Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 29, 2008
Bob  Burney :: Townhall.com Columnist
Will Evangelicalism Go the Way of Mainline Protestantism?
by Bob Burney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The big “buzz” in the American religious community is the recently released report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In the secular and Christian media alike the results were being trumpeted as “shocking,” “disturbing” and “enlightening” among other hyperbolic descriptions. The keyboards of the “experts” began to hum, churning out what all this means for the future of religion in America.

There will be much controversy about this report, but there are certain conclusions that are unmistakable.

Mainline Protestant denominations continue their plunge downward through mediocrity to total irrelevance. No surprise there. Evangelical churches continue to grow—especially those of the non-denominational variety. Again, no surprise. Roman Catholicism is declining more quickly than any other “faith tradition” in America. Again, not a huge surprise.

However, what is surprising is that the ranks of the “unaffiliated” shows a rapid increase. One in four adults age 18 to 29 claims no affiliation with any religious institution—a troubling statistic as we consider the next generation of Christian leaders.

Undoubtedly, this study will be discussion fodder for the foreseeable future.

The report is filled with the typical statistics and analysis but possibly the most important conclusion is the one reached by a research fellow at the Pew Forum, Greg Smith: “There is no question that the demographic balance has shifted in the past few decades toward evangelical churches. They are now the mainline of American Protestantism.”

Whether he knows it or not, Smith’s words may be prophetic. What an interesting thought: evangelical churches are now the mainline. Indeed, this may be exactly what is happening and it should make every evangelical shudder!

The worst kept secret in American Christianity is the continuing demise of mainline denominations. Is it possible that evangelicals could now take their place—in eventual decline? Indeed, if the course many evangelical leaders are charting is followed, the evangelical movement will suffer the same fate as the mainline denominations.

Hundreds of theories have been advanced to explain the cause of the death of mainline American Protestantism. The most compelling argument involves their departure from biblical authority.

A few decades ago liberal theologians gained control of the seminaries. Instead of teaching their pastoral and theological students to love, trust and revere the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant revelation to mankind, they were taught to question, doubt and debate the claims of Scripture. To question truth became the ultimate objective rather than discovering truth. The “search” was not a part of the journey, it was the destination.

Young theologians were taught by their professors that truth was unknowable—even the truth of Scripture. They were instructed to believe that the Bible had to be re-interpreted by each generation. Truth was defined not by the mind of God, but by the consensus of the present generation.

As years passed this new theology found its way from the seminary to the pulpit. Something strange happened. Those in the pew were more discerning than those in the pulpit. Many couldn’t put their finger on it exactly, but they knew something was wrong. Sermons no longer gave answers to life’s problems from the authority of Scripture, they offered platitudes and empty philosophy. Pulpits devoid of authority lost their power and those in the pew found the door. The result? Those in leadership analyzed the drastic situation of declining membership, attendance and revenue and decided that the answer was to … become more liberal!

The farther the pulpit strayed away from the absolute authority of Scripture the larger the exodus to the parking lot—never to return. The trend in the pulpit continues as does the exodus. The result? The mainline is no longer the mainline; evangelicals have taken their place.

Even a cursory examination of the current fads within evangelicalism shows a shocking trend. Those once characterized by strict adherence to the authority of Scripture are starting to walk in the footsteps of their mainline counterparts. The Emergent Church (which seems to gain strength daily) is characterized, to a great extent, by the same propensities as those who led mainline Protestantism into oblivion. Consider just one example.

Rob Bell is, without question, one of the most vocal of the Emergent leaders. In his book, “Velvet Elvis,” he considers at length the importance of biblical doctrine in today’s church. While stressing continually his love for the Bible, his commitment to Scripture and his “orthodoxy,” he uses an extremely troubling illustration that contradicts his claims.

In Bell’s theology you look at Bible doctrine either as a brick or a spring. A brick is hard, unbending, unmovable and static. He berates those who hold this view of doctrine as being out of touch, legalistic and rigid. On the other hand, a spring is pliable, moving, dynamic, constantly changing—it’s almost alive. He then relates this to a trampoline. The springs allow someone on the trampoline to bounce and move. Now, it’s nice to have all the springs in place, but in reality you can remove several of them and still be able to bounce.

This is his view (and the view of the Emergent Church generally) concerning Bible doctrine. Doctrine is not primarily to be understood but merely studied. To question, to discuss and to debate is the end—not discovery and proclamation. It would be nice to be able to truly “know” doctrine and to have it all in place, but it’s not necessary. A spring here or there can be removed without hurting the trampoline. In other words, the Virgin Birth is important, but not vital. The whole concept of how a person is really justified may never be completely understood so, as long as you love Jesus, you’re in.

This attack on the authority of Scripture is much more dangerous than that of the liberals who destroyed the mainline denominations. Why? Because it’s much harder to discern. It’s cloaked in the language of evangelicalism, but under the cloak is the doctrine of doubt rather than confidence in the biblical witness. For Bell and others, it seems that questioning Scripture is more important than understanding it. We’re left with essentially the same message as classic theological liberalism, but wrapped in different packaging.

Unless the evangelical church wakes up to the fact that the authority of the very Word of God is under attack in their own movement, evangelicalism will indeed become the new “mainline”—and experience the same tragic end.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bob Burney is Salem Communications’ award-winning host of Bob Burney Live, heard weekday afternoons on WRFD-AM 880 in Columbus, Ohio.

Be the first to read Bob Burney’s column.
Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today
religiouslib - God's Word in the Bible

religiouslib: “talent scout”


Wrong person, my friend.



~~~



religiouslib: “you really are confused when it comes to denominations.”


1. You say you’re a born again Christian.

2. Then you appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on a doctrinal issue.

3. Then you say you’ve been an American Baptist all your life.

4. Then you say your church is “mainline methodist”

5. Then you say I’m really confused?



~~~



religiouslib: “all practicing protestants are born again.”


Do you speak for all “protestants”?


I didn’t know that all “protestants” even believed that baptism was necessary.


Can you be born again without being baptized?



~~~



religiouslib: “did i use "Catholic authority" in discussing capital punishment, why yes i did.”


Why on earth would a born again American Baptist who attends a mainline Methodist church appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on a doctrinal issue?



~~~



religiouslib: “despite your beliefs, Catholics are just as Christian as you or i.”


What I believe doesn’t matter at all; what matters is what God’s Word in the Bible actually says.



~~~



religiouslib: “i have been an american baptist all my life.”


I understand.



~~~



religiouslib: “i moved to a community where the methodist church was more aligned with my beliefs than the american baptist church.”


Question: What good will it do us on Judgment Day if we have attended a church that is aligned with OUR beliefs, but OUR beliefs are NOT aligned with God’s Word in the Bible?


“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (John 12:48, KJV)


What can we possibly have to lose by aligning our beliefs with God’s Word in the Bible, and finding a church that teaches His Word just as it is written?

god of their own design
It's been interesting reading as Shalama and Will, Slacker and the bunch create a god of their own design and attempt to rewrite documented history to get their desired results. You know, when you invent a god you can lead around, you might as well just worship your pomeranian.

Fact is the New Testament has been well-documented as ancient history. The events in Acts, for instance, have strong historical and archeological proofs supporting them. The Gospels also contain incredible wealth of detail that lends to their credibility. But, of course, if you'd rather believe it's all a lie, it's okay to lie some to make it seem like you know better, Shalama. Just make it up as you go along. No harm, no foul. Try opening a history or archeological text book dealing with the Bible sometime. You'd be shocked and awed at how much validity the Bible has. Even very secular scholars who reject all miracles agree that the apostles themselves thought the resurrection happened and that the best explanation is that they were convinced they'd seen the resurrected Jesus. The "Christ Myth" as you call it was "created" within about two months of Jesus' death in Jerusalem, where it easily could have been refuted had it been a lie. Christianity never would have gotten off the ground if Jesus' body was still tacked to the cross or in the tomb, because the proof would have been evident, indicating it wasn't.

Daniel Wallace and two colleagues have a recent book called "Reinventing Jesus." You might try reading it, so that -- you know -- you might learn something truthful.

slacker
"It is concern for mankind and a desire to build a better world based on reason, tolerance and truth."

"Tolerance", eh? Then why are you so intolerant of people who do not share your views?

slacker
"They seek to be a powerful political movement and to affect momentous decisions that affect the lives of millions of people in this country and others."

So do atheists. What's your point? The First Amendment guarantees free speech to all American citizens. Get over it.

Rowly's Quest for "Proof"
Rowly, Remember, I asked

To prove god does NOT exist: "you and I would have to agree with each other on some objective phenomenom that is measurable that would ONLY occur if god does not exist. I have no idea what objective phenomenom you would agree would prove there is no god. Can you suggest one?"

I do not think you will admit that there is a single experiment that we could devise and conduct to DISPROVE the existence of god. Nor is there one to PROVE the existence of god.

Without such evidence assertions that god exists are pure speculation and have no more authority than assertions that unicorns, easter bunnies, and Santa Clause are real.

Sorry if the light of reason is hard on your eyes, but if you get over the initial shock of seeing the world as it is, the light will guide you in your journey far better than myths and fairy tales.

'nuff said.

More folly of believers
Talent Scout says:

"One has to be a moron to think he has some power to hold himself up as the bible's judge, or its believers."

What are we to do then? Take it on faith alone that the bible is the word of god? Then why choose the bible to believe is true? Why not the (shudder) Koran? Why not the hindu scriptures?

Furthermore, the evangelicals do not all just shrink quietly into their churches and mega-churches to pray together. Nor do they all celebrate their unprovable beliefs in the privacy of their own homes. They seek to be a powerful political movement and to affect momentous decisions that affect the lives of millions of people in this country and others.

They justify their prescriptions on everything from issues of war and peace to stem cell research by saying their interpretation of fables written thousands of years ago gives them some "special" authority. Yet these fables were written by an earlier primitive culture without the benefit of any real scientific methods or instruments for discerning fact from fiction.

When people like me shine the light of reason on their clouded minds, they scurry away and shield their eyes from the light. They cringe and ask "what power do you have" to think for yourself? To ask questions when we tell you to believe impossible things like vigin birth and the divinity of a particular man (whether it be Jesus or the pope or some windbag muslim cleric).

No it is not arrogance that drives me to break the spell the religions of the world weave over the weak minds of the incredulous. It is concern for mankind and a desire to build a better world based on reason, tolerance and truth.

The folly of believers, continued
Talent Scout does not believe the Easter Bunny is real. He sniffs arrogantly:

"Easter bunny............what stupidity."

Ah, but what right do you have to arrogantly proclaim that this wonderful creature who comes on the first sunday after the spring solstice to millions of children, leaving sweets and brightly colored eggs to celebrate the feat of a man who rose from the dead over 2000 years ago! You who have NO PROOF that the Easter Bunny does not exist have no right to disparage my belief, since I have the evidence of my own eyes of his wondrous works as treasured memories from my own childhood.

......
Smile.
......

A bit sarcastic I admit, but well meaning to show you the light of truth and the value of thinking clearly. In case you miss the point, it is NOT to debate if the Easter Bunny exists or not.

