Responses to Church of Christ Essays
[ Back ] [ Homepage ] [ Up ]      Set Free Table of Contents          What's New

Let It Be Known...by Mark Smith

Let it be known that for several years now I have been trying to get a Church of Christ minister, ANY Church of Christ minister, to defend their claims in a public debate. This shyness on their part is surprising, given that the Church of Christ has a tradition of debating anyone who would dare challenge them. But after several YEARS now of  SEEKING I have yet to have even one of these "brave" gentlemen be a man about it and step up to the plate. I am left to conclude that they are good for huffing and puffing while behind their pulpits, safe from anyone questioning or criticizing them, but not so good in  public debate, where  their claims can be examined out in the open. IF you reading this are a member of a Church of Christ, PLEASE print this out and bring it to your minister Sunday- and challenge him: why hasn't HE stepped up? So based upon years and years of seeking, 
let me state it now and for the record, that until shown otherwise:
 CHURCH OF CHRIST MINISTERS ARE OFFICIALLY COWARDS.

Table of Contents

JB Bennet  2-18-03

JB Bennet  2-19-03

Thinking of Leaving the Church of Christ- 2-24-03

Scott Shifferd Jr 5-21-03

          Scott Shifferd 6-20-03
          Scott Shifferd 7-6-03
          Scott Shifferd 7-14-03

Michael Burkitt 5-30-03

Chico 1-7-04

Nameless 2-4-04

Nameless 2-6-04

Quest for Debate- Responses Thus Far

Kevin_Harris__4-14-04

Brian_Henegar-_South_Trail_Church_of_Christ_youth_minister__9-10-04

Terry_Chapman_minister_at_South_Trail_Church_of_Christ__9-14-04

Terry_Chapman_minister_at_South_Trail_Church_of_Christ_8-16-05

T_J_Latham__9-16-04

Clint_Davis_10-4-04

Clint_Davis_10-12-04

Phil__2-1-2005

Chris_Moores_7-25-05

Chris_Moores_8-8-05

Chris_Moores_8-10-05

Chris_Moores_8-11-05

Chad__9-2-05

dspike_9-5-05_

Nameless_from_Tampa_10/21/07

Nameless__10-21-07

RG__12/9/07_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JB Bennet 

Subj: Church of Christ  Date: 2/18/03 8:48:35 PM Pacific Standard Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark Smith here}    My arguments are not the rubbish here;  rather it is the claims your church has been making to the world all these years. I am not the one making these wild claims, I am merely pointing out that they are rubbish- which, by the way, you also pointed out when you admitted your church lacks many things the original New Testament church had (see the areas in your email I yellowed in above)

Listen JB- go back  and RE-read the lead essay}   Restored: Fact or Fiction? on my CofC web page.  You seem to be an intelligent person- what part of these claims BY YOUR OWN DAMN CHURCH don't you understand??? I know darn well, and so do you judging by your email, that your church is NOT the same as the original church- BUT THAT'S MY POINT!!!! You agree with me that your church isn't the same as the original church, then bash me for saying it. HUH???  Do you understand the claim made by Baxter:  "reproduce in contemporary times the church originally established on Pentecost, A.D. 30" ??? What part of "reproduce" or "originally" are you having problems with? Do you understand Delton Haun's claim that the modern Church of Christ is "the original church of the New Testament reproduced in this twentieth century" ???  What part of these arrogant and false claims are you having problems understanding??? And since you admit these claims are false, why are you bashing me for pointing out that they are false???  (And by the way, your comment about my not mentioning Elders: Elders and Pastors are the same thing. But lest anyone else make your same mistake, I now mention Elders.)

 I am not an experienced debater (most
likely you are), but only someone intent on accomplishing the devils will
would attack a group that is attempting to accomplish God's will.  Anybody
can throw up contradictory scriptures, but are they in context?

Mark Smith here}    Once again the Christian propensity for trying to create "ex nihlo" (from nothing) is demonstrated. JB makes three accusations here, and ASSUMES that because he is a Christian that making an accusation also creates "ex nihlo" what is being accused. He implies I've taken verses out of context, yet neglects to cite even a single example. Why? Because there ARE no examples. I bend over BACKWARD to NOT take ANYTHING out of context. He also accuses me of doing the "devil's will". Uhhh, JB- I can no more do the "devil's will" than you can do Santa's will: both Santa and De Devil are imaginary- they don't exist. JB also accuses the Church of Christ of "attempting to accomplish God's will" but again, neglects to provide us any evidence to back up that joke, er, accusation.

  I believe you attempt to smear God's word in order to justify your shortcomings.  Are
all congregations perfect...no...you'll find problems everywhere and your
miserable attempt to stereotype all CoC's as a massive organization like the
catholics is ludicrous.  You pointed out the CoC's organization (where are
you doing your homework?)...I have not attended any CoC that is organized
the way so emphatically prescribe...at least get your facts straight.

Mark Smith here}    My facts are fine- you just haven't been around, as evidenced (watch JB- I'm going to do something called "backing up what I'm claiming". Maybe you should try it sometime???) by your ignorance of Church of Christ claims, and congregational organizations. Have you considered that maybe not ALL CofC's are organized like your podunk backwoods outhouse of a congregation???

  So does this mean God's will cannot be accomplished?  I'm sure that you will
say yes, but I disagree on the simple fact that we don't need these
positions because we have all that we need in the scriptures.

I pray that one day you will open your eyes to find what glorious blessings
God has given you and that you appreciate what sacrifices He has made for
you.  What you are doing is like slinging mud on the bride on her wedding
day.  This is very disappointing, but there are many in the world like
yourself...trust me...there are more of you than there are of me (this is
called "an evidence").

Mark Smith here}    No JB, it's NOT "an evidence", but only one more claim unsupported by any evidence. A mere CLAIM does NOT equal evidence. You ARE confused, aren't you??? I can make the CLAIM that you are a rabbit, and I could even CALL that mere claim "evidence" (like you did), but no, JB, it's still just a mere claim- you have no "ex nihlo" powers to create- sorry.

Love in Christ,

JB Bennett

JB Bennet

Subj: Re: church of christ  Date: 2/19/03 9:16:39 PM Pacific Standard Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark Smith here}    I'd like everyone that reads this to notice that JB doesn't respond, refute, or even comment on a single argument I've made. All he does is blow alot of religious hot air- and do alot of ad hominum- in "love" of course!

I understand why you want my email address, and you can provide it to those
that request it if you absolutely have to have it.  I am asking you again to
remove it, please.

as far as your other arguments...i've been thinking about them periodically
throughout the day.  I followed the link that you provided.  Pretty
impresive I must say.  You have compiled quite the christian bashing
arsenal.  Initially I thought it was an article that I happened to stumbled
on to, but obviously there is a much larger picture.  Then I realized that I
am the first to comment, at least in my section.  Then i thought...why? 
Then it dawned on me...look at your topics...they are not worth debating
with you.  Not because they are not worth defending, but it is much like
Matthew 7:6

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and
rend you.

Mark Smith here}    I'd rather be an Atheist swine than an arrogant Christian jackass, which is what you're revealing yourself to be. Rather than "being ready always to give an answer" as your New Testament says, you're going to invoke the "Fifth Amendment" of your religion, and pretend your so much "holier than thou" that you don't need to respond to what I write, any more so than you'd respond to a bug.

