Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Excuses for Sale. Skeptic X begins his alleged response on preterism with the expected diversionary goof-offs. He first lays out an excuse for the lateness of the posting of his original reply to my Olivet Discourse by blaming his webmaster for being too busy. Actually, I can believe it. This guy had to beg the Skeptic Xians for help finding my article here even though it's plainly visible on our "What's New" page, and on the main Skeptic X debate page, and has been for over a month. What can I say? Skeptic X hires good help. Either way he was weeks late, and that screed about computer problems doesn't wash well, since the TSR site had active postings all through the period when Skeptic X's item should have been in the webmaster's hot little hands. In any event, Skeptic X puts the usual spin on things and claims it takes him longer because he devotes more substance to his replies, i.e., like thinking I asked him to pay for 90% of my website (see more on this excuse below) or not defining "feudalism" the way a historian does, or thinking I have changed my position because he can't keep track of when I argued something, or as we showed recently, claiming that the B-Greek method of transliteration is some mistake a first-year student of Greek wouldn't make. Skeptic X has more substance in his replies, allrighty, and he's still not finished smoking them.

Denying the Diss. Skeptic X next tries to deny that he dissed preterism, claiming he "never said anything even remotely similar to what [I] said above." Not sure what Skeptic X means here, perhaps he's dizzy again from applying to much spin. I didn't quote him; I said he dissed preterism, and he did. In essence he said it was another excuse to preserve Biblical inerrancy, and that's a diss whether he knows it or not. He did more than simply say that he didn't agree the NT taught preterism (as if he were ever capable of such a calm and reasonable response sans the influence of high amounts of medication). I'm not obsessed enough to keep old messages like Skeptic X is, but if he wants to drop an accusation of lying on this, he can go right ahead; but he'd better get it straight, as he is still saying: "If he claims otherwise, I defy him to produce any message I ever sent to him that contained a challenge to debate preterism..." Read it again, Skeptic X! I didn't say YOU challenged ME; **I** challenged YOU after I saw your mouth open and call preterism an excuse. I have said, always, that it was MY idea, not yours. Skeptic X can never seem to get these little basics right once he has it in his head that things were done a certain way. Psychologically, that's a symptom of obsessive disorder.

Skeptic X spins a little more to make the yolk nice and frothy: "He challenged me to debate preterism, and I suspect that his reasons for doing so were to (1) detract attention from the beating he was taking on the land-promise issue and other 'rebuttals' of his that I have replied to and (2) to detract attention from his refusal to debate issues more directly related to biblical inerrancy, such as prophecy fulfillment." Wow, gee, Skeptic X, but isn't preterism on that VERY SUBJECT of prophecy fulfillment? Do'h! As for detracting attention, since I announce all Skeptic X items with equal stature on that What's New page, I must be doing a sneaky job of detracting. Moreover, here are the number of hits for the various items in question over the last three months, as of this typing on Oct. 29:

• tillpfft -- my response to him on preterism -- 261
• Tsr914_cc1 -- on resurrection -- 158
• wre3-2 -- 3rd round, part 2 land promise (which, by the by, Skeptic X's webmaster also hasn't found and hasn't linked to, despite early on being able to find these things) -- 181
• wre-3-3 -- 3rd round, part 3, land promise -- 171
• abby2 -- Abiathar -- 424
• markmen_cc1 -- men with David -- 182