It is that WE ARE ALL ATHEISTS WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER CULTURE'S GODS. This is an observable fact that we can see in ourselves and others. Thus the burden of proof is on anyone who claims their religion is the source of, or is founded on, any absolute "truth".

The folly of believers
Talent Scout said:

"I will not go into how the faith in Judea Christian Scriptures are proven factual reality for the real world we are born into."

Slacker the wise says,
Of course you won't. Because such proof does not exist. If it did exist Christians all over the world would be documenting and publishing it. Instead they tell their flocks of sheep to have FAITH.

If there were objective evidence of any of the fundamental beliefs that christians take on faith I would be a christian. These are the core beliefs:

- the virgin birth of Jesus
- the resurrection of Jesus

While I am aware that many people have written books and pamphlets, including the "gospels," claiming they know these things are true, at the end they do not prove it. Remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary and rigorous proof. So called "eyewitness" accounts from known disciples with a vested interest in others beleiving the fables are NOT extraordinary proof. They are no proof at all.

He who has eyes to see
yes

Shelama
Is there a point to your musings?

POS or NEG? You be the judge
Rowly, at various and sundry times and places, stated and/or requested:


"... if anyone who had proof of God's inexistence,to please post it."

"...can you prove that he does NOT exist?"

"... Can you or can you not prove His INexistence?"

"... I am still waiting for some proof of the non-existence of my God."

"... All I asked was could she or anyone else provide proof that God does not exist."

"...WHERE IS YOUR PROOF,PROOF,PROOF, THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST?"

"... I simply asked you(and any other of you atheists)if you would offer proof that God does NOT exist."

"... They just deny the existence of God.ALL I asked was for proof of same from one of them."

"... All I asked was could she or anyone else provide proof that God does not exist."

"... But if you are SO sure there is no God, PROVE IT !!!!!"


AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, ROWLY, WHEN ASKED TO COMMENT ABOUT "relevance of the absence of the proof of a negative", SAYS :

"...I requested proof of a Positive."




(Rowly, Emmanuel was an only child, and is no one's uncle. He is God with us, though, and he sends you his best.)






Shelama
Let's have one more go...you are
free to think what you wish. Say what you wish. Believe what you wish.Makes no difference to me. I requested proof of a Positive. You were unable to deliver,as I expected. No atheist can,either. I rest my case.Case closed.
Say hello to Uncle Emmanuel..

I agree
Rowly, I agree completely: ...request for proof of a negative is, indeed, maximum ridiculousness. Your acknowledgment of same was manly.

Shalom

talent scout
you really are confused when it comes to denominations.

i have been an american baptist all my life.

i moved to a community where the methodist church was more aligned with my beliefs than the american baptist church.

all practicing protestants are born again.

did i use "Catholic authority" in discussing capital punishment, why yes i did.

despite your beliefs, Catholics are just as Christian as you or i.

you need to spend more time exploring your own beliefs rather than trying to play gotcha about things you have little understanding of.

shelama
Ridiculous to the max !!!

Negative Proofs
What is the relevance of the absence of the proof of a negative? For instance, the absence of proof that She is not a Really Big Breasted Lesbian? Or that Jesus is not God? Or that Emmanuel is not God with us?

As compared with, for instance, the absence of proof that God does exist? Or that Jesus is God? Or that She does have really, really, big, huge breasts?


shelama
I am tiring of this subject.After reading many sacreligious posts that are offensive to my beliefs,I posted at 10:26 pm Sat., asking atheist,doubters,etal. if anyone who had proof of God's inexistence,to please post it.You jumped in and started this.I did not ask YOU.
Being Christian,I believe God and Christ are one.If you are Jewish,you may not(it is evident by your posts). However,that is what I was referring to when writing to you. Some of the other "denyers"do not fit that category,I don't think.They just deny the existence of God.ALL I asked was for proof of same from one of them.

Rowly V
Can you please "cut'n'paste" me asserting, here or anywhere else, that god does not exist?

Actually, quite the opposite: my great-grandfather Emmanuel is God ... God with us. I've said so before and I'll say it again: he exists...with us.

shelama
I said I believe.I do not need proof. Anyway,I asked you first.

Name calling? ... sarcasm?
You have PROOF of this?

talent scout
Thank you for coming to my defense.My original question should have not caused so much vitriol.If you have no proof say so.Slacker did eventually admit that,but could not leave it at that. He had to STILL ridicule me. I did no such thing to him. This is a free country and God gave each of us a free will. To accept or deny Him. Some atheists are like the homosexual community(if there is such thing). They are not satisfied to live and let live. They have a need to flaunt their lifestyle,trying to shock,etc. What they do and how they live is of no consequence to me,as mine is none of theirs.Our private lives should be just that.. private.Some atheists are so angry,they remind me of the old vampire stories,the vampire will cringe and shrink back at the mere sight of a cross.
I have nothing but pity for them.

slacker writes:
All I have done is explain that to me and any other objective person, the fundamental beliefs of christians muslims and other "believers" make absolutely no objective sense.
--------
ts:
Very biased thinking, common to arrogance.
Arrogance is a fault, not a virtue.
You seem to think it a virtue
---------
slacker writes:

That is a legitimate point of view. If you want to disagree with me, please do so, but it doe not help your argument to just call me arrogant. It is no more arrogant than to say adults who believe in the easter bunny are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. Or that people who blow up buildings because they believe they will go to heaven and be granted 70 virgins to do with as they wish for killing innocent people are insane.
--------

ts:
You are a confused man, and you are arrogant with your own confusion with such as this above.

None of it is from clear thinking whatsoever.

Comparing the known fables of the world to Jesus Christ is stupid, not just confused.

Honestly it is too dumb to waste time with in explaining foundations of biblical truths beginning in Genesis to such nonsense as this you bring.

So, I will not go into how the faith in Judea Christian Scriptures are proven factual reality for the real world we are born into.

Just because you live in ignorance and have the power to write and speak, hardly makes you believable, that takes faith.
And in you I have none.

Easter bunny............what stupidity



Shelama
Re:your 3:22 post
I asked you for proof. Can you not read?A s for the BBLG,you spoke of...I BELIEVE I MAY BE ARGUING WITH HER AS WE SPEAK..
She DOES Exist.

shelama
You started this dialog early today.I simply asked you(and any other of you atheists)if you would offer proof that God does NOT exist.I did not denigrate you or your religious beliefs(or lack of). You did mine. Now read this carefully...DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT HAVE PROOF? If you do ,share it with me,without the name-calling and sarcasm. At least be honest as slacker is ,that there IS no proof.That is all I asked in the beginning of this dialog.

Yes you have mocked me
And all who believe this.

slacker writes:
That leaves the ignorant and those with no courage to think their beliefs through on their own. Where are they going to go? To the evangelical churches, of course. Where it is OK to believe in such inanities as:

- The virgin birth of Jesus
- The resurrection of Jesus from the dead
- The story of Noah's ark
- The parting of the Red Sea during the exodus
- Jesus fed the multitudes with one picnic basket and other "miracles"
----------
ts:
I am the judge of your words, just as you are the judge of my words or the words of the Bible.
That is what you are doing, judging it and me who believe it.
With mocking:
quote:


slacker writes:
"That leaves the ignorant and those with no courage to think....."


slacker writes: Sunday, March, 02, 2008 2:40 PM
talent scout
You seem to be hung up on claiming I am somehow mocking you.

I have in no way mocked you.

---------
ts:
Not that I care one way or another what you say , but it is mocking.
One has to be a moron to think he has some power to hold himself up as the bible's judge, or its believers.
Very moronic thinking one has such powers.
Arrogance is all it is, and always wrong.

Rowly
I get it. Your post is satire.

It's not bad.

Let's substitute "God" with other mythologies.

Rowly asks: "Now I have no problem with disbelievers, if that is what you claim to be. I lose no sleep over any of you. All I asked was could she or anyone else prove that fire-breathing dragons do not exist."

Rowly, prove to me that unicorns did not exist in the past when folks claimed they did. Prove to me that the God Zeus does not exist. Prove to be that Buddha was not born from a slit in his mother's side. We could go on & on.

Go ahead. Please. The onus is on you.


By for now, folks
Have to go. Back later to see if anything new comes up.

Will,
Sigh. Sadly I think you are right. It is probably as impossible to have an intelligent discussion with these people as it was for the Peanuts characters to "prove" to Charlie Borwn that the "great pumpkin" did not exist.

Sadly, they would be willing to look at as an analogy to childish beliefs in Santa Claus and chuckle at the foolish Charlie Brown. Of course they miss the point that Schulz was really making:

We are all atheists when it comes to other people's gods. It is hard to find anyone in the world who believes Zeus or Aphrodite are real gods today. Yet thousands of years ago these gods had many true believers .

It takes thinking, but perhaps more than that, some courage to understand that the correct approach, the one atheists take, is to go "one god further."

The effort is worth it if we can get people to make this leap to sanity, however, and find it is possible to throw off the out moded fear based morality and socially destructive world views.

late response (sorry) to talent scout
Sorry, I couldn't get back as quickly as I should have.

Your point from 12:08 Saturday:

"ts:
All traditions of men are Godless and opposed by Jesus Christ.
The only Foundation of Christianity.
I need no man, but my need is placed in God alone."

Response: To the best of our knowledge, Jesus never wrote anything -- not even letters home to Mom. Jesus did start a Church -- that is, he gathered followers. He taught those followers, and thus, he started a tradition, a tradition that was "handed on" (see I Cor 15:3). It was the Church (e.g., Paul, Matthew), inspired by the Spirit, that wrote the New Testament books -- and they wrote it out of the tradition they already had. It wasn't like first there were books, and then people read them and went out preaching Jesus. Rather, first there was Jesus; then there was a tradition preached and taught about Jesus; and then there were books written out of that tradition. The New Testament is the Church's book. The Church predates the New Testament.

Similarly, it was the Church (guided by the Spirit, we believers would say) who decided just what books belong in the Bible. The exact "canon" (official list) was debated quite a bit down through the years. To this day Catholics and Protestants differ as to just what texts belong on the list; and I am told the Coptic Church of Ethiopia includes I Enoch in the O.T. You may or not believe that I Enoch qualifies as the Word of God; but whether it does is an extra-biblical question. The Bible doesn't answer it.

By rejecting all Church traditions (you seem to be down on all of them) you set yourself in an impossible position: you put your faith in a book that was written by the Church and guaranteed by the Church, and then reject the Church that makes the guarantee. All that you have left is your own unsupported claim. And this is a classic example of what I meant by "everyone his own pope."

Mr Will
You jumped into this conversation late. I asked a person named shelama,who was continually
denying God's existence for proof. Now I have no problem with atheists,if that is what you claim to be. I lose no sleep over any of you. All I asked was could she or anyone else provide proof that God does not exist. Now don't start about what I believe. The onus is on you.Now get busy.....

