Pastor Matthew Dunaway
vs. Darrell W. Conder

Mr. Dunaway, obviously you haven't taken the time to read through my web page, which is somewhat understandable since if printed out it would number into many hundreds of pages. I wrote a book some ten years ago answering Josh McDowell's pathetic excuses for the mythology that comprises the Jesus tale. The sad thing is that I used to wholeheartedly believe the things McDowell preaches, and I taught others to believe them—that is until I actually read the bible for myself and started doing my homework. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't have a NT dating from the time of the supposed apostles. These writings were produced over the course of hundreds of years, as were the tales of "eyewitnesses." If writings purporting to be eyewitness accounts are convincing to you, then why not accept the myriad other holy books floating around since they offer the same kind of supportive "evidence?"

Not only have you failed to read my web page before writing, you have also failed to read the mountain of evidence showing the prophecy argument to be one of the biggest frauds in the bible. I defy you or Josh McDowell to prove any fulfillment of prophecy. More than this, I defy you to prove that the bible is the word of God! I would be glad to debate any minister of the Lord at any time. We can start in the book of Genesis, which not only is the first book of the bible, but is without doubt the most corrupt and laughable book in the whole collection.

Wow . . . can it be that you have not bothered to read anything other than fundamentalist Christian apologetics? For every "authoritative" account there are dozens of controversies swirling about it . . . I would suggest that you take the time to research things before making such statements. However, I will offer you some insight as a consolation prize: I used to make the same ignorant, uninformed statements and one day had to publicly eat my words. When I did have the courage to finally do my homework and admit the truth, talk about having egg on my face!

The authors of the Bible were from different backgrounds and even different languages, but they all point to the same thing. Even the book of Esther where God is not mentioned directly. The odds of all of this being coincidence are far greater than anything else.

I will risk anything you want, if you'd like to debate your beliefs. I notice that you have added a proviso at the bottom of your correspondence. Why is that you Christian types are big on the boasts of your god and his supposed word, but want to shy away from a public declaration? Normally I will not respond to people who do not want to have their letters posted. Our web page is on the Net for others to see and hopefully learn from. Doesn't your supposedly flawless bible say something about hiding your light under a bushel? How about coming out into the open and make your boasts publicly, and then back them up? Or could it be that somewhere in your "soul" you know that there are some VERY BIG HOLES in your beliefs?

Darrell W. Conder

Mr. Dunaway,

Your e-mail had a notice at the end that it was not be shared with anyone other than the person to whom it was sent. If you are giving me permission, I'll see to it that your letter is posted on our page along with your web page URL. I will post your URL on my page (I doubt you'll do the same for me), and let our readers judge for themselves your efforts.

As to any insulting tone, please understand that I constantly receive insulting letters and/or threats from good Christians, and I have learned to give back what I get. Since your letter did not formally address me, or another member of our staff, and since I perceived the tone to be condescending, I answered in kind. I can be extremely polite and accommodating when I'm treated with courtesy.

As your efforts have led thousands to Christ, my efforts have led thousands away. Those who left did not do so because of a lack of intelligence. In my books and many other writings I use logic, direct bible study, and critiqued sources like Josh McDowell, as well as the ancient church fathers to make my points. I also use history and archeology, and a good deal from Christian scholarship, which is why so many abandoned the bible.

As to your challenge to show you the holes in your beliefs, since you've come to me then the ball is in your court to show me the holes in my work. I will be glad to defend what I've written, and I will make this challenge, which is prominently displayed at the end of our web page: Show me that the bible is God's word, and I will publicly repent and spend the remainder of my days spreading the gospel of Christ! I've issued this challenge for the past ten years and to date there has been no one who has been able to disprove what I've written. What they do is end up calling me an anti-Christ, damning me to hell and then disappearing.

Mr. Dunaway, what I'm offering here is a chance for you to take down my web site and turn it around in the Lord's service! All you need do is to answer the many questions I have about the bible—explain the mountain of contradictions, fabrications and impossibilities, and I will be on your side! You can't get a more fair offer than that—and I'm quite serious!

You ask me to write my beliefs in a page. Instead I will ask that you read my OT commentary on Genesis chapter one, and answer my many questions. If you can do that, you will have my attention and we can proceed to the other books all the way to Revelation. But I warn you, I have a mountain of questions all backed by an equally large mountain of evidence to prove I'm right.

I will be very pleased to carry on a pleasant, "adult" exchange with you provided you post our exchanges on your page, as I will do in kind.

In closing this communication, please understand that I spent over forty years thinking I was in the right. I spent decades preaching the bible you are now upholding. The simple truth is that one of us is right and the other is wrong.

Regards,

Darrell Conder

Mr. Dunaway,

I too have some credentials in my past to show that I have wasted a good many years studying the bible. I wish I had put those years to good use by doing something that would have really benefited humanity instead of wasting them studying and teaching a myth. All those years traveling to the "holy land" and other such biblical settings, wading through the ancient libraries of England, Europe and American universities, sitting through countless theology classes, studying Hebrew and absorbing boring symposiums by the score, still didn't answer the mountain of contradictions and outright fabrications contained in the bible. It just proved that "learned" men had developed ingenious arguments to distract the faithful Christian sheep so that they could line their pockets with tithes and offerings.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't care if someone dug up a Tanakh tomorrow with the signature of Moses, or found an original gospel complete with Matthew's autograph attached, or found the Sermon on the Mount signed by Christ himself, it still wouldn't prove that the bible is God's word! As with any reputable work, that only can be done by carefully dissecting the contents and PROVING that the claims made therein are what they purport to be. That's it in a nutshell: No wasted years doing what I've done, nor obtaining a Masters in Theology as you've done; all one needs is logic and the book itself in hand!

Mr. Dunaway, I can hold my own when it comes to theological academics, but when all those smoke and mirrors are cleared away, we are still left with the bible itself, and I say that it is a complete mess!

Regards,

Darrell Conder

Mr. Dunaway,

I will briefly answer your questions in the order asked:

My beliefs are rather simple. I believe in a creation, and therefore a creator or creators. However, judging by what I see in nature, the character of that entity would not necessarily be benevolent. Indeed it may be quite the reverse. Additionally, I believe that there is a purpose for human life, although I have yet to find any airtight theory detailing that topic.

The information is so scant about Jesus, that I will barely allow that he existed. The little information that has survived is so corrupt, that any reported details of his life are of no consequence. Indeed, if any other historical figure had so many fabulous tales swirling about him/her, no reputable historian would seriously give the person heed. At best they might allow their existence and nothing more. It is only because we, living in a biased Christian society, have been taught to believe wholeheartedly in the gospel tales that Jesus is held with the strong degree of believability. After all, how many Christians do you know who unreservedly swallow the divine tales of Buddah, let alone base their hope on his teachings? Translation: We are all products of our societies and cultures, which explains why there is so much religious disharmony in the world—the worst examples being within your own Christian heritage!

The current fashion of Judeo-Christian "heritage" promotes the idea that the Jews consider Jesus a virtuous teacher, when in reality the Talmud is very damning of the man. As a former Talmudic student, I know all too well what an Orthodox Jew believes about Jesus!