I don't mean to imply that you are either a dog or a swine, however after
reviewing your website, I have not found any encouraging information, but
only negative hateful thoughts.  This would indicate that your actions are
like thereof.

Another point to make as to why you will not understand the truth if it were
sitting on the end of your nose is found in Matthew 18:2-5

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and
said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as
little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 
Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in
the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever receives one little child like this in My
name receives Me."

Mark Smith here}    So, only little kids can REALLY know the truth, eh? I suppose you'd rather put a five year old in the white house based on this idiocy? Face it, Jesus screwed up here by admitting he admired gullibility in little kids. Jesus- and all his followers- think it's just peachy to swallow anything somebody says to you.

many people and members of the church are knowledgeable, like yourself, but
are still doomed according to Romans 10:2-4

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about
to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the
righteousness of God. For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness
to every one that believeth.

Apperently, even stated in your own email address, you are not willing to
submit to Christ.  This is fair, not to you, but fair.  To even begin
explaining meaty subjects that you delight in contradicting, you must
understand what it is based upon.  A foundation must be laid as in 1 Peter
2:6-8

Mark Smith here}    All this religious mumbo-jumbo may impress others at your church, but it doesn't impress anyone else. You are coming off as a religious nutcase- which is fine by me! It make my job easier when you idiots hang yourselfs.

1 Peter 2:6-8  Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I
lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him
will by no means be put to shame." Therefore, to you who believe, He is
precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders
rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling And a
rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they
also were appointed.

Mark Smith here}    Mumbo jumbo, uga buuga, presto chango, wasabi wabby ya ya. You know what I just realized? There's no way you are a Church of Christer- you are MUCH too incoherent and scatterbrained. If anything, you are a denominationalist who got his theological ass kicked by a CofC'er and now you're trying to get revenge. 

Without such a foundation the bible is worthless.  To lay this foundation
you must have faith.  James says, "Was not Rahab the harlot justified by
works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another
way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is
dead also" (Jas. 2:25-26).

Thinking of Leaving the Church of Christ-  2-24-03

Subj: Your transition from CoC to atheism  Date: 2/24/03 3:49:46 PM Pacific Standard Time From: XXX To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet

Mark Smith here}    I found out the same thing in my transition out of the C of C- regardless of how "fundamental" your C of C is, there is always another that is even more so. That's the problem with splitting hairs- you can ALWAYS split the one you just split: just get a more powerful microscope and a finer razor. 

 

I was just wondering about your transition into atheism.
Did you leave the Church of Christ and then become an
atheist immediately?  Or did you try out other
'denominations' before eventually becoming an atheist?  It's
ironic that the church of Christ was "founded" on
individual, private interpretation and study of the
scripture--I'd be willing to bet that is exactly how you
decided to become an atheist!

Mark Smith here}    I went to a "mainline" C of C (non-instrumental), called "South Trail Church of Christ" down in Sarasota, Florida. It had broken off of another C of C named "Fruitville Road Church of Christ" (since then renamed "Sarasota C of C") which itself had broken off of "Golf Street Church of Christ" (do you notice a trend here???).  South Trail was the first C of C I went to, and I never even knew about there being any other "brands" out there. I stumbled upon Golf Street Church of Christ (since then renamed 12th Street Church of Christ) as it was only a mile from my house. I found out they didn't believe in having paid preachers- every male was allowed to give a sermon. Having never heard of such a heresy, I set about setting them straight. Instead, I ended up agreeing with their position, and my book "Fire The Clergy" ( Fire The Clergy ) was the result, which resulted in my being excommunicated from South Trail at the "tender" age of 17. As I was debating alot of Mormons at the time, I then did a study on church governments, which resulted in my writing another book ( Authority In Church Government ) which eventually led me out of organized religions all together.

I have never encountered an atheist who was a former member
of the church of Christ.  You have a unique perspective--you
have all the "scriptual ammo" of a member of the Church of
Christ yet you don't believe in any God.  That is probably
why no one will debate you.  I wouldn't.  

Mark Smith here}    Thanks for the compliment, and I think you're right. Hell, even back when I was a Christian I could have beat Craig in a debate- denominationalists are no match for a well-skilled Church of Christer. Craig took up debating religion some years after college- I grew UP debating religion!

What got me OUT OF religion altogether was the same thing that had changed my mind on aspects of religion before: intense Bible study. In my 30's I did a study on Matthew 24 (having been putting it off since I was about 14 or so) and found out that Jesus had blown his Second Coming prophecies: Jesus had been a false prophet  ( see Mt 24-34 What The Scholars Say  and others in that section). I drew the line at worshipping a false prophet. 

The Atheism came later. Once I started studying my OWN theological foundations with the same intensity I had always studied everyone else's, it was amazing how quickly I found out I had been standing on sand, not rock, all those years. Christianity folded like a house of cards when a gentle refreshing breeze passes by.

Anyway, I know you
aren't a counselor, but I am sitting on the fence about my
religion right now and I am trying to get advice and insight
from all the sources I can.  Thanks for your time.


----

        Scott Shifferd Jr 5-21-03

Subj: Your Site is filled with Misunderstandings  Date: 5/21/03 1:36:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark Smith here}    Instead of me taking all those things to that location, how about you take your head and remove it from its current location: your asshole.

Second, concerning the restoration of the Church, you
think that the church of Christ has not been restored.
Well, you're right that the church of Christ has not
been restored, because the church does not have to be
restored when it has been here since about 30 AD. (And
if you think that the church of Christ came from the
Restoration, then just reply and I can settle that
misunderstanding.) 

Mark Smith here}    And yet another example of a Christian more ignorant of his theological heritage than me, the Atheist. I am not going to take the time here to teach Scott what he should have learned in church.

Regarding your logic about today's
church of Christ and the church of Christ of the 1st
century, you point out that today's church is not the
1st century church, and you would be right. The 1st
century church did not drive cars, have websites, and
so on. 

Mark Smith here}    Gee! I never knew that! I'm soooo impressed with your snappy answer!

 But Scott, what about the GOVERNMENT and PRACTICE of the church? It's your own leaders that have claimed that your little CULT is the exact xerox copy of the first century church. No one ever said they drove cars and such.

Also you do correctly point out some problems
with the church of Christ today, but then forget that
none of the 1st century churches of Christ were
perfect either. People are not perfect and there will
never be a perfect church filled with imperfect
people, not today nor in the 1st century. Recognizing
the millions of imperfections of the churches of
Christ does not disprove that churches of Christ are
not like the original but actually the opposite.

Mark Smith here}    Yes folks, our screwups PROVE we're the true church!!!

Today's church has problems just like the 1st century
church, and today's church has some issues that are
only common to this age. For The church of today to be
the New Testament church, then the church must follow
the eternal pattern of doctrines found in the New
Testament Scriptures.

Third, most of your so-called contradictions can
easily be fixed by looking to the Biblical texts in
their original language. For example, the
contradiction about a jealous God can easily be
refuted. In fact, you could use a more literal Bible
to address this issue like the ASV 1901 or NASV, but
be sure not to switched between versions to get the
reading that you desire to make a point. (If you don't
understand why, then reply.)

Mark Smith here}    Uhhh, genius: I went to the original languages- that is in the essay. Didn't you even READ the damn essay, duffass???

Finally, I enjoyed reading your articles. Thanks for
keeping us on our toes. I just ask that you be honest
with yourself and understanding of Christians. I will
also be honest with myself, so keep working and I'll
keep reading.

