Critique of Muzi's Book

Hello Muzi,

I have read your book and I have critiqued it as you requested. However, I have critiqued your book in great detail because I do not agree with many of the things that you are saying. I have critiqued your book in such a way as to quote you and then give my commentary. I have tried very hard not to be offensive but despite my efforts I cannot guarantee that you will not be offended at some of the things that I say. If you are, please believe that it was never my intention to offend you.

I’ve divided my critique/commentary into two parts, the first part of which I expound on your book and the second part of which I talk a little bit about Dawkins’s book. However, the majority of my critique focuses on your book. I only devote a couple of pages to Dawkins.

Because I critiqued the entire book and had a lot to say, my critique of your book is quite long; 37 pages to be exact; but it is a fast read. You could probably read this in less than an hour. So, please read all of it.

I assume that this will probably be the beginning of many discussions between the two of us. However, if you read what I’ve written and decide that you don’t want to discuss things with me any further then I will understand and accept that. There will be no hard feelings on my part. But I just want you to know that I am very open to further discussions if you like.

So, let’s begin…

YOUR BOOK

P. 9
The history of religion has taught us that independent thinkers are dismissed as heretics. Using this definition, the book is both heretical and prophetic. Heresy hunters will definitely enjoy this book. As you read this book, think of the fact that Martin Luther was declared a heretic…

You don’t define what heresy is in your book, but you speak of it often. So, I will use this definition: Heresy is an opinion or teaching contrary to biblical doctrine. Martin Luther was labeled a heretic because he disputed the church’s belief that freedom from sin could be purchased with money. He taught that salvation is not from works but it is a free gift from God received only by grace through faith in Jesus. This is exactly what the Bible teaches. Therefore what Martin was teaching was not contrary to the Word but lined up with it and therefore, what he was saying was unjustly labeled as heresy. What is happening with you is the reverse. You are teaching doctrine that is indeed contrary to the Word and therefore what you have expressed in your book is justly labeled as heresy. There is a difference. It is the same when considering Jesus. Jesus was not teaching what was contrary to the Word because he was/is the Word made flesh (John 1:1-14). So, nothing that he said was heresy. But you are not the Word made flesh so anything that you say that is contradictory to what Jesus said is heresy.

P. 11
Mark was written in 70-72 BCE, Mathew in 82-85 BCE, Luke in 88-93 BCE, and John in 95-100 BCE. Matthew copied 90 percent of Mark into his gospel and Luke copied 50 percent of Mark, etc. the second one is language. They were written in a language that neither Jesus nor his disciples could speak or write, namely Greek.

The gospels were also written in Aramaic, a language that Jesus did speak. His dying words on the cross were originally in Aramaic. Also, there are recorded instances in the Bible of Jesus speaking with people whose primary language was Greek. One example is his conversation with the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13). And an even more compelling example is his conversation with Pontius Pilate (John 18) who undoubtedly spoke Greek. If Jesus didn’t speak Greek, how was he able to speak with these two men? Of course he spoke Greek. Moreover, the apostle Paul was a Roman citizen. He spoke Greek and he wrote all of his letters (two thirds of the New Testament books) in Greek.

The other problem is that Matthew and Luke copied the rest of their material from an unknown “source” called Q (the lost gospel).

The book of Q is a hypothesis; an assumption. But even if there was a book of Q with the sayings of Jesus written in it; what would be wrong with Matthew and Mark copying the events from the book? Why would that discredit the Bible in some way? In your book you have made many references and quoted many people. Your quotes are actual copies of material taken from other books that people have written. If you accuse Matthew and Luke of copying material from another source and then discredit them for doing so; then you must also discredit yourself for copying from other sources as well.

I understand that this is not the story of any other person but mine alone. It makes me ‘the only begotten son of God.”

This statement is blasphemy against Jesus Christ. There can only be one “only begotten son.” Two only begotten sons is an oxymoron; for “only” means one. The Bible has identified Jesus as God’s only begotten son. You have identified yourself as God’s only begotten son. Both you and Jesus cannot be God’s only begotten son. The God of the Bible identified Jesus as his only begotten son (John 3:16). He did not identify Muzi Cindi as his only begotten son.

P. 13
If the church provides security it cannot provide truth. Conversely, if the church provides truth it cannot provide security. The security that comes from religious “truths” is always temporal and dependent on mythology.

What is your basis in saying that the religious truths that come from the church is dependent on mythology? Where is your proof that the writings of the Bible are merely myths? You make grand statements but do not back them up with evidence. You say that if the church provides security then it cannot provide truth. And then you say if the church provides truth it cannot provide security. This sounds very profound but they are false statements for there is always some type of security present within the confines of truth, even if it is but the security of not falling victim to a lie. You have fallen victim to a lie. And not only have you fallen victim to a lie; but now you have begun to perpetrate the lie yourself. It is no surprise therefore that you would want to discredit the church, because the true church will challenge you in this lie.

Religions were made for security and not truth. I have chosen truth over security.

You have chosen a lie over the truth.

I do not want you to believe what I believe especially if it will bring insecurity in your life.

Then why write the book? It is difficult for me to believe that you do not want people to believe what you believe. I am a writer of Christian apologetics. I defend the faith particularly regarding certain issues. I write books in a quest to encourage people towards a certain belief; towards a certain train of thought (in essence; towards believing in what I believe). All non-fiction writers in every genre have this aim in some way or another. I don’t believe that you are any different. The fact that you’ve taken the time to write your book proves that there is something that you are trying to get your readers to believe; even if that something is that you don’t want them to believe what you believe; which I find, well…unbelievable. It is difficult for me to believe that you taken two years to write your book just to say that basically you’re really not trying to influence anyone towards your way of thinking.

P. 15
God has been an integral part of my spiritual journey. He knew me before I was born (Jer 1:5)

Isn’t this the God that you say later on, doesn’t exist? You can’t have it both ways. Either this God does exist or he doesn’t. He can’t exist and be an integral part of your spiritual journey on page 15 and then not exist on page 36. Which is it?

P.20
Rwanda genocide, Catholic—Protestant war in Ireland, 9/11, 7/7, Israel—Palestine war, The Holocaust, Apartheid, Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaida, Lord’s Resistance Army, etc. are prime examples of the demon of absolution. Now we hear Christians accusing the emerging church of worshipping the demon of relativism. Which is a better demon reader?

Neither.

Absolutism is only demonic if it is in the wrong hands for the wrong purpose. The gospel of Jesus Christ is absolute for it teaches that it is only by the name of Jesus by which we can be saved (Acts 4:8-12). The gospel, however, was in the right hands (the apostles/disciples) for the right purpose (the gift of salvation). Acts 4:12 is an absolute statement; an absolute truth. Absoluteness of thought or belief does not automatically render that thought or belief as demonic. Relativism, on the other hand, is demonic when it attempts to take away the absoluteness of the gospel. For instance, where beauty may be relative because it manifests itself or doesn’t manifest itself in accordance to the likes and dislikes of the eyes of the beholder; God has manifested himself in Jesus despite the eyes of the beholder. Those who don’t see Jesus as God simply can’t see him. They’ve either purposely shut their eyes or they are spiritually blind (because the truth is indeed available to them (Acts 17:24-27). There’s no relativism when it comes to who Jesus is. He is Lord, Savior, God incarnate, born of a virgin, bodily resurrected, and the second part of the Godhead. There’s no relativism in this. He is who he is just as you are who you are. There’s no relativism in who Jesus is, instead there is only relativism in his relationship with those who know him and call him Lord and friend. But who he is, is an absolute. Just as there is no relativism in who you are but instead there is only relativism in your relationships with those who have met you. It is the same with everyone. You are who you are. I am who I am. Jesus is who he is. The difference between you, me, and Jesus is that Jesus is God, absolutely, while we are not. The rest of us are just mere human beings. Christians each have a different relationship with God (relativism) but it is the same God (absolutism) that we have a different relationship with.

All of the above atrocities were committed out of absolute beliefs by religious people.

