Part 9

Discussion with Dr. Anthony Garrett, Part 9

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks

To: Dr Anthony Garrett

Sent: 07 August 2000 22:54

Subject: Different categories? / Quotes from David Pawson.

Dear Anthony,

I wrote:

<< but I guess you do not find hell an insult so maybe it's water off a

duck's back. >>

You replied:

<< I believe it's a fact. A fact cannot be an insult or a compliment -

different categories. >>

I believe the holocaust is a fact. I also believe it is an insult to Jews to

say that they deserved their fate, just as it is a dreadful insult to any

human being to say that hell is their just deserts. Why can you not see that

this is the same category? Surely you know by now that what alarms me is your

sanctioning of hell torture, biblical infanticide etc. You snipped the part

above where I said "Afterall, you do believe in hell and I can't think of a

worse insult than believing that people should justly be tortured." If I said

I believe the holocaust happened and that the Jews deserved what they got,

would you be alarmed at my statement, or think I believe a fact?

It is not that you merely believe that hell is a "fact" that is so awful, but

that for intelligent adults belief in such a "fact" brings with it the belief

that this "fact" is a justified "fact."

I do not blame children who, frightened by tales from their conditionally

loving Christian parents, believe it when they are told that they and

others will go to hell unless they are "saved." These poor kids believe

in hell too and I feel only anguish for them. Some (many) go on to

endure much mental torture about what it takes to be "truly saved," there

being so much conflict amongst Christians as to what a "true Christian" is.


Did you know that David Pawson is not considered a "true Christian" by some

Christians? In fact, maybe not saved at all (and therefore, ironically,

going to hell).


<< David Pawson is a false prophet. His scenario of the endtimes is nothing

like the Biblical scenario, nor is his message honouring to the Lord Jesus

Christ. The reader may dispute that statement, so shall we clarify this by

summarising just a few of the errors and apostasies of Pawson .... No,

David Pawson does not teach the eternal verities of the Lord, either the

Bible is true or Pawson, and I know which I believe....Pawson is worldly,

a worldly Christian (if he is really saved at all)....Here I would say without

a shadow of a doubt that Pawson does not understand Salvation in

Christ Jesus. In fact, his message is so like the Jehovah's Witnesses

that it is remarkable. >>

You wrote:

<< The exegete I find most faithful and who deals with many of your

tough questions is David Pawson >>

After having read the long transcripts of some of Pawson's

bizarre speeches at

I wonder if this a healthy mind in action. I encourage everyone to read this

page and compare it with any article at random from the secular web

Here are some quotes from David Pawson:

< ***********Begin Pawson quotes************ >

"He is coming, it said, to make war and the

first thing Jesus will do on his return is to kill thousands of

people. This is a Jesus you don't hear about in Sunday School. This is

not gentle Jesus meek and mild. This is Jesus coming with his robe

dipped in blood and not his own blood. "

"Jesus will kill the lot of them with his

secret weapon - the secret weapon is a two-edged sword."

"And now that battlefield is deep in

corpses - there are thousands and thousands of bodies lie and of

course it is the middle-east so those bodies need to be cleaned

up quickly. Nobody could bury them all, so an angel is calling to

the birds of the air to come and pick the bones. "

" the angel calls to the birds of the air to come and pick the

bones clean, come to the great supper of God and eat the flesh of

the Generals, and the Kings and the great and small. It is quite

a gruesome vision. But that is the first result of Christ's coming."

" day there will be a Christian government over

the whole world. ...all the banks will be in Christian hands...

and all the courts will be in Christian hands... Listen, we

ought to be learning how to settle the differences in the

Church now, because we are going to settle them for the world

later. Wonder if you believe what I am telling you now?

...I am looking forward to us reigning on earth with

Christ. And showing the world what it can be like when all the

media is in Christian hands, when all the television is in

Christian hands. There is nothing on your T.V. screen that Christ

could not look at. It's coming - when He comes! ....

Jesus and His people will rule the nations with a rod

of iron. That does not mean cruelty, it means no democracy. No

debates, no political parties, no protest movements, no votes....

And people will hate that. And since nothing will appear on

television Jesus can't watch, people will say "Why can't we have

those `X' rated films back?" And newspapers and magazines will be

fit for Jesus to read. "

"We are not going to heaven to

live with God, He is coming to the New Earth to live with us

forever. And of course, Christ, the Lamb of God will come too for

the Spirit will be with us - HERE on a new planet earth.

That is most amazing, because you see God the Father hasn't been

down to earth for a very long time - His Son came down here, the

Spirit is now down here, but God the Father was only here at the

very beginning, and Adam at the end of a hard day's work heard

the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden of Eden.

God was taking a stroll in the garden with Adam and Eve. But then

when sin came in, the Holy Father could not stay. And He

withdrew, yes, He sent His Son to die that we might become holy,

sent His Holy Spirit to help us to be Holy and at the last, that new city

of God into which nothing impure will enter will come down out of

heaven. It is so big that it would just fit inside the moon, if the moon

were hollow. 15 hundred square miles. I do architecture as a


"He is coming to live with us and He will live on the earth for ever

and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever."

< ***********End Pawson quotes************ >

And so he goes on. I really think you should read the "how to identify

a cult" sites I gave earlier. What would it take to convince you that somebody

is delusional?

