In response, I began to get a few emails that attempted to solve the riddle.  I replied to them cordially with refutation of their arguments and never heard from most of them again.  Here is one that did write back, initiating further dialogue.

     All the correspondence is here, but I'm still trying to get my latest email (the last on this page) to A. L. Russell.  His/her Yahoo mailbox no longer accepts incoming mail, as it has exceeded it's quota limit (size).  I'll try occasionally to send it, and hope that A. L. Russell sees this in the meantime so that he/she can respond.

From: sydneydickens@excite.com
To: Buck Cash
Re: Answer
Date: 8-13-02

Your question number 3 on infidelguy.com is quite simple. Hebrew literature doesn't require "three days and three nights" to be the complete 24-hour cycle of the day. For example, Psalm 1:2 does not mean one must read the Bible all day and all night.
Another example is seen in the book of Esther. She and other Israelites fasted 3 days and 3 nights (4:16), yet it is quite apparent that Esther could've appeared before the King at any point "on the third day" (5:1).
Additionally, Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19,etc... record Jesus saying he would rise ON the third day.
I believe this evidence clearly answers your question. If not, please write and let me know the contradiction you see.

peace,
A.L. Russell

My reply on 8-19-02:

The quote from Mathew wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek.  If Jesus did not mean 3 days AND 3 NIGHTS, why is it translated thus?  If it means something else, the translation to English should reflect that, should it not?

Quoting other passages does not excuse THIS passage which is supposedly a QUOTE by Jesus himself.  Jesus said "three days and three nights".  Either he was wrong, or he simply didn't know day from night, or he didn't know how to count.

What you are engaging in is called 'apologetics' which is simply an attempt to reconcile that which cannot be LOGICALLY reconciled.  There are thousands upon thousands of books written in attempts to explain the inconsistencies of the bible.  They have all used the same tactic in doing so.  First, start with a firm belief that there is no problem and that it can be explained away.  Next, test explanations until one comes up with one that works better than the rest.  Last, assert this explanation to be true, and insist upon it.

There are over 2000 sects and denominations of Christianity in the world today BECAUSE no one has yet been able to show consistency in the text of the bible in a single way that is explainable.  Starting with Paul's letters in the NT, people have been claiming since the texts were first written that THEY have the divine inspiration to correctly interpret the words and God's will, that all others are wrong and that theirs is THE TRUE explanation.

Every follower of every one of these 'inspired' interpreters believes as strongly that they are right as every other follower of every other interpreter.  Yet, it is obvious that, at MOST, only ONE can possibly be right.  Add to that the fact that EVERY follower of EVERY OTHER religion believes just as strongly that their religion is the ONE TRUE religion in exclusion of all others and we see the problem compound.  All of the inconsistencies in their religious stories are explained away by them in the exact same manner as those of the Christian religion, and sound as compelling to you as yours do to them - not at all.

When you truly understand WHY you reject all the other religions, sects and denominations, you will understand why I reject yours along with them.

All the best to you and yours,

Buck

From: sydneydickens@excite.com
To: Buck Cash
Re: Answer
Date: 10-23-02

Hello Buck,
I came across this very old email and had to respond.

Thank you very much for your thorough response. I understand your position but have several critical problems that I very much hope you'll respond to.

First, you made some pretty strong assertions without any proof to substantiate them. Christians have held to fundamental beliefs since the first generation after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Certain denominations may interpret certain passages different, but the standing verdict has always been the same: Jesus Christ was and is God and He died for sinners.

There is no way one could make the claims you did without strenuous study; tracing back historic Christian claims throughout history. Yet when looking at these claims, you see the consistency of the statement I made above. Denominations differ on certain issues but they most definitely do come together on core doctrines that have been agreed upon throughout Christianity. Of course many people have disagreed but why does that discredit the consistent doctrines of Christianity that have always been agreed on?

You stated that Christian 'apologists' simply asserted things to be true and then insisted on that assertion. You continued that no one can show consistency in the Bible that is explainable. But why could I not say the same thing about atheists? Why could I not say that they know there is a God but look for every excuse to deny that Deity's existence? What if the reason many people rejected God's existence was so that they could live the way they wanted without any moral guidelines?(as Stephen Jay Gould's associate once said)

On the issue of consistency, I find atheism extraordinarily inconsistent. Without God, there can be no moral values. Values would be simply a by-product of personal taste or socio-biological evolution. If this is the case, why have men like Sarte rejected such sentiments as anti-semitism or Russell condemned war? How can any atheist reject anything?

