Ensignia Mark of the Beast

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If I have rejected your reason, it is on the basis that you have not taken Jude 6 in proper context. Jude is not referring to the Book of Enoch. You have already stated in other posts, the Book of Enoch is not to be trusted. It is not counted acceptable to be included in the Bible. I will not base my reasoning on the Book of Enoch. There is no proof Jude is quoting from that source. The fact that Jude mentions the name "Enoch" later on in his letter is not by way of referring to any writings of Enoch; more a case of quoting the ancient scriptures that mention Enoch.

Jude is not referring to the Book of Enoch? Then how do you explain the fact that he mentioned the name Enoch immediately before quoting the Book of Enoch which was written about 200 years earlier (source)?

Jude 1:14-15	Book of Enoch I.9
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.	And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Nope. There's no evidence at all that Jude was quoting the book of Enoch!

[duxrow]

You'd think the Book of Enoch would've been included in the apocrypha, wouldn't you? Which would mess up the 66 count and add more angels to the mix. What kind of evidence says that book preceded our Jude#65 ?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You'd think the Book of Enoch would've been included in the apocrypha, wouldn't you? Which would mess up the 66 count and add more angels to the mix. What kind of evidence says that book preceded our Jude#65 ?

The apocrypha already messes up the 66 count! Adding the Book of Enoch wouldn't change anything.

Concerning it's age, here is what the wiki says:

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch^[1]) is an ancient Jewish religious work, traditionally ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Eritrean Orthodox Church, but no other Christian group.

The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC.^[2]

It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. The original language was either Aramaic or Hebrew; E. Isaac suggests that the Book of Enoch, like the Book of Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew.^[3]:6

A short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8). It is argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in thought and diction.^[4]

Perhaps you could do a little research for us and report back on the reliability of the date the book was written.

[duxrow]

The apocrypha already messes up the 66 count! Adding the Book of Enoch wouldn't change anything.

Yeah, my bad. Misspoke, have always figured the apocrypha at 15 books (we had an old Catholic Bible), but don't trust any of them, and especially since I've got it 'from the horses mouth', so to speak, concerning the 33/66. More inclined to believe that 'the god of this world' has inspired some tares to write beautiful music.

The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC.^[2]

A short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8). It is argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in thought and diction.^[4]

Perhaps you could do a little research for us and report back on the reliability of the date the book was written.

No, my heart wouldn't be in it -- prefer to believe and Trust the Bible rather than what people say about it... but thanks for asking. Gotta go now.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, my heart wouldn't be in it -- prefer to believe and Trust the Bible rather than what people say about it... but thanks for asking. Gotta go now.

The issue is not "what people say about" the Bible. The issue that you and any believer should be concerned about is if the Bible is true or not. And since you have received the Bible from fallible men, it is of utmost importance that you determine if it is trustworthy. If you don't do that, then you are trusting in mere men, not God.

[highflyertoo]

The issue is not "what people say about" the Bible. The issue that you and any believer should be concerned about is if the Bible is true or not. And since you have received the Bible from fallible men, it is of utmost importance that you determine if it is trustworthy. If you don't do that, then you are trusting in mere men, not God.

You are very preachy Richard in telling what people should be concerned about.

When you were a believer you believed it was with the utmost importance that people be saved,now you are saying it's the utmost importance for people not to believe...

If you really have left religion,then why are you useing all your time to tell people to ''in your words'' to wake up?

Tell me,if you can,what would you be doing with your life in your were not pushing atheism? Would you be enjoying life? Or in your view,a person can only be a bible basher or an atheist basher?

Who do you think you are currently saving now? People from being believers? lol

[duxrow]

The issue is not "what people say about" the Bible. The issue that you and any believer should be concerned about is if the Bible is true or not. And since you have received the Bible from fallible men, it is of utmost importance that you determine if it is trustworthy. If you don't do that, then you are trusting in mere men, not God.