I am amazed that you make such a profoundly uninformed declaration that more evidence of Jesus' existence is to be found than for Napoleon. Do you consider the mountain of Roman Catholic Church tales, written hundreds of years after the fact by some of history's greatest liars, as factual evidence of Jesus? I do not. The men who invented the tales of Jesus Christ had every reason to lie, and at that profession they were masters—especially since they controlled all education and all government functions wherein the questioning of their authority could mean imprisonment, torture and death. I would think that any logical person would view with great skepticism any purported facts that resulted from such a regime, not embrace them as gospel truth because millions of old grandmothers believed them to be true!

I explain life through a creative process, but not the unscientific, ignorant jumble that comprises the book of Genesis. I acknowledge miracles, so-called, but not from the biblical perspective. As you well know there are many cultures that believe and report miracles—including those reported thousands of years before the ancient world had ever heard of a Hebrew.

If testimony is all that you require to believe in a deity, then why do you disregard the religious testimony of the ancient pagans, who could fill just as many books with tales of miracles? Additionally I have met present-day pagans and others who pray to a conglomeration of deities who report miracles. Why not give serious consideration to these tales if eye-witness testimony is all that one requires?

Since you raise the subject of miracles, why is it that Christians run to a doctor when their health is threatened when the bible expressly tells them not to do this, but to rely on the healing power of Jesus Christ? The simple formula is to go to the elders of the church and be anointed and THEY WILL BE HEALED! No medicine or operation needed; no need to pay all those horrendous medical bills, just simple healing. I will tell you why: It doesn't work, that's why! The promise of healing is a lie that I've seen proved countless times in my past ministry, and it continues today which is why so many denominations set up hospitals and health clinics. More than this, what about Jesus' promise that his ministers would do greater miracles than he? When is the last time you raised a dead man or woman from their coffin? I've never seen it, yet Christ supposedly did this very miracle and he PROMISED you the power to do GREATER THINGS THAN THIS!

The topic of Israel and prophecy is one on which I've extensively written, so there is no need to repeat the involved details in an e-mail. But it essentially boils down to the fact that Zionism has used the Nevi'im to bring about a golden prize. The same can be said of European governments throughout the past 2,000 years. These bodies have used the bible as an excuse for their various bloody activities, and when anyone questioned, they pointed to prophecy and/or some other biblical example. Today when someone criticizes Israel's bloodletting, they cry "anti-Semitism!"

As to the Battle Armageddon, surely you know that other ancient prophecies painted the same kind of end-time scenario, and long before the world had seen a Christian. The fact that humans have developed the means to exterminate all life is not supernatural, it is madness. But worst of all, is that I can prove your god to be pure myth, so there is no help coming from there. If we are to save ourselves, then it must be through other means, and not by praying to something that isn't there!

As to the absence of Jesus' body, the problem is 1) no one knows any real details of his life, and certainly nothing of his death. 2) No one knows where he was buried, or even if he was buried. 3) Even if they knew where, why would you think his bones would be laying around in a rock cave after 2,000 years? Don't you think by now someone or something would have scattered them to the four winds?

I recall some years ago reading in the news of some excavating work undertaken in Arlington National Cemetery. The graves of a few hundred unknown Civil War soldiers were to be recovered and removed to another location. When the graves were opened, there was found a few scattered bones, teeth fragments, belt buckles and pieces of metal, but nothing more. In less than 150 years just a few small containers of fragments were all that was left of these hundreds of men—all of whom likely believed in and trusted in the salvation of Jesus, by the way. So why should an empty cave in Jerusalem, a city where millions have lived and died in the past 2,000 years, be a surprise. Why would anyone even be silly enough to offer that as proof as Jesus' resurrection, especially when your own church's scholars can't even agree where he was buried or the details of his life?

If an empty grave is all the proof you require for deity, then you must know that the ancient world is littered with god-men who supposedly were born of virgins and who were crucified, buried, resurrected and then ascended to heaven. Is the absence of a body in a grave or tomb evidence that they were indeed our saviors?

As to your declaration that the NT does not have any contradictions, let me inform you that when I stood weekly to preach Jesus to my congregation that I wholeheartedly believed this. I had been taught this from my father's knee and later in theology classes in preparation for the ministry. It was when I was challenged on this by a member of my congregation, who was "falling away," that my enlightenment, or should I say my disillusionment began. I ignorantly proclaimed to this man and to my congregation I could prove the NT to be God's word. But trying to prove the NT infallible was the beginning of the end. I was finally and totally humiliated, disillusioned, and devastated. I found that not only was the NT fraught with contradictions, but down right lies and forgeries. More than this, I began to uncover clear evidence that these facts were well-hidden by a clergy who had known the truth since the days the whole mess was concocted.

I have addressed the proof of prophecies arguments (as have many other, more-qualified before me) and these are easily disposed of. I will be glad to wade into those in the future, if you and I progress that far.

You tell me that you will not continue unless I tell you how we exist, who is God, who is Jesus and what is our relationship to God.

Since you will be arguing from the bible, as you are doing in this exchange, then you should first prove that the bible is God's word, and not that of a man, or a collection of men scattered over a few thousand years. There are a lot of purported holy writings floating about, and I have carefully looked them over and dismissed them as human curiosities. Therefore to continue shouldn't we first establish that the Christian god exists, and that the bible is his word? If we don't have this groundwork in place, then everything else is quite useless. After all, what relationship can we have to a myth?

Regards,
Darrell

Not that I recall, although some people close to him once wrote to me promising that he was aware of my writings against his books and would answer me in print. I've never seen any answers. I have had a lot of exchanges with a number of other well-known ministers over the years, some of whom I've met in person. I wasn't impressed, and I'm sure the feeling was mutual. Some of these promised to answer my objections in print or in a series of sermons, but some how they never got around to the task . . . big surprise! Unlike these me, when I was challenged by someone in my congregation, I did "get around to it" which is why my whole Christian world turned upside down . . .

DWC

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:04:03 -0700 Darrell W Conder writes:

Matthew, you write:

The OT actually does not have to be proved true. Only the NT. Why? Jesus said the OT is true. So, if the NT is true and Jesus is God, than the OT has to be truth. There are more in quantity of documents and copies of the NT than there are of Napoleon. In addiction, the texts were copied with less time between event to penning than any other book of antiquity. I say we need to start with the NT.

To be blunt, this is absurd! Jesus and everything about the NT rests or falls on the OT being God's word. If the OT can be proven false, then you have an entire religion predicated on a lie! It's that simple. So, the logical place to start is the very foundation of Christianity, that is the Tanakh. If that be rotten, then there is no other need to proceed. This is why I want to start with Genesis, since that is the first book of the bible from which Jesus supposedly preached to the first converts . . . indeed, it was the ONLY bible that the first Christians read and from which they PROVED all things. So, it is only right to ask the same treatment from a present day Christian.

Beginning in Genesis 1:1, I have a mountain of questions that only get worse as one proceeds to other portions of the Tanakh, and I'm not talking about simple scribal error.

