The following is my response to a message that I found in my e-mail December 14, 1999. I took the liberty of circulating my response to the author, a Mr. Buck Castleberry, to a few of my colleagues. I was requested to post my response on my Correspondence page.

Subj: Re: Something to think about

Date: 12/15/99 6:32:45 PM Pacific Standard Time

From: Tindrbox

December 15, 1999

Hello Mr. Castleberry,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write to me. I really enjoyed reading your letter, and have taken the liberty of sharing it with a colleague of mine, who also found it very humorous. While I would not want your kind letter to go without a response, I thought I'd share some points in return.

Noted. But the question then becomes: Why then are you so bothering?

Oh great! I eagerly await your demonstration of your error-detecting abilities, Sir!

Given the state of impoverishment of today's educational systems, your statement here is not surprising in the least. What particularly is definition of "objective" which you have in mind here? And what is that definition's source? We know that "scripture" does not offer a definition of "objective" (feel free to present one if you feel you can), and the pre-scientific priests and scribes who supposedly authored the "scripture" show no awareness for the concept. Therefore, any source you may present as the "authority" for whatever definition of "objective" you assume here, it must come from men (scholars, philosophers, pedants, etc.), which you as a believer must distrust to begin with. (How can "pitiful, woeful man" achieve any certainty on his own?) Paul warned of so-called "men's wisdom" in one of his letters to the Corinthians. Nonetheless, you are certainly free to invoke the term, but the question of which source providing its definition is clearly up to debate, even for a "believer."

You also state that "I have noticed in reading objectivism doctrines" [sic]. Which doctrines in particular did you read? How many times did you read it? How long did it take you to read them? (These questions ought to sound familiar to you.) What about those "objectivism doctrines" [sic] did you find that did not "meet the definition of objective"? (Again, the question of which definition of "objective" as mentioned above needs to be addressed for your quibbling here to have any reference whatsoever). Also, you may want to note for future's sake that the proper adjective for Objectivism is "Objectivist" - that's capital 'O' and 'i-s-t' as suffix.

So, to draw on your own reasoning in one of the sections of your own letter, "If you knew what you were talking about you would not have used the term..." "objectivism doctrines." And very aptly, I could also continue your own quote and follow up with, "That smacks of the ignorance of the mainstream [philosophies] of today." N'est-ce pas?

Subjective theory? That's quite an interesting comment you make here, Buck, especially since it is coming from a religionist (i.e., a "believer" in gods and devils). Objectivism defines metaphysical subjectivism as "the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness." I don't have time right now to go into all the errors and problems associated with this foundational view of reality (see some of the articles at my website for some insight on these - I suggest you start with my "Common Fallacies" page; read up specifically on the fallacy known as 'stolen concept'). Again, you concern yourself with the meaning of "objective" when you fail to provide a definition for it. Incidentally, it's amazing to note how little agreement there is among those *professing* themselves Christians on the matter of *objectivity*. I have corresponded with numerous individuals *professing* themselves to be Christians - as you do, Buck, and the misunderstandings of what objectivity is, how it is possible and how one can achieve it are enormous and chronic!

For instance, many have told me that "man is incapable of objectivity" - which means that such an assessment itself must not be objective, so it is moot. Others attempt to argue that objectivity depends on an individual's own attitude of indifference and detachment from his subject matter, that he should have no interest whatsoever in the outcome of his cognitive efforts, and that he should possess no value for the truth of that outcome, for interest and value are said to "skew the interpretations..." Then there are some who indeed believe objectivity is possible, but that objectivity is only possible on the grounds of their own pet god-belief - which means, objectivity is only possible if rooted on the enshrinement of the incomprehensible. Objectivism unequivocally rejects each of these positions. I imagine you may be sympathetic to one of them? After all, these are all positions I have seen various *professing* Christians assume. And, you being a *professing* Christian yourself, I'd be curious to know exactly what your position on this issue might be (assuming you are capable of articulating it).

I see. So, you know all the answers, right? If so, then what's your point? What is the purpose of your kind letter to me? Your attitude suggests you believe that you have nothing to learn here, so it is unclear exactly what your purpose is in contacting me, unless you merely intend to register your protest. If so, your protest is noted.

The "argument" you offer here (a very poor excuse of an argument at best, to be honest) is known as "Pascal's wager." Pascal's wager is one of the best ways that philosophers have devised in admitting that they have no legitimately rational reason to believe in their god-belief programs, but defend them nonetheless as if there were legitimacy to the gamble assumed to be the case. As such, it is one of the most dishonest non-arguments out there (surely you could do better, Buck!) and only bespeaks the desperation of your need for some reason to maintain the illusions constructed by the Bible's mind-games spinning themselves up in your tortured mind.