In Search of the Truth in All Honesty,
                                   Scott Shifferd Jr.

Scott Shifferd 6-20-03

Subj: I sent this about a month ago, and I guess you did not get it.  Date: 6/20/03 7:01:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: jcnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark Smith here}     What does the origin of the universe have to do with the Church of Christ? Are you arrogant men going to take credit for that now, too???

Now regarding your comments to my last e-mail, I will
address these in order.

First, you imply that I should not refer you to
another location (website). Why not? I came to your
location and you will not go to mine? Besides this, in
addressing your so-called contradictions between
Christianity and science or the Scriptures, where
should I start? What do you think your strongest
arguments are?

Mark Smith here}     Dude, the topic is "Church of Christ". Repeat after me: I WILL stay on topic, I WILL stay on topic.

Second, you declare that I am ignorant of my
theological heritage. I guess you think that I do not
know that the common thinking is that the church of
Christ originated from the Restoration. You and many
other individuals believe that “the church of Christ”
is just simply a sect of Christendom, which was a
result of the Campbells who pleaded for a return to
the New Testament pattern in America.

Mark Smith here}     Uhhh, yes. That's called HISTORY. History is a written record of things that happened in the past. Go and read it for yourself- that IS how your church started. For you to pretend otherwise is just arrogant stupidity.

 In contradiction
to this thinking, throughout history, there have been
communities and then more communities that held the
doctrine and practice of the church of Christ of the
Scriptures, but I know that this does not stand with
those who think that the church of Christ is just
another denominated cult or sect from the Roman
Catholic Church. To prove that the church of Christ
existed before the Restoration, note a historical
marker placed by the Historical Commission of the
state of Massachusetts, which displays the existence
of a congregation of the church of Christ at Rumney
Marsh established in 1710. This is more than a century
before the Campbell and Stone movements of the
Restoration. 

Mark Smith here}     Would you then like to show the connection between THAT group and the Campbell's??? Please show how that group evolved into the Campbell's group. Can't do it, can you??? 

On this same marker, there is mention of
an erected meeting house in 1790. Thomas Cheever was
the first settled minister there who died October 17,
1749, at the age of 91. (West, Search of the Ancient
Order). Apparently, the church of Christ existed long
before the Campbells came to America. Dr. Robinson who
was a principal for Overdale College, Birmingham,
England, affirmed that, “In the Furness District of
Lancanshire in N.W. England, there existed in 1669,
during the reign of Charles II, a group of eight
churches of Christ, most of them now not in existence.
An old minute book had been found dated in 1669 with
evidence that they called themselves by the name
‘church of Christ,’ practiced baptism by immersion,
celebrated the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day and had
elders and deacons.” This is only the beginning of
such evidence.

Mark Smith here}     Heresies tend to repeat themselves. As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. It's not surprising that there would be isolated groups popping up here and there with the same unfounded goofy theories.

Third, I pointed out that the church today does differ
from the church of the 1st century by the fact that
today we drive cars, have websites, and so on. I said
this to show that we are not in all respects “a Xerox
copy” of the 1st century church. Whoever told you that
we claim to be a Xerox copy of the 1st century church
is mistaken. You said, “It’s your leaders that have
claimed that your little CULT is the exact Xerox copy
of the first century church.” Whoever you are
referring to, they are not my leaders.

Mark Smith here}     Once again, we see the divisive nature of this hee-haw cult at work. Scott doesn't like what the leaders of his group have written, so rather than submit to their spiritual authority, HE RUNS AWAY FROM "HOME" OFF INTO LEFT FIELD AND DISOWNS HIS SPIRITUAL PARENTS. I wouldn't be surprised if Scott's even started his own C of C, like thousands of other C of C'ers before him. If there's one thing the C of C is good at, it "divide and..." not conquerp, but "divide and disappear".

 Trying to
disprove the fact that today’s church of Christ is not
the New Testament church of Christ by the words of
uninspired men is illogical.

Mark Smith here}     Oh, so using the actual published writings of the modern Church of Christ to disprove the modern Church of Christ is illogical. What planet are YOU from, Scott??? I guess if you were trying to disprove the Mormon church you would use maybe the writings of Buddha then, rather than Joseph Smith???

 The truth is we are the
church of Christ found in the Scriptures, and you do
not have to have a sign on the church building’s lawn
stating “church of Christ” to be apart of the church
of Christ. All one must do to be apart of the church
of Christ is to soundly follow the Scriptures.

Mark Smith here}     But as I aptly pointed out, you bozo's DON'T "follow the scriptures". And if I'm soooo wrong in this claim, then please tell me why ALL of the Churches of Christ in Southern California fear debating me over this in public??? Why do they all cower in the corner like frightened old ladies whenever I mention the word "debate" to them? 

WHY ARE ALL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST SO CHICKEN-SHIT WHEN IT COMES TO DEBATE, IF I'M SO WRONG?????

Concerning the Government and Practice of the church,
most of the churches of Christ throughout the world
follow the government for the church given in the
Scriptures (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1), and follow the
practices and doctrines of the Scriptures to the best
of their understanding. Your chart that points out
that we do not have apostles, prophets, miracles
workers, or healers, only helps to prove that we are
the New Testament church. These positions do not exist
today because today’s church is established and has
that which is perfect, the Scriptures.

Mark Smith here}     Scott, have you stopped taking your medication again??? YOUR church claims to have 100% of EVERYTHING the church in the New Testament had. My chart shows this to be a lie. How, therefore, does my chart- which blows your stupid little ass-backwards cult out of the water- how does my chart then "prove" your church??? Are you THAT out of touch with reality???

 These positions
existed in the first century only for the
establishment of the church until that which is
perfect has come (1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4).

Mark Smith here}     Well, if that's so, then you'd better tell the bozo's that publish your Church of Christ tracts to stop making their claims that they ARE 100% without anything missing, the "New Testament Church reproduced in this modern age" as one of  YOUR own tracts declare.

Fourth, concerning your statement “Yes folks, our
screwups PROVE we’re the true church!!!”, what is this
statement suppose to prove? Christians mess up today
and in the past and will in the future, just like
everyone else including you. As people, we are prone
to mistakes. If as you think that we evolved from some
primordial slime, then there really is no such thing
as a mistake to you, but just the workings of nature
and one’s subjective interpretation of what a mistake
is. So, how can you even try to disprove a religion by
the fact that they make mistakes by your own
understanding of mistakes which you must think are
subjective? Your statement blatantly lacks logic and
consistency.

Mark Smith here}     Yes, how dare I expose to the world the fuck-ups you guys really are! You are PROUD of screwing up, you wear it as a badge of honor! How DARE I point out flaws in a group that CLAIMS to be perfect!!!!

Fifth, concerning your essay about how the Scriptures
contradict by the fact that God is love, love is not
jealous, but God is a jealous God; you state “I went
to the original languages – that is in the essay”. I
went back and read the essay (Tyrannosaurus Pettius
Rex) four more times and your statement here is
blatantly false. Nowhere in your essay is there any
reference to the original languages. I guess now
you’ll go back and fix that.

Mark Smith here}     What I meant Scott is that I researched the original languages while I was writing that, and saw that there was no place for you weaselly Christians to hide, as you so often do, behind this Greek participle or that Hebrew verb.

