[ref001] From the Mailbag [ref002] From the Mailbag The receipt of your two debates and th

[ref001] From the Mailbag [ref002] From the Mailbag The receipt of your two debates and the essay on Biblical prophecies was timely in that I had over a week off from work between the holidays. I had more time than usual to read them. I benefited greatly in reading an articulate and logical person counter the claims of inerrancy so well as you did. I became annoyed and grieved by the sarcastic attitude of Bill Jackson. Surely this person was an embarrassment to the Churches of Christ denomination. His lack of intelligence and logic was readily apparent by his appalling writing skills. I analyzed his style of communicating and could not help coming to the conclusion that logical thinking is all but foreign to the fundamentalists. A minister of the gospel proclaims and heralds his message, especially as in a sermon. They are not comfortable with dialog or being challenged to defend what they say. They proclaim the gospel and people accept or reject. In the homiletic style, they have very little need to defend. So when they enter into a debate, they continue to assert and herald as if that is enough to convince people. I'm glad you did not let him off the hook or stoop to his level of sarcasm and vilifying. Dr. Laws was a more sensible debater, and it is a real shame he did not continue the debate. I would have loved to read your affirmatives in addition to the rebuttals that the publication includes. I agree with you that you tore him up in your rebuttals. There is no comparison in the logic, scholasticism, or communication skills between you and Jackson and Laws. I appreciate your explanations of how to debate. By that I mean how to formulate an argument into verifiable premises that lead to a valid conclusion. You repeatedly say it is not enough to assert; one must have a truthful, verifiable, and sound basis upon which to assert.... By the way, the subjects of the early stages of the Yahweh religion from which Judaism evolved and the history of the conflict between the religions of the Canaanites and the Yahwists greatly interest me. Similarly, the history of monotheism also interests me. Can you steer me to some good reading? I have no doubt that you have thought considerably on these subjects. _(Glenn_W._Wood,_24806_Walnut,_Apt._1,_Newhall,_CA_91321.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: Like Mr. Wood, I have often thought that the apologetic performances of men like Bill Jackson, Jim Laws, and Buster Dobbs were surely embarrassing to the general membership of their church, but apparently they aren't. When Bill Jackson died, he was eulogized as one of the best debaters in the Church of Christ. I think the reason for this is in something Mr. Wood said in his letter: "(L)ogical thinking is all but foreign to the fundamentalists." If their preachers can't think logically, we can hardly expect the general members to. Books like _Mythology's_Last_Gods:_Yahweh_and Jesus_ by William Harwood and _Who_Wrote_the_Bible?_ by Elliott Richard Friedman would be useful references to consult on the evolution of Yahwism. What a deal! All the _TSR_s in ASCII. Thank you so much for the offer. Enclosed are 2 HD formatted floppies. We would like your permission to upload them to various BBSs (computer bulletin boards) in the area. We are sure you would not mind, but we just wanted to check first. But if you do have a problem with that, we will respect your wishes. We have thoroughly enjoyed the two papers we have received so far. We sit down and read them to each other, then discuss them. It is amazing how we were kept so ignorant when we were biblical inerrantists. William Sierichs, Jr., is funnier than hell. We were rolling. Hope to see his articles again. _(Mike_&_Annie_Marion,_4516_132nd_Pl._NE,_Marysville,_WA 98271-7802.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: Any article published in _The_Skeptical_Review_ can be copied or reproduced electronically for educational purposes. We ask only that the names and addresses of the authors and the source of publication be included so that readers of the materials will know where to inquire for additional information. Back in December, my older son did me the favor of installing American Online in my computer, and I enjoyed romping through the information exchanges in the religion, ethics and philosophy, etc. sections in which correspondences were exchanged. Late in the month my hard drive crashed, so I have been out of contact since then. I do not recall seeing anything attributable to "The Mighty McBull" as Matthew C. Bullard implies his nom-de-keyboard to be. I would be happy to meet his challenge when I get restored to AOL, if he would let us know in what section he posts his messages. Your answer to his question, "(W)hat's the story with all the 'sics'?" was a bit indirect and may have gone over his head. I would have said, "A sic given in parentheses after a particular word or phrase in a quote is the publisher's way of declaring that this is the way it was written by the author and is not a typographical error and is not the responsibility of the publisher to correct. It pertains to mispellings [sic, "misspellings"], misuse of punctuation's [sic, "punctuations"], wrong worlds [sic, "words"], poor uses to grammar [sic, "of" not "to"], etc." It is strange that a "good Christian," such as he, would select as his nom-de-monitor the epithet of the supreme god of the Canaanites, the most high El, the Mighty Bull. This, of course, only demonstrates the cultural ignorance of so many Christians who believe that all they need to know is contained in "The Good Book"! One name prominent in AOL is that of Molleen Matsumura, whose nom-de-pixtels is [ref003]MolleenM." She is network project director for the [ref004]National Center for Science Education and an editor of [ref005]Free Inquiry. She was a speaker at the recent Humcon held aboard the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California, last fall. I plan to accumulate noms-de-bytes so that they will be available to AOL people who want to know who is "on." _(Kenneth_H._Bonnell,_[ref006]Khbonnell@aol.com, P. O. Box 65706, Los Angeles, CA 90041._ EDITOR'S NOTE: This spring we streamlined our office with a new computer system and went on line too. [ref007]Jftill@aol.com is our e-mail address. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the winter, 1995, edition of _TSR_. I am new to the swirling Till-Mitchell debates, but I think I get the gist of what's going on. Mitchell brings new meaning to the phrase, ad hominem argument." His childish, sarcastic name-calling reminded me of the notes we used to write to each other in the 7th grade when we were having fights. I admired your refusal to get down to his level and sling meaningless mud. Your only slip, it seems, was in referring to Mitchell's "thick skull," but considering the almost unbelievable provocation, it is certainly understandable. Matthew Bullard's letter was a stunning hodgepodge of meandering sarcasm, a grammatical nightmare, and an excellent example of the type of graffiti you might find on the walls of the boys' restroom in junior high school. Adolescent boys do get such a kick out of "grossing out" girls with stories about feces and hair balls and so on. But I cannot understand how such topics could possibly end up in a letter to _TSR_ about biblical inerrancy. Nor can I fathom the state of Bullard's mind while he was writing such uninspiring prose. First of all, don't these men understand that such writing is boring? Secondly, if one is going to try to get cute with one's quill pen, one should first learn to spell and punctuate. Never have I seen so many run-on sentences in print in one place. And finally, one undermines one's own case when one rants and raves. My grandfather, a minister, used to joke about one of his sermon notes: Argument weak, holler like hell. More important, I found the Mitchell/Bullard letters quite cheering. If that's all that's out there to defend the Bible's supposed inerrancy, then the Bible's end cannot be long in coming. Illiterate claims about inerrancy are oxymora to begin with. "The Bible is, duh, gooder. Yeah, gooder." Who can take such drivel seriously? Mitchell claimed, "Questions do not establish anything." They do if they can't be answered. I would like to see something in writing defending biblical inerrancy that is (a) written in acceptable English, (b) devoid of useless name-calling, and (c) focused solely on the issues at hand. Am I asking too much? _(Judith_L._Hayes,_P._O._Box_77,_Valley_Springs,_CA_95252-0077.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: Having recently retired after 32 years of teaching English and college writing, I can't express how much I agree with Ms. Hayes' comments about Bullard's letter. However, he is downright literate compared to some fundamentalists who have written to me. Unfortunately, some freethinkers who write to us also have problems with English grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but overall they fare much better than most fundamentalist letter-writers. Ms. Hayes probably can't imagine what I see in my mail. I get letters from people who obviously don't know the first thing about basic English grammar, yet they want me to believe that they know all about the Bible, who wrote it, when, why, how, etc. My favorite letter-writer is the kind who wouldn't know a noun from a verb but wants me to believe that he can explain what controversial biblical statements meant in the Hebrew and Greek originals. I recently finished a written debate with such a man. Sometimes I had to read sections of his manuscripts several times in order to understand even what he was trying to say. Why did I bother with him? I had already made the commitment before I realized how woefully unequipped the man was to participate in such an undertaking. Before anyone writes to tell me that the truth of a claim is not dependent upon the claimant's grammatical skills, I will readily acknowledge that that is true. However, I have carefully examined the "evidence" that the presumably best qualified spokesmen for inerrancy have presented in support of their case, and have repeatedly demonstrated in _The_Skeptical_Review_ just how pathetically weak and absurdly illogical it is. So when a Matthew Bullard rehashes that same evidence on the linguistic level of an elementary school student, that just makes it look all the more ridiculous. Needless to say, I also agree with Ms. Hayes' belief that "the Bible's end cannot be long in coming" if the likes of Mitchell and Bullard are "all that's out there to defend the Bible's supposed inerrancy." I have had quite a bit of experience debating