Note: this is a very long question.  The answer is way down the page!!!

 Beyond the basic Christian labeling/dismissal which you demonstrate.  My own
reasons for doubting God’s existence are based on the very same premise I am
accused of suppressing, that is truth.  My chief dissatisfaction with Christianity
and Christians as a whole is their apparent lack of concern for actual truth.

    I feel that the only proper way to understand truth is to take it at a base
level, which would be to define it as "that which actually is" or "that which
is in actuality."  Christians, in my experience, treat the word truth as a rather
abstract idea, and even feel that it is something that can be ‘claimed’ or needs
to be ‘believed through faith’, with faith being understood as ‘believing when
there is definite, logical, evidentiary reason not to.’  Interestingly enough,
this definition directly opposes the understanding of faith demonstrated in the Bible
(all characters having faith in God had specific reasons for their confidence,
ie God was talking to them directly or God blinded them with revelation on the
way to Damascus, etc.).  There is actually no documented reason to have faith apart
from evidence/experience, yet this idea of "just believe" or how I would like
to state it "blatant disregard for the God-given faculty of discernment" / "throwing
all your eggs in one basket so you don’t have to think about it anymore" is an
attitude that pervades the Christian community.  In short… faith, as it relates
to actual truth, should be like saying "I have faith that my motorcycle is going
to work today because I know how motorcycles work, I’ve inspected all the pieces, and
I rode it earlier this morning" as opposed to "I believe the motorcycle is going
to work because I really really really believe it will."  In my opinion, this
second option is where a hazardous spiritual pride enters the picture; humili
ty is recognizing that a little human being choosing to believe or not believe
doesn’t change anything and should put little weight on his bloated concept
of belief. right?

       Truth and science are related.  Following suit with many modern day apologists,
you seem to have an issue with science.  I see this as another act of abstraction:
you are seeing science as this field dominated by atheist intellectuals bent
on evil and animalistic desires. But, in fact, science is simply a method of
asking questions. As people have gotten better at their question-asking methodology,
science as a field has evolved. Likewise, logic is nothing more than looking
at things with basic discernment, and asking questions carefully and systematically. 
Sadly, logic is also dismissed because "God’s ways are not our ways" or "God
baffles philosophers." One or two verses have stomped out the very best instrument
for religious checks and balances, giving way to a hocus-pocus, magic mentality that
Christianity claims to be against but is, in fact, what is embraced.

    I have argued with many pastors and even some seminary heads, and in my
experience logic, truth, thinking in general, all take the back-burner to conformance
to dogma.  Most religious people grasp at straws to the point of absurdity so
as not to concede.  Any explanation that fits in with a pre-conceived statement of
faith or belief system is chosen over the humbling and painful pursuit of actuality.

 Where did sin come from?  Why did God create sin?  [If you deny God created
sin you deny his oneness]

 Beyond the initial creation of sin, how is sin sustained? What is it made of? 
Is it real?  If it is real, then God is sustaining it, actively, because he
is the living God.  If it is not real, then what are we worrying about? Nothing?

 If salvation is the end goal and only point to everything, why did God bother
with everything?  Why didn’t he just skip to the result of salvation? [If God
must submit to ‘rules’ of salvation, then he is not omnipotent]

 MOST importantly (oh fan of Romans), why didn’t Jesus mention Paul if that’s
who was going to be laying out all the theology?  I remember him mentioning
12 people -1 that were supposed to be representing him.  I also remember him
mentioning false teachers that were supposed to come directly after him. Hmmm.

 In one of the first chapters in Matthew, the author mentions that prophets
said "he was going to be called a Nazarene." Really? What prophets? (You wouldn’t
believe the strange sort of responses I got from this one)

 Why didn’t Jesus mention a Bible? He knew it was going to come about right?
He knew it was going to be directly compared to his authority, right? If there
was a potential for people shutting out all other kinds of revelation according
one source in particular, isn’t it worth mentioning?