You misunderstand. I can accept Jesus as a historical fact, but not the Jesus of the Gospels or the later fabulous monkish tales that have taken on a life of their own. There is really NO factual evidence that he did or spoke anything that is reported of him except Roman Catholic legend. As for Josh McDowell, I don't impugn the man himself, but his writings. I stand by my arguments there, and yes I can go through Josh's books and have answered his so-called evidence in several lengthy booklets.

Regarding the Strobels: so what? I would be glad to take their points in favor of proving the bible and show you the flaws. You and I both know that such arguments are essentially worthless. I don't care how many people believe in something (take communism for example), if it's not true, then a billion faithful will be as nothing. There are countless once-faithful ministers of the Lord who no longer believe, and they do what I do by exposing the bible—Farrell Till comes to mind just now. So matching person for person is futile. My question to you, as it has been to so many others of your profession, is to prove to me that the bible is God's word. If you can do that I'll repent and join you and Josh in your crusades for Jesus. Again, that is NOT an empty promise!

Your mention of Satan is another of those things that is meaningless without first proving that the bible is God's word. Without that established authority, then there is no Satan. He, like Jehovah (YHWH) is a myth. In fact, I wrote a very lengthy booklet on that, which is posted in its entirety on my site, in case you're interested. Also, if I understand right, you're saying that healing is nothing important—even though it was supposedly a mark of Jesus' messiahship? You're saying that the biblical promise of healing is just so many words? And are you seriously saying that if a minister of Jesus could raise a dead man it would prove nothing? It would prove a great deal to me—and I suspect to a few billion other non-believers out there! To start it would prove that Jesus' promise that his ministers would do greater works than he was indeed a fulfillment of prophecy!

Please don't try and divert my attention from the problems of the OT, since if you can show me the answers there, then I will glady proceed to the true meat of your faith, i.e., the New Testament.

Regards,

DWC

I have no idea. And, I would say neither do you, if your bible is turns out to be false. If you can prove to me that your bible is truth, then I will have the answers. By the way, your bible teaches a two completely conflicting theories about life after death . . .

On the one hand your bible teaches that when one dies, they lie in their grave awaiting a resurrection, whereas in other parts it contradicts by teaching that when one dies they immediately awaken to judgment. Both can't be right. And I say that if an impartial jury listened to the mountain of contradictions and fabrications that comprise the bible, then it would be found guilty of the world's greatest fraud. None of this would be of concern to me except for the fact that in the name of that accused book so many millions have been tortured and needlessly killed. The unbelievable amount of suffering wrought in the name of bible-wielding Christian fanatics is appalling. That is the reason why I take the time to show anyone willing to reason the light of truth about the "holy bible."

DWC

So, you are saying that our bodies lie rotting in a grave, while our spirits flitter off to heaven, where they remain until one day they will then come back to earth with Jesus who will then raise up our old rotten carcasses and reunite them with the spirit in order that he can then discard that mess in order give us a new body? Hmmmmm . . . some things just don't quite add up here!

Matthew, I don't have time to retype in each e-mail what I have written in the past. The fact is that I have an article on the contradictions of the so-called resurrection doctrines. I will be happy to forward this to you and to have you answer them point by point—if you can. So far, the best explanation I've been offered is that I lack faith, and/or God's spirit, so I can't comprehend!

Perhaps you could offer me something more viable?

DWC

In other words, to you "evidence" can be summed up with the little Christian ditty: "Yes, Jesus loves me, because the bible tells me so!"

Matthew, with your analogy of a baseball game I'm guessing that you are referring to the "eyewitnesses" that supposedly can "prove" that the Gospel stories are true. The problem is that your "eyewitnesses" are all recorded in the Gospel legends. This is not evidence! You are attempting to use the bible to prove that the bible is the word of God. In any other circumstance such "evidence" would never be allowed or even considered. Suppose I sold you a painting I claimed was an original da Vinci. To "prove" my claim I noted some words on the back that read "painted by Leonardo da Vinci". Now suppose you began to doubt the authenticity of this painting and took me into court? Do you suppose for one minute that a judge and jury would accept that statement on the back as "proof" that I had sold you an original da Vinci? Don't you think they and you would demand something more? Certainly you would, if you possessed an ounce of logic. This is the same with any other situation in any other field, except (it seems) when it comes to religion. For some unknown reason, logic goes out the window when dealing with the bible and die-hard Christians! You and Josh demand that I accept fabulous stories in the Gospels as evidence that the Gospels are authentic!

You're saying that 25,000 copies of Greek MSS., all of which contradict one another in some major and/or minor detail, and all of which DO NOT date to the time of the apostles or Christ, is proof? Mein gott! You just as well could throw in the billions of bibles that have been printed over the centuries to your pile of "evidence!" Matthew, show me AN ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES! You cannot. Nor indeed can you prove that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John ever existed, let alone wrote gospels to which their names were attached! So don't try to sell me on that "25,000 original copies" nonsense! I wrote an entire book to answer this type of "evidence that demands a verdict" and it was so convincing that thousands of our fellow Christians dumped Josh McDowell and their faith in the bible! I would suggest that you read my debate with Eric Snow (who extensively used Josh McDowell), which is posted on my web page, to see some of those answers. How about doing that and telling me where I'm wrong? Eric, with his touted college degrees, couldn't answer them, so my readers are still waiting for a champion of your faith!

Now, back to this nonsense that I should accept the word of eyewitnesses of Jesus and his life because these are contained in the New Testament. You're saying that the NT is true because the NT tells me that it's true and that I'm an idiot because I dare to question the whole thing? Matthew, you can't even prove who wrote the Gospels, let alone that they are God's word! Again I refer you to my web page where I've already answered (in detail) these arguments.

You say the object is not to understand everything? I'm not asking to understand EVERYTHING; I merely want the answer to some blatant contradictions and obvious fabrications. And how convenient to use that old worn out excuse that it is not given for us to understand everything. In Genesis we have a jumble of contradictions that even a high school science student could see through. I am asking how a creator, who had the supreme intelligence to design a universe, could have made the laughable errors that YHWH supposedly made in the first two chapters of Genesis?

I will give you plenty of specifics when you are ready to move into a debate. If you want a taste of what is to come, then read my OT study posted on my web page.

Now, you are saying the "god" who designed and created the whole universe, is not a scientist? He did understand enough about even simple high school science to inspire a rudimentary scientific explanation of his creation account for his faithful? AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF DENYING FACTS?! Matthew, not only is Genesis scientifically impossible, it is thoroughly contradictory and easily proven to have been written over the course of centuries by many different hands—a fact to which your own Christian scholars will admit. More than this, it can be proven by those same experts as having been, in part, plagiarized from ancient Babylonian/Sumerian texts!

As to your statistics about 1500 topics, I would respectfully suggest that you do what I once did, and read the bible for what it really says, and not for what your denomination and people like Josh McDowell tell you it says. Read it with an open mind without fear to ask the really hard questions. If the book is of a supreme god, the one whom we are to believe designed and created the whole universe, then he surely could put together a collections of 30 books and keep them safe from corruption so that we could have the answers. Obviously he couldn't since men have fought wars and ill used each other over the course of 2,000 years all in his name and in the name of a bible they profess to believe. Don't you think it odd that God commands all Christians to speak the same thing, yet there are so many denominations and so much controversy? Why is this, if the bible is truly harmonious?

