1. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #288931 by Shrommer on November 22, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Mark Jones, you ask "How do you decide which flavour you're going to worship at?" Since you ask, let me tell you what I think.

I think that just like with foods, the important think is not the flavour, but the nutritional element. Different strokes for different folks, and it's all good when it's true worship. It doesn't matter what language you worship in, what clothes you wear (or don't wear), what color the place is, whether it's indoors or outdoors, in a home or a train station or a church building or a stadium or park ... It doesn't matter which holidays you recognize or which doctrines you choose to emphasize more or less ... it doesn't matter that there are differences in biblical interpretation ...

Since you asked me, my answer is to look at the conversation recorded in John 4 between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. She asked him about whether God's people should worship at Jerusalem or on a mountain in Samaria, and Jesus replied, "... a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ... a time is coming and now has come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth."

It's not what we do on the outside that makes us clean or unclean; it's what is in the heart, and what comes out of our spirit.

I don't mind if you look at all religion as political posturing. That's pretty much how Jesus looked at it too. You sound close to the Kingdom of God when you reach a conclusion like that. Avoid religion.

I really recommend those "More than Dreams" movies on Omnitube.com. The people in there were not persuaded by the Christian religion. They were devout Muslims. What persuaded them was Christ himself, and in some cases with no Bible and no Christians giving any input at all into their lives.

2. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #288924 by Shrommer on November 22, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Quetzalcoatl,

I feel like King Juan Carlos saying to Hugo Chavez "Por que no te callas!". Chavez had no idea what the king's family and people had to live through under Franco, and then to go and call Spain "Fascist" was just completely ignorant.

Jesus suffered two death penalties. The scourging was enough to kill a man, and so was the crucifixion. Jesus suffered both. The physical torture that he underwent was extreme beyond measure. Also he was deserted by his followers and mocked to the max, even knowing he had the power to stop it all at any moment.

Then the time he spent separated from God is a time that I don't think can be measured. Three days in our time, is like looking at three days on a two-dimensional calendar. Those three days can be intersected by an infinitely long third dimension, however, even if the two dimensions are finite. I believe that Jesus knew eternal death in hell, separation from all of the Father's mercy and goodness, and had to suffer total spiritual depravation and torment.

Everything good that we ever experience on earth is thanks to God. Even for the person who is separated from God's spirit on earth, we enjoy his physical, emotional and intellectual mercies. We can't imagine life without those mercies, but that is what existence in hell must be about. Jesus went there in your place, and until or unless you've got some experience there, it is not wise to talk about it, especially not to be flippant about it or act like it was no real sacrifice and no big deal.

Jesus sweat drops of blood before he was arrested by the Roman soldiers. If even just thinking about it caused that kind of stress and anguish, the ordeal itself must have been astronomically cruel.

You ask if it was tremendously impressive? I'd say, yes, it was. TRE-MEN-DOUS-LY!

3. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #288920 by Shrommer on November 22, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Goldy, you are correct that none of the eyewitnesses of Christ's ministry and resurrection are alive today. There are some Muslims who have seen Christ in visions though, and became his followers through those visions, without any religious influence.

See omnitube.com then missions video, then More than Dreams.

I don't know how you take into account the evangelicals who are against any political participation or allegiance. That is not some idea from the Bible; that is our modern-day social reality.

You don't have to believe the Bible is true to see that a lot of people who call themselves Christians are not following the Biblical model for the Church. When they make it into a manmade political institution, they are not following the words of Jesus that they say they believe in.

For the Catholics to call the Pope the spokesman of God on the earth is against the Bible's teachings in more than one way. The Bible records Jesus talking about his vicar on earth being the invisible Holy Spirit who would dwell in every believer, but the Catholics talk about Christ's vicar on earth being a man called the pope. "Pope" and "Father" are similar words, and the Bible records Jesus saying to call no man on earth your father. (Again, you don't have to believe that Jesus even existed to follow the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholics in this area.) Some people interpret those words to mean not to call anyone your father, and some people think it only applies to not referring to religious leaders as father, but Catholics have institutionalized the practice of even calling their religious leaders "fathers", so they make Jesus' words completely meaningless and have no interpretation for those words at all - they simply shut their eyes and ears tight and scream loudly to protect their dogma.

4. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #288917 by Shrommer on November 22, 2008 at 6:59 pm

The Catholic Church had no problem studying and accepting Copernicus' theory that the earth revolved around the sun. They were waiting for someone to come along with scientific proof for this. What they didn't want to do was jump on board with Galileo's method of trying to prove it, and then have egg on their face when Galileo's work was dismissed. The Church made Galileo promise that he would not publish his theories, Galileo made the promise, later Galileo published his work anyway without any real proof, and he was placed under house arrest. The Catholic Church was never convinced that the heliocentric theory was against the Scriptures, but they were concerned that a lot of people perceived a geocentric theory to be in the Scriptures, and did not want people doubting the Bible.

5. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285209 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Immaculate conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was born sinless. Evangelicals and Protestants in general do not believe in the immaculate conception.

As to my interpretation that the Catholic clergy was acting in their own interests when they arrested Galileo, not in God's interests, ... that is my opinion. I thought we shared in the common feeling that what they did was a bad thing, and then for me, if it was bad, it wasn't God. I'm not trying to make a dogma out of it that everybody has to agree with me. It's just my opinion.

6. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285201 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 7:59 pm

... Or evangelicals in the USA who root for the Democrats, for that matter.

Jesus participated in the political system by paying taxes. Americans participate in the political system by paying taxes, voting, etc. I don't agree with Christians serving in the military or swearing to uphold the Constitution or pledging allegiance to the flag, yet I recognize that there is not uniform thinking among evangelicals, just as the 12 disciples did not view politics in the same way, and the early Christians could not agree on what holy days to celebrate or whether or not to eat meat (Romans 14).

There may be believers in Christ in any and every political party and religion, working in all sorts of different jobs and for all different kinds of employers, with all different favorite foods and sports teams, with different views on ethics and morality, ... but no one earthly political party or religion (no one institution) can lay claim to all true Christians or to have for its members only true Christians.

The wheat and the weeds grow next to each other, Jesus said. The kingdom of God cannot be observed externally, Jesus said, but it is among his followers (not over us, but in us and among us). The path is wide that leads to destruction, and few find the way to eternal life, Jesus said. So any attempts at having a "Christian majority" are pretty much counter-Scriptural.

7. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285194 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 7:49 pm

The idea that my belief in God makes me part of the same church as the ones who arrested Galileo is like saying that if you are an atheist, you have all the same ideology and goals as Joseph Stalin. It is utter non-sense.

It's okay for you to say "not my atheism", and it's okay for me to say "not my church".

Jesus was a Jew, 100%, yet he told the Jews that they were not really children of Abraham unless they put their trust in him. He called them children of their father the devil.

John 8:39-44 (as follows, NIV)


"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."

"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

8. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285185 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 7:36 pm

The Roman Catholic clergy was not acting as God's church when they arrested Galileo, and we all know that. They were a political power, devoid of spiritual power, and as far from God as the Pharisees were in Jesus' day. They exerted their political power as they saw fit in their own best interests to preserve the institution they had created.

9. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285179 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 7:29 pm

When we insist on asking "How did Jesus do it?" I think of John chapter 9. In John 9:26 the religious people asked "How did he open your eyes?" In verse 25, the formerly blind man had already told them: "One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"

vv. 10-11 "How then were your eyes opened?" they demanded. He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see."

If something I am writing here seems all messed up, try reading the chapter on your own and see what you come up with.

What words did Jesus have for the religious people? John 9:41 "... now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (NIV)

10. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285176 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 7:24 pm

How did Jesus physically rise from the dead?

Well, it's not the kind of thing that I've done myself to write a manual about it, and Jesus didn't leave us any step-by-step instructions or historical records either.

The body is something we inhabit, so if the spirit leaves the body, I guess it goes back in the same way it left, only in reverse.

How does a glove "come back to life" after the hand has left it? A hand goes back in.

On the other hand, 1st Corinthians chapter 15 tells us that the resurrected body compared to a regular body is kind of like comparing the flowering plant to the seed that it came from, or trying to figure out what the sun (a heavenly body) is like by comparing it to a zebra (an earthly body).

Today we can understand that the Newtonian laws of physics are hard to apply in a quantum world, and I guess it is the same way for us to try and compare our physical knowledge of "how to" to a spiritual act like a resurrection.

Bottom line - I don't know. He is God, knew how to do it, and did it.

11. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285159 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Mark Jones,

As far as I know, my church didn't apologize for anything having to do with Galileo. I don't even think of their being a "my church" in that sense. The Church is God's Church, and it is not synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church, by no means, although I think some Roman Catholics might be part of God's Church.

The Galileo affair is not as simple as urban legend and shortcut symbolism try to make it. The Catholic Church was open to heliocentrism at the time, and encouraged scientists to pursue Copernicus' ideas through investigation. Technically, Galileo was arrested for breaking his word not to publish his inconclusive findings, and his conclusions are not accepted by scientists today. His work would not get published in any peer-reviewed journal today, since his main proof for the earth's movement was that there are tides, which he believed were mainly caused by the slosh principle. Today we would say that the tides are mainly caused by the moon, and nobody offers tidal patterns as proof that the earth is revolving around the sun except perhaps in the most esoteric circles.

Yes, you may quote me that believers in religion are blind, but you should probably quote Jesus on that idea more than me. Just today I was reading about how in Ezekiel's day, the people of Judah made three assumptions:

1) Yahweh is our God, and He will always protect us. 2) God dwells in the Temple in Jerusalem and always will. 3) God owns Palestine, and the Jews are the permanent tenants of Palestine.

The people of Judah suffered a real crisis of faith when Jerusalem was besieged (no protection) the temple was destroyed and they were exiled into Babylon. They had taken their eyes off God's promises and had converted to a religion.

Religious assumptions and dogmatic thinking will get us into trouble and put us through a crisis when things don't work out the way we believe, as will eventually happen with all man-made belief systems.

Christianity as a religion, and the Christians in that religion are doomed. It is Christianity as a relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ which knits us with the Holy Spirit and brings victory.

12. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285148 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Bonzai, I went back and re-read "Moreover, if God is so generous why didn't he just wave his magic wand to "forgive" us and then let it go?"

Yes, there are a lot of ways that can be taken: why did anyone have to die? why didn't he just forgive all of us? ... And the two points you were making ... why do we need forgiveness at all? and why can't he just drop it/forgive and forget?

I was misinterpreting you. Sorry.

Not only is God merciful to forgive, but he is just to repay and punish.

It's not that he punishes us by reminding us over and over about our sin. In fact, the Bible says that he remembers our sin no more, and it is removed from us as far as the east is from the west (I can smell the irony about the earth being round and east coming back and meeting west again, but that's not what was meant when it was written, obviously. It also says the sin was buried in the deepest part of the sea, as another image.)