Not "IF" anymore, for me; just enjoying discovering some of the foolishness, 1Cor1:25, included in this marvelous Book of His.

Years ago, I junked some Mormon literature expounding non-biblical stuff about Enoch. Might have been associated with Book of Enoch, but I hadn't thought anyone today was seriously believing that. Since that time, I've seen how Enoch and Lamech lead further to the second Jacob, and also see how Enoch was the 'young man' killed by that first Lamech with the 2 wives. None of that biz from the Mormons that I know of...

I don't receive it "from men"! "Holy men of God spoke as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost", 2Pet1:21, and so do I receive it, as from the Holy Spirit.

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend". Prov27:17 -- True, we may be helping Richard sharpen atheist skills, but that works both ways and we know who gets the final victory, don't we?

[David M]

Jude is not referring to the Book of Enoch? Then how do you explain the fact that he mentioned the name Enoch immediately before quoting the Book of Enoch which was written about 200 years earlier (source)?

Jude 1:14-15	Book of Enoch I.9
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.	And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Nope. There's no evidence at all that Jude was quoting the book of Enoch!

Hello Richard

Jude might be quoting Enoch but he might not be quoting from the Book of Enoch as we have it today.

May be this quotation of Enoch is the only recorded scripture by Enoch and as pointed out by duxrow to have the book of Enoch in the list of books of the Bible would mess up your Bible Wheel for sure though you now say the Aprocryha messes up your Bible Wheel count which is why you should not accept that book any more readily than you accept the Book of Enoch. You agree that the Book of Enoch is not a reliable book and for that reason it was not included in the compilation of the Bible. The Schofield Bible I have says this in the notes:

'The quotation attributed to 'Enoch..the seventh from Adam' is similar to a passage in the noncanonical Book of Enoch written by an unknown person who used Enoch’s name for the title of the Book. Jude uses this quotation from Enoch does not suggest that he considered the Book of Enoch as authoritative. Besides, it is not impossible that Jude is the source from which there the quotation eventually found its way into the Book of Enoch, since there is no evidence as to the precise contents of this apocryphal book until many centuries after the time when Jude was written. The prophecy of this Godly Enoch is the earliest recorded revelation of the second coming of Christ.'

Who wrote the Book of Enoch? The first five books of the Bible including Genesis is attributed to Moses. Enoch was translated before the Great Flood so how did his revelation come to us?

I can see why you have rejected the book. Here is a website that exposes the Book of Enoch as a fraud.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm

The phrase 'tens of thousands of his saints' is very similar to Moses in Deut 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Could Moses have revealed something from Enoch that was known but not enough to make it a book? Maybe we shall not find the answer

It is not surprising that Jude has used this phrase attributable to Enoch. To remain part of God’s word that has been handed down, it has to be coherent and I can agree with the content of the verse. This is no way impinges on understanding what is meant by 'angels' in verse 6. For you to quote Jude 1:14 and link the whole of Jude to the Book of Enoch to support the idea that God’s Holy Angels can sin, smacks of desperation. I am comfortable with Jude attributing the quote to Enoch, but not to the Book of Enoch as it stands.

All the best,

David

[David M]

Good morning David,
You wrote many words, but you did not give any evidence whatsoever that "there is a specific event to which Jude is calling the readers of his letter to remembrance."

I think you have written as many words by reply. I am going to explain in my study of verse 6 when I present it. I was hoping you would do your own research and examine the story more closely and find out for yourself. Instead you want to rely on the evidence produced by others to support your previously held understanding. To me your answer is a stock answer and is what I expected. I shall present my explanation shortly as I have said repeatedly.

Your assertion that "This is the BIG lesson you do not want to accept" is entirely false. My exegesis of Jude has nothing to do with any desire of mine. I have simply presented the facts of what the text actually states. And there is a great irony in your assertion, because you are the one who absolutely refuses to accept what the Bible states because it contradicts your own private doctrines. The way you handle the text proves that you will force it to conform to your own interpretation no matter what it really says. Indeed, you stated this quite explicitly when you said "There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me change my understanding on this point." Simply stated, you have chosen to close your mind to what the Bible actually states.

