assurance" or "meaning." That which is true or not will not be made different by what we would wish the truth to be.
2. The fact that the Bible has imperfections (a lot!) does not itself negate the divinity of God or even Jesus as his son. It just means that the Bible was written by fallible, mortal humans, doing their best to recount their memories (or, in most cases, what had been told to them) decades after the events had occurred, in an era when there were no photos, videos and even precious few who could read or write to preserve an accurate account. For example, Jesus could have been the son of god who did miracles and taught the behavioral approach to salvation, but those who wrote about it decades later may have made some errors in their recounting of it.
3. Even if there are NO valid scriptures from an inerrant, infallible deity, that would not rule out the possibility that there could still be a god who, for his/her/its own reasons (which, as you pointed out, might not be understandable by us mere human mortals) has created humans and then left us to develop on our own, at least for this brief period of time in earthly mortality; it would not even rule out the possibility that those who seek him/her/it in spiritual means of contact might actually receive individual, personal confirmation, but not on behalf of the human race as a whole. In fact, aside from the contradictions and flaws, another reason why either the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Tripitaka can NOT be the "word of God" is that if any of them were, it means that all the other people, in different times and places, were left without the Word of God. If he was fair, he would have given it equally to everyone, back at the dawn of human population on the earth. Since we do not have anything like that, no writing can claim to be the word of a fair, loving God.
4. Even if there is no God at all, that is no reason to slit your wrists. Even many atheists have rewarding, satisfying lives. In fact, they often try to live to the fullest here, with great meaning and purpose, because they don't believe they can put it off to some future existence.

T: Your replies are selective,

DDD reply: Well, gee, of course. I am making certain points and selecting the parts of the Bible that prove my point. I don't need to copy and paste the whole Bible, since you and most of my other readers already have one. I am "selecting" the examples to back up my specific claims ... just as you do! To prove my point of the Bible's fallibility, all it takes is one example of a contradiction or other error. The fact that there are HUNDREDS simply underscores the extent to which I am right.

T: and not being a Biblical Scholar is no excuse for not finding the message of forgiven sins in the Scripture.

DDD reply: But I did find (and accept!) that message, when I was growing up as a Christian. It was later, on further examination, that I found that the Bible has errors, and that the idea that my sins are somehow forgiven by nailing an innocent man to a cross, is absurd (and something Jesus never claimed)! You still have not answered the fundamental question on my Atonement web page: how does killing an innocent man in any way atone for, remove, transfer, or otherwise ameliorate my condition of sinfulness?

T: To start, one must come to the belief that the Bible comes from the one true and living God.

DDD reply: Not if the contrary can clearly be shown to be the case, which I have done and which you have not addressed a single one of the substantive points I have raised.

T: In the others work you mentioned, Jesus is not quoted as He is in the Bible.

DDD reply: And the Moslems would say the same thing: that in the Bible Mohammed is not quoted as He is in the Koran. By the way, you are wrong on one point: one of the books I mentioned, the Book of Mormon, does specifically claim to quote Jesus. And there are many modern books that purport to quote Jesus, without claiming to be scripture. The mere fact that one claims to be quoting Jesus or writing about him does not mean that their works are scripture. The writing of Matthew and Luke are about Jesus, and claim to quote him, but are no more the "word of god" than writings of Billy Graham, who also writes about Jesus and quotes him but doesn't claim to be adding to scripture.

T: The inclusion of Jesus in the Bible is one of the reasons I believe the Bible comes from God to man as He directed men to write. Only the Bible describes Jesus as a man who died an excruciating death and rose to life making himself visible to His friends.

DDD reply: There are many accounts of many people who suffered excruciating deaths from torture, including many others by crucifixion, which was quite common in those days. This does not make them scripture, nor have you ever explained why you believe that killing, even torturing, this man in any way atones for sin, or somehow transfers my sins to him. This is a very primitive human sacrifice myth, though quite a bit bloodier than those of most other primitive peoples who believed in human sacrifice.

T: Only the Bible mentions angels

DDD reply: This is simply wrong. The Koran and Book of Mormon also specifically mention angels. I have both, and quickly found huge numbers of entries for this word. The Hindu and Buddhist traditions also include otherworldly figures that are sometimes interpreted as angels.

