My Discussion with Brooks Trubee

Table of Contents

My First E-mail - 17 Apr 2004:

I visited your website and find it impressive to say the least. But, I happened to visit the page you have on JP Holding (or XXX) where you asked him about the Jews in the Holocaust: "does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?" The answer to that question is yes he does "torture all the Jews (in hell) who suffered and died in the Holocaust"... well, all the Jews who weren't Christian. I don't mean to sound rhetorical but what is the point of asking such an obvious question?

Corey W.

PS As a matter of disclosure, I am a Christian.

His reply - Sat, 17 Apr 2004:

Thank you for your interest in my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief.

I asked that question to XXX because I wanted him to admit that he believes that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust. I wanted him to admit that he worships a god that is worse than Hitler. You see Hitler was only able to inflict suffering on people for a relatively short period of time, but the biblical god tortures people for eternity.

This subject actually came up in a different venue. I was at a live debate between Christian apologist Phil Fernandez and Bible skeptic Dan Barker a few years back and Mr. Fernandez made the claim that Christianity gives people the moral structure to see that the Holocaust was morally wrong. At the end of the debate I got to the question microphone and asked him what he, as a Christian, thought the eternal fate of the Jews was. Unfortunately I had not gotten in the question line soon enough and I was one of the last few people who were only able to ask a question without receiving an answer. Of course the point of my question was to show that Mr. Fernandez's claim about the Holocaust was hypocritical.

Hope this helps.

Brooks

My reply - 17 Apr 2004:

Thanks for answering my question. But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler! Since you believe and admit that God tortures Jews in hell forever whereas we have Hitler torturing Jews for a relatively short time!" So, I can't blame Holding's wariness.

But, let's see if I can play the same game. Do you expect God to actually NOT send people to hell for those who didn't believe in Him when He said that He would? And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?

Yours,
Corey W.

PS I would be careful with the presumption that God "tortures ALL the Jews who died in the Holocaust" because there were Christian-Jews in the Holocaust who were persecuted. But, for the non-Christian Jew, yes, obviously they are in hell.

His reply - 18 Apr 2004:

>>Thanks for answering my question. But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!

If XXX is proud of believing that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust, then he should get up on a podium and happily and confidently proclaim this to the world! You seem to be implying that I was trying to embarrass him. But why? Do you think that there is something wrong with your god torturing all the Jews who died in the Holocaust? Do you have a problem with that?

Do YOU think that your god is a more prolific torturer than Hitler and in this way is worse than Hitler?

>>But, let's see if I can play the same game. Do you expect God to actually NOT send people to hell for those who didn't believe in Him when He said that He would?

I don't believe your god is real. I don't believe that hell is real. Therefore I don't think that your god sends anyone to hell. However, if a mass torturer promises to torture people for their thoughts and carries through on his promise, I don't applaud him for being honest.

>>And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?

I judge the morality of your god using my own morality. Could you tell me what "standard" you use to judge the biblical god's morality?

>>I would be careful with the presumption that God "tortures ALL the Jews who died in the Holocaust" because there were Christian-Jews in the Holocaust who were persecuted. But, for the non-Christian Jew, yes, obviously they are in hell.

What is a Christian Jew? Is that like a Hindu Muslim?

Anyway, does the notion of Jewish Holocaust victims suffering in hell make you happy? After all, it is what your god wants, right?*

Thanks.

Brooks

*Disclaimer: As I noted before, I don't believe in your god or in the Christian hell.

My reply - 18 Apr 2004:

JP Holding conceded that God does condemn people to hell (including non-Christian Jews)... didn't he? You said so on your website. Besides, you WERE trying to embarass him! Who are you kidding? Look at your links for crying out loud! I'll let them speak for themselves: "'James Patrick Holding', the Want-to-Be Apologist", "Hilarious XXX Quote", "Demented XXX Quote", "XXX's blatant misrepresentations, childish insults and absurd rationalizations", etc.

No, I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews (remember not all Jews in the Holocaust were non-Christians - I define a Christian-Jew as an individual who is racially Jew, but religiously Christian) in hell. However I would have a problem with a God who says "I'll torture you in hell if you don't believe in Me" then doesn't live up to His own word by not putting them in hell. If God were to exist, shouldn't you have a problem if He wouldn't follow through with His own promises?

God may be a more "prolific torturer" than Hitler, but I think it's because God has the moral justification and credibility for doing so... and in that sense He is a more moral, and an upright person than Hitler ever can be.... and for that matter ANYBODY can be. God doesn't condemn people to hell arbitrarily. He made it clear that if you don't believe in Him you will go to hell. I know you don't applaud Him for his honesty and promise but that's because you're presuming He's a mass murderer. However, I don't think He is. Anyway, thanks for uh...kind of... answering my question. Let's go to the next one shall we:

"And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?"

Your reply: "I judge the morality of your god using my own morality."

Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!" As you can tell from my reply I don't put God on a pedestal I, a created being, would not judge the Creator or His morality on "my own standard".

As for your question: "Anyway, does the notion of Jewish Holocaust victims suffering in hell make you happy? After all, it is what your god wants, right?" It doesn't *necessarily follow that a Christian should be happy with God if He wants something to happen... namely people in hell. Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong. Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God! Look at Job, he wasn't happy with what God put him through, but that didn't necessarily reflectly badly on Job. Look at the Apostle Paul, he made arduous trips as a missionary and God put him through many unhappy situations (imprisonment, shipwrecked, bitten by a snake, etc.). Look at Abraham where God told him to sacrifice his own son! So, whether happy or sad, the fact still remains that people fry in hell.

Yours,

Corey W.

*please note the word "necessarily".

His reply - 2 May 2004

COREY: Thanks for answering my question. But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!

BROOKS: If XXX is proud of believing that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust, then he should get up on a podium and happily and confidently proclaim this to the world! You seem to be implying that I was trying to embarrass him. But why? Do you think that there is something wrong with your god torturing all the Jews who died in the Holocaust? Do you have a problem with that?

COREY: JP Holding conceded that God does condemn people to hell (including non-Christian Jews)... didn't he? You said so on your website.

Well, that is the funny thing, Corey. XXX tried to distance God from responsibility for hell by writing, "Christian theology actually avers that Hell is esentially a person's own choice (so that God's role in 'sending' someone there is more passive rather than active)." XXX also seemed to compare Holocaust victims to mass murderers. AHe wrote: "The modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime ("Your honor, although my client did murder 32 people, he deserves to get out of the death penalty because his father kicked him as a child.") is an irrational play on the emotions . Were the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust not sinners?" XXX was playing the apologetic game of rationalizing hell by vilifying and blaming the victims. This rationalizing was just as ridiculous as his rationalizing of countless other biblical cruelties and atrocities.

By the way, here is my question and XXX's response:

BROOKS: According to Christian theology, anyone and everyone who is not a Christian deserves to be and will be tortured for eternity. This includes all the Jews who suffered and died during the Holocaust. My question is this: does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?