 Here is the truth about
this so-called contradiction. The Greek word in 1
Corinthians 13:4 is “zeilos”. This word is defined as
eagerness, zeal, and is also translated as envy or
jealousy when the word is used in a negative way (i.e.
sin). The possible meanings for “zeilos” are
determined by the context of the word. Context is
vital. There are words in Hebrew, Greek, and English
that are ambiguous between several possible meanings,
but rely on their context. In Koine Greek, just note a
word that you might know “proskuneo”. Sometimes
proskuneo means “to prostrate” and at other times “to
honor (worship)”, the context decides the definition.
Throughout the Scriptures, “zeilos” is used in
reference to being good sometimes, bad at other times,
and neutral. Again, only the context can decide. Some
of the passages that contain a bad type of “zeilos”
are Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 13:4, 2 Corinthians
11:2, 12:20, Galatians 5:20, and James 3:14. Even
reading these verses in English, the truth is blatant
that the context shows that there is a bad kind of
“zeilos”. Just read James 3:14 refers to an act of
“zeilos” as “bitter”. Then there are those passages
that show a good kind of “zeilos”. Some of these
passages are Acts 22:3, Romans 10:2, 1 Corinthians
12:31, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 12, 39, 2 Corinthians
7:7,11, 9:2, 11:2, Galatians 4:18, Titus 2:14, and 1
Peter 3:13. Note, Galatians 4:18 that states, “it is
good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable
manner”. The word “eagerly” is from the word “zeilos”.
Then 1 Peter 3:13 states, “Who is there to harm you if
you prove zealous for what is good?” In this verse,
here “zealous” is “zeilos”. Next, in 2 Corinthians
11:2, Paul states “For I am jealous for you with a
godly jealousy”. Again, “jealous” and “jealousy” are
from “zeilos” and are used to display a good
attribute. This is all said, so that you will
understand that even if you translated this word as
“jealous” then there would be a good type of jealousy
in the Scriptures for which God can have and a bad
kind for which only those of the world have.

Mark Smith here}     WhatEVER definition you end up for the word "jealous", your Bible still says love is NOT jealous. You can define jealous as having green pokadots. Your Bible says therefore that love does NOT have green pokadots. This is called a CON-TRA-DIC-TION, Scott. Sorry I caught your Bible with its pants down.

 Next,
what about the word for jealousy in Exodus 20:5? Here,
the Hebrew word for jealousy in Exodus 20:5 is
“qanna”, which can also mean “eager” or “zealous”.
This point is made to demonstrate that even if the
negative form of “zeilos” in 1 Corinthians 13:4 is
jealousy, then clearly this word would not be
synonymous with a positive form of the word “qanna” in
Exodus 20:5. In conclusion, God is love (1 John 4:8),
love is not jealous (in a negative context), and God
is a zealous God (in a positive context). You should
have gone to the original languages.

Sincerely and Honestly,
                            Scott Shifferd Jr.

Mark Smith here}     Like I already said, I did go to the original language. The contradiction stands. IF you disagree with me, why don't you try something called DOCUMENTATION. I noticed you didn't quote even one Greek or Hebrew lexicon, not one commentary or scholar. I'm supposed to buy your arguments just because a hee-haw cultist says so??? I don't think so. That kind of hocus-pocus may fly in your backwater cult, but not out here in the real world. 

And by the way, as long as you brought up that essay of mine, why didn't you deal with one of the MAJOR points of that essay??? Why did you avoid answering my question as to why your Biblegod would get jealous over make-believe gods of other religions??? That's like getting jealous over a cartoon character, and makes your Biblegod look like a lunatic. WHY didn't you deal with THAT point, Scott??? 

Tyrannosaurus Pettius Rex

 Scott Shifferd 7-6-03

Subj: Open  Date: 7/6/03 6:33:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark Smith here}     Uhhh, no I'm not going to take the time to compare every bit of my writings to their entire website and start arguments over every one of the hundreds of disagreements. Don't just refer me to the "Encylopedia Brittanica's" 10 million pages and say "deal with that". Tell you what- YOU deal with inventing an anti-gravity device (no, not a bra) and THEN I'll deal with the web site. Fair?? Fact is, you don't control my time- I do.

Next, you said “Dude, the topic is "Church of Christ".
Repeat after me: I WILL stay on topic, I WILL stay on
topic.” In my first letter, I said, “First, concerning
your skepticism of God and the church of Christ, you
have ignorance built upon more ignorance. You want to
debate a Christian of the church of Christ? First, be
an honest person and start with being honest with
yourself. Then take all your so-called Bible
contradictions, your proofs against the existence of
God, and so on to this site: www.apologeticspress.com
. I would like to know your results. Be sure to send
me your leftovers.” From the very first letter, the
topic is clearly the church of Christ and
skepticism/atheism, so you must have forgot. Now, you
can address your understanding of the origin of the
Universe.

Mark Smith here}     You REALLY have no concept about staying on topic, do you? This website I'm typing into right now is for responses to my anti Crutch of Christ essays. That is the topic. If you want to comment on any OTHER essays I've written, then send a separate email regarding them. Sorry, but I'm not going to drag the entire Universe into the Church of Christ- it won't fit. For the billionth time: STAY ON TOPIC.

Second, in my reply to your lack of understanding
regarding the church of Christ, I said that the church
of Christ was not restored but that it has always
existed. 

Mark Smith here}     And I'm really Superman, but don't tell anyone. (For all you NON-CofC people laughing your heads off right now about Scott's claim: yes, the CofC REALLY IS that arrogant.)

I documented churches of Christ in New
England and England that existed before the
Restoration Movement to show you this point. Now, you
want a connection between the Campbells and the church
of Christ. Even if I could not prove this position,

Mark Smith here}     Yes, this is something called "evidence". It's used in debates to back up one's claims. You should try it sometime. Your statement of "EVEN IF I could prove this position" means you CAN'T prove it, or offer evidence. Lack of evidence never slowed a Christian from making grandiose claims, though, did it???

the fact is still true that the church of Christ did
not come from some Restoration Movement. The evidence
has been provided and the choice is yours of whether
to think rationally and believe proven facts or think
irrationally and not believe proven facts. When you do
believe the evidence, then you can go and correct
another part of your essays. In further regards to
your thinking that the church of Christ came from the
Restoration Movement, you also state, “Uhhh, yes.
That's called HISTORY. History is a written record of
things that happened in the past. Go and read it for
yourself- that IS how your church started.” “History”
also claims that Columbus discovered America even
though people already lived in the Americas. This is
just a simple example that parallels to the fact that
the church of Christ has always existed, but it was
not until the Restoration did the known world take
notice of the church of Christ just like when the
known world finally noticed the existence of the
Americas. The truth is that I gave you history and you
ignore it. You think that history affirms that the
church of Christ started with the Restoration, but the
fact is that the church of Christ already existed
(already proven) and the Campbells are connected to
them by their Restoration Movement in which many
people returned to the church of the Scriptures.

Mark Smith here}     Now this is more like it. I've shown and presented evidence in my anti CofC essays that you guys are NOT "the church of the Scriptures". You here claim otherwise, and offer ZERO evidence to back up your claim. Why don't you offer some EVIDENCE that refutes my anti- CofC essays??? Gosh, that would even make you... on topic!!!!