If one's reason is their god, who's is right? who's is wrong? what's wrong with slicing a friend into shreds and eating them or expressing strong racism? That is, how can atheism and ethics come together without the atheist simply engaging in self-delusion?

Back to your email. I will say that religions are different. Is that an excuse to discard them all? Wouldn't this make you want to search for truth even more rather than assume all of them are not true. I believe when all the religons are scrutinized, one will find fewer choices then he/she once expected to find.

Once again, thanks for your time in writing the last email and in reading this email. I do not want to pose these questions in a demeaning or cutting way. I sincerely want to know what you believe and why; and I would love to attempt to answer any other questions you had about the Christian faith.
in Peace,
A.L. Russell

My response on 10-24-02:

Hello there!

Thanks for taking the time out of your day to write!  To make it easier to follow, my comments will be in blue, my previous email comments will be blue bold, and yours remain in dark text.

Thank you very much for your thorough response. I understand your position but have several critical problems that I very much hope you'll respond to. 

I'll do my best to expand upon my thoughts as they pertain to your email and our discussion. 

First, you made some pretty strong assertions without any proof to substantiate them.  

In re-examining my email, my assertions were:

The quote from Mathew wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek. 

My proof for this assertion is simply that Bible scholars agree that the passage we are discussing wherein Jesus makes a prediction about how long he will be buried was indeed written in Greek, rather than Hebrew, making it Greek literature, rather than Hebrew literature.  This was in response to your assertion that, "Hebrew literature doesn't require "three days and three nights" to be the complete 24-hour cycle of the day." 

What you've done (I'm sure inadvertently) is to set up what is called a 'straw man' for an easy knock-down.  The problem is that if we start with an axiom that is untrue (such as that the relevant passage was written in Hebrew), then the subsequent line of thought stemming from that inaccurate axiom is terribly flawed, if not entirely irrelevant.

The line of reason you then followed was to cite 2 examples that WERE part of Hebrew literature (actually written in ancient Hebrew).  Let us examine them to see if they remain relevant, given the flawed axiom of their premise as well as any other observations. 

The first you cite is from Psalm 1:2, which says, "But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night."

Of course, the obvious difference is that this passage does not predict or attempt to assert a particular length of time to an action in the way that "three days and three nights" does, nor is it intended to do so, as you've readily admitted in your attempt to use it to reconcile the meaning of Jesus' quote.  The difference between Hebrew, Greek or even English in this case (for interpretation) is moot, for there is none.  It means the same in all three.  It is a poetic phrase (as Psalms tends to be, as a book of songs) that describes "all the time" or "any time".  That Psalms was written in ancient Hebrew doesn't seem to be an issue with this passage.

Naturally (and obviously), meditation can only be performed during periods when a person is awake or at least semi-conscious.  We can easily accommodate 'breaks' (for sleep, for example) in this interpretation.  Having said that, we can also easily distinguish it from the descriptive nature of the passage "three days and three night" that tells how long Jesus will be in the tomb.  For in the tomb reference, there are no 'breaks' to be anticipated; It is a description of continuity that is all-inclusive.  There are no 'breaks' between the periods of days and nights that he is to be entombed.

I would therefore have to say that the Psalm passage does not adequately explain the passage in the New Testament we are discussing, nor is it even relevant, as they are not at all in the same context of descriptive force and nature. 

The second set of passages you used were from Esther 4:16 and 5:1.

The first, 4:16, says, "Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish"

The relevant portion of this text is, "neither eat nor drink three days, night or day."  The difference here is the wording used to make it entirely different in meaning from the Jesus quote in the New Testament.  It's quite easy to understand that "three days, night or day" is not necessarily "three days and three nights".  It never tries to claim "three nights" even, and that is where the Esther 4:16 passage fails to be applicable as an equivalent example.  "Three days, night or day" can easily mean only two nights between them when it is not precluded by a formal and specific declaration in the passage of "three nights".  On the other hand, "three nights" are specifically and formally declared in the Jesus quote.

Again, the above Esther passage holds interpretation equally well in Hebrew, Greek or even the English of today so, like the Psalm passage, it is not a question of interpretation flaws from Hebrew, either in language or reckoning of time, as you originally proposed.  This argument has no weight.

Esther 5:1 says, "Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house."

Of course the portion of interest here is "on the third day", especially in reference to the previous passage of 4:16.  However, we have already established that 4:16 is irrelevant for the discussion, and so it's follow-up passage is as well, for it is not the end result of a declaration preceding it of "three nights".

