Where is the Book of Jesus?

SKEPTIC: How come there's no Book of Jesus in the Bible? Since Jesus is the central character in the Bible, it might have been nice if he had actually taken the time to write down a few of his thoughts himself, instead of relying on other folks to do it decades later. It certainly would have given more credibility to his words.

PREACHER: So you admit that Jesus' followers wrote his words only decades (two or three at the most) and not centuries later. There is hope for you yet!

SKEPTIC: Did I say otherwise? So how come Jesus didn't write a book?

PREACHER: He probably didn't have time to, since He was busy speaking and doing. But actually, His voice is recorded quite often. Look at all the direct quotes in the Gospels. Why do you ask such an irrelevant question?

SKEPTIC: So Jesus didn't write anything because he was too busy? He just couldn't find the time to make a contribution to the book that is the "inspired Word of God" and the cornerstone of the Christian faith? He was the Son of God, but was just really bad at time management? Really? Seriously? And you think it's irrelevant that I've raised the question? I think it's very relevant in that it creates real doubt about the historicity of Jesus. If he was a real person, why don't we have any writing from him at all - not a letter, not a note, not even a grocery list?

PREACHER: Actually He did write in the sand when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Him. My point is that there are a lot of people who haven't made a literary contribution in the past. Therefore, to infer that they didn't really exist because they didn't leave behind something written is jumping the gun to say the least. I also get amused at those who don't trust the actual Gospel accounts, but let their imagination run wild about what they think might have happened. An imaginary savior can only give an imaginary salvation.

SKEPTIC: Well, I can certainly agree with your last thought in regard to an imaginary savior. But I'm not saying the fact that he didn't write anything proves he didn't exist - I'm just saying that it creates doubt. I mean, when your father is God, you outta be able to put down a few thoughts on papyrus for the ages. If I was God, I would've just had Jesus write the whole Bible and forget about all the other pretenders. And if my son had dedicated the book to his old man, I might have even written a really nice introduction.

PREACHER: Your problem is God didn't consult you when He decided to reveal Himself through the Bible. You weren't around then. After all, by your own admission, aren't you a just a temporary existence? Why should He submit to you?

SKEPTIC: You're right. God didn't consult me and he definitely didn't submit to me - because if he did, I guess that would make ME God, and cool as that would be, I'm not sure I'm ready to handle that much responsibility. But to tell you the truth, the whole idea that the one and only God, creator of the universe - THE UNIVERSE - would decide that the best way to reveal himself to earthlings would be to have a bunch of guys write down some semi-coherent thoughts and then make a book out of those thoughts just strikes me as kinda silly. I mean, he's God, for cryin' out loud - surely he can come up with something more creative than being a cosmic publisher of a book that is certainly less than crystal clear.

PREACHER: I have thought before that you are a god-wannabe. That would make you have great significance. However, your worldview calls you just the result of random natural processes over a long period of time that only exists for a minute fraction of time, an extremely insignificant existence. The great contrast between what you want to be and actually believe about yourself strikes me as absurd. The Book is very clear about some things like who we are and who God is. God is creator and does whatever He pleases and is always good and right. We humans are created in His image: that is what gives us significance. That is why He loved us enough to sacrifice His own Son for us.

SKEPTIC: "God is creator and does whatever He pleases and is always good and right." Hey, that pretty much describes me, too (except for the creator part)! So I guess maybe I really am God! Awesome! (By the way, it would be helpful if you would use more emoticons. I have trouble sometimes knowing when you're serious and when you're putting me on.)

PREACHER: So...your words confirm my great fear that atheists suffer from megalomania. (This technically challenged image bearer of the Creator doesn't know how to post emoticons. But, thou "O Great One" surely knowest all things.)

SKEPTIC: Fear not, my humble servant, for I carry my burden not with sorrow, but with great joy. I grant you peace and wisdom. May you someday come to understand that there are many paths to the truth. Love, God cc: Jesus

PREACHER: So...how long will it be till you publish your revelatory work? Do I get a free autographed copy since I helped you discover yourself?

