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

Comment #124584 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Book title: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
2007

Book excerpt
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18503995/site/newsweek/

Hitchens:
"Imagine that you can perform a feat of which I am incapable. Imagine, in other words, that you can picture an infinitely benign and all-powerful creator, who conceived of you, then made and shaped you, brought you into the world he had made for you, and now supervises and cares for you even while you sleep. Imagine, further, that if you obey the rules and commandments that he has lovingly prescribed, you will qualify for an eternity of bliss and repose. "

My take on it:
The Gospel is clear in telling us that nobody can qualify for heaven by obeying God's law. If we could, we would have reason to boast, but the Gospel message says every word of boasting is silenced in conviction of sin and disobedience.

Only the Lamb of God who was slain for the sins of the world is worthy. Only in Him can anyone be justified.

Any good works that we end up doing are only works that we were created to do to begin with, so all the glory goes to the Creator. When we do right, we are not to be thanked or praised or rewarded for it - we are simply meeting the basic purpose we were created to do. It is no great thing to do good works, but it is a disgraceful and terrible thing that we fell into sin and could not even do what we were created to do.

In His mercy, God redeemed and restored us to a position of favor with the Father, by placing us in Christ Jesus, and counting Jesus' good works to us as if they were our own. We are now pleasing to God, not through the rules or the commandments, but through our faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us.

Hitchens:
"It may speak about the bliss of the next world, but it wants power in this one."

My take on it:
The Holy Spirit commands men not to lord it over fellow human beings. Jesus commands us to call earthly religious leaders neither father, nor master, nor teacher, but to see everyone as children of the One Father in heaven. A pastor has nothing to gain by persuading someone to receive the good news, and any power on earth would only be temporary power anyway. Religion seeks to oppress, but the Gospel sets us free indeed, and brings us persecution and troubles in this world. If there is no resurrection from the dead, then we are the most miserable of all creatures, not the craftiest and most influential or powerful.


Hitchens:
"In all the cases I have mentioned, there were those who protested in the name of religion and who tried to stand athwart the rising tide of fanaticism and the cult of death. I can think of a handful of priests and bishops and rabbis and imams who have put humanity ahead of their own sect or creed. History gives us many other such examples, which I am going to discuss later on. But this is a compliment to humanism, not to religion."

My take on it:
God loves humanity! He gives us authority, a free will, capacity to create and solve, and He respects our decisions. We put humanity above our sect or creed because God tells us to not be wise in our own eyes, but to love people. Knowledge (pet doctrines) puffs up, but love builds up. (I Corinthians 8:1). Jesus did not just come to save the Jews, but to die for the sins of people of every religion.

The virtue of humanism is that it is modeled after God's own heart when it takes a stand against fanaticism and the culture/cult of death that the world's system tries to suck us into. The religion which dogmatically and mercilessly abuses mankind is a tool of Satan, God's enemy, and is totally opposed to the Holy Spirit.

Hitchens:
"It is not possible for me to say, Well, you pursue your Shiite dream of a hidden imam and I pursue my study of Thomas Paine and George Orwell, and the world is big enough for both of us. The true believer cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee. Is it not obvious to all, say the pious, that religious authority is paramount, and that those who decline to recognize it have forfeited their right to exist?"

My take on it:
The true believer in Christ cannot rest until he or she has shared the Good News with the entire earth - every nation, tribe, and language.

The Gospel rescues mankind from religious authority, the authority which ridiculed and condemned the Christ.

Love is paramount. Those who decline to recognize love have every right to every mercy which God extends to them on this earth, and will live for as many days as God will allow - a time which no human being should ever cut short. God's patience is inexhaustible as He gives everyone a lifetime to come to salvation. No man has the right to act in revenge or on behalf of God.

One day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, but the glory for that day will not go to men; it will belong to the Eternal One. In the meantime, Christians are commanded to live peaceably with everyone, to love our enemies, and show a respect for man's free will modeled after God's sovereign decision to let every man think and choose for his or her self.

Hitchens:
"His [Billy Graham's] absurd sermon made the claim that all the dead were now in paradise and would not return to us even if they could. I say absurd because it is impossible even in the most lenient terms to believe that a good number of sinful citizens had not been murdered by al-Qaeda that day [9-11-2001]."

My take on it:
Even the Newsweek article about Hitchens' comments, points out that Billy Graham did not say "all" the dead but rather "many" of the dead. Hitchens tries to accuse a wise, humble man of God of making proud and anti-Scriptural statements.

Hitchens goes on to criticize radical Islam, and wars and atrocities in the name of religion. The believer in Christ does not exalt belief or faith in and of itself. Faith lies within the subject (the sinner), but that faith is useless unless the object of the sinner's faith is Jesus Christ. It is folly to think that people should just "believe in something" as if it were some kind of virtue just to have faith, period.

Hitchens criticizes the imposition of religious conformity on a U.S. Air Force Base, United States state religions before the 14th Amendment, and political and opinionated comments made by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, and Tim LaHaye. He fails to make the distinction that many who act in the name of Christ are not Christ's, and all who are Christ's are fallible human beings entitled to their own opinions which may or may not be endorsed by the Holy Spirit of God. Not everything a Gospel preacher says is Gospel, and many pulpits have been used to endorse personal viewpoints which not every believer agrees with. That doesn't stop us from loving them and showing them support, showing grace despite their shortcomings and limitations.

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

Comment #124581 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 9:45 pm

These are several quotes from a Newsweek article on Hitchens, and my take on them. I don't recognize my Christianity in Hitchens statements, and Hitchens is not picking apart the creed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18508176/site/newsweek/


Hitchens:
"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience."


My take on it:

Violent and irrational?

The Holy Spirit of God is not violent or destructive, yet He is all powerful and just. He is merciful and gentle, patient and kind. He is rational, and leads men to all truth.

Intolerant?

He is accepting and longsuffering, tolerant and understanding.

Allied to racism, tribalism and bigotry?

He leads God's people to fight against every spirit of racism, tribalism, and bigotry. He dispels ignorance, and implores mankind to freely inquire and freely discover.

Invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry?

The Holy Spirit invites, and even commands mankind to reason together with him. He is the epitome of love, the very person of love.

Contemptuous toward women and coercive toward children?

He calls men to care for the widow and the orphan. Just as He led Jesus to confront societal contempt of women and boldly treat all men and women as equal, precious and valued by our Creator, so He also leads the Body of Christ to do the same, declaring that in Christ there is neither male nor female. He invites the little children to come to Him, gently leading them to green pastures and still waters so that they may peacefully be refreshed without any coercion or manipulation.

Organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience for leading any little one astray; it would be better for organized religion to have a millstone around its neck and be cast into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. Organized religion will one day have to answer for resisting the Holy Spirit and making a mockery of the Name of Christ.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian who fought bigotry. Frances Collins is a Christian intent on unlocking the human genome. Free inquiry is what God enjoys the most, since it gives Him the chance to freely answer!

Until very recent centuries, Western science has been based on a desire to know God's design for the universe, whether in biology, physics, mathematics, chemistry, medicine, technological advances, etc. The point is that God made man a steward over the earth with a mind to understand and dominate nature, and told us to have at it and play in His Creation! At the tower of Babel he said that if we were left to it, we could accomplish anything, and sure enough, we are being left to it and are doing just that in the realms of science and technology.

In the Western world, our modern schools and hospitals, our equal treatment for men and women, our abolition of slavery and contempt of racism, all have their roots in a Christian world view, and much of the rest of the world is following our pattern.

A child of God takes thrill in learning and using the faculties of reason and observation to discover new truths and use them for good in the world.

While what Hitchens writes is certainly true of organized religion in general and of nominal Christianity in particular, it is not at all true for the believer who walks with God and has received a new spirit from on high.

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

Comment #124578 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Radesq,

Allow me to repeat that the evidence may or may not convince you, and I don't claim that it will. What I am saying is that it is false to say there is no evidence.

What Jesus did and said he did and said in public, and after his resurrection he was seen by over 500 people, with sightings taking place over a generous forty day period. When there was a "sighting", it wasn't like seeing a fleeting mirage off in the distance, or an outline traced in the bread mold, it was a person that witnesses spoke with, walked with, ate with, heard and probably even touched. They recognized him as the same Jesus they knew before his death.

These accounts were told to thousands of people who could all verify them with the witnesses, if not actually being witnesses themselves. The witnesses preferred to be killed rather than change their testimony of what they had seen and heard, and not one of them ever said they were lying, or that there was a conspiracy or collusion. During the lifetime of the witnesses, accounts moved from not just being oral to actually being written down. We have those writings today.

People like Josephus and the rabbis who wrote the Talmud, along with several others also give accounts of Christ's miracles and teachings, even though we can't find that they ever put their faith in him or spread news of his resurrection. Even his enemies and unbelievers had these things to say about him. They did not say or write those things because they were religiously brainwashed into the Christian faith, but because they had lived through the events and had their own opinions about what happened and about who Jesus was.

One recommendation I have is to see the DVD "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. There is room for doubt, and even people who saw the miracles ended up crucifying Jesus or denouncing him. Saul even went around persecuting the Christians until he actually became one himself. Life changes like that are still taking place today among Jews, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and nominal Christians. There are also miracles taking place today, and people are free to explain them away as having some other explanation, or they can take them as signs that God is honoring His Word.

Not everybody is having those experiences, of course, and even when those experiences do happen, people do not always put their faith in Jesus as a result. Experiences have very subjective and relative interpretations. History is much more objective, however.

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

Comment #124572 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Edmund Standing claims that the creed "is the faith" of the church, when really the creed is just a written set of truth assertions.

It's like the old wheelbarrow story of the man doing the tightrope walk over Niagara Falls. He asked "Who believes?" meaning, "Who believes I can take someone across the falls and back, with the person sitting in the wheelbarrow?" Hands shot up all over the place. This is the kind of mental assent that people call religion or Christianity.

Then he asked, "Who will get into the wheelbarrow while I take them across?" The number range of upraised hands plummeted down to zero or one. Those are the true Christians. We are Christians when we let Jesus take us from death to life, becoming one with him in covenant, not when we agree that he can do it and make all kinds of theological or doctrinal statements about him, true as they might be.

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

Comment #124567 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Cartomancer,

As to the faith paragraph that you are aghast at, I meant it to refer to faith in Christ, not to faith in other things or people or gods.

I think in my fifth paragraph (comment 111) I set the stage for talking about Christian faith. Then in my ninth and tenth paragraphs I talk about the dangerous faith which we work to eliminate, which I wrote is more fittingly labeled "fear".

The whole point of Rowan Williams' article, which I am agreeing with here, is that the "faith" which atheists talk about is one which Christ and all his true followers also despise, and which we do not recognize at all as being part of our Christian life, world view, or experience. If we go with the atheist definition of faith, then yes, true Christians are hand in hand with the atheists in our opposition to faith.

What you should understand, though, is that what we are talking about when we say "faith" is not at all what you think we mean. The faith we are talking about is NOT mixed with fear, and IS based on evidence. It is loving, enthusiastic about science, open-minded, un-condemning, practical, uplifting, and rational.

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

Comment #124564 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 8:50 pm

cartomancer,

The arguments for why all faith is bad has nothing to do with reasons to confront faith-based atrocities or why faith-based atrocities are bad.

To equate the two is as stupid as someone saying that all science is bad because we need to confront the atrocities committed in the name of science or atrocities that use science in their execution.

Just like there are many scientists willing to take a stand against science used for evil, there are many people of faith willing to stand against faith used for evil. The difference is that there is nothing inherent in science which calls for the good, while there is something inherent in faith in Christ which calls for good.

It is not faith which is good or bad, so much as the object of one's faith. Is what someone believes actually true? Is it worth believing? Is it loving and productive?

For Dawkins to use the word "faith" to mean a belief without evidence or against the evidence is exactly the type of Christianity that many Christians do not recognize at all as valid or relevant to our experience. Almost every true Christian, and I want to say all true Christians, place their faith in Christ BECAUSE we have sufficient evidence to do so, even if we do not have 100% certainty before deciding to trust in him as our lord and savior.

In the cases where you see hatred instead of love, that by definition is not faith in Christ (not the Christian faith). Those people may have a list of doctrines which they affirm in their creed which matches Christian doctrine, but that is not the same as having faith in Christ.

The devil himself believes in 95% of the Nicene Creed, yet he hasn't put his faith in Christ, and he's not a Christian. The parts the devil could not honestly say are the parts about looking for the resurrection (if it means in a hopeful sort of way), and the parts about Christ working for "our" salvation and being crucified "for our sake". Christ died for mankind, not for angelic beings, and Satan is not looking forward to the day of resurrection, since that day will be a defeat for him, not a victory.

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

Comment #124561 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 8:34 pm

response to comment #114

Actually, God's love is doing a perfect job of this, and is really the only force in the universe that does this at all. Nothing else comes even close to taking the hatred out of the hearts of these men and women. The problem is that not enough of them are receiving God's love, but in the few cases when they do, the hatred goes away. They then become hated by their group and become victims, usually dying as martyrs shortly after conversion.

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

Comment #124559 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Styrer,

I signed off last night before reading your 10:08 post. Your question seems entirely off topic, but the answer is that it is entirely impossible for Jehovah to not exist. His very name tells us that He exists.

