I feel sorry for you. Your hatred of God is blinding you to the best things in life. You would be much more happy if you let go of hatred and embraced the one true God of love.

You're making quite a few assumptions here. First, I don't hate God any more than I hate Odin, Zeus, or, for that matter, Peter Pan. Second, following from the first, I don't have any hatred to let go of. And third, I'm already happy -- why should I mess with it?

The proof that Jesus is the son of God is abundant, as is the proof that the universe and everything in it is God's creation.

We'll get to this a little later. Congratulations, though, on being the first person to both say that to us and actually try and present some evidence.

Satan can twist the weak minds of you atheists and all the members of other religions, but some of us can still see the truth.

I'd be very interested to know how you are so sure that we are the ones whose minds are being twisted by Satan. There are a lot more atheists and people of other religions than there are of you. And since so many of your thoughts and ideas test the bounds of reason, I'd guess that you're the one being supernaturally deceived if anyone is.

There's plenty of evidence for the divinity of Jesus, even a quick Google search will provide you with absolute proof.

Okay: I did a search for "evidence for the divinity of Jesus" with Google. The top six sites were three that had no arguments that were in any way compelling or that I hadn't heard dozens of times before, one advertising a book on Amazon, one on Jesus from an Islamic perspective, and Infidels.org. I don't see any absolute proof staring me in the face yet. And, of course, there are plenty of pro-atheist sites (and pro-religion-other-than-yours sites) to be found online.

Evidence that proves that the life of Jesus was witnessed and recorded accurately by the people who knew him.

I haven't seen that evidence. The Gospels don't even agree on what Jesus' last words were, and you'd think, apologetics aside, that would be a pretty important thing to get down accurately and in whole.

Evidence that the Bible is perfect in every way...

Scholars don't even agree on how Mark ends. Is that perfection?

...and that it has predicted many events, including the times we are living through now.

I've never heard a Biblical prediction that related to modern times that wasn't either so full of dubious interpretation or word games that it was worthless, so vague that it didn't prove anything, or downright wrong.

Evidence that the universe could not have existed through natural means, that only a creator God could have created the universe,...

Having ready copious books and essays by creationists and intelligent design proponents, I have to say that evidence is, at this point, uncompelling at best.

...and that it was created as described in Genesis.

The creation stories in Genesis don't even agree on the order in which creatures were created. That's not much basis for an argument for accuracy.

All you need to do is look and have faith, this is your one chance for salvation. Death could come at any time, the end of this world could be coming soon, how ready will you be to meet your creator?

If there is a creator, I'm completely ready to meet him. I can say that I've led an honest and, to the best of my ability, good life. If that's not good enough, then the problem is with the creator, not with me.

At the end of this post I will provide some links that should convince anyone who hasn't totally closed their mind to reason.

Perhaps I should clarify the reasons that unbelievers are sent to Hell and the reason that I consider them all immoral. You don't seem to understand Christianity at all, not surprising as anyone who understands Christianity will see that it is truth. Rather than being an unfair punishment by a cruel God, Hell is a choice that people make and it is nothing but what they deserve.

You're not the first to write to me and say this. I have yet to understand how those without the opportunity to become Christians "chose" not to be. I also don't understand how torturing someone for all eternity because he was unconvinced of the truth of a certain religion is just. Remember that there are plenty of religions that you yourself aren't convinced are true, and if any of them are, you might be in trouble down the line.

The Bible teaches that nobody is worthy of heaven, not even the best person in the world. Compared with God, an absolutely perfect being, Hitler and Gandi are both infinitely vile, neither is fit to be in the presence of God. That's why the old atheist cliche you bring up by mentioning "good" non-Christians is meaningless. Only the blood of Christ can possibly be sufficient to wash away your sins. Nothing else can possibly allow you to join God without polluting heaven with your sinful human nature. This is the heart of the Christian religion, the sacrifice of God himself for your sins. No greater gift could ever be given, it proves once and for all that God loves us beyond the human capacity to comprehend love.

Yet still some people reject God's wonderful gift, the gift of salvation and eternal life. You deserve Hell fire for mocking God's mercy and being so ungrateful when he has given us so much more than we could ever deserve.