T: The Bible carries the same message from Genesis to Revelation. The lamb never changes.

DDD reply: On the contrary, the message has changed repeatedly, which is why there are so many contradictions. You keep on saying this, but I have provided my website which includes HUNDREDS of very specific examples, and instead of responding ... not even to a single example ... you keep on repeating this mantra with the same tenacity as the Iraqi information minister denying that Americans had arrived in Baghdad, even as the bombs (and buildings) were falling.

T: And I find the hand of God as He plans and intertwines events that to me seem spectacular, such as the Christmas Story regarding Simeon and Anna in Lk 2: 25-38, The whole book of Leviticus and the temple descriptions that point the Jesus, the sun standing still in Joshua (Jo 10:13), Hezekiah's extension of life by 15 years (2 Kg 20:6), the movement of the sun 92 Kg 20:11), the disciples of Jesus finding a colt for His entry into Jerusalem (Lk 19:30 and Zec 9:9)

DDD reply: Excuse me, but all the ancient mythologies from the Egyptians, to the Greeks, to the Romans to the Koran and the Eastern religions are all replete with heroic, superhuman miracles. This is no different than any other tradition of mythology ... I mean, religion. The ONLY difference is that you believe yours really happened and that the others didn't. However, you haven't given a single reason to support the claim that your miracles are any more believable than those of the others.

T: As I started, one must believe the Bible or He is without a firm foundation.

DDD reply: And I have already pointed out how ridiculous this is ... and you didn't respond.

Tom continues on 4-15-03:

You didn't answer my question about Phillip.

DDD reply: I did not answer it, but I did respond with a request for further clarification about your question. Since you did not provide the clarification I requested about your own question, I assumed you wanted to drop that point YOU had raised. I'll repeat my response to your inquiry about Phillip:
"If you feel there is some relevance, please cite the exact chapters and verses from Isaiah and Acts that you find relevant. When I cite a scriptural claim, I always back it up with a full and precise scriptural reference, but then again I have the confidence to know that if someone looks up my reference it will make the point I claimed it would."
Your reference was about Phillip leading the Ethiopian to Jesus by using a reading in Isaiah 53. Again: please cite the exact reference (chapter and verse) you are referring to about Phillip, as well as the exact reference (chapter and verse) to Isaiah you claim it refers to. If you can't provide this information, then you have given me no basis for a response. I am not going on a wild goose chase through all of Acts and Isaiah looking for something you claim to be there but won't identify.

T: Who would you believe? Jesus, Peter, John, O.T., John the Baptist in John (1 Jn 1:29).

DDD reply: As with any other writers, I accept those whose works stand the test of reason and which prove themselves in real world experience. In this regard I find great respect and admiration for Jesus (at least as he has been recorded in the New Testament). In other contexts, I quote him often -- as a source to support my views, as I would any other respected sage whose teachings I value, even if I don't accept him (or them) as divine messiahs. I bear no such regard or respect, however, for Paul who undermined and opposed him; none for Peter, a weak and uneducated fisherman who allowed Paul to barge in and take over.

T: And here is another question: Why did Jesus die?

DDD reply: He was murdered because he spoke against the established religious orthodoxy, just as I do. I suppose if Christians ran the government, I'd be dead meat, too, even though, ironically, I am defending what Jesus taught that was undermined and contradicted by Paul who actually led to the establishment of modern Christianity (which should really be called Paulianity). Jesus was assassinated. Period. There was no more "cosmological" implication than the assassination of any other great historical figure, such as Lincoln, Kennedy or Martin Luther King.

T: Why was he raised from the dead?

DDD reply: I don't believe he was raised from the dead. This is a myth just like the mythologies of the ancient Egyptians, Romans or Greeks.

T: By the way you were again selective in answering my question about Jesus death.

DDD reply: I have no idea what you're talking about. When I respond to your statements, I cite the exact statement I am responding to, to establish context. When you just say I was selective, but give no clue as to the example of my comments you are referring to, you are just babbling meaninglessly. Tell me what I said that you have a problem with and I'll respond. If you can't, I won't.

T: He also rose and was seen. Was He not?