So, you fall back on the Satan argument? Again, I wrote a very detailed booklet on the subject of Satan, who is Christianity's catch-all excuse. To prove anything about man and so-called sin, you must first prove that the bible (by which you define sin) is God's word. I am still waiting on that to happen. So far all you've given me is well-worn Christian rhetoric via Josh McDowell!

Now to your question about my sinful past: What do you think I did when I was preaching the Lord? Do you think I exhorted others to repent when I myself had not? Do you think I baptized others when I was still living in sin? I was born into a Southern Baptist heritage on both sides of my family. My father joined a Sabbatarian church about the time I was born, and I was brought up in that—and very strictly so. I was baptized in my early twenties and believed in Jesus Christ with all my heart and soul, and spent my adult life teaching others what I believed. I remained "on fire for the Lord" until I was challenged on some biblical problems. I sought out your run-of-the-mill "how it can be explained" Christian books (including Josh McDowell, Gleason Archer, et al.) to answer my questions. But I'm not one of those who will accept illogic, or those old "Satan is trying to destroy your faith" arguments when it comes to skirting an answer. Either the Christian god is all powerful, or he is not. Either his word is truth, or it is not. I will not accept any half-way, half-hearted excuses. I don't, for example, accept the arguments of some that there is a little truth in the bible, and we must be content with that.

Like hell I agree with that! You say it's "holy," and I see it printed on the front of bibles, but my personal opinion is that your bible is a damned book of misery, death and destruction, as is the god that dwells therein!

That doctrine of "once saved, always saved" is easily refuted, which I used to do back when I was a minister of your lord. So, you may take heart that I will not be in heaven soiling the place if your are indeed right and I'm wrong.

Good god Matthew! I read all of his books, and I say that I can and have refuted them to the point that thousands have tossed them in the trash can and have gone on to live meaningful lives without the fraud of Jesus haunting their existence! As to the last point, I'm not saying McDowell made his "evidence" up; I'm saying that he's repeating Christian rhetoric that convinces those who will take it at face value, which is a peculiarity of most of our species. (This is why so many morons believe in the Bush Administrations explanation of 911, or why we went to war in Iraq!) And speaking of McDowell's books, the very title "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" is nonsense. First of all, what he offers is not evidence, such as the empty tomb nonsense, but he puts that illusion in people's minds by the title. Another thing he does is set up straw men to knock down, a diversion that many (more skilled than I) have exposed. Again, I refer you to my writings on the subject. How about reading what Josh's critics have to say about his books and answering their arguments for a starter?

Matthew, you wrote me, and I have stated that if you will show me my error, I will join you and Josh McDowell in preaching Jesus. My offer is still on the table. Let us start with the book that Jesus supposedly used to teach his messiahship. If you can show me that the Tanakh is God's word, then I am ready to move on to the Novum Testamentum.

DWC

If the Tanakh is not the word of YHWH, then the prophecy of Jesus as the messiah is a fraud. If that be proven, then the whole of the NT is useless and a waste of time except as a historical curiosity! Please read my OT study and tell me where I am in error. If you don't want to do this, then let's quit wasting each other's time.

In two separate Gospel scriptures Jesus supposedly said for you to live by every word of God. Do you really believe this? If you do, this can open up a MIGHTY BIG can of worms, as the bible is full of commands that Christians don't follow! Also in 1 Thes 5:21 (a verse supposedly inspired by God) you are commanded to prove all things. Do you attempt to do this with an open mind? I did back when I was challenged to prove the bible, which is why I wound up where I am now!

If I tested your bible and found it wanting, then I have a right to speak out. More than this, there has never been a more bloody, murderous religion in human existence than Christianity. This is my motive for speaking out—nay, it is my responsibility! As an example, if you found a medical book that was full of deadly error, would you not feel the responsibility to warn your fellow humans to stay away from that book? Likewise, if you find that I am right about the bible, then you too have an obligation to do something.

You are saying that we should believe in and teach lies and/or fairy tales if they are beneficial. Well, perhaps I would go away and allow you to live in that state if you were correct in stating that the bible has done no harm. Matthew, I challenge you to read my article (posted on my commentary page) "For the Love of God." There you will find my reasons for not standing by in silence while Christianity proceeds to destroy.

No. It is not. You Christians want to ignore the horror and blood that make up the history of Christianity. Moreover, you blatantly ignore the horror and blood that permeates the entirety of the bible. There are few books out there that can match the torture, blood, murder and mayhem of the bible. I could spend pages here giving examples from the bible, but these things are on my page and I will refer you to that source. This includes your savior, JC, whose life and supposed second coming represents the worst horror ever painted in human history! Again, I've written extensively on these FACTS and will refer you to these accounts.

How wonderful! Jesus also said "bring my enemies before me and slay them"! This kind of example is what the church has used throughout its bloody history to justify it torture, murder and theft. Let me say this again: The greatest slaughter in the history of the world is supposed to be coming at the hand of JC, which doesn't exactly show us a compassionate, loving god who is himself willing to love his enemies! Even more, I have dissected the Sermon on the Mount and can show you how patently absurd most of the points really are. But this aside, if it's so great, then why don't you and yours live by it?

I wouldn't, if pure "love" was all the bible teaches. But it isn't. It is a vindictive book of blood and destruction. Speaking of that book, if you believe that you are to live by every word of God, which Jesus commanded, then I ask if you follow that command—in regards to the Sabbath for instance? You surely know that you don't keep the day that Jesus would have kept holy, and that it was changed by order of a pagan emperor of Rome some three hundred years after the founding of the Christian Church? You must also surely know the penalty for failing to obey Jesus on this command? After all, did not Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, tell you that not one little dot in the law would had had ever passed away?

And I've never understood why Christians demand that their religion be rammed down the throats of the rest of society, but are thorougly intolerant of anyone else's beliefs being publically taught. Why are you offended if I don't want to hear or read your beliefs? I don't ram my beliefs down your throats, but your brethren fail to extend that same courtesy to me and scream like hell when someone calls their religion into the light of day.

Sure there are! There are many names of deities out there, all making the kind of claims your church does. The unabashed arrogance of Christians to think they have a monopoly on "salvation!" The fact is that your kind is in the minority throughout the world. Those other religions out there have faithful who are just as "on fire" for the "lord" as you, and they all have holy writs that they believe are the words of their deities. You must surely know that your god was one of dozens of crucified savior gods who littered the ancient world—who were born of virgins and who supposedly rose from the dead to bring salvation to the world? So, get a grip on reality here!

I have explained the reasons for my actions. Believe it or not, in the long run what I do is for your benefit . . .

I could write an entire book on Islam, as I have studied it extensively. But right now Islam is not offering the kind of threat to me and mine as are Christian fanatics who have led us into another useless war in the Middle East.

On that I agree. There is something about that name: In that name more horror and death has been wrought than in any other name in history!