Of course some of these have not been on for the same amount of time (the preterism one went up Sept. 21), and they're all way down the list from items like the one I have on the Christian fish symbol (1341 hits) and the capital punishment article (717 hits), which suggests that whatever "detraction" I might try won't be from anyone who cares anyway -- though if all of Skeptic X's fans are as unable to find things as his webmaster, they would be distracted by a fly on the wall in Alaska. The fact of the matter is, as I have noted, that items about Skeptic X generate almost no interest on this site, relatively speaking, and Skeptic X is lucky he gets any attention at all. He had some nerve suggesting I debate him to get this ministry publicity; he probably should ask ME to debate to get HIMSELF some publicity. Beyond that, Skeptic X is apparently trying to spin back my own pegging of his obvious distraction tactics, but sorry, Skeptic X, that won't wash. Come up with something original and get with the program. And if Skeptic X thinks I am just trying to keep him busy (true, actually , but not for the reasons he thinks) why didn't he refuse to take up the gauntlet? Do'h! An excuse for every occasion from the Baloney King. (But hey, Skeptic X, you wanna debate prophecy fulfillment? Look back at one of the previous articles. Let's debate the third-day prophecy and see how you deal with first-century Jewish exegetical techniques...like you deal with nuclear physics! And we already put the Tyre prophecy on the list, so kwitcher complainin'.)

I said: "Second, because I think it will serve as a perfect example of how Skeptic X the fundaliteralist gets himself gigged by what Wright calls 'the folly of trying to fit the hurricane of first-century Jewish theology into the bottle of late-modern western categories.'" Skeptic X blunders back with his usual funny face: "Oh, did 'Wright' say this? Then it must be true, because all it takes to make a statement true is for [Holding] to quote it. I assume everyone noticed that [Holding] only quoted the statement but made no effort to prove that it contained any truth, that is, any proof that there was anything taking place in the first century that could be validly compared metaphorically to a hurricane." Sass off, Skeptic X, we proved it all through the preterism article, and Wright has so many academic credits and peer-reviewed journal articles that you'd lose your marbles just trying to dig out from under them. Note that Skeptic X still apparently hasn't learned his lesson about trying to diss scholars with universe-sized better references than he has; to whom, he is a short order cook flipping burgers, while they are Iron Chefs chopping him into kibble. This is why Skeptic X makes such bungles as calling B-list Greek an elementary school error. That freethinking arrogance will get you anywhere in your own imagination.

Hyper's First Mate. Now then, recall how I said Skeptic X was a fundaliteralist? These examples prove it. I said:

Skeptic X is standing out in this hurricane; his clothes blew off hours ago, his hair is all missing, his glasses are now in Yokohama, and he's still trying to spit hard enough so that the gob won't go backwards and dribble into his ear. Seeing this happen was worth the time.

Note how Skeptic X responds to this -- yes, with absolute literalism:

As I said above, [Holding] has presented no evidence of first-century events that would justify their metaphorical comparison to a hurricane. As for my glasses, I don't wear glasses, thanks to the results of lasik surgery. At the moment, I have 20/20 vision, which, for reasons that I will explain later, I will not enjoy indefinitely. My hair? It's all here. Thanks to the laws of genetics, which passes baldness through the mother's side, and a mother who came from a family in which baldness was unknown.

Skeptic X misses the point of the hurricane metaphor -- it has to do with amateur exegetes like him not being on the proper level of understanding, and getting blown away -- but the key point: Restrain yourself -- this guy actually read my paragraph literally and answered it as though it deserved a literal answer. This is a Church of Christ preacher reading everything through the same fundaliteralist glasses. Now watch X take that comment to mean I really think he owns glasses that allow him to interpret things "fundaliterally". I daresay this is indicative of a sort of obsession which before long really will have Skeptic X actually spraying Raid down the trousers of people who say they have ants in their pants. Hyper, save a room for Skeptic X!

And you think that's bad? Now check this from Skeptic X Part 2. I said:

Skeptic X's initial response takes up 5 printed pages, and 7 of these are taken up with wasted blather...

Skeptic X's response should have all of his neighbors reaching for their baseball bats if they see Skeptic X coming with that Raid can:

I suspect 99.99999% of the people in this world would read and "get" the point of my statement above, but not Skeptic X the Fundaliteralist. In fact I want to hear from you if you are of that .00001%, because I can get you and Skeptic X discounts for treatment of your comprehension disorder. Skeptic X actually thinks, yes, that I was being literal in saying he used more pages to make blather than were actually printed. He actually thinks it's a case of bad math or editing. He doesn't get it. Skeptic X recommends math or editing? I recommend he be screened for Asperger's Syndrome.