The only relevance it has (and it is cursory at best), is it's comparison to passages in the New Testament that declare Jesus rose on the third day, which we will also examine.  We must keep in mind in doing so however that this passage is not the result of a declaration of "three nights", while the Jesus quote specifically is.

You gave three examples of this as: Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19 (etc.)

Matthew 16:21 says, "From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day."

Matthew 17:23: "And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry"

Matthew 20:19: "And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again."

All of these are equal in stating that on the third day he shall rise again.  Okey dokey.  I must again ask however, where is the third night Jesus predicted?  They say nothing of nights.  Not a single word.  Jesus' quote, on the other hand is very specific: "three days and three nights".

So, these passages from Matthew are not only written in Greek, rather than Hebrew (in reference to your assertion), but they don't even address the problem, other than to show the inconsistency that I originally pointed out; that Jesus formally and specifically declared he would be entombed for three days and three nights, yet rose again (according to the storyline and other predictions) after only two nights.  That original and simple assertion I made, based on what the bible actually says, caused your original email to me and those that follow.

My next assertion: Quoting other passages does not excuse THIS passage which is supposedly a QUOTE by Jesus himself.  Jesus said "three days and three nights".  Either he was wrong, or he simply didn't know day from night, or he didn't know how to count.

Having stated all that I have above, specifically outlining the the problems with those other passages, I continue to stand behind this assertion.  "Three nights" is "three nights", no matter what other passages (that don't even address Jesus' quote directly) say themselves within their own storylines.

My next set of assertions: What you are engaging in is called 'apologetics' which is simply an attempt to reconcile that which cannot be LOGICALLY reconciled.  There are thousands upon thousands of books written in attempts to explain the inconsistencies of the bible.  They have all used the same tactic in doing so.  First, start with a firm belief that there is no problem and that it can be explained away.  Next, test explanations until one comes up with one that works better than the rest.  Last, assert this explanation to be true, and insist upon it. 

The proof to substantiate these claims (see your email to me) is easily established.  First, we find in the dictionary a formal description of the word "apologetics": That branch of theology which defends the Holy Scriptures, and sets forth the evidence of their divine authority.  I went so far as to say they attempt to reconcile that which cannot be logically reconciled.

I say this because if it could be logically reconciled, we wouldn't need thousands upon thousands of books beyond the bible that try so very hard to do so AND disagree with each other on what that correct and logical interpretation actually is.  Even in the bible itself, we are told that it can only be believed and embraced by faith.  Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  This is the very nature of faith and belief systems.  The bible tells us in this passage that there is no evidence, (physical or logical, there is none), for if there were, one would not need faith, as they would have knowledge from facts and evidence.  Having no evidence is the very nature of the need for, and requirement of, faith. 

I'm always quite amazed that the bible tells believers this, yet they continue to write and read thousands of books that attempt to prove this passage false.  They continue to engage in apologetics that attempt to "set forth the evidence" where there is none, according to the bible itself.  Be that as it may...

You must admit there are indeed thousands upon thousands of books written that attempt to do this, correct?  If you don't think so, simply visit the nearest Christian book store.  There is likely one in your local mall.  In addition, there are many, many more books and writings of apologetics you will not find in that book store that have been written in other languages, in other times, or that have fallen out of publication because they no longer hold water or were simply unpopular enough to maintain.  There is the evidence of that particular portion of my statement. 

I said, "start with a firm belief that it can be explained away."  This is absolutely true.  It is (again) the very nature of faith to believe without evidence, just as Hebrews 11:1 states.  In order to write an apologetic, one must start with a firm belief that there is a logical explanation for an apparent problem, despite what the bible in Hebrews 11:1 states plainly.  It is because it makes no sense that even believers who think they have the highest faith actually have no faith when it comes to taking these claims all without explanation.  It is against our human nature to believe what is patently unbelievable without explanation. 

"Three nights" is three nights.  It's not two nights, nor is it four nights.  If he rose after only two nights, as other parts of the bible indicate "on the third day", contrary to the Jesus quote of 'three nights", our brains require explanation.  Even those with faith ask "how can this make sense?" 

There are two ways to look at the problem.  A skeptic sees the obvious: "It doesn't make sense.  Could it?  Let's see.", then begins to dig through the information to find an answer.  One who has faith however, is obligated to start by saying, "I have faith that this makes sense.  Now I will find out how.", and they begin to dig as well.

