(In reference to this page)

1) I think Humphreys is correct below while kingdavid avoids responding to KH charge of anachronism

If Christ refers to suffering then his figure of speech should be translated today as "take up your electric chair" or "take up your gas chamber". 2000 years ago cross and crucifixion was defamatory and denigrating mode of execution. Surely it was a slip of Christ's tongue or more properly of some christian scribe.

2) I am astonished that you use kingdavid as your nome de plume. Not only did King David never exist, but ible scribes, like in their "translations" Jerusalem Bible of 1956, de-hitlerized the David of Kings James and Syriac Bibles, and turned him into later-day-public works director ala FDR in 2 Sam 12:31 at the time of the very begining of the Iron Age.  King David giving to arabs american super-computers (i.e. iron tools) and giving them huge amounts of rare hardwoods in semidesert palestine to burn in brickkilns

Myron

Myron,

I'm honestly not comprehending what the argument is that Humphreys is making. He seems to be saying that the idea of Jesus' crucifixion didn't exist in the first century, therefore any references to it had to be anachronisms. But what's his evidence that it didn't exist in the first century? Paul refers to it around 54 AD, so how could it be an anachronism from several decades later? If you're reading his argument another way that I'm not seeing, could you clue me in?

As for my name, it's actually not a reference to the Biblical King David, but has to do with two stories I wrote several years ago for my daughters, in which our family were all medieval royalty. Most of the members of my family use the character names from the story as our screen names.

Dear David,

I must congratulate you for being essentially a good and honest and fair man and Christian; You wrote:

-----
quoting Ken Humphreys:
Was Saint Paul an unabashed liar? From this verse in Romans it would appear so:/

'For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?' (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

However in context Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come" (that is, from God's judgement). But like Paul we can "take the passage captive" to make a point.
---

I applaud Humphreys here for reading the situation correctly. Most non-Christians who reference this passage either accidentally or purposefully take it out of context. And he is also correct that some Christians also "take the passage captive" and use it to justify telling lies, and those who do are wrong to do so.

Most of people are unlike you including Kenneth and Holocaustians:

- Ken sees nothing good in Christianity and any religion.

- This is like the anti-Holocaust Revisionist sites (e.g. nizkor.com) which never ever see anything good in Holocaust revisionism (e.g. in sites such as air-photo.com or codoh.com or ihr.org)

I was devout Catholic until about 5 years ago without the slightest doubt, attending masses every Sunday at the local Ukrainian Catholic Church (under the egis of Vatican), until I was struck by opposing renditions of 2 Sam 12:31 about the holocausts created by King David who was redone surreptitiously into FDR by Jews-pleasing Dominincans in the Jerusalem Bible (1956)

Three years ago when I reed Revelations I was done with my 60 years of Christianity.

Coming back to bashing Ken: it is irresponsible for him to see only BAD things in religions. There is no doubt that Christianity did a lot of BAD things but it has also done a lot of good. For the last 2000 years it was a potent anti-anxiety medication, it was a cover-up for homosexuality male and female, it tempered alcoholism, spread of venerial diseases, PROVIDED HOPE and peace of mind FOR THE SIMPLEMINDED and metaphysically inclined . Especially during last century, it got involved into charitable works. Thus as V. Lenin aptly said or repeated, Religion is an opium for the masses.

And imagine world without morphine sulfate! The only effective pain killer would be a bang with wooden mallet to a head swaddled in blankets.

As is, I side with Ken and thanks to you for correcting him where he needs corrections

Dear David,

I will try explain once more:

Crucifixion was a deprecating type of death and punishment, and not an equivalent of "innocent" and common suffering. Even after the crucifixion of Christ, this type of punishment remained ignomous. Thus Christ could not tell to his listeners take up your gas chamber, or gallow, or tar and feathers because such teaching would imply that his listeners are common criminals or revolutionaries.

More importantly, please explain 250,000 deaths from Tsunami and this "mercy" of the Merciful God.

David, you ask "Okay, but can you point me to where God did something which clearly didn't work out for the best in the long run? Or anything which suggests that a miracle that God performed was inadequate for His purposes?"

After stereotyping and exterminating virtually all people and mostly innocent animals, Noahs daughers made their father drunk and engaged him in illicit sex (actually incest). This means, and I have several thousand years to prove it to you, that Noahs Flood did not improve mankind a bit...Unsatisfied with Tsunami, the nasty Lord in a fit of anger gave us Kashimir earthquake as an encore.

Will anybody convert because of Tsunami or Kashmir?? I doubt it.

But I will, with great interest, read your answer

Myron

Crucifixion was a deprecating type of death and punishment, and not an equivalent of "innocent" and common suffering. Even after the crucifixion of Christ, this type of punishment remained ignomous. Thus Christ could not tell to his listeners take up your gas chamber, or gallow, or tar and feathers because such teaching would imply that his listeners are common criminals or revolutionaries.

Or that they would be perceived as such, which they were. Jesus (at least per the story) knew that He would end up on the cross and that His followers would be persecuted for merely following Him, so His making a statement like that, while His followers at the time might have been puzzled by it, would not have to be an anachronism.