Buck, if your value for your own life is so cheaply base that you are willing to spend it in some supposed gamble which you accept as credible, then the Bible's mind-games have indeed run their course on you. However, note how the advocate of Pascal's wager must in the end be a hypocrite and a devotee of the arbitrary, for if you believe it is a bad gamble not to "believe" in "god", then on what basis do you decide which "god" is the "best gamble"? So far, you've chosen a subcult of the Christian "god." But how do you know you've chosen the *right* subcult of Christianity? Each subcult claims to have the one and true interpretation of "scripture," so how do you do you decide from amongst them? Blank out. But the problems do not stop there, for what if you are gambling on the Christian "god," but the best gamble happens to be the Muslim "god" or one of the Hindu sorts? How could you establish this? Blank out. You want the best gamble, don't you, Buck? Going by Pascal's wager, you will never really be certain of anything, will you?

Finally, your above paragraph reveals the Bible's true approach to knowledge, embodied in your statement, "I had rather be wrong and live as a child of a nonexistent God than to be wrong and face the wrath of the living God." Ayn Rand was indeed correct when she pointed out the fact that faith and force are corollaries. This is because every faith claim - by virtue of its rejection of reality - requires the threat of force to back it up. Since there are no rational arguments that can establish the existence of a ruling consciousness/deity as a fact of reality, those who advocate such "beliefs" must resort to uttering threats in order hopefully to convince others of this illusion. That is why Jesus never argued for his god-belief; he merely threatened his listeners with "eternal torment" and "damnation." But threats do not make claims true. This is one principle that is lost on the Christian. After all, it is in most cases the final clincher that lead him to decide to become a "believer" himself. I have a lot more to say on this matter, but I assume it's lost on you, Buck.

--------------------------- Citing My Interview:

It's been a long process in the brewing for some time now. I think the primary course of events that lead to my present vocation includes my experience as a Christian followed by my discovery of the Objectivist principles.

-------- Buck writes:

This is interesting. Just after quoting my statement referring to my own experience as a Christian, you assert that I "have had no experiences as a Christian." Amazing! Then you proceed to pass judgments on those belonging to the same church that I attended. And all this without knowing even one of us! You must be omniscient, Buck, to speak with such over-confidence here.

You also state, "no one has ever told you the truth..." To which I ask: Who is supposed to tell me the truth? Is not "scripture" sufficient to convey "god's" "truth" and "plan"? What would it matter if "no one has ever told [me] the truth..."? That's part of the whole point of the "new covenant," isn't it? The "believer" no longer needs to rely on the village idiot... er, priest to intercede between him and his "god," right? Isn't that the whole point of the "veil in the temple" being rent in Matt. 27:51? Hebrews chapter 9 elaborates on this point. It seems you've overlooked it, Buck. And you're quibbling over MY understanding of "scripture"?

Then, to further reveal your own oversights, you state (regarding my knowledge of the "truth"): "...and you weren't astute enough to pull it out for yourself." Why should this matter as well, Buck? After all, we learn in Proverbs 3:5 that the "believer" is not to "lean upon [his] own understanding." Or, don't you remember that?

The point is, Buck, for every point you might want to bring up from the Bible against me, I will be able to find another point from the same "scripture" to counter-act the pet "scripture" you cite. Don't you see? That's all part of the mind-game tactics!! I don't expect you to see it because you're still caught in its illusions. But you may want to think on this.

Anyhow, so much for your "large degree of certainty" here. Let's see what else you have to say.

------------------- Citing My Interview:

That depends on how one qualifies a Christian. I was brought up in a watered-down quasi-Protestant setting, where Christianity was for the most part just an afterthought. We were not church-goers by any means, and in general we did not give it any serious thought. In my early 20's, however, I became seriously involved as a Christian for under two years.

-------- Buck Writes:

Interesting that you have access to such knowledge about my experience years ago based on the few comments I have in my "interview." While it may be true that my level of indoctrination as a Christian may not be as severe as yours is now (I am not at liberty to make such comparisons, however I do suspect your level of indoctrination may exceed mine, which only makes me grateful - I could have been even worse off than I was!), it is hard to see how you can presume to dismiss my experience as a Christian as being not legitimate, especially since you were not there and you do not know me.

You do not accept that my experience was legitimate as far as my status as a Christian. That's fine. I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. However, what's odd is your conclusion, "By your own admission you never were a Christian." You write this just after quoting my statement, "In my early 20's, however, I became seriously involved as a Christian for under two years." How do you conclude that "by my own admission" I was never a Christian? While your conclusion may be that I never "really was" a Christian after all, it is hard to see how you think that my statement constitutes an "admission" to the same.

(Again, this is another mind-game device that has been identified in recent literature; it consists of twisting any statement or idea through a process of rationalization - often operating more on the subconscious level than on the conscious level - in order to construe its support of whatever pet conclusion you can devise from it in order to perpetuate the fantasy illusion of your god-belief. You make a great case study, Buck!)

Some of your other comments are completely unfounded and suggests very strongly both that the intent of your message is emotionally driven, not factually, and that you are a seriously poor judge of character. What basis do you have to state, "You thought that the principles of Christianity were met by going to church on Sunday..."? One of your beauts was the comment about "going home and eating fried chicken and watching football." If you think you are omniscient, Buck, you may want to retire your robes. I neither care much for fried chicken nor am I a sports spectator in any way. But you are free to believe what you want. I think your presumptuousness here, although quite pitiful, is rather humorous.