fundamentalists, so I feel qualified to say that really the best in the inerrancy camp aren't a whole lot better than Mitchell and Bullard. Like Ms. Hayes, I too would like to see someone on the inerrancy side defend this doctrine in "acceptable English" without resorting to "useless name-calling" and deviations from "the issues at hand." How about it Lindell Mitchell, Jerry Moffitt, Buster Dobbs, Marion Fox, Mac Deaver, Wayne Jackson, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, Gleason Archer, Gary Habermas, and Mr. X in Fairfax, Virginia? Any of you interested? Yet another argument that could be used in refuting the fundamentalist justification of the Bible god's orders to kill infants (that all who die before reaching the "age of accountability" get to go to heaven) is that such actions are unfair to those who die after reaching that "age." Unlike the rest of us, those babies whom the Bible god wanted killed got to go to heaven for eternity without having to make the conscious decision to accept the right religious creeds. They had no trial period that could've jeopardized their eternal fate. Since all of us were babies before, and since babies don't have much control over what happens to them, it is an absolute travesty of justice that some have gotten to go to heaven simply because they were lucky enough to die during their infancy. It is simply a matter of chance that those of us who didn't die during infancy didn't. Hope we can set up another debate with you. Keep up the good work. _(Sanjay_Lal,_4900_Hearthstone_Drive,_Columbus,_GA_31909-4112.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: Sanjay makes a point similar to what I have argued with fundamentalists who try to justify the Yahwistic massacres of children and babies in the Old Testament on the grounds that they went to heaven instead of growing up to become wicked like their parents. I suggest to those who make this asinine argument that instead of being so eager to send out preachers and missionaries to save the lost, churches should organize hit squads to go into maternity and pediatric wards and kill all of the innocent babies and children so that they will go to heaven instead of growing up to become wicked like their parents. They would probably send far more souls to heaven than they have been doing through evangelization methods. I might also add that rather than bombing abortion clinics and assassinating those who work there, fundamentalists should set up their own clinics and encourage women to use them. Just think how many more souls they would be able to send to heaven. As for the eternal destiny of those who participated in such baby massacres, we would think that a just, benevolent god would surely reward them for their good deeds. You might wish to inform your readers that the _Deaver-Till Debate_ is available in print (the oral debate was transcribed and is available in three ring binders). The price is $14.00 plus $2.00 for postage. This can be ordered from Biblical Notes, 7401 Glenhaven Path, Austin, TX 78737. _(Mac_Deaver,_address_same_as_above.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: This debate was conducted at Southwest Texas State University in March 1991. The subject was Bible morality, and Mr. Deaver defended the massacre of the Amalekite children on the grounds that Yahweh did them a favor by having them killed while they were still young enough to be taken to "glory." In earlier issues of _TSR_, availability of video tapes of this debate was advertised, but I stopped promoting it because of the poor quality of video production. The sound was lost several times, and it was necessary for one entire speech of Mr. Deaver to be re-created. I found the accuracy of the re-creation to be doubtful in places. I was asked to supply audio reproductions of some sections of one of my speeches, but I couldn't honestly verify that the "dubs" I sent to the producer were actually what I had said. For this reason, I stopped promoting the tapes. At my first debate in Portland, Texas, I learned that the Deaver-Till Debate had been transcribed by Vicki Hightower, the wife of a Church-of-Christ preacher in San Antonio. Having worked at transcribing part of my debate with Norman Geisler, I appreciate the time and effort that Ms. Hightower put into this work, but I have checked sections of her transcriptions while listening to the tapes and have found several mistakes. None of the mistakes substantially altered the content of the debate, so anyone reading it will get a fairly accurate account of the video version of the debate. I have tried to find time to publish a more accurate transcript of this debate to sell at a much lower cost, but the remarkable growth of _The_Skeptical_Review_ has kept me too busy. If any subscribers have scanning equipment and would be willing to scan the Biblical Notes version into ASCII files, I could more easily compare the files to the tapes, correct mistakes, and then publish a more accurate version. If anyone is interested in helping me on this project, please let me know. Before this debate, Mac Deaver wrote to tell me that he would expect me to reciprocate by agreeing to debate the same issue in Central Illinois. I immediately assured him that I would do so, but after the debate was over, I found that he didn't have much enthusiasm for a return engagement. The subject of Bible