More importantly, please explain 250,000 deaths from Tsunami and this "mercy" of the Merciful God.

Okay. An earthquake that measured 8.9 on the Richter Scale of the West Coast on Northern Sumatra set off a series of other earthquakes lasting 12 hours, which led to the tsunami, which struck areas sufficiently populated that around 250,000 deaths were the result. God didn't cause it. It wasn't any kind of judgment. It was just a natural disaster. As for God's mercy, those who were forgiven for their sins were admitted into Heaven despite their not having earned it. I call that mercy.

David, you ask "Okay, but can you point me to where God did something which clearly didn't work out for the best in the long run? Or anything which suggests that a miracle that God performed was inadequate for His purposes?"

After stereotyping and exterminating virtually all people and mostly innocent animals, Noahs daughers made their father drunk and engaged him in illicit sex (actually incest). This means, and I have several thousand years to prove it to you, that Noahs Flood did not improve mankind a bit...

First of all, I take the Noah flood story as a myth, not history, which makes the question moot. But supposing hypothetically that it happened, the world before the flood was described as being "filled with violence". There is much violence in this world, to be sure, but I would hardly say it is filled with it. I have lived 38 years so far and not once been the victim of a violent crime. Neither has my wife or any of my children, parents, or siblings. Others have not been so lucky, to be sure. But the majority of people don't die violent deaths in this world, or ever commit a violent crime. It hardly seems filled with violence to me.

Unsatisfied with Tsunami, the nasty Lord in a fit of anger gave as Kashimir earthquake as an encore.

Your opinion, not mine. I don't believe that natural disasters are generally caused by God.

Ecclesiastes 9:12: For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Will anybody convert because of Tsunami or Kashmir?? I doubt it.

Maybe, maybe not. But the Tsunami and Kashmir weren't about converting people, either way.

Peace,

David

Dear "David"

You wrote:

Okay, but can you point me to where God did something which clearly didn't work out for the best in the long run? Or anything which suggests that a miracle that God performed was inadequate for His purposes?

and this:

The Israelites were the people from whom the Savior for billions of people would arise, so their preservation was essential.

You essentially say that Savior "arose" and carried out his miracles and ministry, so the "preservation" - i.e. salvation of billions - would take place.

And you must admit that all His efforts were for nothing, because great majority of people for the last 2000 years did not buy his miracles nor story.   But as devout Christian I am sure you will not admit to that, and will find some explanation which I am eager to hear.

yours truly Myron

You essentially say that Savior "arose" and carried out his miracles and ministry, so the "preservation" - i.e. salvation of billions - would take place.

And you must admit that all His efforts were for nothing, because great majority of people for the last 2000 years did not buy his miracles nor story.   But as devout Christian I am sure you will not admit to that, and will find some explanation which I am eager to hear.

Actually, I'm confused. How can you say that something which benefitted billions of people was "for nothing"? The billions who have not been saved were not hurt by what Jesus did for the billions of others. You seem to be suggesting that if you do something great for many, many people, but do nothing for anyone else, then you haven't done anything at all. If I were to give huge amounts of money to several charities, and nothing to several other charities, does that mean that I ended up giving nothing?

David

(regarding the Tsunami) I was told by George, my devoted Catholic neighbor (and also cocaine user), that all of them will go to paradise.  He said that all of them would die sooner or later anyway. Georege is 45 years old and in good health, afraid of being jailed because he might be killed by the Afroams there.

George evangelizes on the streets and begs for money.

I was told by George, my devoted Catholic neighbor (and also cocaine user), that all of them will go to paradise.  He said that all of them would die sooner or later anyway. Georege is 45 years old and in good health, afraid of being jailed because he might be killed by the Afroams there.

George evangelizes on the streets and begs for money.

Ummm....okay. I disagree with him.

David

Dear David,

I do not know who you are, but you are the best (I mean THE BEST!) preacher and exegte I ever encountered! I still have doubts, but your explanations are the most rational I ever heard.

Jesus (at least per the story) knew that He would end up on the cross and that His followers would be persecuted for merely following Him, so His making a statement like that, while His followers at the time might have been puzzled by it, would not have to be an anachronism.

Here I must totally agree with you, it does not have to be anachronism, however your explanation triggers another question: Every preacher tries to be as clear as possible so that his message will reach even the simplest of the simple people. Why is it that Jesus spoke in many incomprehesible parabels and "puzzled" people?  In order to sow doubts and watch them boil in tar for ever???

An earthquake that measured 8.9 on the Richter Scale of the West Coast on Northern Sumatra set off a series of other earthquakes lasting 12 hours, which led to the tsunami, which struck areas sufficiently populated that around 250,000 deaths were the result.  God didn't cause it.

So who did it? President of Indonesia or Satan or Bush or Adolf Hitler or Sadam Hussein?? You are a heretical and animist Christian who belives in Nature instead in the Almighty!!!

It wasn't any kind of judgment. It was just a natural disaster. As for God's mercy, those who were forgiven for their sins were admitted into Heaven despite their not having earned it. I call that mercy.