Brag on Your Rag. Skeptic X next brags on his TSR rag: "This 'rag' that [Holding] talks about was published for 13 years, and it has enough material in it to convince any person whose mind isn't rusted shut that biblical inerrancy is a fantasy that can't be defended. I wouldn't try to estimate the number of letters, phone calls, and e-mail messages I have received from people who expressed appreciation for the help that The Skeptical Review gave them in throwing off the fetters of biblical fundamentalism." No, of course not; Skeptic X doesn't have enough fingers to count as high as 12. He admitted to me that he had 1300 subscribers at one point; that dwindled rapidly to 800 after he printed a detailed article from Everette Hatcher (so he said) so those numbers are at about the same level as, oh, The Philatelic Review. In contrast the Christian Research Journal has 30,000 subscribers, and that's how many have seen the three (soon four) articles I have had in there; and for October Tekton is already over 100,000 page views with 3 days to go. Skeptic X blatters, "I seriously doubt that [Holding] has ever had a biblical skeptic or atheist write to him and say that he/she at one time had no belief in the divine origin of the Bible but after reading [Holding]'s website, they became convinced that God did indeed inspire this book." I have had about 3 or 4 in the history, yes -- given the current ratio of atheists/skeptics to Christians in the world, that would be about the same pro rata as Skeptic X has -- and I have had about 400 more over the same time say that it affirmed their faith and drove them away from hacks like Skeptic X whose degree in Biblical studies is printed on their underwear. So if Skeptic X wants to belly-whop status and stats, he'd better sit down and eat a 50-lb. steak first. Maybe he should beg me to debate him.

The 90% Gaffe. And it continues on the same order. We next get to where I mentioned, once again, Skeptic X's gaffe in thinking I wanted him to pay for 90% of this website. As a reminder, this is what he said in the print issue of TSR:

One condition was that I would have to pay 90% of the cost of maintaining his website, which would be 90% of $35 per month or $378 per year...in other words, [Holding] was saying that he would debate me on my site and his if I would just agree to pay him $3024 before the debate begins.

Note that Skeptic X even calculated based on the total cost of maintaining a website for a month. But he still "doesn't get it" -- or maybe is buying himself time by playing dumb:

Well, if [Holding] didn't stipulate as a condition for debating me that I pay 90% of the cost of space for my article on his website, then I'm unable to understand what he meant below, which I have quoted directly from his site. In his acceptance of my challenge to debate in an open internet forum, he stipulated three ridiculous conditions. The one below was his second condition.

2 I pay for this site, so correspondent with the 90% fluff ratio I demand that Skeptic X pay for 90% of the costs of hosting any item he submits -- whether he meets challenge #1 above or not. Obviously the amount would have to be determined based on going rates for server space and the length of the article written. I also want payment for 8 years in advance (about the time I have the tektonics.org name reserved). Based on Skeptic X's behavior I am not so sure he'll be around that long before giving himself a coronary, and I think the security is a good idea.

Since it would not have been possible to determine how much I might write in our debates over an eight-year period or even if I would live that long, I could conclude only that he was demanding that I pay the 90% for eight years in advance. If [Holding] didn't mean this, he should pay a little more attention to quality and not so much to quantity in what he posts on his site. If he does this, maybe he will be able to express himself more clearly.

Get it? Skeptic X is STILL not reading that very important phrase, "any item he submits" and "length of the article written" -- not "the whole website." This means he's read it twice now and still doesn't get it; either that, or he is dodging and playing dumb. Pay attention? Eh! Look who's talking, Mr. Attention Deficit Disorder he-self! Beyond that Skeptic X barks over the response on the "laid off" issue by claiming he doesn't believe me when I say I gave up the job to avoid displacing someone else. Fine. I want Skeptic X to challenge me to produce documentation that my leaving the job was voluntary. I will do so, and when I do, I want him to issue a clear retraction and apology. If he doesn't accept this challenge, we will assume he prefers to spread misinformation for his own purposes, and let the reader learn from that example.

