Is The Bible Historically Reliable? Chris Tian (Dialogue) (11-99)

Browse: About; New; Previous; Next
Return to Letters Index
Home to Positive Atheism

Is The Bible
Historically Reliable?
Chris Tian

Perspective: Atheism: A Position of Convenience? (New International Version discussion)
From: Chris Tian
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject:
Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 6:41 AM
Is the Bible historically reliable?

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Chris Tian
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 5:13 PM

Is the Bible historically reliable?

No.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: Chris Tian
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 5:29 PM

Mr. Walker,

Can you please support your position if it is not too much to ask?

Remember we are talking about the HISTORICAL reliability. Not spiritual things. Lets try and stay on the subject.

I'm eagerly waiting--This is should be fun!

Chris

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Chris Tian
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 9:26 PM

Can you please support your position if it is not too much to ask?

I will briefly state why I do not trust the Bible any further than knowing what Jews believed in B.C.E. 300-200 and what Christians believed in C.E. 60-180 (and to document how, over the years, certain Christian apologists, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New International Version translating team, were willing to significantly alter what they claimed was "The Word of God" in order to fit their preconceived dogma).

The Christian New Testament is very biased against Jews and in favor of Romans. Even Pontius Pilate, who was removed from office for his brutality (and that's saying a lot), is seen as a good guy who seeks to protect poor Jesus from the bloodthirsty Jewish mob -- if only he could. Truth is, the Pilate we know about (from sources other than the patently unreliable New Testament) wouldn't have tried to save any Jew, and could have merely said the word and saved Jesus if that had been what he wanted to do. And the Jewish common folks that we know about would never have gone after one of their own for political reasons (especially for making himself king), like they are alleged to have done here.

The earliest documents (James; the four undisputed letters of Paul) have no details of Jesus' life -- when he lived, when he died, what he was like, what he did, etc. Only those documents that were written after the Gospels began to circulate had any details, and those paralleled what was written in the Gospel accounts. The only exception to this would be a single mention of Cephas in I Corinthians. 15.

They obviously were never intended to be accurate historical accounts, as can be seen by comparing those Gospels that are known to have utilized other Gospel as their basis (e.g., Matthew and Luke both used Mark). A comparison of these accounts (an attempt to harmonize them) shows some interesting details: the later writers copied many passages from the earlier writers, but did not resist the temptation to elaborate and even to change the accounts.

My favorite example of such an embellishment is the fig tree story, where the later writer's Jesus is bigger and better than that of the earlier writer. In the earlier story, the disciples noticed the withered fig tree the following day and marveled. In the later story, the fig tree withered instantly. This suggests to me that Matthew was not satisfied with a Jesus who would take a whole day to wither a damned fig tree. Matthew's account also omits Mark's mention of the fact that it was not fig season: Matthew's Jesus wasn't stupid enough to go looking for figs when it's not fig season. Along the same lines, Mark describes how Jesus, on occasion, would do certain physical things while healing, such as touch the person, make a spittle, etc. Matthew's Jesus is too powerful to resort to such mechanical means. These and similar alterations are consistent with the likelihood that the entire stories were seen by their writers as devotional fictions, not historical accounts.

Many of the Gospel accounts were constructed from Old Testament passages and not from the testimony of observers. Even passages that mention no "fulfillment" of Old Testament predictions are clearly Old Testament tales with the names changed. A clear example of a "fulfillment" construction is where Matthew has Jesus riding on two donkeys because, being Greek, he was unaware that when Zechariah says, "lowly, riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass," it is a poetic couplet, where the poet deliberately repeats himself. Only a circus performer would try to ride two animals at once, and that for show; the riding of two animals at once is not properly seen as an act of humility, or a "lowly" act. John, a much later document, has Jesus sitting on only one animal.

As for the Old Testament, it was in the news recently that the apologists' archaeologists still have never found a shred of evidence to support the Exodus story. (Israeli authorities are extremely concerned and have suppressed this story because it is the very foundation of the Nation of Israel's claim to the land. They are scrambling to come up with counter arguments in order to protect their nation.

The "kingdoms" of David and Solomon were, at best, villages. I also have read some of the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who are almost unanimous in their belief that Ezra wrote the entire Old Testament from a revelation. The allegedly "perfect" copy of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn't help, because it doesn't predate the time of Ezra (and it is far from being a perfect replica of the Isaiah we have today).

