Letter to an Evangelist

January, 2002

Dear Evangelist,

Thanks for your response, and for sending the remarks from your friend Jeff. I have much to say in response, and I would be pleased if you forwarded a copy of my response to Jeff for his consideration.

There are a lot of things I'd like to say, but before I jump in to deal with what Jeff did say, I want you to make special note of what he did not say, or rather what he did not do in his response to my letter to you. And that is, Jeff nowhere engaged the issues which I raised in my prior message to you. He seems either to be unaware of or to ignore the points and arguments which I presented in my response to your initial correspondence to me. You mention in your own statement that your friend is responding to my letter, but he's not responding to the points I presented to you. Instead, what he's provided reads little better than an impersonal religious tract, the kind one might find on the seat of a bus or in a phone booth. I don't mind this at all, but I want you to be aware of this fact. I think it is important because the points I put forward are defensible, and, if one cannot present a refutation in response to them (and I'm assuming Jeff has had the opportunity to do this), then one concedes the debate.

Anyway, I would still like to interact with what Jeff wrote.

Jeff wrote: "There's an inherent problem with your 'philosophy of reason', which you're using to affirm who you are, while putting down the ones whom you believe are living in the state of mindlessness, otherwise known as the Christians."

For one thing, I'm not sure what Jeff means by "using to affirm who you are." I have no deficit of certainty in my knowledge of who I am. Why would Jeff even say this, when he has not met me? Perhaps I misunderstand what he means by this, so I await clarification if my reading of this point is in error.

Also, Jeff seems to think that my purpose (or one of my purposes) in writing to you is to put you down or to ridicule you. Indeed, that is not the case, and I believe I maintained a civil tone throughout my message to you. If you feel otherwise, please point out to me where my words may have been offensive or off the mark. Also, I' like you to remind Jeff that it was you who sought me out, I did not initially come to you. I was merely responding to your original message to me. Please be assured, though, that I'm very glad you have contacted me, as I am always happy to hear from people who visit my website, whether or not they agree with its content. So I'd like to encourage you (and Jeff, too) to continue our correspondence if you have questions or comments for me.

Now, suppose it were the case that I were putting you down because you're a Christian. So what? Is there any reason why this should bother you, as it apparently bothers Jeff (indeed, it's the first item on his list of things to say to me)? I think there's a larger reason why this might bother either you or Jeff, but we can delve into that at a later time. Suffice it to say, Jeff seems to think that I am about ridiculing you or putting you down, but he nowhere cites anything I've stated in my response to support this assessment of my motivations. So, it's unfortunate that he would surmise this.

Note also that Jeff seems to have some opinions about Objectivism when he says "There's an inherent problem with your 'philosophy of reason'." But nowhere in his message does he demonstrate sufficient knowledge of Objectivism to really comment, does he? I've been a student of Objectivism for more than 10 years now, and I am extremely familiar with the Philosophy of Reason. And for Jeff to be able to present a criticism of Objectivism, he'd be wise to examine Objectivism's foundations and see if there is a problem there before embarking on such a task. But nowhere does he exhibit any understanding of Objectivism's foundations. It may be the case that he's simply presupposed that Objectivism is in error in some sense, simply because it rejects any form of theism. I think this is intellectually irresponsible of Jeff, and I invite him to take some time to become more familiar with Objectivism, before he dismisses it as false or wrong in some sense.

But when Jeff does comment on what he feels is a valid criticism of Objectivism, he writes: "The problem is that your philosophy of reason by nature is a fallible concept devised by a fallible man."

This kind of "criticism" can be used against virtually any philosophy, even religious philosophies (since all religions were originated, developed, refined, endorsed and defended by men, who are fallible). However, such a criticism deliberately attempts to gain for the religious advocate an upper hand over a non-theist, as the religious advocate wants to claim divine inspiration, and therefore infallibility, on the part of his religious worldview, a supposed advantage which non-theistic philosophies do not claim. This is the pursuit of unearned validity, a supposed short-cut to authority and credibility.

But since Jeff introduced the notion of "infallibility" in his response to me, there are a few things I'd like to say before moving on.

Essentially, the desire for infallibility is merely an expression of one's rejection of reality as such (as is the case of all instances of the pursuit of the unearned). It is a desire to escape reality in favor of a fantasy, the fantasy of unquestionable authority. Man is both fallible and non-omniscient by nature, and these facts are largely part of the reason why man requires reason in the first place. Since we are capable of error (we are fallible), and since we do not possess all possible knowledge (we are non-omniscient), we need a means of identifying and validating truth. That means is reason, which is "the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses" (Ayn Rand). The desire for infallibility and omniscience, either on the part of oneself, or on the part of a supposed supernatural being, is a denial of this fact, for it is the desire for knowledge specifically without means. But knowledge without means is non-knowledge, i.e., nonsense.

Even the Christian cannot escape his own fallibility, no matter how much he desires it. Consider the following points:

I could go on listing reasons why the fallibility of man is inescapable, and that the claim to infallibility is a sham. But I think you get the point. Most importantly, like the terms 'omniscience', 'omnipotence', 'infinity', etc., the term 'infallible' is essentially invalid as a concept, when we recognize the proper, objective roots of philosophy. It is the desire for a guarantee which reality will not provide men, regardless of what fantasies they indulge and defend. Such ideas cannot stand on the basis of a rationally integrated philosophy whose standard is reason and whose point of reference is reality. Simply, such ideas have no objective referents. They are subjective notions since their basis is nothing more than the desires of a person who ignores the facts of reality.

That man is fallible should not be of any concern to anyone. If man's mind is by nature fallible, then man's mind is by nature fallible. In other words, if it is true that man's mind is fallible, then it is beyond man's control, and he cannot do anything to change this. The only value one might have for the notion of 'infallibility' would be nothing more than the license it is supposed to give those who claim it for their side to make any claim they want and assert it as truth without the need to argue for it. Such a practice assumes a very poor understanding of the nature of truth. But this does go back to what you wrote in your first message to me. Recall that you had stated, apparently in frustration, toward the end of your message, "I guess you just have to believe." Well, it seems you think that the Bible is true, simply because you want it to be true. But truth does not follow our whims like that.

What should concern you more is not your desire for the fantasy of infallibility, but your need for certainty. And your worldview, whatever it is and whatever you call it, must have an objective basis grounded in the facts of reality if your doctrines and conclusions are to achieve rational certainty. In other words, you need an incontestable certainty as your starting point. But not just any certainty will do; rather, you need a certainty which assumes no prior concepts (for if it does assume prior concepts, it could not serve as a starting point, since the concepts it assumes necessarily come prior to what you're calling a starting point).

I think it's deliciously ironic coming from a Christian to say "And there's no real uniformity in how one defines and puts this concept into real life." Now, if it is a point of criticism against Objectivism that "there's no real uniformity in how one defines and puts" its principles into practice (and I don't know how Jeff would be able to establish this contention), then this point of criticism applies exponentially to Christianity, for the history of Christianity is one marred by schism after schism, division upon division, reformation and counter-reformation. One can hardly count all the different denominations, sects, subcults, movements and counter-movements which have sprung from biblical sources and colored the landscape of Christian history, many of which in sometimes fundamental conflict with each other (e.g., Calvinism vs. Catholicism, Lutheranism vs. Anglicanism, etc.), and each claiming to have the supposed "infallibility" of the Bible on its side to back up their side of the conflict. The history of Christianity, quite frankly, is the historical consequence of its internal conflicts and disputes, and the responses some thinkers have mustered up in response to those conflicts and disputes, each pushing and pulling the face of Christianity into new shapes and interpretations. It is a religion in constant, historical flux. Is there any uniformity in Christianity? Absolutely not. Ask any two Christians a simple, straight-forward question - even on fundamental issues - and don't be surprised to get two radically different answers. So, Jeff's point here, if it can be used against Objectivism (and he has not established that it can, he has merely claimed that it can), it can be used against Christianity (and should!) by a power of 10 to the 21st (if not more)!!