morality is an important one that both Christians and skeptics seem to be interested in, so I would urge Mr. Deaver to give serious consideration to the second debate that we previously agreed on. After sending him an advanced copy of this column, he responded with an indication that he is now ready to consider doing the second debate. Discussions are now in progress, so perhaps another debate on Bible morality will occur after all. Meanwhile, if any subscribers would like to view tapes of the first debate, _The Skeptical_Review_ will make them available at our regular two-week rental rate of $3. Are you still offering the first year's subscription free? If so, would you please send _The_Skeptical_Review_ to me? I think I started being a skeptic as a young child, when I thought, "But how could they get all of those animals on the ark, anyway?" Thank you for your work. I just read something about _TSR_ and got your address from the Worldwide Web on the Internet. _(Susan_Brown_Cocherl,_706_A_West_30th,_Austin,_TX_78705.)_ Thanks very much for your complimentary subscription for one year. It is a bit of a culture shock in this day and age to be given something valuable for free by a small business enterprise, and it is much appreciated. An important bit of suppressed information that helps show the close relationship between Christianity and Hinduism such as attempted by Stephen Van Eck in his article "[ref008]Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage," Summer 94, is that the words Christ, Christian, etc. are merely alternative spellings of the word Krishna. So modern Christians are inadvertently singing the praises of the Hindu god Krishna and not the poor deluded Jew they think they are idolising, who wasn't known by that label. Jesus (which also incidentally wasn't his real name either but was a modified version of the names of a number of ancient pagan gods such as Zeus, Dionysus, Adonis, etc.) was only named after the Hindu god as a vain attempt to make him seem more important and to acknowledge the true origins of some of his deceptive teachings. Thanks again for what you are doing. _(John_Glue,_C/O_P._O.,_Cooktown_Q4871,_Australia.)_ Sometime last summer I sent you a check for all of the back issues of _The_Skeptical_Review_. I received them and have read them fairly thoroughly, highlighting the many parts of articles I want to recall for future reference. I am in no way a Bible scholar, so I do enjoy these articles; however, I really became excited when you decided to take on other issues besides Biblical inerrancy, such as "[ref009]God Was with Him," "[ref010]The Truth Will Make You Free," and "[ref011]No Morality without the Bible?" (Several years ago, in a nearby town, a tree limb in a park crashed on two toddlers. One lived; one died. The mother of the surviving child said, "God was with him." I was horrified for the parents of the dead child. Assuming they are believers, how could they not be crushed by such an insensitive comment?) Thank you for the things you write about. I'm beginning to see, through your publication and others I have found, that I am not alone in my horror at religion's impact! The last issue I received was Winter 1995. Because I am not certain if I have received all issues of the first-year free subscription and because I do not want to miss Spring 1995, I am enclosing a check for $5 and leave you to sort out that matter accordingly. I certainly do believe your publication is a bargain and assume you do not therefore have the resources to notify subscribers when it is time for renewal. I was wondering if you might eventually delve into the subject of religion and the bible and its impact upon women. It was one of the factors in my realizing I'd always been an atheist but by no means the only one. That would have to be when I realized how preposterous the whole god concept was! Except for Sandra Till's article, which touched upon the "woman" question, I haven't seen as much as I might like, especially considering how dismissive of women, how sexist, the bible writers were. It seems to me religion would be mortally wounded if women would stop supporting it. Why they do, I do not know. In closing, I just want to note the change in attitude I saw in your position from Winter 1990, wherein you described yourself as "agnostic." In the Spring 1994 issue, you said you are "an atheist who was once a bible-believing theist." Certainly, you gave out clues early on, but as an atheist who has described herself that way for years, I was heartened to read it. To me, it means quite simply one who is without a belief in god. We need to say it proudly, to de-demonize it, and stop letting others define us. My compliments to you and your contributors for the obvious enthusiasm and scholarship you bring to this issue. I too care desperately about this issue and am reading everything I can get my hands on that is written by nonbelievers, and I'm finding there is a lot available, but you really have to hunt for it. _(Sandra_Feroe,_1400_Pheasant_Run,_Berthoud,_CO_80513.