Rowly
I freely admit that that it is highly unlikely that I could prove to you that your concept of god is not real. To prove this, you and I would have to agree with each other on some objective phenomenom that is measurable that would ONLY occur if god does not exist. I have no idea what objective phenomenom you would agree would prove there is no god. Can you suggest one?

I bet dollars to donuts that you will say something like there is no experiment anyone could ever devise that would prove to me there is no god. If your mind is closed like that, all I can do is convince you that your subjective reality has no authority beyond your own mind unless YOU can provide some proof that it does.

slacker
Ignore these yahoos.

It's not up to you to prove a virgin birth or a coming "Rapture". If these same yahoos insist that a teacup is orbiting Jupiter right now, it does not fall unto you to disprove it.

I can make up a thousand absurdities, every bit as absurd as the made-up "Rapture". It's not your job to disprove my wild fantasies.

To these guys, Jesus is a GOD, they worship him. They lay their lives at the feet of an illusion. Do not debate them. Debating delusion is a dead end. I have learned this with Birdbrain.

If a girl is interviewed on TV by Barbara Walters & says she is pregnant, immaculately conceived, it is not up to Barbara Walters or the american viewing public to "disprove" this happened (meaning, if it cannot be disproved, then it must have actually happened by default). It is up to the girl to "prove" her "virgin" pregnancy. And, no, saying that an angel of God visited her in the night will not fly, does not pass for "proof".

talent scout
You seem to be hung up on claiming I am somehow mocking you.

I have in no way mocked you. All I have done is explain that to me and any other objective person, the fundamental beliefs of christians muslims and other "believers" make absolutely no objective sense.

That is a legitimate point of view. If you want to disagree with me, please do so, but it doe not help your argument to just call me arrogant. It is no more arrogant than to say adults who believe in the easter bunny are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. Or that people who blow up buildings because they believe they will go to heaven and be granted 70 virgins to do with as they wish for killing innocent people are insane.

Slacker
I read what you wrote. It is hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who dances around an issue and ignores the question. You keep telling me what I believe is folly.WHERE IS YOUR PROOF,PROOF,PROOF, THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST?

Slacker
God does not exist only my brain,He exists in my heart,also.I have only pity for anyone who has no security except that which he can provide for himself....still waiting for the proof...

Rowly
If you want to have an intelligent discussion, at least READ what I say before disagreeing with me.

I do not deny your believe what you claim you believe. I quite clearly said this. What I SAID is that the fact you believe in something weird does not make what you believe true. Not in the sense of an objective reality, for me or anyone else. Nor does it make it true even as a subjective reality for anyone else unless you offer some convincing proof.

You are free to believe in "god", "satan", the "easter bunny", "gremlins", "UFOs" or unicorns. Just don't assert these things are real or have any authority over moral values or the behavior of people other than yourself. If you want to assert that, then it is YOU not me that needs to offer objective proof.

Nothing hard to understand

Has come from you slacker, quite the opposite as you are seen clearly.
-------


slacker writes: Saturday, March, 01, 2008 5:51 PM
Simple Explanation continued...
Face it. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to your bible believing neighbors and friends and say you are an atheist. As more people become educated, there is less pressure to "fit in" by appearing to go to some church. The churches that don't require you to check your brain at the door, once a refuge for this purpose are no longer necessary.

That leaves the ignorant and those with no courage to think their beliefs through on their own. Where are they going to go? To the evangelical churches, of course. Where it is OK to believe in such inanities as:

- The virgin birth of Jesus
- The resurrection of Jesus from the dead
- The story of Noah's ark
- The parting of the Red Sea during the exodus
- Jesus fed the multitudes with one picnic basket and other "miracles"

Give me a break! I am not saying all people who are christians are ignorant fools. I am saying that anyone who believes in the above is not thinking very hard about what they believe in, is engaging in a lot of wishful thinking, or both.

---------
ts:
Not only am I a thinker, but a clear headed thinker and I believe every bit of this.

Whats clear about you slacker, is you are a mocker, and that is very clear.
Mock on, you have no influence on clear thinking people.
You mock faith and then use faith yourself, your own confusion is clear.

Slacker
You do not amuse me. You continue platitudes. I KNOW what I believe is real.You deny my beliefs,but where is your proof? It is not for me to prove my beliefs. I won't even try to prove you are wrong. Frankly,I couldn't care less what you believe or do not believe. But if you are SO sure there is no God, PROVE IT !!!!!

Rowly
You say you are "waiting for some proof of the non-existence of MY God."

It is not possible to prove that some hypothetical does not exist. Particularly "your" private god. Of course I believe you are real and perfectly capable of imagining a god. So in that sense your god does exist in your brain.

That does not mean that the concept of god that exists in your brain has any other objective reality. Nor does it mean that your concept of god is any better than anyone else's or is the source of any authoritative wisdom.

talent scout
My thoughts are quite clear and no one else has trouble understanding me. You may want to try a little harder. Or if you do understand me and want to discuss it, explain why you disagree.

Of course, you can also just ignore my posts if you don't understand me, don't want to ask questions to clariy what eludes you and have nothing to contribute.

Slacker,etal.
My thinking is quite clear,thank you. How is yours? I am still waiting for some proof of the non-existence of my God. Have you forgotten that I asked for it? Such a little thing (to you).How long must I wait? The clock is still ticking....

Rowly
Well, you are agreeing with me, so there is no need to argue. All we are talking about are symbols. We can each tack our own meaning onto these symbols. Thus you will agree with me there is no "absolute truth" in religion since it is all just about the mental manipulation of symbols.

You are not a christian since you don't believe their fundamental assertions are true.

Thus we seem to be on the same page.

You fail to do that
slacker writes: 1:07 PM
talent scout
I am just trying to help people think a little more clearly. No one needs help more in this area than evangelicals. If I can get one person to stop blindly following the religious zealots of this world who cause so much harm and cripple the brains of so many people, I will have done the world a great service.
---------
ts:
Like I said, its fighting windmills.
But its your choice.
You have to be able to offer clear thoughts yourself to help another think clearly.
You fail miserably.

Try changing the green on trees, you may have more of a chance.

Slacker,etal.
Still just sarcastic platitudes...all I asked you "denyers"is, can you prove your contentions?You strike back,because it is evident you have no proof. The things you mentioned are "symbols". I don't believe they are "real". I believe they are "symbols". You all,of course are free to believe anything you like.I would never denigrate you or your beliefs.I wish you could do the same.

talent scout
I am just trying to help people think a little more clearly. No one needs help more in this area than evangelicals. If I can get one person to stop blindly following the religious zealots of this world who cause so much harm and cripple the brains of so many people, I will have done the world a great service.

Wasting time, oh well
slacker writes: 9:45 AM
Rowly
You are free to believe any stupidities you want. That does not prove the stupidities you believe in are true.
------
ts:
Cuts both ways preacher man.
You are here making many posts fighting what you see as wind mills.
Says more about you than any one else needs to say.
A kook
---------


slacker writes:

One doesn't try to prove negatives. Do you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny? I think not. Can you absolutely prove to someone who claims to commune with them on a daily basis and is CERTAIN they exist that they do not?
--------
ts:
So who comes to fight as adamantly against Santa or the Easter Bunny as you do faith in God?
Only nut case's think they must convince others.

Santa, Jesus or the Easter Bunny, all non-existent according to you, and you are crusading against just Jesus?
Why would you do that unless you are a complete moron?

No seperation
anti-socialist writes: 8:29 AM
law & gospel vs. gospel only


"Gospel only" churches accept "those who refuse to attempt to refrain from committing sin" as members (proof that many of the 10 commandments are of minor importance to them). As true believers regularly repent of sins committed and attempt to refrain from repeating them, they focus on attending "law & gospel" churches (vs. "gospel only" churches).
----------

In law and Gospel.
The very reason Jesus Christ came was to fulfill the Law.

I think you have found a non-existent problem.
Read the Book of Romans, Paul explains it well.

Rowly
You are free to believe any stupidities you want. That does not prove the stupidities you believe in are true.

One doesn't try to prove negatives. Do you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny? I think not. Can you absolutely prove to someone who claims to commune with them on a daily basis and is CERTAIN they exist that they do not?

law & gospel vs. gospel only
In most Protestant churches, a good balance of "law & gospel" is preached, while "gospel only" is predominant in most Evangelical churches. "Gospel only" attracts more members as by not preaching a balance (both "law & gospel"), there is little fear of punishment for sin. Thus most attendees of "gospel only" churches don't fear "committision of sin" on a regular basis.

"Gospel only" churches accept "those who refuse to attempt to refrain from committing sin" as members (proof that many of the 10 commandments are of minor importance to them). As true believers regularly repent of sins committed and attempt to refrain from repeating them, they focus on attending "law & gospel" churches (vs. "gospel only" churches).

Will is Frightened

"...primitive man had not yet connected the sexual act & male sperm to conception... they were unrelated acts in their mind as pregnancy did not show up for months..."

Any story will do that justifies homosexuality. The 'primitive man' witnessed procreation yearly in the animal kingdom and understood the rutting of the deer produced fawns. The dogs around the camps copulated and produced puppies. And according to Will, mankind was too stupid to put it together.


"I would prefer we go back to the days of the Sun God quite frankly. At least there would be no Old & New Testament to frighten & politicize an electorate with."

What if the OT was the true history of the world and Will's story was the fairy tale? I can see why Will would be frightened if there was a supreme being to whom we are all accountable.

In some cases, Will gives mankind too much credit (ala the invention of Christianity, its story line, and all of its miracles) and then turns around and makes mankind into total bozos (See his post above).

Shelama
Sarcastic platitudes....I do not HAVE to prove what I KNOW.I am not denying His existence.You ARE.Can you or can you not prove His INexistence? Come on now,you MUST be able to do better than that,since you are so SURE of your denials.....tick tock tick tick...still waiting...

The words of unbelief…

‘Judaism has adapted to a messiah who never comes.’ –TH classic


These are the words of unbelief. They reject Moses, the Psalms and the Hebrew Prophets for they all speak of Messiah to come with His New Covenant. As Isaiah says He shall be a man of sorrows, rejected and despised, but He was wounded for our transgressions. By His stripes we are healed. The doctrine of depravity need no further proof than this…those who know the old book cannot see that Jesus is the Messiah who established the New Covenant in His own blood.

Unbelief is the making of a dead religion. The religion of Messiah cannot die though the forces of darkness rise up against it. He has promised to seek out His sheep and exchange their heart of unbelief for a new heart of faith. His promise is that none of His sheep will perish, but they shall all come to repentance and faith. The great promise of the Christian faith is that the end will not come until all the given ones are gathered into the kingdom.

The Lord is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth. He is building His Church in every generation and in every nation just as He promised. If the churches decline here, then they will flourish elsewhere because His promises cannot fail. God has raised Him from the dead as a testimony to the truthfulness of His words.

The covenant made with Abraham is not fulfilled in the apostate Jewish church but in the New Covenant church. Here is the multitude that no man can number from every kindred, tribe, nation and tongue. His seed shall be as numerous as the stars of heaven or the sands of the sea shore. ‘And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed heirs according to the promise.’

The old book is not dead. It is illuminated and fulfilled in the new.