XXX: Well, let's see. My guess is I'm supposed to do one of two things here: 1) Fudge and fumble and compromise by saying "no", because I'm supposed to be ashamed of a God who condemns to hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth; 2) Say "yes" and thereby justify your view of the Biblical God as a cruel and vicious beast who unfairly sends to Hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth. I'll answer closer to #2, although"torture" implies a sense of direct activity where Christian theology actually avers that Hell is esentially a person's own choice (so that God's role in "sending" someone there is more passive rather than active). It also seems to assume a Dante-esque vision of eternal torment; I doubt if things in Hell are that variable and creative.

The "question" you put forth rates well as a psychological manipulation, but I don't fall for that kind of thing. The modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime ("Your honor, although my client did murder 32 people, he deserves to get out of the death penalty because his father kicked him as a child.") is an irrational play on the emotions . Were the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust not sinners? Did they have a perfect life before and during the Holocaust? No more so than anyone else, unless you have a list of them you can show me who didn't sin. The question is really no different if you substitute "Jews/Holocaust" for "peasants/invasion of the Visigoths", "unwilling Aztec sacrificial victims/Aztec sacrifices", or "Kosovars/Serbian invasion".

COREY: Besides, you WERE trying to embarass him!

I asked that question to XXX because I wanted him to admit that he believes that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust. I wanted him to admit that he worships a god that is worse than Hitler. I wanted to try and make him think about how absurd his beliefs were. I now know that he is too far gone to be helped. When I first contacted him, I don't think my intention was to put his response up on my site.

COREY: Who are you kidding?

Am I trying to kid anyone?

COREY: Look at your links for crying out loud! I'll let them speak for themselves: "'James Patrick Holding', the Want-to-Be Apologist",..

That is the name of an article written by Farrell Till which I think is appropriate.

COREY: "Hilarious XXX Quote",…

I think that is a hilarious quote.

COREY: "Demented XXX Quote",…

I think that quote is demented.

COREY: "XXX's blatant misrepresentations, childish insults and absurd rationalizations", etc.

I think that XXX misrepresents, makes absurd rationalizations and throws around a lot of childish insults-and I link to examples of all of this.

So?

COREY: No, I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews

That is because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good. Let me ask you: Is there ANYTHING at all that you god could do that you would find morally objectionable?

COREY…(remember not all Jews in the Holocaust were non-Christians - I define a Christian-Jew as an individual who is racially Jew, but religiously Christian) in hell.

Could you explain in more detail what it means to "racially" be a Jew? Thank you.

COREY: However I would have a problem with a God who says "I'll torture you in hell if you don't believe in Me" then doesn't live up to His own word by not putting them in hell.

Would you similarly have a "problem" with a serial killer who promised to kill chortling, happy little infants and then failed to carry through on his threat? Yes or no? Would you applaud the serial killer for keeping his promise?

COREY: If God were to exist, shouldn't you have a problem if He wouldn't follow through with His own promises?

Not if he promises to do evil. I don't applaud a mass torturer for keeping his promise to torture people forever. Sorry.

COREY: God may be a more "prolific torturer" than Hitler, but I think it's because God has the moral justification and credibility for doing so...

And you believe this why?

COREY:..and in that sense He is a more moral, and an upright person than Hitler ever can be...

Why do you believe this?

COREY: . and for that matter ANYBODY can be.

And why do you believe this?

COREY: God doesn't condemn people to hell arbitrarily. He made it clear that if you don't believe in Him you will go to hell.

And if a serial killer promised not to stab you to death if you worshipped him, would you think he was a swell guy?

COREY: I know you don't applaud Him for his honesty and promise but that's because you're presuming He's a mass murderer.

The biblical god IS a mass murderer as well as a mass torturer.

COREY: However, I don't think He is.

Ever read the Old Testament? Yes or no?

COREY: Anyway, thanks for uh...kind of... answering my question. Let's go to the next one shall we:

"And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?"

Your reply: "I judge the morality of your god using my own morality."

Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!"

In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions, then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived.

COREY: As you can tell from my reply I don't put God on a pedestal I, a created being, would not judge the Creator or His morality on "my own standard".

Then upon what "standard" DO you judge the Christian god?

COREY: As for your question: "Anyway, does the notion of Jewish Holocaust victims suffering in hell make you happy? After all, it is what your god wants, right?" It doesn't *necessarily follow that a Christian should be happy with God if He wants something to happen... namely people in hell.

Answer the question: Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?

COREY: Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong.

Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?

COREY: Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God!

Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?

COREY: Look at Job, he wasn't happy with what God put him through, but that didn't necessarily reflectly badly on Job. Look at the Apostle Paul, he made arduous trips as a missionary and God put him through many unhappy situations (imprisonment, shipwrecked, bitten by a snake, etc.). Look at Abraham where God told him to sacrifice his own son! So, whether happy or sad, the fact still remains that people fry in hell.

Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims frying in hell make you happy or not?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Brooks

His reply - 2 May 2004

"No, I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews"

to

"No, I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews..."

change "XXX" to "XXX"

change

". and for that matter ANYBODY can be."

to

"...and for that matter ANYBODY can be."

change "AHe wrote" to "He wrote"

My reply - 3 May 2004

Sorry, I�m still not convinced that you think that you aren�t actually trying to NOT embarrass JP. Those links of �demented,� �hilarious,� Holding quotes (and then some) were used nothing more to convey that Holding is a man to think of as rather� well, demented and hilarious. After all, you wrote: �I will leave it for others to decide whether this (eternal torture of everyone who does not happen to share Holding�s religious beliefs) qualifies as a form of insanity.� I mean, how is that suppose to make him feel? Also, you have pictures of laughing faces on certain things Holding believes. For instance, you have a laughing face (among others) after you set a link about how Holding thinks the book of Genesis is literally, historically, and accurately true. So, you are kidding someone� At least, I think you�re kidding me. It may not have been your initial intention to have a website put up on Holding, but you ended up doing it anyway. In fact, you set up a whole website at tektonics, dot, com!

Anyway, can we give the JP Holding fiasco a rest? I think we�re at the point where we just have to agree to disagree. You think you�re not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do. So, that�s that. Let�s go on�

Let me get this straight, you think I�m �brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect� because I don�t think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews when He made it perfectly clear that He will if you don�t believe in Him. Therefore, I will view any �moral atrocity� that my God �is said to commit as morally good�. Let me tell you something, Brooks, you�d have to be brainwashed NOT to believe in God when He makes it clear you�ll roast in hell, if you don�t believe in Him. You see where I�m going with this? Just as much as you think God commits moral atrocities so I don�t think He does commit them. Just as much as you think He commits evil, I don�t think He commits evil. Furthermore, I know you equate the Christian conception of God as a �serial killer� but I don�t (as I already said). But, we already knew this, didn�t we? So, let�s go on� But, for the record, no, I wouldn�t have a problem with a serial killer who �failed to carry through on his threat.� As God is my witness, I hope he always fails!

I know there�s a lot of controversy even defining what ones �race� is, but let me give it a shot: Race is a group of people within a biological species. I guess, you can say I�m Irish, but I�m also a Christian. See? Like a Jewish-Christian. Do you think it�s not possible for a Jew to be a Christian?