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: Jesus allegedly said, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches" ([ref012]Matt. 13:31-32). Fundamentalists quote this as if Christianity were unique, but the statement merely expresses an ideological truth. One doesn't abandon belief in an idea to accept another the first time he hears a new idea presented. The change occurs gradually over a period of time. That was what happened to me. I didn't reject the Bible the first time I encountered flaws in the inerrancy doctrine; the seed of doubt had to germinate and grow. When I did step away from fundamentalist Christianity, I didn't do it as an atheist but as an agnostic. With time, however, I realized that the "god concept" that Ms. Feroe mentioned in her letter simply could not survive logical examination, so I declared myself an atheist. I take great pride in my atheism and consider it the biggest step that I ever took in my intellectual growth. Sandra Till's article ("[ref013]The Wisdom of Solomon," Summer 1991, pp. 8-10) received more favorable comments than any single article we have published. I assume that most readers know, or at least suspect, that she is my wife. I have encouraged her to write more on the Bible and women's issues, but she doesn't share my enthusiasm for writing. This issue contains "[ref014]God's Opinion of Women" (pp. 11, 16), and we plan to publish more on this subject. We do notify subscribers with a center insert when it is time to renew their subscriptions. Until you see one in your copy, you don't have to wonder if your subscription is current. Those who send renewal checks before receiving notification will have their subscriptions extended another year. There is indeed a lot of material available to debunk the Bible, but one has to know where to look for it. Readers who are interested in such materials should contact Prometheus Books (59 John Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14228-2197) and H. H. Waldo, Bookseller (P. O. Box 350, Rockton, IL 61072) and ask to be put on their mailing lists. Those who have computers should contact Emmett Fields, 514 Eastern Parkway, Louisville, KY 40217. For $10, you can obtain 10 HD disks on which he has scanned numerous freethought books and publications that are out of print or hard to find. My son, Daniel Anderson, recently subscribed to your magazine _The_Skeptical_Review_. I would like you to cancel his subscription immediately and refund any remaining amount. Please send to me at the above address any amount owed back. _(Margene_Anderson,_250_East_600_South,_Bountiful,_UT_84010.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: I informed Ms. Anderson that her letter contained insufficient information to honor her request, because her son's age was not given. If he is old enough to make responsible decisions about what he wishes to read, he should request the cancellation. The fact that she expected a refund on a free subscription indicated that she had written without even having consulted her son. Less than a week ago while checking out the skeptical pages on the world-wide-web (Internet), I had the great fortune of finding a site containing the text of all _TSR_ issues. I downloaded one issue from 1990, to check what it was all about, read it in one go then went back, downloaded, printed and read all 20 of them. The question is, what am I going to do until the next one arrives? The $50 bill included in this letter will hopefully be enough to cover the costs of all published issues as well as mailing costs to Sweden. I also hope you could put me on your subscription list for the next few decades (got more dollars in a shoe box somewhere). In one of the last issues, you've mentioned the great news that you would be retiring sometime during the year. I say it's great news because I suppose you'll have more time to devote to writing, and perhaps we'll see more than 4 issues per year. I subscribe to a great number of skeptical and humanist/secular journals (such as [ref015]The Skeptical Inquirer, [ref016]Free Inquiry, etc.), but the material in your review surpasses everything else in terms of clarity of thought and razor-sharp logic. I'm referring, of course, to the skeptical material, because the contributions of the "apologates" (McDonald, Dobbs, Mitchell, etc.) range from the pathetic through the ridiculous to outright moronic. While debating the above mentioned gentlemen amounts to nothing less than shooting dead fish in a barrel, I do hope they could be persuaded to keep sending in their material, which, besides giving us all a good laugh, might help science in documenting the depths of human stupidity and moral bankruptcy.... Finally, for all of your readers with access to Internet, I highly recommend the following World Wide Web address: [ref017]http://freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/, which is maintained by Mr. [ref018]Brett Lemoine. It is a gold mine of (mostly) out-of-print freethought literature as you can see from the list of contents I have included in this letter. Mr. Lemoine writes, "Most of the files available here were painstakingly scanned in from freethought literature, for which the copyright had expired, by Emmett F. Fields. Mr. Fields gave copies of his work to Frank Prahl of the [ref019]American Humanist Association. Mr. Prahl, in turn, provided copies to me. I am making this literature available to the public so that more people might be made aware of the depth and duration of the freethought movement in this country and abroad. These files may be freely reproduced, copied, printed out, and given away but may not be sold." Notice that from this site you can, with a click of