Again I must admit that you got out of tight corner with your concept of mercy. But I must note that probably 200,000 of these victims never heard about Jesus and The Ten Commandments (If they were Moslem they do not have to learn about them). How one can sin if one does not know what is or what is not a Sin? Why should the illiterate Australian Arborigene go to Hell or Purgatory if he/she never heard of our Heavenly Father and His concept of sin?

First of all, I take the Noah flood story as a myth, not history, which makes the question moot. But supposing hypothetically that it happened, the world before the flood was described as being "filled with violence". There is much violence in this world, to be sure, but I would hardly say it is filled with it. I have lived 38 years so far and not once been the victim of a violent crime. Neither has my wife or any of my children, parents, or siblings. Others have not been so lucky, to be sure. But the majority of people don't die violent deaths in this world, or ever commit a violent crime. It hardly seems filled with violence to me.

I agree with you almost 100%. I am 66 and a totally disabled (and retired for the past 7 years) physician. I was once beaten with a rubber truncheon by policeman in [non-U.S. location, withheld from webpage per Myron's request], once with wooden billy club in Jew York City, for one day imprisoned, and persecuted for 14 years in US for trying to save the lives of local drug addicts I encoutered while working with police as medical examiner. Thus I encountered social/gov. violence but luckily not individual like you. But you sound heretical when you claim that what goes on in Nature is not under the control of the our Creator.

I don't believe that natural disasters are generally caused by God.

*Ecclesiastes 9:12: *For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time*,* when it falleth suddenly upon them.

You sound like a Satanist : "evil time" instead of ascribing everything to the Almighty ,and doubting about His powers.

Maybe, maybe not. But the Tsunami and Kashmir weren't about converting people, either way.

Peace,

Thank you for responding and at least partially setting my mind. I think I am kind of deist who belives in the Creator but no longer in the Bible or New Testament. The concept of infinity and theory of relativity make no sense to me as a historian and empiricist. Ptolemaic theory was belived by the smartest minds for millenia. Einstein would never have become so popular if he had not been Jewish. Another 100-200 years and his theory will be replaced by a new one, while Copernicus' will stay because it is empiric and not abstract.

I do not know who you are, but you are the best (I mean THE BEST!) preacher and exegte I ever encountered! I still have doubts, but your explanations are the most rational I ever heard.

Thank you so much for the compliments!

Here I must totally agree with you, it does not have to be anachronism, however your explanation triggers another question: Every preacher tries to be as clear as possible so that his message will reach even the simplest of the simple people.

That they do, which I'm not sure is the best way to go since it encourages simplicity. I think people tend to be at their best when they are challenged, when something causes them to use their imagination and creativity in their thinking instead of just their memory.

One of the big cliches is people who go to church every Sunday, but when they're later asked what the pastor spoke about, can't remember anything the pastor said, like it just went in one ear and out the other. I think Jesus' way of teaching prevented that kind of thing from happening.

Why is it that Jesus spoke in many incomprehesible parabels and "puzzled" people?  In order to sow doubts and watch them boil in tar for ever???

No, because I think that those who have a desire to understand will make the effort to understand. He did it this way in order to get them to think. It was a very common form of teaching back then, not only Jesus but other teachers like Aristotle used it. Instead of just telling someone something and having them memorize it, give them puzzles to figure out so that they can use their minds to aquire the solution themselves.

So who did it (caused the tsunami)? President of Indonesia or Satan or Bush or Adolf Hitler or Sadam Hussein?? You are a heretical and animist Christian who belives in Nature instead in the Almighty!!!

I'd love to blame it on Bush, but haven't quite figured out how yet. Maybe I should go ask Michael Moore. He'll figure out a way.

But seriously, I believe that God is quite capable of causing tsunamis without any help. However, being capable of doing something doesn't mean that you actually do it. I believe that God didn't cause the tsunami - not because I don't believe was capable of causing the tsunami, but because I can't imagine why He would have caused it.

Again I must admit that you got out of tight corner with your concept of mercy. But I must note that probably 200,000 of these victims never heard about Jesus and The Ten Commandments (If they were Moslem they do not have to learn about them). How one can sin if one does not know what is or what is not a Sin? Why should the illiterate Australian Arborigene go to Hell or Purgatory if he/she never heard of our Heavenly Father and His concept of sin?

I believe that all of us know right and wrong. It's part of being human. If someone is too young, or has some sort of mental or physical condition which makes them unable to understand right and wrong, and thus can't be held accountable - then God won't hold them accountable, and they won't be punished for any sins. But the rest of us are held accountable for what we do, and unless we repent of our sins, we will die in them. Now, as for people who haven't really heard of God, Jesus, the Bible, etc - I believe that such people can still repent of their sins and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross will still cover them. I would say that these people are accepting the holy spirit in place of Jesus.

But you sound heretical when you claim that what goes on in Nature is not under the control of the our Creator.

I believe that God is CAPABLE of controlling nature at any time, but for the most part, He simply created the world, got it spinning, and lets the processes work themselves out. It's the same with mankind. He created us and is capable of controlling us, but instead lets us work things out for ourselves, lets us choose to follow Him or not and to make and learn from our own mistakes. Which I'd say makes life a lot more interesting.