Barking for Bucks, Again. Skeptic X also barks the usual screed of helpless Skeptics, "Readers who think that such a financial sacrifice would likely be made by [Holding] should go and read Tektonics' main page to get an idea of how much emphasis he puts on money. This page shows such an obsession with getting money from his readers that [Holding]'s eyes must have dollar signs for pupils." Really? As much emphasis as Dan Barker, who has begged off for 20 times as much as the financial goal of this site? Who's obsessed, now? It's the Skeppies who are obsessed, who read the solicitation on this site as though it were in 10-foot letters (smaller, though, than those that elsewhere ask one to "Support the Secular Web") and as though I have already placed the order for the 37 gold-plated Rolls Royces. If that's the best the Skeppies can do, let it show for what it is: A distraction game. By the same logic Dan Barker not only has dollar signs in his pupils, but also has them tattooed on his behind. Which reminds us -- here's a nice little sign for Skeptic X to post on his site as he looks up "hypocrite" in the dictionary:

Tar Baby. At any rate, we nailed Skeptic X for the genetic fallacy (and "have his cake and eat it too" tactic) of bringing up DeMar's alleged "ties" to Reconstructionism merely for effect. He paints this as a case of him being "logical" and pontificates that the "truth or falsity of a claim is always independent of its source, so the fact that DeMar is a preterist doesn't automatically make anything he says on the subject wrong." Nevertheless he opens the other side of his mouth and says in the very next sentence, "That is not to say, however, that the credibility of [Holding]'s main source is not automatically suspicious because of DeMar's well publicized position in this matter. Would one consider Charlton Heston, for example, to be a credible source to quote in a debate over the issue of gun ownership?" There's Skeptic X with analogy impairment yet again. DeMar, sorry Skeppies, is a Biblical scholar; we quote him as one would quote Heston not on gun control, but on acting. What Skeptic X did is akin to trying to discredit Heston's authority on acting my noting that he has ties to the gun ownership movement. (I am assuming here that Heston has not actually sufficiently educated himself, or has someone so educated, to be a credible spokesman; perhaps he has, but I don't know enough about the issue to say.) This is what amounts to argument in Two-Face Skeptic Xland: Smear, and then say of course your smear doesn't actually prove anything. Sounds good. But we wouldn't want to do that, would we? For example, I would never wish to spread rumors that:

• Skeptic X owns stock in a company that provided Zyklon-B to the Nazi concentration camps.
• The Skeptical Review is purposely printed on non-recyclable paper.
• Skeptic X is a closet Moonie and fantasizes regularly about being a Biblical scholar.

How much truth is there to these rumors? As much as there is to the one Skeptic X spreads about me being "laid off" -- and you'll excuse me if I don't believe him when he denies them.

Now here's a funny of the "Look in the Mirror" order: "Even a person who could see through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time would know that Heston would not take any position in this matter except the one that favors the general ownership of guns. Does [Holding] seriously expect us to think that an established preterist would say anything but that preterism is taught in the New Testament?" Well, duh, doesn't that beg the question of whether they come about their interpretation honestly? If I said, "Does Skeptic X seriously expect us to think that an established atheist would say anything but that God doesn't exist," did I just make an argument? If you think so, you need therapy. Next up, Skeptic X cries and whines some more about our use of rhetoric, which per the usual dictum he sees as an expression of frustration on my part (though of course his many years of tormenting Christians on his errancy list is rather a sign of his superior intellect and right to do so, righto? -- BTW X, seen this?). Frustrated? Fat chance. Projection, anyone? I'm enjoying these rounds of relish, of seeing Skeptic X drop to the ground helpless and running around like the proverbial chicken with head cut off, feathers plucked, and carcass on the grill with seasonings. As when I played the dozens with inmates and sent them away with their mouths clamped shut. But Skeptic X, get it right: My "admirers," as you put it, think you're getting your wheels removed in our debates, and didn't you just say follower reaction doesn't matter? May we have a little consistency? Not from a man who still thinks smears are the way to heaven. To wit: Skeptic X then tries to defend his National Enquirer analogy with DeMar, not by actually showing that anything DeMar says on preterism is wrong or is influenced by Reconstructionism, or even quoting DeMar as saying he still wants to stone people, but by quoting a dead white man who is not a Biblical scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson. It's great when you quote someone named "Waldo" (and "Ralph Waldo" at that) in a debate, isn't it? And he's not even a Biblical scholar -- what's this about quoting Heston on gun control? I'll just add my own comments to Waldo's Plastic Pearl of Wisdom, adjusted for our encounter with Skeptic X:

If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. If you anticipate our argument, you stick your foot in your mouth. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. You beg the question immensely and assume you have not put the cart before the horse, and wouldn't have enough Biblical knowledge to know whether it was indeed an "expediency" or a legitimate justification. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Just as we know Emerson couldn't have written a new or original piece of doggerel had his life depended on it. Since when does "new" and "spontaneous" mean diddly? How many times have we heard those commercials that say "Don't Do Drugs, Don't Drink and Drive"? Would Emerson the Spoiled Rotten Child complain and whine about the lack of newness and spontaneity in the message? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution, he will do no such thing? We sure as heck know Emerson won't. It's much easier to drop vague complaints. Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side--the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? Do we not know that Emerson commits the genetic fallacy as easily as he buttered his morning scone, since it is easier than actually addressing and refuting arguments? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. Emerson is a incompetent in Biblical matters, and uses the genetic fallacy as a smokescreen. Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. Emerson of course was attached to no community of opinion, righto? Or did he live with his head stuck in a bucket? This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. But don't ask Waldo to actually address any of those claims, nossiree. Just calling them biased is sufficient.

Poor Skeptic X. If only he knew how much I loved giving certain professors headaches in college. I did the same thing when they preached Ibsen's screed, "The majority is always wrong." As I asked my prof, "So does that mean that when 51% agree with Ibsen, he becomes wrong? If so, why did he try to convince anyone? That would seem counter-productive." And like Skeptic X, their answer was to dodge and evade the fact that their subjective pearls of wisdom had been tested and found plastic. Or, the wiser ones than Skeptic X changed the subject.

More turnaround, shall we, this time with Skeptic X? "That is the situation with [Holding]'s primary source, Gary Demar. He is a committed preterist, so anyone with common sense knows in advance that whatever DeMar has to say about scriptures related to the return of Jesus will favor the preterist view." Yah, yah! "That is the situation with Skeptic X. He is a committed errantist, so anyone with common sense knows in advance that whatever Skeptic X has to say about scriptures will favor the errantist view." OK, Skeptic X, you're refuted, can I pack up and go home now? No? No, he has an accusation to throw: "If [Holding] were debating some aspect of biblical inerrancy with someone else, how impressed would he be if his opponent quoted me as evidence that errors exist in the Bible?" If they quoted Skeptic X, not at all -- because he isn't a Biblical scholar and has a proven track record of incompetence in that respect. I would never, and never have, used such genetic-fallacy nonsense as, "Skeptic X is a committed errantist, so anyone with common sense knows in advance that whatever Skeptic X has to say about scriptures will favor the errantist view." I'd show his deficiencies, note that he is not a Biblical scholar, and move on, never once noting the point of view aspect. Never have, never will. It's a fallacy and a cheap, dirty debate tactic, and thus it is no surprise that Skeptic X uses it. "If he were debating the existence of 'God,' how impressed would [Holding] be with quotations from the writings of a known atheist or books published by Prometheus or American Atheist?" Depends who it is, Skeptic X. If it's Madalyn Murray O'Hair, you should tuck your chin under your armpit and leave the room. If it's Kai Nielsen, or A. J. Ayer, that's another story. If Skeptic X quoted McKinsey on a point, I would diss him not because McKinsey is an errantist, but because McKinsey, like Skeptic X, is an incompetent in Biblical literature, sociology, history, and all related topics. It boils down to that Skeptic X has been gigged and gagged for trying to get away with a "have your cake and eat it too" genetic fallacy, and he can't get out of it with a "you'd do it too" excuse, because I don't do it, too, and never will do it. "The fact that [Holding] can't see that quoting confirmed preterists to try to prove preterism is a seriously flawed method of argumentation speaks volumes about his inability to think logically." The fact that Skeptic X plays this genetic fallacy game at all shows that he's scared pantsless over actually confronting the data, because he gets gigged every time. I quote DeMar because he is a trained Biblical scholar -- not because he is a preterist. Wright is also a trained scholar (again, one who would spin circles around Skeptic X and his puny TSR rag), as are all of the sources I use, and following Emerson's whining fallacy won't answer any of their arguments. In the next round Skeptic X has no choice but to deal with the meaning of oikoumene, and there I have not only Biblical but secular scholarship in my corner. I can hardly wait for this one: "The fact that [Holding] can't see that quoting confirmed Roman geography scholars to try to prove a point about Roman geography is a seriously flawed method of argumentation speaks volumes about his inability to think logically." Oh boy!