My doctrines are not my own private interpretation. I would worry if that was the case. I am not delusional making up my own interpretations. The fact is; I have considered other works and have made up my own mind based on what I have studied. You are sticking to your guns no matter what. That does not make you any different to me. I will change but there comes a point when no further change can take place. I constantly examine my beliefs as this forum challenges them and so far nothing is making me change. So unless you have anything else up your sleeve that you have not declared, I do not see how you are going to give me reasons to change. I do not expect you to change for the same reason.

It has nothing to do with what I "want" to believe. Remember, you are the one with the preconceived ideas that contradict the plain meaning of the text. Jude explicitly used the words "angels" and "Archangel" within the same context. It would be absurd to suggest that he was using those words with totally different meanings in the space of two verses. Context is on my side, and you know it.

I know of no such thing. It is very childish to make such a claim. You always want to appear to have the upper hand. According to other commentaries the chapter is divided into sections and Michael the archangel is in the next section. Therefore, in the immediate context of verse, the link to the next section does not have to be made. If you insist it does, that is your opinion and others must judge who is right or wrong. There is no point us arguing when neither of us want to shift from our understanding. I stand my ground until proved wrong. Nothing you have said, has moved me to think differently.

Your assertion that that the death of the entire generation of unbelievers was "less memorable" than the event of Korah has two flaws. First, there is nothing in the text that suggests it. Second, it is special pleading - you made it up in a desperate attempt to support your interpretation.

What special pleading are you on about? There is no desperation on my part. I am sure you are making things up to win your argument. Not many events in the wilderness are memorable to you or you would make the connection. The text is economical with words, Jude only had to make the hint and the association would be made. Those who recognize that Jude is talking about ministers would make the connection.

Anything can be "explained" - but such explanations are the enemy of truth if they used to invent doctrines that have no actual support in Scripture.

I agree.

You misunderstood my point. I did not say the angels had sex. I said that the incident involved angels and sex because those two elements are in the story. The mob wanted to have sex with the angels, as it is written: "bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (Genesis 19:5). The fact that I have to explain such simple points proves that your mind is closed to what the Bible actually states.

So why mention it or make the association. Either you believe God's Holy Angels had sex with humans or they did not. If you say now that they did not, that is good, but if you fail to say it, I can only assume you support the idea. I do not, so I speak out against it.

You constantly assert that the angels could be humans, but as yet, you have not cited a single verse in support of your assertion. Why is that?

I shall make the association when I present my explanation of verse 6. I could ask the converse question. Why do you associate angels with God's Holy Angels when it is not necessary. Quoting a verse is not supporting your argument when there is an alternative explanation that you will not accept when it is pointed out to you.

And you ignore the fact that the angels in verse 5 are mentioned in the same context as the archangel in verse 7. If Jude was using those words with entirely different meanings in the space of two verses, he is very confused. Why didn't he just refer to them as men, or better, by NAME if your interpretation is true? Is God trying to create confusion? Your interpretation is totally confused and made up. It has absolutely no basis in the text at all.

I have explained that I do not have to make the connection between two different sections. I am staying in the context of each section of the chapter.

It is very silly for you to merely assert that my beliefs are "mixed up." You have not shown any error in anything I've written on this topic to date. If I really had made an error, why haven't you exposed it with facts rather than constantly making false assertions about my motives? Your behavior indicates that you know you cannot refute the facts I have presented.

Your support of God's Holy Angels having sex with humans has already convinced me you are mixed up. I think others can see you are not prepared to even consider that angels can be human. I have refuted the facts. It is you who keep asserting I have not. At least in other threads I have and in this one, I shall give my reasoning to who the angels of verse 6 are shortly.

I have nothing to say about Cain right now. I merely listed it because it is one of the many events that Jude mentioned.