SKEPTIC: Sure. You'll be the first to get a copy.

How to Use the Bible Like Flying Ninja Stars

SKEPTIC: I recently had a very strange email exchange with an old friend from my high school days - more than 40 years ago. Her name was Kathy, and she was part of the group I hung out with at church - back when I was a churchgoer. I remembered her as a really fun and vivacious girl, and so when I acquired her email address through a mutual friend, I was excited to get in touch again.

I sat down and penned a very long and friendly email, catching her up on what I've been up to for the last 40 years. Along the way, I briefly explained that my worldview vis a vis God and religion had changed quite considerably in the last four decades. I sent the email into cyberspace and waited for her reply.

Finally, after one full month had passed, I received a reply. A pretty weird reply, but a reply nonetheless. The whole email consisted of a series of Bible verses, flung at me like those little flying ninja stars. The verses were definitely not very friendly. They contained words like "godlessness," "wickedness," "unrighteousness," and "depraved." There was no message, no greeting, no signature. Just the Bible verses. Apparently she had decided that since her and I no longer shared the same belief system, I was not worthy of her attention, even after 40 years, and it was her solemn responsibility to put me in my place.

PREACHER: Well, it looks like she is definitely giving you the boot, at least for as long as you hold to your "enlightened" world view. It is typical of Christians to respond with Bible verses since we believe that the Word of God is the most powerful tool to convict sinners. It would have been nice of her to respond personally, but I suppose she didn't feel up to discussing the issues with you.

SKEPTIC: Well, I didn't even indicate that I wanted to discuss it. It was just part of my life story that I thought she might be interested in. I wouldn't even have minded a couple of Bible verses thrown in to illustrate a point she wanted to make - but to reply with nothing but very angry and accusatory verses was pretty strange, I thought. I was confused at first, then insulted, and then angry.

PREACHER: It is unfortunate that some Christians feel intimidated by non-believers. I think that is what happened with her, and so her response. A lot of Christians, particularly in the United States, rather than being a witness to their faith, react by trying to protect themselves from the "onslaught" of secularism and the influence of other religions. In this day they seem to be particularly afraid of Moslems (hence classes on how to befriend Moslems offered at some churches). Such reactions of fear speak of a weak faith and ignorance of basic Biblical truths.

That being said, wouldn't you admit that atheists have a lot to do to improve their public image? Still, for a lot of church-going folks the word "atheist" conjures up such names as Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler. I'm sure you would agree that getting insulted and angry doesn't do much for that image either. You might have made a better reconnect with her if you hadn't introduced your new found understanding to her quite so soon.

SKEPTIC: So Christians defame atheists by linking them to Stalin and Hitler, but it's atheists who need to improve their public image? Seems to me that the poor image of atheists was created by the religious community - and it's up to them to stop unfairly demonizing atheists. If atheists were to continually assert that Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity, you would be within your rights to demand that they stop making such an unfair linkage. And it certainly wouldn't be fair for atheists to insist that, because of McVeigh, Christians need to "improve their public image." And for the record, while there is conflicting evidence, it appears that Hitler was much more sympathetic to Christianity than to atheism.

Also, why do you say that "getting insulted and angry doesn't do much for that image, either?" If someone disrespects me, don't I have a right to have those feelings? It's human nature to react that way. It has nothing to do with atheism or religion. And as to your suggestion that I shouldn't have told her my deep dark secret so soon - well, perhaps I might not have if I had known that she wasn't mature enough to handle it - but it's a new day for atheists - we're coming out of the closet, we're speaking out, we're not hiding from the world. "We're here, don't fear, get used to it!" (Hey, that's kind of catchy!)

PREACHER: So, the religious community have made atheists their victims! How pathetic! I heartily encourage and applaud atheists for coming out of the closet and with their "greater enlightenment" getting over and beyond being unfairly demonized by the "unenlightened" religious community.