Even if Moses had written the Torah, it contains the names of several cities that (according to the Bible) were not founded until much later. It also contains an account of Moses' own death and burial. But hardly anyone who is a historian or a biblical scholar believes that Moses wrote the Old Testament. Only the common sheep think that way any more.

I could go on about the flatness of the earth, the firmament (lid) on top, the water above the firmament (lid), that pi equals 30/10 (or 3), that the growth of languages can be charted very precisely by the migration of different clans (with the exception of when one nation conquered another and imposed its language), that recorded history predates when Adam and Eve were supposedly created (by a strict literal accounting such as that of Bishop James Ussher), that there was no global flood, that Jericho came down piecemeal (not all at once), etc.

These are just some of my reasons, and I choose not to pay very close attention to it these days. I studied it intensely seven years ago, twelve years ago and for three years ending at about eighteen years ago. It is not our purpose here to discuss these matters, although we do maintain a policy of answering reasonable questions that are presented in a mannerly decorum.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

The first sentence in this next reply suggests that my response was posted on a list or board of some sort. This suspicion is bolstered by several instances wherein the pseudonymous "Chris Tian" gives several responses, each labeled "My response cont." -- suggesting that he got help on this one, but took credit for the various responses. Another possibility is that we get to play the pawns in an online anti-atheism effort.

Also note that none of the responses are backed up with fact, they are simply statements: unsupported claims.

From: Chris Tian
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:49 AM

This is the response from Cliff Walker in response to my question -- "Is the Bible HISTORICALLY reliable?" and my subsequent response

Cliff writes:

My response:

Well, first of all JW's are not even considered Christians. By that statement I would say that you don't understand what a Christian really is.

Secondly, the comment about the NIV translating team is a bald face lie unless you have hard evidence. You should no better than to make a claim without some kind of evidence to back it up. Oh and don't go saying that I make claims without evidence. All i am asking is , "Is the Bible HISTORICALLY reliable?" As of this first paragraph you have done nothing to address seriously.

Cliff Writes:

My response:

The New Testament is against the ruling religious party of the day (Pharisees) because of their graceless-works-related zeal. It isn't because they are Jewish. The Pharisees in a sentence sacrificed the spirit of the law for the letter of the law when in fact there should be a balance. They were so hung up on keeping the law that they could never practice true or pure religion: James comments on this:

James 1:25-27
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(KJV)

My response:

He never even implied to be on Jesus' side! You think that someone who would admit that someone is guiltless and then still let him be charged is someone who is on your side? You have a strange view of justice my friend. All Pilate said was that he found no fault in this man. Words say one thing and his own actions reveal his heart.

My response cont.

Also Pilate would have wanted a conviction because the Roman Government ruling Judea says that to make a claim to kingship over a people that they rule is considered treason. So yes it would be in everyones interest to get rid of this Jesus both to Roman and Jewish authorities. He was simply becoming too popular for comfort.

My response cont.

I think that in light of a re-examination of the scriptures we can say that Pilate was not on Jesus' side. And that he would have desired to have Him done away with

Cliff writes:

My response:

You have been misinformed. Every epistle with the exception of John's authorship are dated 48 to 68 AD. John's letters and Gospel 90-100 AD All of these letters, will call them Pauline letters, have enough information regarding Jesus' life to confirm that the Gospels are accurate concerning Jesus.

I think I have said enough on this to close the door.

Cliff writes:

The Gospel accounts were written in the following order: Mark (C.E. 70-90); Matthew (C.E. 80-90); Luke (C.E. 80-90); John (much later). The first three appear to have been the official accounts of rival Christian communities, and were never intended to agree with one another; rather, they appear to be trying to outdo one another in some places and seem to be "setting the record straight" in others. They obviously were never intended to be accurate historical accounts, as can be seen by comparing those Gospels that are known to have utilized other Gospel as their basis (e.g., Matthew and Luke both used Mark). A comparison of these accounts (an attempt to harmonize them) shows some interesting details: the later writers copied many passages from the earlier writers, but did not resist the temptation to elaborate and even to change the accounts.