Protestantism Isn't Declining
How is it that the U.S. became a less Protestant nation simply because of a rise in non-denominational evangelical churches and a decline in the older "mainline" Protestant denominations? If a church calls itself a congregation of "bible-believing" and Trinitarian Christians, albeit not in full communion with the Holy See of Catholicism, how can it NOT be anything but a Protestant body?

And, as for Catholicism's "decline," especially among the more "native-born" population, why that's of the same old nativist Protestant gloating. More of the same old "true Americans are Protestant Americans" bigoted nonsense.

As a Catholic Christian first, and an American second, I take no alarm in the findings of the Pew Report. On the other hand, I also don't take any comfort in the smugness of a rising number of arch-conservative evangelical bigoted Protestants who have also delighted in scourging such devoted and open-minded evangelicals such as Jimmy Carter, Tony Campolo and Rick Warren, to name a few. Heck, they've even crucified Billy Graham in print.

And by the way, whatever denomination or separated branch of the Mother Church one belongs to, I hope he or she will always put the word "Christian" ahead of "American." We belong to God first: anything is less and else is unbiblical.


Oh Will
Will writes: Sunday, March, 02, 2008 2:30 AM

I would prefer we go back to the days of the Sun God quite frankly. At least there would be no Old & New Testament to frighten & politicize an electorate with.
--------
You know very well that if this nation were sun worshipers then your lifestyle choice would be either a reason for enslavement or a death sentence. No good sun worshiper would dare let themselves be labeled homosexual.

Oh, the Celts would kill you, too. Better hope atheists never view procreation as a mandate.

Gattaca!

Steven
I think that Burney got it wrong when he said the
Catholic religion is declining. I read the article about it in an airplane and did not save it, so I might be remembering incorrectly, but
I believe it said that 40+% of Christians called
themselves Catholic and that it was holding its
own largely because of the immigrants (that would
be mainly Hispanic, I am sure.)



How Ironic
that I should read a quote by George Bernard
Shaw this morning that goes something like this:
Patriotism is your conviction that this country
is superior to all other countries because you
were born into it. The same could be said for
anyone's particular religion.

Burney was off to a start that left no doubt where he was going when he said in his most
spiritual way: "plunge downward through mediocrity to total irrelevance." Well thank you
very much but I happen to believe that my
religion is neither mediocre or irrelevant.

I grew up in your kind of religion and left it
in my mid twenties with no regrets whatsoever.
Hell fire and damnation was not religion to me.
The vast majority of those whom I have met who
have left religion altogether had very similar
reasons. They could no long accept the hell fire
and damnation in general and some particularly
cherished beliefs in particular. One was the
creation in six days thing, another was the
belief that because the Bible said that women will be subjected by men that that somehow meant
that it was right and good and a requirement that
they be subjected to men.

Whether the Bible is the Word of God or not,
the interpretation of the Bible is without a
shadow of a doubt a product of humans. And that
is, again without a shadow of a doubt, subject to
error.

There are many explanations as to why the State
of the Christian religion is what it is in the
U.S. today. My own personal opinion is that Burney does not really have a very good grasp
on what those reasons and explanations are.

Oh yes, except of course, that all liberals are
going to hell.





Big breasted lesbian gods
remind me of primitive man with their Mother Earth Goddess cults.

Mother earth was a goddess; women were goddesses (they were goddesses of fertility; primitive man had not yet connected the sexual act & male sperm to conception... they were unrelated acts in their mind as pregnancy did not show up for months... so women were gods; women propagated the species).

In those days, gods were reasonable things. Their was a sun god, a wind god, a god of harvest.... This skygod the jews conconted by takng the worse element of pre-existing religions (even the early christians who lifted the "virgin birth" idea from older religions - even Buddha had been born through a slit in his mother's side) is a true hodge-podge of various religious elements thrown into a stew.

I would prefer we go back to the days of the Sun God quite frankly. At least there would be no Old & New Testament to frighten & politicize an electorate with.

Shelama
Your big breasted lesbian god is demonstrably false.

No one hates her.

Protestantism Isn't Declining
How is it that the U.S. became a less Protestant nation simply because of a rise in non-denominational evangelical churches and a decline in the older "mainline" Protestant denominations? If a church calls itself a congregation of "bible-believing" and Trinitarian Christians, albeit not in full communion with the Holy See of Catholicism, how can it NOT be anything but a Protestant body?

And, as for Catholicism's "decline," especially among the more "native-born" population, why that's of the same old nativist Protestant gloating. More of the same old "true Americans are Protestant Americans" bigoted nonsense.

As a Catholic Christian first, and an American second, I take no alarm in the findings of the Pew Report. On the other hand, I also don't take any comfort in the smugness of a rising number of arch-conservative evangelical bigoted Protestants who have also delighted in scourging such devoted and open-minded evangelicals such as Jimmy Carter, Tony Campolo and Rick Warren, to name a few. Heck, they've even crucified Billy Graham in print.

And by the way, whatever denomination or separated branch of the Mother Church one belongs to, I hope he or she will always put the word "Christian" ahead of "American." We belong to God first: anything is less and else is unbiblical.


Rowly
Can you prove that God is not a lesbian with great big huge breasts? Can you prove that She does not exist? Will you? Or are you just an atheist concerning the Big Breasted Lesbian God with no proof?

religiouslib - Methodist or Baptist or?


religiouslib: “we can discuss all kinds of biblical scripture and its meaning but to dismiss the whole problem as liberalism, is simplistic and intellectually and spiritually dishonest.”


There’s something not quite honest going on here.



In 2007 you said you were a born again Christian:

religiouslib (9/26/07, 9:17pm): “i have been a born again Christian for 50 years and never have i heard any clergy say that the government should not help the poor.”
(Dennis Prager’s column, “Does the Left Value the Truth?”, link: http://tinyurl.com/2df4u7)



~~~



In 2008, you appealed to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church:

religiouslib (1/28/08, 9:56PM): “here is how the Catholic Church describes it.”
(Harry Jackson’s column, “Faith - The Final Political Frontier”, link: http://tinyurl.com/ynmqp6)



~~~



I asked you about that, and 31 days ago you said you’ve been an “american baptist for my entire life”:

religiouslib (1/30/08, 8:48pm): “i have been an american baptist for my entire life.”
(Harry Jackson’s column, “Faith - The Final Political Frontier”, link: http://tinyurl.com/ynmqp6)



~~~



TODAY I read that you’re a “mainline methodist”:

religiouslib (3/1/08, 3:44pm): “my church (mainline methodist) has expanded to 3 services in the past 5 years and does not expouse any of the points of view that this author contends is prevalent.”



~~~



Are you a born again Christian, or a Roman Catholic, or a Baptist, or a Methodist, or what?


I've heard that some people consider themselves “born again” in the RCC, and in the Baptist church, and probably in the Methodist church.


But I have never heard of a lifelong “american baptist” calling himself a “mainline methodist”.



So what’s the truth here, religiouslib?


Atheists,doubters,etal.
Since believers believe that God was,is ,and always will be and you do not,can you prove that he does NOT exist? No "I just don't believe",or sarcastic platitudes....real proof. Can you do that? Will you?

faith
one analogy you could make for faith in God is the american monetary system.

now a hundred dollar bill only costs $.06 to produce but we never-the-less accept the fact that it is worth $100 when we redeem it.

in other words we have "faith" that our neighbor or local business will "accept" the fact that it is indeed 100 dollars.

if you "accept" Jesus Christ as your savior and have "faith" that the scriptures are true you have entered into the same type of relationship.


why are atheists willing to accept the concept of faith in the monetary system but cannot acknowledge that one could exhibit that same faith in their spiritual lives.



Lolo1
And how do you justify your hypothesis that sense of family, community, "right", "wrong" and "justice" come from religion?

Just because you say a thing is true or you have heard others say it does NOT make it true.

It is much more likely that things are the other way around - that sense of religion "comes from" a sense of family, community, and what the evolutionary process of our species and our own personal experience in life has led us to believe are "right" and "wrong".

There is quite a bit of evidence that other primates and even lower species have a sense of "justice", right and wrong. Yet I do not believe that they have a "religion."

BTW, as you ponder who would be at the top of your list and how you would do it, do not make the assumption that there would be no long term consequences. When you become a murderer you must make sure you are not caught or suspected or the WILL be consequences. No one is going to accept your excuse that you are an atheist (temporarily or not) to let you off.

Ignorance comes naturally
slacker writes: 5:51 PM

That is why the extremes - unthinking believers and the thinking and educated "unaffiliated" are growing and the middle (liberal religion) is shrinking.
----------
Believers in Christianity are the very ones who founded every major College in America.
Now the twits rule them and explains the ignorance of today from the "educated" idiots.

Just want to keep it clean and right

andrews
I did not say belief in "religious absolutes" whatever those may be is beleiving in fairy tales. I listed things like "virgin birth of Jesus", the "resurrection of Jesus from the dead" and "Noah's ark tale" etc. as examples of fairy tales. Saying these things are fairy tales is NOT arrogant. It is just pointing out the obvious. You would say the same thing about an adult who believes Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real.

I am not close minded at all. I just think for myself. And yes, there are areas where I do disagree with Aquinas, Augustine, Luther and many others. I don't think that puts me "above" them. It just means I think for myself rather than taking their thoughts as my own.

How, in the world does that make me arrogant and close minded?

slacker
Actually I might go and kill a few people if given the atheistic opportunity. Short term relief with no long term consequences...sounds good. My only question would be who is top of the list.


What you fail to recognize is that sense of family, community, right, wrong, and justice come from religion. There was no cooperation before then.

Slacker
I am not a Christian, so I do not hold any of the beliefs you are so quickly dismissing, but by dismissing anyone with a belief in religious absolutes as a "believer in fairy tales", you try to put yourself above Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther, and the list goes on and on.

Would it not be a bit more becoming to be a bit more humble in your statements?

Or maybe you are one of those anachronistic snobs who think people in the past were idiots, so they can be excused for silly beliefs, but we are so much smarter now and should not believe in "stupid things" like G-d.

Funny, you dismiss the "fundamentalists" but you are every bit as arrogant and close-minded as those you dismiss.


A better question
Imagine you wake up tomorrow and are absolutely certain that there is no god. I know, you say this is impossible, but just imagine it for a few minutes.

Now, ask yourself this question: What would you change about your life and how you conduct it as an atheist?

I bet that you will find that you will change very little of it just because you are now an atheist for these few minutes. But if you would change things, how would you change them?

I doubt you will go out killing, robbing, stealing.

Silly question Sandman
Sandman asks -

"why shouldn't my actions be guided by a simple weighing of the chances of getting away with it against the benefits to be gained by eliminating a competitive threat? Or to put it more simply, if I KNEW I would get away with it, why shouldn't I kill them?"

The answer is obvious

1) There IS a minority of people who actually do kill people because they think they can get away with it. And sometimes they do. It would be a mistake to think that all of the people in this category are atheists.