However, your worldview does present you with some challenges. If indeed we are nothing but the product of natural processes over the eons, how does that process of origin give us any rights or dignity in the first place? Since I believe that you are created in the image of God, I really do believe that entitles you to some kind of dignity and rights. But, as I understand, your worldview doesn't require me to give you any dignity and rights. Neither does it require you to give me dignity and rights. Joseph Stalin consistently lived out that worldview by putting to death millions of people whom he considered problematic. Wouldn't you agree that Timothy McVeigh and Adolph Hitler did not consistently live the Christian worldview?

I appreciate "good" atheists. But, I am quite sure that they are "good" because of the influence of Christian ethics and morality in the society that they grew up in, not their worldview. Is there a new day coming for atheism? Maybe temporarily. From the point of view of eternity, it could never be more than a temporary glitch in time.

SKEPTIC: So dignity and rights are only available or required if they come from God? That's a novel idea.

But you seem to have missed my point regarding the image of atheists. I wasn't claiming victimhood - I was merely pointing out that it's silly to tell atheists that they should "improve their image" when it's the religious community that has created that false image.

I love the way you always put quotes around words like "enlightened." You obviously consider your belief system the only one worthy of consideration. And I'm really happy that you appreciate "good" atheists, as if such a thing is some kind of bizarre anomaly. But then to claim that the only way atheists can achieve goodness is courtesy of Christianity is yet one more example of how Christians view themselves as better than "the others."

Which brings us full circle to my old friend, Kathy. Both her and you demonstrate such arrogance in your worldview. Christians have turned self-righteousness into an art form - to the point where anyone who doesn't agree with you is not just wrong, but headed for eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell. It's not a very attractive quality, but I suspect that you can't do much about it, since it's kind of built into the theology.

In any event, I'm glad to see that you have apparently moved Hitler from the "atheist" column into the "Christian" column. (Watch the above video for an interesting discussion on Stalin and Hitler.)

PREACHER: As an atheist who considers himself truly superior, wouldn't you consider it your perogative to do all you can to correct that false image created by the religious community? That is what I really welcome, and some of you are trying to do that! Yes, that "superiority" you find in Christians is built into the theology. After all, Christ who is eternal has given us eternal life and significance. By your own admission your opinions, even your very existence, are only extremely temporary and therefore insignificant.

SKEPTIC: So my existence and my opinions only have value if they are eternal, but if they come with an expiration date, then they are completely insignificant. Have I got that part right? Do you know how many times I was taught in my church that this life on earth is "insignificant," and that it was merely a "dress rehearsal" for the afterlife? (Answer: a lot!) So then it would follow, would it not, that anyone who didn't believe in an afterlife would attach considerably more significance to this earthly life. So whose existence is more "significant?"

And, no, I don't consider myself to be superior, while you have just admitted that you, indeed, do. Thinking you have all the answers is what breeds arrogance. Someone once said that "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered, while religion is answers that can never be questioned." Atheists are asking questions, looking for answers, and willing to change their worldview if the evidence merits it. Christians, on the other hand, are given the answers and told not to ask questions. Just accept it. And if you come across contradictory evidence, just ignore it.

So, my old friend Kathy, thanks for the flying ninja stars. If you ever want to have an actual conversation, you've got my email address. I won't bite. Really.

Is the Bible Too Liberal?

SKEPTIC: Conservative Christians can rest easy. Their interests are being looked out for by one Andrew Schlafly who has come to the obvious conclusion that the Bible is way too liberal, and needs to be changed. As a result of his "revelation," he has come up with something called The Conservative Bible Project, and it's about time. Who needs all that talk about "social justice" and all that other liberal nonsense? Just get rid of it. And since we all know that liberals used way too many words in the Bible, the CBP will set about combatting "liberal wordiness," apparently by using fewer, shorter words that most conservatives can understand. The Biblical saboteurs do note that "liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds." So there you go - the secret is out. The real purpose of this project is to get those godless liberals to read their Bibles. I just hope they ran this by God before embarking on their little project. I'm not sure he'd approve.