Then Jeff writes: "It is a mystery to me how one can deny the objectivity of God's grace while embracing the subjectivity of one's own quote unquote logic, which seems to be the single driving force of existence in your life."

This statement is very rich, and requires a great deal of correction. Principally, Jeff misuses two concepts - 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' - in a fashion which is not too uncommon these days (thanks to the sorry state of education these days). I have corresponded and debated with literally hundreds of religious defenders, many of which were "professionals" in theology and apologetics, and such persons typically fail to grasp the meaning of these two concepts. These are extremely important terms, and I advocate that one use them with a little more understanding than Jeff appears to possess, especially when attempting to discredit a rationally integrated philosophy like Objectivism.

Contrary to Jeff's statement, I would say it's a complete mystery how anyone could mistake the notion of God or of "God's grace" as possessing any objectivity to begin with. But then again, the New Testament (particularly in the writings of Paul) places great importance on what it terms a mystery (cf. I Cor. 2:7, 15:51; Eph. 1:9, 3:3-4, 9, 5:32, 6:19; I Tim. 3:9, et al.) Note also that Jeff provides no reason why one should consider either "God" or "God's grace" to be objective, nor does he provide a clarification of what he means by 'objective' in the context in which he's asserting the term. Instead, he's taking completely for granted. Perhaps he's accepted this claim as is, just because he wants it to be the case. It is hard to conclude otherwise.

Subjectivity, or subjectivism, is essentially the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, or that in some sense reality is amenable to conscious intentions. Christianity holds that the universe (i.e., the sum total of existence) was "created" by God (i.e., by an act of consciousness). You cannot get any more subjective than this! But Christianity does not stop there, it goes on to say that reality, once it's been created, can be manipulated by the will (i.e., by a form of consciousness). In Christianity, this is known as the doctrine of miracles. Amazing things happen, such as water being turned into wine, men walking on water, and executed criminals resurrecting themselves back to life, all because some conscious desire made it so. Again, one can hardly get more subjective than this. So again, we fine another irony in Jeff's statement.

Objectivity, on the other hand, is the recognition that existence (i.e., the universe, reality), exists independent of consciousness, and that the task of consciousness is not to create or manipulate what exists, but to identify it and integrate it into a cohesive, systematic view of reality and of life (that is, if one chooses rationality over irrationality). Rationality is the volitional adherence to the facts of reality. So, if one thinks that subjectivism is wrong, one must consider the religious view of reality also to be wrong, if he is to be consistent with his own positions.

Again, these are very important concepts, and I seriously urge you and Jeff to take them seriously. Indeed, there was a time when I did not know these truths myself. You're not going to learn them in high school, and you're not going to learn them in Sunday school, either. But you can learn them, and you're now fortunate enough to have found a source which teaches these issues from a rational perspective.

Jeff also states, "Well, I I want to take this time to share what being a follower, or dare I say, lover of Christ truly means." [sic]

As a former Christian and now a seasoned critic of Christianity, I'm fully aware of how a believer might consider what it means to be a follower or "lover" of Christ. (And it should be clarified to Jeff that, where the Bible seems to prefer boy-on-boy love, I prefer boy-on-girl love, but this is just my personal preference; whatever works for Jeff in this regard is ultimately his affair.) It is interesting that Jeff should mention this in these terms, for I have an essay on my website which exposes the contradiction inherent in the notion that one loves Jesus.

In this article, I basically argue that the statement "I love Jesus" is a self-contradiction because love is one's commitment to his own values, and Jesus symbolizes the sacrifice of those same values, and these two things, the commitment to values and the sacrifice of values, are in opposition to each other. There's no way around this, even though most believers do not readily see this error, nor are they usually willing to admit to it. And when this contradiction is pointed out, the best any Christian believers seem to be able to say in response to it is "That's so stupid!" But what should be borne in mind is the fact that an expression of emotional disappointment does not constitute a rational rebuttal, nor does it undo a contradiction. Saying "That's so stupid" only means that one does not like it. It does not mean what is not liked is not true. Recently, one Christian apologist called me an ass when I pointed out some errors in Christian philosophy. But it does not bother me that some think that I am an ass. In fact, I can be an ass, and I readily admit this, but so what? This is unimportant. What's important is whether what we say can be established as truth or not. I can be an ass, and still speak the truth. This is probably what bothered this particular individual so much.

If one is genuinely committed to discovering and identifying what is true in reality, such reaction is certainly inappropriate. If one's orientation is a reality-affirming view which recognizes the objective nature of truth (i.e., which recognizes that truth does not depend on one's wishes and/or emotional reactions), then his reaction to discovering truths such as this would expectedly be one of delight and pleasure. Indeed, there is a unique pleasure to discovering new knowledge. On the premises of the Christian view, even the Christian god could not enjoy this unique pleasure, since the Christian god is said to be omniscient, and therefore there is, it is claimed, no knowledge which god could discover as new knowledge. So such a being, even if we suppose that one exists, could not enjoy such pleasure. Thus, it is good to be man. (At least, I'm glad that I am man; perhaps some people have a problem with their humanity.)

Jeff writes: "And the Christian church is indeed a long standing institution and a tradition of set good beliefs and morals."

Christianity certainly has held as a long tradition a set of beliefs and moral ideas, but simply because it has been a tradition does not make those beliefs and moral ideas good. What is the standard of good, according to the Christian religion? The standard of the good according the Christian religion is non-man, non-rational, non-real. According to Objectivism, the standard of the good is man, rationality, reality. Where does the Bible even define the concepts 'morality' and 'ethics'? Indeed, these terms are not even found anywhere in the Bible, let alone defined therein. And if any moral ideas to be found in the Bible, they certainly are not integrated into a workable system, which is what man needs.

How does Christianity even address the question, "Does man need morality?" In Christianity, it is taken for granted that man does need morality, but the Bible does not say why. What the Bible gives are threats of the use of force to "obligate" men to certain behaviors and abstinence of certain behaviors. "If you do X, you will go to hell." But this does not address man's genuine needs. It merely turns him into a slave (and I challenge both of you to find one prohibition of slavery in the Bible anywhere - none is to be found; in fact, you'll find many points at which the Bible actually condones the practice of slavery - see: I Cor. 7:21; Col. 3:22, 4:1; I Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:9; et al.).

According to Objectivism, morality is "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions - the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics [or morality], as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code" (Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13). To live, man must acquire certain values, such as food, water, shelter, warmth, comfort, happiness, enjoyment, sexual pleasure, etc. Why does he need these things? Because he faces a fundamental alternative: Existence or non-existence. If he does not take certain actions which he chooses by his own volition, he will not gain the values which he needs in order to live his life (and when an Objectivist speaks of man's life, we mean living fully, or "flourishing" - not simple subsistence). The essential unit of morality, according to Objectivism, is the concept 'value', which is something each of us act in order to gain and/or keep (such as a meal, a paycheck, or the affection of a loved one).

But on the Christian system, we find a dramatically different form of morality. It is not a morality of values and values-achievement, but precisely the opposite. Morality, according to the Christian view, is a code of non-values which guides man's choices and actions specifically to the detriment of the believer (at least, to any believer who takes Christian philosophy seriously and applies its principles consistently; few Christians today do this, so many believers often do not recognize the true nature of the morality contained in the Bible). The essential unit of Christian morality is not value, but sacrifice, which is the surrender of a higher value for the sake of a lesser value, or for a non-value. Thus, when Paul advocates that believers "present [their] bodies as a living sacrifice" (Romans 12:1), he means that the believer should be willing to surrender any value he may possess - including his own life! - for the sake of whatever whim Paul or any other mystic has in mind. Paul says that this is a "reasonable service" to expect from believers. I say, if you wish to surrender your values for the sake of lesser values or for non-value, that is your choice. I would not ask that you do this. Indeed, as an Objectivist, I encourage you to reconsider!