Now, is it rationally possible to think that Jehovah does not exist? The answer is "Yes, for a time."

Now, what any of that has to do with my post, the Edmund Standing article, or the Williams article is beyond me. Back to the discussion at hand.

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

Comment #124233 by Shrommer on February 8, 2008 at 10:12 pm

It is precisely because we have faith that the universal laws will continue to be tomorrow as they are today that science is so exciting and useful to us! We cannot prove the future. We can only affirm what has happened in the past and what is happening in the present. Every prediction we make about the future has some degree of faith to it.

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

Comment #124231 by Shrommer on February 8, 2008 at 10:01 pm

I just read comment 83 and can't believe my eyes. Someone writes that "... all faith is dangerous ... because people are dying ..." !?!?!?!?

So I'm not supposed to sit down in a chair unless I've done rigorous scientific tests on it first, lest I just take it on faith that the chair will hold me up ... and the reason I'm supposed to do this is because people are dying?

It sounds to me like the total opposite. We'd better take some things on faith without absolute proof, and we'd better do so! Why? Because people are dying. Life is too short to waste it going around doing scientific experiments on everything and everyone instead of giving people what they need to live and doing what we can to save the earth.

The scientific community is only about 90% sure that human activity has caused the global warming. So should we take it on faith that we have to do something, or should we wait until there is 100% certainty and consensus?

Christian faith results in love. Love is what has given us hospitals (originally entirely a charitable endeavor, which has turned into a for-profit industry with less Christians involved). Love is what is digging wells around the world, and micro-loans, and giving livestock to villages that have none. God's love is what is bringing Muslim radicals to their senses and taking the hatred out of their hearts. It's doing the same with drug dealers, murderers, gossipers, liars, thieves, and cheaters.

Take away the faith, and we're right back to selfish anarchy and no real purpose in trying to save lives at all, since science tells us that the mortality rate is 100%.

The Gospel message (trusting in Christ) means that we want people to live as long as possible so they have time to hear and believe, and once someone believes we want them to love as long as possible because they need to tell others and help others.

Faith means that everyone has the freedom to believe what their own conscience dictates, without coercion and authoritarian abuses. Faith means that we examine all the evidence, and reach our own conclusions. Faith means that tomorrow doesn't have to be like today or yesterday. It means that there is a way to have safety and freedom at the same time. It means that there is meaning and sense to feeding the hungry, healing the sick, helping the hurting, defending the helpless.

Much faith (if we think of it as religious belief and religious law, like circumcision or stoning to death) is dangerous and kills people. But we can never say that "all faith" is dangerous. In fact, I think that much of what atheists call faith in religious people is really the opposite of faith: fear!

Fear is dangerous. It kills people, makes us want to defend our pride and think that only our way of thinking is right. "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" it says in the Bible.

Faith is beneficial. It opens the window for God's love to be poured out on mankind. Jesus said, "The thief has come to steal, kill, and destroy; but I have come to give you life, and to make that life abundant!"

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

Comment #124228 by Shrommer on February 8, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Where I see a problem in Christianity being misunderstood and misrepresented is when they say that it is about blind faith with no evidence. There is plenty of historical evidence that the resurrection is a true event. Whether you think the evidence is convincing or not is entirely up to you, but whether the evidence exists or not is not a matter of opinion - the evidence exists, and that is a fact.

The creed is not "what one believes to be a Christian". The creed is just a lot of doctrine in order to keep the story straight. To be a Christian you must receive God's love and let it permeate your life, to the point where you completely trust in Him. Either the creed is a way to clarify why that step of faith is logical, or else the creed is just a matter of self-brainwashing, or worse, of a brainwashing done by an illegitimate authority.


Sadly, for a majority of nominal Christians, the creed is merely a mantra to keep the illusion of Christianity alive. Those people have not really received a new life from above.

When "faith" means what every religion thinks it means - a mindless assuming that a list of principles or doctrines is a truth, then faith is like a poison. When faith means that we trust in a person who has proven himself to be reliable based on historical evidence, that faith is living and completely rational.

We can't run a resurrection experiment week after week to study it and record our observations of what a resurrection is all about, and then have peers run the same resurrection tests to make sure it is happening in the same way. But none of that takes anything away from the time the resurrection actually took place and was verifiable to the eyewitnesses who told others. The ones who saw and heard Jesus resurrected had a sensory experience, not a religious or mystical experience.

112. Blasphemy

Comment #123285 by Shrommer on February 6, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Every day Muslims are trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Muslims who become secularized turn into selfish, passive materialists. Muslims who turn to Christ become selfless, passionate people who aim to love and do good, even though they are persecuted and martyred for it. Which kind of Muslims would you rather see the planet fill up with?

113. Blasphemy

Comment #123284 by Shrommer on February 6, 2008 at 8:01 pm

If Afghanistan can't democratically decide to make blasphemy a crime, then why is any nation allowed to make any laws at all? All law and all punishment for crimes is based on somebody's morality, and everybody's idea of morality and justice is different. So who is anyone in the world to say that Afghanistan's law is bad?

The Afghans think that the British are immoral by not punishing blasphemy with the death penalty, and the British think the Afghans are immoral for punishing blasphemers with the death penalty. What is the basis for any absolutes, and who can really say who's right and who's wrong?

If there is no loving God who cares about human freedom and dignity, just let every nation do what they want within their own borders and go back to minding your own business. How does it affect anyone outside of Afghanistan the way Afghanistan treats its individuals, especially if when someone dies their person just vanishes into thin air anyway? As long as there is a vast gene pool to evolve into new species ... isn't that the big goal of the atheists anyway - just to preserve living DNA molecules somewhere in the universe?

114. Blasphemy

Comment #123278 by Shrommer on February 6, 2008 at 7:42 pm

As far as steveroot's comment #7, it may not have crossed the mind of Christian lunatics that God can defend Himself, but God has certainly made it clear in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures that vengeance belongs to Him and not to His people.


Isaiah 27:1 talks about a day coming: "In that day, Jehovah will punish with his sword, his fierce, great, and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent ..."


Ephesians 6:12 says that "... our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers ... in the heavenly realms."

God gives mankind the freedom to blaspheme for a time, and the only harm mankind does by blaspheming is to ourselves. God keeps right on loving and showing mercy, knowing that it is His kindness which will lead us to repentance.

115. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109325 by Shrommer on January 8, 2008 at 9:16 pm

To 152: Speak for yourself. Many of us have not been shown that heaven exists. Many of us have.

Personal prejudices and delusions will always get in the way of our ideals. What we need to do is crucify our personal prejudices and delusions and let the one who objectively and verifiably rose from the dead and appeared publicly to over 500 people at a time, and appeared to many over a period of 40 days, ... let his way become the way we walk in.