This does not make all of absolutism demonic. If you look at this and say, well…these atrocities were committed because people had absolute beliefs and therefore conclude that all absolute thought is therefore demonic, then you paint yourself into a corner in which you have to also say that the gospels are demonic because the gospels teach absolute beliefs or the Bible is demonic because the Bible teaches absolute beliefs. But the gospels and the Bible are not demonic in any sense of the word. We should not judge God by the actions of man but instead judge the actions of man by God. God did not order any of the atrocities that you have spoken of. We must stop blaming God for the actions of men. Moreover, some absolute beliefs are demonic and some are not. To say that absolutism is demonic is to be guilty of the very thing that you are talking against. If you imply that all absolutism is demonic (which you have implied and alluded to) then you’ve made an absolute statement yourself. So, in order not to be guilty of being an absolutist wouldn’t you have to agree that, overall, some absolute beliefs are demonic while other absolute beliefs are not? Yes, as much as you wouldn’t want to; you would have to agree. Otherwise you’d be guilty of what you are accusing others of; absolutism.

I challenge the idea that truth can ever be captured in a Bible, a creed, a doctrine, or a dogma.

This is heresy.

The Bible identifies who God is and leads us to the way of salvation through Jesus Christ. You oppose the truths of the Bible with the statements that you make. It would be good for you to read some apologetic material. I would recommend the following books: Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (both volumes) by Josh McDowell, A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, and Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis.

P.21
The reality of God can never be defined by a human being.

Why not? Isn’t this exactly what you’re trying to do…define the reality of God? Aren’t you a human being? The very book that you have written is an attempt to define who you believe God is; it is an attempt to define the reality of God. Moreover, if you say that the reality of God can never be defined by a human being then you automatically discredit the reality of God that was defined by Jesus Christ (who encompassed the hypostatic union of humanity and divinity) through his gospel. You also discredit the reality of God that was defined by the Old Testament prophets, the apostles, and the disciples. You also discredit 2nd  Timothy 3:16 that says all scripture is “God-breathed” (inspired of God). You also discredit yourself.

My personal experience of God and God are two different concepts.

Your personal experience, if it redefines God contrary to who he is, does not override who God actually is. God is not a concept. He is a living being. Wasn’t it you who said that God knew you before you were born (p. 15 of your book)? How then can a concept know anything? A concept is to be known but it does not know.
The personal experience that you had was not with God, but was instead with a sinister being. You are being tricked.

P.23
I desire to bring down walls that separate theists and atheists.

How? By tearing down Christianity?

I am a disoriented Christian trying my best to find the ancient paths.

I agree that you are disoriented; that you are confused (God is not the author of confusion, 1 Corinthians 14:33). But I do not agree that you are a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Christ brought the good news of the gospel. The gospel is full of absolutes. You believe that absolutism is demonic. Therefore, you do not believe in the absolute teachings of the Bible when it comes to Christology (you refer to biblical teachings as myths). Therefore you are not a Christian.

The Jesus Seminar and other scholars have unearthed a lot of revealing books that were excluded from the final library (Bible) of holy books that eventually formed what we call the Bible.

There is good reason for this. Read the books that I suggested, particularly McDowell’s books for a detailed explanation.

I ask these questions because of the increasing number of atheists I’ve met who have embraced the way of Christ and believe that this way will make our world a better place for humanity in the future.

They may have embraced the way of Christ (i.e. love thy neighbor as yourself, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and so forth) but they have not embraced Christ himself (for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life; John 3:16, If you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” [God incarnate] and believe in your heart that God [the Father] raised him from the dead, you will be saved; Romans 10:9).

We have to understand that wherever people are, God is there. This will get us to respect all people, as we understand them to be God incarnated.

This is a heretical statement. There was only one man who was manifest as God incarnate and that man was Jesus Christ. No other human being was, is, or will ever be God incarnate. I say this boldly and absolutely, without hesitation or apology.

P.31
You quoted Ludwig Feuerbach who said, “God is as I imagine him to be…in short God is a product of fantasy, and because fantasy is the essential form or organ of poetry, it may be said the religion is poetry and God is a poetic being.”

This is heresy. God is not the product of fantasy. God is the Alpha and Omega as attested to in Revelation 1:8 where God is quoted as saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." God is the beginning and the end of everything. Therefore God cannot be the product of fantasy because fantasies (imaginations of day dreaming) have a beginning and an end. A being who has always existed cannot be the product of an imagination that exists only in part here and there turned on and off by a person when he/she starts or stops day dreaming. God is real; fantasies are not.

P.32
You quote Karen Armstrong as saying, “God is nameless.”

This is heresy. God has a name. His name is “I AM THAT I AM.” (Genesis 3:14). In the Hebrew it is YAHWEH.

P.35
There was a time when I believed that Christianity was God’s only true religion and evangelicalism was the true expression of the real Christianity.

And you were right. What happened? Often times when people leave the faith they are either mad at God or disillusioned with the Bible because they have hard-line questions that they haven’t gotten any answers to. Are you mad at God? It sounds like you are. Are you disappointed about something that you are faulting God for? It sounds like you might be. But if you’re not mad at God and you just might need some answers to some questions, then take a look at some of the Christian apologetic material that I spoke of earlier. In reading your book, it doesn’t look like you’ve studied any books in the area of Christian apologetics. It only looks like you’ve studied books on atheism. If this is so, then you’ve only looked at one side of the issue. I would be more than happy to purchase the apologetic books for you and send them to you if you like.

P.36
God does not exist.

This is heresy.

I do not believe in a personal God. But my God experiences are very personal to me.

Yes, this is essentially the problem. You have dismissed the literal teachings of the Bible in exchange for your own personal experience by way of this visitation that you had. You’ve been demonically duped.

P.37
I heard the voice of “God beyond God” speaking to me.

If God doesn’t exist then there is no such thing as God and if there is no such thing as God then there can be no God beyond God. You can’t go beyond something or someone that doesn’t exist. How can there be something beyond something else that doesn’t exist? Take for example…a road. If a particular road doesn’t exist then I couldn’t drive to a road beyond the road that doesn’t exist. If the first road doesn’t exist, then the road beyond it doesn’t exist either.

One cannot go beyond God if there’s no God in the first place to go beyond.

When ‘God beyond God” told me; ‘God does not exist’ and I needed to call all church leaders and give them the message, I knew that the road ahead of me was a formidable one.

You say that God beyond God came to you and told you that God doesn’t exist. But in order for the God that is beyond to exist (according to what you’re saying) there would have to be a God for that God to surpass (because to go beyond means to surpass). So essentially what you’re saying is that the God that was surpassed came to you and told you that he doesn’t exist. But if he doesn’t exist, then how was he ever surpassed and how could he have come to you? What you’re saying is heresy and frankly, doesn’t really make sense.

P.38
I am God and I am not God at the same time.

This is blasphemy against all three persons of the Godhead. You are not God.

Jesus didn’t just say he was God (John 8:58) without proving it. He proved he was God by predicting his own death, burial, and resurrection (John 2:19-22). He told the Jews that if they killed him he’d raise up his own body in three days. And then he was crucified in such a way that there was no question that he was dead and in three days was walking around again. Over 500 people saw the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 15:6). If you are God, then prove it. Do something comparable. Predict your own death and resurrect yourself on the day of your predicted return. If you cannot do this; then you are not God.

P.41
Let’s continue to use the Bible without taking it literally.

The Bible is a history book as well as a prophetic book. It is literal.

P. 45
In a few milliseconds the TM had communicated online through the bank server, through the space station, into the South African bank server, back into the space station, back into the server in Japan, back into the ATM and my cell-phone, in less than a second! It dawned on me, ‘this world was created by human beings, everything we use, was created by man! My mind could no longer worship God, therefore my heart rejected God.

The best response to this is found in Romans 1:18-21 which reads, “But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.” (NLT)

You are more impressed with the creation of online banking than with the creation of the earth and the sky. Amazing.

I could not understand how God chose to make Himself known in only one religion

God didn’t chose to make himself known in one religion; he simply chose to make himself known…period. The religion of Christianity came about as a result of him making himself known.

On 11 September 2001 was the day the question of God took another level in my life. On this day, four aeroplanes were highjacked in the name of God and flown into various buildings in the US. Three of them hit the intended targets (Pentagon and World Trade Centre). The other one, intended for the White House, was supposedly shot down by the US army. When the anguish of this trauma had subsided the fundamentalist preachers in America got onto the bandwagon. Telling us how these attacks were of God, to punish sinful America. God was punishing homosexuality, abortion, same sex marriages, sins of all kinds, etc. Moslems in the Middle East were dancing in the streets, shouting ‘God is great! How can God be so cruel? I asked quietly.