OK. It is one of the events in section 3 of the chapter which does not have to be linked with section 2 just as angels do not have to be linked to archangels

I was not making a point other than to note the big incongruity in the idea of that Balaam had made some sort of error since he explicitly said was a believer in the LORD and did his will and blessed Israel. But there's no need to go down that rabbit trail.

I agree; we do not need to go down this rabbit trail. It is important we know why Jude is referring to Balaam and in what context which is of no concern discussing angels.

I don't think you know what the word "context" means. You reject "context" when "angels" and "archangel" appear in the same context.

There is wide/broad context and narrow context. If it can be seen that there are distinct sections to the chapter then we should stay within the context of each section. That is why we generally split our essays into paragraphs to bring attention to the fact that the subject has changed.

I did not "sidetrack" anything. Your assertion is absurd. You are the one who demanded that I look at the verses from 5 to 11! So I looked at them, and reported what I saw. The problem is that the verses do not support your idiosyncratic interpretation. That's why you can't simply present evidence like I do. You write a mountain of words to avoid dealing with what the Bible actually states.

You have introduced things that we do not need to consider when looking at the context of verse 6. You introduced Enoch when it was unnecessary.

And your assertion that you know I "do not want to change on this" is absurd. You are the person with the FIXED DOGMA concerning these passages. I am the one with the open mind who can freely accept what the Bible actually states. There is a world of difference between you an me because you have chosen to believe something no matter how strongly it contradicts what the Bible actually states.

This is crazy! The blind leading the blind? OK, I am blind, what makes you think you can see any better? What the Bible clearly states is not so clear that we both agree. God's Holy Angels do not have sex with humans. what could be clearer?

I agree that "the proper context of Jude is quite easy to see." That's what makes your doctrine so easy to refute.

Ditto.

You have not presented one shred of evidence to support your assertion that "angels" in verse 5 refers to humans. Nothing! NADA! ZIP! Yet this is the CORNERSTONE of your entire interpretation! Until you address this point, no serious scholar or Bible believer could have any reason at all to accept your interpretation.

Not yet and you should have picked up on my point that I was not intending to to give my interpretation until I post it. I can see you want to have the upper hand which is why you denounce anything I say.

And you did not answer why Jude would use the words "angels" and "archangel" in the same context if they had totally different meanings. I've brought this up a number of times, but you refuse to address it. You have not even tried to answer this point! You merely dodged it. This is fatal to your interpretation.

I have said I do not have to make the connection you are trying to make. That is an answer,but you cannot see when you are being answered. I have not dodged anything. I will give a full explanation as I see it shortly. I never intended to give a full answer in this thread. If you had done as I requested a long time ago and posted your exegesis along side mine, we could have avoided this conversation.

You said "If the translators had used the word "messenger" in place of "angels" you would not be making the forced association you do." First, it is absurd for you to suggest that there is a "forced association." It is a natural reading of the text, recognized by all competent scholars. Second, it has NOTHING to do with any translators. I read the text in the Greek and I see the word "angelos" used in the immediate context of "archangelos." It is perfectly plain and obvious that Jude thought the angels had sex with women.

I wish others would comment on your statements. If I naturally read angels as applying to humans, I see nothing wrong in that. You are refusing to acknowledge that "angels" applies to humans as well as it applies to God's Holy Angels. We have to be careful when deciding which is being referred to. You are making different links/connection to make your argument which are different to my links/connections. I am happy to put up and shut up and let others decide who they believe makes the more sense. We do not have to continue these silly tit-for-tat arguments that we descent into. I expect others will give up reading them.

You misunderstood my statement again. I said the event "involved angels and sex" because the mob wanted to "know" the angels, as explained above.

Almost every time you say; "You misunderstood my statement". What hope have I of communicating with you? Answer - None. I still do not know what this has to do with angels in verse 6.

You contradict the text of Jude 5 when you say that he was not talking about the destruction of the entire generation of unbelievers.