The difference is one of predisposition.  The skeptic is not obligated to find a particular answer to the question, and is satisfied wherever his search leads him.  The goal is merely to see if it has legs to stand or does not.  It doesn't actually matter which, other than to clear a path toward the truth, whatever it is.  On the other hand, the theist must arrive at an answer that allows them to continue to buy into it.  They have started with a goal to find the evidence that will allow them to continue to believe what is unbelievable, in spite of the nature of faith as described in Hebrews 11:1.

To arrive at that predefined goal, the apologist must then "test explanations until one comes up with one that works better than the rest."  The apologist has started with the goal (to prove there is no problem), and that is the only way to arrive at it.  Even if it still doesn't really work (as in the passages of Psalms, Esther and Matthew you cited, nor the Hebrew mistranslation attempt) if that's the best that can be found and used for an explanation, then that's the best that can be found and, subsequently, what will be used.

Last, assert this explanation to be true, and insist upon it.  The goal remains to be able to believe; To find something that allows one to continue to have faith, despite the apparent contradiction or problem.  One cannot continue to believe the problem is not a problem unless the explanation is also taken on faith when, in fact, it bears no weight (as in the passages of Psalms, Esther and Matthew you cited, nor the Hebrew mistranslation attempt).  Failing to insist that it is true (whether it is or not) would (for a believer) be tantamount to admitting that there is indeed a problem with some aspect of their belief system.  This is simply unacceptable to them.  For if they can accept that small premise, they can begin to see the many, many other problems as well, which generally leads one away from a faith in things that have no evidence to a knowledge in things that do.  (I know this first hand -  it's what happened to me)

My next set of assertions: There are over 2000 sects and denominations of Christianity in the world today BECAUSE no one has yet been able to show consistency in the text of the bible in a single way that is explainable.  Starting with Paul's letters in the NT, people have been claiming since the texts were first written that THEY have the divine inspiration to correctly interpret the words and God's will, that all others are wrong and that theirs is THE TRUE explanation. 

Every follower of every one of these 'inspired' interpreters believes as strongly that they are right as every other follower of every other interpreter.  Yet, it is obvious that, at MOST, only ONE can possibly be right.  Add to that the fact that EVERY follower of EVERY OTHER religion believes just as strongly that their religion is the ONE TRUE religion in exclusion of all others and we see the problem compound.  All of the inconsistencies in their religious stories are explained away by them in the exact same manner as those of the Christian religion, and sound as compelling to you as yours do to them - not at all.

You basically agreed with the above statements, so I need not address the validity of them.  However, you expounded a bit and tried to qualify them with some statements I would like to explore a bit more.

First, you stated: Christians have held to fundamental beliefs since the first generation after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Certain denominations may interpret certain passages different, but the standing verdict has always been the same: Jesus Christ was and is God and He died for sinners.

Certainly, this is the central tenet to the Christian doctrine.  However, it is still only one part of a storyline that has many, many problems that remain unresolved.  Because this storyline cannot be resolved, we have over 2000 variations on the theme, called denominations.  Some are actually quite extremely in opposition of one another, holding ONLY to the basic tenet you describe above.  This shows a problem with the validity of the resource used by all of them to make the central claim of Jesus as God.  With the validity of the resource in question, the validity of the claims taken from that resource are in question as well, even the claim of Jesus' divinity which they all embrace.  

With it all being questionable due to specific and numerous instances throughout of problems with the story, and because we are talking about god(s), eternal life and death, morals, etc. (things that are, to many, very important), it is proper for us to examine it all very closely.

We can easily see that there are problems with the individual passages and the storyline as a whole, resulting in uncounted apologetic writings and the splitting of sects and denominations.  This is indisputable, for if my statement were untrue, there would be no such thing as apologetics or denominations - there would simply be no need of them at all.  

Probably the greatest evidence for a Christian when asserting Jesus' divinity is the Easter story of his crucifixion, death, entombment and resurrection.  This is, of course the source of my original question about 'three nights" that prompted our present discussion, so we're still on track with this.  But it is much more, for if the Easter story establishes Jesus' divinity more than any other evidence, it should itself be able to stand up to the rigors of scrutiny in order to do so. 

Beyond my question of "three nights", believers, religious leaders, bible scholars and apologists have been unable to do something for all of the history of Christianity.  Reconcile the Easter story.  This seemingly simple challenge now falls to you, if you think you're up to it.  Let's go beyond "three nights" and see what else is problematic in this particular aspect of the storyline.  