No, the question is: how can man be so cruel? God didn’t fly those planes into the Pentagon and into the towers of the World Trade Center, men did. You keep blaming God for the actions of men. If your answer is “well God allowed it to happen.” Then I’d say, “But you don’t believe God exists so how can you say that God allowed it to happen?”

In 2005 the Hurricane Katrina hit America. Televangelist Pat Robertson hit the waves saying that this was caused by a famous bisexual homosexual in New Orleans. So, God uprooted thousands of families and displaced them, destroyed so many churches that were under water, just to show his anger on this one homosexual?
So you believed what Pat Robertson said about God and then got mad at God? Just because Pat Robertson said something like this doesn’t mean he’s right about it.

I felt, if God is real, he is not worthy of my worship.

God is not worthy of your worship? This is not a very humble statement. Anyway, the best response to this (which I would like for you to apply to yourself since you feel that God is not worthy of your worship) is found in Job 38:1-15 which reads, “Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: “Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself like a man, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? Who kept the sea inside its boundaries as it burst from the womb, and as I clothed it with clouds and wrapped it in thick darkness? For I locked it behind barred gates, limiting its shores. I said, ‘This far and no farther will you come. Here your proud waves must stop!’ Have you ever commanded the morning to appear and caused the dawn to rise in the east? Have you made daylight spread to the ends of the earth, to bring an end to the night’s wickedness? As the light approaches, the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal; it is robed in brilliant colors. The light disturbs the wicked and stops the arm that is raised in violence.” (NLT)

P.49
God is real and personal to me but not literal.

How can God be real but not literal? God is literal. You just said it yourself. You just don’t know that you said it. He might not be physically tangible, but he’s literal. If he’s real, he’s literal. Real is literal.

I no longer believe in a literal Devil…

I’m sure Satan is very pleased with this. Since you don’t believe he exists, he can easily exploit you (which he has already done and continues to do as long as you are promoting your book). You have no power against an enemy that you refuse to recognize.

P.50
The literal second coming is not even in the Bible for that matter.

Yes it is. Your statement is heretical. Read Revelation chapter 19. You’ve misrepresented the Bible with this statement.

P. 53
I plead with you not to kill my soul, Jesus warns us against those who can kill
our souls.

Again, another misrepresentation of scripture. You’ve misrepresented what Jesus actually said. Human beings cannot kill anyone’s soul. Jesus said the following: “Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28 NLT)

Only God can kill the soul. Your plea should be to God (particularly since you have chosen to go along this path), not to man.

P.69
The creation stories in the book of Genesis were Israel’s stories of creation, not God’s stories of creation.

Where’s your proof of this? What do you use to back up this statement? The creation account was written by Moses but inspired by God. I back up my statement in the following way: scholars and theologians have determined that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. Moses had a relationship with God in which he would hear directly from him (Numbers 12:8). Certainly then, God could have told him how creation began. We must also remember that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16). So, the scriptures in Genesis were breathed from God through man (which would include the passages of scripture that give the creation account) just as all of the scriptures in the Bible were. Furthermore, archaeological finds continue to prove the Old Testament writings. What’s your argument to the contrary? You make grand statements without backing them up.

You quoted Manning as saying: “‘A false and illusory notion of God…sees God as someone who is gracious to me when I am good, but who punishes me relentlessly when I am bad.’ ”

To reward a child when he is good and punish him when he is bad is typical of any parent. God is no different, and why should he be? A Father who chastises his children loves his children because he wants to make sure they do better.  Moreover, God does not punish us relentlessly. He chastises and then provides grace. We see that with the lives of some of the greatest men and women in the Bible; Moses, Abraham, David, Miriam, Peter and many more.

You quote manning as going on to say, “‘This is a typical patriarchal notion of God. He is the God of Noah who sees people deep in sin, repents that He made them and resolves to destroy them. He is the God of the desert who sends snakes to bite his people because they murmured against him. He is the God of David who practically decimates a people, because their King, motivated by pride perhaps, takes a census of his empire. He is the God who exacts the last drop of blood from his Son, so that his just anger, evoked by sin, may be appeased. This God whose moods alternate between graciousness and fierce anger, a God who is still all to familiar to many Christians—is a caricature of the true God. This God does not exist. This is not the God whom Jesus reveals to us. This is not the God whom Jesus called “‘Abba Father.’ ”

God punishes those who don’t do things the way he instructs them to be done. God created us; therefore it is his prerogative whether or not to destroy us. He has that option just as he had the option to create us; knowing of the sins that each and everyone of us would commit if he were to create us; but he created us anyway. He allowed us to be, anyway; despite all of the heinous things we would do in our lives. It’s interesting that we don’t complain much about that. We don’t say to God “Why did you allow me to exist when you foreknew all of the bad things I would do in life before I got here?” But instead we ask things like; “why would God allow 9/11 or why would he allow the Holocaust to happen, or why would he allow the genocide that took place in Rwanda to happen?” Well, why would he allow me to happen?...I’ve done some pretty bad things in my life too, or why would he allow you to happen? I’m sure you’ve done some pretty bad things in your life as well.

Yes, God becomes angry and shows his wrath but he is also gracious and merciful. This is who God is. We shouldn’t try to redefine God because we don’t like who he is. We should accept him for who he is. It is foolish to say that this God does not exist simply because we don’t like his personality or because we don’t fully understand why he does what he does. The God of the Old Testament (Yahweh, I AM THAT I AM) is indeed the God whom Jesus called Abba Father. Are we to believe that he isn’t just because you say so? Just because you say you had a visitation? Are we to throw away a whole Bible based on your word alone? I think not. Muhammad had a visitation, Joseph Smith had a visitation, David Koresh had a visitation (just to name a few) and look at where these visitations led. Muhammad’s visitation ultimately led to 9/11. Joseph Smiths’ visitation led to the propagation of the false doctrine that blacks are cursed, and Koresh’s vision led to the Waco Texas incident of 1993.

P.70
To be human is to be lonely, separate, and insecure. They needed to create meaning for themselves like we all do. They needed a symbol to have security for their insecure souls. They then created “God” as a central symbol of meaning for their time.

So what you’re saying here is that the Old Testament God (the God that you call the sky God that you say doesn’t exist) was a creation of human thought and is just a symbol. In other words; God didn’t create humans but instead humans created God in their minds.

This is blasphemy and heresy. This is particularly blasphemy against the Holy Ghost since God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) created the heavens and the earth.
 
I will now refer to him as the Sky God.

This is also the same way Jim Jones referred to the God of the Bible. He too called God the “Sky God” and said much of the same things that you are saying. Jim Jones eventually came to believe that he himself was God (just like you do) and tried to convince his followers of the same (just as you are trying to do although you say you are not). The result: a cult leadership in Guyana which led 900 people to their deaths. Muzi, where are you going with this? I took the following information from the Internet (below) regarding the things that Jim Jones said. You’re saying all of the same things that he said, which should concern you. It certainly concerns me.

Here’s the quote from Wickipedia…
By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding traditional Christianity as "fly away religion," rejecting the Bible as being white men’s' justification to subordinate women and subjugate people of color and stating that it spoke of a "Sky God" who was no God at all.[12] Jones authored a booklet titled "The Letter Killeth," criticizing the Bible.[39] Jones also began preaching that he was the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Vladimir Lenin, and Father Divine. In the documentary Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, former Temple member Hue Fortson, Jr. quoted Jones as saying, "What you need to believe in is what you can see...If you see me as your friend, I'll be your friend. As you see me as your father, I'll be your father, for those of you that don't have a father...If you see me as your savior, I'll be your savior. If you see me as your God, I'll be your God."[6]
By the Spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist.[40] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977 Marceline Jones admitted to the New York Times that, as early as age 18 when he watched his then idol Mao Zedong overthrow the Chinese government, Jim Jones realized that the way to achieve social change through Marxism in the United States was to mobilize people through religion.[36] She stated that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion," and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!" [36] In one sermon, Jones said that, "You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"[6]
What Jones was saying sounds painfully similar to what you are saying now.

P.71
To many it has been an unwelcome shock to hear basic religious terms such as God, Christ, Mary, the resurrection, atonement, trinity referred to as symbols when these terms have previously been used as literal descriptions of unseen reality.