2) For the majority of us, there is a better strategy. We are social animals and we live in families with other families. Survival of the fittest may work fine at the level of a gene, but most of us thrive much better in a cooperative environment where we work together to achieve ends that no one individual can achieve by themselves. In society we achieve status in part by how important we are to improving the life of those around us. Getting a reputation of a murderer. a suspected one, or someone who is "just out for themselves" is going to lead to rejection from the group.

No god is necessary to understand this.

Evangelical Religion
Evangelical, what a glorious sound, it rings off the tongue and Proclaims Christs presence here on Earth.
Why is it then, that American "Evangelistic" Churchs all seem to stem from the Southern Baptist and various non traditional churches of the Mid West and Far West.
God through Jesus, never said, `Go forth and slander, Malign or impune another religion, or person for how they believe in him.'
Jesus spoke saying `Render unto Ceasar, that which is Cearsars, and give unto God that which is his'
He also spoke saying `those who are without sin, cast the first stone against the unrigtheous' But there are none.
The Catholic Church is alive and well. So is the Lutheran, Episcopal. Protstants, and Anglican or for you un knowers the Church of England.
America's so called Evangelist movement has terrorised, invaded our homes and wire tapped everyone into a Gestapo like state. You have created fear in the wrong people, America's honest hard working citizens.
While allowing real terrorist, crimminals, thieves and malicious purveyors of smut to continue to exist. Your laws to protect your self interests have created a heaven for these doers of evil.
Quit down grading others and find God.

Simple Explanation continued...
Face it. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to your bible believing neighbors and friends and say you are an atheist. As more people become educated, there is less pressure to "fit in" by appearing to go to some church. The churches that don't require you to check your brain at the door, once a refuge for this purpose are no longer necessary.

That leaves the ignorant and those with no courage to think their beliefs through on their own. Where are they going to go? To the evangelical churches, of course. Where it is OK to believe in such inanities as:

- The virgin birth of Jesus
- The resurrection of Jesus from the dead
- The story of Noah's ark
- The parting of the Red Sea during the exodus
- Jesus fed the multitudes with one picnic basket and other "miracles"

Give me a break! I am not saying all people who are christians are ignorant fools. I am saying that anyone who believes in the above is not thinking very hard about what they believe in, is engaging in a lot of wishful thinking, or both.

That is why the extremes - unthinking believers and the thinking and educated "unaffiliated" are growing and the middle (liberal religion) is shrinking.

It seems simple - either ....
You believe in fairy tales or you don't.

Any one who does even a little indepemdent thinking who believes in "the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant revelation to mankind" just HAS to be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic!

It is no surprise that the ranks of the "unaffiliated" are growing. The education level of the US is going up steadily year by year. In 1980, only 17% of males and females 25 and over had a bachelor's degree or better. It has gone up pretty much every year since and in 2006, it was 28%.

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_008.asp ?referrer=report

The more educated you are the less likely you are to believe in Fairy Tales. This explains the growing number of "unaffiliated".

God speaks
Emmanuel, God with us (and my great-grandfather), says Shabbat Shalom to y'all.

Will
I really do not see how you have answered any of my questions even from 2 year ago. From my POV you have made allegations with no substance to back them.

Now, I still claim that you do not, will not, and cannot refute any of my statements. You just go on and on, continuing to spew nonsense.

Exlain why Christianity is 'man-made'. Exlain what solution Plato had concerning Absolutism v Relativism. How can there be "MANY absolutes?" Doesn't 'absolute' restrict the field of possibilities to one?

And now, you have made more statments that I would like to have explained. Specifically, "Jesus thought of the here & now (the only truly meaningful prospect) as "passing", as "temporary". Jesus was probably every bit as obstinate & unyielding in his beliefs as you seem to be." Have at it, Will.

Again, Will, you make your charges but clam up when asked for explanations.

Keep trying, Will.

Beliefs
I have never know a true atheist.At one time ,I thought my brother was one.I more believe he was an agnostic.He passed away last fall.He died peacefully and I think he was neither at that time.
After reading many posts on this page,it is interesting to read different perspectives. If a person believes there IS no God,it is hard for a someone to reason with them. You cannot MAKE them believe. You just have to hope and pray that God will deal with their subconscious and change their hearts. Maybe in a dream one night and you won't even realize it until you are different.I can only say that I am not afraid of death. I am not ready to die,yet,and want to see my family for a while longer,but when the time comes,
I believe I will welcome it.I do fear pain,excruciating pain,but not death.I have seen some people fight death and it is not a pretty sight.Even after death,they look worried.A person who does not fear death usually has a peaceful, serene look on their face.In my case.."to be absent on earth is to be present with the Lord".



Birdman:
I have to leave for the afternoon. I have a life. In the course of 2 years, I believe I HAVE answered these questions to you (probably more than once), sufficiently to my mind.

Your problem is: if the answer is not to your satisfaction (God is Great, God is Love, God is Absolute), you simply block out the dialogue. You are really not looking for debate here or differing viewpoints. You are simply trying to prop up your holy scripture.

Good luck with that.

Will
If you don't want to engage in debate, then don't. I'm not forcing you to talk to me.

Birdman
Please don't assume I am "railing".

As you can tell, I am a reader. I post what the sum of my reading has taught me. I am relatively happy (belief in one or more gods is not necessary to achieve happiness).

This idea you have of atheists "railing" (imagine me shaking my fist at the sky if you must) is only a construct to support your own Absolutist beliefs (after all, if you are "RIGHT", then all who oppose your view must be "WRONG"). Therefore, you try to belittle me by characterizing my arguments as "railing". You try to belittle Plato & the greeks as "LIBERAL".

Plato & the greeks who gave us a foundation for modern mathematics & astronomy. Democracy & the concept of trial by jury. Yes, I suppose they are liberal, in the antiquated sense of the word.

Plato was a greater historical figure to me than Jesus Christ. Plato was thoughtful & rational. Plato debated. Jesus thought of the here & now (the only truly meaningful prospect) as "passing", as "temporary". Jesus was probably every bit as obstinate & unyielding in his beliefs as you seem to be.

Obstinate & unyielding does not work in a diverse, multi-cultural experiment such as American democracy, does it?

Will

I still see that you cannot refute any of my statements. you just go on and on continuing to spew nonsense.

Exlain why Christianity is 'man-made'. Exlain what solution Plato had concerning Absolutism v Relativism. How can there be "MANY absolutes?" Doesn't 'absolute' restrict the field of possibilities to one?

You make your charges but clam up about explanations.

Keep trying, Will.

truth
Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned. Darkness can not comprehend light.

I know of only one who had the power to lay down his life and to take it up again of his own will. He claimed to be one with the father and proved it by having power over life and death.

All the others are still in the grave.

Bridge:
If the sound of "There are no absolutes" (& so we must make them up) offends your ear & sense of logic, simply read it: "There are MANY absolutes."

Something tells me you will reject that, too.

Why don't we simply cut out the middleman (meaning the debate) & you quote scripture to me? Might as well get it over with. Isn't that where these threads always wind up? The muslim can then throw in his scripture. The atheist can then tell you both that your scriptures are man-made, and the merry-go-round will continue until somebody gets hungary or it's time for bed.

shelama
"bloody human child sacrifice is fine and divine "
....only to the pro-abortionists.

Shelama
Sorry, what was the question?

Will

But Will, despite what you may believe, I belive that "God" is THE solution.

Remember, if we start from the premise that "God" is an Imagined Being, then we must conclude that God cannot be a solution.

All of your feel good words, "Truth", "Justice", and "Good" are meaningless w/o a grand standard established by some entity outside of our influence (God).

You can rail all you like. It does not change the fact that if man determines the standard of your words, then you have a relative standard; whereas if God determines the standard of your words, then you have an absolute and unchanging standard.

Yes, God is AN answer, if you seek other answers; but outside of your little world, God is also THE answer.

When you had your arithmetic test graded in grammar school all the other answers you put down were wrong but the right answer was THE answer and that was an absolute. You found other answers among all possible answers but that did not mean that the right answer was one of many, only that you had the wrong one. There was only one answer that the teacher would accept.

Will
Do you understand the ridiculousness of your relativism? "There is no absolute" sounds an awful lot like an absolute, which would make it a self-defeating statement. It cannot by any definition be true. Absolutes exist, and you have to know it.

Claims not substantiated...
...is an issue of weight for or against or relevant to whose, or to what category, of beliefs?

i must object
to this statement

"A few decades ago liberal theologians gained control of the seminaries. Instead of teaching their pastoral and theological students to love, trust and revere the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant revelation to mankind, they were taught to question, doubt and debate the claims of Scripture. To question truth became the ultimate objective rather than discovering truth. The “search” was not a part of the journey, it was the destination."

as with some conservative pundits it all comes down to what they feel is true.

where is the fact based information that confirms this astounding and simply absurd statement.

what theological seminaries did this author investigate to come to this conclusion?

how many mainline churches did he attend to gather research for that statement?

how many pastors did he interview?

i am continually told conservatives act on reason and liberals on emotion but again and again i see statement by conservative thinkers that are based on their feelings not on facts.

my church (mainline methodist) has expanded to 3 services in the past 5 years and does not expouse any of the points of view that this author contends is prevalent. yet we consider ourselves a liberal church simply because we feel that
Christians have a role to play in our societal problems and the solutions.

read any of the mission statements of the mainline protestant churches and you will find there are the same beliefs of most evangelical churches.

the mega-churches have become country clubs for the masses but are considered conservative.

to blame everything on liberal leanings is an affront to millions of Christians and to God.


we can discuss all kinds of biblical scripture and its meaning but to dismiss the whole problem as liberalism, is simplistic and intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

Shelama
Your bitterness against Christianity is clouding your "rationality". You're re-inventing history to fit the worldview which you hold, when it should be the other way around. Your claims of "how it really happened" cannot be substantiated in the least, so why should we believe a word you say?

Charles
There IS no moral absolute or Absolute.

And that is why the various societies & nations make one up.

Let's start at the beginning. If man evolved through SOME FROM of evolution (& if you have issues with Darwin, FINE! But SOME form of evolution from sea to land & reptile to mammal to man), and if man struggles with concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice, then ONE MUST INVENT a system of an absolute, or Absolutes (as Plato did).

Hundreds of thousands of years of human history (pre-dating, obviously, jewish & christian history) are strewn with attempts at inventing Absolutist answers, "God" stories, morality systems.

Remember, in the grand scheme of human history, Judaism & Christianity have been around for three thousand & two thousand years, respectively. This is a flash in the pan when you consider hundreds of thousand of years as a time frame. How did man live & think 150,000 years ago? It wasn't in Christina terms. Mother Earth & Women dieties (as they gave birth & "sperm" was not yet associated with the procreative act) tended to be the standard.

The problem with all you Christians is, your logic is irrevocably limited & circular. You always come back to your own set of tales: the story of Adam & Eve; a wrathful God, a merciful God, a virgin birth. In a sense, you are trapped & isolated with one attempted "answer", one attempt at meaning.

I would argue with Charles
the hammer re: Shelama's rationale for disregarding Christian's claims and the place of the crucifixion.