By reminding us of the cross, if God is even doing that, (and how can you say God is doing that if you don't even believe there is a God?), ... by reminding us of the cross, God is reminding us that He is not sweeping justice under the carpet when He forgives us. He still repays all our evil with punishment, from the tiniest white lie or theft we commit, to the worst kind of torture and murder. That the punishment was on Christ instead of us is not a reminder to bring us more guilt, but a reminder to reassure us that no punishment awaits us. He is reminding us that all His anger and wrath against us has been satisfied, so that we are not afraid to approach Him and are not afraid of making Him mad or going to hell.

It's the devil (the accuser) who is constantly reminding us of our sin and guilt, but God reminds us of the cross to make the devil's cries fall on deaf ears and we walk as righteous and forgiven, in complete right standing with God and nothing held over us.

If the devil would stop accusing, then I suppose God would be able to stop defending us and reminding us of our right standing with Him. If we would quit doubting God's love for us, then I suppose God would be able to stop reminding us of His love for us.

13. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285136 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Goldy,

Would you please stop writing "chose" for "choose"? Now, I see that Bonzai has replied, so I'll turn my attention there.

14. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285131 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Goldy,

Was I saying that "only the foolish should fall for the empty promises of a religion"? No, what I was saying with the tightrope story is in the next paragraph:

The kind of belief that the New Testament talks about which is alive and can save, is not the kind that says that God exists, but the kind that says "I'll trust Him with my life," and then acts on it.

However, now that you bring it up, I believe that the empty promises of religion are a device that Satan uses to keep people from becoming wise. It's not so much that believers in religion are fools, so much as that believers in religion are blind.

15. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285124 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Goldy, the one who rose from the dead that is backed up by history, not mythology or legend, is Jesus of Nazareth, the one born sometime around the year zero in Western calendars. Not the Sanai god or anyone else.

If you thought God was unknowable, there is good news for you that He can be known because He made Himself known to us and still does. A good place to start is maybe reading the Gospel of John, or the story of The Prodigal Son.

16. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285121 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Goldy, I don't have all the answers about why the Bible says that God hardened hearts. I am not sure what it means, or how much it is really the way things are versus how much it is the way the writer viewed the situation. Christianity is divided in doctrinal conclusions about free will and predestination, and has been since the first few centuries of the Common Era.

17. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285114 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 6:13 pm

MaxD,

Although I don't have all the answers, here are a few observations in response to what you wrote...

My response was to Bonzail who was suggesting a blanket forgiveness. I was answering that God doesn't force anyone to go to heaven. You are asking a different question, which is whether or not God forces someone to go to hell when He hardens their hearts.

Both could be true: God doesn't force anyone to go to heaven. To some people, God doesn't give a choice to go to heaven because He hardens their hearts.

You see that even if someone's heart is hardened, God still is not forcing that person to go to heaven, so what you wrote does not really contradict what I wrote.

As far as love, perhaps we should look at some Greek words where there are several words for love, which all get wrapped into one in English. Greek has phileo, eros, agape, and I think there is one more which I can't think of at the moment. Eros is not a choice, but agape definitely is. C.S. Lewis wrote a book called The Four Loves.

If you want to consider more evidence, I recommend Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ. You are free to examine the evidence and then choose whether to believe or not, but caution on this one ...

The tightrope walker over Niagara Falls asked his audience: who believed he could take someone across and back in a wheelbarrow. About half the hands shot up. Then he asked for a volunteer to get in the wheelbarrow. One person raised his hand.

The kind of belief that the New Testament talks about which is alive and can save, is not the kind that says that God exists, but the kind that says "I'll trust Him with my life," and then acts on it.

It is a great question, "How many people can an individual be?" This is about covenant. In covenant marriage in the USA, the woman takes the man's last name. How many people can she be? Is she her maiden name person, or her married name person?

In covenant, there is not just a sharing of everything, but an exchange of everything. The two become one. When someone is born again, the Holy Spirit comes inside the person and becomes one with what previously was the person's dead spirit. It is like a marriage. Everything the person had (including the sin) becomes God's, and everything God has (including the righteousness) becomes the person's. The individual is a three-part being: spirit (which can be made one with God by rebirth), soul (mind and emotions, which do not change overnight), and the physical body that we inhabit, which one day will day and return to dust.

The believer becomes two persons: the self that the outside world knows, and Christ. Paul calls this person a "new creation", which (E.W. Kenyon was it who defined it as ...?) "a brand new species which never before existed."

18. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285102 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Response to Steve Zara comment 271961

You prove me wrong when you show a logical way that no longer believing in God can mean you start enjoying life and stop worrying. This is by adding it to a second statement that only applies to one group, but not to belief in God in general.

The Catholic Church claims revelation from God that prevents people from participating in certain acts of pleasure. Plus: There probably is no God. Therefore: There probably is no reason to not participate in those acts of pleasure.

But the whole thing is turned topsy turvy if you believe in God and believe that He commanded you to participate in those acts of pleasure, whereas on your own you would avoid them, perhaps for fear of disease or fear of societal rejection, etc.

That's why I'm saying that to simply make the statement the way the bus campaign presents it is not logical.

I wish I knew the name of the logical fallacy, but the way you put it is a bit like saying, "Plants have fiber, and fiber is good for you, and poisonous berries are plants, so poisonous berries are good for you." On the surface it looks like good logic, but if you dig through the logical fallacies, you'll be wiser.

Another admission of mine: As I've been reading through here, I've come to understand that the bus campaign is based on a lot of previous bus campaigns which were meant to create fear of hell. In the context, the atheist bus ad makes sense; even though I still think that on its own it's shot full of holes.

For me, it was religion (Roman Catholicism in particular) which gave me a fear of hell, but it was God's saving grace which allowed me to stop worrying and enjoy life.

19. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285082 by Shrommer on November 16, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Responding to Bonzail comment 271987.

If God were to pronounce everyone justified and free from sin against the will of the individual person, He would be forcing them to be a certain way, and that would not be loving.

God doesn't force anyone to love Him, or to be in heaven. People are free to pay the consequences of their own actions and to hate God if they choose, and if people who hate God would go to heaven to be in His presence forever, well, that wouldn't really be very much fun, would it? It's more merciful and loving to let people choose who they want to be and only receive a new person on the inside, if the person on the outside decides to allow it.

A lot of people argue that God should have made us like robots or puppets without ever giving us a free will to disobey to begin with. I don't think His plan was to have perfect obedience from His creatures, but to make people in His own image able to give and receive love. Love has to be a choice, not forced on someone.

Your argument that God should wave His magic wand and automatically forgive everybody, even those who don't want to be forgiven, is similar.

Anyway, it's not up to us to decide how God should act. I believe that the best way to know what God is like is through the testimony of the one who gave us the physical evidence of his resurrection.

p.s. - I am a fan of Kafka's intellect.

20. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #282158 by Shrommer on November 11, 2008 at 6:44 pm

I found some good quotes about "Stop worrying and enjoy your life" in the book of Ecclesiastes, which is one of Richard Dawkins' favorite pieces of literature according to Dawkins himself, and which bases the reason to enjoy life on a theistic world view:

Chapter 7 (NIV)

16 Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?

17 Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?

18 It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all extremes .

Also 9:7-9 - Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. ... Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun ...

11:10 - So , then, banish anxiety from your heart and cast off the troubles of your body ...

3:12-13 I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil - this is the gift of God.

So let's forget about the particular brand of theism called Christianity for a moment, and just talk about the thesis of the bus ad: "There probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy life." What if someone's religion is based on the book of Ecclesiastes and the whole purpose of the life God gave us is to enjoy it and not worry? How would belief in God's non-existence be able to make any improvements upon that?

21. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #271963 by Shrommer on October 26, 2008 at 8:15 pm

I'd love to see a Christian ad campaign: "All your debts have been paid in full. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." (With thanks to the music group GLAD.)

22. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #271955 by Shrommer on October 26, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Responding to comment #271051 by GBile. I didn't start enjoying life when I believed God exists. I was taught from tiny on up that God exists, and life was mostly one big bummer. I see no reason to add all the "I believe" words in there. If you think all that is necessary when I am sharing my own story, let's try this:

"I was taught, I believe my recollection is true, from tiny on up that God exists, and life (I believe life exists) was mostly one big bummer, I believe."

You can confuse worrying with planning. Wisdom and planning are good things, like getting good counsel, thinking things through, etc. Lots of times someone who is planning will be told "Quit worrying about it." But you are also correct that I am not 100% immune to worrying; I still catch myself doing it on occasion.

On the "fear" issue, likewise, I still do not throw myself off tall buildings out of fearlessness. I believe that God put certain fears into us as a survival instinct to protect us and which we should respect.

Guilt about something I've misdone, and fear of punishment from God ... those are what I've been freed from! My punishment is already past history - I died with Christ. There is no punishment left for a dead man, and the me who was the sinner is dead according to God's lawbooks. No double jeopardy, especially not after the death penalty. The record God looks at when He looks up my record is the record of Jesus of Nazareth. Our files got switched. God put Jesus' life story where mine should have been, and my life story where Jesus' should have been. This was an act of grace and His sovereign choice. It doesn't matter what different doctrines or practices different churches or religions have, or who's right or wrong in the human debates.

Next you tell me that there is probably no god, so I should keep worrying about my health. That doesn't make any sense. Why should I worry about my health if there is no god? If there is no god, my health doesn't matter any more than the health of the leaf that loses its chlorophyl in the autumn, or the e-mail that goes into the trash bin on my computer. It's all meaningless.

Anyway, with your long list of "keep worrying", it sounds like you don't agree with this bus campaign. The campaign says that there probably is no God, and then they tell you to stop worrying. You say there probably is no god, so we should keep worrying about the most trivial and temporary things - like our planet which is going to undergo disaster once our sun burns out - and only stop worrying about what myths dictate.

When I started trusting Jesus, I dropped the myths too. The more I study the historical record, the more apparent it is that his resurrection was no myth. There are lots of religious myths I've dropped in the meantime, though.

My point is that the campaign is logical when it says "There probably is no God", but there is no way to logically follow that up with "Now stop worrying and start enjoying life." The first part has nothing to do with the second, and you can reject or accept either clause completely independently of the other. In my case, to desert God would be the end of the enjoyment and guilt-free life I have found only in Him.

23. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270861 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:48 pm

We don't know that God doesn't exist, so that is not really news, only a theory.

I don't think anybody feels guilty and frightened because they "need" to be. I think it just happens on the inside.

There are plenty of examples of people who do not believe in God, yet still feel guilty and frightened.

I don't feel worthless at all. Think of the value of a dollar. Now of a chestful of gold. Now a nation's wealth. The wealth and glory of all of planet earth. The majesty and worth of the solar system, of the Milky Way Galaxy, or the universe, and the energy of an atom!

The worth of the Creator of all this is far greater than the wealth of all of the Creation. That is the price that God paid for me, and that is how much God thinks I'm worth - as much as He is worth, so that He even gave His own life to purchase me!