If Jesus is THE WORD, and the Bible is THE WORD, is Jesus the Bible?

 Why do Christians mock slight inconsistencies in other religions but embrace
inconsistencies in their own gospel narratives?  I’ve heard people say that the
differences in accounts underline the validity of it all, comparing it to witnesses
of car crash reporting whether or not the windshield was shattered or not.  I say the
difference between two men in the tomb, one man in the tomb, an angel in the
tomb, should be like considering a different kind of car crash: Two people cross
a street and are run over by a semi-truck.  If you ask witnesses, "how many people
are now dead?" their report is going to be the same.

            This is a long enough letter in which you make so many points that
I am struggling exactly how to respond.  My first general comment is that I would agree
with your general contention that most ?Christians? do not base their faith
on careful reasoning of consideration of the evidence.  Specifically, your statement
that there is a "blatant disregard for the God-given faculty of discernment"
/ "throwing all your eggs in one basket so you don’t have to think about it
anymore" is an attitude that pervades the christian community? is, unfortunately,
a true statement in many (though not all) cases.  I would also agree that there
is an anti-intellectual trend in many ?Christian? circles which would actually
criticize those who from a position of faith, nevertheless ask hard intellectual
questions about reasons for belief.  I guess I am saying that some of the disturbing
patterns amongst believers to make false, illogical arguments which are not
based on evidence or careful reasoning which you point out are absolutely true
and to the point.

             Having said that, you seem to lump me in with these people, implying
that my arguments for faith fall into such a category.  I certainly do not agree with
this contention at all.  I believe that just because false reasoning and bad evidence
is often used in support of Christian faith does not at all mean that this is
the only kind of eviden
ce which exists.  Nor does the mere fact that weak arguments
are used by some to support faith in the Bible prove that that faith is unsupportable.  O
n the contrary, I believe the evidence for the general inspiration of the Bible,
for the deity of Christ, for the resurrection of Christ and so forth is extr
emely strong.  Just because some people do not use this evidence correctly does not
mean that it is not there!

             Specifically, I certainly do not have an issue with science.  I am a PhD
in chemical physics and have been a science professor for 20 years. I am thoroughly
convinced that science supports the idea of creation of the universe and of
the creation of life.  I believe that the evidence supports the ?anthropic principle?
which is that the universe shows clear and inescapable evidence that it was
created specifically so that it could support advanced life forms such as us. 
?I am convinced that only through assuming there is no God could anyone reach
the conclusion that the universe and life were not created by some sort of divine
intervention.  I am not a young-earth creationist, and I completely reject their claim that
science supports a young earth, but I believe that scientific knowledge and
the Bible are in a general way in agreement with one another.  There is a power point
at the web site which gives some detail of this.  Go to the power point section of
the site and click on God and Science and Medical Evidences.  I have also written a book on
science and God, called ?Is There a God?? which is available at www.greatco
mmission.com which goes into great detail on this. 

            I am sorry that your experience with certain religious teachers and
even seminary teachers has not been fruitful, as they have, as you say, simply
resorted to dogma and refused to get involved with a free discussion.  I like to think
that I am definitely not that sort of believer, and would be happy to discuss
any area of belief based on the evidence for and against.  I am convinced, having done
this for many years now, that Christianity can certainly hold its own in any
sort of open discussion of the facts, but it is up to you to decide the truth
of such a claim!

             Let me give EXTREMELY brief answers to some of the actual theological
questions you raise.  All of these deserve a few pages of answer in their own right,
and I would happily engage these questions in more detail with you.