It is not necessarily ignorance but an inability to know the truth. After a person sets himself up as god any claims from outside that would confront this claim must be ridiculed out of consideration.

Only with the grace of God and many times life's crushing blows will a person like Shelama or me be humbled to consider Christ and His message.

Stoic
You are indeed a unique atheist, and might I say I find it refreshing to discuss these things without the vitriol so many atheists harbor towards all things spiritual. I appreciate the respect.

I guess I'm still not clear on how God doesn't fit into the picture you give here. I believe moral absolutes exist apart from man as well, I just go one step farther than you and say they don't just exist, they exist as reflections of the nature of a perfectly moral Being who created man in His image and likeness. Is that such a far step from where you are?

House of Cards
Wink wink nod nod my fellow Christian and everyone else: bloody human child sacrifice is fine and divine and a moral absolute of an absolutely moral god, and is also consistent with Hebrew scripture. And if you don't buy that, then you're theologically errant.

I can think of almost nothing to which I'd rather be more errant than "Christian Theology." Other than more volminous, has it anything, really, to recommend itself over Scientology Theology?

Shelama
But that's the problem. Actually, several problems.

First, like most people, you use "rational" as a lazy shortcut. That is, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we ALL know that isn't right, don't we?" Of course, rationality is, in no way, an ends or judgment. Without starting assumptions regarding morality, or even the operation of rationality, then it is worthless. It is a tool, not an end in and of itself.

Second, your view of the Crucifixion is clearly a caricature view based on a shallow understanding viewed through the prism of contact with errant theology. And a basic ignorance.

Thus, your criticism is worthless, except insofar as you think it is clever.

the sinner,

Charles

Shelama
You did, when you made that specific criticism, as I explained before.

the sinner,

Charles

Dear God In Jesus
What rational human being would not question the morality, respectability, intelligence, integrity, sanity, worthiness and/or existence of a god who demands bloody human child sacrifice?

will
If the Christian God is only "an" answer (and, by your statements, any other god or spiritual leader), then there is no answer. If there is no absolute answer, of one kind or another, then there is no such thing as good and evil, wrong or right - these, too, devolve in to cultural constructs with little more than power to back them up.

If absolutes do not originate and exist outside of man, then they do not exist, period. All of the poor attempts to show how concepts of morality are "genetic" or due to "group behavior" cannot escape this fundamental issue. After all, it is genetic for some people, some theories state, to rape little children. Without an absolute, we can only say that the act is "illegal."

Without said absolutes, we have mores, but no morality. Some people have no problem with this, and that's fine. I do.

the sinner,

Charles

Again...
Who said anything about a "compassionate" God, Jewish or otherwise?

Shelama
Hey, you wrote the sentence, not I. You're the one who used a "bloody sacrifice" as a criticism, not I. When you make such statements and use them, specifically as criticism, the only rational observation is that you view it as something wrong. Or does your own god encompass the same lack of decency implied by your sentence that you infer on the Christian God?

the sinner,

Charles

Compassionate
Who said anything about a "compassionate" god, Jewish or otherwise?

Shelama
Comments like

"And not at all averse to a god who demanded bloody human child sacrifice (i.e., Jesus)"

just goes to show you know nothing of Christianity. Except maybe the very important inconsistencies of some sects.

Oh, and the Hebrew faith's God demanding the stoning to death of various and sundry offenders of the law? That is a "compassionate" God? After all, your comment can only lead one to believe that you are criticizing Christianity on those grounds.

Or are you one of those "reformed Jews" who simply decided they didn't want to stick out in various societies anymore, and so abandoned his faith for a "just do this and you're cool" version (that has now morphed into synagogues that have drum circles and meditation)? Before you pop off about Christianity or any other religion, it helps to know what you're talking about.

the sinner,

Charles

Irony (with a capital "I")
The entire Reformation was founded upon a "reinterpretation" of the Bible and church doctrine. Even the leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, attempted to use the Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers to support their positions, but only selectively. VERY selectively. They knew they had to appeal to Holy Tradition, but wanted to excise that Tradition from any real meaning afterwards. All the Reformation did was take the novelty/heresy of papal authority and transfer it to the individual - making the problem that much worse.

Now, we have writers worrying about people abandoning the "authority" of the Bible. Well, what authority? Whose interpretation? There are millions of interpretations, additions, deletions, etc. These days, it's all about whoever you "feel" is keeping the message "real."

And the complaint about the so-called Emergent Church talking about various doctrines not being vital? IRONY!! To the nth degree!! That is all the Reformation did! And absolutely every single church or denomination (or non-denomination) that has emerged from that "branch" of what is commonly called Christianity does EXACTLY that!

"Well, X isn't important! It's only symbolic!" When I was a non-denom Protestant, I would often argue that "only these ___ things are important to the true faith, everything else is just politics or human deviation." And that is what Protestants do today. Sola scriptura, sola fide . . . etc., none of these ideological positions existed in the Faith until Luther and his compatriots. Never. So, again, the Reformation was the putting into action the very idea that Burney is fearful of! That is, excising doctrine from both the Faith and, eventually, the Bible itself.

And Burney is shocked?

the sinner,

Charles

No Founder's Day
Christianity had no founder except an evolutionary process. Paul comes as close as any, perhaps, to being the single most important individual contributor to the development of the Christ Myth, but he did not invent it. And he, like Joseph Smith and Mohammed, must be granted status as a true religious genius. I agree.

But it's no surprise that Paul could sell his gospel only to the pagan Greeks, and not to Jews who actually knew Jewish scripture and messianism. Crying out loud, not even the Jerusalem community of Jesus Jews bought into Paul's stuff. Not Peter. Not James the brother of Jesus.

And when the Temple was destroyed, and the Jerusalem community of Jesus Jews disappeared, Paul's was the dominant and most successful of the many early versions of Christianity. Within a Greco-Roman world too ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures to recognize Paul's nonsense. And not at all averse to a god who demanded bloody human child sacrifice (i.e., Jesus).

The rest is history.

Shabbat Shalom

Birdman writes,
"What was Plato's solution? It was not God was it?"

Birdman, "God", despite what you may believe, is not THE solution or THE answer. It is merely AN answer.

Remember, if we start from the premise that "God" is an Imagined Being, a human construct, to help us make sense of philosophical question (such as "What does Truth and Justice and Good mean unless there is some grand standard to judge them against?"), then God is AN answer (in this instance, constructed by several jewish cults 2500-3000 years ago and then embellished & rewritten & refined by their peers, before "Official" versions emerged known as the Books of the Old Testament, so-called by later "Christ"-persons), not THE solitary answer.

Like Islam & Buddhism & the Greeks' 12 Gods & Plato's Ideas & Absolutes, Christianity is but one stab at addressing the Grand Questions of Meaning. I am fairly certain most of the world's big religions must have started off as metaphors. Then somewhere along the line, metaphor gave way to literalism. By the time the early christians got around to concocting the "Good News", I'm sure that jewish literalism in Garden of Edens & messiahs were no longer metaphors.

Freedomknight
Please, please, please stop with the internet claims of Christianity borrowing from pagan religions/cults. Those claims are absolute bunk. There was no inscription of the Isis/Osiris birth myth that pre-dated the Hellenistic period (at least, not in total). As a matter of fact, Plutarch (writing in 70 A.D., well after the establishment of the Christian Faith, and the only chronicler of the entire Osiris/Isis myth) relates that Osiris was born of a coupling between Rhea and Kronos. Another tradition has him springing from the sun. (Marvin Meyer, ed., "The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook.") According to Donna Rosenberg's work, "World Mythology," Osiris had a father, Re (Nut was his mother). Virgin birth? Doesn't exist in the actual myth.

Of course, Osiris was the "dying/rising" god, NOT Horus the younger (Horus the elder Osiris' brother from Nut and Re). Horus the younger had a father, Osiris, and was NOT the "dying/rising" god. I think you either mixed it up yourself, or your "source" got the two mixed up. Horus, after all, was the son of the incestuous coupling between Osiris and Isis, half-siblings (who, themselves, were the product of an incestuous relationship between Nut and her brother).


Your claims regarding this are factually inaccurate, and were debunked decades upon decades ago. The claims of Christianity "borrowing" from the Isis/Osiris/Horus myth, or things like Mithraism, only have life on the internet or in books by nut-jobs.

the sinner,

Charles

Setting your own definitions
Is futile when pursuing credibility.
(not that you are or can find any)

Shelama writes: 2:08 PM


Christianity is as Christianity does, and none of that can be laid on the carrion corpse of that poor dead 1st century Jew, I agree.
------
Christianity is defined by its Founder.
Not you
Nor any other man.

Paul defined the details.

Catholic Priests who used forced conversations do not define Christianity any more than you do or can.
Its way above you and out of your power to do.
You can imagine such power if you like, its ok with me and the Lord.
But He calls it self deception, a God given right.

Bridge2Far
Sad to say, I tend to be unusual for an atheist. I find my fellow atheists are typically anti-Christian, bigoted hedonists. To offer greater specificity as to my own thoughts, I'm philosophically a Stoic (ergo my handle on Townhall), meaning that I believe in the concept of natural law (i.e. it is intrinsic in our nature that we possess moral rights and the manner in which we exercise our volition determines the morality of our actions and the content of our character).

My mention of maintaining civilization was not to assign a "purpose" to morality. Were morality invented by man and did not reside in some external truth, but merely served as a means for social organization, then yes, it would require an authority figure. And if we organize based on our mere whim, then yes, morality becomes an arbitrary construct for which you are quite right to then note it may devolve into moral relativism, and is thus flawed.

However, as I said, I believe in natural law, and that morality is truth which lies external to human perception or invention. Akin to mathematical proofs, it is something to be 'discovered,' more than 'invented.' (e.g. the Pythagorean theorem was still true before Pythagoras put the necessary premises together) Much like the scientist who may discover the laws of physics through empircisim, the scientist does not invent them, nor does the philosopher invent moral laws.

I am of the mindset that like mathematics, morality may through reason be discovered. The philosopher, much like the scientist, may be in error, but does not go about 'engineering' systems with a purpose in mind.

Shelama

You might want to talk to Will. Maybe he can reserve a seat for you the stage. One will be leaving town any minute now. The 2 of you make a team.

Absolutes
I am always amused by those who deny the authority of the Word of God and it's absolute claim in matters of belief yet set up the same absolutes in matters of secular dealings between people. Someone who says there are no absolutes has already proclaimed an absolute. Those like Will who believe we can live moral lives towards others without a foundation to base that life on are on a slippery slope towards despotism. If someone disagrees with you what do you do then? Pass a law making them? It is ironic that the same people who reject Christianity's absolutes will unyieldingly offer up similar guidelines when it comes to "hate" speech, gay marriage, abortion, global warming etc. Some people's beliefs on these topics is as unflinching and unaccepting of debate as the Christian doctrines they say are too unyielding. I say all this to show my point that guidelines to civilized living need to be based on more than a vague "try to be nice to people".

Belief, Story & Death
1. No lies: only BELIEF and STORY.