Why do I think that God is an upright person who has a moral right and justification (let alone, a more moral right than Hitler or anybody else) to send and torture people to hell? Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks? I resent the �brainwash� and �atrocity� part but you �answered� it when you said, �because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good.�

Yes, I�ve read the Old Testament. I am a Christian after all. Let me guess, you�re going to prove that the Old Testament shows that God is a �mass serial torturer� and �murderer worse than Hitler� because of particular passages right? I think we�ve been through this: you know what I�ll say, I�ll know what you�ll say, I�ll prove your interpretation is wrong, you�ll try to prove your interpretation is right, yadda, yadda, yadda, etc.

I hope you don�t think that I�m scared or was trying to avoid in answering your question �Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?� I just wanted to put things in perspective. Granting my perspective (my perspective being �It doesn't *necessarily follow that a Christian should be happy with God if He wants something to happen... namely people in hell. Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong. Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God!�), of course, it makes me unhappy of the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell. Christians have always (well, at least Christians I know of) hoped people will not go to hell. So, yes, I am unhappy that God sends people to hell. I say that four times, since you asked me four times. But, I know that He has to send people to hell because people deserve it, unless they are justified by the blood of Christ of course.

Whew! Now that we got all that out of the way, let�s get to the nitty-gritty...

I don�t judge the Christian God, Brooks, nor do I put Him on a standard. How can a perfect God be put on a standard but His own? Personally, I think a perfect God would cease to be perfect if I judge Him. Which brings me to the initial question which you missed completely. After you admitted that you judged God on your own moral standard, I wrote:

�Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!"

Your wrote in �response�:

�In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions...�

No, no, that wasn�t the question. The question was if God DIDN�T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted YOUR opinion over HIS (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority � or, �opinion�, now that you mention it), would God still be God?

Hoping to hear from you,

Corey W.

PS I've noted your corrections in your other e-mail. Thanks.

His reply - 17 Jun 2004:

Corey,

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you.

COREY: Sorry, I'm still not convinced that you think that you aren't actually trying to NOT embarrass JP.

Well, you originally asked me this question:

COREY: But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!

When I originally contacted XXX, I don't think it was my intention to put our e-mails up on my site. I asked him that Holocaust question to try and make him think about how absurd his beliefs were. Maybe I was trying to embarrass him into thinking more deeply about his wacky beliefs but I wasn't trying to embarrass him in front of anyone else. Anyway, he was the one who asked me to put our conversation up on my site. I think he wanted me to do this so that he could expose the identity of someone who I had e-mailed and who I cited in a response to him. This person had wanted to remain anonymous. As our conversation progressed, and as XXX insulted me and dodged questions and made up absurd rationalizations and used my site to expose the identity of this other person, I realized what a complete jackass he was. I lost interest in trying to reason with someone who was so dishonest and so obnoxious and so obviously brainwashed. Eventually I put links on the discussion page to information about "Holding" because I thought people should know more about his theology, debate tactics and dishonesty. I wanted to expose him as the jackass that he is.

COREY: Those links of "demented," "hilarious," Holding quotes (and then some) were used nothing more to convey that Holding is a man to think of as rather… well, demented and hilarious.

I think that his quotes are demented and hilarious and I think that XXX is a deluded religious fanatic. Of couse, because you are one of his religious cohorts, you feel the need to defend him.

COREY: After all, you wrote: "I will leave it for others to decide whether this (eternal torture of everyone who does not happen to share Holding's religious beliefs) qualifies as a form of insanity." I mean, how is that suppose to make him feel?

Like a deluded religious fanatic, hopefully.

COREY: Also, you have pictures of laughing faces on certain things Holding believes. For instance, you have a laughing face (among others) after you set a link about how Holding thinks the book of Genesis is literally, historically, and accurately true.

Yes, that is a ridiculous, laughable belief.

COREY: So, you are kidding someone… At least, I think you're kidding me.

How?

COREY: It may not have been your initial intention to have a website put up on Holding, but you ended up doing it anyway. In fact, you set up a whole website at tektonics, dot, com!

That is correct. So what is your point?

COREY: Anyway, can we give the JP Holding fiasco a rest? I think we're at the point where we just have to agree to disagree. You think you're not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do. So, that's that. Let's go on…

Your initial query was about the Holocaust question, which I asked XXX early in our discussion. I noted in an earlier e-mail to you that it seemed that YOU were trying to imply that I asked this question to "embarrass" XXX. I explained to you that AT THAT TIME, our discussion was not posted publicly and, as far as I recall, it was not my intention to post the discussion publicly. It was XXX who asked me to post the discussion publicly, So, I was not trying to embarrass XXX in front of anyone else at that time, and your implication that I was-if that was indeed what you were trying to imply-was false. You then wrote that, no, I was trying to embarrass XXX, and you cited several links and quotes that were added to the XXX discussion page long after XXX and I stopped exchanging e-mails. This was a different assertion than what you seemed to be implying at first. By the end of the XXX discussion, after I saw what kind of person XXX was, I felt that he needed to be exposed as the lying, obnoxious jackass that he was. I thought he should be made to feel embarrassed and ashamed of his behavior and for his ridiculous beliefs, if that was possible. It was all done, of course, to make him a better person. : )

COREY: Let me get this straight, you think I'm "brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect" because I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews when He made it perfectly clear that He will if you don't believe in Him. Therefore, I will view any "moral atrocity" that my God "is said to commit as morally good". Let me tell you something, Brooks, you'd have to be brainwashed NOT to believe in God when He makes it clear you'll roast in hell, if you don't believe in Him.

I don't believe that your god is real. Therefore I don't believe that this god ever said anything to anyone. Do you understand this point or not? I think you are brainwashed for thinking that this god exists and that he tortures people forever for their thoughts.

COREY: You see where I'm going with this? Just as much as you think God commits moral atrocities so I don't think He does commit them.

Sure, because you have been brainwashed to think that a ridiculous, burnt-sacrifice demanding, infant slaughtering, slavery supporting, eternally torturing war god invented a tribe of superstitious, relatively ignorant primitive people, is the personification of moral perfection.

COREY: Just as much as you think He commits evil, I don't think He commits evil. Furthermore, I know you equate the Christian conception of God as a "serial killer" but I don't (as I already said). But, we already knew this, didn't we? So, let's go on… But, for the record, no, I wouldn't have a problem with a serial killer who "failed to carry through on his threat." As God is my witness, I hope he always fails!

But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?

BROOKS: Could you explain in more detail what it means to "racially" be a Jew? Thank you.

COREY: I know there's a lot of controversy even defining what ones "race" is, but let me give it a shot: Race is a group of people within a biological species. I guess, you can say I'm Irish, but I'm also a Christian. See?

No, I don't. Are you "racially" a Christian?

COREY: Like a Jewish-Christian. Do you think it's not possible for a Jew to be a Christian?

No. Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian. Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God. Christians do.

Do you see the problem?

COREY: Why do I think that God is an upright person who has a moral right and justification (let alone, a more moral right than Hitler or anybody else) to send and torture people to hell? Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks? I resent the "brainwash" and "atrocity" part but you "answered" it when you said, "because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good."

I don't know what you are trying to say. Is there anything at all that your god could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong?