I don't expect you to be convinced of this just because I am saying so. Ask him to reveal himself to you so that you can know for yourself. But be ready to crucify your prejudices and delusions when he does, or else you will just be hardhearted and proud, resisting the salvation of your own soul.

The Pharisees knew Jesus rose from the dead from the report of the Roman guard, yet they chose to pay off the soldiers to give a false report in order to justify their preconceived ideas.

116. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109323 by Shrommer on January 8, 2008 at 9:10 pm

To 144:

Religions command the sick to be well, with no power to heal. They heap condemnation on people and do not lift a finger to help them. You don't need Hitchens to explain this to you if you've already heard it from Jesus of Nazareth.

The story the Bible tells us is of a mankind who was created well - created with feet to dance. Of our own choosing, mankind decided to cut off those feet. So the God who loves us decided to give us back our feet again so we can dance.

Jesus has the power to heal, the power to forgive, and the power to make righteous where all the law and the religions of the world fail.

117. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109320 by Shrommer on January 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Everyone deserves to be strung up to the nearest lamppost, but because God loves us so much He does not give us what we deserve, and neither do His followers go around giving others what they deserve. If we read the Bible literally, we begin to see everyone through the eyes of Christ, as people for whom Christ died.

"God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not perish, but would have eternal life. God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world through Him could be saved." John 3:16-17.

The problem with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the dominionists is that they don't grasp the truth of the Gospel. I don't have to answer for them, and they don't have to answer to me. If they want to stone me to death for believing the Gospel instead of their religions or political systems, then so be it.

I am not judge, jury or executioner. God is. I am subject to his judgments. What He has revealed to us is that we are all guilty, and He had Christ executed for our guilt. As far as being jury, Jesus was our peer - tempted in every way just like us (tempted in every way any homosexual is), knowing our suffering and our weaknesses, yet he never sinned.

Someone with an attraction to people of the same sex and someone with an attraction to people of the opposite sex - that doesn't make anyone more moral or more immoral. We are tempted in different ways according to our personalities and our upbringing, etc. You need a belief in grace to be a Christian, but you don't need a belief in grace to be called a Christian by others, nor to call yourself a Christian. Jesus says that there will be many on the last day who claim an allegiance to him, yet he will tell them: "I never knew you. Depart to the place of damnation."

Yes, everybody deserves to be in prison (and much worse) according to the Word of God (not according to my beliefs ... I would never have chosen that kind of system). But the other side of that is that nobody should get what they deserve - nobody should be in prison. Everyone should be forgiven and should inherit eternal life from the One who gave Himself for us. It is the mission of every Christian to make that good news known, to proclaim release to the captive! To proclaim freedom from guilt and condemnation! The good news is the same for Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus! Christ died for all! It's the same news that multitudes of nominal (in name only) Christians need to hear and believe! It's the same news that true Christians need to hear again and again in order to be strengthened and encouraged! God's word is life.

The best way to fight the dangerous ideologies and religions that are destroying people and societies is to believe and proclaim this Good News, revealed from heaven for all mankind.

118. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109318 by Shrommer on January 8, 2008 at 8:37 pm

To 143: Belief in religion is on decline, and may it die a permanent death! I'm talking about examining the evidence and using critical reason, not believing in religions passed down from others or invented by others to be accepted on merely supposed authority.

And no, of course I never said that people with ideas or beliefs different from mine are not worthy of living. I am encouraging people to examine and question what they believe, and seek out the evidence. If you are against that principle, then you are as much opposed to Richard Dawkins as you are to me. That's one of the things I love about Dawkins. He dares to live the examined life and question beliefs!

So what about the Japanese and Chinese who haven't begun to question their beliefs, use any critical thinking, or examine the evidence? I encourage them to start, and to make their lives worthwhile. They are worthy of living even if they never decide to question, reason, or examine anything, but their life will not be of much worth to them or to anyone else.

I hope that helps explain my position better. I am sorry if you misunderstood me, but I really don't think I hinted at anyone's life not being worth living. I think life is sacred and not for us to decide to end. But I also put value on using our lives to pursue truth in order to have a meaningful life for ourselves and for each other. When you use a phrase like "their lives are not worth living", you make it sound like I think they had might as well die. That's not what I am saying.

It is precisely in China where there is the largest growth of people examining their beliefs and turning to Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth. and the Life. While the belief in God or gods is declining worldwide, the number of people being saved by God is increasing astronomically. More and more people are starting to know God personally through the Son of God, at the same time that religious beliefs are going the way of the dinosaur.

119. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109315 by Shrommer on January 8, 2008 at 8:21 pm

To 143: Wow, what a long post! No, nobody claimed that you could do a DNA test on a genocide and find the evil gene. Of course not. What was said that I do take objection to was "I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so." So, based on this, if someone claims genocide is evil and can't produce scientific evidence to support it, then the author of that quote wants to call them foolish and gullible, and there is no way that the listener to the claim will ever accept it as true that genocide is evil.

120. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109312 by Shrommer on January 8, 2008 at 8:12 pm

To 142: That's exactly what I am calling the wrong tone. You lash out and call someone "disturbingly egocentric" and "frightening" as a political leader, just because they tell you their unverifiable experience that their toe hurts. I'm not saying that you should be gullible and believe everything they tell you; just that you shouldn't call them gullible for believing what they may in fact be sensing as pain in their own body, just like you don't want to be called gullible for reporting the pain you feel in your body.

I made clear that you don't have to accept someone else's report of pain as evidence. That's why I said you can either call it a difference of opinion, or admit that you are not able to consider the evidence they are reporting. But don't stoop to calling them foolish and gullible just for telling you that their toe hurts. Just because you don't want to be foolish and gullible doesn't mean that they must be. Be open to the option that you're not foolish and gullible, and perhaps they are not either - just reporting what they experience and what you are unable to experience. Is that so much to ask?

Believing in the possibility that their toe hurts is all I am asking - not belief that it must hurt. And if you accept their report of toe pain as a possibility, that does not mean that you accept every conclusion they want to come to about that pain- conclusions such as it being a sign from Thor, etc. Doctors accept reports of pain all the time; that doesn't mean they share all the wild extrapolations of the event that their patients come to.

121. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #109305 by Shrommer on January 8, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Wow! Gone a week or two and look where this has gone! Where to start?

To 141: By all means go ahead and argue your opinions that women are not inferior (Jesus made the same arguments) and that homosexuality is not sinful. I believe that homosexual acts and lustful thoughts are sinful, but no more than so many heterosexual sins, and I don't see how that is of any damage to society. The thing to fight is not the belief about what constitutes sin. The thing to fight is the damage done to society when people jump to faulty conclusions. God believes that sin is sin, yet He gives man free will; He loves and respects His entire creation. If you "abandon the luxury of believing whatever you like", then that is a good thing. Use your powers of reason, listen to each other, work out compromise solutions, love one another, put selfish beliefs on the cross where they belong. That is a pretty good definition of repentance: abandon the luxury of believing whatever you want. But then don't do it just to be brainwashed by the beliefs of some other fallible human being like yourself. Tune in your mind to the mind of Christ. Be led by the Holy Spirit. Be open to the truth whether it comes from a genius or a donkey, a believer or a heathen.

122. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105537 by Shrommer on December 31, 2007 at 10:54 pm

I read the Ahmanson - Rushdoony essays on the links you gave. Sorry, at first glance I thought they wer e all videos. Yes, these guys are dangerous and nothing but bad news. I hope they can be exposed, found guilty of something, and locked away for life.

But notice that Ahmanson is Episcopalian/Anglican, and that 99.8% of the people of his same religious denomination do not think or act anything at all like him! The way some atheists talk, we should get rid of the entire Anglican church as a political threat as if they were conspiring with Ahmanson to commit mass genocide.

123. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105534 by Shrommer on December 31, 2007 at 10:42 pm

The story of Christianity is that mankind tried to have the Ten Commandments as its basis, and it didn't work. That was what the nation of Israel was all about. God's plan is then carried out by sending the Son of God to die for the sins of the world, ascend to heaven some 40 days after the resurrection, and send the Holy Spirit so we could walk by the Holy Spirit instead of by the law engraved on stone. This whole dominionism thing doesn't sound at all like fundamental Christianity or evangelical Christianity, and it barely even sounds like most of the religious right in America.

Another big problem with this whole dominionism outlook is that it is too USA-centered to be of much use for God's plan for the world. God wants Christians to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, to become like the target audience in order to win them over, to live among people in other nations. At the very least, Christians need to be in fellowship and loving cooperation with brothers and sisters around the globe, and not just focus on one nation or one cultural point of view.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not near as much the evangelical model as Billy Graham and George Verwer. Look at what the Christians are doing in India to help the Dalits and get jobs for the women who formerly worked as enslaved temple prostitutes. Look at the hurricane relief work and medical supplies given out through Samaritan's Purse. Looking at the pregnancy centers and push for adoption in the evangelical church in America, the fight against the death penalty and global warming. Look at how Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both evangelical Christians with a fundamentalist theology.

Fundamentalist poltics and fundamentalist theology are not the same thing. The title of the article should be "the dominionist rebellion" instead of "the evangelical rebellion." Hedges has every right and in my opinion should be speaking out against the dangerous political movement he is
aware of. What he should not be doing is trying to lumo those politics together with evangelical Christianity as if they were any type of cause-effect relationship.

I think I've said enough now.

124. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105531 by Shrommer on December 31, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Being a Christian does not change your basic personality, thinking strategies, or political persuasion. Christians run the full political range from communist to moderate to fascist, and everything in between, just as atheists do.

There is no one Christian political scheme, but rather everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on the matter. Christianity is a free playground for any and all political ideas, and that is exactly why the Christian view of the best earthly political system is one that allows for mutual respect, compromises, diplomacy, understanding other points of view, etc.

Of course there are stubborn, bullheaded Christians when it comes to politics, but even they can be right some of the time and deserve the right to be heard, just in case. The kinds of politicians that people like and who tend to get elected are more often the ones who understand what it takes to lead and who know how to work well with others.

My video isn't so hot, since I have dial-up internet, but I've been around the block and know that there are fascists who call themselves Christians, most problematic of whom was Hitler himself. There are militia groups in America and many claim loyalty to God and country under some type of Christian guise. There are also people who are much closer to the heart of God, yet still have totalitarian (benign dictatorship, communism everyone gives according to their ability and receives according to their need) ideas of how the state should operate.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many Christians involved in politics, first got involved in politics and then later in life became Christians. On the one hand, their political ideas were not informed by a Christian world view to begin with, and on the other hand, most people go through gradual changes in political ideas as they age, whether Christians or atheists or any religion.

125. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #105530 by Shrommer on December 31, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Here is an easy way to reject all history and current events news:

1. This is a fairy tale.
2. For the reason (1) is true, see (1).

Thanks for making this type of scheme free from copyright.

If you are calling comments 171 and 173 a non sequitur from comment 133, I'd say you're pulling a non cogito.

126. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #104808 by Shrommer on December 29, 2007 at 1:49 pm

My answer to the fifth comment on this topic, the comment about what type of tone Dawkins should be using.

Here is what the writer of the topic article says is Dawkins' approach:

"Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so."

I think a better tone would be "If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim. ... If you have evidence which does not convince me, then I will not stoop to calling you foolish or gullible, but will simply give you the benefit of the doubt that we either have a different opinion of the evidence or are unable to mutually look at the same evidence."

Many rational people have experienced being filled with the Holy Spirit. This is not something which Dawkins can experience without some degree of faith, and something he can neither prove nor disprove. So instead of treating the other person like an idiot, just accept that different individuals are on different paths and have different experiences.

Very few people will say that they have no evidence for believing something is true. So it's more a question of which types of evidence will convince which types of people. Just because Dawkins isn't convinced by a certain piece of evidence does not mean that he is right and everyone else is wrong, and definitely does not mean that there is no evidence.

Trying to convince someone that you've been filled with the Holy Spirit through argument is like trying to convince someone that your big toe hurts through argument. There may one day be a way to measure the pain being sent from the big toe nerve endings to the brain, but for now, we usually just take the person's word for it based on something they are experiencing which we do not. Dawkins may say that someone's report of pain is no evidence at all to Dawkins, so he would end up calling the person gullible and an idiot for believing that their big toe hurts. That is cruel and illogical.

127. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #104805 by Shrommer on December 29, 2007 at 1:33 pm

"If you claim that genocide is evil, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so."

This is the problem with Dawkins' approach to truth. It has no philosophical basis for condemning Stalin or Hitler or any action as evil. You can't do a DNA test on a genocide and see the evil gene.

It's fine to question God and examine the historical evidence for the resurrection and other miracles. That's why so many people are becoming Christians today, precisely because they've done that serious rational search and criticism! Others pursue the same matters and come to different conclusions. The unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined belief is not worth believing.

The Bible prescribes the death penalty for every sinner. His holy commandments are found in the Bible, but He is not commanding us to do everything we read about in the Bible. He is teaching us how helpless we are to live up to His standards. There came a point in history when the death penalty we all deserved was put upon one man who was representative of the entire human race. That is the story the Bible tells.

When Christians don't stone the homosexual today, it's not because we've become less serious about the sin or the penalty, but rather because we know that Jesus took the death penalty on himself in place of that homosexual. Christ put the sin to his own record, and then he took the punishment for it, so that the homosexual can be forgiven, set free, and have Jesus' righteousness attributed to his record for free, as an act of grace. There is an exchange of records. The sinner's record becomes Jesus', and the record of the perfect Messiah becomes ours as a free gift. We can go to heaven because of Jesus' righteous acts and sinlessness. If it were up to us alone, we would all be going to hell based on what we've done. All have sinned and fall short of God's standard. It is not a question of degree, but of 1 or 0, on or off, perfect or imperfect.

We are all made imperfect because of our inheritance from Adam. We are all made perfect because of our inheritance from Jesus Christ. If you don't want to be with this loving God for all eternity, all you have to do is reject your inheritance from Christ and stick with what you inherited from Adam.

No DNA test will reveal that someone has received new life from Christ, just like no DNA test will reveal that the Holocaust was evil. Do a cost/benefit analysis. Try it out from your own personal experience. Ask God, "If you exist, please reveal yourself to me", and let God do the rest.

128. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #104795 by Shrommer on December 29, 2007 at 12:55 pm

The way I see it, it's precisely because we Americans have Christian foundations that we uphold separation of church and state.

This seems to be Thomas Jefferson's understanding in his famous letter to a Baptist Association in 1802 in which he immortalized the phrase "Separation of Church and State". Human free will, open communication, and powers of reason are held sacred by the Christian God to an extent that no other religion demonstrates. Our Creator gives us the inalienable rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Spreading the Gospel depends on love, truth, and respect, not on the authoritarian coercion typical of modern theocracies. Jesus said that his way is narrow with few who find it, so Christians expect the evil tendency for any majority-imposed religion to be contrary to God. This includes religions which go by Christian labels.

Regarding holidays (holy days), the Bible (Romans 14:5-6) praises diversity of personal convictions and opposes demands for conformity. It is not each nation which is supposed to make the conscientious decision to celebrate or not, but rather each individual.

This statement is the most ridiculous and alarmist thing I've ever read about the Christian movement in America: "Labor unions, civil rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the work force to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship." Nothing could be further from the heart of Christianity.

129. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #104788 by Shrommer on December 29, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I Corinthians 1:26 "Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth."

I Corinthians 4:9-13 "For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display ... like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe .... we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. ... Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world."

I Peter 1:6 "In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials."

I Peter 4:12-13 "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ ..."

Hebrews 11:35-38 "Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated - the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground."

Where Christianity is growing in the world today, we see men and women giving this same kind of apostleship example. The church is growing, and the ones spreading the good news have nothing to show for it except the hope of a better resurrection. Where is this "vested interest" you are talking about?

130. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #104779 by Shrommer on December 29, 2007 at 12:14 pm

more response to post 133:

I wonder what "vested interest" you think the Gospel and epistle writers had. ?? In general these are people who were dying martyrs deaths rather than deny what they were testifying to having witnessed. Let's see, vested interest ... perhaps they were suicidal but didn't have the guts to go through with it, so they came up with these stories to provoke other people to kill them.

The apostle Paul had a vested interest in persecuting the cult following of Jesus, yet he gave up everything his life stood for in order to become a follower himself once he had seen a heavenly vision and heard Jesus speak to him.

I don't see what makes Luke any less of a historian than Josephus, and in some ways Luke even seems like the better historian. Another difficult thing to imagine is someone witnessing the resurrection of Jesus, gathering up the facts to write about him, and yet not concluding that this man was the son of God. Even modern skeptics like C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell came to the conclusion that this must be the Christ, once they had done their research. They had no vested interest in this "cult following" when they began their research and writing. So how would you expect there to be serious writers from the first century who did their research and ended up unconvinced?

The only reason that some people knew about the resurrection and did not become followers of Christ was because they had some other vested interest, like surviving their enlistment in the Roman army, or protecting religious (Pharasaical) power. You needed a vested interest to deny that he was the Christ, not to believe that he was! And the ones with a vested interest in denying that he was the Christ were not the ones to go about telling people the historical facts.

131. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #102829 by Shrommer on December 23, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Response to post 133

When was Jesus born?

*************************************************

http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html


The above site gives the most probable time of the census. It recognizes the largest controversy with that date being the historical date of the death of Herod according to Josephus, yet it does a pretty good job of explaining how Josephus could be wrong, and Herod could actually have died in 1 BCE. I tend to agree with this conclusion.

It is much harder to swallow the idea that Jesus' family went back to live in Nazareth, and then moved back to Bethlehem anyway on time for the wise men to visit there, yet it remains within the realm of possibility. Matthew 2:11 does speak of the Magi coming to "the house" in Bethlehem. It is curious that the author matches the date of the Magi visit with a December 25th. So where does that leave the January 6th epiphany/king's day?

***************************************************
www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htmwww.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

The above site agrees with the previous site about Jesus' birth being during the Jewish feast in September, yet it comes to a different conclusion about the year. I like that it includes information about Zechariah's shift for service in the Temple, even though I have seen that same information used to conclude a December birthday for the Christ. I want to look up an article I read a few years ago with three reasons they think Christ may have been born December 25th, after all, after years of only hearing about the reasons it could not have been that date.

************************************************************

www.biblicalchronology.com/census.htm

The site above lists the date of the second census under Quirinius as governor being equivalent with the first census of Quirinius' time with the actual title "governor of Syria". The traditional date is 6 B.C.E., but the website revises it to 2 B.C.E. (For some strange reason, this website author goes way back to 15 BCE for Christ's birth.)

Certain reliable sources, however, tell us that Quirinius did not actually take on the title of "governor of Syria" until a few years into the Common Era (AD). For some ways to reconcile this, see:

http://www.scriptureinhistory.org.au/Articles/Birth%20of%20Christ.htm

132. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #101529 by Shrommer on December 20, 2007 at 1:32 pm

The point for me is not to make sense of a senseless shooting, and there is no Christian answer that can make the shooting sound like a good choice. The point is to make sense of the lives that were lost, in order to be able to call the shooting evil. If Rabadi's idea is that the only meaning is what existed in the life of each person, and then those lives are snuffed out, then all we've lost is the same meaning that is lost when any person dies of old age anyway. If, on the other hand, the shooter has sentenced people to hell by taking their lives before they had a chance to receive eternal life, then the situation is truly tragic and a blow to the Kingdom of God.

133. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98582 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I had a "good nature" and a "bad nature" since I was born. The good part is like the conscience, or the part of us which bears the image of God and persists even since the Fall of Creation into the power of Satan. If you want to attribute it to a random mutation which persisted thanks to the survival chances of those species with a good nature being increased, then so be it.