My response:

Your about 20-30 years late on all the Gospel's. This is taking into account most of the mainstream scholarship, both conservative and liberal, of course you have the extremists that you seem to be getting at least some of your information from regarding your dating of these works.

My response cont.

There are zero rival Christian communities ever recorded in reliable documents -- that is enough on that.

My response cont.

The Gospel accounts are not trying to outdo one another they are simply writing from different perspectives and including different details that the authors were compelled to write about. They don't contradict each other either.

Cliff writes:

My favorite example of such an embellishment is the fig tree story, where the later writer's Jesus is bigger and better than that of the earlier writer. In the earlier story, the disciples noticed the withered fig tree the following day and marvelled. In the later story, the fig tree withered instantly. This suggests to me that Matthew was not satisfied with a Jesus who would take a whole day to wither a damned fig tree. Matthew's account also omits Mark's mention of the fact that it was not fig season: Matthew's Jesus wasn't stupid enough to go looking for figs when it's not fig season. Along the same lines, Mark describes how Jesus, on occasion, would do certain physical things while healing, such as touch the person, make a spittle, etc. Matthew's Jesus is too powerful to resort to such mechanical means. These and similar alterations are consistent with the likelihood that the entire stories were seen by their writers as devotional fictions, not historical accounts.

My response:

Not bigger and better just different. Read the passages in light of Matthew looking at the event as one event and Mark looking at the trips individually because there were in fact two trips to the temple. Matthew just looks at the whole were Mark splits it up which is in keeping with his writing style as you yourself note that he writes about the little things that Jesus' does while performing miracles where Matthew focuses more on the whole picture and simply doesn't mention the details.

Cliff writes:

Another point worth noting is that many stories in the Gospel accounts are built upon the "fulfillment" of Old Testament passages. (Some events are "fulfillments" of passages that are not even in the Old Testament!) Before they had written accounts of the life of Jesus, the Christians relied upon the Old Testament as their Scripture, and believed that the entire story of Jesus's life was contained therein. This is why so many passages in the Gospel accounts stress that Old Testament passages were fulfilled. Many of the Gospel accounts were constructed from Old Testament passages and not from the testimony of observers. Even passages that mention no "fulfillment" of Old Testament predictions are clearly Old Testament tales with the names changed. A clear example of a "fulfillment" construction is where Matthew has Jesus riding on two donkeys because, being Greek, he was unaware that when Zechariah says, "lowly, riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" it is a poetic couplet, where the poet repeats himself. Only a circus performer would try to ride two animals at once, and that for show; the riding of two animals at once is not properly seen as an act of humility, or a "lowly" act. John, a much later document, has Jesus sitting on only one animal.

My response:

Most of this paragraph doesn't even deserve a response but I will for the sake of the truth you are so unfamiliar with.

First-every prophecy fulfilled in the NT is in the OT.

Second-the NT just fulfills the OT so it looks like to you that the NT was constructed from the Old but merely fulfills what to old said would happen. That last sentence is your argument in reverse, but if you would have provided evidence to support your copyist view that would not have happened.

Third-None of the Gospels have Jesus' riding upon two donkeys, it is just mentioned that there was a mother and her colt and to get both of them. No Gospel ever said Jesus rode on both -- you are reading into the text something you want desperately to be there.

Cliff writes:

My response:

This is old old news Cliff and it has nobody running around and jumping up and down except skeptics like you. Remember this little rule Cliff -- Lack of evidence for is not evidence against.

Cliff writes:

My response:

So if I have a group of 1000 Christians scholars that are almost unanimous in their belief that the OT was a product based on multi-authorship and not attributed simply to Ezra then who is right?

Cliff writes:

My response:

You seem to be getting some inaccurate information here

I could go on about the flatness of the earth, the firmament (lid) on top,the water above the firmament (lid), that pi equals 30/10 (or 3), that the growth of languages can be charted very precisely by the migration of different clans (with the exception of when one nation conquered another and imposed its language), that recorded history predates when Adam and Eve were supposedly created (by a strict literal accounting such as that of Bishop James Ussher), that there was no global flood, that Jericho came down piecemeal (not all at once), etc.

My response:

pi is equal to 3 to be exact 3.14 or.... what is the point. you lost me here.