COREY: I know you don't applaud Him for his honesty and promise but that's because you're presuming He's a mass murderer.

BROOKS: The biblical god IS a mass murderer as well as a mass torturer.

COREY: However, I don't think He is.

BROOKS: Ever read the Old Testament? Yes or no?

COREY: Yes, I've read the Old Testament. I am a Christian after all.

I would say that most Christians never actually read the Bible all the way through. In any case, in the Bible the Christian god is shown to be a mass-murderer and a mass-torturer.

COREY: Let me guess, you're going to prove that the Old Testament shows that God is a "mass serial torturer" and "murderer worse than Hitler" because of particular passages right? I think we've been through this: you know what I'll say, I'll know what you'll say, I'll prove your interpretation is wrong, you'll try to prove your interpretation is right, yadda, yadda, yadda, etc.

So is it your claim that your god is NOT a mass murderer and mass-torturer?

COREY: Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong. Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God!"), of course, it makes me unhappy of the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell. Christians have always (well, at least Christians I know of) hoped people will not go to hell. So, yes, I am unhappy that God sends people to hell. I say that four times, since you asked me four times.. But, I know that He has to send people to hell because people deserve it, unless they are justified by the blood of Christ of course.

So the Holocaust victims who are roasting in hell right now deserve it, correct? Could you tell me why they "deserve" eternal torture at the hands of the god that you worship?

COREY: I don't judge the Christian God, Brooks, nor do I put Him on a standard.

You judged the Christian god to be morally good, correct? Yes or no?

COREY: How can a perfect God be put on a standard but His own? Personally, I think a perfect God would cease to be perfect if I judge Him.

How did you judge the biblical god to be "perfect"? How did you determine that the biblical god is "perfect" in the first place?

COREY: Which brings me to the initial question which you missed completely. After you admitted that you judged God on your own moral standard, I wrote:

"Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!"

Your wrote in "response":

"In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions…" (…then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived..)

No, no, that wasn't the question. The question was if God DIDN'T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted YOUR opinion over HIS (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority - or, "opinion", now that you mention it), would God still be God?

I did not dodge your question the first time around. It did not really make sense to me yet I answered it as best that I could. But let's try it again. You are asking me if the biblical god would still be the biblical god if it didn't torture people for eternity for their thoughts, right? No, the biblical god would not be the biblical god if it did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts because, of course, that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible. If the biblical god did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts, it would not be the biblical god anymore, but some other, different god that did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts.

So what is your point? Feel free to clarify your question if you still think I do not understand what you are asking me.

Here is my question: How did you judge the biblical god to be morally good?

Later,

Brooks

My reply - 26 Jun 2004:

In your response to JP Holding, you did exactly as I said: �You think you�re not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do.� So, I�m not so sure why you felt the time to deal with the �JP Holding� fiasco in so much detail. But, I think now you�re admitting something that�s even worse than denying that you�re trying to embarrass him initially. Now, you�re telling me you wanted to show how much of a �jackass� he is and that he�s a �deluded religious fanatic�. I mean, forget the embarrassing part, you really hate the guy! And, I think you have a vendetta against JP, which you aren�t the least hiding. But, then again, who cares if you were not trying �to embarrass XXX in front of anyone else at that time� or not, either way you said: �I thought he should be made to feel embarrassed and ashamed of his behavior and for his ridiculous beliefs, if that was possible. It was all done, of course, to make him a better person. :)�

Anyway, not to be cheeky, but the statement...

COREY: But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!

... is not a "question", but a statement.

Thanks for letting me know that it was JP�s idea to post the discussion you guys had. And, yes, I know you told me it wasn�t your original intention to embarrass him although I totally dispute that � as my STATEMENT above shows. Trying to embarrass him "in front of anyone" or not is irrelevant really as I stated above. JP telling you to post the discussion clears things up, but did he expect you to build tectonics, dot, com? And, did he expect all the name-callings? And all the condescending smiley-faces? Probably not. With all due respect, the least you can do is keep it clean.

As for the brainwashing dictum, again, you did exactly as I said: "Just as much as you think He (God) commits evil, I don't think He commits evil. Furthermore, I know you equate the Christian conception of God as a "serial killer" but I don't (as I already said). But, we already knew this, didn't we? So, let's go on..." And that�s all that�s really happening in your detailed response.

I understand your point that you don�t believe in the God that I believe in exists. That�s why I was talking hypothetically. But, the statement "I think you are brainwashed for thinking that this god exists and that he tortures people forever for their thoughts" is question-begging! Do you understand this point or not? Thus, I said, "You see where I'm going with this? Just as much as you think God commits moral atrocities so I don't think He does commit them."

"Sure, because you have been brainwashed to think that a ridiculous, burnt-sacrifice demanding, infant slaughtering, slavery supporting, eternally torturing war god invented a tribe of superstitious, relatively ignorant primitive people, is the personification of moral perfection"? Well, I guess you�re not getting where I�m going with this. You see, telling me I�m brainwashed is no more question-begging than saying you�re brain-washed too. It goes like this: You really think God did something wrong because of reason X. I really believe that He didn�t do anything wrong because of reason Y. You don�t believe reason Y, therefore, you think I�m brainwashed. Now, let�s flip the script: You really think God did something wrong because of reason X. I really believe that He didn�t do anything wrong because of reason Y. You don�t believe reason Y, therefore, you�re brainwashed.

You asked me: "But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?"

Well, as I said, I don�t presume that God is a mass serial killer. A mass serial killer is a person who kills people unjustifiably. On the other hand, I believe that God has the justifiable reason for killing people, let alone sending people for hell eternally. You see no justification for all the killing God commanded and did? Well, of course, you don�t. But, like I said, we already knew this.

Am I a racial Christian? Well I defined race as "a group of people within a biological species." Can you please tell me how that entails one to believe in a racial Christian.

Oh, I certainly see the problem. The premise "Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian" is what you call an either/or fallacy. The problem is one can racially be a Jew and also religiously be a Jew. For instance, CS Lewis� wife was racially a Jew but religiously a Christian. There�s an organization that call themselves "Jews for Jesus" by the way. You guessed it, they�re racially Jews but they are religiously Christians. You can checkout their website here: www.jewsforjesus.com. Furthermore, one can be of any race and be religiously Jew. For instance, there were plenty of racial Polish people who were religiously Jews who were persecuted in the Holocaust. Furthermore, there were plenty of racial Italians yet religiously Jew people too. See?

Is there anything at all that my God could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong? I said it before and I�ll say it again: Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks? I resent the "brainwash" and "atrocity" part but you "answered" it when you said, "because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good." Are you sure you don�t understand what I�m saying? Because you answered it for me right here. And again, you�re just as "brainwashed" as I am, which only amounts to begging the question.

So is it my claim that my God is NOT a mass murderer and mass-torturer? *SIGH* Read the previous paragraph. But, I�ll answer your question. YES! IT IS MY CLAIM THAT MY GOD IS NOT A MASS MURDERER AND MASS-TORTURER. I�m a Christian, Brooks. Not to condescend you, but you ought to know some of the stuff I believe (although we have radically different interpretations), after all you claimed you use to be a Christian.