Matthew, my beliefs about creation are not tied up with JC or Jehovah (YHWH), nor do they need to be. However, the explanation given by the bible for our being is one of histories most laughable absurdities! Again I have written on this topic with such clarity that thousands have left your faith. For anyone who cares to explore what the bible really says, instead of blindly following the doctrines of men, it is all there in black and white!(By the way, your attachment didn't open. You will need to paste it in the contents of an e-mail and resend.)

DWC

Matthew, you've completely ignored my questions in the past few e-mails. In the past I've had exchanges with Christians who would steadfastly ignore my embarrassing questions. That is an old ploy of debaters when they are put in an impossible position. So, can you answer my questions, or are you simply ignoring them? I have written extensively on the subjects you have raised, and much of those writings are available on my site. I would ask that you please read these and show me where I am wrong.

I would also ask if you are still interested in proving to me that the bible is God's word, as this was the gist of your initial contact. If not, then I am wasting my time with these exchanges—especially since you do not answer my points to show me where I may be in error. I will address the so-called evidence that you (via Josh McDowell) have sent along, and was in fact preparing just now in a separate e-mail. To be blunt, I don't accept your "evidence" because I have thoroughly examined it and (in Josh's words) found it wanting. No. That is too polite. I have found most of it fraudulent and I contend that it was developed by "good" Christians to deceive and defraud the faithful ignorant. That is my position.

So, the question is this: Do you want to debate me and defend your bible, or do you wish to continue in your blind faith spouting the rhetoric of the McDowells out there? If so, then I have a book to get into print!

DWC

The fact is that there are ORIGINAL holy books/writings still existing that predate your bible by thousands of years. Some of these contain the same stories that are to be found in your bible, which clearly prove that they were plagiarized by the clerics who composed the "holy bible." I have seen them for myself in European museums. Moreover, there are ORIGINALS of other documents from the first century A.D., and they are still here for us to see and examine (i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are a jumble of contradictions). Why wasn't your god capable of preserving his ORIGINAL New Testament so that there wouldn't be all this controversy? And why in the hell couldn't he simply write a book that wasn't a mass of contradictions and outright lies? After all, if Margaret Mitchell could do that with Gone With the Wind, couldn't your almighty deity match her puny skills? The answer to that question is in front of you, and I say that is TRUE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT!

I gather by your last comment that you will damn me to hell and go on your smug way stumbling and blundering in your Christian blindness? As your kind is wont to say, dust to dust, and ashes to ashes . . . no loss to me!

DWC

-----Original Message-----
From: Darrell W Conder
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Dunaway, Matthew;
Subject: Re: Evidence

So, you ignore 99% of what I have written, which are answers to your friend Josh McDowell's book that you used in your arguments against me, by picking out a few points and essentially say "so what"! If McDowell has such an airtight case, why has he steadfastly refused to answer his critics either in print or in debate forum? You must know there are numerous books and essays in print—and on the Net—that answer McDowell's ETDAV point by point. I link to one of these on my Links Page. You must also know that one of the biggest sticking points to Christians who have turned to Josh's works is his consistent refusal to answer his critics. You can ignore me all you want, but for the sake of your god, why not be honest and answer these papers? It just might help those sitting on the fence to jump back down on your side of the pasture!

DWC

Look Matthew, what if I told you when you wrote me that I won't answer your questions about my writings; that my writings are an answer to your questions? Is this the way of honest scholarship? How far along would this world be if scientists, historians AND theologians refused to consider any other point of view but their own? How far could you get when "witnessing for the Lord" if you refused to answer people's questions? Josh McDowell has made a lot of outlandish claims in print; he goes about the world preaching these claims as gospel truth and his efforts AFFECT the lives of countless people. Therefore both he and those who use his books to "witness" have a RESPONSIBILITY to prove what they preach. Instead, Josh merely slinks away in the face of his critics with the excuse that the questions people have are answered in his book. But then, how can we expect more from someone who uses the bible to prove that the bible is God's word? All of this would be on par with me using my writings to prove that my writings are truth! Would you accept that as "evidence" if I used it on you? If not, why? You do it with Josh and your bible! You ask us to believe, without question, that what Josh wrote is true because he published it in a book. You ask us to believe that the bible is God's word because the bible tells us it is. Gott im Himmel, Matthew! Isn't it time you took a closer look at your reasoning process?

DWC

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:48:42 -0700 Darrell W Conder writes:

Now, since you admit that your church came out of the Roman Catholic Church protesting, then we have a number of major questions here. For instance, there is a mountain of historical documentation (not copies of copies of copies) that clearly prove the pagan origin of many of Protestantism's cherished beliefs. Take the issue of the Sabbath as an example.

Have you ever read "The Christian Sabbath," which was published in Cardinal Gibbon's The Catholic Mirror? Quite an enlightening read, and the article asks the obvious question as to why Protestants doesn't come back to the Holy Mother Church since Sunday was instituted solely on the authority of Catholicism and not on the bible? Here is a direct quote: "The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her Divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday . . . But the Protestant says: 'How can I receive the teachings of an apostate Church?' How, we ask, have you managed to receive her teaching all your life, in direct opposition to your recognized teacher, the Bible, on the Sabbath question?"--The Christian Sabbath, 2nd ed., published by the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, 1893, pp. 29-31. [The journal of James Cardinal Gibbons]. " (If you'd like to read more, here's the URL http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_22h.htm I also have written a rather lengthy booklet on the Sabbath question that outlines the history of its change to Sunday, going through both the bible and the early church fathers to prove my points—which the Roman Catholic Church—your Holy Mother Church—freely admits.)

How about it. Have you ever sought to prove why it is you keep Sunday, instead of the day Jesus and his apostles kept? Have you ever sought out the mountain of evidence that proves your church wrong on this issue?

At least you finally get to the root of my questions. If it all came from the OT, as you admit, then we need to prove that this collection of books comprise God's word. If they do not, then there is NO BASIS for Jesus! It's just that simple.

As to focusing on an error about the date of Josh's conversion, why not read through the below web page and ANSWER the questions about Josh's research and declarations? This is the heart of the matter.

Now, are you saying that Josh spent 300 hours researching ancient documents for every one minute he spent writing ETDAV? Good grief! If that's the case, then he must have typed ETDAV in under 30 minutes!

As to your statement that Josh has "confirmed this stuff", I say that he has not. Nor has anyone else. I hear and read that he has from you and others, but his numerous critics, with impressive credentials, has denied it with evidence to the contrary and Josh has yet to answer them. Why? What is he afraid of?

DWC

-----Original Message-----
From: Darrell W Conder
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Dunaway, Matthew
Subject: Re: fwd

Very well Matthew. I didn't expect you to confront a question that would directly affect your theology (mind you, it doesn't disprove your bible, but only your brand of Christianity)!

I too am in the midst of "witnessing" and my efforts could lead hundreds out of your church. To be certain it can't compare to your efforts, since I can't scare people with hell, or promise them wings, clouds and a throne, and hence don't have unlimited financial resources; but there are thousands of us out here all doing our best to undo what you do. Together we are making a mighty dent into your church!