Cliff writes:

A band of illiterate goat-herders used to sit around a campfire of camel dung and tell these legends to one another, for the purpose of keeping order in the tribe. This is clearly a collection of those legends; unfortunately, some modern goat-herder-types still believe them, and wish that the rest of us abide by their barbaric moral codes as well. Otherwise, I would pay no more attention to them than I do to the exploits of Hemantadevi or Wepwawet or Quetzalcoatl. These are just some of my reasons, and I choose not to pay very close attention to it these days. I studied it intensely seven years ago, twelve years ago and for three years ending at about eighteen years ago. It is not our purpose here to discuss these matters, although we do maintain a policy of answering reasonable questions that are presented in a mannerly decorum.

My response:

Logical fallacy -- Appeal to the Person or ad hominem When someone tries to rebut an argument by criticizing or denigrating its presenter rather than by dealing with the argument itself, that person is guilty of the fallacy of appealing to the person. This fallacy is called ad hominem, or "to the man." For example, "This theory has been proposed by a believer in the occult. Why should we take it seriously?" Or: "You can't believe Dr. Jones's claim that there is no evidence for life after death. After all, he's an Atheist." The flaw in these arguments is obvious; an argument stands or falls on its own merit; who proposes it is irrelevant to its soundness. Crazy people can come up with perfectly sound arguments, and sane people can talk nonsense.

This and more are found at:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/fallacy.htm#FALLACIES

In closing:

1 Cor 1:21-25
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(NKJ)

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Chris Tian
Subject: Re:
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:27 PM

You are the one who demanded that I stay on topic. Now you introduce side-issues regarding comments that I made within a parenthesis in my introductory remark -- which remark simply describes why the Bible is not of interest to me and why I do not want to waste my time discussing it.

Now, I think, we have bumped into the third reason why a discussion on the Bible is not a concern to me: The people who insist upon entering such a discussion tend to be overly contentious; seeming almost to get a kick out of finding new and better ways of being contrary, knee-jerk reactionaries; who appear to enjoy engaging in arguments that can be abridged: "It is so!" "It is not so!" "It is so!" "It is not so!"

You asked me a question and my one-word answer is "No." You asked me to document my reasons for my answer, and I explained to you why I would prefer spending my time discussing challenging matters. Now, you reveal yourself to be the quarrelsome crosspatch that I suspected you to be after reading your second letter.

Well, first of all JW's are not even considered Christians. By that statement I would say that you don't understand what a Christian really is.

If the Jehovah's Witnesses don't think they are Christians, then tell me who they think they are. And if Christ were effective at enacting His message that all should come to an understanding of him, then why are there so many "false" Christians and non-Christians? Why, even among people who think they are Christians, will so few partake of His Grace (according to your exclusionist scenario)?

Something is wrong, here; something is terribly wrong. I hope ta gaud that you are not teaching this stuff to your children.

My questions here are rhetorical and I seek no response from you. Please don't bother. I will not stoop to engaging in a discussion which contains the kind of thinking displayed above, and the accompanying dismissal of my qualifications for disagreeing with this (nowadays) minority position among modern Christians -- that of exclusionism within Christianity -- which is practiced primarily by non-mainstream Christian groups such as the Evangelicals in the United States and the Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

If you can write off your Christian allies without blushing, how, then, can I expect you to treat me, since I show no pretence of faith at all?

You are bluffing. You call me a liar of the "bald face" variety without first having examined our website (or even having asked us) to know whether we've already posted our position on this matter and the "evidence" you seek.

I will not stoop to such indignity, and neither, I imagine, would a Jehovah's Witness.

A few of my problems with the NIV are documented about midway through the letter called "Atheism: A Position of Convenience?" Suffice it to say that I stumbled upon these while compiling a list of mathematical errors, and simply went through the list one by one. My comments on tampering in the NIV are merely incidental to the piece, which is not a list of NIV botches but a list of mathematical errors.

I noticed the NIV problems as I was comparing translations and, quite frankly, I was rather shocked at just how often I encountered this very problem with the NIV. (I was also surprised at how many times the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses agreed with the popular translations.) Only once or twice in the entire list did the NIV agree with the other popular translations.