Next Skeptic X tries to justify his tarring of DeMar by telling his gullible readers, "Brushing against someone who has bigoted views is nowhere close to being equivalent to someone who has written extensively on a subject that he has come to be closely identified with. If readers want to know just how much DeMar has written on preterism and Christian Reconstruction, they should go to the internet and type his name into a search window." Ha ha! Note that Skeptic X never gave that advice to people to tell them to find his articles or mine; no, there had to be links otherwise the dumb Skeppies would never figure it out. But as for doing that search, go ahead if you want, but let me also save you some trouble. DeMar's home site is americanvision.org. Use the search engine -- the only ref you'll find to Reconstructionism is for a book where DeMar takes one of four views -- not the most extreme. Skeptic X never gets around to showing that DeMar endorses the hog as far as re-instituting stoning, as he tried to tar the brush; those really interested in more than Skeptic X's gossip can read the book reviewed here, or read the full book here and find out for themselves what DeMar believes. Skeptic X tarring DeMar with that sort of reconstructionist thinking would be like a Christian tarring Skeptic X with Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Dennis McKinsey, and until he quotes specifics from DeMar -- and even if he does -- this is nothing but a cheap distraction on Skeptic X's part and an attempt to bias his gullible Skeptical readers. If he wants to play that game, our comparison to someone brushing against Tom Metzger remains accurate.

In closing, Skeptic X offers some personal details noting that he is spending less time in front of a computer these days because he is in the beginning stages of macular degeneration. Presumably he found out about this sometime after he challenged me to 12 separate debates, since it seems odd that he would have proceeded with such a challenge knowing his time would be limited. It is regrettable of course that he may/will (?) be having greater difficulties with his eyesight (in some cases, macular degeneration can take many years before it has any noticeable effect), and we made it quite clear in earlier correspondence that he was free to take on or abandon exchanges for health reasons as he saw fit, and no bones would be made of it. If he will be able to continue debating, fine; if not, and that is the reason given, no more will be said. We likewise expect courtesy should we have to lessen time spent on this effort.

That's all the diversions for this round, but we are sure more are coming.

Sure enough. Round 2 diversions ahead.

Dumb Statement #28,743. In response to a point I made about using outdated lexicons, Skeptic X barked:

Apparently, [Holding] doesn't know that koine Greek is a dead language, so it has not undergone linguistic evolution since 1960.

This qualifies as one of the world's dumbest statements on record, since 41 years allows time not for linguistic evolution, but for further research and study into meaning! Is Skeptic X this dull-minded? Yes, and he thinks peer-reviewed journals on Biblical philology and linguistics are nothing but accounts of summer vacation slides. He goes on:

As for the various Bible translations that I will cite in support of positions that I take, I can certainly understand why [Holding] disapproves of this. Citing a dozen or more translations would amount to citing the scholarship of hundreds of linguistic scholars, because translations are most often done by committees and rarely by single individuals.