I'm not mocking God's mercy. If there's an all-powerful, infinitely good God, I have so much respect for Him that I can't imagine he operates in as arbitrary, capricious, and, frankly, conceited manner as you describe. I think it's much more likely that you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, if you want to go back to your "deceived by Satan" point, don't you think it would be quite Satanic to promote a religion that downplays the value of being good? That'd be pretty clever of Old Scratch, and quite a joke on God, eh?

Everyone commits sins that are worthy of eternal damnation, even the best people in the world. I've certainly commited disgusting sins and I'm sure you have also.

No, I haven't -- unless you've got a really, really low threshold for "disgusting."

Can you honestly claim that you've never lusted after a woman who isn't your wife?

Can you honestly claim that you've never assumed someone else was a man? I've noticed that sexism and fundamentalist religious thinking often go hand in hand, but that's beside the point because, from a Biblical perspective, devaluing women isn't a sin.

Or that you've never told a lie or been disobedient to your parents?

And are you telling me that under God's law it's never right to tell an untruth or that one should always obey one's parents? If so, then God's rules are, frankly, immoral. If the Nazis ask you if you are hiding Jews in your attic, lie. If your parent is a pedophile, run away.

You may think that those are insignificant crimes, but under God's laws in the old testament many of those "minor sins" were punished by death!

Sure, and slavery was fine, and women had to go away during their time of month, and it was okay to kill your enemy's babies and keep their virgin daughters for yourself, but don't eat a goat that was boiled in its mother's milk.

Do you really think that God would have ordered that homosexuals, adulterers, etc. be stoned to death if their immoral actions could simply be forgiven without a miraculous sacrifice?

This whole "miraculous sacrifice" thing is still bizarre to me. Let's say that 2,100 years ago you came up to me and said, "There is so much awful sin in the world. How can God forgive these moral acts?" I can't imagine my response would be anything like, "Well, why doesn't he have a kid and arrange it so his kid gets nailed to something and dies?" Wouldn't you think I was nuts if I suggested such a thing? And are you saying that God was incapable of forgiving people without doing this bizarre son-killing thing first? If so, you test the limits of the definition of "infinite."

It's a sick and twisted world where so much sin is tollerated, but heaven will be pure and free from evil.

And free from honest, inquisitive, moral non-Christians, it seems.

Salvation is through faith, not through works, the Bible is clear about this. You need to leave your sinful life behind, embrace Christ and only then can you live a truly good life and enter heaven.

I'm sure you have read as have I of historical figures who led murderous, warlike lives, keeping in mind that they would be baptized before they died so it would all be okay. This just doesn't sound like a system set up by a moral god, it sounds like a Mafioso's excuse.

Psuedo-Christian cults and wishy-washy liberal Christians may interpret this differently, but the Bible shows that they are decieved by lies.

The Catholic Church believes that good non-Christians can get into heaven. I don't see Catholocism as a pseudo-Christian cult any more than your belief system, and I wouldn't call opponents of contraception and abortion "wishy-washy liberals."

Here is what the Bible says about unbelievers:

'The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: There is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.' - Psalm 53:1-3

I don't say there is no god, I just don't have any reason to believe there is a god. And while we're on Bible quotes, there's also a Psalm about killing babies. We sell a t-shirt about it.

Maybe now you can see why there's nothing unfair about "nice" people being sent to Hell for their rejection of their redeemer.

Sorry -- still unconvinced. In fact, more unconvinced than ever.

Please read these links and try to open your heart to your lord:

Okay, now we're getting somewhere...

http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/PastLife.html

This is the story of an atheist who became a Christian. He was raised an atheist, badly educated about religion, and unhappy. Frankly, his story is uncompelling to one who was not raised an atheist, has read the Bible in a variety of translations, and is more interested in trying to find out the truth than emotionally reacting to the foolish lack of knowledge of those around me.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1762

This is the argument for the existence of God based on the need for an original cause of the universe because science says that every effect has to have a cause. It is a flawed argument for two reasons. 1) Quantum physics allows for effects without causes. 2) You can't say that everything must have a cause and then make God an exception without giving a good reason that the universe couldn't be an exception instead.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

An essay on the veracity of the Gospels. It's pretty good, but doesn't prove its point. If the Gospels were eye-witness testimonies, then why did Matthew and Luke copy so much from Mark? And why do descriptions of some events become more detailed as the writing gets further from the time they happened? And there are many things in the Gospels which may have been written because the authors "knew" they were true through faith instead of because they were witnessed (hence the many fulfillments of "prophecies" from the Old Testament).