Here's a link to Dan Barker's challenge to you to reconcile the Easter story: http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html 

If it cannot be reconciled, how can it offer us the evidence of Jesus' divinity?  Jesus himself doesn't seem to declare that he is god in his teachings.  Instead, he says things like:

John 7:16 "Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.' " 
John 14:24 "He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but The Father's who sent me." 
John 12:49 "For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." 
John 4:34 "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to accomplish His work.' " 
John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me." 
Luke 22:42 "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from me; nevertheless not my will, but Yours, be done."  
Matthew 20:23 "...But sitting at my right hand or my left is not mine to give. That is for those to whom it has been reserved by my Father."   
John 5:19 "Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..."  
John 5:30 "I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me." 
John 8:42 "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but He sent me.' " 
John 15:2 "My Father takes away every branch in me that bears not fruit; he purges it; that it may bring forth more fruit." Here, we see Jesus' acknowledgement that he is an imperfect sinner just like the rest of us; he too must be purged and purified. 
John 8:31 "You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God”    This verse is one of the most explicit statements of Jesus denying divinity,  for it clearly defines Jesus' position that he is subject to God and not God Himself.  
Mark 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."  
Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." 
John 7:16 So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me."

We quickly notice that according to the Biblical Jesus, God is omniscient, but Jesus is not. God has a superior intellect to Jesus; in other words, God knows something that Jesus does not know. Another clear proof that they are not equal.  

While thousands saw Jesus and heard his voice, Jesus himself said that this could not be done with God when he said:  
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."  
John 5:37 "Ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape."  
John 4:24 "God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."  

In Mark 12:29 Jesus said "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." The words "our God" indicate that Jesus had a higher God over him, a stronger God than him. Jesus didn't say "Your God" . He said "our God", which includes Jesus as the creation of God.

Luke 22:42 "...not my will but Thine be done"  
John 5:30 "I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me."  
John 7:16 "Jesus said: 'My doctrine is not my own; it comes from Him who sent me.'" 
John 7:28-29 "...I have not come of myself. I was sent by One who has the right to send, and Him you do not know. I know Him because it is from Him I come; He sent me."  
John 8:50 "And I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks and judges." 
John 10:29 "My Father is greater than all."  
John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I."  
John 8:42 "I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself but He sent me." 
Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 13:20 "Whoever welcomes me welcomes, not me, but Him who sent me."  
John 20:17 "...Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" 
John 13:16 "Jesus said; 'Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither one who is sent greater than the One who sent him.' "   

Other parts of the bible have some things to say that don't fit well with the idea that Jesus is god, such as Job 25:4-6:"How can he be called clean that is born of a woman? Behold even the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?"  

Acts 2:22 says, "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:"  This passage describes Jesus not as god himself, but as one man whom god worked through, much the same as the way Jesus described himself throughout.

Suppose Jesus came back today and asked you these questions:

Did I not uniformly and to the last set you an example myself of praying to the Father, to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God? (John 20:17)

When my disciples requested me to teach them to pray (Luke 11:1-2), did I teach them to pray to myself or to any other person but the Father?

Did I ever call myself God, or tell you that I was the maker of the world and to be worshipped?

How would you answer him on these questions? 

Now suppose you are standing at the gates of heaven and God says to you, "I told you in the first commandment to have no other gods before me, yet you believed a man named Paul when he told you to worship another man named Jesus."   How would you answer this?  What evidence would you provide to God Himself as to why you thought Jesus superceded God's authority?  Why you prayed to Jesus instead?  Why you worshipped Jesus instead?

The only answers you can possibly give in either case are apologetics written by men.  How much weight can these carry in assertions regarding God?  What is the defining factor of absolute truth in the words and ideas of apologists who don't even agree with each other consistently?  How do we choose one apologist, one denomination, one sect, one religion over all the others and declare with authority, "THIS is the truth about things we have no evidence for"?

Without evidence (as stated in Hebrews 11:1), without the Easter story (that cannot be reconciled), without Jesus' declaration that he was God (who instead worshipped God himself and instructed others on how to properly do the same), how do YOU determine without a doubt that you have it right, while only those in your particular denomination (a few thousand people out of some 6 billion?) agree with you on the matter? If Jesus' divinity is so astoundingly easy to see and support as you would like me to believe, why can't everyone easily see and support it as you do?  Especially when a tenet of the Christian belief is that that's what god wants?  

The Jews are the direct descendants of the Hebrews, God's CHOSEN people.  Yet they reject the divinity of Jesus outright.  Doesn't God want his CHOSEN people to be saved and with him in heaven?  How could God have overlooked such a thing?  Surely, if Jesus is the way, God would have provided insight to his CHOSEN people for them to follow the right path.  