 Note
that I provided hard evidence that the church already
existed, and you referred to some historical account
that obviously does not recognize this evidence.
Whatever accounts of history that you are referring to
do not disprove the existence of the church of Christ
before the Restoration Movement, but shows ignorance
thereof.
Next, you say, “Heresies tend to repeat themselves. As
Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. It's
not surprising that there would be isolated groups
popping up here and there with the same unfounded
goofy theories.” Now that you have pointed this out,
you have accomplished nothing. So what? Groups of
people appear throughout history saying that they are
apart of the New Testament church whose faith has been
passed down from faith to faith. In fact, this idea
applies to everyone including you and therefore is not
a valid argument but actually goes against you. You
know that atheism also repeats itself throughout
history and so do “goofy theories” like evolution.
Even as far as 600BCE, Anaximander believed in
evolution. It certainly is not new. Atheism is filled
with isolated groups with “the same unfounded goofy
theories”. I guess the community of BigBanggod and the
community of Biblegod have a lot in common. Using your
logic, your statement must prove that you are not 100%
atheist, because you are part of some “isolated groups
popping up here and there with the same unfounded
goofy theories”.

Mark Smith here}     Atheism repeats itself because smart people of every generation in every culture eventually discover their religion of birth is horseshit, be it Paganism, Judaism, or any other ism. What I DON'T claim is that there is some sort of "true" Atheist movement down thru the centuries, of which I am the end result of.

Third, you say that the church of Christ is divisive.
You know well that there were some churches in the New
Testament that were also divisive. So what?

Mark Smith here}     So what? Jesus said that the world would know his true disciples by their love for each other and you CoC guys have nothing but hate and scorn for each other and you say "so what"??? You are even out of touch with what your own Jesus taught. You CoC's know very little about love- all you're good for is tearing things down.

 Are you
going to hold your ground by the fact that some
churches of Christ divide over doctrine or opinions?
This is nothing new and does not disprove that
churches of Christ have always existed since 33CE.

Mark Smith here}     Excuse me, but you have yet to prove that they always HAVE existed. Where is the evidence, where are the links, where are the documents? Oh, I forgot- you're a Christian- you don't need such mundane things as evidence. We're just suppose to take your word on everything. Yeah, right. On top of that, in your own local Church of Christ there in Bum Fuck Egypt, where the hell are your APOSTLES, your PROPHETS, and your MIRACLE WORKERS which you would have if you really WERE the true church.

People are divisive by nature. 

Mark Smith here}     But you guys aren't just "people", you guys are KING'S KIDS, you guys have the "holy spirit", you guys are supposed to be better than the rest. By your own admission, you ain't, and therefore, by your own admission, your religion doesn't work as advertised. You bozos are no more born again than I am.

Look at the hundreds of
denominations/divisions among atheists. Either way you
look at it, atheism like the churches of Christ are
united and then some are divided, so I guess since
everyone on this earth cannot be perfectly united in
the same thinking, then your logic would conclude that
we should not be people because people cannot be
perfectly united.

Mark Smith here}     So you're admitting what the Barna research group has documented for years now: that there's not a dime's worth of difference between Atheists and Christians when it comes to morality? Thank you! 

 If you did not get that last
statement, this is probably because this is your
logic. All in all, true Christians love everyone and
among the churches of Christ love is the bond of unity
not doctrine or opinions though the church should
strive to be in the same mind and same judgement. Many
of us may be divided in doctrine, but we are united in
love.

Mark Smith here}     Excuse me while I barf (##@%%^((*++). Who the HELL do you think you're writing to??? I used to be a member of your stupid denomination. Go peddle your bullshit with someone who doesn't have first hand experience with your vile bitter little group of malcontents.

Next, does it really matter if you think that I have
left my “spiritual parents”? The fact is that you are
the one who ran away from home and left your spiritual
parents. You already stated this earlier on your site.
The truth about me is that my leaders are not those
sincere and imperfect men who write religious tracts,
but my leader is God who speaks through His inspired
prophets in writing. God is who I follow, and not men.

Mark Smith here}     Like I said, you are not submitting to the authority of the church elders, per what the New Testament demands. Therefore, you aren't a real Christian, and should stop trying to defend what you're not even qualified to be a member of. You aren't good enough to be a real member of the Church of Christ. You're a lone ranger all off by himself charging at windmills.

If you knew anything about the churches of Christ, it
is that we are all individuals who seek to follow the
Scriptures rather than what even some men say
especially what some of our own say about the
Scriptures. Even with such individuality, we are still
united. This is a fact to be recognized. If you are
going to say I am in left field, then great. Good for
you. Your statement is just another ignorant
assumption. Is this going to be the extent of your
arguments?
You also affirm that we are not the original church of
Christ in practice. I have refuted this point for
everyone to see, when are you going to address it?
Instead, of proving a point or countering my point,
you keep affirming assumptions.
Next, I am debating you, so why are you fussing about
some other individuals in Southern California. They do
not have to debate you. All they have to do is simply
give you an answer. There are millions of reasons why
they will not debate you and not just because they are
afraid of what you know. Everyone has already seen
that you are unreasonable, illogical, and ignorant.

Mark Smith here}     No, we haven't seen that. We haven't seen you take even one argument of mine and via evidence show the world that my conclusions were skewed. All we've seen are empty hot-air claims.

Most of all, you lack honesty, but of course
Christians are suppose to drop everything to come to
Mark Smith, because he wants attention, revenge, or
something else as long as it is not the truth. Then
there is me who has showed you your errors, but you
continue to lie to yourself and others on these
issues. It is very hard to cover any ground with
someone who does not comprehend what is being written.
Since you have posted these letters on your site, now
the world can decide.

Mark Smith here}     As always, you Christians don't have an argument to attack me with so you attack me instead. Ad Hominum arguments are what you "loving" vipers are best at.

Fourth, concerning the church of Christ not being 100%
perfect, you refer back to some so-called leaders of
mine. I say they are not my leaders, and you refuse to
comprehend. You are not getting anywhere with this
junk. Please, use evidence. Besides this, my point has
been made loud and clear. Deny the truth if you want.
Next, you are an atheist and morals do not come from
empirical data, but you still try to point out things
wrong with Christianity. Do you not get it? Your
ethics are subjective and you have no authority for
ethics except for self-justification.

Mark Smith here}     Oh, and YOUR ethics are NOT subjective? You damn liar. I challenge you before the entire world- tell me just ONE thing that is objectively wrong, forever, in any and all circumstances and conditions. You can't do it. Your ethics are just as subjective as mine, even more so. In fact, the morals of religious people are always "subject to change without notice" whenever that little voice inside your head which you think is God (but is really religious schizophrenia) tells you to do something crazy.  Your vaunted "morals" say murder is always and forever wrong? But if that voice told you to kill your son (remember Abraham and Issac?), you'd do it in a heart beat. Your "morals" say stealing is always and forever wrong? What about when Jesus told his apostles to go into a wheat field and steal the grain? Yes- when you take something without the owner's permission, that's called STEALING. You say lying is always and forever wrong, and that as a good Christian you'd never lie? So I suppose if you were hiding Jews in your basement in 1944 that when the Nazi knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews, you'd tell the truth? "Oh sure, I have a whole family. Come on in and kill them- the little baby shouldn't give you much trouble." Face it, your ethics are just as situational and SUBJECTIVE as any others- time and circumstance always affect the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an act, and you religionists who think you got all the answers- an absolute RIGHT and and absolute WRONG- you guys are not playing with a full deck.