You asked me: "So the Holocaust victims who are roasting in hell right now deserve it, correct? Could you tell me why they "deserve" eternal torture at the hands of the god that you worship?"

Brooks, maybe, it�s because it�s been a long time, but I answered these questions already. Anyway, I�ll answer them again. To the first question: You bet! To the second: They deserve it because they didn�t believe in the Christian God. Thrice, I�ll say it: Do you really have to ask me these questions, Brooks?

Do I judge God to be morally good and perfect? No way! Like, I said, I don�t put Him on a standard. I don�t *judge* him to be moral. I *know* that He is moral (there is a difference between judging something and knowing something). We were made in His image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist � like, knowing God is good. For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through. While *reason confirms* the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don't seem to know this by *means of* reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral decisions. On the other hand, I would argue that atheism can�t account for intuition :) If you think they can, please tell me how.

Thanks for clarifying your answer. It�s WAY different and better than the first one you gave me: "In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions, then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived."

But, I don�t think you�re really getting the gist of my original question: "You are asking me if the biblical god would still be the biblical god if it didn't torture people for eternity for their thoughts, right?"

Sort of, but, not really... and it depends what their thoughts are. Anyway, this is the original question: "if God DIDN�T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted *YOUR* opinion over *HIS* (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority � or, "opinion", now that you mention it), would God still be God" was the original question. You seem to take yourself out of the equation. Anyway, you kind of answered it, thanks.

My point is quite simple Brooks: you, a created being, think - or have been "brainwashed" no less... yeah, I know that begs the question - you have more authority over God, your Creator, for God to be Himself, thus making Him not-God. Obviously, this line of thinking makes no sense whatsoever. And you would agree that God wouldn�t be God: "No, the biblical god would not be the biblical god if it did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts because, of course, that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible." Like I said, it depends what their thoughts are. Furthermore, since you say "that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible" can you please quote me where it says, "God tortures people for eternity for their thoughts" or something close to that nature.

Anyway, it still stands, you prefer God to not be God, or worse, you think you know how a God should behave. Albeit you don�t think He or hell exists.

Just wondering, Brooks. How do you know what�s morally right or wrong? And how can you account for morality?

Yours,

Corey

His reply AFTER 545 DAYS [!] on Sat, 24 December 2005:

Hello. I hope you are doing well. I am sorry I have taken so long to respond to your last e-mail. Something that I just noticed is that I have not included the last two e-mails from our e-mail discussion on the Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief website-so I plan to add them.

COREY: Good to hear from you, Brooks.

COREY: In your response to JP Holding, you did exactly as I said: “You think you’re not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do.” So, I’m not so sure why you felt the time to deal with the “JP Holding” fiasco in so much detail. But, I think now you’re admitting something that’s even worse than denying that you’re trying to embarrass him initially. Now, you’re telling me you wanted to show how much of a “jackass” he is and that he’s a “deluded religious fanatic”. I mean, forget the embarrassing part, you really hate the guy! And, I think you have a vendetta against JP, which you aren’t the least hiding. But, then again, who cares if you were not trying “to embarrass XXX in front of anyone else at that time” or not,

Because, Corey, you initially implied that I WAS trying to embarrass XXX by asking him if he thought that the Holocaust victims were roasting in hell-BUT, as I explained, I asked him this question in a private e-mail and I don't believe that it was my intention to put our discussion on the Internet. You then implied that I was being less than honest, that I was trying to embarrass him and to support this idea you cited comments I made only after XXX had asked me to make our e-mails public. That is why I am explaining this to you again and again.

COREY: either way you said: “I thought he should be made to feel embarrassed and ashamed of his behavior and for his ridiculous beliefs, if that was possible. It was all done, of course, to make him a better person. :)”

Yes, after I made our e-mails public-at XXX’s request-I realized that he was obnoxious, conniving, deceptive and dishonest. So I commented on his behavior to help others understand this and also, perhaps, to convince XXX to stop acting like a grossly immature child.

COREY: Thanks for letting me know that it was JP’s idea to post the discussion you guys had. And, yes, I know you told me it wasn’t your original intention to embarrass him although I totally dispute that – as my STATEMENT above shows. Trying to embarrass him "in front of anyone" or not is irrelevant really as I stated above. JP telling you to post the discussion clears things up, but did he expect you to build tectonics, dot, com? And, did he expect all the name-callings? And all the condescending smiley-faces? Probably not. With all due respect, the least you can do is keep it clean.

Like the Atheism Sucks website? : ) The fact is that XXX is a close-minded fundamentalist who uses deception and dishonesty in debates and discussions. I think that people should be made aware of his unethical behavior and his closed-loop thinking before they waste countless hours trying to reason with him. By the way, here is the new address for the Tektonics site:

http://the-anointed-one.com/

COREY: You asked me: "But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?"

Just to make this question more clear I am pasting in the original exchange:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COREY: But, for the record, no, I wouldn't have a problem with a serial killer who "failed to carry through on his threat." As God is my witness, I hope he always fails!

BROOKS: But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COREY: Well, as I said, I don’t presume that God is a mass serial killer. A mass serial killer is a person who kills people unjustifiably. On the other hand, I believe that God has the justifiable reason for killing people, let alone sending people for hell eternally. You see no justification for all the killing God commanded and did? Well, of course, you don’t. But, like I said, we already knew this.

Okay. So why do you believe that the mass killings of men, women, children and infants that your god commands and commits are justified? Why do you believe that this god’s eternal torture of men, women and children for their opinions is justified?

COREY: Am I a racial Christian? Well I defined race as "a group of people within a biological species." Can you please tell me how that entails one to believe in a racial Christian.

COREY: Oh, I certainly see the problem. The premise "Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian" is what you call an either/or fallacy. The problem is one can racially be a Jew and also religiously be a Jew. For instance, CS Lewis’ wife was racially a Jew but religiously a Christian. There’s an organization that call themselves "Jews for Jesus" by the way. You guessed it, they’re racially Jews but they are religiously Christians.

So is Judaism is a race? I am guessing that most Jews would find this idea offensive. See this page here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

COREY: You can checkout their website here: www.jewsforjesus.com. Furthermore, one can be of any race and be religiously Jew. For instance, there were plenty of racial Polish people who were religiously Jews who were persecuted in the Holocaust.

So is Polish a race? Is Christianity a race? Just as “Asian” and “Caucasian” are considered races?

COREY: Furthermore, there were plenty of racial Italians yet religiously Jew people too. See?

No, I don't. I am talking about belief systems and Judaism is not a race. Someone who is religiously a Jew does not accept that Jesus is the “Son of God.” Ergo, such a person cannot be called a Christian.

Whatever...

COREY: Is there anything at all that my God could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong? I said it before and I’ll say it again: Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks?

Yes, I do.

COREY: I resent the "brainwash" and "atrocity" part but you "answered" it when you said, "because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good." Are you sure you don’t understand what I’m saying? Because you answered it for me right here. And again, you’re just as "brainwashed" as I am, which only amounts to begging the question.