For children and the ignorant and brainwashed I have sympathy, but with people

like yourself I am appalled. Educated, intelligent adults in the 21st century

believing that it is just to torture people for ever. Even Auschwitz was not

that bad. You really cannot see that this is wrong and no good god could exist

if this "fact" of hell was true?

Are you saying you wish me to cease writing? I have thought so a couple of

times before but I have been wrong, so I will wait for your definite word on

this or an end to your replies.

I am sorry that after so much you are not able to have the time to give me and

my readers the answer to why God killed David's baby which you said can be

understood in context. I would have thought this was an important thing for a

Christian to do and a small task if you really know the answer. If you do not

know the answer, then why do you believe that your god is just in the face of

his killing an innocent baby in order to punish its father? You can wait until

your work slows down again, there is no time limit on which you need to reply


Maybe you won't tell me, but from our exchanges you know some of what many

Christians have asked themselves, took seriously, and found no Christian

answer to from any book or Christian. What a shame if you really do know

and won't tell. What a travesty Christianity is if the fact is that it just

can't face scrutiny and Christians do not confront this. Ex-Christians report

much greater mental health and happiness after deconversion and the dust

has settled, so you really have nothing to fear if you are wrong. If

Christianity claims are true then they should stand scrutiny. You did say that

you have the ability to answer.

<< seems you do not so much fail to understand the bible as disagree

with it. I accept your freedom to do that. >>

There is much in my analysis, as I have discussed already, that shows that

Christianity is untenable, rather than merely that I "disagree with it." I did

not "disagree with Christianity" when I was a Christian, my researches led

me to the conclusion it is false. But on examination there is much that is

disagreeable in the bible and now that it no longer has power over

my mind I am indeed free to say that "the Emperor has no clothes!" By

showing the bible is bad we can demonstrate that it is of fallible cultural

man, not of a good god. With you I am interested in tackling the cruel verses

since I am so appalled that you sanction them. With other Christians I may

discuss Greek etymology or whether

the resurrection really happened etc. There are many

ways to show that Christianity is untenable.

You wrote:

<< "Building the kingdom" is how I should spend what time I explicitly allot

to Christian matters, and I doubt that our dialogue is helping to do so. >>

Indeed, as I said, the chance that you might be wrong about Christianity is

not admitted as a possibility. Therefore our conversation is apparently

unimportant, despite your previously claiming that if Christianity was

untrue then you "of course" wish to know that. Did you really mean that?

Not only is our conversation unimportant but you will feel untroubled at

the thought of those in hell whilst you are in heaven (otherwise it wouldn't

be heaven for you). That is how unimportant non-Christians are to some

Christians, and how little love for others there really is.

<< for me, "in the image of God" is the highest title - too many Christians

have forgotten that this applies equally well to non-Christians in their

dealings with them >>

But it is okay to have them tortured for ever?

Would you feel this conversation was of a higher priority if it appeared you

were convincing me of Christian claims? You said earlier << Why should I

be condemned to play away fixtures only? Do the same principles not apply

to both sides in a dialogue? >> Although it doesn't look like I am convincing

you of anything, it does seem that we are demonstrating that your

Christian claims are easy for me to tackle, despite your greater intelligence.

If you felt you were at least winning arguments, would you feel different

about priorities?

You explained previously that despite Luke 18:22 you were not commanded to

give all your money away, merely that money was not to be important to you.

Why then has your job acquired more importance than telling me the

explanation about the cruel verses that you say you have the ability to

explain? Even if I am not convinced, maybe some wavering Christian

wandering through my site might be. Remember you can reply when

you are ready, it doesn't need to interfere with your work. These

conversations do not interfere with mine and I am busy too both at

work and at home.

If you choose to answer straight away to points other than why your god killed

king David's baby then you obviously do have some time to spare and "it is

telling" (to use your phrase) that you are not sparing time on this question

to which you said you had << not an inability to reply. >> Do you really have

the ability to reply? Is faith self-delusion?

What is most primordial for a Christian? Is it love and truth, or is it


Tough questions, but I want to deepen the conversation too.

Best wishes,



Leaving Christianity:

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr Anthony Garrett


Sent: 08 August 2000 00:52

Dear Steve,

I know what Pawson says and I agree with it. I do think for myself, but I

find him biblical. I am willing to discuss interpretation of scripture only

with other Christians, however; with non-Christians/ex-Christians I would

restrict myself simply to what the bible says.

And, if you don't like what the bible says, blame God not me - you

certainly write as if he exists and you dislike him, rather than as if he

is a human invention. As to whether you think you are winning a debate with

me, neither you nor I is competent to judge - that is up to third parties.

I've already explained in good faith why this discourse has slipped off my

list of priorities, and certainly why I cannot go further into exegesis

with you. If you choose to believe there are other reasons than those I

have given, that is up to you.

With best wishes,

Anthony (Garrett)

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks

To: Dr Anthony Garrett

Sent: 08 August 2000 22:29

Subject: Re:

Dear Anthony,

I don't want to leave on an argumentative note, so I just want to say thanks

for your time and effort in a stimulating and long conversation.

With best wishes,



Leaving Christianity:

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr Anthony Garrett

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 08 August 2000 23:09

Subject: Re:

At 10:29 PM 8/8/00 +0100, you wrote:

>I don't want to leave on an argumentative note, so I just want to say thanks

>for your time and effort in a stimulating and long conversation.

I'm delighted you found it so! Best wishes to you and yours,

Anthony Garrett