PREACHER: Pardon me, but I think you are setting up a "straw man" here, at least to an extent. Bible scholars would agree that our best translations are not perfect. I would welcome this project to get another translation with yet another slant. I find comparing translations very helpful in understanding the text, even the ones that I know are not very good. And, aren't all translations from whatever political or theological slant they are from, prepared with the hope that they will be read? The secret is already out, so there is no deception here.

I find it very amusing that one who doesn't believe that the Almighty even exists would think He would approve or disappove of any project men may do. Assuming that you think what they are doing is wrong, then you have placed yourself as a moral authority over them. What are your qualifications?

SKEPTIC: I don't think what they're doing is wrong - it's just stupid. How can Christians believe that it's okay to desecrate their sacred book by deleting and changing the text to fit a conservative ideological viewpoint? But you bring up an interesting point when you talk about translations not being perfect and even slanted. Since the Bible is considered by Christians to be the inspired word of God, doesn't that mean that all the translations of that inspired text need to be inspired, too? And if the translations are inspired by God, how can they be imperfect or slanted? If I'm a Christian, why would I even want to read translated versions that aren't inspired by God - that are, essentially, just someone's imperfect opinion of what the text means. Does this mean that the only way to understand God's true meaning is to read the original Greek and Hebrew texts? Are they the only texts truly inspired by God?

Of course, once you realize that the Bible was written by men with political agendas who didn't actually have any God looking over their shoulders to make sure they got it all right, your brain won't have to hurt so much trying to figure everything out.

By the way, I'm glad you found my reference to God not approving this project amusing, because that's what I intended - or did you think I momentarily forgot that I didn't believe in God? But my point is valid, I think. If you believe in God, do you think he would approve of this drastic alteration of his sacred book?

PREACHER: You might be interested to know that good translators use very scientific methods to translate the Hebrew and Greek into our vernacular. (This is why I don't go along with the King James version only crowd.) As one who trusts in science (almost makes a religion out of it), shouldn't you appreciate that? Wouldn't you agree that the more scientifically the translation is done the better it is. Still the translations are done by men so no scholar would consider any translation without defect. They would all agree that only the original Hebrew and Greek texts were inspired. (Yes we have to take that by faith, just as you take by faith that God doesn't exist and the text is only the accounts of men back when it was written.) When the translators take too much liberty in expressing their bias, their translation is usually not accepted very well. One example in the past was the gender neutral bible. The Lord's prayer started out with, "Our Parent which art in Heaven." Before I can make a good judgment on the new conservative bible, I would like to get reviews from those who know their Hebrew and Greek better than I do.

SKEPTIC: So do you consider this conservative Bible to be a "good" translation? This guy wants to completely edit out the story of Jesus and the Adulteress because he thinks it's too liberal! (Funny, I always thought compassion, forgiveness and redemption were good Christian values. Apparently, they're just good liberal values. Go figure.) And by the way, this new conservative Bible is not being translated from the original texts, but rather from the English King James Version.

It's fascinating to me that you admit that only the original Greek and Hebrew texts were inspired by God, and that all the translations have "defects" in them. So I guess that Christians who rely on the various translations of the Bible to guide them are reading the uninspired and defective word of God. Maybe the Bible should be more accurately known as The Approximate Word of God.

To me, this project seems like a bastardization of the Bible, more than anything else. It's one man's attempt to force the Bible to conform to his political and cultural prejudices. I would think most Christians would be appalled at the nerve of this guy.

Kirk and Ray's Excellent Adventure

SKEPTIC: The world's wackiest creationists, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, have decided that the best way to convince people that Charles Darwin doesn't know what he's talking about in Origin of Species is by giving out 100,000 free copies of Darwin's landmark book to college students around America. The only difference is that Comfort has written a 50-page "introduction" to the book explaining why the book the reader is about to read is totally bogus. It's a "Trojan Horse" approach to getting their message out, as the book appears to be a genuine "150th Anniversary Special Edition" with Charles Darwin's name the only one appearing on the book's cover. Some nonbelievers have suggested that perhaps they should pass out free copies of the Bible with a 50-page introduction by Richard Dawkins explaining why the book that follows is completely bogus. Turnabout is fair play, I suppose.