I am not contradicting verse 5. I have not answered fully as I propose to do. I can identify three groups. Each group was "destroyed" to use your word in different ways. A whole generation was allowed to die in the wilderness. This is not saying they were destroyed. It was merely preventing them from entering the Promised Land.

You have given no reason to think that the mention of Korah is the "massive clue." You merely grabbed that one element (without justification) because it is the only way for you to find any support at all for your doctrine.

Once again I had hope you would have examined the text again. If you have and you do not want to make the connection that is fair enough. I shall make the link when I post my own explanation in a new thread shortly. I never intended to give a full explanation in this thread as I made clear earlier and in other threads we have been communicating on Jude.

You have not shown a single error in anything I have written. If you disagree, just post a point that you have refuted and I will be forced to publicly admit it.

I have refuted many things you have said, but you stick to your ground and have not accepted anything I have said, so I would not expect you to concede anything at any time. I expect we are all big enough to admit our mistakes once we have recognized them.

Yes, I know that angelos means messenger and can refer to humans. But you have given no reason to think this is the case in that verse. And you have given no explanation about why Jude would use the words "angelos" and "archangelos" in the same context with radically different meanings. You just don't get it. If you are correct, then why did Jude use the word angelos in that verse??? You just don't get it. If Jude did that, then he is a VERY CONFUSED WRITER. You have not addressed this point. Why do I have to repeat myself so many times? Because you are dodging the truth and cannot deal with what the Bible really says because it contradicts your dogma.

As you know, I have said I will give you my explanation which I have not done fully up to now. I can see that you have not applied the word "angels" to humans as I shall do when I explain. There was no need for you to begin this tirade. I have already answered and said I do not see Jude as a confused writer so why bring up the point again. Talk about me using many words!!

DUDE! THAT WAS A TOTAL DODGE!!!! You are declaring yourself absolutely incapable of answering my points. I am stunned that you could believe you are correct even in the face of all the evidence that proves you wrong. Truly, I am stunned.

Then be stunned. Is anyone capable of answering your points to your satisfaction? When I answer them you disagree or say I have not answered your question or I have failed to answer the question or I have missed the point. If I keep missing the point, perhaps you are not making the point sufficiently clear or you must say how you want your point answered.

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;43906]

You did not answer my question. You merely repeated your assertion. And again, it has nothing to do with translations. When I read the Greek, I see "angelos" in the immediate context of "archangelos."

Archangelos comes some verses on from verse 6 and it is in the immediate context of verse 6 that we are considering. You know what "angelos" means and yet you do not want to apply it to humans. There is nothing more I can say if you are not prepared to accept that angels can apply to humans. This is the whole point of understanding the Bible correctly. Examine all possible answers before reaching a conclusion. You have reached your conclusions or you would not argue but say, I appreciate the point though at this point in time I disagree.

Everyone can see that your assertion that I "add one misconception on top of another" is just empty bluster because you have not shown any error in anything I've written.

I do not know how you can say this when I have pointed out the error in your thinking. I have pointed out your error in many a thread but we shall keep on disagreeing. This tit-for-tat is tedious and I shall take a rest for a while.

And I can't think of anything more ironic than you, a man who builds a mountain of dogma without a shred of evidence, accusing others as "a whole bunch of so-called Christians have missed the truth of God's message."

You want to hit out at me when I am agreeing with you in the main about Christians . The fact that I think you do not have all the truth is no different to most of us. I think you over-react to what I say because I am not compliant with your interpretation. You say that it is not your view, but is commonly accepted. Commonly accepted opinions does not make them correct. Why go with commonly accepted opinion and be like a sheep?

What do you think this is, a comedy show?

You are turning this into one. Maybe it is time to lighten up.

Dude, there was nothing for me to "rip apart" because you didn't present any evidence at all. You merely stated your own private opinion. You dodged the questions I asked.