This is an awesome love story, and you expect me to feel worthless? You've got to be kidding.

24. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270856 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:43 pm

If God doesn't exist, then there is no reasonable explanation for the observed life of Christ and the observed resurrection and resurrected Christ. It's easy enough to take away the religion, but very hard to dismiss the facts.

25. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270854 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm

If you are not after being saved from your worries, then the part of the slogan that says: "Now stop worrying" doesn't apply to you. That is one of the problems I have with the slogan, much more than any problems over the term "probably."

It's not whether God exists or not; intelligent minds differ on that. It's whether the belief that there is no God can actually save you in any way - like saving you from your worries. Historically, plenty of atheists have had worries and did not enjoy their lives. If there is no God, why does anyone really care about worries anyway? Sooner or later the person will die and the worries will cease to exist, or the joy will cease to exist, so it really all amounts to nothing anyway.

If you want salvation from worries, neither belief in God's existence, nor disbelief in God's existence will get you there. No religion can do that. Only the Spirit of God on the inside can do that, and bring true lasting joy. Or, of course, if there is nothing beyond this life on earth, then physical death should bring you salvation from worries.

26. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270852 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:24 pm

What about a slogan like, "There is probably no God. So you might as well commit suicide. Who cares?" That is just as likely a response to atheism as the philosophy that one could be worry-free and enjoy life with no God.

Or how about "There is probably no God. Now there is nobody to save you from hell and the grave."

Or how about "There is probably no God. When Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, he was applying quantum physics in a way that was far advanced for his time."

27. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270851 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I look at it as mercy instead of as bribery. He made a way of escape from the consequences of the choices we made. He took responsibility for what we did, and gives a worry-free life that we can enjoy forever, in exchange for all the junk that we throw His way.

A bribe is to try and get us to act or think a certain way, He rewards us for acting or thinking that way. The good news is that there is no way we can earn our salvation - no way of acting or thinking that we can ever do to save ourselves. He decided to save us of His own free will, and accomplished everything in our place.

But what is this slogan on the busses about? That sounds like bribery too, if you don't try to argue the way out of it. Some slogan writer is implying that if you don't believe in God, it will free you of worries and allow you to enjoy life. They are trying to hold out some kind of rewards for thinking a certain way - like the behaviorist thought police.

I'll tell you that when I had a religious mindset, I was stuck in guilt and fear, but when I heard and believed the good news, I was set free from worries and started enjoying my life. For me to stop trusting God now would take me back to despair and frustration away from my joy and safety. So for me, when I'm already in heaven in a spiritual sense, don't try and bribe me with talk of stopping worrying and starting enjoying. That's one of Jesus' key points - to stop worrying, and one of Paul's key points - to enjoy!

28. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270841 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm

The article says that the Alpha Course teaches "failing to believe in Jesus will condemn you to hell", while never mentioning the flip side of the coin: They teach that when you trust Jesus to save you, he really does do the saving, you have nothing to worry about, and you can start enjoying life!

You don't need to stop believing in God to start enjoying life, and just because you stop believing in God doesn't mean your life will have any more joy or any less worries.

29. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #270836 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm

It is one thing to say "There is probably no God", which is more the conclusion of a logical person than a reasonable one, but the part that follows does not make any sense as a consequence of the first statement. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Wouldn't it make more sense to write, "There is probably no God. Now start worrying; your life is a waste."

I stopped worrying and started enjoying life when I placed my trust in God and in Jesus Christ as my Savior. That's when I was relieved of all guilt and fear, and freed to be who I was made to be - victorious over Satan and the grave!

If you believe in God and don't know the good news, then I can see how life is no fun and all worries, but when someone comes to believe in God in the sense of really relying on Him and casting your cares over onto Him, experiencing His love and forgiveness, then the slogan on the bus makes no sense.

On the other hand, just as there are people who doubt God's existence and live a carefree life, there are people who doubt God's existence and are miserable and full of cares and worries - people who commit suicide, etc.

The worrying and enjoyment can fall on either side of the theist-atheist line.

Once someone posits that belief in no God will lead to enjoyment and will take away worries, that person is creating their own religion in a sense. Like someone's supposed to supernaturally start enjoying life once belief in God goes away? For me to stop believing in God would be a return to despair and frustration - bye-bye joy, and welcome back worries.

30. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #254474 by Shrommer on September 25, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Comment 230415 is a very good one. I've just looked at the "flea" page, and it also disturbs me that so much more energy is put into labeling "fleas" and so much less energy is put into acutally demonstrating an understanding of the "fleas" arguments and addressing them.

I applaud Dawkin's effort to oppose violence and ignorance and intolerance and delusional thinking, but I never can figure out why Dawkins cannot accept that a man was seen risen from the dead, or that people choose to believe that their sins against a Creator-God have been forgiven thanks to that God's actions in this world. What is so terrible about love?

31. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #254470 by Shrommer on September 25, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Hmm, Dawkins stating the case for reason and science ... it sounds like he is promoting true Christianity here, instead of the religious hogwash that tries to pass for Christianity.

A favorite of mine is Clark Pinnock's book Reason Enough.

32. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239981 by Shrommer on August 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Nicky Clayton and her team at Cambridge have found what they believe "is the first example of future planning in animals other than humans."

http://www.physorg.com/news91286409.html

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/231/1/

http://www.science.org.au/sats2007/clayton.htm

When did this discovery come about? In the 21st Century!

This particular kind of intelligence was ruled out as an impossibility during 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century science. It was thought that birds like the scrub jays only did their caching based on instinct.