PREACHER: As the son of a PHD biologist who taught assuming evolution for most of his career, I appreciate this endeavor by Kirk and Ray to get Origin of Species into the hands of college students, so they can find out what it really says, beyond the simplistic explanations that they get in freshman biology. I would encourage non-believers to hand out free copies of the Bible with Richard Dawkins intro. Maybe they can try to look more honest by putting a disclaimer on the front cover in fine print. My point is there are too many college students out there that have never read either book. The only reason Kirk and Ray are wacky to you is because of your wacky world view. You assume that the physical realm is all that there is. I could never be so conceited and deluded as to claim that that which I cannot know by my senses doesn't exist.

SKEPTIC: Luckily, I guess I'm just conceited and deluded enough to rely on my senses to determine reality. Call me crazy. If God had really wanted everyone to believe in his existence, I guess he should have given us more than just five senses. I'm glad, though, that you agree with me that Kirk and Ray are being dishonest (not a very Christian virtue)by attempting to conceal their true agenda. Hopefully, college students are smart enough to know when they're being punked. By the way, there is a fascinating online project called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, in which every verse is scrutinized and thoroughly analyzed from a skeptic's point of view. Nothing covert about it. The intent is right in the title. Let Kirk and Ray write The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species. That would be lot more honest, not to mention more interesting.

PREACHER: As one who in a previous post suggested that he would be glad to have people worship him, I see that the "shoe" fits very well on you. I'm reminded of the blind man who was too proud to ask for help as he walked along a narrow road with ditches on both sides. After falling in and wallowing around in the mud for a few hours, he finally got humble enough to ask for help.

Thanks for the link to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It will be a very useful tool for me. I see that there are a number of good Christian sites that answer the writers claims. Eventually there may be a site that is called Answers to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Some of the categories might be: 1) scientifically unprovable assumption 2) seeing a problem that isn't really there 3) invalid claim to moral authority....

Although I don't know of a complete version of The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species yet, http://www.answersingenesis.org/ would be a good site to go to for such information. Their News to Note articles are always revealing the false assumptions in scientific articles that are written from an evolutionary bias.

SKEPTIC: I believe my point was that it's great to be worshipped, but kind of ridiculous to require anyone to do it. It would be like me requiring my cat to worship me in return for my affection (although I suspect he may see me as a God - after all, I am pretty awesome the way I can walk around and talk and use kitchen utensils. Not to mention the fact that I'm his sole source of food - he really should say grace to me before he chows down).

By the way, the imaginary website you describe actually exists (kind of). It's called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, although it's not available online. The site is just selling his CD.

In any event, this kind of debate is perfectly legitimate. What's not legitimate is when you try to disguise what your true intent is. ("Here, kid, have a free copy of Origin of Species! Pretty good deal, don't ya think?") It's not all that different from the pervert who tries to lure a child into his car with a promise of free candy. Or the Mormons who lure Japanese students into their lair with a promise of free English lessons, for that matter.

When Does Life Begin?

SKEPTIC: What do you believe happens to the soul of an embryo that is aborted, and is your belief based on the Bible?

PREACHER: Bible passages such as Psalms 139:13~16 and Isaiah 44:2 suggest that God is involved with the pre-birth condition of human beings. Since humans are created in the image of God, and have intrinsic value, the termination of a pregnancy would seem to be interfering in what God is doing. Although the Bible doesn't speak out about what happens to the pre-born in an abortion or a miscarriage, it can be inferred that since men are guilty before God because of their sin that they are responsible for and we can hardly say that an aborted fetus can take responsibility. A lot of evangelical scholars think that aborted fetuses get to go to heaven. I heard my seminary teacher comment that the Bible is silent on this matter for the very reason that if it proclaimed that fetuses go to heaven, the superstitious people in the middle ages would have killed many babies thinking that by doing so the babies would go to heaven. I believe that God intends for all souls to go through this life and when men interfere by abortion, they will be held accountable on judgement day.