 I advise you to
just use your empirical data to refute the Scriptures
and the existence of God if you want to make any
progress. On top of all of this, from your worldview
you cannot make mistakes, because there really is no
such thing as a mistake to you, then you want to point
out other people’s mistakes. Be consistent on
something. You continuously contradict yourself.

Fifth, you said, “I went to the original languages –
that is in the essay”, but there is no mention of the
original languages in the essay. Then you do not deny
this but say “What I meant Scott is that I researched
the original languages while I was writing that”. Well
you apparently did not research the original languages
or your essay would not exist.
Next, you requested that I use documentation like a
lexicon, a commentary, or a quote from a scholar. The
method in which I proved to you the meanings of those
words is the same exact method in which those
definitions within lexicons are found, so a lexicon is
not needed. I am also not going to use a weak source
like a commentary. A commentary will just become
another source for you to debate. I did not quote a
scholar because I do not need to.

Mark Smith here}     Oh yeah, you don't need to document any of your arguments with such mundane items as FACTS, do you? After all, you are a Christian, and we know Christians aren't supposed to lie, therefore everything you say will automatically be true. Sorry, I forgot. It's only us evil Atheists that actually need to prove our arguments with lexicons, commentaries, dictionaries, research by scholars and such. You're under no such obligation, are you?   

 I am a scholar and
this is my field. If you want one of these
documentations, then you can easily go find your
criteria for documentation for yourself. Here are the
ones that I sometimes refer to: (1) Berry, George
Ricker, PH.D. Greek-English Lexicon to the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (2) Newman, Barclay
M., Jr. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New
Testament. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993
(3) Thayer, Joseph Henry, D.D. Thayer’s Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament. 1901. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1977. Check these sources and you will
see that these agree.
Back to the heart the subject, you affirm that the
Scriptures contradict because the Scriptures teach
that God is love, love is not jealous, but God is
jealous. The truth is the Hebrew word for jealousy in
Exodus 20:5 also means eager or zealous. Therefore,
the Scriptures actually teach that God is love, love
is jealous, and God is eager/zealous. There is no
contradiction in the Scriptures, and you have posted a
lie on your site.

Mark Smith here}     Listen, I am tired of you going way the hell off topic. You really have no clue as to what staying on topic means, don't you? I notified you previously about this, and like most Christians, you never listen to a damn thing you're told. Well, too bad. No more off topics allowed. You want to make a response to my Tyrannosaurus Pettius Rex   essay? Then you send a separate email that deals with that topic and that topic ONLY. I can't waste my time chasing a million gnats you let loose.

You also want me to take this so-called contradiction
further in depth. You want me to address your other
points when such is impossible when your essay is
founded on a lie. There is no reason to address any
other points when your whole essay stands on what you
thought was a contradiction. Personally, I can do a
far better job of proving atheism than you can, and
you are supposedly an atheist. This is true because I
used to support your position, and I thoroughly
understand the common atheist’s view. The difference
between you and I is that I am honestly seeking the
truth no matter what is revealed, and you blatantly
are not. On top of all of this, your website is set at
attacking Christianity and other dogmas, but not at
proving your own.

Mark Smith here}     Well Scott, once again if you knew how to read you might be dangerous. For if you knew how to read, you would have seen right at the top of my HomePage the following lines:

Set Free! Dedicated to deprogramming Christians from Christ, Fundies from Fundamentalism, and providing Atheistic Ammo to Freethinkers. Your One-Stop Anti-Christian Shop.

Just what do the words "Anti-Christian" mean to you? Of course, they mean nothing to someone who doesn't slow down long enough to read, so I can understand your statement. You don't really READ something; you just skim thru it as fast as you can looking for ways to tear it apart and criticize it. Try slowing down a bit, with the attitude that you don't already know everything there is to know in the universe- you MIGHT just learn something now and then!

 

 

 

 This looks more like the work of a
desperate skeptic who cannot think things through for
himself, but just asks questions and points his finger
at whatever he cannot comprehend.

Mark Smith here}     No Scott, as I wrote just above, that's you. I dig into subjects. I research the experts in their commentaries, research the Greek lexicons, read the books, check the dictionaries, and most of all I do something you've demonstrated you don't do: I listen.  If you go back thru our last two exchanges, you'll notice that I was actually responding to what you had written. You, on the other hand, just ignored what I wrote and blathered on- the "staying on topic" admonition being one example.

Finally, I know many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics
who at least respect Christianity and support the good
things that Christians do for the betterment of the
world. I also as a Christian respect atheists,
agnostics, and skeptics and the good that comes from
them. I try to “Respect what is right in the sight of
all men” (Romans 12:17). Maybe you will also learn to
respect Christianity like others have or will you hold
to your hatred because you were disciplined by
disfellowship for your false teachings.

Honestly Seeking the Truth,
                       Scott Shifferd Jr.

Scott Shifferd  7-14-03

Subj: Free Thinking  Date: 7/14/03 6:11:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mark Smith here}     For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that point. However, that leads to newer problems for you. Problems such as, IF the C of C did NOT need restoring, and thus did not in fact come from the "Restoration Movement", then why all the claims BY the C of C that they DID come from the "Restoration Movement" and that they are THE "Restored New Testament Church"???? These claims are numerous and even adorn many of their books and tracts. It is they themselves, sir, that make the claim to be the "restored" church, not me. 

Jesus did teach that we would be known by our love,
and we are.

Mark Smith here}     Sorry, but you guys are NOT known for anything other than: Your stupid doctrine on Instrumental Music, AND how cantankerous and divisive you are. If you think any thing else, you're not smoking something legal in your pipe at night.  Like I wrote in my last response:

Jesus said that the world would know his true disciples by their love for each other and you CoC guys have nothing but hate and scorn for each other and you say "so what"??? You are even out of touch with what your own Jesus taught. You CoC's know very little about love- all you're good for is tearing things down.

 The fact still remains that both theists
and atheists are divided. Yes, Christians should not
bedivided, because they are to be known by their love
and should agree on the Scriptures. Also, recognize
that atheists are thought to be the intellectuals who
understand the origin of the Universe

Mark Smith here}     What? Unless non-Christians can pretend to have ALL answers to ALL questions in the universe, we are not to listen to them? That IS your implication here. Fact is, just because you religionists PRETEND to have all the answers does NOT by any means make them the RIGHT answers. Maybe the rest of us would just rather be honest and say that sometimes we don't know something yet, rather than be like the religionists and pompously pretend to know everything. 

, but even they
are as divisive as Christians are. Do we now deny
Christianity and atheism by the fact that truth and
unity escape both? 

Mark Smith here}     Jesus made no claims that REAL Atheists would be known by their love for each other. That's your man, dude.

I can understand how someone who
was disfellowshipped would feel the way that you do.
You were preaching controversial doctrine, and the
congregation that you were apart of did as the
Scriptures instructed them to do with one who they
thought preached false doctrine and misrepresented the
church, and they disfellowshipped you (Rom. 16:17, 1
Cor. 5).

Mark Smith here}     I was preaching what the Bible taught, and like most churches AND Christians, they couldn't handle it. Just doing the same thing nowadays (from the other side of the fence) and you religionists STILL can't handle it. 

 After this, many would do as you have done
and denounce God, the church, and spend your life
trying as much as possible to get rid of such
influences. 