You sound like a Satanist : "evil time" instead of ascribing everything to the Almighty ,and doubting about His powers.

I believe that God has the power to do anything He chooses. He created and has complete dominion over our universe and everything in it. But I also believe that rather than making this some sort of play-set for Him to personally move all of the pieces around in, He gave mankind free will and a thinking mind, and created the planets to be able to revolve and rotate without His having to do it all Himself. And I'm very glad He did, since if I didn't have the ability to think and act for myself, I don't see much point in being alive.

Thank you for responding and at least partially setting my mind. I think I am kind of deist who belives in the Creator but no longer in the Bible or New Testament. The concept of infinity and theory of relativity make no sense to me as a historian and empiricist. Ptolemaic theory was belived by the smartest minds for millenia. Einstein would never have become so popular if he had not been Jewish. Another 100-200 years and his theory will be replaced by a new one, while Copernicus' will stay because it is empiric and not abstract.

I definitely have an appreciation for science, but I know that it moves and changes so much that little of it can be expected to be absolute. One idea that intrigues me - what if God, Heaven, Hell and all that aren't truly "supernatural" but are really just natural on a level we haven't quite grasped yet? Like what we think of as nature is just the lowest level of nature, and there are higher levels of it currently beyond our reach. I kind of feel like quantum physics and the ideas of multiple dimensions kind of point in that direction, that there are other (currently unexplainable) processes that exist behind the processes that we are able to observe. Something to think about.

David

Jesus who is the ultimate TEACHER miserably failed at this profession/vocation, and failed to convince less convert that He is a messiah for the biased and "perideous" Jews and most importantly His teachings failed to convince billions of people for the past 2000 years who remained, and still remain, pagan or heretics.  Even lousy human teachers are able to teach the truth, to all except the most retarded, that two times two is four or confabulations (lies) such as about the 6,000,000 of the Gov. of the state of NY Martin Glynn published in October of 1919, or 25 years later and on (visit air-photo.com or similar sites) ,or tales about Santa Claus or delusions about UFO's.

You will probably respond like my priests about the Lord having given free will to humans. The Almighty knew, KNEW we will fail and He would have to boil us in tar, and would have to sacrifice His only Son. To me this whole story sounds terribly sado-masochistic. Am I right?

Jesus who is the ultimate TEACHER miserably failed at this profession/vocation, and failed to convince less convert that He is a messiah for the biased and "perideous" Jews and most importantly His teachings failed to convince billions of people for the past 2000 years who remained, and still remain, pagan or heretics.

Actually, I'd say Jesus was the most successful teacher of all time. How many teachers have spoken only to a relatively small group, never personally wrote anything, but had their teachings spread exponentially for thousands of years until billions of people have come to live their lives by them? Can you name one teacher who has done better than this?

Even lousy human teachers are able to teach the truth, to all except the most retarded, that two times two is four or confabulations (lies) such as about the 6,000,000 of the Gov. of the state of NY Martin Glynn published in October of 1919, or 25 years later and on (visit air-photo.com or similar sites) ,or tales about Santa Claus or delusions about UFO's.

And lousy teachers are quickly forgotten. Even the great teachers usually end up reaching mere thousands, if that. You seem to be saying Jesus failed because there are billions who don't follow Him. Every teacher who has ever lived has had billions who don't follow him or her. It's better to count a teacher's success by how many they HAVE reached, not by how many they HAVEN'T.

You will probably respond like my priests about the Lord having given free will to humans. The Almighty knew, KNEW we will fail and He would have to boil us in tar, and would have to sacrifice His only Son. To me this whole story sounds terribly sado-masochistic. Am I right?

About it being sado-masochistic, no, I don't feel you are right. God gave us free will, yes. And free will automatically means that we are capable of disobeying God, and it also means that we have to endure the consequences for disobeying, and He provided a way to make it so that our sins can be forgiven if we repent of our sins, but we have to be able to see the serious consequences for it to mean anything for us, and Christ demonstrated those terrible consequences by going to the cross. Had He demonstrated it by merely suffering a stubbed toe, it would mean nothing to us.

As far as being "boiled in oil", I reject the idea that hell is a place of physical torture for three reasons:

1) All that is physical about us ceases to exist when we die, so what part of us could be physically tortured?

2) It makes no sense for the punishment to exceed the crime, and eternal physical torture for finite sins is definitely exceeding the crime.

3) It would mean taking passages literally that are clearly not meant to be literal. For example, hell is described as a dark place, but with flames. Wouldn't the flames light up the darkness? It makes more sense if the darkness and the flames are metaphorical, which such words tend to be in the Bible.

I believe that hell is a spiritual state of eternal shame, not a place of physical torture.

David

Dear David,

Below is your text:

That the tomb in which Jesus was placed was found empty soon after His death. If the disciples made the claim of Jesus' bodily resurrection without the evidence of an empty tomb to back it up, the Romans and Pharisees could easily opened the tomb and removed Jesus' body for all to see. Christianity would not have lasted even a few days had Jesus' body been available for display. The early arguments against the resurrection seemed to concede the point that Jesus' body was not in the tomb.