Jesus Christ was seen in his resurrected body by over 500 people (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). His resurrection is literal, not symbolic. God and Christ are literal, not symbolic. The atonement was/is literal, not symbolic. The word “trinity” is used to describe the plurality of a singular God. There is one God who represents himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This is literal. This is a reality. God is not a myth.

The notion of God preached in most churches today seems incredible and incapable of substantiation. This notion has made God largely irrelevant to most people, including regular church attendees.

This is a grand statement but do you have anything to back it up with? Where’s your supporting evidence? Just because you believe something or just because you say it is, doesn’t make it so. I attend church and the God that is preached in church (and who I preach about) seems very credible and capable of substantiation to me and from what I can tell, to all of those who I meet in church as well, which is in complete opposition to what you are saying.

Then he [God] forgot Noah and his family in the Ark but later remembered them (I suppose the smell of the dead reminded him)

This is yet another misrepresentation of what scripture actually says. The Bible does not say that God forgot Noah and his family in the Ark. As a matter of fact, it says the exact opposite as attested to in the following quote: “But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded” (Genesis 8:1). When looking hermeneutically at the passage and considering the language idioms of that day; to remember someone meant that they had never been forgotten.

He [God] then repented for killing them with water and then vowed never to kill human beings with water again.

This is still yet two more misrepresentations of what the scripture actually says. God did not repent but instead made a promise to Noah that he would never destroy all life with floodwaters as attested to in the following passage of scripture: “Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: ‘I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Genesis 9:8-11 NIV)

As is clearly shown, God did not repent but made a promise. Also God did not say that he would never kill human beings with water again; he said that he would never again destroy all life by means of a flood. There’s a difference.

If you are going to use scripture in order to try to prove your point; then you shouldn’t misquote the scriptures or misrepresent what the scriptures actually say.

P.73
He [God] killed the firstborn male in every Egyptian household at the time of the exodus (Exodus 11:1-11)
This is one of your criticisms of God. But how can a God who “doesn’t exist” kill anyone? You keep contradicting yourself. Also, the account teaches that God brought this curse upon Egypt (after the Egyptian Pharaoh still refused to release the Hebrew slaves after previous plagues) so that the Pharaoh would release the slaves. Why did you leave that part of it out?
[God] sent frogs, mosquitoes, horseflies, and locusts against the Egyptians.

This is another criticism that you have of God (the one you say doesn’t exist). How can a God who doesn’t exist send these creatures against the Egyptians? Another contradiction. Also, you didn’t give a complete synopsis of the account. You left out something very important: that this was due to the fact that Pharaoh would not free the slaves.

These examples show that to possess miraculous power in the Bible was not always or necessarily to be counted moral, righteous or even civil. We have to agree that this represents a demonic deity. This is not a God that a 21st century person should worship.

This is heresy. The God of the Old Testament is not in actuality a demon-god. First you say you don’t believe in a literal demon and then you say that the God of the Bible represents a demonic deity.

So, since you don’t like some of the ways in which God has punished people when they have gone against him or against one of his anointed, you write a book to denounce him and say that he doesn’t exist. Then, after you say he doesn’t exist, you go on to criticize him. How can you criticize someone who you say doesn’t exist? How can you blame a non-existent being for anything?
God knows what he’s doing even if we don’t. He is a just God even if we don’t understand his ways. You don’t like God so you’ve decided to erase the God that you don’t like and redefine and create your own God.
This is not a God worthy of my worship.

Are you referring to the God that you say doesn’t exist? If God, as you say, is not worthy of your worship then God would have to exist in order to be available not to receive the worship that you say he’s not worthy of getting. If God doesn’t exist, then why do you keep speaking of him as if he does? I’ll tell you why…because you know, deep down inside of yourself, that he does exist.

You say that God is not worthy of your worship but the question is never whether or not God is worthy of us, but instead whether or not we are worthy of him. You have it backwards. Is your worship so grand that you think that God is missing something without it? No, you are the one who’s missing out; not God.

This is not a God I can call my God.

Sure you can. You simply refuse to call him your God because you don’t like many of his ways. Children often react the same way to their parents when they are mad at them. Many of them decide to run away from home and disown their parents. Muzi, why are you so mad at God? What disappointments have you experienced that have brought you to such a spiritually rebellious point? Why are you disowning God?

P.75
The same God describes black people as the descendants of Sham, which means cursed.

It is Ham that you are referring to and Ham doesn’t mean cursed. The account documented in Genesis 9 is what you are referring to. Canaan, the son of Ham, was cursed. Many theologians believe that Ham was black which they say would make Canaan black. Canaan (actually Canaan’s descendants, the generations of Canaanites to come) were cursed by Noah to be slaves of his brother’s descendants (Shem and Japheth) because his father Ham had disrespected Noah. The Canaaanite nation has long been extinguished, so this curse doesn’t even apply any more. The Canannites are gone. But back to my argument: let’s say that Canaan was black; this would not mean that all black people are cursed to be slaves just because Canaan was black. Suppose Canaan also had big feet? Would all people with big feet be cursed because Canaan was cursed? Of course not. The same reasoning must therefore be applied when it comes to skin color. It was the Canannite nation that was cursed, not the “race” of people from which Canaan belonged. There’s a difference between a nation of people and a race of people.

I’ve written a book that addresses this issue titled, “What the Bible really says about Slavery.” I’d like for you to read it. I’ll send you a copy if you like.

I read the books [books written by atheists that you’ve quoted] because I was suspicious of the God idea of fundamentalism. The visitation confirmed my suspicions.

The visitation you had is suspect. I believe you were visited by a demon.

I do not intend to get them to believe in my God, but do intend to get them into the way of Jesus. The Jesus who was fully God and fully man, the Jesus who became man and lived amongst us, full of love and faithfulness (John1:14).

Well, finally…some spiritual truth. The only problem is that the “fully God” of Jesus that you have mentioned is the God that you have dismissed as being non-existent. Jesus himself quoted the Old Testament scriptures. By doing so he surely gave credence to the “theistic God” that you reject.

P.77
He [God] promises much but delivers little.

No, he delivers much but you’ve taken what he’s given you for granted and you see it as little.

We should actually rejoice in the death of the biblical sky God…we have to create God for our times and for our future generations the way God was created by our ancestors. We need to create God for the future generation.

This is blasphemy. The true living God (the God of the Bible) was not created by mankind; mankind was created by him. God is not some figment of our imagination. He is real (Romans 1).

P.79
The Biblical God concept was used to point to a being above the sky which was responsible for anything from earthquakes, floods, disasters, hurricanes, etc…God was a despotic tyrant more than anything else.

You’re only focusing on what you see as bad and ignoring what God has done that people would see as a blessing.

I use these scriptures to dispel the notion that the Bible is a literal, inerrant word of God.

Aside from being a spiritual book, the Bible is also a history book. Many archaeological finds have proven this so. By saying that the Bible isn’t literal you would have to discount all of the history within its pages. You’d have to say that the Jews never really existed and that they were never really enslaved by the Egyptians, that the apostles never lived, that the prophets never lived, that Jesus never really lived. To say that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, you’d have to prove that it is full of spiritual error. Your personal visitation is not “proof” enough.

Rape—this is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable yet few people know that the literal reading of the Bible often condones and even approves of rape. In Judges 21:10-24; Numbers 31:7-8; Deuteronomy 20:10-14 we find a command for the nation to be killed but to spare the virgins and take them for themselves (against their will obviously)

Well…you’ve left quite a few things out…

In regards to the reference in Judges…I am very aware of this account because I’ve preached on it (and wrote about it in one of my books titled, Is God a Chauvinist? The Bible and Women: A Complete Look). The entire account begins in Judges chapter 19. A Levite man’s concubine was ganged raped (vs. 20-27). She died from the attack. The attack happened in the town of Gibeah; a Benjamite town. The rest of the Israelites told the Benjamites to give up the men who did this awful thing (20:12-13). But the Benjamites would not listen and gathered together to fight all of Israel instead (20:14). The Israelites consulted God and God told the tribe of Judah to go into battle first against the Benjamites (20:18). Now, if God had condoned the vicious gang rape and murder of this woman (a woman low in status who had committed adultery) then he certainly would not have told Judah to go into battle against the Benjamites because of it. He would have told them to leave it alone because she wasn’t worth the fight and she had gotten what she deserved. But apparently, she was worth the fight. In 20:23 the Lord says, “Go out and fight against them.” In 20:28 (after a couple of defeats) the Lord continues to encourage Israel to fight Benjamin and tells them that he will give Benjamin over into their hands at this juncture of the war. So Benjamin was eventually defeated by the Israelites through the hand of God because they (the tribe of Benjamin) would not hand over the men who gang raped and murdered this woman. God stepped in personally to make sure the tribe of Benjamin had been defeated (20:35). This doesn’t sound like a God who condones rape to me. The defeat was so great that the tribe of Benjamin was almost completely annihilated.