2. We haven't a clue, actually, how, where or why any of those early followers of Jesus, who actually knew Jesus, died. With, thanks to Josephus, the possible exception of James (the brother of Jesus?) We have no reason whatsoever to believe that anyone who actually knew Jesus before the Romans killed him was "martyred" for a belief in an empty tomb.

3. Jesus of Nazareth, his Jewish life and Roman death, were necessary but not sufficient for the invention and evolution of the Christ Myth. A BELIEF that Jesus had been raised to life ("resurrected") was also necessary. And there is no reason to suppose that such a belief in 1st century Judea required an empty tomb and a walking talking corpse. (What is it about fisherman? ... New England families of seaman lost at sea report seeing their dear dead lost and departed walking about the town.)

4. BELIEF is all that is required to make a religious "martyr" or murderer. And who do we know are all too happy to die for their beliefs? Muslims? Jews? Buddhists? Christians of all stripes, including Mormons? The willingness to die for a BELIEF indicates only one thing: the dead was human. ("Dying for a lie" is a strawman.)


Shabbat Shalom

Sandman
Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living? You write as though you engage in these type of discussions frequently. Is it a profession, or just a hobby?

will

Will, I am glad you have such a high opinion of me.

I agree that there are no such things as 'good', 'justice', 'beauty' & 'truth' w/o some absolute standard to measure against. What was Plato's solution? It was not God was it?

Now, just a Plato rails against the problems associated with relativism so do the Liberals of today rail against those same problems; and just as Plato rejected God then so do the Liberals today reject God now. The concept of God was not unknown to Plato even though his society had multiple gods. He chose against that concept.

I am sorry that you find my answers to be simplistic but I do try so very hard to be understood.

Calling me "a true unequivocal BONEHEAD" does not advance your argument in the least. If anything, it actually erodes your argument in that it lessens the impact of your thoughts by diverting attention away from your points (if you had any).

I know from past experience that you are opposed to any notion of a supreme being to whom you may be held accountable. I cannot help you there as you reject any argument in that vein. That begs the question, why do you post in any column that involves mention of God, Jesus, or Christians? You do not sway any here and nobody here will sway you. If you went to some Liberal blog show, I guarantee that I would not follow.

Selama
"Technically speaking...
...of course, there is/was no grave because the carcass of poor dead Jesus rotted away on that Roman cross as carrion meal for crows and dogs."

Says who? Your wild imagination?

Alexander the Great may not have a gravesite, but then again, no one is putting out a credible claim he rose from the dead.

You can mock all you want, but the biblical accounts are more solid then you think. If the disciples stole him and concocted a great lie, why did they accept martyrdom? Not too many people will die morbid deaths for a lie...

Rebuttal to Will's 1:12 post
Several errors of logic in your specious ramblings of 1:12. To wit:

Most of Plato's opinions were not original to himself, and even if they were, the fact that threads of commonality may be found in the Christian creed with bits and pieces of other belief systems does not constitute anything more than evidence that Christianity did not spring into existence from a vaccuum.

The common aspects of Christianity and prevailing Hellenistic, Zoroastrian and Brahmanistic philosophies of the day are well documented and interesting, but do not necessarily negate the truth of Christianity itself. In fact, this circumstance could be used to argue the existence of certain universal truths that you claim do not exist.

The fact that religion may be considered a philosophy does not make it false, unless your position is that philosophies, by definition, are false. I doubt that any learned Christian would even argue that religion, as well as philosophy, both occupy the realm of metaphysical thought. But, once again, this represents a non sequitur, in the debate over truth.


Christ Cult
Jesus of Nazareth, his Jewish life and Roman death, is indeed the historical antecedent to "Christ" and the Christ Myth, that is true.

Christianity is as Christianity does, and none of that can be laid on the carrion corpse of that poor dead 1st century Jew, I agree.

Un-Christian History you mean
Shelama writes: 1:55 PM
Forced conversions?
Don't forget to ask the Jews about "forced conversions" in Christian history.
---------
Once again
Christianity is based in Jesus Christ.
Not Roman Catholic Priests.
Jesus forced no man, nor does He ever.

Religious Triumphalism
That makes me extra sad, Birdman, that poor Jesus is dead and not coming back. Y'all Christians could'a used him in the battles between triumphalist religions. All parties to which are doomed to massive disappointment and failure.

As it is, neither the USA nor Israel (nor Britian nor Russa) can possibly escape the inevitable: real live fission NUKES, not "dirty bombs." Will the West retaliate against ... whom? Where? (50:50 says yes.)

But what we do know is that poor Jesus will not be showing up to the rescue from behind those mushroom clouds.

Which you side stepped
Shelama writes: 1:53 PM


Talent scout introduced the numbers game; take it up with him.

----------
I asked how many converts you have made.
Not how many the muslims have forced into bondage.

Forced conversions?
Don't forget to ask the Jews about "forced conversions" in Christian history.

Old News
Shelama writes: 1:34 PM
2 Billion Xtians w/ 600 yr headstart?
Islam alrady has 1.2 Billion and they gave the Christ Myth a 600 year headstart. And Muslims are now reproducing at a much faster rate than Christians (except maybe Mormons).

Get back to me in another 1000 years.

----------
You will be dead with-in 20-40 most likely.
The falling away was taught by Paul, the man whose Gospel you will bow to also, like it or not.

Satan will soon be revealed due to the falling away from truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 -
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Your man cometh soon enough, be happy.

Emmanuel says hello.
God with us Emmanuel lives next door and he says hello.

Talent scout introduced the numbers game; take it up with him.

Shabbat Shalom

Shelama

"2 Billion Xtians w/ 600 yr headstart? Islam alrady has 1.2 Billion and they gave the Christ Myth a 600 year headstart."

It helped in the growth of Islam that their method of dealing with Christians was to preach their faith to them in this way, "Convert to Islam or die". Many converted but many more preferred to die rather than to denounce Christ. The men were put to death and the women were put into harems as sex slaves and breeders.

Islam started with on man (Mohammed) and spread across Arabia, the Middle East, and North Africa before 700 AD in the manner. Such is the legacy of Islam.

There is NO peaceful co-existence with Islam.

At the rate we are going today, America, Europe, Asia, and Africa as we know them will cease to exist in 100 years let alone 1000. Things, as bad as they are now, can get worse; and they will. The Revelation of Jesus given to John tells us that. But even in Revelation 17 & 18 we hear God exhort His people to "come out of her" meaning the false religions of 'Christianity'. There will always be remnant right up to the end of time.

Shelama - Still Tilting at Windmills
1. Didn't you say in your 12:53 post that you would be leaving this thread? i think your grandfather Emmanual would be upset to learn that you preferred the company of conservatives to his.

2. Fact: if the Christ story is a myth, then Islam is at least as false as Christianity, since its tenets are built upon the underlying assumptions of Christianity.

3. If truth and "right" are found in numbers, as you seem to imply in your 1:34 post, then you are clearly "wrong" in your assertions, given that those who agree with you are clearly in the minority.

Birdman
This is the problem I have with knuckleheads like you:

I have tried to rationally describe Plato's system of Absolutes (aspects of which christian thought ripped off, by the way, and appropriated for themselves).... & your simplistic, thoughtless answer if PLATO IS A LIBERAL.

You are a true unequivocal BONEHEAD. You are thoroughly, transcendentally brainwashed in your cultist notions & I can plainly see that rationality & reason will not interfere with your chosen thought processes (supernaturalism & mysticism).

Good luck with that.

Jesus
Jesus asked if he would find faith in the world when he returned.

I believe we are seeing the birth of the apostate church...having the form of religion but denying the reality of Christ.

There is still a remnant. Dark days are ahead for this nation. I am hoping for revival and a great harvest before we are out of here.

Agenda for the NAU is well advanced. When we go down we will take the world with us. One world gov (new world order) will set the stage for the arrival of the anti-chirst. Dan 6 23-25

Israel becoming a nation set the timer. Iran is not going to stop. Israel will have to bomb them. Will that trigger EZ 38/39?? I expect we will see those events fairly soon. Israel and Babylon (Iraq) come out of top. Babylon is the only ME country that doesn't take part in the attack. (Read Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg) Tribulation begins when the anti-christ makes a peace pact with Israel. BTW the anti-christ rules the world from Babylon.

We are getting close.

The Romans Road
After I mentioned the Romans Road, I found a website that has the verses from the Epistle of Paul to the Church at Rome:

http://www.romansroad.com/id49.htm

These principals of salvation can mostly be found elsewhere in scripture, but are eloquently presented together in one location.

Anyone who is sincerely curious about the subject will find this beneficial.

2 Billion Xtians w/ 600 yr headstart?
Islam alrady has 1.2 Billion and they gave the Christ Myth a 600 year headstart. And Muslims are now reproducing at a much faster rate than Christians (except maybe Mormons).

Get back to me in another 1000 years.

But will the products of religious triumphalism have already rendered it moot by then?

1st Commandment defiled
There is nothing in the Bible about scripture being literally true, or infallible or inerrant. These are ideas that have been imposed on the Bible by Christians in order to defend certain interpretations of it.
(http://www.christian-bible.com/Exegesis/inerrancy.htm)

Based on the above citation, it would appear to me that Biblicals, the so-called Evangelical Christians, have raised another idol against God.

Foundations

The foundation of the Jewish faith is God and His work. The foundation of Christian faith is the Jewish foudation as a Jew named Jesus taught about God and His works thru Jesus.

Plato built up a whole system of putting the relativism in "context" by avoiding God much like Leberals do today.

"Good" & "Justice" were meaningless in & of themselves unless there is a standard to measure those attributes against. That standard is God. If we use man, in any way, we arrive a relativism. With man's standards there can be no absolutes.

'Christianity' does not attempt to provide any anchor. 'Christianity' is an attempt to live by God's rules thru Jesus. God and Jesus the Son make up the anchor. God's teaching is the solution for philosophical problems of moral relativism that have plagued mankind for millenia.

I am glad, Will, that you even consider Christianity. I am sad that you misrepresent it in your considerations.

Free Willy
Will writes: Saturday, March, 01, 2008 10:46 AM
"The TH censors found the word pen*s, with the * not displacing the "i", to be unaccaptable. Yet vagina is OK. (?) Where's the logic in this? What "whole" word can I use for pen*s without resorting to astericks or pound signs? "Pen*s" is the equivalent of "vagina", yet vagina is acceptable and the other not. This is a commentary on our society (or at least commentary on a paternalistic Townhall.com that is not keeping with the times)..."
************************************************

Try using your name, Willie.

You have a voice too
Shelama writes: 1:15 PM
Self Validation Par Excellence
"Those who have ears to hear, will hear, those who do not will not hear"
---------
Just as all men do, and the Apostle Paul.
You may even win a few converts to your own foundations.

I know you will never win any hearts or minds away from God though.

Paul has won billions while you win how many?
Smile at your own insignificant and small station in life.
Take yourself as serious as you wish and as for me, you will never rise above what you are...a fool.