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

Another prime-mover argument.

http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/booklets/bprop1.html

All about Biblical prophecies. The prophecies are so general that it is certainly possible for them to have "come true" without any divine interference or magical foreknowledge.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/TheRealJesusOfHistory/TheRealJesusOfHistory.html

Since you attempted to answer my post point by point I'll do the same with yours.

Thanks! I appreciate your taking the time.

"You're making quite a few assumptions here. First, I don't hate God any more than I hate Odin, Zeus, or, for that matter, Peter Pan. Second, following from the first, I don't have any hatred to let go of."

I am not making an assumption as you clearly do hate God, that is clear from this site.

I don't understand that statement. How can I hate something that I don't believe exists?

Bringing up false gods and fictional characters is just a red herring as unlike God they do not exist.

That was kind of the point -- I only disbelieve in one more god than you do. We're really quite alike on that score.

Deep down everyone knows that their creator exists, it's only hatred and the lies of Satan that stops all people from seeing that.

I have no idea how you can make a statement that deep down I know a creator exists. I feel that it would be just as correct for me to say that deep down you know that there is no god, and that the reason you so strongly defend you beliefs is that they shield you from the truth that death will be the end of your existence. I would not make such a statement because I am giving you the benefit of assuming you know your own mind.

"And third, I'm already happy -- why should I mess with it?"

You can not be truly happy without knowing God.

I suppose it is possible that I would be happier if I believed magic was real, and if that is what you mean then this is true. If you mean something more metaphysical, then I cannot judge your statement because it is outside the realm of my experience.

Even if you were happy during your short time on Earth, think of the eternity you will spend in the afterlife. An infinite time of either torture or paradise is infinitely more important than the life you have now.

I agree that if there is an afterlife, and that if it the only eternal options are torture or paradise, then it is more important than my current life. However, you have not convinced me that either this afterlife exists or that my status in it is contingent on my joining a particular philosophy instead of living what I am calling a good life.

"I'd be very interested to know how you are so sure that we are the ones whose minds are being twisted by Satan."

I know I'm not being deceived because I know for sure that I follow the one true God. The Bible is clear about this and is supported by a vast amount of evidence.

Since you believe in the possibility of thoughts being twisted by an outside force, I can't see how you can think yourself immune just because you agree with your own beliefs. If Satan were manipulating your thoughts you would believe that you were following the true god and that there were all manner of supporting evidence.

"I don't see any absolute proof staring me in the face yet."

There are none so blind as those you will not see...

The evidence is there if you are willing to find it and open your heart to the truth.

An atheist might say the same thing to you.

Your comments on inconsistencies in Genesis and the Gospels are purely based on ignorance. There are numerous sites dedicated to Christian Apologetics which can answer all your criticisms of Christianity if you care to look.

Among my hundreds of books on the Bible and Christianity, there are more than a few that discuss Biblical inconsistencies. Even the most scholarly often say that there are parts that do not agree, or that different parts of Genesis (for example) came from different traditions or were written by different people and then redacted. Biblical inerrancy, so far as I can see, just plain doesn't exist without a lot of technical nitpicking and apologetics. That goes nowhere toward making me think the book is divine.

For example, a quick search turned up this answer your problem with Genesis: www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcript/creationaccounts/creationaccounts.html

This is an interesting article that states that reading Genesis in its original language helps clear up the apparent inconsistencies. I am a bit surprised that you take this tactic, as I thought that it was Mormons who believed that the Bible was only accurate so far as it was translated correctly. In any case, I am no Bible scholar and cannot comment on readings in original languages. I will, however, say that if one needs to go to this much effort to understand the Biblical creation account, I would much rather stick with the scientific view of the subject since it makes so much more sense.