Only 600 Benjamite men (no women) were able to escape (20:47). After a while the rest of Israel began to feel sorry for the Benjamite men who were left (because without women the tribe would soon die off completely) and concocted a plan to raid one of the other tribes to “find wives” for the Benjamites and a plan for the Benjamites to ambush women as they were dancing in the annual festival of Shiloh so that they could steal the women away and make them their wives (21:6-23). But these were not God’s plan. These plans were devised by the Israelite men themselves; separate from God.

There are many accounts of men raping women in the Bible just as there are accounts of rape happening worldwide on a daily basis in today’s time. This does not mean that God condones it or that the Bible condones it. The Bible is a historical book along with being a spiritual book. It documents things that happened and there are prophecies contained in it about things that were to happen and that are to happen. God does not condone the evil of men even though he allows evil to manifest itself.

In reference to Numbers 31:7-18, God told Moses to take revenge on the Midianites for leading the Israelites into adultery. Verse 7 says that they attacked the Midianites as God had commanded and killed all of the men. But they spared the women. However, Moses was upset that the women were spared and had them kill all of the boys and young women (who were not virgins). The virgin women were kept alive, but it is understood (hermeneutically) that although the young virgin women were captives that the men could not just arbitrarily go around raping these women but they instead they had to marry them (in order that they not be dishonored) and treat them as their wives if they wanted them. Moses was the one that made this decision; not God. However, God did leave the decision in the hands of Moses. But God has never commanded a man to rape a woman. What he has done is make rebellious nations captive to other nations and unfortunately men will, often times, rape women who are captives. However, God is against this. The raping of women captives was not due to any commandment of God but instead was due to the evil of men. Overall, women and children who were taken captive were to be enslaved. But even with this; God regulated slavery in such a way that it was understood, during that time, that fornication was still a sin even within the confines of slavery.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (NLT) reads, “As you approach a town to attack it, you must first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the Lord your God hands over the town to you, use your swords to kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock and other plunder. You may enjoy the plunder from your enemies that the Lord God has given you.”

At first glance it appears that “enjoying the plunder” would mean raping the women; after all, isn’t that what men do to women captives? But if we read further into chapter 21 we’ll find the following: “Suppose you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you, and you take some of them as captives. And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her [notice it doesn’t say and want to rape her]. If this happens you may take her to your home, where she must shave her head, cut her nails, and change the clothes she was wearing when she was captured. She will stay in your home, but let her mourn for her father and mother for a full mouth [if we were talking rape here there would certainly be no waiting for a month]. Then you may marry her [it was understood that he could not have intercourse with her until he married her giving her all rights and privileges of a wife; he also had to give her time to mourn the loss of her parents that died during the attack; as unpleasant as all of this sounds, this is not considered rape biblically] and you will be her husband and she will be your wife [once she was his wife, she had the same rights and privileges as a Hebrew wife did and her husband had to treat her respectfully as his wife]. But if you marry her and she does not please you, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her [by the shaving of her head and cutting of her fingernails].

The Bible does not condone men raping captive women. If a man wanted a slave woman sexually, then he had to marry her and provide for her as he would provide for any other woman he wanted to marry. And then if he wasn’t pleased to be married to her (and it wouldn’t have been very hard for her to make herself displeasing if she wanted to); he couldn’t just sell her to someone else or make her out to be a slave again, he had to set her free for she had already suffered enough humiliation through the process of becoming his wife.

Your take on what the Bible says about rape is misleading.

P.80
All these wars and killings are perpetuated in the name of the God of theism. All opposing sides call upon God of theism for help with their war.

So does that mean that God doesn’t exist because people declare war in his name?

Biblical scripture—in the name of the God of theism advises on how to obtain slaves, how to beat them, when to have sex with them, etc. Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11; Exodus 21:20-21; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2

Yes, God regulated the system of slavery and he also delivered the Jews from slavery. But you are still not giving the entire accounts. In Leviticus 25:44-46 the scripture says that slaves were not to be ruled over ruthlessly. Exodus 21:7-11 actually gives some protection to the female slave. Exodus 21:20-21 demands that the master be punished if he has beaten his slave and the slave dies but if the slave gets up after a couple of days the master should not be punished (this does not mean, however, that the master did not sin in beating his slave but instead that God has focused in on the intent and motive of the master instead of the deed). I agree that the latter part is a hard saying but this doesn’t mean that we can erase God because there are certain things that he allowed in the past or that he allows today (or things that he doesn’t allow for that matter or that he winked at “back then”) that we don’t like.

Ephesians 6:5 says that slaves are to obey their masters but verse 9 says that masters are to treat their slaves in the same respectful manner that slaves are to obey them. It also teaches that masters are not to threaten their slaves. You left the latter part out. 1st Timothy 6:1-2 teaches that, in order to be good representatives of Christ, slaves should respect their masters (just as people should respect those in authority over them). This is not saying that the slave master has license to mistreat the slave.
As mentioned earlier, I have written a book regarding this issue titled, “What the Bible really says about Slavery.” I would like to send you a copy, if I may.

P.81
You quoted Thomas Paine in support of what he said in his 1795 Age of Reason which reads, “Whenever we read…the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God.

This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Bible says that the scriptures are God-breathed which means that God’s Spirit was at work when the scriptures were being written. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the unforgivable sin.

P. 86
The future is indeed unknowable. More than ten nations now possess nuclear warheads, many of them more dangerous than the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No, much of the future is indeed knowable. 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 speaks of the return of Christ and the entire book of Revelation from chapters 4 to 22 tells of future times. You mentioned ten nations possessing ten nuclear warheads…that comes to no surprise if you read the book of Revelation. “The ten horns are ten kings” (Daniel 7:24), “Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns…” (Revelation 12:3) “And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority” (Revelation 13:2), "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast” (Revelation 17:12).

The explanation is right in front of us.

P.91
Somebody sent me an email saying, “you should not question the God of the Bible; He knows why he ordered these things. The Bible claims to be God’s truth, so therefore it’s true.” One said: ‘God said I should not listen to man.” So I asked him: ‘Why are you then talking to me, do you want me to listen to you?” It has not occurred to the brother yet that man is God!”

This is blasphemy against God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Man is not God. You are not God. I am not God. God is God. The Spirit of God abides within those of us that are Christians but that doesn’t make us God any more than being composed partly of water makes us the ocean.

P.93
This is the only Christ who matters to me. The one who lives within me! I just do not care whether he was physically (literally) resurrected or not, born of a virgin or not, literally coming again or not according to creedal Christianity!

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:12-20 NIV)

P.94
Hope this will help my dear brothers and sisters reading this book not to throw the H-bomb on me and be quick to label me a heretic.

But what you’re saying is indeed heresy. The labeling of you as a heretic is not name-calling; it is instead an identification of what you have become. You can’t say things like this and expect people not to say you’re a heretic.

I certainly believe I might be wrong.

You are wrong. What you have written flies in the face of God. What you’ve written is not just some disagreement regarding denominational doctrine or other; what you’ve written is a direct attack on God. Why write something like this if you have any inkling in your body or in your mind that you might be wrong?

I just can’t believe the unbelievable.

Nothing that God has asked us to believe is unbelievable; otherwise he would not have asked us to believe it.

P. 101
Each and everyone of us should discover our own God. Find a meaning most suitable to you. Some feminists are no longer comfortable with the God concept you are comfortable with. I am not comfortable with the angry father who takes “his anger” upon his son. I am not comfortable with a father who ‘sends’ his ‘only son’ to die for my sins.

So since you’re not comfortable with a God who sends his Son to die for our sins you decide it’s time to try to erase the God you’re not comfortable with and create your own God? You can’t erase God simply because you don’t like him or simply because you don’t like his ways.