The reason that I say that you have been brainwashed into accepting Christianity is because it is obvious to me. Below is a link to a series of articles and essays that explains how Christians are brainwashed. Check it out:

http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/links.htm#re

Anyway-just to confirm-is it your position that there is nothing even hypothetically that your God could do that you could call morally wrong? Yes or no?

COREY: So is it my claim that my God is NOT a mass murderer and mass-torturer? *SIGH* Read the previous paragraph. But, I’ll answer your question. YES! IT IS MY CLAIM THAT MY GOD IS NOT A MASS MURDERER AND MASS-TORTURER. I’m a Christian, Brooks. Not to condescend you, but you ought to know some of the stuff I believe (although we have radically different interpretations), after all you claimed you use to be a Christian.

Okay, so you believe that your god’s mass killings of men, women and children are justified for some reason. Would you care to explain why they are justified? Secondly, you believe that your god created hell and that he sends billions of people to be tortured for eternity in hell. Correct? If so, do you then agree that your god is a mass torturer? Yes or no?

COREY: You asked me: "So the Holocaust victims who are roasting in hell right now deserve it, correct? Could you tell me why they "deserve" eternal torture at the hands of the god that you worship?"

COREY: Brooks, maybe, it’s because it’s been a long time, but I answered these questions already. Anyway, I’ll answer them again. To the first question: You bet! To the second: They deserve it because they didn’t believe in the Christian God.

I just want to make sure that I understand you. You believe that anyone who happens to hold the opinion that the Christian god does not exist deserves eternal torture for holding that opinion? You actually believe that people deserve eternal torture for their thoughts? Correct?

COREY: Thrice, I’ll say it: Do you really have to ask me these questions, Brooks?

Yes, I do. Do you find these questions upsetting? If you do, it might be because at some level you recognize that the idea of torturing people forever for their opinions is absolutely and completely sick and demented.

COREY: Do I judge God to be morally good and perfect? No way! Like, I said, I don’t put Him on a standard. I don’t *judge* him to be moral. I *know* that He is moral (there is a difference between judging something and knowing something).

How do you “know” this, Corey?

COREY: We were made in His image,

Why should anyone believe this assertion, Corey?

COREY: thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good.

Or perhaps God is evil and he duped Christians like yourself into thinking that he is good. Or, hey, maybe God does not exist and Christians such as yourself simply make up "explanations" about God and morality that have absolutely no basis in facts or logic.

Think about it.

Why should anyone accept that your God “explanation” of morality is true? What, if anything, is your claim based on?

COREY: For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through. While *reason confirms* the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don't seem to know this by *means of* reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral decisions. On the other hand, I would argue that atheism can’t account for intuition :) If you think they can, please tell me how.

This is kind of vague. What you call "intuition" might be another name for common sense, instinct, empathy, cultural conditioning or a combination of all these things.

COREY: Thanks for clarifying your answer. It’s WAY different and better than the first one you gave me: "In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions, then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived."

COREY: But, I don’t think you’re really getting the gist of my original question: "You are asking me if the biblical god would still be the biblical god if it didn't torture people for eternity for their thoughts, right?"

COREY: Sort of, but, not really... and it depends what their thoughts are. Anyway, this is the original question: "if God DIDN’T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted *YOUR* opinion over *HIS* (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority – or, "opinion", now that you mention it), would God still be God" was the original question. You seem to take yourself out of the equation. Anyway, you kind of answered it, thanks.

COREY: My point is quite simple Brooks: you, a created being, think - or have been "brainwashed" no less... yeah, I know that begs the question - you have more authority over God, your Creator, for God to be Himself, thus making Him not-God. Obviously, this line of thinking makes no sense whatsoever.

Let me make things as clear to you as I know how: I think that the deity that your devote your life to worshipping is simply a make-believe ancient war god whose barbaric behavior reflects the culture that produced it. I hope that this is clear.

COREY: And you would agree that God wouldn’t be God: "No, the biblical god would not be the biblical god if it did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts because, of course, that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible." Like I said, it depends what their thoughts are. Furthermore, since you say "that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible" can you please quote me where it says, "God tortures people for eternity for their thoughts" or something close to that nature.

According to Christian theology, anyone who does not believe in the Christian god-in other words, anyone who does have the opinion that the Christian god exists-will be sent to hell by God. Here are some pertinent quotes:

"...he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

Jesus-John 3:18

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god rests upon him."

Jesus-John 3:36

"If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."

Jesus-speaking in a parable-John 15:6

"...but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come."

Jesus-Matthew 12:32

"He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Jesus-Mark 16:16

"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Jesus-Matthew 13:49

According to the Bible, all the terrible, horrible, really, really bad unbelievers such as myself will suffer torture in hell forever. Consider, if you will, the following passages:

Matthew 25:46: " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."

Mark 9:43-48: "...it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched"

Revelation 14:11: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."

There is some more information about hell here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm

COREY: Anyway, it still stands, you prefer God to not be God, or worse, you think you know how a God should behave.

I think that a being that is said to be the epitome of moral goodness and who is also said to torture people unceasingly for eternity based on their opinions represents an impossible contradiction. It fascinates me and, I must admit, it horrifies me that people like yourself can worship such a being and claim without a hint of irony that this being is the personification of moral perfection.

COREY: Albeit you don’t think He or hell exists.

COREY: Just wondering, Brooks. How do you know what’s morally right or wrong? And how can you account for morality?

I make moral judgments based on the harm or the benefits that I predict actions will have. I use reason, logic, learning, knowledge, experience, empathy, compassion and my sense of justice and fairness to determine whether an action is good or bad or right or wrong.

As far as accounting for morality-human morality has developed or evolved along with the human race. Human morality exists simply because humans are social animals and must live together in some degree of harmony to thrive as a species.

For your benefit, here is some more information about morality:

http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/ethics.htm#Chr

Here is how YOU explained human morality:

COREY: “We were made in His (God’s) image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good.”

My question, again, is this: Why should anyone believe this claim?

I am curious about something else. If you discovered that your god did not exist, would your behavior change towards other people and, if so, how would it change?

Thank you for your time.

Brooks

My reply - 24 December 2005:

Great to hear from you after such a long time (over 545 days)! What I'm most thankful for in your response was the self-induced embarassment you put yourself in. For instance, your lack of reading comprehension attests to your constant repetitive questions. Let's take for instance the issue of God sending people to hell. Thus far you have been replying in this nature:

Brooks: You really think it's okay for God to send people to hell for their opinions?
Corey: Well, God is not sending them just for their opinions. He's sending them to hell because they don't believe in Him?
Brooks: But you think it's fair?
Corey: Yes.
Brooks: Honestly, you think it's fair?
Corey: Yes.
Brooks: Seriously, now, you really think it's fair?
Corey: *Sigh* Yes!
Brooks: I'm not joking, you really think that's fair?
Corey: Yyyyyeeesssss!
Brooks: ...okaaay, nooow I get it. But seriously, why would God send people to hell?
Corey: Do you really need me to answer this question again?
Brooks: Yes. Is it fair for God to send people to hell? Yes or no?
Corey: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Get it, now?
Brooks: But why would God send people to hell?