I send my best wishes for you and your family, personally, but not for your efforts since I think them wholly wrong.

Darrell

PS: Let me get this right: If Josh spends two hours teaching, that means he's spent 36,000 hours researching? Gee!

Matthew, the reason I never sent my questions is because you never agreed to debate starting with Genesis. You insisted on discussing the New Testament. However, if you are ready to answer my questions about Genesis, and will not sidestep them with something unrelated, then I will forward a short piece for you to read and answer.

Soccer "unAmerican"? Whatever. I suppose you could put chess into that category. But using an analogy of soccer does not remotely compare to religion, which has done and continues to do horrific harm and I include Islam and Judaism in that statement. There are many things I dislike, but I rarely mention them since they cause me no harm, nor anyone else. This is not the same with religion. Right now our Christian president has bombed and shot the living hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq over a well-planned series of calculated lies he told to achieve his aims. This man invoked God and the bible on countless occasions as a backdrop for his actions, which brought him a standing ovation from Christian evangelicals. Moreover, his actions in the Middle East are directly related to the welfare of Zionism. All of this takes us back to the bible. So when I read the names and see the young faces of Bush's latest victims in his so-called war, I can thank the evangelical Christians who helped put him in power, the Zionists who continue to spread gross injustice and terror in the Middle East, and most of all I can thank the book that sustains it all! Again, if you would like, I will send along my article on God's supposed love to illustrate my points.

You're right about my passion being deep rooted. Whenever I see injustice, misery, death and hatred based on someone else's perception of right and wrong, I feel a passion to speak out. I feel a responsibility to undo the harm and to help when I can, and to do so to the best of my abilities. That is my motivation, pure and simple.

Regards,

DWC

From: Darrell W Conder
To: Matthew.Dunaway@bellsouth.com,darrellwconder@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:16:57 -0700

Matthew,

I wasn't offering a direct quote, I said in essence that was your reply. Moreover, once again you have sidestepped my questions and answers to McDowell by going off on an aside about all the good the Christian Church has done for people. I've never denied that some Christian charities have been very helpful in many areas. I've seen much evidence of this in my five decades of life, although Christians don't have a monopoly on charity. My sincere gratitude to you and your people for helping out in the Katrina disaster. I would have also been there with you to lend a hand if it had been feasible. (By the way, it was NOT religious charity that helped the majority of Katrina victims, but our hard-earned, and much-wasted tax dollars doing the job. The difference is that you Christians like to stand on the roof tops and crow about your good deeds!)

All the good deed doing in the world will not cover the fact that the bible teaches violence and is in fact THE ultimate book of hate. I've mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again: I've written a very well-received article with the title "For the Love of God" which is posted on my web site. I ask you to read that and tell me where I'm wrong?

Matthew, I do not doubt that you have compassion in your heart for your fellow beings. That is a basic human instinct, as well as the instinct to do harm. Some act on one aspect, some on the other. It doesn't take Jesus to determine which way one goes, since some of history's bloodiest butchers were Christians and some of the most benevolent were devout atheists—and vice versa.

My focus is on truth in all areas of human existence, not just religion. I work for truth in religion, government, education and personal growth. To me that is the ultimate reality for any man or woman. Anything else is a waste of precious time. That is why I do what I do, and it should be why you do what you do.

Now, I've given you direct information about Josh McDowell's works, which will explain why I deny his defense of the bible. Since you use McDowell almost exclusively to defend your theology, I think it behooves you to know what his critics are saying, and how to answer them. You can start by writing a paper on this and posting it on your site. (Perhaps you can even persuade Josh to help out!) I know many who would benefit from this enterprise, including myself. Will you do this?

DWC

-----Original Message----- From: Darrell W Conder Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:47 PM To: Dunaway, Matthew; darrellwconder@hotmail.com

Matthew, George W. Bush was elected to uphold the Constitution, not to wage war by lying to the American public and killing off thousands of innocent people for the benefit of a New World Order. But, I see that you have bought hook, line and sinker his lies about terrorism carefully packaged by his PR men and sold to a gullible American public. If you are interested in this nation, and not the rhetoric of a lying Christian president, I can furnish you with web links from highly respected, Noble Prize-winning men and women, who have documented George W. Bush's treasonous crimes. Perhaps you are unaware that an ever-growing army of former officials and others from all walks of life are intent on impeaching this lying man and put him on trial for high treason. It is my sincere hope that they succeed.

I too have met him, but before he was the president. As to your sly inference that I am/was a Clinton supporter, my Republican roots go back some little way. In 1964 I was a young supporter for Barry Goldwater against LBJ run for the White House; then in 1968 I worked for Richard Nixon's campaign. When I was old enough to vote, it was for Nixon in his reelection campaign. Then I supported Gerald Ford against Jimmy Carter (I've met both men also). After that I worked for Ronald Reagan's campaign, a man I also met. From there I supported the first President Bush, whom I've seen in person, but never met. However, I have done my homework on his boy and know the truth about your "honest" man. It might behoove you to do likewise before spouting the party line. You might find yourself joining the ranks of the countless thousands of Republicans who now want GWB impeached! You might even go a step further and ask why!

Second question: Yes, I am (whatever that has to do with anything). I also have children and a cat, if that helps.

The arrogance of you Christians to presume that you have a monopoly on good and morality. There are many other make believe gods out there, and most of these have moral codes that put to shame the murderous antics of your Jehovah. Some of the world's most notorious atheists had strict morals and left this world a better place for their efforts. Too bad that this can't be said for a good many of the hypocritical Christian ministers that have soiled this planet with their foul spirits!

Once again I refer you to my article, "For the Love of God" . . . it will save me a lot of typing . . .

What you don't seem to grasp is that your bible is man-made, and therefore the so-called morals found therein are simply the produce of men. More than this, every single biblical principle was "borrowed" from ancient philosophers, some of whom had no more religion about them than do I. Indeed, the writings of these men predate the first bibles by centuries, and in some cases, millennia. Translation: When it comes to morality, Christianity is the new kid on the block, meaning that Christian bible-thumpers have no corner on the morality market, as they arrogantly presume! The worst aspect of this subject is that your bible is full of the foul, murderous double-dealing deeds of your god and his disciples, which hardly leaves you in the position to preach to me about Christian morals. Matthew, I will accept that you have good intentions in your life, but I will maintain that without your god you would still be the same man; the only difference would be that you'd find a different outlet for your philanthropic efforts.

Going on to your other question, I am completely opposed to abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother. In this I am joined by many atheists, agnostics and billions of others who have never bowed a knee to Jesus!

My definition of debate is that I will present you with my views for you to demonstrate, with evidence, logic, etc., my error. If I don't agree that you have succeeded, I will then counter. We should do this in the light of day (as your bible teaches) so that others can learn from our arguments. Both views can't be right, and the ultimate judge will be those who read our exchanges.

That's true. What people think makes no difference to me! What makes the difference is solid evidence, and hopefully those reading our exchanges will use the evidence and ultimately judge.