Intelligent Design Theory includes the idea that DNA may do its own type of future planning when it mutates, instead of DNA simply being an information tank like a page that only has words on it but doesn't think. If we only devised experiments to test for this kind of intelligence in scrub jays in the 21st Century, - centuries after the first scientific studies of these birds - it is reasonable that there would be no tests devised to discover future planning in DNA molecules for another several centuries, since DNA (unlike scrub jays) was only first observed and labeled in the 20th Century.

How could DNA be intelligent when it doesn't have a neural system? Well, that is kind of like asking how we can create energy without chemical reactions / combustion. We never dreamed that a hydrogen atom could store more energy than a barn full of coal, and today it is hard to dream that a DNA molecule could be more intelligent than an animal brain. And that is even in a day and age where we have seen computer chips that perform processes that our brains can't match, and those computer chips are smaller than a pinhead!

There are many different ways that we can have energy, or flight (think lighter than air, rocket propulsion, airplane wings, bird wings, insect wings, helicopters, ... all so different.) You don't need feathers to fly, so maybe you don't need a neural system to have intelligence.

How are the school children of today going to be prepared for that kind of research into Intelligent Design hypotheses tomorrow, if they are taught that it is all religious junk science based on the supernatural?

ID need not be anti-evolution, and may fall squarely within the realm of natural science. All ID is saying is that certain natural observations are better explained when we consider intelligent causes than when we consider only random causes.

It is a shame that the Dover school district made the ID label synonymous with creationist coercion, and another shame that Judge Jones did not recognize how ID can be a natural science based purely on observation and reason.

33. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #239518 by Shrommer on August 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm

I was a Roman Catholic for 13 years, and I don't regret being taught about hell. What I think was terrible is that I wasn't told the good news from anyone in the Catholic Church, and had to wait for an Evangelical group to tell me how we can know we have eternal life in Christ.

Using teaching about hell as a behavior modification technique is both deplorable and deceitful, just the kind of thing the devil would do. Using teaching about hell to show us how much God loves us to save us from that is the best favor you can do anyone on earth.

34. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #228301 by Shrommer on August 11, 2008 at 7:21 pm

I've just read through the first page and a half of comments, and I can't believe how much people want to talk about God and religion in connection with this program! Yes, Darwin was a genius, and he was very bold, but next to an Einstein or a Sir Isaac Newton, I don't consider Darwin to be the top of the heap.

"Children are religiously indoctrinated from infancy but get only a few hours of school lessons about Darwin, despite the critical importance of his work in understanding humanity's links to the animal kingdom.

… Dawkins sets out to show how evolution is very firmly based in fact."

The article might as well have said that children are taught about reading and writing from infancy, but only get a few hours of lessons about Darwin.

Evolution is very firmly based in fact, which is to say that species change over time from common ancestors - some becoming extinct, others becoming new species - following the laws of natural selection and genetic variation. This is true regardless of how old anyone thinks the earth is, and regardless of their posture regarding the existence and nature of God.

It explains why we see such great diversity among human beings even if we all came from only Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago - why some Native Americans died when the European common cold was introduced, as opposed to the resistance that Europeans had developed long before. Darwin provides the key for understanding how Noah could have taken one of every kind of animal on the ark, and yet we end up with millions of different species in today's world.

Without some good lessons in Darwin, Christians would have a hard time understanding these accounts, and Christian schools (full time or just Sunday schools) should be thankful that God put Darwin on the planet to work out these basic evolutionary principles. It is one way of learning about "God's world", if you are a theist.

Darwin's work is not critical in understanding humanity's links to the animal kingdom. It is possible that humans evolved from other animals, and it is possible that humans have a different common ancestor (or set of common ancestors) other than the common ancestors that some other animals have. From evolution, we cannot tell for sure how many living species originally emerged from primordial ooze, or whatever the origin was.

From Darwin's evolution, we cannot tell how behaviors formed in animals or humans, even if we can grasp developments in anatomy and physiology. Religion speaks a lot to our behaviors.

Humanity's links to the animal kingdom are seen in many ways, simply through the similarities: DNA (this understanding we do not owe to Darwin), humans and animals are both categories of creatures which evolve (this understanding we do owe to Darwin), we share many similarities in anatomy and physiology (this understanding we do not owe to Darwin), etc.

Anyway, evolution is a fact, but it is a fact that anyone with a decent scientific brain can take on board whether someone believes in a young earth or an old earth, in a God or in no God, in Adam and Eve, or in common descent from a single single-celled organism. There is every reason to applaud the good science that Darwin brought to light, and every reason to leave God and religion off the table when we aim to appreciate Darwin in a pluralistic society. To applaud Darwin is not to belittle religion or God.

35. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #199498 by Shrommer on June 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Dawkins' column talks out of two sides of the mouth. He starts off by saying that a good start would be to read the books of your opponent in a debate, but he ends by saying that you don't need to read the works of an opponent in order to conclude that what they're saying is false.

The same argument works both ways. I don't have to read theology before I can start disbelieving in God, and I don't have to read atheist works before I can start disbelieving in atheism.

The idea of there being no intelligent ancestor prior to an intelligent one is just so far out I had might as well believe in leprechauns.

Dawkins is trying to say that we shouldn't reason through the issues; we should simply accept what he says at face value with no study and no deep thinking to bear on the issues. I think we should study these things out in order to see what is true.

36. The Courtier's Reply

Comment #199475 by Shrommer on June 25, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I am still waiting for a better explanation of how Christ rose from the dead on the third day, other than "God did it." The Jews accused him of being a magician and of being sent from Satan, but they never tried to imagine that the evidence of the miracles did not exist.

37. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #183273 by Shrommer on May 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm

"Proving Of Pandas and People is Creationism" is what the title of the thread should read. No serious ID person claims that species appearing intact is a key intelligent design idea, yet the book Of Pandas and People made it THE key definition. Dr. Behe believes in common descent with a very gradual evolution from a single or several few ancestors.

Imagine a textbook that came out and said that "Evolution means that all species went through an algae-covered blender powered by lightning and oil in exactly the year 3,040,678 BCE." I suppose that we would all be fighting a battle to get evolution out of our schools and calling evolution junk science, based on that one book's definition.

38. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131817 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:31 am

I'm not talking about hundreds of eyewitness testimonies in agreement with Christianity. I am talking about hundreds of eyewitnesses in agreement that Jesus rose from the dead. There is a big difference. One is a religion; the other is a sensory experience.

None of the eyewitnesses are alive today, just as none of the eyewitnesses of most historical events are no longer alive today. You may choose to discount all historical evidence as no evidence at all, and only believe things that are repeatably verifiable in the present. That is what most atheists do when they make the scientific method their God.

39. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131815 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:26 am

Double Bass atheist writes, "so it says in the Bible". Please show me where in the Bible it talks about people dying for their testimony of having witnessed the resurrected Jesus. I can't think of any right now. I am referring to historical accounts outside of the Bible (extra-biblical).

40. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131813 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:20 am

I literally just finished laughing out loud!

Goldy is trying to tell me that the Westboro Baptists follow a homophobic god, and that if my God is not homophobic, then I am not really a Christian.

What a load of codswallop!

Homosexuality can be a sexual orientation - a sexual preference, if you will - or it can refer to specific homosexual acts. The first is a temptation, the second is a sin. The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all the same ways we are, yet was without sin. It is very probable that Jesus experienced sexual desires for other men in his fleshly body, yet he never succumbed to lust or immorality. Every heterosexual also knows what it is like to be tempted to sin sexually, yet there are ways to resist those tempations.

Sex in God's way is for married couples - male with female, female with male.

Sex outside of marriage is sinful for the homosexual and for the heterosexual. God does not discriminate, and he does not hate or fear anyone because of the particular nature of their temptations, whether they are tempted sexually, or to drink to much alcohol, or to lie, or to be violent, or to gossip and slander, etc. He paid the price for the sins of the whole world, not just for one kind of sinner. He loves the whole world, even while we are still sinners. He makes no distinction in this.

41. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131808 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:13 am

One of the problems with the history of Christianity in the west is that it exclusively focuses on the Greco-Roman world and then the Roman Catholic Church. I find it much more fascinating to read of the history of Christianity from the first few centuries in India, in Egypt, in Syria, etc. I recommend studying the history of Christianity "East of the Euphrates" which has little or nothing to do with Paul (Saul of Tarsus), nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, and little or nothing to do with the New Testament.

42. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131807 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:10 am

I edited the Goldy comment I wrote to read "he". Sorry. I thought I was being gender-neutral, but I slipped.

43. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131804 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

Three things about Islam's origins:

1 - Only one person claimed to have the revelation found in the Koran. They were not hundreds of eyewitness testimonies all in agreement. His revelation was not to a culture or a nation; just to one man. (The same is true of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.)

2 - Belief in the Koran as a divine revelation was spread through use of the sword. Many people had the options of either dying by the sword, or assenting to a religious belief in the Koran and in Mohammed as a prophet. This is in stark contrast to how belief in Jesus' resurrection spread. With the resurrection, people had the options of either dying by the sword, or renouncing their belief in the resurrection they had witnessed. When people decided NOT to save their lives at the expense of their testimony, more people saw that and freely decided that their testimony must be true.

Mohammed said "Believe or die", and they chose to live. Persecuters of "The Way" said "Believe or live", and they chose to die.

3 - Converts to Islam were moving from animism and idolatry to monotheism, moving from a falsehood to a truth. It is much easier to get someone to move from a falsehood to a truth than it is to get people to move from a truth to a falsehood. Most believers in Christ (Jews) had to move from monotheism (an established truth) to the belief in a God-man co-existing, co-equal, and co-eternal with God the Father. This is a much more difficult jump in beliefs, especially since they still remained monotheists. It is much harder to take on a belief in something that makes less sense than it is to take on a belief in something that makes more sense. They didn't change beliefs because belief in Christ made more sense to them; they simply believed because it was true (the resurrection being the paramount evidence).

44. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131640 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Luke 13, NIV

This is Jesus talking to a culture that disdained homosexuality.

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on themâ€"do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

8 " 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

45. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131639 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:42 pm

God is not discriminating against people when our destruction of His benign order of things ends up coming right back and destroying us. (answering post 237). It is only by His mercy that we are not all likewise consumed.

46. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131637 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Steve writes in post 216:

"We see it as the opposite, because we are understanding the mechanisms. Those mechanisms require no creator. ... The laws have no need for being ordained and enforced. Much physical law is based on simple mathematical principles like symmetry. No need for God to concentrate really hard all the time to keep them working."

That proves my point exactly from post 213:

"Atheists see it exactly the opposite. It's very subjective."

To say that those mechanisms and laws require no Creator is a belief statement, a "religious" or "philosophical" statement, if you will. It is not the kind of statement that you can prove scientifically, but is entirely subjective and based on the individual observer's private conclusions. One person thinks that they prove a God behind it all, another thinks that it disproves God.