As for the "Jews as race or religion" you are feigning your incomprehension over this issue even after you APOLOGIZED to me (unfortunately, that post no longer exists) about your misunderstanding of how I used Jew in terms of religion and race: meaning, YOU'RE LYING AND BEING DISHONST WITH YOUR RESPONSE. You knew I was right yet you couldn't bear it so you continue to ignore the facts.

Yet even after I showed how your responses were rifed with ignorance, repetitive questions, feign confusion, and self-defeating premises you continue? Okay, let's get the ball rolling!

Brooks: Because, Corey, you initially implied that I WAS trying to embarrass XXX by asking him if he thought that the Holocaust victims were roasting in hell-BUT, as I explained, I asked him this question in a private e-mail and I don't believe that it was my intention to put our discussion on the Internet. You then implied that I was being less than honest, that I was trying to embarrass him and to support this idea you cited comments I made only after XXX had asked me to make our e-mails public. That is why I am explaining this to you again and again.

This has already been dealt with in detail in my last email to you: June 26, 2004 - under "Thanks for letting me know that it was JP�s idea to post the discussion you guys had...." So, your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

I actually reprimanded you for not keeping your website on JP Holding "clean." However, you thought my website was not clean with the aftermentioned, "Like the Atheism Sucks website? : ) " Well... yes. I kept my debate with you clean, Brooks. I warned and told you of my website on you while waiting and waiting and wating for a response. You had the audacity of NOT keeping my discussion with you clean after NOT including the quote-endquotes (in my April 18th response) around "prolific torturer" remember? You made it look as if though I was claiming it's a good thing that God is worse than Hitler. Unfortunately, nobody can see it now that the board is deleted. But you are everything (and then some) that you accused JP Holding of being "obnoxious, conniving, deceptive and dishonest." Even after you said you meticulously copied me word-for-word you deliberately took out the quote-endquotes.

Either way, it still stand as I predicted you wanted to embarass JP Holding. In fact, you conceded to that point but feel the need to keep arguing about it. *SHRUGS* Oh, well.

BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: Okay. So why do you believe that the mass killings of men, women, children and infants that your god commands and commits are justified? Why do you believe that this god's eternal torture of men, women and children for their opinions is justified?

I've answered these quesions way back in my April 18th response (3rd paragraph) and May 23, 2004 under "Why do I think that God is an upright person..." So your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

By now you probably think that my accusing you of having a lack of reading comprehension is ad hominem. It isn't, Brooks. This part would have to be proof of it:

I said: Am I a racial Christian? Well I defined race as "a group of people within a biological species." Can you please tell me how that entails one to believe in a racial Christian. Oh, I certainly see the problem. The premise "Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian" is what you call an either/or fallacy. The problem is one can racially be a Jew and also religiously be a Jew. For instance, CS Lewis� wife was racially a Jew but religiously a Christian. There�s an organization that call themselves "Jews for Jesus" by the way. You guessed it, they�re racially Jews but they are religiously Christians.

First off, remember, as I mentioned above you actually apologized to me for your misunderstanding the difference between a race and a religion in context of Jews. I accepted your apology by the way but I'm afraid I may have to take it back because you still haven't learned: even with the obvious fact that one can be a religious Jew while being of a difference race (black, Chinese, Italian, Polish, etc.) and with the self-apparent fact that you quoted me too (which is to say you actually read it but I doubt it) you feign confusion about my premise and asked me, "So is Judaism is a race? So is Polish a race? Is Christianity a race? Just as “Asian” and “Caucasian” are considered races?" Brooks, buddy, please get some help. I'll pray for you.

COREY: Is there anything at all that my God could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong? I said it before and I'll say it again: Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks?

BROOKS, predictably: Yes, I do.

LOL, Yeah, I can see why :o) Please read May 3rd response. Your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

BROOKS: The reason that I say that you have been brainwashed into accepting Christianity is because it is obvious to me.

I've dealt with the type of argument before in my responses to you: you're begging the question (June 26th). But let me add as an evolutionist, you have NO CHOICE but to believe what you believe. Thus, you can never know whether you are right or wrong. http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2005/11/problem-of-materialism-part-3.html

BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: Anyway-just to confirm-is it your position that there is nothing even hypothetically that your God could do that you could call morally wrong? Yes or no?

You know, Brooks, there is such a thing as a question-dodger but you have me convined that there is such a thing as an answer-dodger. I already dealt with this here: May 3rd under "Let me get this straight..." Your bringing this up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: Okay, so you believe that your god’s mass killings of men, women and children are justified for some reason. Would you care to explain why they are justified?

Look up April 18th response. You're bringing this up again shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

BROOKS ASYS YET AGAIN: Secondly, you believe that your god created hell and that he sends billions of people to be tortured for eternity in hell. Correct? If so, do you then agree that your god is a mass torturer? Yes or no?

Look up April 18th reply, exchange "murderer" for "torturer". Your bringing this up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: I just want to make sure that I understand you. You believe that anyone who happens to hold the opinion that the Christian god does not exist deserves eternal torture for holding that opinion? You actually believe that people deserve eternal torture for their thoughts? Correct?

Look up June 26th response (you know the part where you quoted me). Your bringing this up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

BROOKS ASKS (BUT MAY ASK AGAIN): Do you find these (repetitive) questions upsetting? (paranethesis mine)

I don't find these questions upsetting but repetitive and tiresome. I was hoping to engage in a smart and intelligent discourse but I don't see that happening with you, Brooks. I'm reminded of what Lief Moi said of you, "I finally realized that Brook�s was not interested in hearing the truth but just wanted to cause trouble so I discontinued letting him call in." You know, Brooks, I tried to think the best of you that you're not trying to cause trouble here but I'm afraid I can't anymore because of the self-explanatory evidence here. Lief was right.

BROOKS ASKS WITHOUT FIRST READING AHEAD: How do you “know” this (that God is good), Corey? Why should anyone believe this assertion (that man was made in God's image), Corey?

Answered in June 26th response (you know the part where you quoted me).

BROOKS: Or perhaps God is evil and he duped Christians like yourself into thinking that he is good. Or, hey, maybe God does not exist and Christians such as yourself simply make up "explanations" about God and morality that have absolutely no basis in facts or logic. Think about it.

This is a possibility. But with the knowledge we have of God through scripture I have no reason to think otherwise. Your question presumes radical skepticism where one can make wild claims like man may be nothing more than his brain in a vat wielded with electric impulses by a doctor. That's certainly possible but I hold to what's called the credulity principle where there's no reason to reject what seems so obvious to us in favor of less obvious alternatives. This maybe circular reasoning but when one argues in defence of an ultimate epistemic authority, such as an ultimate standard of truth, then some element of circularity will be unavoidable.

BROOKS: Why should anyone accept that your God “explanation” of morality is true? What, if anything, is your claim based on?

The Bible.

Please quote me where I compare intuition to vague notions as "common sense, instinct, empathey, cultural conditioning".

BROOKS: Let me make things as clear to you as I know how: I think that the deity that your devote your life to worshipping is simply a make-believe ancient war god whose barbaric behavior reflects the culture that produced it. I hope that this is clear.