As we told Skeptic X, however, and as he hasn't yet figured out, "hundreds" of scholars don't work on the same books. Oikoumene, the word of concern, appears 15 times in 6 NT books. That means Skeptic X is at best citing the scholarship of maybe a few dozen scholars at best. Not that it matters. Skeptic X himself responds to scholarship with such stunning repartee as, "Oh my G___, if X says it, then it must be true," so he can copy and paste that and make it our response. As usual, it's just Skeptic X trying to weasel out of dealing with specifics, and we have our "real scholarship" from the side of secular scholars with no axe to grind for preterism.

Bio Bait. Apparently tiring of our notes of his CoC past and present hermeneutic, Skeptic X tries to deny that it has "anything to do with my present positions" and wags back that he supposes my membership in a Baptist congregation is a match. Well, sorry, Skeptic X, it isn't. I attend a Baptist congregation out of family sensibilities; I would be as comfortable in several other denominations. Beyond this Skeptic X says he finds this critique "rather amusing, coming from a Baptist, who believes that a book riddled with tales of talking animals, routine patriarchal chats with 'God, men walking unharmed through a fiery furnace, people rising from the dead, etc., etc., etc. is the 'inspired word of God.'" Riddled with? I count two talking animals over a 6000 year span; is that "riddled"? I challenged Skeptic X to show how the chats were "routine" based on a time-correspondent basis, and we're still waiting for that; but make them few enough and he'll excuse them as delusion. Miracles? Same thing. Pro rata, perhaps one every 50 years on average if that much. Of course most such events by nature are as off-limits to historical verification for us as Tacitus' record of Augustus talking to his dog, but for the present, Skeptic X has done nothing to counter the hypothesis of their validity other than barking, "That's stupid!" So is all of TSR. May I now ignore it?

Skeptic X continues, "I have read The Age of Reason, but, believe it or not, I had concluded that the Bible is a crock of you know what long before I had ever read this book or any other book written by deists, skeptics, or atheists." That's not what I said; I said Paine is where Skeptic X got his specific ideas about alleged NT abuse of the OT, not where he bought his first set of crockery. Then he passes on to us a copy of a letter he received from a fellow ignoramus who saw the light of Skepticism. I'll insert some comments in green.

"Up to age 40 (3 years ago), I was a dyed-in-the wool, soldier for Christianity. Choir, committees, giving sermons (on laity Sunday), donations, evangelism, bible study/classes--you name it and I was into it. Oddly enough, it was a Bible study class that "led me astray." The vast majority of bible classes refer only to carefully selected verses which constitute less than 10% of the total. Not the classes I attend. This freak must have attended First Chicken Church, Skeptic X's denomination. I have studied 100% of the text, on my own. Then I took a class called "Disciple Bible Study," which goes through the entire bible. What an eye opener! The more I read, the worse it got. I.e., the more my anachronistic and uneducated plain reading got under my skin. In the end, I couldn't go along with it anymore. I stopped believing. The result was, as expressed by so many others who have contacted you, that I feel a lot better for shedding it. I no longer wring my hands and pray before making a decision. I don't ever wring my hands and pray before making a decision. So? I no longer agonize over what god wants me to do and search for a "sign" as to which way to go. I neither agonize over what God wants me to do nor search for signs. So? I make my own decisions, and I am a lot better at making them and better for making them. I make my own decisions, too. So? I feel fresher, more relaxed, more alive then back in the dark old days. "I drink Coke. It adds life!" I'm so relaxed right now that my friends call me "Iceman". My only regret is the foolishness I feel for having wasted so much of my life and money on a primitive superstition (oh, the stories I could tell).

I could tell stories, too, and they'd be a lot better ones. Skeptic X's friend didn't need release from Christ; he needed release from pompous theological ignorance. Instead he dove into the shallow end of the pool.