"If there is a creator, I'm completely ready to meet him. I can say that I've led an honest and, to the best of my ability, good life. If that's not good enough, then the problem is with the creator, not with me."

Typical of the arrogance I see in a lot of atheists. You act as if you are as good as God himself...

Heck no! If there is a god and he is infinitely good, then I am clearly not as good as he. The problem comes down to how we are defining "good." I am defining it as including the provision, "would not consign to eternal torture someone who did their honest best to live a moral life."

...it's obviously true that atheism is really a worship of the self.

No, that's the Church of Satan. Just ask them.

The fact is that your creator is infinitely better than you, your best can never possibly be good enough to make you worthy of living on God's heaven.

Every time you say something like this, I can't help thinking that if it's true it must be a design flaw. Perhaps I should speak with my manufacturer? But for a less flip response: I don't understand how an infinitely moral being would consider creatures he made to be unworthy of his presence just because they are less moral than he. That seems conceited, and I'm assuming you don't think God conceited. I also don't see how believing your particular philosophy makes one worthy. Honestly, it just seems like a complete non sequitor.

"You're not the first to write to me and say this. I have yet to understand how those without the opportunity to become Christians "chose" not to be."

God gives everyone the evidence that they need, as Romans 1:20 says, there is no excuse.

I cannot imagine any possible way for a 10th century inhabitant of North America to become a Christian of the type you describe. Why isn't that an excuse? Also, I believe that Romans 1:20 says that there is no excuse because evidence of God's existence is clearly seen, and obviously I disagree with that statement.

"I also don't understand how torturing someone for all eternity because he was unconvinced of the truth of a certain religion is just."

It's not a matter of being unconvinced of a certain religion, it's a matter of hating God and working for Satan.

That sounds a lot like "he that is not with me is against me" (as Jesus said). I can understand your (incorrect) belief that I hate god and work for Satan, but I fail to see how you think Catholics, for example, hate him, as you apparently do. God, as you describe him, seems to have a very low threshold of hate.

Despite all the evidence and the fact that deep down you know him to be your creator, you spit in God's face by denying him.

I don't deny God. I'd have to believe in God to deny him. For example, I don't deny Joseph the 16th century Italian monk who loved cabbage and hated monkeys because I have no reason to believe that there was such a person. And please stop telling me what I know "deep down" without evidence for your position -- I'm barely resisting saying such things to you in return.

God deserves your love, he loves you beyond any human love, yet you show him hatred.

Again with the black and white. Continuing my example, I don't hate Joseph the Monk, I'm just not convinced that he exists.

You can't honestly expect him to let you spend eternity by his side after you have shown him so much ingratitude and disrespect?

Insert same argument about the monk here. And while we're at it, if there is a creator, how is it being disrespectful to him to use the brain that he created and gave me to the best of my ability?

If someone attacked you in the most horrible ways, if they were vile and immoral in every way, would you still allow them into your house to live with your family?

Are we assuming I'm infinitely good and loving? And if not, is my only alternative to consign the person to eternal torture? I prefer to think that there is room for some middle ground. Also, I don't appreciate being told that I'm immoral in every way. Is it not possible that I'm at least a little moral? (I'm guessing you'll say, "No," but would like to be disappointed in this.)

"No, on the contrary all it would prove is that God has set up what is possibly the most bizarre means of getting into heaven ever conceived. In order to be "worthy" to spend eternity in a perfect place, it is not relevant whether you are as decent and selfless as Mother Theresa (who, as we will see soon, you believe went straight to Hell), but one must instead make one's self believe a specific set of magic stories, even if reason dictates otherwise

I will say that this system is great for one thing: It lets a certain group of Christians lead as immoral lives as they like and still feel like they can rightfully say that they are going straight to Heaven when they die, while all the evil, unsaved "good" people are damned for eternity. You might want to note the number of gang members who wear crosses or have religious tattoos while considering this."

You don't understand this at all.

Apparently.

Anyone who is truly a Christian will act in a Christian way, they will seek to emulate Christ to the best of their abilities. Anyone who acts in an un-Christian way is clearly not a Christian at all.