You must, and should, agree that eyewitness testimony does not count because people habitually lie and/or confabulate and imagine.

However if we assume that Jesus was resurected, and surely Roman authorities knew about it, then they would certainly report this unique event to Rome for investigation.

Since Rome did not notice the Resurrection, this suggests that it did not take place.  And more importantly, this is not even mentioned in Talmud.

Thirdly, this means that JC did not pay much attention to his resurrection, and did not bother to convince anyone about this allegedly glorious event except for Saint thomas.

It really makes no sense for JC to go through the trouble of crucifixion and not to put the "fact" of resurrection into public opinion mind, thus allowing various heresies, and the doubts of your truly.

You must, and should, agree that eyewitness testimony does not count because people habitually lie and/or confabulate and imagine.

Eyewitness testimony absolutely counts. When it comes to history, that's practically all we have. If we were to remove everything from historical texts that were based on eyewitness accounts, we'd be left with almost nothing. Even in courts of law, eyewitness testimony is held in high regard, unless other evidence contradicts it.

Yes, people do lie and fabricate, and we should give that idea serious consideration if the evidence goes against their testimony, or if we can find a serious reason that they would lie or fabricate, or some kind of evidence that they were doing so. In the event of the Gospel claims of resurrection, there is no good reason that they would lie about the resurrection, no evidence that they were lying, and no evidence going against their claims. And considering how much historical and archeological evidence has come to light in the last hundred years, that's really a pretty amazing thing.

However if we assume that Jesus was resurected, and surely Roman authorities knew about it, then they would certainly report this unique event to Rome for investigation.

Since Rome did not notice the Resurrection, this suggests that it did not take place.

How do you know that Rome wasn't told about the resurrection?

And more importantly, this is not even mentioned in Talmud.

Nor would we expect it to be, since the Talmud was written by people who remained non-Christians and thus didn't believe in it. Those who became Christians based on Jesus' resurrection wrote about Jesus' resurrection, as we would expect. Those who didn't become Christians didn't write about it, as we would expect.

Thirdly, this means that JC did not pay much attention to his resurrection, and did not bother to convince anyone about this allegedly glorious event except for Saint thomas.

More people than Saint Thomas became convinced. Hundreds saw Jesus after His resurrection, and billions more later became convinced by the accounts of those who wrote about it.

It really makes no sense for JC to go through the trouble of crucifixion and not to put the "fact" of resurrection into public opinion mind, thus allowing various heresies, and the doubts of your truly.

I believe that what we have is very convincing. We have four separate accounts based on eyewitness testimony, including one (Luke's) written by a historian. Plus we have the letters of people like Paul and James, who are apparently skeptics who became convinced. All in all, we have about a thousand pages, all written within 70 years of the events they tell of, which is a huge amount of historical record for something 2000 years old. I find that more convincing than practically any other historical account, even accounts that are generally not doubted at all (such as Caesar's assassination, or Alexander's conquests). Of course people are going to doubt the New Testament writings, but God isn't one to force people to accept what He has to offer. He wants us to choose for ourselves, not to have the choice forced upon us whether we want it or not.

David

Dear David,

Please provide a better explanation. Even the lousiest theacher does not use Ebonics in an Ivy League school, or legalesse in a Bronx high school where half of the student have problems comprehending  theNY Post or any newspaper.   Jesus surely spoke in obscure parabels. Do you consider Him a lousy teacher, or would you say that He was the teacher par excellance, speaking in a universal language precluding various interpretations?

And the roughly 400 protestant denominations are mostly due to imprecise language.

Please provide a better explanation. Even the lousiest theacher does not use Ebonics in an Ivy League school, or legalesse in a Bronx high school where half of the student have problems comprehending  theNY Post or any newspaper.   Jesus surely spoke in obscure parabels. Do you consider Him a lousy teacher, or would you say that He was the teacher par excellance, speaking in a universal language precluding various interpretations?

I think Jesus spoke in the way that allowed His audience to best understand what He was saying. He purposely made it puzzling and mystifying, since that challenged those listening to ponder what He was saying. Had He always spoken plainly and unobscurably, His audience would have forgotten much of what He taught. No, He didn't speak in a universal language that precluded interpretation, because there is no such thing.

And the roughly 400 protestant denominations are mostly due to imprecise language.

All man-made language is imprecise. Can you name any language where every single word has only one fixed, unalterable definition?

David

-----quote from news story-----

Texas Pastor Electrocuted During Baptism

/Mon Oct 31,12:42 AM ET/

WACO, Texas - A pastor performing a baptism was electrocuted inside his church Sunday morning after adjusting a nearby microphone while standing in water, a church employee said.

The Rev. Kyle Lake, 33, was stepping into the baptistery as he reached out for the microphone, which produced an electric shock, said University Baptist Church community pastor Ben Dudley.

Water in a baptistery usually reaches above the waist, said Byron Weathersbee, interim university chaplain at Baylor University.

Lake was pronounced dead at Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center, nursing supervisor Pat Mahl said. The woman being baptized apparently had not stepped into the water and was not seriously injured.