But notice the problem contained in the Christian view of morality. Since it is not concerned with the achievement and/or protection of values (as is the Objectivist system of morality), the Christian view of morality is naturally parasitic in nature. Why? Because it advocates the sacrifice of values, it must get those values from somewhere. On what basis do Christian believers achieve values? Well, since Christian morality is only concerned with the sacrifice of values, and not their achievement, the Christian believer must operate on a system of morality, albeit implicit to and unacknowledged believer, which is contrary to the Christian system just to acquire those values. Where Objectivist morality teaches you that you have a right to exist for your own sake, and that you must live by values, the Christian view of morality seeks to confiscate those values once they've been achieved, thus working completely against your effort to live.

And what is the payoff? Supposedly, we are told, there is an eternal life waiting for us beyond the grave. My friend, if you believe this, then I strongly advise you to beware of bridge salesmen. The Bible must sell gullibility before it can sell its program of self-sacrifice. To those who wish only to live, like myself, Christianity is a nightmarish fantasy. Most believe it because they were taught at a very young age to believe it, at an age when they knew no better and were philosophically defenseless. This is indeed the modus operandi of a parasite. And to go back to Jeff's words about what a mystery it is for non-believers to question the supposed "objectivity" of God's grace, I find it a mystery that people today, 2000 years after the supposed life and ministry of Jesus, that people still believe his words. After all, he claimed in many places that he would return during the lives of his audiences. See for instance Matt. 10:23, 24:37-25:46.

In Matthew 16:28, for instance, we find Jesus spouting off the following amazing claim: "Verily, I say unto you, There shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The Bible is so written such that any set of believers reading it will think that they belong to the "last generation" prior to the return of Jesus and the onset of apocalypse. But here, Jesus is saying that he's going to return during the lives of some of his audience members, way back in the first century AD. Well, unless one thinks that some of those audience members are still alive after 1900 years, Jesus is obviously made a liar in Matthew. Sure, believers have come up with all kinds of twisted, distorted counter-interpretations of such passages in order to "explain" them - indeed, they've had to, because they're false on the face of it - but those counter-interpretations always come in the form of "That's what it says, but that's not what it means." In other words, our leg is being pulled, and now we're being asked to buy another bridge in order to ignore the leg-pulling. You're free to believe it. I do not.

That the early church really believed that Jesus' return and the end of the world were imminent (i.e., about to happen suddenly), is evidenced in Paul's advise to you believers on the issue of whether or not to marry in I Corinthians chapter 7. Paul is so convinced that the world is about to end that he advises his readers to "seek not a wife" (v. 27), and then says "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none…" (v. 29). He then says "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better" (v. 38). Obviously, Paul preferred that believers not marry, because "he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife" (v. 33), and Paul must have been quite envious, for he suggests rather strongly that he had no wife (see vv. 7-8), and therefore enjoyed no such pleasure as a husband with a young, horny wife who demanded pleasure from him. So it is obvious that there are two issues which motivated Paul's restrained advise to abstain from marriage, namely that the world was about to end, and so believers should be concerned about "godly matters" rather than "earthly matters"; and, Paul hated pleasure.

If this is the "life" for you, Jeff, you can have it. It is not for me. I prefer to live, and enjoy my life according to my own terms, not according to the terms of some dead holy man who scraped and scurried in a long-forgotten desert.

Anyway, let's continue with some more of Jeff's message.

Jeff wrote: "Had we the believers relied solely on our own intellect or reason only to define who Christ is, we probably wouldn't have gone too far beyond the early ages of the church."

Does Jeff realize that some theologians hold that going "beyond the early ages of the church" in any capacity constitutes heresy? I recognize, perhaps as Jeff does, that there's no uniformity within Christianity on such matters. But his statement here is interesting in that he seems to overlook this fact rather carelessly. The concern which some theologians have expressed in their efforts to minimize the development of the Christian religion seems to be the fear that Christianity, like virtually any other form of philosophy, is subject to evolution. And indeed, history has shown just this, that the Christian religion has evolved so dramatically over its 2000 year history that it has virtually megamorphed into such a broad variety of offshoot religions (including Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Mennonites, etc., not to mention fringe "cults" such as the Branch Davidians [recall Waco, 1993], the "People's Church" [recall Jim Jones in Guyana, 1978], et al.), that some of them are even barely recognizable as having Christian roots. The impetus of such theologians is why there's always a strong revival of "back-to-the-Bible" movements every decade or so.

So does Jeff's concern that the modern believers' reliance on their "own intellect or reason to define who Christ is…" would not have taken them "too far beyond the early ages of the church," suggest that modern believers should be trying to move "far beyond the early ages of the church," or that these believers should rely on something other than their own "intellect or reason to define who Christ is," or both? If the latter, what is it that the believer should rely on, if not his "intellect and reason"? Should he rely on "faith"? But faith, as we've seen, is simply a euphemism for calling something true when in fact it is the believer's own emotions which compel him to make such a claim. As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't true." Believers call "faith" that declaration by which they claim that the Bible is true because they want it to be true, nothing more. One cannot replace his need for reason by wishes, fantasies and emotional trances, regardless of what Bible-believers tell you.

Wake up, before it's too late!

Jeff said: "But we have endured, or should I say God has endured as proven by the steadfastness of the men of faith we've read about who've stood up to the persecutions and oppositions of this world."

Christianity's rosters of heroes and saints have no monopoly on the number of victims of persecution and injustice throughout history. But I would tend to agree that Christians have historically tended to bring their persecutions upon themselves. After all, they have run around the world telling men that men have walked on water, that staffs have turned to snakes, that snakes have spoken, that donkeys have spoken, that dead people have risen from their graves, that blind men were cured by the saliva of a supposed holy man, that water was transformed into wine and that an executed criminal resurrected himself from the grave. And those who did not believe they either shunned, or called them heretics, or burned them at the stake for their unbelief. Today's apologists tell me that I am irrational for not believing these things. I say, they don't know what the word means.

Jeff also claims that "Christianity is not a religion." Well, perhaps one can get into debates over semantics, but even then I do not think Jeff's assertion here would have any hope of enduring scrutiny. Christianity is indeed a religion. But what is a religion? According to Objectivism, a religion is a primitive (i.e., pre-scientific, irrational) form of philosophy. What is philosophy? "Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life" (Ayn Rand, "The Chickens' Homecoming," The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, p. 107).

We can see readily how Christianity is a religion, given these definitions. Christianity does attempt to deal with the "fundamental aspects of the nature of existence" and "to provide man with a comprehensive view of life." Thus, it is apparent that Christianity is a form of philosophy in this sense. Is this form of philosophy scientific and rational? No, it is not. Christianity nowhere endorses man's reliance on his own reason, which is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses, and nowhere advocates that its claims be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Instead, the Bible clearly expects its readers to accept its grandiose, fantastic claims at face value, not on the basis of sound reasoning and argument, but on the basis of faith, which is the rejection of reason, and out of fear of the threat of force (i.e., "Believe, or go to hell"). So, we have in Christianity a form of philosophy which is primitive in nature, which means: Christianity is a religion.

So I caution Jeff to reconsider his viewpoint on this matter. He says that Christianity is "not simply about listening to the hypocrites preach on TV and on the pulpit." Does this mean that Christianity is about listening to hypocrites who do not have televised forums or pulpits? I have yet to meet a Christian who is not a hypocrite. I am convinced that one cannot be produced. Give me one person who follows the Christian religion with perfect consistency, and you'll have to show me a grave. Why? the end of Christianity is death for the sake of death. This is why Jesus came to earth, specifically to die. He did not come here to live and enjoy his life. The Christian religion holds up Jesus as the ideal man, and it is this ideal which the Christian religion expects believers to emulate.

Jeff writes, "[If] you really break it down, It's a love relationship with God our Father in Heaven through His Son Jesus Christ."