P.104
The stories of the Bible lead to absurdity when taken literally. The very first verse that talks about God creating—in the beginning is a contradiction when taken literally. God cannot have a beginning as “He” is timeless. God cannot be a ‘creator’ because ‘he’ is not an artisan. All this should be understood as mythology, beautiful mythology.

This is heresy.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The scripture is not talking about the beginning of God but is instead referring to the beginning of the heavens and the earth. You have it confused.

The New Testament does not fare any better. For example, who went to the tomb of Jesus on the first day of the week? Mark said that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went (chap 16). Luke said that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and some other women went (24:10). Matthew said Mary Magdalene and the other Mary only went (1:28). John said that Mary Magdalene alone went (20:11). What did they find at the tomb? More contradictions; did they see the risen Christ? Contradictions; How did the risen Christ appear and what did He do? All these questions are unimportant unless you believe every verse of the Bible should be read literally. Fundamentalists who believe in the literal reading of every verse of Bible get angry when confronted with the contradictions.

The examples that you give in regards to the different accounts of who went to the tomb of Jesus on the first day of the week are not contradictions. It is a known fact that if you put several people in the same situation and ask each of them to later comment on that same situation that you will get varying degrees of the same account. This is because each individual relays the account according to his or her own point of reference or according to the particular nuances in the event that they found particularly important. This is relativism at its finest.

For instance, on Saturday (January XXX), there were many people at XXX XXX’s house that afternoon. If you were to ask me who was in the house, I’d say that there were about 15 pastors/ministers covering partners along with XXX, yourself, the doctor, Tuannee, and a couple of gentlemen whom I was not familiar with. I never left the area where I was seated until it was time to leave. So I only saw a certain portion of the house. I’d also say that Grace was asleep and arose just as we (the ministers) were leaving. I knew all along that she was there somewhere in the house only because XXXXX had mentioned that she was sleeping. However, if you were to ask XXXXX as to who was in the house; he’d be able to tell you who was in each level of the house which would be quite different from what I would say. This would not be a contradiction between the two us. One of us simply has more knowledge about who was in the house than the other. Now, if you were to ask me what happened while we were all in the house; I’d say we had a very passionate philosophical/spiritual discussion on the topic of love. However, if you were to ask XXXXX what happened while we were all in the house; he might talk about the passing of his friend (a passing which hit him quite hard). This would be a completely different scenario than I would render but he and I would not be contradicting one another. Now, if you add Grace into the mix and ask her who was in the house; she might say there were a lot of people there that she didn’t know and leave it at that. If you were to ask her what happened while we were all in the house, she might say that people were taking pictures with her brother (because by the time she woke up and began walking around, this is exactly what was happening). Overall, you’d have three different scenarios in connection with one experience; and all three of us would be telling the truth. There would be no real contradiction although there might appear to be several.

Let’s take another example….XXXXX has phone conferences with his covering partners once a month on Wednesdays. If you were to ask me what time the calls take place, I’d tell you that they take place at 6:00 in the evening. However, if you were to ask XXXXX what time the calls take place; he’d tell you they take place at 3:00 in the afternoon. This sounds like a contradiction; but it isn’t. California is three hours behind Detroit. But if someone looked at these two different answers (say 500 years from now) and didn’t know that there was a time differential between the two cities (or didn’t bother to do the research to check), they would swear there was a contradiction and consequently question whether there was ever a conference call in the first place; just as you’re doing with the resurrection account of Jesus Christ.

When reading the Bible; before one labels something that they’ve read as a contradiction, they need to look at the text hermeneutically (to consider the culture, language, traditions and so forth of the period) in order to make sure that they are looking at things correctly. With this said, let’s take a closer look at what you said about who went to the tomb…

You begin by saying that Mark said that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went (chapter 16). Then you mention that Luke said that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and some other women went. Well Mark never said that these other people that Luke mentioned weren’t there. Mark never said that no one else went. Therefore, so far there is no contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if Mark had said that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were the only three people that went. But Mark never said this. Then you say Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary only went (and you quote the scripture as 1:28, but actually it’s 28:1). This is where you once again misrepresent scripture. Matthew does not say that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary only went. There’s nothing in the text to indicate that Matthew is saying that it was just these two women alone who went. Then you misrepresent scripture again when you say “John said that Mary Magdalene alone went” (20:11). John didn’t say she went alone.

It is a known fact that law enforcement investigators and prosecuting attorneys become very suspicious of a group of suspects who are charged with committing the same crime when those suspects all say the exact same thing about what happened. When this happens authorities know responses have been rehearsed.  Whenever human beings are asked to give individual versions of the same experience, there will always be slight variations of the account. This is human nature. Therefore, the variations in the gospels, when it comes to the individual gospel accounts of who visited the tomb, actually gives great credibility to the account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The relativism of the experience has provided proof to the absolutism of the event.

P.105
We now know that there is no literal heaven and no literal God beyond the skies.

More heresy. Consider this…

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."  5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."  6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. (Revelation 21:1-7 NIV)

P. 110
Here are some of the claims that I found unbelievable and difficult when viewed literally:

Ø    The earth (and universe as a whole) was created in six literal days. (For us Christians who have embraced the current theory of evolution, this is absolute nonsense)
Ø    Adam and Eve were real people, their “fall” brought death into the world.
Ø    Jesus was born of a literal virgin (Though Jesus had brothers and sisters)
Ø    Jesus was physically and literally resurrected into heaven (thought to be above the skies)
I only mentioned some of what you’ve listed. Believing in evolution in lieu of creation is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Also, Romans 10:9 says that if you confess with your mouth that “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you shall be saved. Muzi, you don’t believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, therefore Muzi; you are not saved. You are not a Christian. Your soul is in jeopardy.

P.142
I believe in God. I also believe in believing in God. I cannot, NOT believe in God. I am not an atheist, not a theist, not a non-theist, or subscribe to any form of a-theism and non-theism, not because I’m afraid that God will zap me for being one or not one.

I believe it when you say that you are not an atheist, because atheists don’t believe in God in any kind of way. But you do believe in god; you simply believe in god in a misguided way. You believe in a god that you yourself have created similar to the idol gods that were created in times past. But with you; you haven’t built your false god out of gold, clay, or brick; instead you have built him out of your mind. If a person is confused about the identity of God (which you are) then that person’s eternal soul is in jeopardy. We see this when taking the following passages of scripture into account:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"  They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."  "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."  Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-17)

Jesus was very concerned about whether or not his apostles really knew who he was because accepting the true God centers around accepting the true identity of Jesus Christ. We see this even more clearly when looking at the following passage:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."  A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."  Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:24-31)

Thomas identified Jesus as his Lord and God. Jesus is recorded as telling Thomas that the only reason why he believed is because he saw the resurrected Jesus for himself (literally) and that those who believe (that Jesus is God, proven by his literal bodily resurrection as evident in the above passage of scripture of which you refute) –even though they haven’t seen the risen Lord – are blessed because (as John puts it) those who believe these things will have life (everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven). Muzi, stop doubting and believe.

P.144
The majority of Christians hold that, you do not believe in God unless you say that there does really exist a distinct cosmos-transcending and almighty individual being “up there” or “out there.” A very, very big man!

Christians don’t look at God as a “very, very big man” but instead as a spirit-being because Jesus said the following: “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24 NIV)

P.146
No one can truly say who God is, but we can always say what our understanding of who God is.

We just saw in Matthew 16 and John 20 that both Peter and Thomas said who God is (Jesus is God). We also saw in John 4 that Jesus defined God as spirit. We also see in Exodus 3:14 that God’s name is “I AM THAT I AM.” Scripture also tells us that God is the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1). Just because you don’t truly understand who God is, doesn’t make it impossible for others to understand and say who he is. Your understanding of God is not the standard.

The visitation you had does not trump the Bible.

P.147
Do you believe there exists an objective sky God above the clouds? The Shahabad (Islamic confession of faith) declares ‘There is no god but the God; it starts by rejecting all gods (including the Christian God) and then goes on to the affirmation of Allah. Our Christian God is called the ‘god of the infidels.’ We call their god/s pagan god/s. We called their religions fake and ours the true one. They do the same. Allah and the Christian God are totally two different deities.

You’re basically right about this. Many Christians believe Christianity and Islam worship the same God; but this is not so. The difference between the God of Christianity and the god of Islam is that the God of Christianity is the true God while the god of Islam is a false god perpetrated by the 6th century Muhammad who went into a cave and had a…well…a visitation; just like you.