SKEPTIC: Okay, I'm a little confused. You say the Bible doesn't have anything to say about what happens to the souls of those who are never born (which is a little surprising to me). Does the Bible specifically say that life begins at conception (the basis for the Christian belief that abortion should be illegal)? You also say that many scholars think that these souls go to Heaven, and that you believe that men will be accountable to God if they interfere in the process with abortion. What you haven't said is what YOU believe happens to these souls. Are you taking a neutral position, saying that you don't know? Are you saying, like Obama, that these sorts of questions are "above your paygrade?"

PREACHER: The Bible passages I quoted above infer that the fetus in the womb has a soul. Coming through the birth canal successfully doesn't suddenly make the fetus a human being; it already is. As for the existence of unborn souls (and that is where conception has not occurred, yet) the Bible doesn't say anything. Some philosopher has made a statement about the pre-existence of souls, but that is not from the Bible.

As far as the Bible specifically saying that life begins at conception, I think you are wondering when the "concepted thing" becomes a human being. Science hasn't determined that, yet. And I believe it would be very difficult to do so. Since we are accountable to God, I believe in playing it safe and saying that conception is the point of becoming a human being. Personally, I believe that the souls of these little ones go to heaven, but I can't be dogmatic about it. My opinion is based on what I know God is like from how He is revealed in the Bible.

SKEPTIC: The Bible verses you mentioned don't seem to really address when life begins per se. On the other hand, Genesis 2:7 seems to clearly say that life begins when a person takes his or her first breath.

"And God made man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

In any event, I have two main points. First, it seems ridiculous to me that government should or would outlaw certain medical procedures based on religious ideas about the soul, and second, if you really believe that the souls of aborted fetuses go to Heaven, then you're not doing those souls any favors by not wanting them to be aborted. In other words, if a baby is born and doesn't guess right on the religion question and ends up burning forever in Hell, it seems that he would've been a whole lot better off being aborted. At least then he would have gotten a free pass into Heaven.

PREACHER: Genesis 2:7 is a record of the unique creation of the first man and shouldn't be taken to mean that until one has breathed, he has no soul. Empirical scientific evidence shows that a fetus is a viable living being before it takes its first breath. As long as a large group of citizens believe a "religious" concept, doesn't it behoove the government, if it is a government by the people and for the people, to respect their position? I believe that it is God's will that human souls go through this life. And it isn't an issue of guessing the right question, it is an issue of whether you want to love God or not. When men perform an abortion the fetus becomes their victim. I believe that God cares for those who are victimized. So, He must do something for them.

SKEPTIC: I don't think the government has any business legislating anything that is based on a religious concept. The whole "separation of church and state" thing is a very important element of our democracy. If people don't respect that, then you end up with a theocracy, something that the Taliban has shown us doesn't really work all that well. Also, you talk about a "large group" of people who want to outlaw abortion, but polls have always indicated that the large majority of Americans are against repealing Roe v. Wade.

PREACHER: The polls seem to be very close with the pro-choice position leading. Shouldn't the government pursue a position of compromise on this issue?

SKEPTIC: Well, let's see. We just had 8 years with a pro-life president and a conservative Supreme Court, and yet not a lot changed in regard to the legality of abortion. In fact, we now know that Bush and the GOP were blatantly using the pro-life Christian community for their own political purposes, with no real intention to change anything. So now Americans have overwhelming elected a pro-choice president. What kind of compromise would you expect Obama to pursue, exactly?

PREACHER: I would like to see him pass legistation to protect the right of doctors, who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to not be forced to perform it.