I disagree. If you break it down, we find the following philosophical issues:

In metaphysics (metaphysics is the philosophical branch which studies the nature of reality and man's nature), we find in Christianity:

• metaphysical subjectivism (the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness),
• the malevolent universe premise (the view that "created existence" has somehow "gone bad" and is "cut off" from the "creator")
• the soul-body dichotomy (that man is not an integrated being, but a divided battleground between flesh and ghost, that the "spirit" or "soul" is the real man, while his body is that enemy which mystics want him to lose),
• supernaturalism (the view that the "real reality" is "beyond this reality")
• man's "depraved nature" (the doctrine of "original sin", which is the view that man is inherently corrupt by virtue of his existence)

In epistemology (epistemology is the philosophical branch which studies the nature of knowledge and the means by which knowledge can and should be validated), we find in Christianity:

• mysticism - the acceptance of allegations or ideational content without proof or evidence, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. The varieties of mysticism include: Faith (a short-circuit of the mind; advocated explicitly in most western religions), 'revelation' (the 'apotheosis' of emotionalism), prayer (an alleged means of communicating with the 'ruling consciousness' posited in the religious metaphysical doctrines), any form of 'just knowing' (this includes 'instincts', touted by many moderns) et al. (there are many alleged means of knowledge which philosophers influenced by religious thought have elevated into their theories as viable epistemological doctrine - all variations of mysticism). Mysticism in epistemology is the direct consequence of subjectivism in metaphysics: if reality finds its source in a form of consciousness, as we find in the Christian doctrine of "creation", then knowledge and truth must therefore find its source also in the whims of consciousness, specifically a consciousness without awareness of existence independent of itself (since, according to metaphysical subjectivism, there is no existence independent of consciousness, and all of this reduces down to divine solipsism).

In ethics (ethics, or morality, is the philosophical branch which deals with the discovery and definition of a code of values which guides man's choices and actions), we find in Christianity:

• Self-sacrifice - This includes both altruism and pietism. The essential here is: sacrifice. Sacrifice is the surrender of a higher value for the sake of a lesser value of for the sake of a non-value. In the case of religion, we have pietism, which advocates that believers sacrifice their values to 'god'; in the secular counterpart, we have altruism, which advocates that members of society sacrifice themselves to each other. Religious ethics usually advocate altruism in conjunction and in subordination to its pious emphasis.

In politics (politics is the branch of philosophy which applies a philosophy's moral/ethical principles to interpersonal relationships), we find in Christianity:

• Collectivism - the subjugation of the individual to the group; the dispensation of man's individuality and personal autonomy. Religion is infamous for dividing men into two opposing collectives: the Chosen versus the Damned. Collectivism is the political result of the advocacy of sacrificial ethics, identified above. When individuals of a society sacrifice themselves to each other en masse, the result is a social chaos which precludes individual rights, the primary of which is man's right to exist for his own sake. All religious and secular tyrannies are made possible by social ramifications of sacrificial ethics.

So, contrary to what Jeff says, when you break it down, Christianity is a tired, unworkable philosophy which is opposed to man's life and rationality from its very anti-reality basis. Believers frequently prefer to describe their religion in terms of a "love relationship" with their imagined deity. But this is a feel-good ploy intended deliberately to conceal the true nature of Christianity. The purpose of such descriptors is to induce believers to evade reality and truth. Don't fall for it!

Then Jeff himself identifies the true roots of Christianity when he says, "It all starts with faith…" So here we have it, "it all starts with faith." But what is faith? Faith is essentially the acceptance of allegations (claims) without proof and contrary to reason. People who accept things on faith believe them simply because they want to believe them. There is no reason, there is no reference to reality, there is no loyalty to the facts of reality, there is no objectivity. There is only emotion and whim in faith. If the claims of religion were rational (i.e., if they could be established by means of reason), then there would be no need to assert the notion of faith, would there?

In fact, the Bible itself makes no bones about the fact that it views emotion as the foundation of knowledge. For we find in Proverbs 1:7 the dead giveaway: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Fear is an emotion. But fear, it is said here, is the "beginning" or starting point to knowledge. But what is an emotion? An emotion is a reaction to knowledge, not the prerequisite to knowledge. And this can be demonstrated in any instance of an emotional reaction to something.

Suppose you come home after a good day's work, and you feel particularly good about the day and your productivity. Your emotions are positive and enthusiastic, in spite of your exhaustion from a day of hard effort. Soon after you get home you get a call. It is a woman's voice which you have never heard. She tells you she is a nurse at a nearby hospital. Immediately, you're becoming alarmed. "Why is this nurse calling me? What's wrong?" She asks if you are the son of a woman whose name is that of your mother. "Yes, I am!" Your heart starts to race, and you're emotions become edgy and frenetic. "What's wrong?" And the nurse explains, "Well, she's been in an auto accident." Here's some new knowledge introduced to you.

What happens to your emotions? Immediately, they react. They are not guiding what comes next, they are not validating the knowledge, they are reacting to the knowledge you are now learning. And right now, you're emotions are fearful, extremely concerned, consternated, piqued even. You're imagining your mother in surgery, intensive care, or worse, dead on arrival. Your emotions are off the scale, all because of this new knowledge that your mother's been in an auto accident.

Then the nurse says, "Don't worry, she's okay, she's just got a few bruises, no broken limbs, and she's asked me to call you to come down to pick her up." And now what happens to your emotions? Suddenly, you experience, with the introduction of yet new knowledge ("she's okay"), a tremendous sigh of relief.

You can see how this happens in any instance when you have an emotion, be it fear, happiness, frustration, elation, joy, anger, love, hatred, etc. The emotions we experience are our reaction against new knowledge as measured against our values. Since you value your mother, you're very concerned about any threat to her, since she's someone you value very much, and any threat to your values is perceived ultimately as a threat to you and your well-being. Your emotions follow as a natural result.

But the author of Proverbs did not recognize this (or, if he did, he deliberately ignored it, and wanted you to ignore it, too). The Bible holds that emotions come first, and then knowledge. Again, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." But this is false. No emotion can serve as the starting point to knowledge. Indeed, we need some knowledge, both of our values (e.g., "I value my mother") and of circumstances in reality ("my mother's been in an accident, but she's okay") in order for emotions to occur. Consider an infant who is approached by a big bear. The infant has no knowledge of the threat that the bear poses to it. It is not afraid. The infant simply looks at the bear with big, wondrous eyes. Later, as the child learns, however implicitly, that such entities pose a threat to it, he will then experience the fear. But in order for him to experience such fear, he must have some knowledge, even if it is implicit and not well understood to the child. Thus, knowledge is a prerequisite to fear and any other emotion, not the other way around as the Bible would have us accept.

The Christian religion must lead to such reversals, since it is ultimately founded on a reversal. Namely, that ultimate reversal is the reversal of the relationship of consciousness to existence. According to Christianity, existence depends on consciousness. If this premise is accepted, then it follows that consciousness must dictate what reality is and can or should be. Consciousness is thus seen as metaphysically active: It creates existence (cf. the doctrine of creation) and manipulates the identity of those things which do exist (cf. the doctrine of miracles). These reversals are explicit in the Christian religion, and the Christian religion is impossible without the acceptance of such reversals. They are contrary to reality.

According to Objectivism, existence exists independent of consciousness. This fact is implicit any time I assert a claim about reality. If I say that Kansas City is the capital of the United States, is it true because I say so? Is reality dependent upon my conscious desires? Does my assertion that Kansas City is the capital of the United States change the fact that Washington D.C., and not Kansas City, is the actual capital of the United States? No, it does not change this fact. No act of consciousness can simply alter reality by whim. Indeed, if I assert such a claim, you will say either that I am mistaken, that I am lying, or that I am simply disconnecting from reality, and you would be right. Why? Because of the principle of the primacy of existence: existence exists independent of consciousness.

Jeff says that belief in Christianity also starts with "a conscious choice to transcend the boundaries of this society mired in sin and pride."

Well, there are many issues here which need to be unpacked. For one thing, one does not need to embrace a religion in order to "transcend the boundaries of this society." One need merely to check out by any means of evasion. But where does this get you? It puts you out of touch with those with whom you can trade your effort for values which they produce. If you had no grocery stores, no Mervyns, no Walgreen's, no place to go to work, no electric and utility companies, no sanitation companies, and none of the other benefits of living in society, how would you live? Indeed, if you want to "transcend the boundaries of this society" and go live in a jungle or on a patch of arctic ice, you're certainly free to do this. But why?