The NIV translators clearly chose to err on the side of "biblical inerrancy" rather than to choose the option having the best textual basis or even the translation that is most natural to the text. In other words, the NIV translators would prefer to mistranslate a passage or to use an obscure, unreliable source, over allowing any of the commonly known biblical errors to appear in their completed English text -- so loyal are they to the preconception that the Bible is without error that when they see even a minor counting error in the manuscripts, they will deliberately alter the translation to make it appear as if it was never there.

The NIV's bias toward biblical inerrancy is clearly and proudly admitted in the opening paragraphs of the book's Preface. My objection is that they would deliberately alter what they tell us is "The Word of God" in order to make it better fit their preconception that the Bible is, in fact, "The Word of God."

Is this not the ultimate act of dishonesty, altering what they represent to us as the infallible, unchangeable, eternal message from God to man? What the Christians did to alter Lincoln's Gettysburg address (by adding "under God" to it and later claiming that as the original) pales in comparison.

I have documented enough problems with both the NIV and the NWT to satisfy me that the New International Version contains more deliberate tampering with the available text, to support a stated preconception (biblical infallibility, as stated in the NIV's Preface), than even the New World Translation -- even though those who tend to prefer the NIV (the biblical infalliblists) are the very ones most likely to go to great lengths to show how the Watchtower Society tampers with the text to support that group's preconceptions (no "soul"; no baptism for the dead; etc.).

[Chris Tian writes:]

Cliff writes:

The earliest documents (James; the four undisputed letters of Paul) have no details of Jesus' life -- when he lived, when he died, what he was like, what he did,...

My response:

I think I have said enough on this to close the door.

[Cliff's response:]

So, are you saying here that the authorship of none of the epistles (save those attributed to John) are disputed in any historical or biblical scholarship circles? Are you saying that even the so-called Liberal scholars (the majority) now agree with your (minority) position?

Do you see why I don't want to discuss these matters with you? You show a complete lack of dignity in responding to statements that I fell short of making. I spoke only of the "undisputed letters of Paul" -- not to their actual historicity or that of any others.

Since you think you "have said enough on this to close the door," then I can assume that you are unwilling to back up your rejection of my claim by taking the five epistles in question (Romans; Corinthians; Galatians; James), and from them (without referring to any of the other epistles or Gospels) constructing a comprehensive life of Christ. Can you, only from these undisputedly and admittedly early epistles, tell me even approximately when Jesus lived and died?

Oh, but you won't. (You can't.) You said so when you told me that you "have said enough on this to close the door."

You insist that I document my position on a topic that means absolutely nothing to me (biblical errancy), yet you will brush this one off in a single broad stroke -- simply making statements and parroting Evangelical apologists, but unwilling to bring forth any arguments whatsoever -- and that with no further ado or comment.

Do you see why I do not wish to continue a discussion with you?

These will be my only responses to you, as I feel this conversation is not going to go anywhere. I cannot hold a discussion with somebody who is unwilling to practice honesty with me. My responses to you were only to document your dishonesty and your lack of decorum. You seem to want simply to engage in a game of "Yes it is!" "No it is not!" "Yes it is!" "No it is not!" -- as if you were saying to yourself, "This is should be fun!"

If you wish to engage in a dignified discussion with me, you must agree to: (1) stay on the topic at hand, which happens to be why I think the Bible is unreliable as a historical document; (2) refrain from calling upon me to explain something (such as why a character would say or do such-and-so) which assumes a position (the historical reliability of the Bible narrative) that we have not, in our discussion, yet established; (3) agree to speak in terms of publicly available knowledge. Any truth ought to be able to prevail under these conditions.

For example, if I state my opinion that the prevailing bias within the New Testament is one of anti-Semitism, you ought first to be sure you understand what I mean by that (perhaps Cliff is using the classic argument along those lines, one that has existed since at least the times of the Ebionites or possibly even since the time of Justin and Trypho -- what a concept!), and then either to agree with me and go on, or to bring arguments to challenge my position (not simply your fantasy of what I said). If you are willing to rephrase your questions from a more neutral, truth-seeking query (as opposed to the truth-knowing interrogation I see above), I will be willing to go a little further with you. However, I have already spent more time in this discussion that I feel the topic warrants.

Again: Here is my position (for what it's worth):

I don't think the Bible is historically reliable; I don't refer to it in my history studies; I distrust any claims based solely upon what the Bible says: I have found the Bible to be that untrustworthy, and cannot understand why anybody studying history could possibly take it seriously.