             1.  The source of sin, according to the Bible, is God giving a choice
(free will) to humanity.  We have the right to choose to do good or evil as free agents.  Y
ou may not agree with God for creating such a situation for humanity, but, as
a parent, I see this is a sign of love.  My job as a parent is to provide the best
opportunity for my children to succeed and to have a righteous and fulfilling
life, but in the end, I let them go.  I do not see this as an evil thing, including
the fact that God treats human beings the same way.  The fact is that many human
beings choose to do evil and to rebel against their creator.  This is the source of
evil.  All arguments that an all-knowing, all powerful God is automatically responsible
for any evil in the world falls on this question.  Were we created with free
will?  If so, is this a bad thing?  I say yes to the first and no to the second.   Conclusion
:  yes, God allows evil in the world, but that is because he loves us.  God did
not create sin, but he allows it.

             2.  Sin is as real as love or truth or anger or any other thing
which is really a concept–a description, but not a physical reality.  God does not
sustain sin, but he sustains a world in which sin is a possibility.  In that sense, he allows
it.  I do not support the sins my children commit, yet I do not kill them in order
to prevent them from sinning.  I suppose that because through having sexwith my wife,
I brought my children into the world.  If you want to blame me for the sins they commit,
you may, but I believe they are ultimately responsible for their behavior.  Although
?I do not agree with their mistakes, I still love them and I support them.  This
?is not a perfect analogy for God?s relationship to sin, but I think it is helpful.

             3.  If salvation is the end goal?.   I am not sure I can explain all of
God?s motives on such things.  At some point I just have to say ?that is the way it
is??   Which ?everything? that God created do you think he should not have created?  Th
e beauty in the world?  Relationships?  Life after one is saved?  Your point here is too
vague to answer specifically.

             4.  Your claim that God cannot be omnipotent because he submits
to rules of his own creation is not correct reasoning.  It is circular.  You are in essence saying,
by definition, any being who creates and submits to rules is not omnipotent,
therefore God is not omnipotent.  You cannot define your way into such a conclusion, at
least not logically.

             5.  I cannot tell you why Jesus did not mention Paul. I also cannot
tell you why he did not mention any of a million things.  Maybe he did and it is not
recorded in the New Testament.  What is your point?  Is the fact that Jesus is not quoted as
mentioning the future ministry of Paul somehow proof that his ministry is not
from God?  This is not good reasoning.  If you want to show that Paul?s ministry was not from
God, you would have to have some evidence from his ministry.

             6.  Jesus was called the Nazarene because the Hebrew for Nazarene
is also the word for branch.  The Messiah is called the Branch a number of places in
the Old Testament (Jeremiah 23:5, Zechariah 3:8, Isaiah 4:2 and so forth), and
this is what the Jews are referring to in Matthew.  Interpret Matthew as saying he will
be called the branch and your question is answered.

             7.  Jesus mentioned scripture many times in his recorded words.  For
?example John 5:39, John 7:38,42 and many others.  Jesus referred multiple times to
the only valid scripture which existed in his day, which was the Old Testament.  Jesus
?did not mention the New Testament simply because it obviously did not exist
?in his time!

             8.The Greek word used to describe Jesus as the Word in John chapter
one is the word logos.  When the Bible is called the word of God, a different Greek
word is used.  Your conundrum is created mainly because of difficulties created by
translation.  Jesus is the Word, the Logic, the Truth of creation.  The Bible is the words of God,
communicating to us.  Jesus
is not the Bible.  The apparent difficulty exists in English,
but not in Greek.

             9. Whether or not the scriptures of other religions will hold up
to scrutiny is a separate question from whether of not the Bible holds up to
scrutiny.  You mention big problems in the Bible, but having studied it and thought about
it carefully, I simply do not see these problems.  For example, the supposed problems
you mention (such as the thing about the Nazarene) generally are quite easily
solved by careful thought and study.  I cannot answer for the arguments used by other
people regarding other religions.  I have carefully studied the Koran and to a lesser
extent the scriptures of many world religions.  My personal conclusion is that there is
no comparison at all between these books.  The Bible stands far and above these other
supposed scriptures.  The evidence I would use to make such a statement will stand or fall
on its own, but I will save that for any specific future question you might
ask.

 You ask great questions!

 John Oakes, PhD