Pastors at University Baptist Church routinely use a microphone during baptisms, said Jamie Dudley, the wife of Ben Dudley and a business administrator at the church.

"He was grabbing the microphone so everyone could hear," she said. "It's the only way you can be loud enough."

About 800 people attended the morning service, which was larger than normal because it was homecoming weekend at nearby Baylor University, Dudley said.

Lake had been at the church for nine years, the last seven as pastor. He had a wife, Jennifer, a 5-year-old daughter and two 3-year-old sons.

At a remembrance attended by about 1,000 people Sunday night at First Baptist Church, Ben Dudley told the UBC congregation that they would move forward as a church.

"I don't know how, when, why, where or what's going to happen, but we will continue as a church in the community because that is what Kyle would have wanted," he said.

-----unquote-----

What is the Lord trying to say or prove by killing Reverend Lake????! Or is it not our business to ask or to think about it? JC and prophets thought in parables which demand thinking, hence The Holy Bible is not against thinking.

Catholic clergy will keep mum about it, but I wonder what advisers to Pat Robertson will tell him to say! In the meantime, atheists have all the fun.

Maybe the Lord is trying to say that it's not a good idea to touch live microphones while standing waist-deep in water.

David

Dear David

This story was carried by AP on 10/30/05

This 33 year old pastor died at University Baptist Church when he grabbed a microphone while he was submerged up to his shoulder during the baptism of a young woman, with about 800 faithful in attendance. 40 minutes of resucitation by doctors among the parishoners failed to revive this father of three children.

Please let me know what the Good Lord meant by His wrath during such a noble sacrament????

[note from David: Myron wrote this letter before I'd responded to his last letter, which is why he's repeating the question from his last letter here.  He likely thought I hadn't received it or was choosing to ignore it]

You should see the fun poked by atheists and blasphemous Christians on the discussion board regarding this article!

Since you are a Protestant you are left speechless. I as a formerly devout Roman Catholic of Ukrainian Rite have the answer for you. Recant and be Born Again Catholic because the Lord made it abundantly clear that Protestantism is wrong, and He does not accept baptism from you.

I think this real-life fact is surreal and fits into one of your (some excellent!!!) religious jokes [see this page for the jokes Myron refers to]. I truly enjoy them.

Greetings

If anything, it was the Indonesian tsunami that tipped me over the concept of the Almighty All-knowing, and mankind LOVING and MERCIFUL god.

And all started with the politically correct translation and exegis of King David in 2 Samuel 12:31 where first Catholics and then Protestants SILENTLY and *surreptitiously* transformed this fabricated prophet from genocidal maniac into a public work director at the time the Iron Age was just starting.

PS: Did you ever look at sites such as ihr.org, codoh.org and most importantly air-photo.com for another take on the most *fasionable secular religion of holocaustianity** **holocaustianity** *?

Holocaustianity: a faith with matyrs, saints (i.e paulite Schindler), traitors (i.e. Rumkowski or Judas), miracles (one survivor from Canada as a child survived six gassings), prophets (H foretold in 1919 including the 6,000,000 number) and museums/temples all over the world.  Encyclopedia of the Holocaust being the Bible, testimony of faithful (e.g. testimonies of people from Lourds), reliquiary human fat soap buried at Jewish Community Centers and some cemeteries. etc

Since you are a Protestant you are left speechless. I as a formerly devout Roman Catholic of Ukrainian Rite have the answer for you. Recant and be Born Again Catholic because the Lord made it abundantly clear that Protestantism is wrong, and He does not accept baptism from you.

No, the Lord made it abudantly clear that water and electricity don't mix.

And all started with the politically correct translation and exegis of King David in 2 Samuel 12:31 where first Catholics and then Protestants SILENTLY and *surreptitiously* transformed this fabricated prophet from genocidal maniac into a public work director at the time the Iron Age was just starting.

If you want to give me evidence for any of the above, I'll respond to it. But just stating it as if it's fact (despite the fact that the majority of historians disagree) doesn't do much for me.

PS: Did you ever look at sites such as ihr.org, codoh.org and most importantly air-photo.com for another take on the most *fasionable secular religion of holocaustianity** **holocaustianity** *?

I briefly visited all three sites, but have very little interest in anything they have to say. Though I'm not Jewish, I have Jewish people in my family (I'll even be going to a Jewish household to celebrate Thanksgiving). I have found from experience that the majority of those who argue against the historicity of the holocaust are anti-semetic and their arguments border on ridiculous conspiracy-theory type stuff. Believe what you want, but it's a non-issue for me, personally, so I'm not interested in debating it any more than I'm interested in debating whether men have landed on the moon.

David

Dear David,

I liked you for your rational and scholarly responses to some of exaggerations of Humphreys.

However I dislike your responses below, and I am very disapointed with them and you.

Are you truly saying that the Lord is teaching us basic laws of physics?  And even if so, why did He selected a 'baptiser' to be killed during the most important sacrament?