If by "transcend the boundaries of this society" you mean to live without conforming to its norms and accepted codes, because you have a philosophical dispute with those norms and codes, you do not need to leave the society, nor do you need to embrace a form of mysticism (such as Christianity). Indeed, part of the problem with the norms and social codes of our society is that they are deeply mired in the anti-rationality of mysticism. Recall that religion has had thousands of years of influence on the development of the west, and in some ways the west has not recovered fully from the Dark Ages. Indeed, if you have genuine philosophical qualms with the society in which you live, then I advocate you identify in explicit terms what the nature of your dispute with those norms and codes is by a process of reason, and not by the evasion of "faith" in the supernatural, and then proceed to discover a means by which you can still live in that society (in order to reap its benefits without contradicting your own principles, which embracing a religious view will lead to), and work towards improving it somehow (such as I do, by making available my essays on the worldwide web). A form of positive activism as opposed to simply checking your mind at the door of a church so that you can lap up the package-deals and reversals which the religious view of the world has for you, is far more preferable, it seems to me.

And lastly, you seem to have a problem with pride. But what is it precisely that you're rebelling against here? And why? It is well known that in the Christian religion the sin of pride is said to be the worst of all sins. All forms of mysticism, Christian or otherwise, are deeply opposed to man's selfishness. But why? What is man's selfishness? Selfishness is the individual's prerogative to consider himself as the primary beneficiary of his own choices and actions, as the primary beneficiary of his own morality. A lot of people in this world will have a problem with you if you should consider yourself as the primary beneficiary of your own actions. Why? Because they want to be the primary beneficiary of your actions. Indeed, they want you to sacrifice your values for their sakes. And they'll sell you a religion in order to coax you into a life of practicing such sacrifice.

Remember: Those who advocate the morality of self-sacrifice, always intend to benefit from your sacrifice when you obey their commandments to sacrifice, even if they deny this, even if they will not admit this. Why else would they demand that you sacrifice? They say that you should sacrifice your values for your own good! But this is a blatant contradiction. If your purpose were to act on behalf of yourself as the primary beneficiary of your action, what would you need to sacrifice for? Blank out. There is no answer to this. The mystics cannot answer this. Why? Because their moral philosophy is by nature a self-contradiction, since it is asserted in denial of man's nature as a rational, living being which needs values in order to live.

Here is what Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, had to say about the virtue of Pride in her novel, Atlas Shrugged:

So, when you protest another man's pride, you protest your own nature as being capable of rationality and your need for values produced by your own effort. When you protest another man's pride, you acknowledge that you do not consider your own existence to be worthy of the action it takes to sustain it. When you protest another man's pride, you announce to the world that you resent your own need for self-esteem, and that you hope never to achieve it. When you protest another man's pride, you harm only yourself, and you supply the only evidence needed to determine that you are a pursuer of the unearned, and that it is your own guilt which you allow to disable your intellect.

Rand also wrote of pride the following:

So, when you resent another man for his right to the pride of character he has earned, you resent the fact that such a man is not willing to accept "the role of a sacrificial animal" and that he rejects "any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty," as Christianity explicitly teaches through its ideal of Jesus.

What does the Christian hold as the ideal condition of man? It holds that man's ideal condition is that of humility, which is the condition of a moral slave to others. Have no mind of your own, but seek instead "the mind of Christ," and attempt to substitute your own capacity for moral judgment with the judgments of someone who has claimed superiority over your mind, who claims to own you and your mind, who claims to know better because he is not you, which you must accept because you are depraved because you exist.

Some Christians will say that their religion's intolerance of man's pride is better understood as a prohibition of arrogance. But how are they defining arrogance here? If by arrogance they mean the same thing Rand means by pride, then the above points all still apply. But if by arrogance one means the presumption of superiority on the basis of prestige, then we're back to the Christian rejecting the very thing which his philosophy claims on its own behalf: the unearned in terms of moral authority. Again, I must quote Rand:

Christianity's lust for the unearned is seen most explicitly in two of its fundamental religious doctrines. First is the doctrine of "original sin" or "the fall of Man" or "the fall of Adam." It is by the fall of Adam "from grace" in the Garden of Eden that all men are said to "inherit" guilt, and therefore damnation. We see this view clearly expressed in Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Here Paul extrapolates what he takes to be the sin of one man and by this condemns all men. Notwithstanding that such conflation of guilt from one man to all men constitutes a fallacy known as non sequitur (i.e., it does not follow from the [supposed] fact that if one man is guilty, then all men are therefore guilty), Paul's doctrine of hatred for man must be accepted by ignoring or rejecting the fact that moral transgression is a product of an individual's choices and actions, not a matter of his birthright as Paul assumes. Thus, he denies the very nature of morality by condemning all men as guilty by virtue of their existence as men. This is the doctrine of unearned guilt, and the Christian believer accepts it without evidence to spite himself, and its only support is its parasitic reliance on the believer's own impoverished self-esteem.

The other expression of Christianity's lust for the unearned is what I call the desire for unearned redemption. This is found in the New Testament doctrine of redemption by Jesus' supposed "atoning action" on the cross. It is by the doctrine of unearned redemption that believers think that their guilt can be washed from them by the actions of others. But what kind of action is required of another person to wash them of the unearned guilt they've accepted? Is it a virtuous course of action which accomplishes this "atonement"? No, not at all. Indeed, it is a vicious action which is required in order to achieve this "atonement" of the unearned guilt which the believer is expected to accept. The believer is taught specifically to expect to gain from the suffering and loss of others through the Christian doctrine of "atonement."

The vicious nature of the Christian doctrine of unearned redemption was no better expressed to me than a T-shirt I saw one summer. On the T-shirt was the hideous picture of an open hand with a large nail through its palm and blood dripping from its wound. Beneath this grotesque image were the words "HIS PAIN, OUR GAIN." With these words, in such sequence, I must admit there is no better way to capture the essence of this most despicable doctrine of unearned redemption so crucial to Christianity. It is a most primitive, cannibalistic and parasitic doctrine indeed!

In regard to these two expressions of Christianity's lust for the unearned, Rand addressed the doctrine of "original sin" in the following:

In regard to the doctrine of unearned redemption, Rand had the following to say:

So you see, in the doctrine of unearned guilt, we have the reversal of accepting guilt for man's virtues, not for his vices, and in the doctrine of unearned redemption, we have the reversal of sacrificing the virtuous for the sake of the vicious.

And Jeff wants me to accept this hideous philosophy?

I will not.

May those who accept such irrationality get what they deserve.

Then Jeff writes: "Christianity is not the opiate of the mind as written by Karl Marx…"

Actually, Marx said that the Christian religion was the "opiate of the masses," which is clearly an assessment stemming from Marx's own explicitly collectivistic premises. Since I do not grant any validity to collectivism as Marx defended, I cannot agree with his statement. A society does not accept a set of religious beliefs on behalf of the individual. Indeed, an individual may in fact live in a society dominated by religious belief (as in the case of America, albeit the dominance of the Christian religion in America is diluted and more or less an afterthought in most contexts), but his acceptance of a religious philosophy, be it the one in domination or one opposed to it, is a matter of his own choice. So if one accepts a religious view of the world, he has only himself to blame in the end.

But whether or not Christianity is an opiate of the individual's mind, as Jeff here rephrases Marx's comment, there is some plausibility to such a view if we recognize that Christianity is designed to pacify the mind of the individual who has accepted the unearned guilt so integral to the Christian view of man. Should one accept this unearned guilt, then he will likely either panic himself into a never-ending cycle of frenzy and desperation, or mask that panic by marinating his mind with the devices of the evangelistic mind-game of the Bible, and thus assuming the pretense that his guilt is "forgiven" and that the "ransom" for his soul has been paid.

Jeff continues: "…nor [is Christianity] a conspiracy to strip reason or free will from man."