DDD reply: I see no evidence of that, other than early Christian writings of mythology. All mythologies have stories of people rising from the dead. There is no objective evidence that this occurred.

T: Sorry about the angels. I don't read the Koran, etc.

DDD reply: Then don't try to say what is or is not in other books if you don't know. I do not believe the Koran -- it is far worse than the Bible and is a complete fabrication and fraud, unlike the Bible which is at least a legitimate work of antiquity. But at least when I criticize the Koran, I can say that I have read it, and I can refer to the actual text, of which I currently have two different versions.

T: I only know Jesus, and so I present Him as a part of God's plan for man and all He did as part of that plan.

DDD reply: Your replies show that you do NOT know or support Jesus. You support Paul, who opposed and undermined Jesus and changed the Christian movement into something Jesus would never recognize.

T: Many believe they were raised Christian, which probably includes some moral standards, but they may not have attended church or ever asked Jesus to come into their hearts and to take over their lives. They still did that - directed their lives. The Palmist tell us that no man seeks God, therefore all have sinned and fall short. (Ps 14).

DDD reply: But the Psalmist didn't claim that every teensiest sin -- even the smallest white lie -- would deserve the death penalty, unless of course you could arrange a bloody human sacrifice of an innocent man. How logical is that? How just?

T: There must be some anger or doubt about a loving God,

DDD reply: I do not have anger. I have a wonderful life, with many friends and a loving family, including my wife, daughter and granddaughter.

T: or you would not have gone out of your way to drive your contradictions to the forefront.

DDD reply: There are many people who feel uncomfortable with some aspects of the modern Christianity that has been handed down from Paul, but they can't quite put their finger on why. I have already wrestled with these questions and, in the course of my own search that led me from my Christian roots to a different path, have already compiled this material. All I did was put in on the Internet so others could share what I have found ... if they go looking for it. I do not send my material to those who are happy with what they have. I merely make it available to those who look for it, as you obviously did.

You have twice in this message accused me of failing to respond to your questions, and I have explained myself here. In fact, I believe I have addressed every point you have made, in every e-mail. In contrast there are many points I have raised that you have not responded to.
1. How has Jesus paid our price for us, for our sins? The wages of sin is DEATH. According to Christian mythology, if we don't accept Jesus then we will pay a price of ETERNAL DEATH. So, if JESUS LIVES, then he has not paid the price.
2. Even if Jesus died and had stayed dead, which you admit he hasn't, how does killing an innocent man in any way atone for others' deaths or in any way ameliorate their condition of sinfulness? How can you transfer the sins of a guilty person to an innocent person?
3. You have not addressed the extensive and serious contradictions between Paul and Jesus (backed up by his brother, James).
4. You have not addressed all the other HUNDREDS of Bible contradictions I have cited or provided links to, which prove that the Bible, whatever other merits and virtues it may have, is NOT the inerrant/infallible word of an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

You want me to address you comments and questions, which I have fully done, yet you evade and avoid and weasel and waffle and avoid the questions I raise in response to the issues you raised in the dialogue that has resulted because YOU contacted ME.

Tom continues on 4-16-03:

Sorry that I didn't give you references for Phillip. We first meet Phillip in Acts 6:5 and we see him with the Ethopian in Acts 8:26, but the story continues till 8: 38. Phillip found the Ethiopian reading Isaiah 53 verse 7. Actually Is 53 is short, but most of the message is contained in verses 4-7 and 10-12.

DDD reply: Thank you for this citation. Now I can see the point you are trying to make. The verse in Isaiah, repeated in Acts, refers to a blood sacrifice, "like a lamb to the slaughter." But you have not successfully made your point. The most telling evidence of your failure is that the passages in question do not even claim that killing an innocent man in any way atones for or in any way abrogates or ameliorates sin. This is exactly what I talked about in my 4-7-03 message, one of the many you failed to respond to. Let me give an example: suppose you are a soldier and see a live grenade tossed into your platoon. You heroically jump on it and smother it with your body. You die in the explosion, but you save the lives of everyone else in your platoon. You are a SACRIFICE. You have sacrificed yourself for all the others. But being a sacrifice has NOTHING to do with transferring their sins to you. Similarly, Jesus taught behavioral and spiritual changes a person must make in order to achieve salvation. Jesus NEVER ONCE taught that salvation could occur without these behavioral changes rooted in universal compassion. Jesus knew that by teaching contrary to the established religious orthodoxy, that he would be killed. Knowing this, he did it anyway, like the soldier jumping on the grenade. "Like a lamb to the slaughter" he became a sacrifice. But NOTHING herein talks about a vicarious transferrence of our sins to Jesus. You correctly noted that this was before Paul. Perhaps if it had been after Paul, he might have borrowed the doctrine wholly invented by Paul.