In the Word He told us that He is loving and avenging God, which is a contradiction in itself.  He instructed the Israelites to commit genocide, not just once, including animals. Himself, He almost caused extinction of His beloved product of creation (i.e.during the Flood).  The only reason me and you were born is thanks to the sinful promiscuity of Noah's daughters who forced him, their father, to commit incest.  As far as I know the Bible, the Lord did not give instructions to Noah how his species is to propagate. If He did not give instructions one might consider that in the fit of anger, after the flood he wanted to be through with humans and to have Earth populated by animals only, for whom incest is not sinful or forbidden.  He, the epitome of unconditional Love, continues to kill us by the hundreds of  thousands via tsunamis and earthquakes.  Through parables, Christ told us that those who do not follow Him should be killed.

Through St. John, Christ told us that those who blasphem against Holy Ghost, should not expect forgiveness and are doomed to Hell, eternal darkness.

Please let me know where The Word tells us that the Lord will teach us physics or natural sciences in general. The only instruction I know is that we should populate the earth, and the ten Commandments.

If you want to give me evidence for any of the above, I'll respond to it. But just stating it as if it's fact (despite the fact that the majority of historians disagree) doesn't do much for me.

It is 2 Samuel chapter 12 verse 31, about the extermination of Ammonites at Rabath. I checked bibles in nineteen languages. All talk about torturing and cremating alive old men, women and children of Ammonites. I checked the Leningrad codex (11th century the oldest extant) - same story. I checked Syriac 4th century bible, the oldest extant copy of the old testament . The details of torturing and killing are different but the concept is there. I checked over sixty editions of post-1956 AD. The transformation of King David from the first-day-Hitler into FDR-like Public Works Director is introduced without annotation or a footnote about this dramatic post-Nuremberg change. And who started that: French Dominincans in Jerusalem - first in a tiny edition in French (a trial balloon )and then everybody silently embraced it without pointing to this dramatic re-write.

In the past 50 years of publishing of millions of Bibles I found only one Protestant puny, home or garage-type publisher who retained the old rendition of the KJB only because he used the one he had at his home and reprinted that. He lives/lived in South Dakota about five years ago.

For three years Jehova Witnesses used to visit my house once a year.  Their teams were so astonished when I showed them their pre-1956 edition of their JW Bible to be not the same and diametrically different the one they had in their hand that they became speechless (an unheard off occurence among JWs). For the last three years they omit my house like a plague house.  I challenge you to show me a Bible which is courageous  enoughto tackle this subject and sincerly denote the change.

I briefly visited all three sites, but have very little interest in anything they have to say. Though I'm not Jewish, I have Jewish people in my family (I'll even be going to a Jewish household to celebrate Thanksgiving). I have found from experience that the majority of those who argue against the historicity of the holocaust are anti-semetic and their arguments border on ridiculous conspiracy-theory type stuff. Believe what you want, but it's a non-issue for me, personally,

David, you better be careful and be afraid of me now. The Holocaust is non-issue to you? You are a terrible anti-Semite! I am going to report you to Jewish Anti-Defamation League and you will lose your job, and even more, to the Jewish Defense League, and they will put a death warrant on their web page on the Internet along with your picture, like they have done on David Cole until he publicly recanted.

They cannot do it for me because I exclusively cite such sources as The American Hebrew, Encylopedia Brittanica from 1956 article wirtten by Rabbi Jacobs, the founder of the American Jewish Historical Society that Germans terribly mistreated Jews while they deported them to the East or the venerable Rabbi Stephen Wise President of the World Jewish Congress who during the war wrote that the Germans stopped exterminating Jews with gas! or Gov of the State of New York who wrote and spoke in 1919, 85 years ago about the "holocaust" of "6,000,000 Jews and 800,000 Jewish children in Poland and Ukraine"

The Holocaust is non-issue to you because you are afraid to face it and will rather pay annually $2,000 in taxes to support the war in Iraq and $3.00 per gallon of gas rather than to oppose it.

For decades I did not read the Bible because I believed that it is the correct Word of God. By reading it I found it full of nonsence and contraditions, same as the news about the two 20th century Jewish holocausts.

The difference between me and you must be that I am a physical evidence man while you are mostly oral and scholastic and articulate.

Greetings from the once pious, now sarcastic and suspicious, disbeliever.

PS. I still consider one of your jokes seriously. In case I am believer and I am wrong I lose nothing, In case I am an atheist and turns out that atheism is wrong, I will end up in Hell.  I dislike the fact that Humphries does not see that today's Christianity, unlike in the past, is a goodwill promoting faith.

For this I have much respect for millions of Christians like you!

*Keep doing your good Christ's work*despite me annoying you with my dubious thomas mentality.

Are you truly saying that the Lord is teaching us basic laws of physics?  And even if so, why did He selected a 'baptiser' to be killed during the most important sacrament?

No, I'm saying that when someone standing in water touches a live microphone, it's irrational to suppose that his getting electrocuted was the result of divine intervention. A rational person would assume that it was just a horrible accident. I would only assume divine intervention if something happened which could not naturally have happened. Mixing water and electricity and getting a serious shock isn't unnatural.

In the Word He told us that He is loving and avenging God, which is a contradiction in itself.