Well, given what I've exposed in Christianity thus far, you'd have a hard time proving this to me. The Christian religion is not about enabling an individual to think for himself according to his own reason. Indeed, the Christian religion teaches him to seek a substitute for his own reason, to accept a huge package-deal mired in reversals from their very philosophical inception in order to stifle his reason, purpose and self-esteem. Neither reason, purpose nor self-esteem are Christian virtues. Indeed, they are selfish virtues of the rational individual, and Christianity is by design a philosophical declaration of war against these virtues, and the man who embraces them.

Jeff writes that, "In fact as Christians, we have a freedom unlike anything this world has to offer."

But what is the nature of this supposed freedom? It is nothing more than the liberation of one's mind from the constraints of reality and truth. It is the supposed "freedom" to transcend facts and replace them in one's mind with ideas completely alien to reality. The desire for such "freedom" is nothing more than a resentment of the fact that existence exists, that consciousness does not control reality, and that one's life requires that he achieve his own values by his own efforts (thus breeding a cyclical dependence on and desire for the unearned, both in matter and in spirit). Such a "freedom" can only be a value to those who hate themselves and the reality they are a part of.

The real test of this assessment is to determine whether one would seek such "freedom" if instead of rejecting reality and resenting the constraints of rationality, one embraces the facts that existence exists independent of his whims and desires, that his life is his own and that his mind must conform to the facts of reality in order to identify them and determine truth. By this correction, one recognizes that he is free in reality to identify and pursue those values which he is willing to earn by his own effort. The supposed "freedom" which Christians say they are granted by becoming believers actually robs them of the freedom which a rational philosophy equips man to achieve by making him a slave to the unearned and a dependent on the sacrifices of others. The so-called "freedom" or "liberty in Christ" is a mirage which the founders of Christianity erected in order to cloud the believer's recognition of these facts.

Jeff says that this freedom is the "Freedom from our own reliance of our own imperfections."

I think what he meant to say here was "freedom from our own reliance on our own imperfections." But who relies on imperfection as such in the first place? Does he? Again, this is one's own choice, whether or not one relies on what considers imperfect.

But at root here I believe Jeff's desire for such "freedom" from one's own imperfections amounts, again, to a rejection or resentment of his own nature as a man. Embracing a religious view does not make one perfect. Indeed, Jeff's statement itself required a grammatical correction in order to make it clearer, so he is not now perfect despite his embrace of the Christian religion (indeed, he is still man, not god-man), and one can argue that he's still relying on his imperfect use of English in order to convey what he considers to be a virtue of his belief in Christian theism. So, even he has not achieved the freedom he boasts here. It seems that the only way to achieve the kind of freedom which Jeff clearly desires is just to curl up and die. Indeed, it is through death that one ultimately achieves "freedom" from the harrows of this life.

Jeff says that this "freedom" is "Freedom from our own sinful and depraved nature."

Well, perhaps Jeff should speak for himself. "Sin" and "depravity" are moral issues, and therefore issues conditional upon personal choice. Perhaps Jeff has made sinful and depraved choices in his life, and has consequently suffered so intensely from the resulting guilt that he thinks he needs the prison of Christian belief in order to make amends for his immoral choices and actions. I cannot speak for him. But he cannot speak for me, either. I am neither sinful nor depraved, no matter what some mystic claims.

I must emphasize here that I neither seek nor accept the unearned, either in values, or in guilt. Furthermore, if by "sin" and "depravity" the believer means to my choice of happiness in my life, then he will only succeed in convincing me that Christianity is not a worldview conducive to personal fulfillment and happiness, and therefore that it is a worldview unfit for me. I for one desire the freedom necessary to live and enjoy my life according to my own terms, not freedom from that which gives me joy in life.

I think Jeff should re-think his view of the supposed "freedom" which he thinks he enjoys as a Christian believer. At root, it is a very dishonest way to try to sell his religion.

Jeff says: "When a man becomes 'involved' with Christ, it is by his own free will."

Essentially, I do agree with this statement. One chooses whether or not to adopt a particular philosophical view, because philosophy which one practices is a matter of choice. But Jeff's view here is certainly not shared by all Christians.

Jeff's statement above, that becoming a Christian is a matter of one's own free will, conforms especially to the third point of Arminianism, according to this glossary, which is the view that man has "inherent will to respond to grace." Should Jeff espouse this view which he repeats here in some churches, he would be scorned for the sin of heresy and eventually kicked out if he did not repent.

Then Jeff states: "It's not reason or logic that sustain him [the believer] to do so [i.e., to accept and participate in one's involvement with Christ]."

Again, I agree. The Christian belief is certainly not a matter of reason and logic.

Jeff says that this involvement is by "faith, love, hope, peace, gentleness and kindness."

I agree that the Christian belief is a matter of faith, which means: It is a matter of throwing one's mind to mystic winds and accepting what mystic preachers claim apart from evidence and against rationality. This much has been demonstrated throughout the foregoing in this paper.

But notice how Jeff wants to couple the natural affections, "love, hope, peace, gentleness and kindness" with the matter of faith, as if these passions were not possible outside the context of Christian religious belief. Obviously this assumption is false. For I am a man of reason, not a man of faith, and I am not a Christian believer in any sense (indeed, I thoroughly reject the Christian religion as a body of lies and falsehoods), and I am enormously capable of "love, hope, peace, gentleness and kindness." Indeed, my love, my hopes, my peace, my gentleness and my kindness may in fact be much more sincere than that of any Christian, since my passions are honestly built squarely on my own temperament as a rational individual who does not seek nor accept the unearned, either in value nor in guilt.

My motivation to love is not the fear of threats or damnation or the judgment of others. Indeed, where Jesus says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (Matt. 7:1) - an injunction which is clearly intended to cause one to fear the judgment of others, I say along with Rand, "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" ("How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 72.) Nor do I love indiscriminately, without reference to the character and choices of other men. I do not love moochers, thugs, secondhanders or criminals because they are my neighbors, as Jesus would have me do. Indeed, I do not love because someone commands me to. No one can. There is no such thing as love which can be commanded by others. Whatever it is that Christians think they are feeling when they think they are loving in response to Jesus' commandment to love, it is not love!

Similarly, my hopes are reason-based, because my aspirations are reality-based. I do not seek that which is impossible in reality, so my hopes are not for the fantasy of life beyond the grave. Since I have rational confidence in my own mind, I am able to achieve the kind of hope that only a man of unborrowed self-esteem can achieve: the hope that my life will continue to be the growing success which it is according to my ideals. And this success is measured by the values which I identify, pursue and achieve in life by my own effort, at my own expense, not at the expense of others.

As for peace, I would agree with Rand when she wrote: "Serenity comes from the ability to say 'Yes' to existence. Courage comes from the ability to say 'No' to the wrong choices made by others." (Ayn Rand, "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 27.)

My gentleness and kindness follow as a result of the facts that I do not seek the unearned, that I do not expect to gain at the expense of others (as opposed to the Christian believer's expectation to gain at the expense of Christ), and that I recognize every man's potential for rationality and also his right to exist for his own sake, and therefore that every man is a potential trader with whom I may exchange values voluntarily. My view of the universe is not one riddled with irrational fears and unearned guilt, so my gentleness and kindness as a person are natural extensions of my personality, not some condition which must be effected in me by some supposed external source. If it were such, I could not call them an extension of my own sincerity.

So even here, I would implore Jeff to check his premises.

When Jeff says that "These are elements so powerful and so real that it [they?] surpasses any theories and hypothesis that dictates our minds, because the fruit of the Spirit operates at a much deeper level," I must ask him which "theories and hypothesis" he has in mind here. Perhaps what he means is that these powerful elements are beyond human understanding? If this is what he intended to say, then I must disagree, for above I have provided some understanding to these issues which I would not be surprised if he himself had not recognized before. Again, be careful with non sequitur inferences: Simply because you do not understand something at this time, it does not mean that the matter in question is by nature beyond understanding (though it may never be understood on the premises you've accepted), nor does it mean that no other individual can understand them (especially if his understanding is grounded in a rational philosophical view as opposed to an irrational philosophical view).