If that is true, it does make more sense. But it still has Mother Theresa going to hell because she isn't really a Christian. Can you see how that might not make me feel any better about the morality you propose? At least it also means that the vast majority of people who say they are Christians are not really Christians and are therefore not going to heaven. For example, many people who say they are Christians don't follow the Biblical suggestion to judge not, condemn not, and forgive. Not that I'm saying you're judging me by saying I'm immoral, condemning me by saying I'm going to hell, or suggesting that God will not forgive me for "hating him" by being philosophically incorrect.

Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian really is, in fact most "Christians" are fakes who are as sure to enter Hell as any atheist. Look at how many so-called-Christians support abortionist baby murders or Homosexual "rights", or accept anti-Christian science such as evolution. In fact many true Christians refer to them as "functional atheists" because of their disregard for Christian morality.

Under your incredibly narrow definition of Christian, you're right, these people are not Christians. In regard to evolution, by the way, I find it sad that God as you describe him would condemn someone to hell for drawing reasonable conclusions from the mountains of evidence that he (at the very least) allowed to be strewn across the globe. I hope he does not also condemn me for using the findings of modern medicine instead of, for example, using the Biblical procedure for identifying and curing leprosy.

"And what's this about the sacrifice of God for my sins? If Jesus was God, then he can't die so it was no sacrifice. If Jesus wasn't god, then you are a polytheist (which I'm sure you would say you aren't). So there's no greater gift than God pretending to be killed?"

You clearly don't understand the concept of the divinity of Jesus at all. Since this information is easily available I have to assume that you are willfully ignorant about this. You show your hatred of God when you dismiss this sacrifice in such an insulting way.

"How about the gift of letting people into Heaven because they're really nice and try to help others? That seems greater to me, and it makes more sense."

No matter how good someone can be they are still filth compared with the pure good of God. The Bible makes it very clear that everyone is a sinner and that the wages of sin is death. No man is truly good and no amount of human goodness can compare with the infinite perfection of God. If you allow someone into heaven just because they did a few "good" things you might as well let in Hitler and Stalin. Even the best non-believer is still a pawn of Satan at heart.

It appears that you are missing my point. I'm not saying that Mother Theresa is as worthy of going to heaven as you, I'm saying that I have trouble understanding how it is more good for God to send her to hell than to forgive her for the sin of being Catholic. Again, a definition of good from your perspective would be handy.

Again a quick search would have answered your complaints about the "unfairness" of Hell: www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-only-way.html

This is another explanation of the rationale behind the "only through Jesus" way of thinking, but it still takes as a given a whole pile of philosophical concepts that I'm not convinced of.

or

www.christiananswers.net/gospel/goodperson.html

"Can you honestly claim that you've never assumed someone else was a man? I've noticed that sexism and fundamentalist religious thinking often go hand in hand, but that's beside the point because, from a Biblical perspective, devaluing women isn't a sin."

I'm sorry if I incorrectly assumed that you were a man, but you seem to be evading my point here as gender is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point is that we have all committed sins that deserve to be punished with Hell.

I was indeed avoiding your point for a moment, but I addressed it in my next response. It is a pet peeve of mine that many Christians think relegating women to a lesser status is not a sin, but that telling a "little white lie" is.

I know that many false Christians believe that only people who commit crimes such as murder deserve Hell, but Jesus tells us that anyone who becomes angry with someone, or calls someone a fool is committing murder in their heart. In the same way lusting after someone is adultery of the heart.

Anyone who "calls someone a fool is committing murder in their heart" -- isn't saying that I've totally closed my mind to reason (as you did in your previous e-mail) calling me a fool? If not, then it seems you're splitting hairs. If so, then either your statement that a real Christian will naturally behave in a Christian manner is false or you are not a Christian by your definition because you have committed murder.

Can you honestly say that you have never become angry, never said an unkind word, never lusted after someone? I have certainly committed all those sins and like you I deserve to burn in Hell for them. Yet God is so merciful that he will wash away those sins and allow us into paradise as long as we turn away from Satan.

"And are you telling me that under God's law it's never right to tell an untruth or that one should always obey one's parents? If so, then God's rules are, frankly, immoral. If the Nazis ask you if you are hiding Jews in your attic, lie. If your parent is a pedophile, run away."