T: When I go outside at night and look at the array of stars I see the handiwork of God (Ps 8) and know that there must be something bigger and more powerful than anyone I have ever known or heard about. When I hold a leaf of grass I marvel at its green color, wondering where the green came from. As I look at the many colors I wonder how drab this world would be without color. Where did all this color come from. Yes, dye come from plants, but that doesn't tell me where color comes from.

DDD reply: Now, instead of responding to the numerous points I have raised in reply to what you wrote, you change the subject; and this right after chastising me (twice!) in your last message about not responding. I have never commented on the existence of god, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is his word (or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Hindu or Buddhist scriptures, or that he did not leave a written record). Whether God does or does not exist is completely unrelated to whether or not the Bible and Christian theology have errors: I have proved that they do, and you can't answer it so you run off to a completely different issue.

T: The only way to become comfortable with God is to study His son Jesus who said He came from God and that He himself was God.

DDD reply: Moslems and Jews are very comfortable with God but do not believe Jesus is his son. Likewise Hindus and Buddhists, though their concept of deity is quite different from the monotheistic heirs to the traditions of Abraham. You admit you are unfamiliar with non-Christian faiths, yet you make restrictive statements that exclude them in ways they would surely disagree with.

T: He said more about His mission and that He would be lifted up as Moses raised the snake in the wilderness(Nu 21:8-9; Jn 3: 14). Since He knew He would did at a specific time (He said my time has not yet come, etc. I do not believe He was murdered or assinated. When His time came He put up no resistance, did not call for a legion of angels. He didn't protest in any way(see Is 53)

DDD reply: Even if a man knows in advance that he is going to be murdered, or knows that resistance is futile so doesn't put up a fight, it doesn't make his murder any less of a murder. This is just nonsense!

T: My suggestion to anyone truly interested in knowing Jesus and becoming comfortable with His plan for their life is to read the Gospel of John one chapter/ Day. No more than one, no less than one/day. If after reading John you still have questions, please write.

DDD reply: Please do not lecture me on how to read or study the Bible. I have read it and studied it, including the book of John. I may still be a Bible illiterate, but it seems I am more conversant with the material than you are. It is interesting that you choose John. John is the gospel written the latest in time; the only one written after Paul. While he never makes the same claims that Paul does about an atoning blood sacrifice for literal sin transference, or that salvation is by faith WITHOUT WORKS, he is strongly influenced by Paul. He does emphasize faith, though he does not include Paul's statement that it is "apart from works" and even the passage with the famous John 3:16, he goes on in verses 19-21 (which all versions show in the same paragraph unit) to emphasize the concurrent importance of deeds or works. By choosing John over the earlier synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which emphasize Jesus' teachings on behavior rooted in universal compassion, you further align yourself with Paul AGAINST JESUS.

T: In the process you will enchanted these verses spoken by Jesus, who would hold in great regard. Either He is mad, idiot or just what he says--The son of God.

DDD reply: You are, of course, referring without proper attribution to the example cited by Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." Well, we have already established that the Bible has many contradictions and flaws of human error, a point you have never rebutted despite my extensive evidence. Therefore, there is another alternative: Jesus wrote nothing. The gospel accounts were written decades later. Whether they are intentionally false, the efforts of delusional followers, or simply embellished by time in an age when there were no photos or videos to aid fading memories (by primitive, superstitious people who believed in such supernatural events and would not resist including them in their legends) is not a conclusion I have to decide.

Dialogue with Steve
Steve writes on 3-27-03:

The Death of Jesus.