As for the bloody shameful guilt of the Dark Ages that you mention here, those times were times dominated by the god-belief you have chosen to defend in writing to me. You can construe this guilt as belonging to people like me all you like (again, the mind-game devices are in operation here), but you'll never be able to make such a connection stick, Buck. You can't! The Dark Ages were dark on principle. And that is just what "scripture" does to an individual: It clouds the mind and renders it completely impotent to the degree that its premises are accepted and taken seriously without question. Buck, I offer you as evidence of these facts.

And in regard to the sins of the Catholic Church, those are your problem, Buck, not mine. Deal with it.

------------------- Citing My Interview:

Extremely serious. At this time I learned the Bible - particularly the New

Testament - forwards and backwards.

-------- Buck writes:

You state: "You weren't serious enough." To the extent that this *may* be true, it is a good thing. Besides, what could possibly be your point? For the author of Proverbs, again, as I mentioned above, recommends that one not "lean upon [his] own understanding." What is the measure of seriousness that you apply in your study and application of "scripture" Buck? Did you know me when I was a Christian and measure me then with the "standard" you seem to infer here? I don't remember knowing anyone named "Buck Castleberry" when I was a practicing Christian. Where were you then??? Again, what is your point?

It's bewildering how you take such exception to the term "New Testament" as referring to the 27 installments beginning with Matthew and ending with Revelation! After all, every Bible I own (and that's quite a few, different versions, too!) heads the page before the first page of Matthew with the words "The New Testament." Not one of my translated (i.e., English) versions contains the words "covenant" or "contract" in this title page. I have two Bibles written in Russian, too, and the same applies there. So what is your point, Buck?? You yourself even refer to it as the New Testament yourself when you ask, "How many times did you read the New Testament?" Good grief! Buck, you must consider your words before you spit them out onto a page! Does your own referring to this "New Testament" as such betray in you the same "glaring ignorance" it allegedly betrays in my understanding? And to answer your question, please clarify how many times one must read the New Testament (or whatever you'd like to call it) before one can *qualify* - in your assessment - as a *Christian*? Once? Twice? Five times? 10 times? 40 times in 40 days and 40 nights? How many, Buck????? Blank out!

In regard to all the various rubrics one may assign to the collection of books and letters most commonly referred to as the "New Testament," I am quite familiar with these interpretive characterizations. So what is your point? You may very well be correct that "believers" may call the New Testament a "new covenant" or a "contract," but your conclusion that my identification of the same as the "New Testament" - which is far more common, by the way - reveals my "ignorance" of scripture, does not follow in the least. So please, Buck, clarify your point here.

As for the subject of "ignorance," Christianity is built on bones strewn of ignorance. In fact, it counts on ignorance, feeds on ignorance and fosters ignorance. As Ayn Rand so poignantly noted herself, "People who believe in God are either stupid or dishonest." Which are you, Buck?

You ask if I were Baptist. But what should this matter? Doesn't "scripture" say that "If you confess with your mouth... you shall be saved"? I don't know which subcult of Christianity is graced to have you among its membership, but I hardly see what significance that should make since the "scripture" makes no such division as "Baptist" versus "Presbyterian" or "Episcopalian" versus "Methodist" etc. Jesus himself is reported to say that "a house divided against itself shall not stand..." (Matt. 12:25). Seems to me Christianity is one of the most splintered houses on the block!

------------------- Citing My Interview:

Certainly, quite a bit actually. Eventually, I would like to devote some more serious effort to my 'testimony' and perhaps publish it.

-------- Buck writes:

It is clear that, from your indoctrinated position, you would like to see my status as a former Christian denigrated in order to preserve the illusion, to which you are so obviously prejudiced, that my knowledge of Christianity is inadequate and therefore my authority on the subjects on which I write is ill-founded. Actually, I say to this, "So what?" Your line of reasoning here calls to memory an "argument" (or evasion of one) which I fielded from one Christian, "If you were really a Christian, you'd still be a Christian!" The tendency for internal rivalrous squabbling between Christian subcults is indeed extreme, and irresolvable.

But keep something in mind here, Buck: Quite feasibly, members belonging to rival subcults of Christianity can very easily argue that your concerns here ("How many times have you read the New Testament? How long did it take you? If you knew what you were talking about you would not have used this term, new testament, to describe a collection of books and letters...") are purely formalistic in nature, while they might argue that "true Christianity" is a question of the condition of one's "heart." (My heart is quite healthy, by the way.) Nonetheless, regardless of which subcult variety you prefer - bureaucratic formality or touchy-feely churchianity - the point that is lost in this diversionary shuffle is that it's all a form of mind-game. And it appears to have you in its grip.

Well, Mr. Castleberry, it's been a pleasure to receive and consider your kind e-mail message. I really would love to hear from you again. It's been fun. You remind me of someone I used to know. I'm glad he changed. So is he.

May you get what you deserve,

_____________________________________