In one sense or another we are all atheists.

An atheist is a person who doesn’t believe in God at all. Those who believe in false gods are not atheists; they are infidels. The Bible warns us about falling into the trap of false doctrine; which you have fallen into because of your visitation and the weakness of your faith. Paul puts it plainly when he said to the Galatians…

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-9)

In the same respect I say to you…Muzi, Christians are astonished that you have deserted the one who called you by the grace of Christ and have turned to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently someone has thrown you into confusion and is trying to use you as a tool to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even though you have had a visitation and that visitor has preached another gospel other than the one that the Bible embraces (and that you have preached in times past), let that visitor be accursed. Are you trying to win the approval of men or of God? You cannot please men and be a servant of Christ.

P.148
One scholar described the trinity dogma as a piece of rubbish. I will not go that way though. I do not believe in the trinity.

I don’t use the word trinity very often myself. I prefer to say that there is a plurality to a singular God, just as there is a plurality to you; a singular person. We know that there is a plurality to God because Genesis 1:26 reads as follows; “Then God [singular] said “Let us [plural] make man in our [plural] own image.”
You are made up of a mind, body, and soul/spirit; three in one. God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; three personages/beings in one. God is superior to humans so it comes to no surprise that whatever we can do, he can do better. The three persons of God can work independently of one another. As humans, our mind, body, and soul can work independently of one another too; but we cannot nearly do this as well as God can. Why not?.. Because we’re not God. God is perfect and superior to humans; so whatever we can do he can do better.

To bring the point home further, as humans, if we find ourselves in a situation in which our body is working independently of our mind, then that means we’re brain dead and on a respirator. If we find ourselves in a situation in which our mind is working independently of our body, then that means we’re paralyzed. If we find ourselves in a situation in which our soul is working independent of our body then that usually means that we’ve died. But with God everything is perfect. So although his three parts can work independently just like our three parts can; the independent functioning of God’s three parts (personages/beings) is perfect and far superior to the independent functioning of our three parts (mind, body, soul/spirit). Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (God’s three personages/beings/parts) can maneuver completely independently with no problem.

We also get a better understanding of the “trinity” when looking at an egg. The egg is singular but it is composed of three parts: shell, yoke, and white; each of which is just as much a part of the egg as the other but with different functions. We can also look at another example of the plurality of three in one; take for instance; time. Time is one thing but it has three parts with totally different functions: past, present, and future.

I honestly don’t understand why the “trinity” is so hard for some to understand. It makes perfect sense to me.

P.153
Of all the fights the church has ever fought, the evolution and homosexuality ones must be and has to be the most acrimonious ones.

Homosexuality is a sin according to Romans 1:18-27 (it is referred to as unnatural and perverted), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (it is put in the same category as idolatry, adultery, prostitution, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander, and scamming), and Leviticus 18:1-24 which puts homosexuality in the same category as having sex with one’s mother, having sex with the wife of one’s father, having sex with one’s sister, having sex with one’s grandchild, having sex with one’s step sister or step brother, having sex with one’s aunt, having sex with one’s uncle’s wife, having sex with one’s daughter-in-law, having sex with one’s sister-in-law, and having sex with an animal.

As stated earlier, evolution is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. I will discuss evolution a little more near the end when I talk about Dawkins’ book.
P.154
We may doubt the reality of God but we can never doubt the reality of evolution.

Sure we can. As a matter of fact, we should doubt the reality of evolution but never doubt the reality of God.

P.155
I do not hold my evolution convictions dogmatically.

To say we a can never doubt the reality of evolution is dogmatic. Never is an uncompromising term.

P.156
Charles Darwin attacks the basic Christian myth of a perfect creation, the fall into sin, the divine rescue carried out by Jesus and the restoration through faith to our status as those created in the image of God. If we evolved from single cells into complex self-conscious creatures then there was no perfection from which to fall, no fall into sin, no need for a divine rescue and no capacity to be restored to something which we have never been.

The question becomes then: where did this “single cell” come from. Dawkins says that natural selection, not chance, is the argument of the atheist and evolutionist; so with that in mind; where did this “single cell” come from? If we evolved from a single cell then what did the single cell evolve from?

P.167
I desire to do the work of God, a God I believe is real, even if the name ‘God’ is no longer used the reality of a transcendent force will always be there. I no longer define God in terms of a supernatural person “up there.” I am an agent of God when I love, share, expand life, and give of my being to others. The God I worship is revealed in the personhood of all human beings. God is present in the love of everyone. I encounter this God in the being of everyone. I am called to reveal this God to everyone, and to celebrate the being of everyone. I allow God to go before me or to go through me. I am part of the change process in the world because I am part of who God is. God is me. God is you. We pray when we, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the prisoner (Matt 25:35,36). This is what incarnation is all about. We are God, corporately, the body of Christ, if you wish reconciling, healing, restoring, making whole. I pray, I pray without ceasing. This is my goal in life, to be a God-presence in every relationship I enter. I can only do this by being connected and having my life centered in God. I am.

This is blasphemy and heresy. We are not God. Christians are ambassadors for Christ/God. Christians represent God. But no-one is God but God. We are not God corporately. The church represents God corporately and is the body of Christ (meaning a body of people that represents Christ) but we are not Christ even though we have the Spirit of Christ in us. God is not you. God is not me. God is God.

You have identified yourself as “I am.” You are not “I am.” Only God is “I AM” (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58). Your identification of yourself as “I am” is blasphemous.

P.170
A God who tolerates slavery can hardly be God for the 21st century generation. A God who views women with something less than enthusiasm is not worthy of my worship. A God who says that, a man is a head of a woman does not deserve our worship. A God who says, only men are made in his image, and women are made in the image of men, does not have a place in the 21st century. A God who says women should keep quiet in the church and only speak to their husbands at night can no longer be worshipped by our generation. This is not the God that the 21st century man and woman will be drawn to in worship. The feminist revolution of the twentieth century has made such a God redundant.

As it pertains to God and women; I’ve written a book (as I’ve mentioned earlier) that addresses all of these issues. The name of the book is “Is God a Chauvinist? The Bible and Women: A Complete Look.” Please allow me to send you a copy. Just briefly…when it comes to the man being the head of the house; the word that is used for head in the Greek has a different connotation than the word head in English. When it comes to women keeping quiet in the church; this is another one of those concerns that deserves hermeneutical research. I talk about both issues extensively in my book.

You say that God says that only men are made in his image and that women are made in the image of men. Once again you have misrepresented what the scriptures say. The Bible teaches that both men and women were created in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 (NIV) reads, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 5:2 reads, “He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘man.’”

P.170
For Paul, women were clearly inferior.

Paul said the following in Galatians 3:26-29: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” What this means is that everyone who is in Christ is equal to everyone else who is in Christ. Clearly then, women are not inferior. I address this in my book as well.
P.171
Paul stated: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” (1 Cor 7:1)

The scripture actually reads that it is better for a man not to marry a woman. But once again you’re leaving things out. If one reads all of Corinthians 7 the picture is clear; Paul is saying that it is better for a man not to marry and he also says that it is better for a woman not to marry because single people can better serve the Lord since their desires won’t be divided. Also, Paul concludes that a woman would be happier if she were not married (7:40). If the latter is an indictment, then it is an indictment against men; not women. 1st Corinthians chapter 7 is rarely taught in the church in its entirety.

P.173
Similarly Paul accepted the institution of slavery as one of the facts of life. He made no effort to call slaves to freedom.

Once again you are misrepresenting what the Bible says. I agree that the Bible teaches that slavery in and of itself is not a sin and that God regulated the system so that it was to be non-oppressive (man has made it oppressive; many Jews would willingly sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts and so forth; slavery was therefore a distinct part of life during biblical times). God also, as punishment, gave nations up to slavery who refused to acknowledge him as God. But to say that Paul made no effort to call slaves to freedom, is deception. Paul most definitely did make an effort to call slaves to freedom, which is evident in the following passage of scripture:

Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
(1 Corinthians 7:20-24)

When Paul admonishes the slave to gain his freedom if possible; he is referring to literal physical freedom. When Paul admonishes people not to become slaves of men, he is referring to spiritual slavery, but this can also be applied to physical slavery.