Not when the avenging is done against people who deserve it. Would you consider a courtroom judge who sentences horrible killers to prison to be unloving?

He instructed the Israelites to commit genocide, not just once, including animals.

No, there was no genocide. The Amalekites who'd split from the tribe, and the female children, were spared. And besides that, the Amalekites were out to commit genocide on the Israelites, which makes it self-defense.

Himself, He almost caused extinction of His beloved product of creation (i.e.during the Flood).

Since I believe the flood story is a myth, it hardly matters. But even if it was true, He spared Noah, knowing it would save the human race, so there was no risk of extinction.

The only reason me and you were born is thanks to the sinful promiscuity of Noah's daughters who forced him, their father, to commit incest.

Which just goes to show that God sometimes allows bad things to happen so that good things can result from it. And, again, I believe this is a myth, anyways.

As far as I know the Bible, the Lord did not give instructions to Noah how his species is to propagate. If He did not give instructions one might consider that in the fit of anger, after the flood he wanted to be through with humans and to have Earth populated by animals only, for whom incest is not sinful or forbidden.

And aren't you glad He didn't?

He, the epitome of unconditional Love, continues to kill us by the hundreds of  thousands via tsunamis and earthquakes.

No, those are natural disasters, not cases of divine intervention.

Through parables, Christ told us that those who do not follow Him should be killed.

Nope.

Through St. John, Christ told us that those who blasphem against Holy Ghost, should not expect forgiveness and are doomed to Hell, eternal darkness.

Yeah, those who reject forgiveness won't be forgiven. Kind of obvious, actually.

Please let me know where The Word tells us that the Lord will teach us physics or natural sciences in general.

We learn it from observing the world around us.

It is 2 Samuel chapter 12 verse 31, about the extermination of Ammonites at Rabath. I checked bibles in nineteen languages. All talk about torturing and cremating alive old men, women and children of Ammonites. I checked the Leningrad codex (11th century the oldest extant) - same story. I checked Syriac 4th century bible, the oldest extant copy of the old testament . The details of torturing and killing are different but the concept is there.

Tell me exactly what the earliest ones say. I'm not finding any version which talks specifically about old men, women and children.

I checked over sixty editions of post-1956 AD. The transformation of King David from the first-day-Hitler into FDR-like Public Works Director is introduced without annotation or a footnote about this dramatic post-Nuremberg change. And who started that: French Dominincans in Jerusalem - first in a tiny edition in French (a trial balloon )and then everybody silently embraced it without pointing to this dramatic re-write.

Whether the original version referred specifically to putting them to death or to putting them to work isn't made clear. The wording suggests to me that the people are being put to death (being at war, this wouldn't be surprising), but I can see how the wording of the original Hebrew could be taken otherwise. I use the King James personally, and clearly whoever translated it believed it was describing death. But the translation of their being put to work instead isn't anything new.

In the past 50 years of publishing of millions of Bibles I found only one Protestant puny, home or garage-type publisher who retained the old rendition of the KJB only because he used the one he had at his home and reprinted that. He lives/lived in South Dakota about five years ago.

Most protestants (at least where I'm from) use the King James.

For three years Jehova Witnesses used to visit my house once a year.  Their teams were so astonished when I showed them their pre-1956 edition of their JW Bible to be not the same and diametrically different the one they had in their hand that they became speechless (an unheard off occurence among JWs). For the last three years they omit my house like a plague house.

I should try that, then.

David, you better be careful and be afraid of me now. The Holocaust is non-issue to you? You are a terrible anti-Semite! I am going to report you to Jewish Anti-Defamation League and you will lose your job, and even more, to the Jewish Defense League, and they will put a death warrant on their web page on the Internet along with your picture, like they have done on David Cole until he publicly recanted.

To make it easier for you, I'm putting the text of this conversation at www.KingDavid8.com/Letters/LetterTakeCross.html so you can just point them to that link. Just make sure that they're seeing what I actually wrote instead of your twist on what I wrote.

The Holocaust is non-issue to you because you are afraid to face it and will rather pay annually $2,000 in taxes to support the war in Iraq and $3.00 per gallon of gas rather than to oppose it.

No, I'm completely, 100%, opposed to the war in Iraq, and have been since it started.

And as you already know, I never said that the holocaust was a non-issue. I said that the anti-semitic arguments against the holocaust are non-issue for me. Personally, I find the arguments that the moon landing was actually filmed in a Hollywood studio to be more logical, and I don't believe those either.

The difference between me and you must be that I am a physical evidence man while you are mostly oral and scholastic and articulate.

My attitude is that when trying to determine whether something happened, you consider what you would expect to see if it were true, and what you would expect to see if it were not true. Whichever one you're actually seeing then determines whether it is most likely true. For example, if God exists, we would expect the world He created to be orderly enough to sustain life. If God did not exist, we would expect the world to be so chaotic that life either wouldn't exist, or wouldn't thrive long enough to gain complexity. Since the world is orderly enough to sustain life, I conclude that God most likely exists.

*Keep doing your good Christ's work*despite me annoying you with my dubious thomas mentality.

I find doubting Thomas's to be challenging, and I'm always up for a challenge.

David