The "divine nature" I am referring to, however, is something I did not know since my natural birth. I only received IT when I became born again. It is totally different. I had a life before being born again, and a life since then, and believe me, there's a big difference. When I say "divine nature" I am not talking about that good nature or divine spark that I had in my life before Christ, the kinds of altruistic human motivations that I know you must be talking about.

When you are filled with the life of God, it is something that comes from outside of yourself.

134. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98580 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 10:12 pm

"Money, power trip, chicks, just plain attention.
Petty human desires. ... Imagination.
Just like Scientology and Superman. ... Your average person is stupid, and will believe pretty much whatever you tell them. Look at the giant crowds who get bilked by televangelists."

Hey, it happens in every religion, but it happens with prominent atheists and skeptics too. The difference is that a skeptic is more likely to be up front with you about their intentions and motivations.

I think that one of the main reasons the Jewish leaders did not want people to know about the resurrection is they didn't want to bow to a man. They thought that admitting the resurrection would admit to calling Jesus the Son of God. Even though they believed that God created Adam as a representative man, and they had the prophecies of someone being pierced for their transgressions, they didn't believe that there would be another representative of the whole human race sent from God.

A lot of people today will not even hold an intelligent discussion with a real Christian, simply because they do not want to count the cost and repent from sin and self-indulgence. They don't want to be confused with the facts, and prefer to think that there is no God or that He doesn't really love them. Nobody wants to admit that He loves them infinitely, because then they would need to admit that they simply choose to repay His love with apathy, denial, or hatred.

Now, believing God exists is not life-saving, and is really not a key issue. People have repented and been filled with the Holy Spirit before they really believe that God exists, and then they only figure our later what happened to them. A Jehovah's Witness I know did not believe Jesus was divine, but trusted in him as Savior and Lord, and then only later figured out that he is God and man together. A Jewish atheist I know was throwing his hands in the air and crying out Jesus, Jesus, the whole time his head was telling him he was nuts and shouldn't be doing that. The devil believes God exists, yet his eternal destiny is not in heaven in loving covenant with his Creator.

"He who comes to God must believe that he exists (at least enough to do some act of faith), and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

135. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98575 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Post 94 sums up what I meant by Church history.

I can appreciate that you view it differently. Human nature is not to be trusted. When you live with your own human nature and it's all you know, you can't imagine divine nature overcoming human nature.

I'm sure you've heard reports of the Amish forgiving the murderer, or the missionaries going into the jungle and being killed, then another group of missionaries going in after them and loving them into the Kingdom of God anyway, ... the people who live in poverty and persecution to spread the Good News, the miraculous healings which just accidentally coincide with somebody praying in faith in the name of Jesus, ... these are the reports where I sense the Kingdom of God.

But there are tons more reports of religious stuff going on which is deserving of all the criticism it gets. I know that Roman prelates used the Gospels for their own selfish ends, but that is not what was going on east of Israel from about 80-1500, and it's not the way people in China and India are coming to Christ today, and it's not why the Gospel accounts or the New Testament (or Old Testament) were written.

The best thing you can do is lay it all out in a conversation with the deity you think just might exist, and let Him work through it all with you.

136. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98566 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Diacanu, you don't write like you have the final answers. I was looking back at posts 64 and 76.

137. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98563 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Diacanu wrote: "What are people thinking when they preach at me like in post 134?

Am I supposed to be wowed, well up with tears, and fall on my knees in supplication like a child in a Jack Chick comic?

Do they think my skin will start smoking like a vampire, and I'll fly across the room shrieking while they nod in smug satisfaction?

Save the holy-rolling.
Does nothing for me.
Seriously. "

What I was thinking, is I was responding to your post 131. We were talking about the content of the message. The Son of God coming to earth and working miracles sounds pretty fantastic, but that doesn't make the message false or condemning.

I'm coming from a background where I saw Jesus as a great teacher and example, one I could never outperform in power and never measure up to in character, and yes, in some ways like the Superman comic character I wanted to be like as a child. Children (especially boys) love the idea of having superpowers like super strength, or to make things levitate ... and girls I think like to think of special powers like making a love potion or changing into an animal.

It shocked me when I realized that Jesus did those things for me - his good works and miracles are not his way of gloating over us or frustrating us. His good works get recorded in heaven under my name, and my sins get recorded under his name. Also, the whole realization that his power becomes available to us is a sign that he shares with us in covenant, and isn't out to lord it over us like some powerful dictator occasionally showing mercy by granting a favor to a groveling subject.

As to being wowed, well that's between you and God. I was wowed by this message, and couldn't believe I was so ignorant of it for so long, but the blame for that goes to religious ideas and teaching. As Dawkins says, religion can be a dangerous thing, and I think it will keep a lot of people out of heaven.

Tears and kneeling? It wasn't on my mind one bit. Ditto with your smoking, shrieking, flying, and my smiling in smug satisfaction. The furthest thing from my thoughts.

I do think that one day you may be filled with the Holy Spirit and will know God living inside you as a firsthand, undeniable experience, but I don't think I'll be anywhere near you on that day. The greatest satisfaction will be yours and God's, not mine. By the way, I didn't smoke, shriek, or fly, or kneel, or cry. I said out loud that Jesus was my Savior when I couldn't save myself. I remember being very happy and joyful after that; I felt very free and the guilt and fear of punishment I had had before that was taken away. It's great to know you're loved, and great once you really start to love others!

138. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98555 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 9:19 pm

I got preached at pretty hard in posts 64 and 76. Somebody thinks they have the final answers, and even leaves no room for doubt about God and judgment. They say it like it is a fact or an non-debatable, instead of it just being one person's philosophy of life or their personal conclusions about the universe.

139. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98551 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 9:13 pm

None of it is a firsthand account ... maybe not, but do you see that a firsthand account is at the heart of it and is what got the ball rolling? You don't really believe that somebody could just write a book and have the Church history that we have evidence of in the number of believers today - do you? What about all the believers who were in Palestine before any of the Gospels were written? What about the people whose lives are still being changed today? What prompted any of the writers to write a book like that, and what did they base it on? Do you think they wrote it as fiction and then some Roman prelates got the idea that they could use these stories to manipulate and subject the people? How would they get people to believe it? What about all the sections of the Gospels which go so much against the teachings of Rome? Why would the Romans want so much to present the Jews as God's chosen people or want everyone in the Roman Empire to become Jewish?

I read Dawkins attibuting the bombing of abortion clinics to faith people. The people of faith I know trust in God to set those things right, not in force or violence. The whole idea of fighting against those who destroy the innocent in the name of protecting and defending the helpless seems to by what is wired into human nature through our evolutionary species survival mentality, not something relevant to theism or faith. The male role as protector is the dangerous piece there. Whether it's that role being misguided through faith or politics or emotion is a not key. Those things are not the root cause.