Two wrongs do not make a right...

There's a rather obvious statement that could be made here about correcting the wrong of tempting someone who didn't know good from evil and the wrong of allowing an innocent man to be crucified, but that discussion would get ugly (and will be solved when you define "good" in any case).

...but I agree that even God's morality is not so rigid that there may not be any exceptions even in the most extreme circumstances.

I'd like to hear a detailed explanation of the ten commandments that tells me where the limits on this kind of thing are, even in general terms. In the Bible, there seems to be an allowance for telling lies to gain advantage in time of war, so I assume you'd consider that a situation in which there is flexibility. But this kind of thing makes it really tough for people like myself to believe that Christians are not practicing morality of convenience when they condemn someone to hell for telling a white lie and then kill something because they are hungry. Most fundamentalist Christians I have met are not vegetarians, by the way. This has always puzzled me.

Are you claiming that you have only broken God's laws in circumstances like those? You have never disobeyed your parents or lied over something trivial?

No, I'm not claiming that, and not just because I don't believe that God's laws exist. Before I became an atheist I did all sorts of things that I would now consider immoral. These days, I try and live up to a higher standard. I still ignore the first couple of commandments (depending on how you number them), however.

"Sure, and slavery was fine, and women had to go away during their time of month, and it was okay to kill your enemy's babies and keep their virgin daughters for yourself, but don't eat a goat that was boiled in its mother's milk."

You are taking these out of context. There are reasons why Christians do not have to follow all of the Old Testament rules today, and there were good reasons why God made those rules at the time.

"I'm sure you have read as have I of historical figures who led murderous, warlike lives, keeping in mind that they would be baptized before they died so it would all be okay. This just doesn't sound like a system set up by a moral god, it sounds like a Mafioso's excuse."

Only if they had a true conversion and truly turned their lives over to Christ would they receive his grace. Just going through a ceremony and saying some empty words will not save someone from Hell.

"The Catholic Church believes that good non-Christians can get into heaven. I don't see Catholicism as a pseudo-Christian cult any more than your belief system, and I wouldn't call opponents of contraception and abortion "wishy-washy liberals.""

While I agree with the Catholic stance on some issues, I do not consider Catholics to be Christians.

By your definition of "Christian," that makes sense. However, coming from the perspective of someone outside religion, I can see no philosophical reason to prefer your version of Christianity to Catholicism. Certainly Catholics have as large a mountain of evidence for their point of view as you do -- the biggest differences being that they allow tradition to form their beliefs as well as the Bible and are not Biblical literalists. The difference between you and them seems analogous to the difference between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

"I don't say there is no god, I just don't have any reason to believe there is a god."

Deep down you know that God exists. Whether you deny him because you like to live an immoral life without a moral framework, or because Satan has twisted your mind I do not know, but it is a fact.

Again with my deep-down beliefs. Where do you get this from? And how can you say that I have no moral framework? At best, it seems that you could say that my morality is wrong, unless you are defining "moral framework" in such a way that only people with your beliefs have one. Of course, doing so would make the phrase far less useful.

Also, I think these articles make some good points about why atheism is not a valid position to take:

These are actually pretty good...

http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm

http://www.carm.org/atheism/lackbelief.htm

This argument is interesting but flawed in that it denies the possibility of behavior that scientific-minded people exhibit constantly. It essentially says that you can't really not have an opinion about a subject just because there is not enough information. It also says that an atheist must either be denying the existence of a god he deep-down knows is real or saying with certainty that there is no possible proof for god's existence. It's a bad argument because there is a tenable middle ground -- not having been convinced that there is a god.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions.htm

You should read the rest of that website, I don't agree with everything on it but it answers a lot of arguments from skeptics.

I will not bother posting links to any more sites, you can search for them yourself if you are genuinely seeking the truth. But I will recommend the best book I've found for proving that Jesus is the son of God: The Case for Christ written by former atheist Lee Strobel. There is an interview with him here: http://www.zondervanchurchsource.com/instrobel3.htm I would strongly recommend that you read his wonderful book with an open heart.