Instead, God's CHOSEN people are going to Hell, while those who supplanted Yahweh-god with Jesus-god in direct violation of the first commandment and Jesus' own teachings (he was a devout Jewish Rabbi himself, after all) are going to Heaven.  Well, that's quite a nasty trick God pulled on the Hebrews and their descendants the Jews, don't you think?  Especially after several millennia of devoted worship, unceasing praise and the continued practice of observing even the most mundane and arbitrary rules he could think of for them to follow in order to please him.

All because the words and ideas of men who do not agree with each other - apologists - said so.  I'm sorry, but I'm simply unable to accept their word for it that they have some divine insight into these matters.  Even Thomas, who supposedly walked, talked and witnessed first-hand all the miracles and daily examples of Jesus ministry - doubted.  Faith was not enough for Thomas, nor is it for me.  He needed evidence, and so do I.  At the very least, I am honest as Thomas was in that regard.

There is no way one could make the claims you did without strenuous study; tracing back historic Christian claims throughout history.

You are quite right.  I have devoted much study over the course of about 35 years to this pursuit.  I have traced many claims, read many apologetics and their counter-arguments, read, studied and cross-referenced several different versions of the Bible in tackling the issues, as well as the history of the Bible itself, studied socio-political histories and civilizations, the histories of religions, science and art, philosophy, logic and psychology, and engaged in many discussions and debates with everyone from teens and laymen to learned men with degrees in apologetics from highly acclaimed theistic universities.  I do not consider myself an expert in any of these fields, but a man honestly seeking the truth of the matter.  I try always to make an conscious effort to keep an open mind, without allowing it to disengage from reality, logic or reason in my quest.  

At the start of the journey, I was a Christian, defending the faith.  In the course of the journey, I have acquired a great deal of knowledge in the subjects.  Nearing the end of my journey now, having examined and tested all that I have in my pursuit, I have only one conclusion I am capable of making - I have found no evidence for a god.  That conclusion makes me an atheist, for I am left without belief in one.  I cannot say with any definition or authority that there is no god, only that I have found no evidence of or for one.  The same is true for blue trolls and invisible poodles with gills who live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about my sex life.  They may exist, but I have been unable to find any evidence to support the notion, and until I do, I cannot force myself to believe it.

Yet when looking at these claims, you see the consistency of the statement I made above. Denominations differ on certain issues but they most definitely do come together on core doctrines that have been agreed upon throughout Christianity. Of course many people have disagreed but why does that discredit the consistent doctrines of Christianity that have always been agreed on?

One can say the same of every religion.  There's nothing particularly special about Christianity in that regard.  They also all split into particular sects for the same reasons: No evidence.  Why it discredits the central nugget of Jesus as god that all Christian faiths embrace is that if the story it comes from is so mismatched that it cannot be agreed upon by believers who then split off from each other into a multitude of sub-faiths, then there's no reason to believe without thorough examination that any of the supernatural doctrine springing from it must be undoubtedly factual either.  Not even the central nugget. 

It shows that there are problems.  If there are problems, how deep do those problems go?  According the rest of the world's religions, it drives a stake through the heart of the story, rendering it unbelievable and dismissible.  Even the Jews, from whom the old testament comes, who made the prophesies, who lived at the time of and supposedly witnessed the events surrounding Jesus don't buy it.  Not the Jews of Jesus' own day and age, who were looking for a Messiah; Not the Jews of today, who are still waiting for the Messiah to come. 

The story given in the bible is simply fraught with problems.  How are we then to believe a claim made by one part of this problematic story line that Jesus is God, especially when he himself did not proclaim it? 

You stated that Christian 'apologists' simply asserted things to be true and then insisted on that assertion. You continued that no one can show consistency in the Bible that is explainable. 

Start with Easter.  Reconcile it if you can.  I hear there is a reward posted at various web sites if you can do so.

But why could I not say the same thing about atheists? Why could I not say that they know there is a God but look for every excuse to deny that Deity's existence? 

I simply love this one every time I hear it.  Does it make ANY sense? 

1.  If I KNEW there was a god, I would KNOW something no believer does, for if they KNEW they would not need FAITH.  Please read Hebrews 11:1 again.

2.  If I KNEW there was really a god, what possible reason could I have for rejecting that knowledge?  You say:

What if the reason many people rejected God's existence was so that they could live the way they wanted without any moral guidelines?(as Stephen Jay Gould's associate once said) 

Is this even possible?  Can one live the way one wants without any moral guidelines?  Please give an example of this, that we may examine it together.  Meanwhile...