This is my opinion after several decades of serious and often open-minded inquiry into the matter. I am an atheist because I have read the Bible; I was not one before I began examining it.

My views are my views and I can live with them.

I don't need to explain to anyone why I think the Jesus story and the Easter Bunny story are equally absurd, or why I think the Jesus story is so patently shocking that it is not suitable for children and other living things. Anybody who cannot at least see why I feel this way, who wants simply to contradict the parenthetical remarks and asides I make within my introductory comment, is beyond gaining anything from a discussion with me (beyond the kicks and giggles that some toddlers associate with being contrary).

You asked me to document my position, and I have gone to the trouble of compiling yet another statement of my position -- against my desire to do this, against my better judgement, and against the stated guidelines for this forum. If you want to engage further with me (if you even want me to read through one of your letters in its entirety), then you must honor the minimally accepted decorum for a formal discussion.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

The man too dishonest to give us his real name now takes a right turn. We present this to you in <PRE>Formatted Text</PRE> to show precisely how it arrived. This is Chris Tian's idea of a "ready defense" against our objections to biblical Christianity.

From: Chris Tian [Suppressed]
To: <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: 
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 6:41 AM

Faith that is real!

         THE PRAYER CHAIR.....

A man's daughter had asked the local minister
to come and pray with her father.
When the minister arrived, he found the
man lying in bed with his head propped up on two pillows.
An empty chair sat beside his bed.
The minister assumed that the old fellow had been
informed of his visit.
"I guess you were expecting me," he said.
"No, who are you?" said the father.
"I'm the new minister at your church," he replied.
"When I saw the empty chair, I figured you knew I was going to showup.
"Oh yeah, the chair," said the bedridden man.
"Would you mind closing the door?"
Puzzled, the minister shut the door.
"I have never told anyone this, not even my daughter,"
said the man. "But all of my life I have never known
how to pray. At church I used to hear the pastor
talk about prayer, but it went right over my head."
"I abandoned any attempt at prayer,"
the old man continued, "until one day about four years
ago my best friend said to me, 'Joe, prayer is just a simple matter of
having a conversation with Jesus.

Here is what I suggest. Sit down in a chair;
place an empty chair in front of you, and in faith see Jesus on the
chair.
It's not spooky because he promised, "I'll be with you always." Then
just speak to him in the same way you're doing with me right now.' So, I
tried
it and I've liked it so much that I do it a couple of hours every day.
I'm
careful though. If my daughter saw me talking to an empty chair,
she'd either have a nervous breakdown or send me off to the funny farm."

The minister was deeply moved by the story and encouraged the old
man to continue on the journey. Then he prayed with him, anointed him
with oil, and returned to the church.  Two nights later
the daughter called to tell the minister that her daddy had died that
afternoon.  "Did he die in peace?" he asked. "Yes, when I left the house
about two o' clock, he called me over to his bedside, told me he
loved me and kissed me on the cheek. When I got back from the store an
hour
later, I found him dead. But there was something strange about his death.
Apparently, just before Daddy died, he leaned over  and rested his head
on
the chair
beside the bed. What do you make of that?"  The minister wiped a tear
from his eye and said,
"I wish we could all go like that."

We live by faith, not by sight. 2 Corinthians 5:7

A friends eye is a good mirror.

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Chris Tian
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 7:02 AM

What does this mean?

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: Chris Tian
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 11:40 AM

It is just something to read -- I'm not trying to be cute or anything.

You didn't like the story?

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Chris Tian
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 1:50 PM

You didn't like the story?

As a human with purely human emotions, it grieves me to no end that people would exploit the dying and the grieving in this manner. The fact that it is probably fiction does not absolve those who would glory over such activities.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: Chris Tian
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 2:47 PM

Cliff,

It is either true or false.

If it is false/fictional then nobody is exploited.

If it is true then talk to the dead guy because it is his own story that is being told.

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Chris Tian
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 5:34 PM

You'll have to make an effort to make sense if you wish to continue this dialogue.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: Chris Tian
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 8:45 AM

1 Cor 1:18
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
(KJV)

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Chris Tian
Subject: Re:
Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 7:18 PM

Resorting to that one, eh?

You just defined a "fool" as anyone who disagrees with your position.

You lose the argument.

Have a nice life.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.