I am responding to your questions wherever I find a question mark. I shall give my interpretation of Jude 6 shortly and I propose to shut up from any further discussion on the subject. I will follow the comments of others and might chip in, but once all is said on a subject that is the end. I said I expect you to rip my study of verse 6 apart when I present it. You should know that I have not presented it here. You are the one who is now misinterpreting what I say, which is par for the course.

I believe you when you say "There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me change my understanding on this point." If you reject what Scripture plainly states despite the fact that you cannot refute a word that I've written, then it's pretty obvious that there is nothing I could say that would change your mind. Your mind is closed like a steal trap.

Give me once convincing argument and I will accept it, until then I am unlikely to change. There comes a point when the truth is understood nothing more needs to be said or done. You are still searching or not searching for Truth. I would be worried if I lost it through following the teaching you are putting forward. Like the parable of the pearl of great price. Once obtained, it is not something to be lost.

And I believe you when you say "It is not my intention to mislead anyone." Unfortunately, you have deceived yourself in a grand fashion. You strongly insisted in many threads that I should engage you in a discussion of Jude. And what happened now that I've presented the evidence supporting my interpretation? You quit the conversation because you know that you cannot refute what I have written. I think that's pretty funny, really.

I have not quit the conversation. There will come a point when there is nothing more to say and we agree to disagree. Anything you want to accuse me of I will simply say; "look yourself in the mirror". You have resorted back into the form of discussion I was trying to avoid. If you want me to disappear, carry on what you are doing. Others will understand.

How you can think you are a "Bible believer" is beyond me man. I mean, you have made it abundantly clear you don't care about anything the Bible actually states if it contradicts your own dogmas.

I believe in something which you do not. That is why you will not appreciate where I am coming from.

I am stunned.

I wish you were stunned for the right reason

But I'm also very happy we had this little exercise, because it shows how Christians who claim to believe the Bible don't really believe it at all. They only believe their own interpretation which often has nothing to do with what is actually written.

It is better to believe in God than not at all. Why should I argue with a non-believer who has given up on trying to understand and does not appreciate someone else's point of view other than those you support or want to throw in as a spanner into the works? Why should something be taken at face value when face value is obviously wrong. Do you take the parables of the Kingdom at face value or do you look for the implied meaning?

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You are very preachy Richard in telling what people should be concerned about.

When you were a believer you believed it was with the utmost importance that people be saved,now you are saying it's the utmost importance for people not to believe...

If you really have left religion,then why are you useing all your time to tell people to ''in your words'' to wake up?

Tell me,if you can,what would you be doing with your life in your were not pushing atheism? Would you be enjoying life? Or in your view,a person can only be a bible basher or an atheist basher?

Who do you think you are currently saving now? People from being believers? lol

There is nothing "preachy" about anything I wrote. Would it be "preachy" for me to tell a medical student that he should be interesting in biology? Would it be "preachy" for me to tell a mechanical engineer that he should be concerned about physics? How is a Christian who chooses to believe the Bible without evidence any different than a Muslim, Mormon, or Scientologist?

When I was a believer, I believed I had EVIDENCE for the validity of the Bible.

I have never said it was of "utmost importance for people not to believe." Why do you misquote me? The truth should be perfectly obvious to you. I think it is of utmost importance that people learn to think for themselves, since otherwise they are subject to men who will use and abuse them. Do you think it is good that there are a billion Muslims who believe the Koran "through faith"?

I am not "pushing atheism" - I am pushing free thought, free speech, and intelligent informed decision making.

I already am enjoying life - much more in fact than when I constrained by doctrines that are not true.

I am not a "Bible basher." I am merely presenting the facts that anyone can see and confirm for themselves. You think it is "bashing" because the Bible contains things that you know are wrong.

Who do I think I am "saving"? First, I don't think I am "saving" anyone if you are using the Christian sense of that word. But if you are using it in the ordinary sense, then I am saving myself from many errors, and sharing what I see with others who can take it or leave it.

All the best,

Richard