Is it only your belief in god that keeps you from raping and murdering?  Think about that seriously for a moment.  I'm an atheist, yet I can find no reason to go off on a raping, murdering rampage.  I have no desire nor inclination to do such a thing - ever.  It never even crosses my mind, other than in discussions such as this, when it's implied that as an atheist without moral guidelines, I should.  

What is so different about my morals as an atheist than the morals of most Christians or believers of other religions?  What even makes you think there are any?  Did you come up with this idea yourself, or is this something that someone told you?  Was it someone that shares your religious beliefs?  Was it someone that has something against atheists?  Was it someone who asks for money in an envelope or a collection plate?  What immoral thing has any atheist ever done to you personally for you to place them all together into some demographic group of people you feel justified to label "immoral"?

Shall we talk about the Christian beliefs and morals of Hitler and his followers?  Shall we talk about the inquisition?  Witch hunts?  Holy wars?  Jihads?  Martyrs?  David Koresh?  Jim Baker?  Jimmy Swaggart?  Jim Jones?  Robert Tilton?  Pedophile priests and ministers?  Good, Christian mothers who are sitting in prison for killing their children?  What about the rest of the prison populations, which are mostly Christian?

Morals eh?  We can talk about them if you like...  I think first though, I'd like to know why you think I'm immoral.  Can you answer that one?

On the issue of consistency, I find atheism extraordinarily inconsistent. Without God, there can be no moral values. Values would be simply a by-product of personal taste or socio-biological evolution. If this is the case, why have men like Sarte rejected such sentiments as anti-semitism or Russell condemned war? How can any atheist reject anything? 

If one's reason is their god, who's is right? who's is wrong? what's wrong with slicing a friend into shreds and eating them or expressing strong racism? That is, how can atheism and ethics come together without the atheist simply engaging in self-delusion?

Let's start with you basic premise; that "without God there can be no moral values."   Do you mean to imply that one must believe in a God to have moral values OR do you mean to imply that the fact that we have moral values indicates there's a god to have put them into place?  This is a very important question and one that I would like you to define for me.  However, I will address some of the rest of the assertion until you can help me with that answer. 

As to how an atheist can reject anything, it's pretty simple for me.  Anything I would not want done to me or those I love, I should not do to anyone else.  I reason this by the fact that, as humans, they feel the things I do in that basic respect.  In order to get the respect I desire from them in those regards, I must give them the same respect. 

Socio-biological evolution is all I need.  It's all any tribe or culture has ever needed to survive, and in all of them "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has been a central tenet of the culture.  This is for cultures that have never heard of Jesus, Yahweh, Christians or Jews.  It's been documented in every culture throughout history.  Before missionaries ever got there, it was in China, North and South American Indian cultures, Australian Aborigines and so on.  It's everywhere and always has been.  It's even in animals.  It's a basic survival attribute.  Without it, the tribe and culture die out.  Any that might have ever been that didn't embrace that idea have died out, leaving no descendants, as it is a basic necessity for survival.

Even if I got some wild urge to go on a homicidal killing, raping rampage (because I'm an atheist, so I have no morals and can do anything, right? - LOL!!), what would be my fate in that case?  What are my chances of survival?  Does this sound like a good thing to do, if you're me and want to continue to live your life without being molested in some way?  

I mean, I KNOW I don't want to be in jail.  I KNOW I don't want to get shot.  I KNOW I don't want to be sitting on death row somewhere.  I KNOW I don't want to die in a gas chamber or electric chair or on a gurney by lethal injection.  I KNOW I wouldn't want to be raped and killed by someone on a rampage, so I can guess that other people feel the same way.  I KNOW I would try to defend myself against someone on a rampage by going so far as to kill them before they kill me, I have to believe that other people would react the same way.  I KNOW I wouldn't want anyone I love to suffer the fate of rape or murder by someone on a rampage, so I can guess that other people feel the same way.

So how would I benefit by going on this rampage?  I can think well enough to have some ideas about the consequences of going on such a rampage, even if I suddenly got the urge to do it for some reason, and frankly, I don't like any of them.  Why then would I go on such a rampage?  It makes no sense. 

And I didn't have to have a belief in god at all to come to the conclusion that it is not in my best interest to go on a rampage.  I didn't need some higher authority to hold me back.  I didn't need the threat of eternal punishment to keep me from doing it.  All I needed was a survival instinct that helps me reason what is in my best interest for self-preservation  in light of present socio-political norms and standards.