SKEPTIC: There are no doctors being forced to perform abortions. The current law, which has been in place for decades, protects doctors from being forced to perform abortions if it goes against their conscience. But Bush snuck in a new regulation right before he was run out of office which broadened those protections. So now it's okay for any health-care worker, as a right of conscience, to refuse to even give out any abortion information at all to someone seeking that information. They can even refuse to pass on a referral. It also allows pharmacists to refuse to sell birth control. Obama and pro-choice groups are in the process of attempting to roll back these additional protections. No one is trying to force doctors to perform abortions.

What is The Bible?

SKEPTIC: I don't believe the Bible is anything more than an interesting piece of literature. Do you really think that a single book can represent the truth about the universe? If it could, wouldn't God have made it a whole lot easier to understand and not written a book open to a thousand different interpretations?

PREACHER: Aren't you kidding yourself? The concept that the universe is orderly and understandable, which you hold to, is from a Biblical world view. You, like much of the pseudo- sophisticated world of liberal academia believe you have a higher source of authority than the Bible (your own partially educated opinion) so you can pick and choose what parts you believe in. My contention is that unless you have received some sort of revelation, traveled back and forth through time, and made a careful search of the whole universe (to make sure that the supernatural truly does not exist), you aren't qualified to make such judgments.

SKEPTIC: Well, I don't believe that the Bible has ANY authority at all, other than that which believers are willing to give it. You keep insisting that I have to prove my disbelief, which seems odd to me. If you believe that Santa Claus is real and climbs down all those chimneys every year, it's not up to me to prove that you're wrong about that. You're the one with the irrational belief. Show me some real evidence that Santa is more than just a fun story, and then we can talk.

PREACHER: I get sick and tired of guys like Richard Dawkins always putting Jesus Christ at the same level of Santa Claus. For instance, I can go to the North pole and see that Santa's factory isn't there. Bringing up Santa Claus is rather inconsequential to the issue. He isn't involved in my eternal destiny, and we both agree that he is mythical. (However, there is a historical figure who may be the springboard for the myth of Santa Claus.)

SKEPTIC: Actually, I have written a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article explaining that I believe that God is just the grown-up version of Santa. But the truth is that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, and you can't prove that he does. That's why it's called Faith, right? Believing something that has no real evidence to back it up. By the way, I'm not an absolutist when it comes to God. I don't say that I KNOW he doesn't exist. I say I see no real evidence or reason to believe these supernatural myths and it's my considered opinion that gods and religions and supernatural beliefs and sacred texts are inventions of man that were created to try to understand a pre-science world and universe that made no sense to them. Someone reminded me the other day that the men who wrote the Bible also believed that the earth was flat. Amazingly, even though we now live in a modern scientific society and understand the world around us in profound ways, many Christians still insist that a 2000-year-old text trumps whatever Science might say.

PREACHER: Believing in the Supernatural One who is behind and upholds the natural, seem very rational to me. On the other hand, I find it very irrational to believe that order, beauty and complexity evolved simply by chance over billions of years from nothing. Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Noah etc. were real men in history with real experiences. I think it is quite arrogant of us to believe that they were uneducated and gullible with imaginations that made up all of these stories from scratch. There is good historical evidence that suggests that ancient man believed in a spherical earth just as we do today. The flat earth belief was from the middle ages. Except for the ways of saying things "the sun rises, the four corners of the earth", that we find in the Bible, I think that you would be hard pressed to prove that the Bible writers were flat-earthers.

SKEPTIC: Well, I have my doubts that anyone in Biblical times was running around pushing the round earth theory, but if you have good historical evidence, I'd love to see it. I guess my point is that modern science has explained lots of things that were mysteries in Biblical times, yet Christians still insist on basing everything they believe to be true on this one "holy" book.

PREACHER: Science is a very good tool for observing our world today and figuring out how nature works. But, it doesn't tell us about the spiritual (what's that word doing in our vocabulary in the first place for) realm or tell us what happened in history. We are at the mercy of historical documents when it comes to determining what really happened back then. (Of course you may have the supernatural ability to travel back and time to verify. Sorry for being cheeky.)