Intolerance is the problem of intolerant religious people; it's a lack of faith and a lack of love, not an overdose of it.

140. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98543 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Dr. Benway gives a much more intelligent presentation than that Did Jesus Exist? article.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Paul had a vested interest in the cult of Jesus. His whole life was about persecuting and wiping out that cult, and preserving the heritage and authority of the Pharisees. It sounds like some of the Communist Chinese leaders today who have a vested political interest in destroying the Church and end up joining it!

Why don't you ask God to provide the evidence for you of those four things, if God really wants you to become a Christian? "God, I know you don't exist, but just in case you do, and I know you don't, but in the off chance that you were to exist, I'd like to know about it. These are the four things that stand in my way, because I know you don't want me to believe anything stupid or without evidence: __ __ __ __"

141. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98538 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 8:53 pm

The message is that God made Himself responsible for your sin, and made Himself responsible for giving you a new life and taking you to heaven when you couldn't get there on your own. Just in case you had any objections to the removal of your punishment and being filled with love along with eternal life, God gave us the resurrection of Jesus as a sign.

It's not that Jesus has superpowers, ... that is not really good news for us. It is that Jesus uses all his power for you, and grants you the same power. You get a relationship with him, and can identify with him, not only with his death, but with his resurrection. The offer is there for you to sit on the throne with him because he loves you so much.

Meaning in life is based on relationship. Alone we have no meaning. In relationship with the Most High God as our Father, our meaning is true, present, and wonderful. The house has meaning in relation to the inhabitants. The image-bearer has meaning in relationship to the original. Our value is the life of God Himself, since He paid for us with His own life.

142. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98530 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 8:42 pm

And how can Richard Dawkins read Ecclesiastes when it was "deceitfully" placed after the books of Nehemiah and Job?

143. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98526 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 8:38 pm

It is possible that early believers addressed each other with endearing words like "brother", "sister", or "saint". Paul has a letter addressed to "the saints at Ephesus".

I am surprised that the writer of this article did not bother to tell us that the footnotes in the NIV, which compare different renderings of certain passages from different extant manuscripts, were not actually included in the original Gospel accounts. Heck, if he had said that, it would have proven once and for all to the whole world that the NIV is a fake, and therefore the whole Bible must be a fake.

So tell me again why Richard Dawkins reads Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon if we don't have any artifacts left from Solomon or any eyewitnesses in England today telling us that Solomon was the author and that he really was the King of Israel and son of David? Could it be that the authorship is not as important as the content of the message?

144. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98521 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Reports from eyewitnesses can be more true or less true, and what is written down from those reports can be more true or less true. It is obvious that the people who were eyewitnesses of the resurrection are no longer alive, so that automatically makes any account of the resurrection "hearsay" based on the article's perspective.

In writing the Gospels, the only claim to a single compiler of a Gospel lies with Luke. With the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke wrote more of the New Testament than any other author, even more than Paul.

Even Luke did not use all his own words though. It is obvious to any reader that Luke and Matthew either used Mark as a source, or that the three of them had access to the same sources (whether written or oral sources is hard to say.) Tradition says that Mark hung out with Peter. We don't know if Matthew and John were written by Matthew and John, just like we don't know if Plato and Aristotle wrote the works of Plato and Aristotle. It could have been a school of their followers. There could have been many group contributions to the Gospels, and that can be a very good thing.

Even if there is one writer for a particular Gospel account, they didn't number their editions. There is no reason for them to have written the book one time and then left it that way forever, as if it had dropped out of heaven intact and immutable. If they made later changes, they just made the changes in subsequent copies.

Today, authors commonly write, save their work on a word processing file, then later on edit and save a new copy. In ancient times, each change would be present in the production of a whole new hardcopy manuscript.

Also, the ancient writers did not have the systems of copyright, citations, source referencing and such that we have today. We'll never know their sources, and they saw no reason to include them. We can't judge ancient near east writers by modern western standards.

The writer of the article seems to think that we should have artifacts from a Galilean carpenter like we have artifacts from the rich and powerful. Jesus was not rich and famous by global standards. One wouldn't expect any more historical evidence from Jesus' life than we would from the life of the typical person from a small town in the modern world.

145. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98513 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 8:14 pm

I checked out the website http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I got a few laughs out of it, mostly because some of the things he says are so obvious. He bothers to tell us that B.C.E. and C.E. are the equivalents of B.C. and AD, so it is obvious that he is an uneducated writer, and also that he's writing for the uneducated.

He says Matthew was "deceitfully" placed before Mark, as if the order in the New Testament had any significance at all. And he thinks it's worth explaining to the reader that Matthew's first name was not "saint". It reminds me of the atheist argument that Adam and Eve could not be real people, or else their surnames would have been included. Hey, why didn't Moses throw in a copy of their birth certificates while he was at it?

The reasoning is straightforward circular. The Gospel accounts are called hearsay, inadmissable in any discussion, based on their being unreliable. And why are they unreliable? Because they're only hearsay, of course.

And then the Roman historians who wrote about anything in the Roman Empire besides a firsthand interview with Caesar, well, they were also just basing it all on hearsay.

The article exclusively or almost exclusively is based on what we have in writing, rather than on what the eyewitnesses told us down through the generations.

146. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98507 by Shrommer on December 13, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Speaking of 911, see comment 97911. Revelation 13 is the 13th Chapter of the book of Apocalypse, also known as John's Revelation. It's available on-line at www.biblegateway.com.

You had asked me to "elaborate on the challenge that when you see proof you will believe and follow."

147. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97932 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:59 pm

If I see this mortal wound become supernaturally healed, like it says in Revelation 13, I will believe in my head that the healing occurred as per the scientific method. What I will not do is believe and follow, in the sense of becoming a believer in that person or putting my trust in them, or bragging about what they've done, or treating them with awe in humble reverence and submission.

148. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97929 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I need to sign off now. I'll pick up with this later. Thanks for the discussion.

149. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97927 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:51 pm

"A complete misunderstanding of what empirical evidence is"?????!!!!!!

I quoted the dictionary definition, and it exactly matches the way I was using the term.

Please, by all means, give me your definition of "empirical evidence" to set the record straight, and we'll see how your definition differs from the dictionary's.

150. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97924 by Shrommer on December 12, 2007 at 8:48 pm

I quote myself because you say that I make myself look like a holocaust denier:

"There is already no empirical evidence that the Holocaust actually occurred. I, however, have a very definite conviction that the Holocaust occurred, based on the evidence I've seen and heard. The evidence was empirical for those who lived it, and based on that, I say that 'we' (the human race) have empirical evidence."

Are you a resurrection-denier, after having the empirical evidence of those who lived before us?