By the way, I don't portray God as one who has to "concentrate really hard all the time" to keep them working, any more than we have to concentrate really hard all the time to keep our hearts beating or our cells multiplying. Our brain keeps those bodily systems running, and God keeps the universe running.

One person sees our heart beating and says, "See, it beats. That proves there is no brain making it work. It follow a very regular and predicatble, quantifiable pattern, and we understand how it works." Another person sees the heart beating and says, "See, it keeps on beating like that. There must be a brain somewhere that keeps it going and makes it follow this quantifiable and understandable pattern."

47. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131636 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:25 pm

I just wanted to make another comment on the main topic of this thread: the "That's not my religion" argument.

Edmund Standing takes aim at the Nicene Creed, and yes, that is a Christian Creed, and yes, the Archbishop Rowan Williams believe that Creed.

So, when the Archbishop wrote that he did not recognize his religion in the "new atheists'" writings, he was not referring to their criticisms of the Nicene Creed or the basic tenets of faith of Christianity. That pretty much renders the whole of Standing's article to be moot.

Standing mentions God inciting "brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape". Those are items that do not reflect Christianity in the least. The Nicene Creed does not attribute these horrors to God, and neither does Jesus or the Church.

While it is very true that these crimes have been committed in God's name, in the name of Christianity, or the Church, etc., and by people claiming to be Christians, THESE are the types of things that true Christians are coming out and saying, "That's not my Christianity" or "That's not the Jesus I know". (Point must be made, not everyone who says this is a true Christian just be virtue of making that distancing statement; on the other hand, many true Christians are speaking out and making that statement, and that's what I'm talking about.}

48. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131635 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Steve posted in 216:

"You see, there have been many myths of resurrection; Dionysis, Mithras, Jesus. Why stop at just one?"

Why believe any of the myths? I don't think we should. We should be able to weigh the evidence to distinguish between myths and historical fact. Jesus' resurrection is historically verifiable with multitudes of witnesses who preferred to die for the truth of the record of what they had seen and heard; the myths are mere inventions of people's imaginations.

The inventor of the tale of Dionysis was not willing to die to prove the "truth" of the tale, and even if he/she were, the tale would have died with that one person. The resurrection of Christ was based on a multitude of eyewitnesses, and no, not as in the Edmund Standing article where he says that "only believers" saw Jesus resurrected. The Roman guards who were at the tomb were not believers, and yet they saw and heard what happened.

You've also got at least 8,000 Jewish non-believers becoming believers within a week or two of the ascension (about 50 days after the resurrection, and about 10 days after the last people saw the risen Christ), and that just doesn't happen based on human nature. That's not the way myths get started or spread.

If you think it's really that easy, try to find 500 eyewitnesses of the Flying Spaghuetti Monster to choose death over a change in their testimony, and then try to get 8,000 people's entire belief system changed and even contradicting conventional science just based on the testimony of those 500. It's not so easy as the atheists make it sound. In fact, without an actual true event, it's totally impossible.

This is what was meant when Christopher Hitchens quoted the "impossibility argument" in the Four Horsemen video. The belief was not because the resurrection was ridiculous, but because it was so impossible that for 8,500 people to believe in it a mere fifty days after the event, it had to be true!

49. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131634 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Steve wrote in post 219:

"The resurrection does not add to science - it would destroy it."

I am thinking of science defined as our knowledge and understanding of the universe and the laws that govern it. The resurrection gives us one more piece of evidence to account for when we seek to understand the laws that govern the universe. Besides understanding the laws that we know from repeatable experiments, we learn a new law that there can be exceptions to the regular laws of nature. When we learn that, we are gaining knowledge and becoming better scientists.

There are two alternatives: we could find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Christ, or we could refuse to believe our sensory observations if they point to the resurrection (i.e. dismiss the evidence as irrational based on it not fitting our pre-existing paradigm).

50. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131633 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 7:55 pm

In post 216 Steve wrote:

"I mentioned the milk-drinking statues for two reasons. First, because it shows how people can misinterpret simple physical phenomena for the miraculous, and second because it contradicts your religion. If you assume that this was miraculous, then you are going to have to assume that there are either other gods at work, or your god is playing tricks."

I believe that it could be a good demonstration of how people misinterpret natural phenomena for the miraculous. I would assume that for a miracle to be a miracle it would need to be a physical phenomenon, so it's not a matter of mistaking a physical phenomenon for a miracle, but rather a natural phenomenon for a supernatural one.

I also agree that it could be the work of other "gods" in the sense of other supernatural beings. Supernatural occurrences apart from God do not contradict my religion. I believe that there are supernatural beings at work in our world other than God, mainly Satan and his demons. When Jesus cast the demons out of the man and they went into the pigs, and then the pigs ran off the cliff, the pigs running off the cliff was a supernatural event caused by demons, not by God. Demons can be responsible for milk-drinking statues, appearances of Mary or of angels, etc.

What is illogical about your statements, Steve, is that you write about the milk-drinking statues as if it were BOTH evidence of a simple natural phenomena AND evidence that other gods are causing it AT THE SAME TIME.

If it's evidence of how people mistake simple things for supernatural things, then it doesn't run any challenge to Christianity at all. Christianity is not about being gullible and stupid, but requires healthy and intelligent/critical analysis and evaluation. Any good Christian is very aware of people making mistakes and jumping to wrong conclusions.

If it's evidence that other powers are at work besides God, then I follow your point, but you can't say that this example shows both things at the same time. It's not both an example of other powers at work AND an example of other powerful beings besides God. At any rate, if it is another powerful being besides God, that does not contradict my religion anyway.