You just begged the question. But sure, it's clear I knew this from the beginning but why are you bringing it up when I already knew you had this view of God? It's kind of like how you asked JP Holding, "Does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?"

I said: "...can you please quote me where it says, "God tortures people for eternity for their thoughts" or something close to that nature."

BROOKS ANSWERED: According to Christian theology, anyone who does not believe in the Christian god-in other words, anyone who does have the opinion that the Christian god exists-will be sent to hell by God.

First off, it's interesting that you DO know why God sends people to hell yet you keep asking me it over and over and over. Also, what's interesting, Brooks, is that you acknowledged that you first believed that God sends people to hell because of their "thoughts" then you said it was because of their "opinions" NOW you refute both of these claims to mean something else. Thank you for bringing up the Bible by the way. You're right God sends people to hell because they don't believe in Him.

Your link is irrelevant to the topic as far as why God sends people to hell as opposed to WHERE hell is.

BROOKS: I think that a being that is said to be the epitome of moral goodness and who is also said to torture people unceasingly for eternity based on their opinions represents an impossible contradiction.

As we've seen you couldn't even make the case that it's a contradiction because you're making question-begging arguments.

BROOKS: It fascinates me and, I must admit, it horrifies me that people like yourself can worship such a being and claim without a hint of irony that this being is the personification of moral perfection.

Well, that's just an appeal to your own emotions, Brooks. You're going to have to make a case for morality to make any sense of what horrifies you.

BROOKS: I make moral judgments based on the harm or the benefits that I predict actions will have.

So, do murderers, rapists, psychopaths, and sociopaths. Hitler killed off Jews because they were hindering the Aryan race. So, what he did benefited the Aryan race according to your use of morality.

BROOKS: I use reason, logic, learning, knowledge, experience, empathy, compassion and my sense of justice and fairness to determine whether an action is good or bad or right or wrong.

So do Nazis.

BROOKS: As far as accounting for morality-human morality has developed or evolved along with the human race.

LOL, so since morality evolves what could be good now can be evil later.

BROOKS: Human morality exists simply because humans are social animals and must live together in some degree of harmony to thrive as a species.

Other species killed off other species so their own species can live. If we can compare that to humans then Hitler did was right, correct? By answering "no" to this you are defeating your own premise. By answering "yes" you're a sicko. Either way your moral system is bankrupt of reasoning and rationality.

BROOKS ASKS AGAIN: My question, again, is this: Why should anyone believe this claim?

Already dealt with. Your bringing this up again shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

BROOKS: I am curious about something else. If you discovered that your god did not exist, would your behavior change towards other people and, if so, how would it change?

If I discovered that God did not exist? There has to be epistempic reasons as far as how I came to that discovery. However, if God didn't exist I suppose I'd follow your own sense of morality where I may end up treating people like how Adolf treated the Jews and if that wasn't the case it wouldn't matter anyway because whatever evil is may end up being good because morality evolves and so you can't say for sure what I do is right or wrong or good or evil.

Welp, that seems to be it Brooks. We have seen how you mistreated JP Holding, how you made zero-case as far as why (or for what good or fair reason) God sends people to hell, how you suffer from insecurity or lack of reading comprehension because you repeat the same questions over and over again, how your accounting for morality is incomprehensible, and how your emails reek of ignorance, lies, half-truths, feigning of confusion, and desperation. I love it!

Have a merry CHRISTmas, Brooks.

Corey Washington

His reply - 24 December 2005:

I will likely respond to the rest of your latest e-mail later, but for now I just want you to answer your own question. So...

How do you, Corey, know what’s morally right or wrong?

Thanks.

Brooks

My reply - 24 December 2005:

*SIGH* Your repetitive question has already been dealt with on the June 26, 2004 post. Your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

Corey

His reply - 26 December 2005:

COREY: YOU'RE LYING AND BEING DISHONST WITH YOUR RESPONSE.

False.

COREY: You had the audacity of NOT keeping my discussion with you clean after NOT including the quote-endquotes (in my April 18th response) around "prolific torturer" remember? You made it look as if though I was claiming it's a good thing that God is worse than Hitler. Unfortunately, nobody can see it now that the board is deleted. But you are everything (and then some) that you accused JP Holding of being "obnoxious, conniving, deceptive and dishonest." Even after you said you meticulously copied me word-for-word you deliberately took out the quote-endquotes.

I did not intentionally leave the quote marks out.

BROOKS: Or perhaps God is evil and he duped Christians like yourself into thinking that he is good. Or, hey, maybe God does not exist and Christians such as yourself simply make up "explanations" about God and morality that have absolutely no basis in facts or logic. Think about it.

COREY: This is a possibility. But with the knowledge we have of God through scripture I have no reason to think otherwise.

Okay, stop right there: Why, in the first place, do you believe that the Bible is accurate and true when it refers to a god?

COREY: Your question presumes radical skepticism where one can make wild claims like man may be nothing more than his brain in a vat wielded with electric impulses by a doctor. That's certainly possible but I hold to what's called the credulity principle where there's no reason to reject what seems so obvious to us in favor of less obvious alternatives. This maybe circular reasoning but when one argues in defence of an ultimate epistemic authority, such as an ultimate standard of truth, then some element of circularity will be unavoidable.

Corey, the Bible is internally contradictory, it is contradicted by the facts of reality, many of its major claims are just blatantly ridiculous on their face, and the book is filled with absolutely revolting God-ordained cruelties and atrocities. All of these things suggest to perfectly reasonable people that the Bible is not the work of a good and loving supernatural being but that it is a book that was simply slapped together by imperfect, superstitious, and often quite stupid people. The question is why anyone should think of the Bible as the "ultimate standard of truth" in the first place. It appears to me that many Christians start out with this presupposition and that all of their arguments flow from there.

By the way, here is a listing of a few biblical contradictions, cruelties, atrocities and absurdities:

http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/responses2c.htm#Since

Let me ask you something in order to understand you position better: Do you believe that Genesis is historically factual and truthful?

COREY: “We were made in His (God’s) image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good.”

BROOKS: My question, again, is this: Why should anyone believe this claim?

COREY: Already dealt with. Your bringing this up again shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

Your not terribly helpful "answer" was "The Bible." The question is why anyone should accept the supernatural claims in the Bible, such as the claim that we were made in this god's image. If your "answer" to this question is that the Bible is the "ultimate standard of truth," I would ask you to demonstrate this rather than simply assert it.

Can you understand why I might see your "answers" as being very vague, deflective, circular and unsatisfying?

BROOKS: How do you, Corey, know what’s morally right or wrong?

COREY: *SIGH* Your repetitive question has already been dealt with on the June 26, 2004 post. Your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.

This is from your June 26, 2004 e-mail:

“We were made in His (God’s) image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good. For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through. While *reason confirms* the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don't seem to know this by *means of* reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral decisions.”

This was your basic explanation of morality. I guess I was looking for an elementary description of the process that you go through to make moral decisions or a listing of the tools that you use. But you say that you believe that your morality is based on God-given "intuitions." I have already asked you provide a good explanation of why you believe this-something other than "The Bible." So I will wait for that answer.

Thanks for your time.

Brooks