Mark Smith here}     To the contrary, rather than leave the fold, I went to an even more strict and conservative split of the C of C. It wasn't until maybe 15 years later that I broke with Christianity, so sorry, your amateur psychology is failing. I became an Atheist because of Bible study and NOT something as shallow as getting my feelings hurt etc.

I know your site is “Dedicated to
deprogramming Christians from Christ, Fundies from
Fundamentalism, and providing Atheistic Ammo to
Freethinkers”. How do you expect to deprogram
Christians with your sarcastic essays and your
inappropriate remarks to responses of your essays?

Mark Smith here}     Gee, I don't know. I've just got this crazy idea that if people are exposed to the truth, that maybe someday they will pay attention. Little did I realize when I started SET FREE what stubborn headed cold hearted heartless folk Christians really are. You guys are actually THE best advertisement AGAINST your own religion!!!!!

Concerning the fact that your essays try to show that
the church of Christ is not what the name declares,
your essays need more work. I will now present the
common thinking of the church of Christ in regards to
not having apostles, prophets, and miracle workers.
The twelve apostles, the apostles of Christ, are gone,
but apostles of churches are alive and well. The word
“apostle” means “one who is sent out”. Any preacher
can be called an apostle like Timothy, but there is a
clear and distinct difference between the twelve who
are apostles of Christ and others who are apostles of
churches. 

Mark Smith here}     Sorry, the facts betray you once again. IF what you are saying were true, then anybody that was just "sent out" by a church would be an apostle- even someone sent out to buy a pizza! On top of that, Paul himself laid down the signs of a TRUE apostle- and your pizza pick-up boy would NOT qualify, nor any other living man today. Paul said in 2nd Corinthians 12:12 that 

"the signs of a TRUE apostle were performed among you... by signs and wonders and miracles."  (NASB)

Therefore, it is obvious that you know not the scriptures, for if you did, you would have already known about the verse I quoted. 

The prophets are also gone. We do not need
direct prophecy anymore because we have the written
inspired doctrines of God. In some ways, you can say
that all Christians who proclaim the word of God are
prophets since the Scriptures are by the work of
prophecy. The church and the Scriptures are now
established and we do not need miracle workers
anymore. Miracles are signs to prove to others that an
individual is a prophet of God. 

Mark Smith here}     What you are saying here may be all fine and good, yes, those positions are all gone. I agree with you- they are not in existence today.

HOWEVER

it is your OWN C of C that claims otherwise!!! YOU are the ones I was quoting from that made the bogus claim that you guys are a xerox copy of the New Testament church. To remind you of what you've so convienently forgotten, here's a quote from a C of C tract by Delton Haun, a respected Church of Christ minister, author and publisher, regarding the C of C:

(The Church of Christ) is exactly the same kind of church that began on the day of Pentecost two thousand years ago, that is organized the same way (and) practices the same things. They think of it as the original church of the New Testament reproduced in this twentieth century. The church of Christ today is no more and no less than the New Testament church reproduced in doctrine and practice in this twentieth century.

So what, now you are being haunted by the absurd claims made by your own group? Ha ha ha ha ha. You, Scott, without even knowing it, have just PROVED MY POINT- the point being that you guys are NOT equal to the New Testament church. Ha ha ha and ha. Why don't you go argue with the Delton Haun's of your religion, and then you can write to ME about your OWN disfellowshipping!!!

The gifts of the Holy
Spirit have ceased because the apostles who gave these
gifts by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19) are
gone and now we have the Scriptures that are able to
make us complete/perfect (2 Timothy 3:16&17). We do
not need any new revelations. The faith has been once
for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) Yes, we are
not an exact copy in having the gifts of the Spirit,

Mark Smith here}     BINGO!!! And that being the case, you should join with me in exposing the false claims of C of C'ers that DO make claims to being THE xerox copy exact spitting image and replica of the NT church reproduced in these modern times. YOU HAVE JUST CONFIRMED MY ANTI-CHURCH OF CHRIST WEB PAGE.

but we are still the church of Christ because 1
Corinthians 13 shows that the gifts of the Spirit were
for the church to grow into maturity. Thankfully, the
Scriptures are filled with some statements that are
nothing short of signs that prove inspiration. For
example, Isaiah 40:22 states that the earth is a
circle and this statement was written centuries before
this fact was proven. The Hebrew word for circle here
actually means sphere. By such Scriptures, we can
affirm the Scriptures to inspired and resolve doubt
over God’s existence and the church of Christ’s
existence since 30CE.

Mark Smith here}     Off topic and I ain't going to fall for it.

We are God’s people though we are not perfect, and we
are better off than others by the fact that we can
live more fulfilling lives separate from sin with the
hope of peace in eternity. Nowhere did I ever infer
that we are in the same situation as non-Christians
are.

We do have objective morality. Here is one objective
wrong: the intentional killing of an innocent human
being. If you want more examples, then those can be
provided.

Mark Smith here}     I asked you for just ONE example of an objective morality, and THIS is the best you could come up with? Jeesh! You should have seen the retort for this one yourself! Here goes:  Biblegod himself, via Noah's flood, INTENTIONAL killed MILLIONS of cute INNOCENT babies and preborn's. Here's another: According to your own doctrine, Jesus was the most innocent of ANY human being ever to live, yet he was intentionally KILLED by "divine plan and foresight". IF this was objectively WRONG, then it is Biblegod who DID this wrong. 

Come on, you can do better than this! The fact still stands- you can't name me even ONE objective wrong that's wrong in all times and places. So until you can do this, you xtians better stop your bragging of having an "objective morality".

From the beginning, I knew that you were
anti-Christian that is why I wrote you. I never
claimed to know everything in the Universe. I do know
enough to realize that you Anti-Christian Website is
filled with some misunderstandings.

Finally, so you wish to end the debate. You state, “Go
peddle your bull---- with someone who doesn't have
first hand experience with your vile bitter little
group of malcontents.” I am sorry that you wish to end
it this way. I am here to debate you as you requested,
and now I leave this decision to you. I will just
concentrate on atheism and inspiration of the
Scriptures.

Honestly,
Scott Shifferd Jr.

Michael Burkitt 5-30-03

Subj: RE: One minor point...  Date: 5/30/03 12:51:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Chico 1-7-04

Subject:	CoC Crazy stuff
Date:	1/7/04 9:35:34 PM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
Reply To: To: JCnot4m

Mark Smith here}     Thank YOU for proving that there still ARE people in the C of C with common sense and honesty.

Nameless 2-4-04

Subject:	I will debate you!!
Date:	2/4/04 6:21:56 PM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
Reply To: To: JCnot4me@aol.com CC: BCC: Sent on:
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mr. Mark you talk alot of talk I see but you haven't even e-mail me back yet. I am waiting for you to debate me. I believe you been looking at wrong places I know lots of Gospel Preachers(church Of Christ) who will debate you thats a lie talking about for yrs you been looking. Well here I go I am waiting. If not me I have others who will ove to. I know I would So stop waiting and e-mail me back when you get this.

Mark Smith here}  Like I said in the email I sent you, 

If you had bothered to actually READ what I was requesting, I was requesting for a  MINISTER of the C of C to debate with. I don't need some layman or local crackpot. PLEASE slow down and R-E-A-D things before spouting off!

but of course, asking a Christian to actually READ something is a bit too much, isn't it? IF you ARE a minister, then why are you being shy about saying WHERE, and of WHAT CHURCH? After all, if you're going to have a public debate with me, IT WILL BE OUT IN PUBLIC. Duhhhhh!