As to your last question, if the Heaven your bible teaches is the place to which this world's good people go, and if the god of your bible is the one that sits up there ruling, then I opt to go anywhere else but Heaven! I tell you that Jehovah/Jesus is a monster, and if you will read your bible for what it says instead for what theology teaches, you will see this as fact. I want no part of him except to expose the whole thing for the corrupt myth that it is. When that happens, then men like George W. Bush can drop their Christian cover and kill in the name of truth, which for him goes by the names avarice and personal power!

I'm very serious. The vile god described in your bible is a creature that I want to devoutly avoid. If you are interested in my reasons, I will once again refer you to my article in which I use your bible to make my points. (I'll even supply you with the URL!)

I'm very serious. The vile god described in your bible is a creature that I want to devoutly avoid. If you are interested in my reasons, I will once again refer you to my article in which I use your bible to make my points. (I'll even supply you with the URL!)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:32:11 -0700 Darrell W Conder writes:

Matthew,

I have sent along an article outlining from your bible and the history of your church, why I don't want any part of the creature taught in the pages of your bible. The bible may talk about the love of your god, but it provides MANY ex maples of his vile, underhanded murderous ways. If he were actually for real, I will opt to go elsewhere, thank you very much!

Oh, and your example of God telling us to love our enemies is a laugh! This is the same god who slaughtered his enemies by the bushel load . . . who commands Christians to bring his enemies before him and slay them . . . the same god who commanded his servants to utterly slaughter whole villages right down to the suckling babe and innocent lamb; the same god who ordered his priests to rip open the bellies of pregnant Canaanite women . . . and I could go on for pages with such horrors!

Once again you prove your smug Christian arrogance with the declaration that marriage is a biblical institution! You once wrote that you have earned a MA degree. Perchance did you skip the classes on history? Long before the world had heard of an Israelite, or a desert mud god named YHWH, ancient societies had the institution of marriage. That includes my own Germanic ancestors in the forests of ancient Europe. I did not partake of any traditional religious ceremony when I married, and my wife is more of an anti-Christian than am I. And happily my children have married without a church or god fouling up the formula. None of us recognize your god, nor want him in any portion of our lives.

As for George Bush, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that he either had foreknowledge of 911, and used it to his advantage, or has covered it up for the same reason. He has lied us into a war, and thousands of boys (Christian boys, for the most part!) are paying the price with their lives for his damnable treason. Some in his own administration have quit and come forward with this evidence, as have many other men and women of impeccable repute. If you would like to see the evidence I can point you in the right direction. If there is any justice in the world, he will be impeached and put on trial. If your god truly exists, then this Christian president will continue lying and murdering until he can be replaced with a carbon copy in another stolen election to bring this nation even further towards destruction.

You say that it is beyond you how anyone can take me seriously, but it is you, not me, that is teaching the frauds of the bible. It is you who (with a straight face) teach people about talking snakes, jackasses and the like, while talking about a god of love who lies, cheats and murders without remorse. I have sent along my article on this subject and I would suggest that you read it before condemning me or my supporters. Answer our objections to your god of love, if you please! Come to think of it, given your adoration of the blood-thirsty god Jehovah, it's no wonder that you sing the praises of George Bush and what he's done to the Iraqi people and this nation!

As to your circular statements about me going to either heaven or hell; I thought you believe that I'm saved, since I have professed Jesus in my past and was baptized in his name? I guess that means I'll go to heaven with you even though I've sent thousands to hell with my teaching! Quite a fair god you preach there Matthew! And regarding your analogy about an exit for food, and the recommendation that I should exit and not take chances; does that mean you and I should also profess the gods of the countless other religions of the world, since one of these could conceivably represent the true savior and we shouldn't take chances? After all, that is what your analogy is suggesting!

DWC

From: Darrell W Conder Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:32 PM To: Dunaway, Matthew;

Matthew,

I have sent along an article outlining from your bible and the history of your church, why I don't want any part of the creature taught in the pages of your bible. The bible may talk about the love of your god, but it provides MANY ex maples of his vile, underhanded murderous ways. If he were actually for real, I will opt to go elsewhere, thank you very much!

Oh, and your example of God telling us to love our enemies is a laugh! This is the same god who slaughtered his enemies by the bushel load . . . who commands Christians to bring his enemies before him and slay them . . . the same god who commanded his servants to utterly slaughter whole villages right down to the suckling babe and innocent lamb; the same god who ordered his priests to rip open the bellies of pregnant Canaanite women . . . and I could go on for pages with such horrors!

Once again you prove your smug Christian arrogance with the declaration that marriage is a biblical institution! You once wrote that you have earned a MA degree. Perchance did you skip the classes on history? Long before the world had heard of an Israelite, or a desert mud god named YHWH, ancient societies had the institution of marriage. That includes my own Germanic ancestors in the forests of ancient Europe. I did not partake of any traditional religious ceremony when I married, and my wife is more of an anti-Christian than am I. And happily my children have married without a church or god fouling up the formula. None of us recognize your god, nor want him in any portion of our lives.

As for George Bush, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that he either had foreknowledge of 911, and used it to his advantage, or has covered it up for the same reason. He has lied us into a war, and thousands of boys (Christian boys, for the most part!) are paying the price with their lives for his damnable treason. Some in his own administration have quit and come forward with this evidence, as have many other men and women of impeccable repute. If you would like to see the evidence I can point you in the right direction. If there is any justice in the world, he will be impeached and put on trial. If your god truly exists, then this Christian president will continue lying and murdering until he can be replaced with a carbon copy in another stolen election to bring this nation even further towards destruction.

You say that it is beyond you how anyone can take me seriously, but it is you, not me, that is teaching the frauds of the bible. It is you who (with a straight face) teach people about talking snakes, jackasses and the like, while talking about a god of love who lies, cheats and murders without remorse. I have sent along my article on this subject and I would suggest that you read it before condemning me or my supporters. Answer our objections to your god of love, if you please! Come to think of it, given your adoration of the blood-thirsty god Jehovah, it's no wonder that you sing the praises of George Bush and what he's done to the Iraqi people and this nation!

As to your circular statements about me going to either heaven or hell; I thought you believe that I'm saved, since I have professed Jesus in my past and was baptized in his name? I guess that means I'll go to heaven with you even though I've sent thousands to hell with my teaching! Quite a fair god you preach there Matthew! And regarding your analogy about an exit for food, and the recommendation that I should exit and not take chances; does that mean you and I should also profess the gods of the countless other religions of the world, since one of these could conceivably represent the true savior and we shouldn't take chances? After all, that is what your analogy is suggesting!

DWC

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:13:55 -0700 Darrell W Conder writes:

Matthew, I'm not being rude, I'm just bluntly writing what I think. I don't mind your harsh remarks and implications, as long as you allow me to give as good as I take. And, no. I didn't lose anyone close to me; no Christian ran away with my wife; no Christian cheated me out of a lot of money; no Christian spit in my face; as a child when I shook hands with Billy Graham he didn't have body order! Get this straight Matthew: I am not mad at "God"; I am angry at the liars and cheats who sell the myth of God to simple folk who believe in the lie with all their hearts and who suffer mightily for the "privilege!"