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs and after Jesus rose from the dead they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" (Matthew 51-54 NIV)

DDD reply: There are no outside sources that corroborate Matthew's claim that the "earth shook and the rocks split," though even if there were it would be the report of a fairly routine earthquake. I live in Southern California and have lived through several very substantial earthquakes; the occurrence of one doesn't mean that everyone who has died recently was the son of god, even though they can be quite impressive.

S: Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out muderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the Synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (Acts 9:1-6 NIV)

DDD reply: There is absolutely no reason to believe his account. I cited extensive examples of how this persecutor of the Christians continued to CONTRADICT and oppose the teachings of Jesus after his supposed "conversion." I provided extensive support for my position, and you did not address a single one of my points. If you could have responded to my points, I'm sure you would have. But you didn't, so I guess it is because you can't. Paul contradicted Jesus, and undermined his teachings. We can't say exactly why he did this, whether he had a sincere misunderstanding of what Jesus taught, or whether this persecutor of Jesus' followers found a more successful (and sinister) strategy for undermining what Jesus taught. In any case, since you have not found a single point of error on my account, I have to assume that while you want to believe otherwise, in your heart you know I'm right.

You cite the Bible accounts of what happened at the time of Jesus' death and Paul's conversion, but you have not given a single reason why we should accept as fact these ancient records of mythology. There is no more basis for credibility in these myths and legends of the Hebrews than the myths and legends of the Greeks or Romans.

Dialogue with Elaine
Elaine writes on 12-8-02:

I am so glad I found this website. Until I purchased a computer and got online, I had no idea that others had come to many of the same conclusions I have reached on my own. I stopped attending church approx. a dozen yrs. ago because all church doctrine seemed to be based on Paul rather than on the teachings of Jesus. I know that everyone is not going to agree on every single item discussed, but I have found this and a few other websites that certainly seem to be in agreement with most of what I have come to believe is truth.

DDD reply: Yes, this is so obvious once it crosses your mind, isn't it! I'm just surprised more people don't see this, but many others besides you and I have stumbled across the same observation, and once it hits you it is inescapable how much Paul is at odds with Jesus, and how much organized "Christian" religion is based on Paul and NOT JESUS.

E: In your discussion, the question is asked, "If Jesus paid a ransom for our sins, who did he pay it to?" This is a question that I believe deserves a lot of consideration.

DDD reply: Well, this was posed more as a rhetorical question to underscore my opposition to the doctrine of Jesus' sacrifice as a vicarious or substitutional sin transference, which is wholly of Paul's invention and not taught by any other contributor to either Old or New Testaments.

E: Here is my thinking: God, our Father, would never have demanded the horrible suffering and torture on the cross, though Satan surely would have demanded it if given the chance. It is my strong feeling that Satan demanded this awful death on the cross as a ransom for release of those who belong to God, who are His own. We do not know in what way Satan gained claim to those who belong to God, but human selfishness is present in all, and underlies this claim I believe. My feeling is that Jesus ransomed His own and broke the power of Satan over those whose father if God.

DDD reply: I have a hard time believing in the existence of a real Satan (there is enough evil arising out of the simple ignorance of us puny, fallible mortals), much less the idea that if such a being existed he would be in much of a position to be making demands of an all-powerful deity. I believe the whole idea of the "ransom" to be absurd.

E: Probably no one will agree with me on this, but Jesus did state that He came to give His life as a ransom. The dictionary defines "ransom" as "a buying back," also the "realease of a person in return for payment of a demanded price." It is true that all human beings on earth have an inner selfish nature, but when we are able to recognize this in ourselves, we will grow to know Him through our life experiences, and through reading his teachings in the 4 gospel accounts. He will reveal Himself to each of His own as being kind, loving, gentle ..... not an angry God who would demand suffering and torture in exchange for "forgiveness."

DDD reply: There are only three references to "ransom" in the entire New Testament. Once in the gospel of Mark, then echoed in Matthew and then referred to in one of Paul's letters (though Paul goes on at great length in his other letters to describe the atoning sin transference). Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 give exactly the same words: "even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Unlike Paul's reference to an atonement wherein Jesus assumes the right to take upon himself our sins, when Jesus makes this reference I think it is in more a traditional meaning of the word "ransom" like when someone pays a ransom to release a kidnap victim. You pay a ransom, the kid goes free, but you don't take upon yourself the child's sins or hold that over his head for the rest of his life. You make a sacrifice to free him. In our case, we are enslaved to our selfishness and misery. Jesus taught us a plan of universal compassionate love, expressed through actions, that would break us of this miserable selfishness. But to teach this meant he had to stand up to the established religious orthodoxy of his day, the Jewish Sanhedrin. He knew this was dangerous. They could (and did) kill people for such "dangerous" and heretical teachings. But like a parent who throws himself in front of an oncoming car to save his child (save the life through self-sacrifice, not take upon himself the child's sins), Jesus paid the price, or ransom, of being arrested and killed because he taught unpopular doctrines of universal compassionate love. This had nothing to do with taking anyone else's sins upon himself, which was entirely made up by Paul. Jesus never teaches any such thing. Paul needed to invent the concept of sin transference to justify his absurd doctrine that justification is by FAITH AND NOT WORKS, which directly contradicts Jesus' many teachings that salvation is based on actions of love, not any "free gift" based on faith alone. So there is a sacrifice: Jesus takes a risk and sacrifices himself to get his message to us. Giving his life is the ransom he pays to the established religious elders, or "kidnappers," to free us from them.

E: Jesus said nothing about a "free gift" of forgiveness that we may receive by acknowledging that He suffered and died in our place to "pay for our sins." Paul's doctrines of "grace" and "atonement" are simply wrong, though many seem to be deceived by preachers who apparently believe Paul's lies. That is a strong word to use, I know, but my feeling is that Paul was an imposter from the beginning.

DDD reply: Paul was incredibly well educated, and he was intelligent and articulate. Some who have seen these contradictions feel that he was just misguided. I have a hard time with that. I certainly can't say for sure, since I wasn't there, but like you I suspect that he knew exactly what he was doing. Perhaps this persecutor of Christians found a more effective way to sabotage the teachings of Jesus: from within. The sad part is that he has been largely successful in his quest.

E: My feelings and interpretation run counter to all religious teaching. These views are strictly my own and are based upon my own personal experiences of desperately needing God's help and of His coming to my rescue in ways that could only be described as miraculous, over and over and over again.

DDD reply: But just as Jesus stood up to the established religious orthodoxy of his time, so the established religious orthodoxy of our time is WRONG.

E: Most people would say that my beliefs are not "scriptural," but perhaps these individuals are relying too much on New Testament letters, rather than on the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the four gospels.

DDD reply: Too many people WORSHIP the Bible instead of God. I call it "Bibleolatry" (actually I got the term from someone else but now I can't remember where). The Bible was written by fallible mortal humans, not by god. They were doing there best to write down wonderful experiences, or their best efforts to explain a universe they didn't understand. It contains much wisdom as well as some foolishness here and there, and plenty of error. If you check my Bible web page (http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html) you can see numerous examples of its errors, with a link to hundreds more. As I also note (and which so many readers miss), the Bible is very important to us in terms of passing on the record of wonderful experiences by those who were there and experienced them (even if their memories failed them on details from time to time as they wrote decades after the fact without the benefit of photos, video cameras, etc.), as well as the history of ethical theory that was the foundation for western civilization. The four gospels give an overview of Jesus' teachings, but we still have to avoid putting them on such a pedestal that we worship the writings as if they had become the deities themselves.

Dialogue with John
John writes on 10-31-02:

I am inspired and curious - you are a follower of Christ in your examples of parenting with the raising of children and with this statement: "The irony here is that Jesus, in what he taught throughout his ministry -- not in an "atonement," but in a consistent message of universal compassion -- provided the means for character reformation and growth that actually can transform the sinner and allow him to overcome sin."

Are the rest of us so hung up on atonement alone you have to divorce us?

DDD reply: Those who have made "atonement" and salvation based on professions of faith the centerpiece of their religion, supporting Paul's position which completely contradicts Jesus, distract from what Jesus taught and in fact oppose everything he stood for. I have not "divorced" Christianity. In identifying the false doctrines and contradictory teachings that subvert the teachings of love and truth from Jesus and others like him, I stumbled across the discovery that those who most loudly call themselves the followers of Jesus are, in fact, those who have most betrayed everything that he lived and died for.

I notice that you did not actually address a single one of the contradictions, flaws or ways in which Paul's followers usurped Jesus and undermined his teachings. Since you could not find any flaws in what I wrote I have nothing to respond to, and continue to stand by what I have written.

We may disagree on details but what are the primary messages. There is truth, it is worth searching for and men try to explain it and God sends them time to try. Perhaps - God is Love

DDD reply: We agree that there is much truth and love can be found in the teachings of Jesus. The problem is that those who worship the Bible as an infallible icon, use it is a false god and a distraction from the love and truth that Jesus actually taught.

Dialogue with Steve
Steve writes on 8-20-02:

Last week our pastor explained the atonement to a group of elementary school children so clearly that even these young kids could understand it. He took a pitcher of clear water, representing our clean souls unspotted from sin, and put in just a drop of red dye to represent the stains of sin.

DDD reply: Your pastor's example is a clever one, but it highlights all the problems with the atonement doctrine. Like the common example of "paying a debt" that I noted in my web page, it reduces a non-physical element of spirituality or consciousness ("sin") to a physical element. Analogies and metaphors are helpful only if they bear some allegorical resemblance to the subject being explained. Using examples of physical processes that are based on their physical elements to represent something that is not physical in nature simply fails.

S: The water turned bright red. He poured more clean water (to represent the purity of good deeds) No matter how many more clean and pure "good works" are added the water still remains red.

DDD reply: Well, this is not true. If the amount of the sin is small enough (an impoverished man in medieval France stealing one loaf of bread from someone who is wealthy to keep his family from dying), and the amount of additional good works is enough, the large volume of clean water against an insignificant amount of stain will, in fact, make the sin become so inconsequential as to virtually disappear. And this still does not address the question related to sin and death: WHY do Christians demand a doctrine that insists that even the slightest sin results in death? This is unreasonable, and JESUS never said any such thing. Paul did, and no one else in the whole Bible backed him up. This is like saying that we, as parents, see our children track their muddy feet across our clean, white carpet so the result is the death penalty. If we as fallible, mortal parents can find a better response, how can any reasonable person believe that a "loving" god requires the "death penalty" even for the slightest sin?

S: There is no way that the pitcher itself can remove the red stains of sin. Only by turning those sins over to someone else, without sin, can the water become cleansed of its stain.

DDD reply: Here is where the metaphor (which was flawed to begin with) really breaks down. The problem is that you have this stain and you have to get rid of it. Adding more "clean" water won't make it go away. Okay, even though you can add enough water to make it "virtually" disappear, there is always a trace that remains. So if what you need is to make the stain go away, and adding more water or trying to clean the water doesn't work, HOW THE HECK does going out, finding a innocent man, and killing him do a better job of making the red stain disappear than adding more water? If you want to stick with this ridiculous example, a better metaphor would be that you have to find some chemical reaction in the water itself that will dissolve or remove the red dye. It has to be an "inside job." Doing something outside the pitcher won't clean the water. Certainly nailing an innocent man to a cross and forcing him to shed blood will only add MORE RED, not clean up the mess you've already got.

Dialogue with Nathan
Nathan writes on 5-9-02:

I'm a 21 year old searching for the truth, currently the truth of the atonement doctrine. I read your 'Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement,' and I found it to be refreshing. I am one who believes religion should be logical. I am a 'wannabe' Christian. I believe in Jesus, but I do not buy the atonement doctrine. My life would be much easier if I believed in the atonement doctrine (in terms of fitting in with Christians), but I simply cannot believe it. I *wholeheartedly* agree with your point that Christianity is too focused on Jesus' death on the cross, rather than what he taught us as a means to salvation. Actually, there is this book called the Urantia Book, that basically says what you say in your essay. Now, the very act of deciding to read this book requires a very open mind, as it claims it was written by spiritual beings. I have read 2/3 of this book, and while it is very logical and at times, mind-blowing, I have doubts about it. I would like authorities on religion to read it, but I have a feeling they would scoff, because they are settled on what they believe to be the truth. Okay I just need some backup here; I'm inexperienced in analysis, and I would like to know what those experienced in analysis think about the book. I'm confused, because I don't know if what I'm reading is truth or an elaborate ploy to mislead people. Anyways, I thank you for your essay.

DDD reply: Thank you for taking the time to write with your very thoughtful and honest comments. You are one of the few people who were able to see both my great and tremendous respect for Jesus and what he taught alongside my disappointment in those who pervert those teachings into something he would find unrecognizable.

The relation to some of the views of Urantia have been pointed out to me before. I have not read any of the books or materials relating to Urantia. While it seems (from the snippets that have been e-mailed to me) that they have some very insightful observations, I have problems with the origins of a book that are too steeped in mystery and supposed divinity. The stated origins are confused and very murky, and lack credibility. That doesn't mean that someone -- a mere human mortal -- could not have come up with some brilliant ideas. So I would say to read them with a huge grain of salt, and have the wisdom and discernment to separate the wisdom from that which is not so wise -- exactly the same way I would suggest reading the Bible, which also has plenty of both. Just because something is not the "word of god" also does not mean that everything in it is wrong. There are still some brilliant people with brilliant ideas and we should not throw out the good just because it is not all 100% perfect or divine.

Thanks again for taking the time to write. Your thought processes sound a lot like what I was going through at your age (three decades ago). In the intervening years I have tried to maintain a balance of appreciating the truth in every religion or philosophy while sifting that truth out from the errors and contradictions within which it is concealed.

Dialgoue with Kyle
Kyle writes on 3-5-02:

Before I begin, I would just like for you to know that I respect your views and am only presenting my opinion. I understand that your website is your opinion, but I would like to point out a few things and let you know what I suggest in return.

DDD reply: Thank you for taking the time to write with your thoughtful and respectful tone. I will also try to respond with equal personal respect and courtesy, without compromise vigorous discussion of ideas (without making personal insults). Kyle, I have read your entire reply. I seriously have to wonder if you really read what I wrote. I addressed many of the key points you have raised, but you did not address the points I made, so I wonder if you really read them. I have shown you the respect of reading everything you wrote, and I will respond specifically to each key point. If you wish to continue an honest dialogue, please read and respond to what I actually say. You wrote in a respectful tone, but I felt you did not actually respect me enough to actually respond to what I said.

K: I would just like to point out that I do not believe you are getting the point of the bloody sacrifice. In the old testament a sacrifice was needed to atone for one's sins. When people were not following the law they had to sacrifice an animal that was pure to cleanse them of their sins.

DDD reply: There are two avenues of response to this point:

First, I have stated that because of its many flaws, that I do not believe the Bible to be the word of god. So it does not matter if the people of the Old Testament believed that killing an innocent animal would atone for sin. It still does not make sense that killing an innocent victim in some way makes your sins go away. This is the simplistic mythology of primitive people. If you believe that killing something innocent takes away sin, please explain how this works. All you are doing is finding an excuse for avoiding the responsibility of reforming your character so you change the qualities of moral imperfection that lead to sin.

Second: You are not correct in what you say about the Old Testament. There were animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, but they were NOT for the atonement of sins. They were to show thanks to God by offering to him the best of one's bounty, or as peace offerings, or to show humility before God. Some sacrifices were "sin" offerings, but they were to demonstrate humility and remorse for sin. Please read the laws of sacrifice in Leviticus, chapters 1 through 3. There is NOTHING in the Old Testament that says an atonement or sin transference results from sacrificing an animal. Even the famed "scapegoat" (Leviticus 16:7-10) does not apply. First of all, unlike sacrificial offerings, the scapegoat is never actually killed (very different from nailing someone to a cross or putting slain animals on an altar). Second, the release of the "scapegoat" does NOT reflect any actual belief in the substitutional transference of sins from the person to the animal; it is purely symbolic. Once Jesus was killed, if he were held up as a "symbol" of removing our sins because he taught us how to reform our imperfect characters, that would be very different from the teaching of modern Christians that Jesus actually died and took upon him a literal transference of our sins from us to him.

K: All people sin, I have, you have, we all have. So when God became tired of this He decided to send Jesus Christ into the world as a gift because He loves us all so much, and because He loves you. He, then sent Jesus to live a sinless life, which was the only way to get into heaven without a sacrifice. When Jesus had lived a sinless life, even after being tempted in the wilderness, He became the ultimate sacrifice for all hu