Animals do the same thing.  When a wolf goes nuts, breaks rank and starts killing other members of the pack, the rest of the pack gangs up and kills it.  That's the way survival works.  Individuals that break rank and start going against the other members of the tribe, herd, pack, etc., end up dead.  It is not a good way to survive.  Not for humans, not for animals.  That's just the way it is and it makes perfect sense  - no god(s) required.

Back to your email. I will say that religions are different. Is that an excuse to discard them all? Wouldn't this make you want to search for truth even more rather than assume all of them are not true.  

I'm guessing this is in response to my statement (which is actually derived from an original quote by Stephen F. Roberts): When you truly understand WHY you reject all the other religions, sects and denominations, you will understand why I reject yours along with them. 

When I first saw the quote above, I was still a Christian.  It made me think.  It was very scary to me at first to consider that each person of each religion is equally convinced that they have the right one and, by extrapolation, that all the others are wrong; That each doctrine has it's 'evidence', none of which stands up to the rigors of other doctrines and is summarily dismissed.  I decided to examine them to see which really held up under scrutiny, in order to determine which was the correct one.  I found none.  Not even one.  In turn, that opened the door to the 'possibility' that they are all wrong.  I still don't know.  I can't.  There is no way to decide.  There is no evidence.  Hebrews 11:1, remember?

That's what atheism is. A(without) theism(belief).  I am simply one who is unable to believe something without evidence.  It's just who I am.  It's the way I'm made.  If there is a god, and he made me, then he made another atheist.  Judging from all the apologetics and sects, neither can most others believe without evidence.  I simply admit it.  Atheist doesn't mean "bad" "evil" "immoral" "rotten" or anything of the sort.  It doesn't mean I reject god; It just means I haven't found evidence that a god exists.  If I ever do, I assure you, I will not reject that knowledge or him/her/it.  However, unless I do find some evidence, I am simply unable to believe what makes no sense to me.  It's not something I can force.  Could you force yourself to believe the tooth fairy exists, just because someone says you should?  You could say it, but could you really believe it?  I couldn't.  And after years of going to church and feeling like a hypocrite, I finally had to face up to the truth: I am an atheist, but I'm still me, I'm still good, I still have my loving friends and family and they still have me, I still have my moral standards and compassion for my fellow humans, I still have my patriotism, I still perceive right from wrong, up from down.  I am no less a person for my beliefs or lack of them.

Yes, indeed it does make me want to search for the truth even more, and has for the greatest part of my adult life.  I would never assume any of it to be true or untrue, yet neither do I throw out the evidence I dislike, wherever it leads me.  As I indicated earlier, it is this basic tenet of my lifelong search that led me away from the dark dogma of religion and superstition and into the light of science, logic and reason.  As you intimated earlier in your email, I have studied quite extensively on the subjects of religion, history, language, science and other associated fields for most of my 43 year lifespan in this quest for 'the truth', and suppose I will continue with it until my dying day. 

You might be interested to know that I was brought up in a very religious Christian family, attended parochial schools, got the first religious merit badge in my Boy Scout troop, even wanted to be a pastor.  I had faith.  I had belief.  I loved it and I embraced it.  Then I had a question, and another, and another and still more followed.  Yet, the more I dug and learned in pursuit of the answers; the closer I got to the truth, the farther away religion got from me as anything more than a story made up by men to control other men and obtain wealth and power here on Earth.

I believe when all the religons are scrutinized, one will find fewer choices then he/she once expected to find.   

Have you tried this?  Reginald and I have been composing a list lately.  It's here: http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=21  See what you think... 

Once again, thanks for your time in writing the last email and in reading this email. I do not want to pose these questions in a demeaning or cutting way. I sincerely want to know what you believe and why; and I would love to attempt to answer any other questions you had about the Christian faith.
in Peace,
A.L. Russell 

You are quite welcome.  In return, I thank you as well for your thoughtful dialogue in this discussion.  I am not offended in any way by anything you've said, nor do I wish to offend you either.  Please believe me when I say this, I know where you're coming from, having been there myself. 

These days, I have an incurable cancer, so I'm on disability and have lots of free time on my hands to sit here and research, read, think, type, make art and so on.  As long as I'm feeling up to it I'll be glad to respond, so feel free to email me anytime.

I hope for all the best to you and yours.

In Reason,
Buck Cash

Note: I was able to get this last email to A.L. Russell on 10-29-02, after some problems with their full Yahoo emailbox.  I will post any reply received here.