In answer to your question about God condemning people without sin: hell yes he does! The bible contains numerous examples of the vindictiveness of your god. If you'd like to read my Satan booklet it contains these examples in living, sickening detail from the pages of your bible, which explains why it's been a very successful booklet in leading people out of your man-made babylon. Of course you'd probably read the 50 some pages and go off on a totally unrelated tangent, such as you did with my last article.

I'm taking no chance Matthew because I've proven that your bible is a phony book of death, and that your god doesn't exist. The only chance I'm taking is that I might be missing a good film on t.v. while typing exchanges like these!

Maybe it's time to consider why Christianity is a minority religion on earth. There are billions of people out there who've never read your "holy" book. Why? If your god is all-powerful then all the world should know of him, and if he's the essence of love and mercy, then why has he failed to enlighten these billions with a revelation that will save them from the burning pit of hell that you and your ilk try so hard to sell? If your god does exist, then he's damned impotent and that is the real FACT! FACT! FACT! (to borrow your words!).

In closing you address my readers. Not only will I make sure that this is exchange is posted on our web page, but I'll give our readers your e-mail address: Matthew.Dunaway@bellsouth.com and the link to your web page: http://www.praisefestministries.com You can't get any more fair that this! (Do any of you want to bet on Matthew doing the same for darrellwconder.com at his praisefestministries web page?)

DWC

Regarding the "For the Love of God" article Darrell sent Matthew, DWC writes:

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:49:05 -0700 Darrell W Conder writes:

More Christian arrogance. Your smug declaration that it won't take five minutes to answer my [God is Love] article is technically correct since you evade every legitimate point I raise; spouting Christian double talk doesn't take long at all! You say God is not a liar. I agree. The god of the bible doesn't exist, so therefore he isn't a liar. The men who plagiarized and invented the mess now called the Holy Bible—including your god—are the liars. They are the cheats who are masters at controlling the dumb sheep.

Second point: You have yet to prove that God exists, let alone that he made anything—man included. I have offered to debate you on this key issue, but so far you've been going off on these asides on the presumption that your god is real. I maintain that he is not. Until you can prove to me and anyone who reads these exchanges that your god is alive and well, then everything you argue is a hypothesis.

You say that the god of the bible wants us to love him back, and yet he stacks the cards against us to the point of impossibility. The most absurd point of the fairy tale is that he turns loose a devil to make sure that all will sin, for which he demands an awful penalty. Why? Why not give us a sound thrashing instead of roasting us alive in a pit forever? Or how about simply killing us outright, instead of giving us eternal life in a fire pit? Matthew, have you ever really contemplated that? You are a father. Could you ever conceive of one of your children doing something for which you'd burn them alive? Now, could you conceive of burning them alive forever—without end—while you stood by watching them writhe in the flames, hearing them scream for mercy and knowing that you, who pass yourself off as a loving parent, would NEVER grant such a mercy? I certainly wouldn't do that! In fact, I couldn't do that to my worst enemy! But your god sure can, while his faithful preachers pass him off as a kind, loving being—while passing around a collection plate. Bull! The men who composed that nonsense did so because it generated revenues. Moreover, the concept of everlasting hell predates your bible by millennia—it was plagiarized because it had a proven track record to frighten superstitious, ignorant peasants so that they could be controlled. It still works like a charm, as today's multi-billion-dollar religious industry proves!

You claim that Jesus paid the penalty for us. Surely you are aware that the Tanakh clearly teaches that it was possible to be forgiven of sins BEFORE Jesus, and without blood sacrifice? In fact, these forgiven people could have eternal life, and they didn't need Jesus Christ! I can provide you with ample proof of this, which is why most Jews do not come flocking to your religion. They have a plan for salvation of their own, thank you Christians very much. They don't need a phony messiah. And speaking of that, you must be aware that the OT scriptures used by your church to "prove" Jesus's messiahship are actually proof that he was not the messiah? How would you like to do a public debate on that issue?

Now. So far you've sidestepped everything I've brought up with rhetoric, such as the question of the true Sabbath. You didn't even bother to answer that one. You failed to answer my points on some of your McDowell nonsense, such as the empty tomb thing. And when I give you countless examples of God's double-dealing, underhanded, vindictive murder from the pages of your bible and from the pages of your church history, you say it's easy to explain and give me rhetoric about his plan for salvation. Have you ever considered that since God holds all the cards that he didn't have to make such a plan by which no one could succeed, and by which most of humanity will wind up burning in a pit for eternity? (Actually, that doctrine is according to which contradictory scriptures you believe, because some teach that you will burn up in that pit and be dead forever—you know, the soul that sinneth shall die, the ashes of the feet of the righteous, etc.—while others teach the eternity in hell thing!)

Now. If you want to move on into the book of Genesis, then we can do so. Let me know because I've a mountain of questions that I and many thousands of former Christians want answered.

DWC

I've explained that a half dozen times, so once more and maybe it will sink in: I am so passionate because of the GREAT HARM your damnable bible has caused to my fellow humans! I do what I do because someone has to stand up and say enough of this butchering nonsense! If you and yours sat quietly at home praising a ghost and kept it to yourselves, then I wouldn't give a damn. But that is not the case; like an army of cockroaches you swarm into every crack and crevice of a hopeless people promising them fairy tales, while sowing seeds of destruction with your self- righteousness. That's why responsible people like me and a few million others are trying to put an end to this reign of terror. For too long your kind has held the world hostage to fear!

Had you actually read my article "For the Love of God" you would have seen a number of examples. Instead, you wrote back blathering on about sin and judgment. Here's one example from that article:

Where do we begin when dissecting the life of David? How about starting in Acts 13:22 where we find the boast that David was a man after God's own heart, which, when we consider David's record of bloodlust, rape, plunder and revenge, is one of the few truths found in the bible! In fact, reading through David's résumé, at times we find it hard to distinguish between him and the homicidal god he served - a prime example being when God used David to execute his revenge on children for the sins of their father.

When David ascended the throne of Israel he learned that God was cursing the land with a famine because king Saul had sinned. Once again this god of love was killing the children for someone else's sin. What do you suppose Saul's sin was? Something rather horrid you say? No! Saul's sin and ultimate fall from God's grace was due to his showing mercy when God sent him to annihilate the Amalekites: Samuel 15:2-11: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Keep in mind that we aren't talking about Saul sparing hundreds of people, or even a few dozen - he spared one man and a few miserable sheep and cattle, the animals being intended as a sacrifice for Saul's bloodthirsty God. For this "sin" God ultimately killed Saul, stripped away his kingdom and went on a bloodletting spree against his children.

Actually, one of the most hypocritical, lying utterances in the whole bible is found when Saul attempts to repent of his sin and begs Samuel to intercede with God. Samuel tells Saul that the kingdom will be ripped away from him and given to another and then says: "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind." God "does not lie"? God "does not change his mind"? What god was Samuel talking about here! It can't be old Jehovah because his holy bible is one long record of God lying and changing his mind - and even worse.

Let's have this clear. The bible teaches that God does not lie: 1 Samuel 15:29: "The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent." Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal