Jeffrey Wilson Responds

By Merle Hertzler

An interesting exchange between Jeffrey Wilson and myself began after Wilson read the story of my life that is on this website. I previously published his first response and my reply. Here I publish Wilson's second response that I received on January 27, 2006. Interested readers are welcome to compare his philosophy with the views I express at my site.

Wilson quotes me with my words in black; Wilson's comments are in blue.

I anticipate that I will reply shortly. In the meantime, anybody interested in commenting on this exchange may do so at my blog.


Wilson says everyone should lie awake at night worrying about hell. I can understand why he might say that. The torment of hell--if it actually exists--is beyond imagination. Even a minor burn can make a person desperate to get help. But what about continuous burns over all of the body for all eternity with no rest? Can you imagine the torment that would be? Surely if hell exists, than it should dominate nearly every waking thought of every person.

I’m glad we agree. Unfortunately, people have the capacity to block out unpleasant thoughts. Thoughts that should call us to action.

But what can be the purpose of such torment?

To get people to turn from sin and hell to a life in Christ where those thoughts no longer exist.

Can Wilson love the God that would do that to his creatures?

Common mistake. The decision is ours, not Gods. He doesn’t do it to us but unbelievers force Him to do it despite all warnings and chances.

I cannot see how a child lying in bed with the fear of hell is good. Does Wilson think that such fears help children grow up to be healthy, productive adults?

Children, usually under the ages of 6 to 12 (aka, the age of accountability), do not ponder these thoughts. When they do begin to ponder these thoughts, by Christian teaching, they almost always make the right choice in accepting Christ and thereby avoiding hell. Satan knows this fact that children will make the correct choice whereas adults seek pleasure and freedom and therefore Satan, via the atheists and humanists, have made it their war to push evolution in schools and thereby reaching the children before they can make the right choice in choosing Christianity.


When I say that this fundamentalist church controlled every aspect of my life at the time, that is not just bitter talk. Fundamentalism was all I knew. I spent hours each week in prayer and Bible study. Every Saturday I visited the bus route. Every Sunday we went out on buses to bring children to church. We dared not go to movies or do anything that the church condemned. Fundamentalism did indeed control me.

I shouldn’t have to point this out but unless you were locked up in your house by these people or brought in chains on the buses, it was self-imposed control. All the things you describe above with disdain, I find enjoyable and honorable. We are lucky the church is there to tell us what we shouldn’t do. Without instruction, we can’t know real right from wrong. We don’t mind the schools telling us what to think but when the church gives us instruction on right and wrong, people scream, “Control!” Control is what the Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists and every other cult teach including evolutionist professors at universities.

Wilson misunderstands the thoughts of the "unsaved". He says the pastor's condemnation of rock music and movies was necessary so that the "unsaved" would listen to Christians. I think the opposite is true. Fundamentalists that are unaware of the culture in which they are surrounded are seen as oddities, not as shining examples to the world. Few people admire fundamentalists who refuse to view movies or read the writings of those that oppose them.

The author is giving a statement of his perception of reality. Reality says that the biggest argument “the World” has against Christians is that they are hypocrites. Who will listen to a Christian that says getting drunk and beating your wife is wrong if that Christian also drinks, even if only a little? Who listens to a Christian that says putting your eyes on sexual material causes man to develop perverse ideas and attitudes if that Christian is seen at the movies containing sexual situations? Despite what the author believes, unsaved people are watching what Christians say and do and therefore Christians must modify their behavior as much as logically possible to conform to Christ and to avoid anything resembling the world’s actions. Christ’s ministry on earth was all about teaching people to modify their behaviors.

And, yes, the problems that arose at my fundamentalist church were devastating to me. For we were taught that our fundamentalism was saving the world. We were taught that the folks that were getting "saved" were receiving the Holy Spirit and would have a wonderful change in their lives. But when I looked at the lives that should have been changed, I found that the claim was false.

I wasn’t at his church but I can assure you they never claimed that 100% of the lives would change. You can never account for those ‘going through the motions’ in the church (such as the author of this site) and those outright charlatans who come in to the church to prey on honest people. Those people will show negligible change in their lives, only enough to trick others or themselves.

 And that is something fundamentalism must answer. If fundamentalism is the solution to our faults as humans, why are fundamentalist churches plagued with so many human problems?

First, Christianity or following Christ is the answer, not Fundamentalism. The web author is attempting to assign a dirty word on Christianity. Fundamentalism used to be a word describing Christians holding to core beliefs or fundamentals. Today, atheists and haters of Christianity have tried to muddy Christianity by using the same name for Muslim murderers. Second, adults will refuse to seek out their maker unless they’ve hit rock bottom. People show up in church with multitudes of problems developed by years of following the world’s actions mimicked through TV, movies and music and then they come to church and want quick fixes. I disagree with the contention that the church is “plagued” with problems but people with problems are the only ones who realize they need to go to church. I have no problem with people with problems, created by following humanism, attempting to fix themselves by going to church. You could say the more problem plagued people in church there are, the more we know people are turning from the world.

 And if the claim of changed lives is not true, then fundamentalists should not make the claim.

Fortunately, every church has stories of many changed lives. This isn’t acceptable to those wanting to sweep Christianity aside.

Bible Atrocities

Yes, I was well aware of the apologists. I had taken a course in Biblical apologetics at the Christian college I had attended. The textbook was written by Geisler.  And yet I find that the answers I was given were so inadequate.

I find that those who have made up their mind about rejecting a belief will continue to reject it no matter the evidence. I believe he felt the answers were inadequate because his mind was made up.

In response to the slavery, terrorism, and massacres of the Bible, Wilson informs me that these were done to "people who were more vile:" But the massacre I referred to involves the killing of babies! Is Wilson going to tell me that the babies were vile?

All humans are vile from birth. Children, including babies in the womb, until the age of accountability though, are ushered immediately into heaven at death. The Bible is clear on both points; all are born sinners and children under the age of accountability make it to heaven.

How can it be right to kill those babies? Psalms 137 praises the killing of babies. Cannot Wilson see the problem with such behavior?

Although we can’t know the mind of God, I’m sure the answer is found in the Bible. I can offer some reasons where some, none or all could be true. 1) Those children may grow up and want to find out “who they are” by seeking out their ancestors and culture. The nations that were outside of the Jewish nation were dominated by sexual immorality, abortion, infant murder/sacrifice, homosexuality, theft, murder, rape, etc. These types of behaviors are despised by God and coincidentally enough, rarely lead people to seek after God. Children attempting to reestablish their roots would bring back bad behaviors that God had previously wiped out. 2) The Bible states that sins of the fathers are passed on through the offspring. It is possible that despite eliminating those that would show how to sin, the child would carry the inclination to carry on past unknown sins. 3) A side effect of sin is that mutations in our genes produce errors that cause disease, sickness and abnormalities. Christians/God’s people who call on God for healing would possibly have reversed and/or fewer mutations. Nations outside of God’s Will would have developed generations of untold mutations, diseases and sicknesses. Introducing evil nations’ offspring into the Jewish culture would have brought all those problems into the genetic pool.


When I first became disillusioned with Christianity, it led to a period of deep despair. Wilson states that my despair was probably from living a worldly lifestyle knowing it would lead to hell. No, it was the opposite. All I knew at the time was the lifestyle I knew as a Christian. I still refused alcohol; wore an Independent Baptist above-the-ears haircut (which was a big deal in the seventies); and seldom attended movies. I maintained the fundamentalist lifestyle, for it was the only lifestyle I knew. But I did not fear hell, for I no longer believed in hell. The problem was that I could no longer trust the Bible and I had nothing to put in its place. So I drifted into despair and apathy.

I don’t have the steps that led to this disillusionment and I doubt the author of this site knows exactly either. Disillusionment can be brought on by seeing hypocrisy in others. The author already rejected this assumption earlier by making the outrageous claim that that never happens. So the other possibility is that he fed himself on worldly knowledge instead of godly knowledge. The Bible is self attesting in that it is consistent and without errors. The belief that the Bible is inconsistent had to come from reading outside material and then stretching anything out of whack that would fool unlearned Bible students. There are answers for anything problematic with Christianity and/or the Bible. Those honestly wanting to follow Christ will find the answers. Those secretly wanting to join up with the world won’t search after answers but will be content to feel despair and then embrace the world that has its arms open and waiting. The school systems are out-right anti-Christian and admit it. There will be questions arising from what the secular school system teaches and Christianity. The author also admits to reading magazines on human psychology. My goodness, there is nothing more anti-god and anti-Christianity than secular psychiatry.

I think that many young people go through similar experiences. They are disillusioned with the faith as teenagers, and they drift away. But they find nothing to put in the place of the Christianity they grew up with. And so they find themselves returning to the faith, since faith is better than apathy. But they could have found something better.

I would say they returned to their faith because they seen it work as a life style. The honesty of it, the fewer problems in degree than the world (meaning they will have problems but never to the extent of dealing with getting shot outside a bar or spousal slug fests due to alcohol), the healthier living, the hope it gives, etc.

The problem with Wilson's logic is one of a false dichotomy. There are not just two choices in life--Christianity or apathy.

You’re right, there are not just these two choices and I never said there were these two choices. There are two choices though, Christianity and “the world,” which includes, atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Muslim, etc.

Rather, there are a broad range of options out there. Because Christianity is better than apathy, it does not prove it is better than all possible options.

As listed above, the options other than Christianity fall under “the world’s” options. It has proven to be better because Christianity has lasted for thousands of years despite governments, politicians, teachers attempting to destroy it. Studies overwhelmingly show Christians are happier and healthier. This is without question. Atheists try to claim this is just a mind trick but it is their onus to prove it is not by God but by a mind trick.

Wilson says there is no such thing as a good life without the Bible. But I have indeed found a good life without it. I invite Wilson to persuade me that my life is not good.

I’m sure following the pleasures of this world is good, temporarily. The good life I’m talking about is permanent and not fleeting. You can cram all sorts of activities in your life to maintain that “good” or happy feeling but when they stop so does the feelings. That’s why people bed ridden without god think suicide is their only option. Movies, TV, books, alcohol, drugs, football, etc. are all distractions that try to maintain that illusion of happiness.

By the way, I have no idea why Wilson interprets my statement that I grew up in Christian schools as proof that I grew up in public schools. Perhaps he would like to explain where he came up with that comment!

I’ve heard plenty of people describe their education as Christian when all it was was some teacher kept a Bible on her desk in some class. He never describes his education with any detail. Was it Catholic? Episcopal? There are plenty of liberal, so-called Christian, schools out there that are secular to the core. Since he didn’t specify what Christian school, it was all the more likely that it was a public school in a so-called Christian neighborhood.

Moderate Christianity

Wilson sees a problem with moderate Christians who teach self-esteem, allow their members to attend movies, or are open to evolution. He condemns a great swath of the church.

If  it conflicts with the Bible, I will point it out. If the church was doing its job, the schools wouldn’t be overrun by atheists teaching evolution. If the church did its job, America wouldn’t be overrun by abortionists and homosexuals. Clearly the church is failing in its duties and it starts with the liberal churches conforming to the world rather than changing it.

And no, I do not see such moderate churches as causing people to slip away from Christianity. Rather, many of these churches serve as a safety net to retain people who cannot accept fundamentalism. Many of these churches are huge and growing rapidly. I find that many are filled with people that were once fundamentalists. For many of these people, these churches stop the slide away from the faith. For years they did the same for me. I was able to hold on in a moderate church, and not abandon the faith after being disillusioned with fundamentalism.

I’m more under the belief that the “moderate” church is closer to fundamentalist or conservative church than they are to a liberal church. We first need to find out exactly what this fundamentalist church was he attended. I’m starting to believe it was a cult of some kind that has nothing to do with fundamentalists. I’m curious about his numbers about these growing churches. If the church is growing in huge numbers and America is still rejecting design in schools and approving of abortion and homosexuality then either the church is dead or a joke or these numbers are false.

But then I got new knowledge.

At least he didn’t say it was correct knowledge. I can get all sorts of knowledge about evolution but since evolution is false that knowledge is meaningless. The Bible puts more emphasis on wisdom.

Wilson says that my prayers were a sign of my faith. Yes, they were. I was a man of faith. I had been born-again. Faith dominated my life, first as a fundamentalist, and later as a conservative evangelical. I was once a Christian, but I am not a Christian now.

People don’t lose their faith. Either the author will eventually get the answers he needs or enough despair and return to being a Christian or he never had a saving faith but rather he had a head knowledge that there must be a god and therefore “played” along. Roger Martinez, the lead singer of the Christian rock group Vengeance Rising, claimed he was born again but became disillusioned with Christianity after seeing the tricks involved in faith healing in liberal churches such as Benny Hinns and Peter Poppoff. Looking closer at Roger’s life during his so-called Christian years, would see drug use, pre-marital sex, an obsession with money, etc. Although he would claim he was saved because he wrote songs about Jesus, I see someone never saved but was playing along. At Judgment day a clearer image will be presented to show if people were really saved or not by their actions seen and unseen and their thoughts.

Sinful Nature

Wilson agrees with my former views, that people do unkind things because they give in to their evil natures. And he agrees with my solution back then, that of keeping my mouth shut even though I knew the people I met were evil.

I have found that this is a most desperate way to live life. I saw people as evil, but I was not allowed to say what I thought, for that only got me into trouble.

I am most curious how keeping one’s mouth shut could get someone into trouble. Reading above at what I actually said would show that I am for keeping one’s mouth shut over “snapping” back at people. Clearly, I suggest a strong Christian to give advice that model’s Biblical standards. 

 And so I tried to live a double life, in which my thoughts would think evil of others, but my words would be kind. That is a most miserable way to live life.

Exactly, a real born-again or saved person wouldn’t be thinking evil of others as they come at you. This may be an example to show that the author never was saved. You can’t always eliminate some anger towards people who come up against you but there is the knowledge that it is Satan working in sin through these people, so you hate the sin and not the sinner.

I find it far easier to treat others with respect when my mind respects them for what they are. When my mind had seen them as evil, it was impossible to show sincere respect.

I still haven’t heard anything about his solution to living a happy life without god but I’m thinking chapter one would be about jumping down the throats of anyone who makes you mad and that will make you happy.

No, the life I described was not simply something I read out of a theology book. Theology was a way of life for me. It permeated my entire life during that time. If my description of life during that time sounds like theology, that is because I was a walking theology book.

It doesn’t sound anything like a walking theology book. I’m hearing anger, confusion and someone just going through the motions.

But I have since learned a better way. In humanism I can see the value of people and appreciate that which is good. Kind words are much easier when one thinks and feels good things about others.

What happens when you don’t appreciate others? What happens when you don’t feel good things about others? This only leads to fighting, backstabbing, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Curious you didn’t mention how you handle those that bring evil on you. It doesn’t lead to a happy life that you are trying to portray.

Does Christianity Work?

Well, what I actually said is that Christianity works better than apathy, not that it works better than humanism. I have found that humanism works quite well. I have not found the need for deviant sexual behavior, drugs, or meaningless activities in humanism, as Wilson suggests. Rather, I have found a reason to live.

I also never said it worked better than humanism. The comparison to humanism is there because the author tied it to that by his experiences. There still has been nothing describing how to have this happiness but mighty statements about it just being so. What we would see if he did describe what made him happy, is that it would fall under meaningless activities or one of the other activities I mentioned.

How can Wilson explain the fact that others experience a wonderful life without Jesus?

They don’t! They lie or at least believe their own lie.

 He seems to think that everybody else is lying when they tell him they have had a great experience in something other than his Jesus.

I’m sure they have but once again it is fleeting. I have no doubt that the excitement of a new sexual experience seems great but that instant gratification disappears and floods of problems and emotional distresses jump in.

Can he not see the good of people outside of his religion?

No. Good outside of Christ is a relative term. A determination of what is good is determined by what others do around you. A society that raises murderers would see murder as good. God sets up what is good, not by man’s standards but by a God standard.

He asks for the scripture to be the final determination. But the scripture is filled with contradictions. How can a contradictory book be used to direct our steps?

He has shown none. There are no contradictions in the Bible. If space was available, another website set up a list of 200 contradictions in the Bible and I dismantled that entire list with the help of only a few books. It is easier to say you don’t believe in the Bible because of contradictions than to say exactly what those contradictions are. 


His "final answer" is that the flood of Noah caused most of the fossil record.  But the flood has been shown repeatedly to be inadequate as an explanation. It has been known for a long time that the earth could not have been covered with a flood in Noah's time. (See Was There a Worldwide Flood?)

You can go to answersingenesis.org and see how it is an overwhelmingly good explanation for the fossil record. It has been believed since only the early 1800s that a world-wide flood didn’t happen. Although it has been believed since time began 6000 years ago that a world-side flood did happen and almost every culture on earth has a global flood story in their records.

Scientists have found buried sand dunes down there in the fossil record, which were clearly caused by blowing winds.

This is faulty science. CRSQ magazine has articles where scientists have performed experiments showing that they can create a layer with water that looks like the same layer caused by wind. The author hasn’t done his research or it was selective research.

 The buried dunes include clear marks of the layers where the sand slid down the hill on the downwind side, just like is found in modern sand dunes.

Water can do the same, as scientific research has shown. If this is all he has, he has built his faith with straw.

 Fossils are extremely rare in these buried dunes. The rounded particles of sand found there are typical of wind-blown sand which is rounded by high impacts. This sand is quite different from sand that is cushioned from impacts in water. The evidence shows that the sand was wind-blown, not deposited by water. And yet Wilson declares that these dunes could have been formed underwater in Noah's flood. How could a raging flood produce such features?

Who said that all the layers were created by raging water? This shows his clear ignorance of exactly what went on during the Flood.

He mentions various Creationist sources that are similar to the sources I once used to argue for Creationism.

Similar doesn’t cut it. There are only a handful of creation organizations that have kept true to a young earth and those have stood the test of time.

 I can assure him that such sources do not stand up when subjected to scientific scrutiny.

I can assure him they do. Assurances from a humanist are meaningless. Truth from him works only when it is convenient and that is how relativism works with humanists.

 If he does not believe me, I invite him to present me with one or two articles that he thinks would stand up when challenged. We will see if the articles he mentions have scientific merit.

From Christian writers: 1) “Why the epidemic of fraud exists in science today” by Jerry Bergman. TJ 18(3) 2004 page 104. This article is especially good for the author who somehow thinks all secular science is true. 2) “Thousands not Billions” by Donald DeYoung, Masterbooks 2005 The book summarizes scientific projects showing faults of radioactive dating, also shows carbon 14 can be found in material that is supposed to be millions of years old. 3) “Our Galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show” by Russell Humphreys TJ 16(2) 2002. Our galaxy is centered in the universe showing our importance in the universe.

Non Christian writers: 1) “Neptune’s rings disappearing” New Scientist 26 March 2005, p 21. Shows that objects supposedly millions of years old are decaying rapidly in front of our eyes proving a young universe. 2) ”Human genome mystery deepens” Nature 21 October 2004 pp 915-945. Shows the human genome is vastly more complex than previously thought.

He says that believing in evolution and Christianity is confusion. Perhaps he should try it. Many Christians have found a way to believe in both,

That’s called compartmentalizing.

 just like they have found a way to believe in a round earth in spite of the Bible's implication that it is flat.

That is a “flat” out lie. The Bible talks about the curvature of the earth.

 They simply take the findings of science, and incorporate them into their faith.

What!?! It’s actually the opposite. The Bible claims the earth is six thousand years old and when we study the earth we find it is young. The Bible says there was a global flood and when we study the earth we see multiple layers laid down by water all over the earth.

 Now I agree with Wilson that theistic evolutionists are teaching things not found in the Bible, but sometimes one needs to do that.

Theistic Evolutionists not only teach things not found in the Bible but also things not found in reality. If “one needs to do that” then maybe that should be saved for fictional writing classes.

No, when I changed my mind about evolution, I was not looking for a way to destroy my beliefs. It was quite the opposite. I argued against evolution. It was the facts that convinced me otherwise.

I laugh when I hear someone talk about facts. They claim the geological column is a “fact” for long ages. What totally goes over their head is that “the fact” is there are layers. The interpretation of that fact is that those layers were laid down over long periods. Scientists interpreting those layers as being laid down quickly have more scientific evidence for their case. Search out how Mt Saint Helens laid down hundreds of feet worth of layers over a couple days. This absolutely shatters the belief layers develop over eons.

And I would be happy to discuss those facts with Wilson if he desires.

I very much desire that. I can’t wait to show him how he has totally confused what “facts” are.

And no, I was not completely unprepared when I went to debate Creationism. One former debate partner describes me as "one of [Creationism’s] better, more coherent advocates."

It’s not hard out-debating evolutionists. They grasp at straws and have mindless stories they try to push on people as “facts.”

If you ever view the Creation-Evolution debates on the internet, you will see that the Creationists almost always look like fools.

This statement has no basis. The opposite is true. People in debate situations usually make statements totally false from reality in order to bolster their side. Then again he could be blinded to reality since he has an interest in one side.

I was one of the few that was able to hold my own as a Creationist, but I did it by carefully choosing my battles. But I now see that I was mistaken.

I was mistaken when I was in college and believed in evolution. Luckily, I have discernment to weed out actual facts from evolution fantasy. Many don’t have this ability, including the author.

 I have switched sides.

I have strong suspicions you were always on the same side.


Wilson informs me that the Bible condemns attempts to boost self-esteem. I agree with him on that. (See Self-Esteem and Christian Belief). But I also see the value of self-esteem. So I take the Bible's dismissal of self-esteem as just one more area where it is wrong.

Christians should be proud of who they are in that they worship the one true God. The biggest driving force in man is ego and self-esteem boosts that ego. Non-believers only have ego to cling to and therefore drives their lives and is seen as valuable.

Wilson equates secular psychology with falsehood and witchcraft. I agree that there is much within pop-psychology that is indeed falsehood and even witchcraft.

This is probably the wisest statement coming from the author.

But that fact cannot be used as evidence against sound scientific data found by psychological researchers. I referred to my former subscription to The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is an example of scientific research. I think perhaps that Wilson could learn something from such sources if he would take the time to read them.

I could learn how people buy into lies because an article is claimed to be scientific. The radio program Focus on the Family often does programming on psychological research and how for any research study making one claim, you can find a dozen other scientific research studies making an opposite claim. The author hangs his hat on these “facts” in his journal but he would be surprised to know how often these same research facts about psychology get changed on a yearly basis. The only fact in psychological research is that their fact claims change on a regular basis.

And no, of course researchers are not immune to mistakes. I certainly did not make that claim. But one cannot dismiss all of their discoveries, simply because they are sometimes mistaken.

No, but it just shows how weak a branch you have placed all your trust in.

He says that research can be found to back any side. Well, perhaps one can find pseudo-research for almost any side.

I wonder if he realizes his side is included in that too.

 One might even find an occasional study with a slight hint at backing a side that is not true. But one cannot find a consistent track record of solid studies clearly backing all sides. That is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is willing to accept the slightest hint of evidence as though it verifies the claim. True science looks for a consensus of valid studies. Where we find solid backing in research, we can trust the claims.

From my experience, non-believers will follower an illogical path of research forever. So the belief that consistent research proves truthfulness is actually meaningless. Anyway, for 6000 years scientific research consistently saw the geological column as being laid down by Noah’s flood. Less than 200 years ago, atheists wanting to discredit the Bible chose to make the outrageous claim that the geological layers took long periods of time to be laid down. Even though their original research was hopelessly flawed, followers still hold to those beliefs and continue to refine those ideas as quickly as research proves that their original premise was wrong including all the research with it. Apparently long periods of consistent research only works if it’s for the side the author wants.

I find it very interesting that he attacks research, saying research can be found for any side. His argument very effectively refutes the Creationism he has been promoting!

True but like I just said above when both sides are examined with “an open mind” creationism has more logically valid arguments.

 He tells us he has found "research" to support his claim, but he himself says that "research" does not prove anything, for one can find "research" for any claim! So why does he trust his Creationist "research"?

Once again, valid and logical arguments. I am not swayed by my ego to believe in lies or studies that say there is no god so I can live my life with disregard to godly morals.

The difference between Creationism and evolution is that there is a broad range of solid peer-reviewed research that unequivocally supports evolution.

Majority of research doesn’t make for truth. It just means more people will choose to reject God and believe fanciful stories. The Bible states most people will reject God and attempt to fashion lies and lives that attempt to leave god out.


I challenge Wilson to show me where atheist writers make a "constant demand of obedience to materialism and evil lifestyles".

Two books that come to mind which give examples of this are “Darwin on Trial” and “Reason in the Balance” by Phillip Johnson. Although, I don’t agree with Johnson on many points with his Intelligent Design group, he has done thorough research on humanistic books which give their views where they push drug use, abortion, Euthanasia, infanticide, homosexuality and any deviant behavior which allows the person freedom from responsibility and moral obligations and deviant behaviors that maintain those temporary and fleeting feelings of happiness.

 Atheists and humanists teach good principles, and leave the decision up to the people.

Good principles?!? You’re not even fooling the humanists here. Even they say that the Christian religion has a purpose in curbing total moral chaos in that if everyone believed that they were accountable to no one then everyone would do what ever it took to “get yours” and take and do whatever it is to maintain that fleeting high of happiness, such as, drugs, rape, murder, theft, etc. The lunacy in your logic is moving to new heights as this paper progresses.

They do not make a constant demand that people must follow what they say. See, for instance, the Humanist Manifesto.

They can’t make demands! How ridiculous. The whole point of humanism is to do what you want and live morally by relativism which is a license to walk over everyone to make oneself happy.

I am sorry if my story did not convey to Wilson the agony with which I struggled to maintain my faith in spite of the new knowledge. I simply was not willing to turn from the faith as Wilson suggests.

This coming from someone who did in fact turn from his faith. I’m sorry if I don’t buy the story of someone claiming to struggle desperately with his faith decision when he is so enjoying his new found freedom in rejecting all accountability from God. On top of that, he spends considerable amount of his time attacking those who still hold to the beliefs he so cherished and defended and fought hard to accept as true. This is the type of illogical thinking that evolutionists use to push their absurd agenda.

 I argued long and hard for the faith. In fact, many saw my steadfast clinging to the faith, and interpreted it as bull-headedness. To say that I was quickly ready to turn from faith completely misrepresents the intense personal struggle I went through.

I’ve already dismantled this idea. To make everyone understand this desperate pleading, I’ll offer the exact reason for the author trying to push this idea. What he is trying to say, hidden under layers of lies, is that we’re supposed to reject scientists, research, logic, honesty, and truth in creation and/or the Bible because the author had all the facts for the Christian side and when he measured it up against evolution, he found evolution true. Therefore, he is telling us to not waste our time checking out the truth of the Bible or creation because he did it for us. Well, forgive me for wanting to think for myself. I also wanted to believe in evolution and I also wanted to be free from accountability from God but committing intellectual suicide by accepting evolution was worse than the joys of what the world dangled in front of me.

Wilson declares that I am not a freethinker, but a single-minded thinker. I can assure Wilson that I diligently studied this issue form both the Christian and non-Christians sides. I am curious if Wilson has done the same. I wonder if he can list some of the evolutionist, humanist, and atheist books that he has read. If he chooses to condemn single-minded thinking, than surely he must not be single-minded himself. I would love to hear what he has read from the other side.

Lets see, The indoctrination in evolution started by my recollection in the 3rd grade with the teaching that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago and that we came from cave-men. Fast forward to high school where Biology class pushed evolution as fact without compromise. Then the universities used ridicule and coercion to gain converts by pushing evolution in History, Biology, Chemistry, Zoology, etc. College textbooks push evolution a whole lot better than a book by Richard Dawkins, Sagan or some other theorist. Any book by Dawkins is known in creation and evolution circles as “just-so” story telling where he just spews out unfounded and ridiculous theories of how evolution works without any basis in reality or research but tells us to believe it anyway.

Wilson states that I am an idiot. This is an attack on my person. Now I happen to disagree with his conclusion, but suppose for a minute that it is true.  Even if I was completely incompetent mentally, I may be right on certain issues.

Clearly, this was meant to show your thinking on the issues that I showed you were wrong on. I’m guessing you’re competent enough to find your way home from the grocery store.

 So if Wilson wants to prove I am wrong on these issues, he will need an argument better than name-calling.

Well outside of that remark, I supplied several pages worth of proof.

Wilson asks me if I would show the same forgiveness if a crime was committed against me. Let me make this clear: I would certainly want a criminal to be brought to justice, and to be restrained from doing further harm to others. Wilson totally misses my point. The point is that people do things because, from their own perspective, what they are doing seems right.

Just like you think what you’re doing is right. But how do you know that what you believe, is right? It is ego that thinks that an individual is capable of believing that they can know what is moral and right.

 Understanding that fact makes it much easier to be kind to people and cooperate with them. Does that prove others are always right? No, of course not. It only recognizes that they think they are right.

Like you.

 And if we seek to understand how others think and understand why they act as they do,

Just as we have seen what motivates you.

 it makes it much easier for us to work in cooperation with them.

He declares that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Polpot killed in the name of humanism. This is completely false. If he wants to make the claim, then I would ask him to please show me evidence that these men adopted humanism.

These people weren’t believers in God. They believed we evolved and mankind was just a higher form of sludge. That allowed them to eliminate so-called less evolved people to their enjoyment and motivation. They did what was right in their own eyes according to the law of evolution that demands the survival of the fittest. This author would be hard pressed to explain how humanism wasn’t involved in their motivations.

No, I am not under bonds of humanism. Humanism is a group of principles that many of us have adopted. It is not binding on us in any way. We are free to adjust any point as we see fit. If he would read the Humanist Manifesto, for instance, he would see how wrong his claim is.

You’re telling me you’re not bound to any laws when the laws themselves say there are no laws. What kind of warped circular logic is this?

He says I have shown no evidence. I think my site stands on its own merits. The evidence is there. And I would be happy to discuss these issues with him if he desires.

Pick any issue.

Wilson informs me that the crowd follows evolution, and I stepped in line with them. Actually polls have shown that Americans are about equally divided on the evolution issue.

What poll? Polls can show anything you want like “scientific” research can. Polls say 90% of people believe in a god. The Bible makes it clear people can believe in many gods. Obviously that number misleads. The truth is that I have seen numbers around 50% of Americans believe in the God of the Bible. That number includes Catholics which make up the majority. Catholicism is a cult and only accidentally would lead people to a saving knowledge. The remaining 20% of Christians include a majority of liberal churches which this author admitted is growing in number. They accept too much of what the world offers and I feel they fall into the lukewarm category of belief. True Christians accept the young earth as the Bible describes and rejects all the non-sense of evolution. This percentage is probably somewhere between 4-6%.  This number appears to be growing as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society are making inroads into the evolutionary dogma found in society. Since evolution is accepted by Catholics, liberal churches and the non-believers, this makes up probably 85% of Americans and most of the world and therefore the author followed the crowd as I stated before and I stick with that contention.

 But among my family and friends, Creationism is far more popular than evolution. So, yes, it was a big step for me to go out on my own, against the social pressures.

Sounds more like you wanted attention from your family and going against everyone else’s beliefs would provide you with the center of attention you crave.

However on the issue of Christianity, there is an overwhelming majority of Americans who support Christianity. My stance for humanism indeed puts me into a minority.

I’ve stated the true numbers above. Christianity has become a generic term and includes multitudes of cults. Your continued hope and need to be unique, different and interesting doesn’t work if you think belief in evolution gets you there.


Anybody interested in commenting on this exchange may do so at my blog.




Debate Home



banner.JPG - 16622 Bytes