Calling these attributes, love, hope, peace, gentleness and kindness, "the fruit of the Spirit" is philosophically contentless, if by "Spirit" Jeff means some supernatural form of consciousness violently interfering in the choices and actions of men. It is by such sloganeering that legitimate human issues and emotions are hijacked by mystics and consigned to non-reality. This is vicious in that its intention is to remove man from the fruits of his own choices and actions. I love because I choose to love. I have hope because I choose to have hope. I achieve peace because I choose to achieve it. I am kind and gentle because I choose to. No mystic can reverse these facts.

And in regard to these passions, love, hope, peace, gentleness and kindness, Jeff says that they "are at the heart -- the very core of our being."

If they are at the very heart or very core of our being as men, then they are natural affections, and need no explanation from "beyond reality," and are completely compatible with a non-theistic worldview such as Objectivism, as I explained above. If they are at the core of our being, then Christian theism has no monopoly over them, they are free for believer and infidel alike to experience and enjoy. However, my studied opinion on these matters is that the Christian believer cannot experience and enjoy these passions without contradiction.

Jeff then says, "As Christians we do not do good for our sake or for sake."

Although this statement is incomplete (is this a result of Jeff's reliance on his own imperfections here, from which he earlier said that his belief in Christianity is supposed to liberate him?), it is completely dishonest, and I suspect that Jeff knows this.

Even on Christianity's own premises, the believer does what Christian doctrines say are good works specifically in the interest of keeping in good graces with the ruling consciousness, specifically to elude his all-consuming wrath which the believer is taught to fear, and to pacify or evade his own guilt. Would the believer be obedient to the Bible's instructions if he believed that God was going to send him to hell regardless of his beliefs, if he were convinced that there was nothing he could do to reverse God's condemnation to send him to hell? Would the believer forego all the pleasures of this world which his beloved faith prohibits if there were no chance for him to escape such punishment? Of course not. You only obey (or pretend to obey) and "do good" because you think in the end you're going to benefit by having done so. And statements like this which Jeff gives us are clearly dishonest in this regard. He does good for his own sake, and he and everyone else knows it.

Now, Objectivism will not fault a man for acting specifically in his own interest, as Christianity will do. In fact, according to Objectivism, man, to be moral, must consider him first, as the primary beneficiary of his own actions. What Objectivism rejects is the dishonesty exhibited in statements such as Jeff's claim above. Objectivism also rejects the view that one must act for the sake of others as a duty or virtue. There is no virtue in sacrificing oneself, and therefore one never has an obligation to do so. Indeed, since sacrifice is specifically the surrender of values, it is immoral according to Objectivism.

Besides, one does not need to be a Christian in order to do things for others, whether he does so with no thought of personal gain, or whether he takes pleasure and does so out of personal enjoyment and love for those on behalf of whom he acts (which is personal gain). To act on behalf of others with no desire or expectation of personal gain is called altruism; it is the morality of the second-hander, for it teaches one to sacrifice to others while instilling the tacit hope that others will sacrifice for him. In such a way, it is a complete reversal of what morality should be, in that it reduces its practitioners to parasites who depend precisely on one another's losses.

Jeff says of doing good that "We do it as an act of love for our fellow man and as an extension of God's hand over this world."

Well, which is it, are you doing good "as an act of love for our fellow man" or are you doing it "as an extension of God's hand over this world"? We already know from above that you have selfish motivations for doing the good (because you want a ticket to heaven). I cannot blame you for acting selfishly; indeed, I advocate selfishness myself. However, your selfishness is not guided by rationality, but by irrationality, as should be clear by now.

Also, if God is omnipotent, why would God need His believers to act "as an extension of [His] hand over this world"? This is essentially claiming that you as a believer are doing God's work in the world. I appreciate that you might prefer to think of your daily activity in accordance with such thoughts, but be honest: It does not make sense. It may feel good to think this, but it is an unnecessary idea, and completely false (since all god-belief is false). Indeed, as I mentioned above, it is possible to do good while not being a "believer" in religious ideas. The religious part is completely superfluous, and there are good reasons to think why it will only stand in the way of the progress of the good. History is full of examples of this, particularly when religion and state were one and the same (such as when the Catholic Church dominated much of Europe). Progress toward the civilization we have come to take for granted, where you can choose your own course to pursue in life, was severely impeded when governments and religious leaders were willing accomplices.

It's interesting how believers will claim that God is "moving" in the world, and point to their own actions as evidence of God's "moving" to support such a claim. Seems to me that believers commonly mistake themselves for the supernatural being (or non-being) which they worship. Indeed, where the Bible says that man was created in God's image, it is actually the other way around: primitive men fashioned their gods after their own image. That is why the God of the Bible behaves like a feisty, ever-unsatisfied Arab. If God is immutable (i.e., does not change), and God is angry, then God is immutably angry (i.e., eternally miserable). If this is what you want to worship, it is your choice. If you're going to indulge in a fantasy which you want to run your life, why not dream up something more pleasant than biblegod?

Jeff says that through Christianity, "We transform into something more than our human potential would allow -- a person w/ a true soul in complete with the Holy Spirit."

Rather, I would say you transform into something less than you should humanly tolerate. But this is your choice. By embracing a religion on faith, you deny the potential rationality of your nature as man. By embracing a religion which endorses belief in the supernatural, you must reject reality and assert the primacy of your emotions over reason. By embracing a religion which advocates a morality of self-sacrifice, you can only enjoy values to the extent that you're willing to contradict the essence of your religious views. These are hard things to admit to oneself when he is in the throes of a confessional investment. But sometimes the truth hurts. Indeed, I wish someone told me about Objectivism when I was a believer. I would not have wasted so much of my time!

Jeff says that the "bottom line [is that] God is real and He's alive today and forever."

But nowhere has Jeff established this claim. I've examined virtually every argument out there to establish such claims as valid inferences, and they all collapse into fallacy. (And this can be shown.) Indeed, if there's a "bottom line" to be identified here, it's that the Christian believes that Christianity is true because he wants to. Basically, Jeff saying that Christianity is true simply because he wants it to be true. I say it is time for people to reexamine this position, because it is not only invalid, it is also destructive to man, since faith and force are always corollaries. Just look at the history of any society ruled by mysticism, when religion is unchecked by a constitution designed to protect the individual's right to exist for his own sake, when religion and state are the same (as in the Dark Ages).

The "bottom line" I that Jeff has a belief without reference to reality, and that he has committed himself to this belief, in spite of its lack of reference to reality. The question we should ask, is: Why? If he attempts to provide a reason, then he contradicts himself, for the basis of reason is the metaphysical primacy of existence, and the basis his faith commitment is its contradiction, which is the metaphysical primacy of consciousness. What precisely does he hope to achieve?

Jeff says that "God's love is real, and one simply needs to accept Him into his heart as he recognizes his own imperfections."

With all due respect, it is understood that you believe these things. But nowhere do you establish them as believable claims. We recognize that they have no credibility when we recognize the essential root grounding such claims, which is the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. I can recognize my own imperfections, and decide either to live with them (in some cases, I am fine with this, such as the fact that I will always have to wear eyeglasses in order to see), or I can try to improve them (such as my ability to play my guitar, or speak a foreign language). Beyond this, I don't know what you're driving at when you use the vague, unqualified term "imperfections." Zero-worship will not eliminate your imperfections. But even on this note, Jesus supposedly said (according to Matt. 6:48), "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." If Jeff or any other believer is walking around the earth and still possesses imperfections of any nature, then I submit that he does so in violation of this commandment.

But on this note, we must ask something: If there are imperfections in the universe, whom are we to blame? According to Christianity, God created the universe. But God is supposedly perfect. Does a perfect God create imperfection? Apologists have struggled with this question for centuries, and they cannot get around it. Why? Because they have heaped onto the source of all existence the quality of divine perfection, a perfection which supposedly is beyond even our understanding (thus it is incomprehensible, and on this very premise one cannot consider it knowledge). Apologists turn to point to man as the culprit for any flaw in the universe, arguing that God equipped man with free will, which in turn man misused. But in order to misuse his free will, man must not have had perfect judgment. And if man did not have perfect judgment to guide his use of his free will perfectly, then man could not have been made perfect. Therefore, God created imperfection, and this contradicts the claim that God is perfect. So again, we have another hoax played on the believer.