AND, if you ARE a minister, where did you graduate from- cause you should demand a refund judging by the piss-poor way you write English. Jesus Christ- I KNOW the C of C has better schools than that!!!

As for you knowing "lots of Gospel Preachers" who will debate me, maybe you should tell them to contact me, because I ain't seen a single ONE yet. Up to now they have all been as quiet as Jesus' tomb on Easter morning- NOTHING. Nothing but the sound of chicken shit preachers quietly sneaking away from someone who can blow them AND their stupid religion out of the water. Fucking cowards.

Nameless  2-6-04

I did bother To read I am a Minister Of the Church of Christ. Stop hiding behind thia computer and stand  with me face to face!! What does if it matter If I was just a member or a Minister. I still going to defend the Lord's Church. You nothin but air which I can See. State the postion. If not don't bother e-mailing me back cause I see that you are scared.

Mark Smith here}  Again, IF you are a minister (and I doubt it- I think you are lying-) PROVE it. WHAT church do you run? Give me the name of it. I will look it up on the internet, or  in a phone book via the internet, and confirm it. Hell, you haven't even given out a name yet! You're probably some punk-ass 13 year old kid with too much time on your hands!

And "what does it matter"? It matters to me. I want a legit representative from that hee-haw religion, not some lone-ranger off by himself. I want a full time official minister to debate who will TRY TO uphold, in public, on a stage behind a podium, the ASSININE teachings of the Church of Christ. But still I wait....  dozens of C of C ministers in this country, and not ONE man enough to stand up to me in public. What a bunch of fucking cowards!!!!

Quest for Debate- Responses Thus Far

Church:          The Fairview Street Church of Christ
Location:        Garden Grove, California.
Preacher:        Micahel Jones 
Web Site:        http://www.followthebible.com 
Claims from Web Site:

You will notice that there is a strict adherence to the New Testament pattern of worship and church organization. Within the congregation, you will find elders and deacons appointed under new Testament qualifications. We are not a denomination, but rather constitute a local body of Christians within the community.  We're truly Christians only; nothing more, and nothing less.

Response from Pastor Michael Jones:  Feb 8, 2004

In your challenge you only tell half the story. The other half is that I am commanded to not cast pearls before swine (Matt 7:6). You have, in conversations with myself, bragged about being swine.

********************************************

Subject:	Re: Be ready always to give an answer???
Date:	2/10/04 4:34:22 AM !!!First Boot!!!
Reply To: To: JCnot4me@aol.com

Hello Mark.
I would love to discuss many things with you, but only on a few conditions. 
1)  We use the Bible only as our source of God's Word, and we believe that it is the Truth.
2)  We share a genuine respectful conversation.  Not a shouting match and not an attempt to make each other look foolish.
3)  The goal is to answer your questions to make us both better servants for Him. 
4)  I am prepared to accept that there are teachings in our group that are not consistent with scripture.  I will acknowledge them as items we need to work on, as long as you will be prepared to do the same.
I will assume that you are in agreement with these and proceed.  If that's not the case, then there's no point in reading further.

Mark Smith here}     Well, I guess you didn't really read any of my essays I hyperlinked for you, for if you did, you wouldn't be trying to make me, an Atheist, a "better servant for Him". Also, you wouldn't be asking me to take the Bible as "gospel truth". I might grant you some of it, for sake of argument, but that's it.

Perhaps an email format is best, given the day and age we live in.
I teach my kids that meeting people over the web can be a bit risky.

I'd like to start by saying that I am just a guy.  Not a minister, preacher, or elder.  Actually, I am a deacon, but that has to do with serving physical needs, rather than being a spiritual leader or Biblical scholar.  I speak on my own accord, not in any official church capacity.

Mark Smith here}     Why does this not surprise me? I guess the ministers are too busy on the golf course to bother defending their nonsense, so they have to send these volunteers in to do their work for them.

I am looking for someone to debate in public; someone who DOES speak in some "official church capacity" for I am looking to humiliate a Church of Christ minister in public debate by showing how ignorant the claims of the C of C are. Humiliating you in public accomplished nothing. Sorry.

I have been a member of a church of Christ for over 20 years.  I was "raised in the church" for lack of a better term, and I can tell you that the problems that you have with the claims of these pamphlets (or tracts) are quite valid.

Mark Smith here}     Dang! And THAT's why I need a minister to debate, because I get too many laymen that KNOW the C of C claims are a bit too much. How can we have a debate when we already agree??? I need a flaming fundy C of C minister who won't even use a pitch pipe for fear of being struck by lightening.

The good thing about the churches of Christ is that there is no headquarters here on earth from which we receive our marching orders.  Think about that for a moment...  In order to be a baptist, your group must follow the precepts and doctrines of the Baptist's collective mandate.  These are debated and updated somewhat regularly as times change.  Same is true for all other "denominations" (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.)  If your group disagrees with the outcome of the "council", you must still follow their mandate.  Otherwise, you cannot post the sign showing your identity with them, since the very name is trademarked, so to speak.

With the church of Christ, however, it is different.  Unfortunately, any group of fools can gather together under that name.  This can give us a bad reputation, but I think the benefits outweigh the problems.

You see, if one group goes astray, it won't drag every group down with it.  If, for instance, the "council" decides that homosexuals can be priests (as has happened recently with the United Methodists) then every one of their churches must obey the new mandates of "tolerance" when the Bible clearly says otherwise.  (I assume we both agree on 1Cor 6:9-10)

Mark Smith here}     I agree that Biblegod hates gays and has every intention of torturing them for all eternity (at least that's what he says in his book). But I don't think there IS a real Biblegod though. So how much do we agree???

With this background in mind, it is very easy for me to see the wacky words you have uncovered in several of these tracts.  I think most of these are filled with poison and do not help the cause of Christ. 

Please give me a few of your most outrageous examples and I will attempt to answer how I feel about the claims, and what I believe the Bible says about them.

Fair enough?


--Dave Sims
Anaheim, CA

Mark Smith here}     Sorry. I'm looking for a public debate (as stated in my email), which means in front of a group of Christians and Atheists, not a semi-private email exchange. But I do wish you well. You've got more common sense than alot of  C of C authors.

Subject:	Re: debate???
Date:	2/10/04 4:24:40 PM !!!First Boot!!!
From:
Reply To: To: JCnot4me@aol.com

My name is Fred Williams and I am a minister in the Chruch of Christ, I would be glad to debate with you in public the things pertaining to the word of GOD. My phone # (310) xxx-xxxx

------------------------------

Mark Smith here}    Here is some information on this church from the web:

Preacher}  Fred Williams
Web Page}  http://thehouseofgod2003.tripod.com/
Address}  2600 S. Hoover Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007
Quotes from Web Page}

CHURCH OF CHRIST: The One True Church
The Lord's church is the first church the one that started in 33 AD. In the Book Acts 2:38 -41. The Lord's church follows the bible to the max when it comes to how we live and teach. We model ourselves after Christ and what he and his Apostles taught in the bible. So if you are looking for the truth please come, join us, and share in the bliss that is being a true Christian.

Kevin Harris  4-14-04

Subj: Church of Christ Syndrome
Date: 4/14/2004 11:01:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: "Kevin Harris"
To: <JCnot4me@aol.com>
Sent from the Internet (Details)