the mouse-button, download the complete text of the book [ref020]Is It God's Word? by [ref021]Joseph Wheless (which you recommended in _TSR_, vol. 5, issue 1) as well as his other book from 1930, [ref022]Forgery in Christianity. Let's face it, whether they like it or not, they are "living on borrowed time." (Kiriakos Papadopoulos, Jungfrudansen 100, 171 56 Solna, Sweden. E-mail: [ref023]Kiri.Papadopoulous@haninge.trab.se) EDITOR'S NOTE: Where the ellipsis (...) appears in Mr. Papadopoulos's letter he had some words of praise for Ruth Hurmence Green's book _The_Born_Again_Skeptic's_Guide_to_the_Bible_, which he incorrectly assumes is out of print. This book is still published by [ref024]The Freedom From Religion Foundation (P.O.Box 750, Madison, WI 53701) and can be purchased for $10. Subscribers with computers not connected to the Internet may wish to contact Emmett Fields directly (address given above) to purchase a set of disks containing all of the freethought materials that Brett Lemoine has available at the WWW address mentioned in Mr. Papadopoulos's letter. A set of 10 HD disks may be purchased for only $10. Several entire out-of-print freethought books are on these disks. We have printed Mr. Papadopoulos's letter to emphasize a point we have made before: the information age, which is only in its infancy, will undoubtedly bring startling changes in religious thinking. The time is gone when church leaders can suppress information they don't want their sheep to know. Anyone sitting at his computer practically anywhere in the world can, by stroking just a few keys, access the Internet and all the information it contains. Much of it is unfriendly to Bible fundamentalism. While watching your debate on the existence of God with Jerry Moffitt, I was intrigued by his use of probability arguments. This seems to be a constant theme with theists and creationists. I think to assume that all natural processes are totally random is a mistake. Take the example of atoms joining to form specific molecules. If you treat the joining of different atoms to form all possible compounds as random, like flipping a coin or tossing dice, with each combination as likely as any other, then any specific outcome is highly unlikely. But surely atoms do not operate like coins or dice. Specific compounds would form more readily than others because of the properties of atoms like carbon. The randomness that nature exhibits may not be the pure mathematical randomness that creationists assume. Snowflakes would be another example. Would a theist call snowflakes a miracle? I think not. Yet they are not random. Order from chaos? Hardly! Creationists can see only two alternatives: nature, which they think is random, and God, which cannot leave room for evolution. They cannot see the possibility of complexity evolving from simplicity. The chance of life's origin may have been a small finite one, but it was an open question as to if it was totally random. Finally, I do not see why they insist on placing the cause of things outside the universe, in an unknown. Why not instead look for the explanation in the operation of known forces? They ask, "What caused the Big Bang?" To which I reply, "Why would its cause be a God (much less the God of the Bible) instead of a series of causes without end?" I think an eternal universe is more likely than an unknown, eternal God. We know the universe with its various forces exists; we cannot say the same for God. _(Richard_G._Rich,_813_Fifth_Avenue_SE,_Decatur,_AL_35601.)_ Editor's Note: I have received a lot of letters that scoffed at the absurd probability arguments that Moffitt used in this debate. One of them, written by someone in attendance at the debate, actually beat me home from Texas. I am a recent skeptic, just liberated from fundamentalist Christianity. Praise reason! Please send me a subscription to _The_Skeptical_Review_. I would be happy to pay for any back issues you have. _(Andy_Traiger,_10219_Stratford_Avenue,_Fairfax,_VA_22030.)_ [ref001] mailto:jlowder@atheist.tamu.edu [ref002] http://freethought.tamu.edu/mag/sr/1995/4/4mail95.html [ref003] mailto:MolleenM@aol.com [ref004] http://freethought.tamu.edu/org/ncse/ [ref005] gopher://gopher.enews.com:2100/11/alpha/af/free_inq [ref006] mailto:Khbonnell@aol.com [ref007] mailto:Jftill@aol.com [ref008] http://freethought.tamu.edu/mag/sr/1994/3/3hare94.html [ref009] http://freethought.tamu.edu/mag/sr/1993/2/2front93.html [ref010] http://freethought.tamu.edu/mag/sr/1993/4/4front93.html [ref011] http://freethought.tamu.edu/mag/sr/1994/1/1front94.html [ref012] http://www.calvin.edu/cgi-bin/bible?version=KJV&passage=Matthew+13:31-32 [ref013] http://freethought.tamu.edu/mag/sr/1991/3/3wisdo91.html [ref014] 4women95.html [ref015] gopher://gopher.enews.com:2100/11/alpha/sz/skep_inq [ref016] gopher://gopher.enews.com:2100/11/alpha/af/free_inq [ref017] http://freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/ [ref018] http://freethought.tamu.edu/~blemoine/ [ref019] http://freethought.tamu.edu/org/aha/ [ref020] http://freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/joseph_wheless/is_it_gods_word/ [ref021] http://freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/joseph_wheless/ [ref022] http://freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/ [ref023] mailto:Kiri.Papadopoulous@haninge.trab.se [ref024] http://freethought.tamu.edu/org/ffrf/