This problem is further exacerbated when we try to integrate the claim that God is omniscient into the mix. For if God is omniscient, and therefore knows everything present, past and future, then God must have known that His creation would run afoul after He created it. So He knowingly created imperfection. The problem is compounded yet again when we try to integrate the claim that God is omnipotent into the mix. For if God is omnipotent, He could have prevented His mistake. But since He did not, we must infer from this that God does not possess perfect judgment, for in spite of His alleged omniscience and omnipotence, He still created an imperfect creation. Either way you slice it, this Christian God is imperfect.

And the Christian God's batting average is 0 for 3, for not only did he create an imperfect Adam (strike one), He failed to correct the problem when He sent the global flood, for sin and imperfection prevailed after the flood too (strike two). And when God tried the third and final time to correct the problem by sending His Son to die on the cross, we find that sin and imperfection still ruled the day forever after (strike 3). Seems the Christian God has some serious explaining to do. And nothing in the Bible will do.

I'm glad these are not my problems! They don't have to be yours, either. They are yours by choice, even by your own admission.

Jeff reasons, "Why do we embrace Him? Because we are bound to a path that can only lead to destruction w/o Him."

I have heard this claim before as well. I don't believe it. Again, it can only be accepted as true on a pile of errors, reversals, package-deals and stolen concepts. My life was a miserable failure while I was a believer. Since I shrugged off the shackles of Christianity and began to guide my life by reason, my life has been an astounding success.

Of course, the intent of such statements as the one Jeff gives us here is to intimidate his audience into accepting his claims. No one wants to take a path which leads to destruction. And if such a claim is accepted as valid, it may indeed compel credulity. But it should be borne in mind that intimidation is not a means of validation. If Jeff wants us to accept his claims here, he will have to provide an argument to his desired conclusions. He has not given this. I challenge him to present such an argument. But I caution him to avoid the errors we've seen him commit so carelessly throughout his religious tract. Indeed, I'm convinced that he cannot avoid the stolen concepts and logical reversals which are provide the foundations of the religious view of the world.

My suspicion is that he was not aware of these problems before he read anything I've written here, assuming he's read it to begin with.

Jeff writes, "What is hell? It is an eternal separation from the perfect and loving God. And yes, in case, you didn't know… our soul is eternal. And there is a reality after our material reality here on earth."

If Jeff has an argument by which he can establish the supposed eternal afterlife of the soul, then he should present it. Otherwise, we have yet another religiously motivated faith claim, and as such it bears no credibility. Indeed, there are very good reasons to reject the claim that the soul or man's consciousness will survive the death of his body. For one thing, there is no evidence to support this claim. Again, the onus of proof is upon him who asserts the positive. "The soul is eternal" is a positive claim, and Jeff nowhere meets his obligation to prove it. But in addition to this, if we recognize the fact that consciousness requires a means, and that the means of man's consciousness is through his body (e.g., via his brain and nervous system), then we must infer that man's consciousness is dependent upon our bodies. And once our bodies stop functioning (i.e., when they die), then so does our consciousness. This chain of inference does not contradict anything which we know in reality. In fact, it is in complete agreement with what we know of our bodies and of reality. Can we test whether or not our consciousness is dependent upon our bodies? Sure. Drink a bottle of wine on an empty stomach sometime, and see what happens to your perception of time. It will alter. Observe how this alters your control of your motor functions - you will find that your coordination is gone, that your speech will be slurred, and that you cannot focus on a thought very well. These are sufficient reasons to contend that the soul (i.e., man's consciousness) is not eternal, but that it dies with the body.

Jeff is free to put forward any argument to the contrary. I'm more than ready for it. So please feel free. Let's debate it.

Jeff writes: "If we did not have a soul, we would not have conscience or moral beliefs, or our drive, passion, even hunger to seek out the truth."

I am not contesting the claim that man has a soul. I'm contesting that the nature of man's soul is not what the religionist says it is. The doctrine of the transmigration of the soul (i.e., that the soul survives the death of man's body and "lives eternally" either in heaven or hell), is an expression of the soul-body dichotomy, a fallacy which many forms of philosophy have assume carelessly as a result of the religious view of reality. Let's see what Ayn Rand has to say of this error in identification:

So, you see the motivation which is found at the root of the doctrine of the soul-body dichotomy: the urge to surrender one's capacity for reason.

Why should anyone want to do this?

Jeff claims, "And my friend, soul will not perish even when our bodies do."

See above.

Here is a valid argument:

Please try to refute it.

Let's move on.

Jeff writes: "However as we acknowledge the existance of the soul, the problem still remains.. our soul is tainted -- imperfect. But God is perfect and He's the way out from the invisible bonds that holds us to the limitations of our own human potential, which is the path that leads to death." [sic]

Whew! Jeff lifts quite a heavy claim here. But nowhere does he argue for the truth he supposes it to possess. Why is Jeff in this habit of asserting such extraordinary claims when apparently he is not willing to argue for their supposed truth? Are they true because he claims them?

Please see the sections linked above so that I do not have to repeat myself here. It would only be tiresome for everyone reading this, let alone the one writing it!

As for "the path that leads to death," please name one Christian believer who has not died. Just name one. If you name yourself or any other Christian who is living, are you saying that this believer will never die?

It would be a first.

Man lives. Then man dies. This is a fact. My advise is: Don't run away from it, learn to live with it.

Jeff writes: "So one can't help but choose the path of life as shown by our loving Christ."

Jeff says that "Being a Christian is not white-washing of your soul to achieve a certain façade."

This depends on to whom that façade is intended to be presented. Certainly it is true that many self-professing Christians have claimed to be Christians with the specific purpose to "fit in" with a certain crowd. Claiming that you're a Christian grants may grant a person access to some social circles. This is undeniable. And true, many more or less sincere believers have seen this and detest it as well. But can it be that believers in general run to Christianity in order to conceal their own guilt from themselves? I think there's some plausibility to this hypothesis, given the nature of Christianity as a parasitic form of philosophy. It is undeniable that Christianity stipulates that all men are guilty (even though none have been brought before a court; we just have first-century mysticism and an ancient fable to explain this). So every believer must deep down consider himself guilty.

Few believers are willing to admit this chronic, perpetuating guilt, because they think that something is fundamentally wrong with their spiritual life. To admit it is to acknowledge its existence, and to acknowledge its existence is to invite the question as to its nature. But in fact, where the believer thinks there is something wrong with him, it's actually the case that something is right: he is guilty because one cannot evade guilt, whether that guilt is legitimately earned or accepted without warrant, without contradiction. And this contradiction will not go away so long as the biblical premises are still in place. Hence, it is like a pebble in the shoe, and it simply serves to keep the believer invested in the devotional program of the Bible.

So, if there is a façade, to which Jeff rightly alludes, it is a façade which the believer erects before one's own eyes. That the façade serves to conceal from others the faults they're intended to cover, comes as an added bonus. It is all part of the biblical effort to rob a man of his self.

Jeff concludes with the following points: "It's about embracing the perfection and divine love that will ultimately make us complete. And we do this because we love Him with all our soul, mind, and strength. We do this for him because of His gift of Eternal Life and His Eternal Love for us."

I close with a few quotes from Ayn Rand and her philosophical heir, Leonard Peikoff:

If you've read up to this point, then you've read a lot further than I expected. I ask that you consider what I have had to say here. I know there's a lot, but you can print this paper out and keep it, and look at it again after some weeks or months have gone by. I do not expect what you've read here to magically change your mind about the religious ideas you've accepted. But if there's any hope for reason left in you, I hope I've helped to spark it back to life.

Kind regards,

Anton Thorn