As mentioned earlier, I have written an entire book on the issue of Slavery and the Bible for the purpose of dispelling many of the beliefs that you hold in regards to the matter in order that people might be brought to Christ. Please read it.

P.173
Paul also revealed a strange attitude toward legally constituted authority. He
asserted in Romans 13 that every person was subject to the governing authorities…for those who resist the authorities resist what God has appointed.

Yes but you have to look at the entire teaching of a thing. You keep leaving things out. Paul did say this; but he was speaking about authority in general. He was not speaking about authority that goes against the gospel of Christ; for by claiming to be God, Jesus himself went against the governing authority of Pontius Pilate. So yes, the Bible teaches us to abide by the governing authorities but only to a certain point. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego went against the authority of the king; as they should have. They were rewarded by God for doing so; not punished. Paul himself went against the governing authorities by proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ; which is why he was often thrown in jail.

It seems as if you purposely leave things out in an effort to make your points. To do so is deception. You have to consider the whole of a matter in order to argue against part of it.

P.175
The God met in Jesus was for Paul the image of the invisible God. He was the first born of all creation. For Paul, Jesus was God! Later Christology would find this inadequate as my chapter in the God found in Jesus confirms.

Jesus is God. He proved it. Moreover, Christology does not find it inadequate to say that Jesus was God. It is quite the opposite; Christology finds it very adequate to say that Jesus was God. When studying Christ; it becomes explicitly clear that Jesus is indeed God. Jesus said so himself as documented in John 8:58 and John 10:30. The Jews (at that time) knew exactly what he was saying which is why they set out to kill him. But then Jesus proved he was God by resurrecting from the dead exactly three days after his death; just as he said he would and just as it was prophesied that he would by the Old Testament prophets. No other man in history has done this.

In order to deny that Jesus is God, you would have to deny the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; which is exactly what you have done. And it is quite obvious, although you say you are not, that you are indeed trying to convince others to do the same.

P.177
According to Muzi’s Jesus; every one of us is the only begotten of God. We are God incarnate. Christ is present in every human being. Just as they met God in Jesus they can meet the Christ God in us.

This is heresy.

There is only one only begotten of God, and that’s Jesus. None of us are God incarnate; only Jesus. Christ is not present in every human being but only in those who have confessed him as Lord and believe in their hearts that God [the Father] raised him from the dead. If we have God in us; that does not mean that we are God.

P.179
Today most Christians, if asked to write their own thoughts about Jesus, would be surprised to find that, judged by the official doctrines and creeds of the church, they are actually heretics. Mark suggested that Jesus became Messiah after he was baptized by John. Matthew, writing twelve years later thought Mark was being heretic by saying so and he linked the genealogy to Abraham. Luke thought they were both heretical and linked the genealogy to Adam. Then came John in 95 C.E, 60 years after the death of Christ, and linked the whole thing to the creation of the world.

Again, more deception. There is no indication whatsoever that Matthew thought Mark to be heretical and that Luke thought Mark and Matthew were heretics.

P.180
There is now widespread agreement that the story of Jesus’ ascension into some special heaven above the earth is mythical. It no longer belongs and no longer makes sense in our new global cosmology. The ancient cosmology that made this story believable died with the inventions of Copernicus and Galileo. Imagine us, in the twenty first century, telling a cyber space person, who understands the new global cosmology, the story in John 20:17, where Jesus is on a journey from the underworld of the dead. He is going to the heavenly world, above us, accidentally Mary meets him, and He tells her ‘Don’t touch me, for I am ascending to my father.’ Really!

Yes, really. Global cosmology is not superior to the workings of God. So yes, really.

P.182
I am not interested in defending the power or person of Jesus. No reputable scholar worth his or her salt seriously doubts that Jesus of Nazareth was a fact of history.
Yes it is a literal fact brought about by the Bible (which is a historical as well as a spiritual text); a Bible that you say is not literal. How then can the Bible not be literal and Jesus be a fact at the same time? You have just contradicted yourself.

The belief that Jesus was God and other like beliefs developed after his death.

No, it developed after his resurrection; which is exactly what the resurrection of Jesus Christ was designed to do.

P.184
I want to be God. I want to be God to those asking, ‘where is God?’
Ah…and therein lies the problem. You cannot be God. I cannot be God. But we can represent God and bring people to God if we so chose. Those of us who are Christians can live our lives accordingly and therefore, by example, be a walking testament of God; but we cannot be God. 

DAWKINS

Muzi, you mentioned Richard Dawkins’ book titled “The god delusion” all throughout the writing of your book. You indicated that you were very influenced by the writings of Dawkins. So, I went out and bought the book. I have yet to read all of it; but I’ve read quite a bit of it and there’s one thing that Dawkins said (among many, but right now I’ll just deal with this one particular thing) that I’d like to bring to your attention of which afterwards I will offer a refutation. One of the things he said in his argument against creationism is the following:

     Creationist ‘logic’ is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe-inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a designer must have done it. And science’s answer to this faulty logic is also always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves; who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution, it is a solution of stunning elegance and power.
     What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance. It is these end products that form the subjects of the creationist’s wearisomely recycled argument. The creationist completely misses the point, because he (women should for once not mind being excluded by the pronoun) insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn’t understand the power of accumulation. (Pgs 146-147)

Dawkins defeats his own argument. He says that natural selection breaks up the improbability up into small pieces. The assumption here is that improbability, broken up into small pieces, makes for a greater probability than chance and therefore natural selection is a better solution to the “improbability of chance and therefore there must be a designer” argument. However, Dawkins fails to realize that something that has come about by the slightest of improbability has also come about by the slightest of design. He says that each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. Who says not prohibitively so? Dawkins? Dawkins argues that “when large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance.” Yes, but improbable enough to be far within the reach of design! If the small pieces leading up to the big piece exist even in some way with slight improbability then design cannot be taken out of the picture because anything that exists on the slight improbability of its existence needs a designer to account for that slight improbability and if the existence of a designer is denied then we can only explain the possibility of that slight improbability as due to that forever floating monkey wrench in the evolutionists’ argument…the huge improbability of chance; prohibitively so; which brings us right back to design! Dawkins just argued against himself!

Dawkins then goes on to give two examples that have nothing to do with natural selection but instead has to do with kinetics and a “badly designed lock” (shocking that he used design to argue against design); the latter going completely against Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest.” Furthermore, natural selection cannot explain the existence of the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, and even space itself; the latter of which science has proven, is a indeed a thing. Moreover, Dawkins completely misses it when he speaks of accumulation. If the small pieces leading up to (accumulating to) the big piece are improbable then the big piece is hugely improbable meaning that natural selection is no more probable than chance and the existence of the big piece by chance is so very improbable that design becomes the only reasonable probability. With that said, let’s take a look at what Christian apologist Norman Geisler says about the issue in his book titled Christian Apologetics:

Now the heart of the traditional cosmological argument is based on the principle of sufficient reason that affirms everything must have a cause either within itself or beyond itself. But as was observed in the last chapter, this principle leads either to an infinite regress of looking for a cause for everything including God or else it leads to a contradictory first cause that is causing itself to exist. Such is the apparent dilemma facing a theist: a priori proofs are invalid and a posteriori proofs are based on the causal principle that leads either to an infinite regress or to a contradiction.
     Despite the seeming dilemma, all is not hopeless. The theist need not claim that everything has a cause; he need not use the Leibnizian principle of sufficient reason. Rather, he can return to the thomistic principle of existential causality which claims that every finite, contingent, and changing thing has a cause. If this principle is sound and leads to an infinite, necessary, and unchanging Being, then the Being will not need a cause. God will be the Uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. Such is the direction the chapter will take in developing a proof for the existence of God.
First, let us outline the overall structure of this argument for theism.
(1)    Some things undeniably exist (e.g, I cannot deny my own existence)
(2)    My nonexistence is possible
(3)    Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
(4)    There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
(5)    Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
(6)    This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
(7)    This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God.”
(8)    Therefore, God exists.
(9)    This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
     (10) Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
(Pgs. 238-239)

Then Geisler goes on to elaborate in detail on each step in the above theistic proof.

Thank you so very much Muzi for your indulgence and for taking the time to read my critique of your work. I hope that we can continue along in our discussions of this very crucial matter.

Sincerely and Respectfully yours,
--XXXXX.