Says you, Shelama
You are wrong Shelama and you cannot prove otherwise. All your self-assured declarations will not make it otherwise. People must accept on faith a belief or disbelief in the Christ story for whatever reasons compel them. Christians understand and accept that. What people like yourself fail to understand or accept is that your disagreement does not constitute proof in or of itself. You have chosen to accept, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the Christ story is not truth. So be it, but don't think that your self-delusion of certainty constitutes a more defensible position than anyone else's.

Your failure to grasp this fundamental fact constitutes as good a proof as any however that you are a philosophical hack, engaged in a futile and ludicrous attempt at convincing others of your nonexistent capacity to divine the unknowable.

No It Will Not
Evangelicals becoming the "mainline church" means they are winning! That is nothing to be affraid of.

With numbers always comes heresy. There is a humanist/new age movement within Evangelical circles that have bought into the pagan earth worship of radical environmentalists. But this will fade.

If nothing else the children of Evangelicals are well educated. They are taught good rational science. As global warming hysterics once claimed the scientific high ground, now they are being shown as frauds and liars. There is no scientific evidence supporting global warming.

Eventually this new heresy will fade as Darwinism has gone. The question is, what will the next popular heresy be?

Where's The Downside?
Bob Burney sez:
One in four adults age 18 to 29 claims no affiliation with any religious institutiona troubling statistic as we consider the next generation of Christian leaders.
**********************************

HUNH?

How is this a BAD statistic?

THREE-QUARTERS of the nation's youts are religious, and Burney complains?

Does he whine when his glass is 3/4 full?

Self Validation Par Excellence
"Those who have ears to hear, will hear, those who do not will not hear"

The Foundation is set
1 Corinthians 3:11 -
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

And no man can lay it again in another definition set by Jesus Christ and the man God Himself chose to lay all Christian teaching.

God chose the man Saul of Tarsus to lay the Foundation for all Christian teaching, Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner Stone.

No man who has come after Paul has any authority from God to change what was given in the 1st century of the Christian Faith.

Not the Council of Nicea, nor the World Council of Church's.

God is not the Author of confusion as the Christian church's have become today.
He made it very simple and gave the Apostle Paul ALL authority over all Christian Teaching, Preaching and Judgments.

Any man who has come after Paul and does not teach what Paul taught is a liar, a thief, and a worker of iniquity.

The Office of Apostle to us Gentiles is Paul's, then and forever, established once and for all by God Himself.

Here it is for us all to know who to believe is the man God chose to teach the Christian Faith.

Romans 11:13 -
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Those who have ears to hear, will hear, those who do not will not hear.

These assertions that we need
"context & moral foundations" for ideas like Good and Justice and Beauty & Truth were adressed by Plato. Plato built up a whole system of putting the relativism in "context" & it was very similar to a religion (though, ironically enough, Plato was not a big supporter of the mutiple god system the Greeks favored). Plato's Ideas asserted that concepts like "Good" & "Justice" were meaningless in & of themselves; that a system of "Absolutes" were needed by which the reflections of Good & Moral & Beauty, etc, could be judged.

Nearly at the same time, a group of nomadic Jews in the middle east were devising a "system" of their own. They figured that concepts like "Moral" & "Good" & "Bad" & "Justice" meant nothing also unless these truths were tethered to a foundation, an "Absolute", that worked similarly to Plato's Absolutes.

Christianity is but one attempt to provide an "anchor" for philosophical problems of moral relativism that have plagued mankind for millenia.

As such, I consider Christianity (& religion & all "God" concepts in general) to be a branch of philosophy. A working out of these philosophical issues.

Will

I see that you cannot refute my statements that Christianity is not 'man-made', that Jesus taught a historical Genesis, that everything that God did was supernatural, and that even His prophecy that comes true is supernatural. So, the only left is to change the subject and accuse Jesus of 'whipping' people for no reason at all.

Keep trying, Will.

PAUL NO FOOL! ....save that NT!
Paul was just wrong, not ignorant and certainly not a fool. Is that how your mind works?

And the NT is a priceless literary, cultural and historical artifact worthy of study. Don't throw it away; I'll take it.

Besides which, you are totally correct: Western thought and civilization has been strongly influenced by, and even today a good portion of humanity is still enraptured with, paganism with a Pauline quasi-Jewish twist.

If the nutsy gospel of Paul floats your boat, and gives your life meaning, then by all means stick fast to it: gird up your loins with the armour. But Jesus is dead. He's not coming back. Get over it. But without your faith I know that you are among all men most miserable. Paul said so.

Shabbat Shalom

Transmitted too soon and lost repost

Mark 11:15-17 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'?
But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

John 2:13-16 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

So, Will, what lesson do you take from this teaching found in 3 of 4 Gospels?

Remember it is not what I approve of disapprove that counts.

Technically speaking...
...of course, there is/was no grave because the carcass of poor dead Jesus rotted away on that Roman cross as carrion meal for crows and dogs. The myth of the "empty tomb" is a late creation in the evolving Christ Myth about Jesus.

(By the way, where is the body or grave of Doubting Thomas? The body or grave of Mary of Magdala? How about James the brother of Jesus? Alexander the Great? Ceasar? Hmmm ....no bodies or graves?!? ..... HALLELUJA ... they MUST have been resurrected!!)

Those original followers of Jesus who remained with the program, and Paul of Tarsus, did not require anything so crude as an empty tomb or a walking talking corpse to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. They would/could have believed in his resurrection even if his body had been totally destroyed by Roman lions or Roman fire, nothing left to bury. Or rotted away on a cross, just like all those other 1000s of 1st century Jewish victims of Roman crucification.


Judaism is still here, still without a messiah. They've adapted to an absent messiah. As, so far, has Christianity. Which has become very adept at devising new time-tables. As simple reality will require of it for as long as it endures. Jesus is dead. He's not coming back. Get over it.

I'm off to see my great grandfather. Who just happens to be named Emmanuel. Hmmm... I'll put in a good word for you with God with us.

Shabbat Shalom

Transmitted too soon

Mark 11:15-17 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'?
But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

John 2:13-16 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

So, Will, the event was described in 3 of the 4 Gospels. Given that God judges those who disobey Him, what lesson do you take from this lesson?

Remember, it has nothing to do wiht my approval or yours for that matter.

Will

"Birdman approves of Jesus using a "whip" to drive away "money changers"."


It is not a matter of what I approve and disapprove that counts. It is what is written in the Scriptures that counts. It is not a matter of your approval or diaapproval of lifestyles that count. It is what is written in Scriptures that count.

Matt 21:12-13 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"


Shelama
Are you one of those Kabballa-types like Madonna? Just curious. Also, thanks for straightening everyone out about that ignorant fool "Paul of Tarsus." I know I now feel justified in tosssing my copies of the New Testament into the dumpster. I mean, what does the word of a man whose writings have influenced western thought and civilization for two millenia stack up to when weighed against the anonymous and factually unsupported musings of an Internet poster?

correction
Teach whatever you want to, but know this, we all will(not with) be judged by the Standard God Himself has set for one and all.

Jesus Christ

In Case Anyone is Confused
About the way to have the confident discernment of the true believers who are posting today, I recommend that you go to my blog and hunt for the post I did on "THE ROMANS ROAD," which will show you what the Bible has to say about salvation.

I wrote it some time ago, but it is worth the search.

Without context
Nothing is meaningful, nothing.

For every thought is only a hodgepodge if meaningless drivel.
Everyone has religion
Everyone has faith
Everyone has law
All men want what is right.

And none of it means a thing without context or foundations.

There is no Christian faith without the Words and Deeds of Jesus Christ.
All meaning of words one believes must be established in Him and His Deeds to be a Christian in God's eyes.

With men, all it takes is saying I am a Christian.
But God has set the example in Jesus Christ for all men, and the Foundation for the meaning of all Christian teaching.
Without Jesus, there is no context or foundation for any "Christian" Church.

Isaiah 51:6 -
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished

Teach whatever you want to, but know this, we all with be judged by the Standard God Himself has set for one and all.

Jesus Christ

by the way
-Freedomknight: I caught this after my last post The quote you gave that is supposedly Sumerian (not saying it isn't) was not the same as the example I gave. My quote was "You shall love your enemy." (Matthew 5:44) I'd say there's quite a difference there. I'd be interested to see evidence that ancient civilizations conceived such a thing before Christ said it.

-Shelema: you mention Jewish faith and hope in the same post where you say Judaism has adapted to a messiah who never comes. How can this be? Is that your viewpoint, or are you criticizing contemporary Judaism? And while I'm asking questions, where exactly is the grave Jesus would roll over in?

You become part of the problem today
With this sort of arguments.
--------

tgwWhale writes: 11:48 AM
dumb, dumb article
Mr. Burney:

The essence of Protestant Christianity is "protest" (that is why it is called "Protestant," duh...). The essentially "Protestant" act is to go off on your own and start new because you perceive that what you are being given is wrong.
--------
ts:
Not so easy as this.
With such definitions Jesus Himself must be a Protestant.
Its silly to limit what Protestant Church's mean and useless to the Faith in Jesus Christ.

I reject all preachers, Catholic or Protestant as my example.
I reject all saints as my example, as I look WAY over their heads to the Author and Finisher of my Faith, Jesus Christ ONLY.
-----------
tgwWhale writes:
As long as those "Protestant" churches had traditions of their own (e.g., Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist), there was some control over what a given church or pastor proclaimed. With the rise on "non-denominational" churches, there is no control whatsoever. Non-denominational churches are very much based on "each his own pope."
------
ts:
All traditions of men are Godless and opposed by Jesus Christ.
The only Foundation of Christianity.
I need no man, but my need is placed in God alone.
You are no voice the sheep will hear, cause like the masses of preachers and teachers, you are a stranger to me and Jesus Christ.
If you do not point to Him and Him only.
---------
tgwWhale writes:
It is not enough to argue that the Bible is in control, because the Bible can be interpreted from very literally to very non-literally and back -- and is so interpreted in various churches.
--------
ts:
Only those seeking loop holes worry about interpretation.
The Bible interprets itself when one heeds its commandments to study and believe its instructions over all men.

'Til Jesus Comes Back
Christianity, in some guise, will continue to exist for as long as it can adapt to a "messiah" who never comes back; whose return is always delayed, always deferred.

As Judaism has adapted to a messiah who never comes.

The reality is that Jesus is dead and he's not coming back. He never was coming back. Poor Paul of Tarsus was wrong about a lot of other things too. Brilliant and creative, just wrong was all.

Which does not diminish, of course, the extraordinary power and seductiveness of the Christ Myth that arose from out of the Jewish life and Roman death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus would roll over in his grave if he ever found out what the Christ Myth and Christianity did to his Jewish person, Jewish faith and hope, Jewish scriptures and Jewish God.

Shabbat Shalom

Q. for the Atheists & Moral Relativists
For the sake of argument, let's assume there is no higher moral authority - that there is no God, if you will.

Under what definition of "moral authority" would it be wrong for me to kill anyone who I felt threatened my personal interests? Setting aside the obvious harm that might befall me at the hands of "the governemnt" or vengeful associates of the deceased if caught, why shouldn't my actions be guided by a simple weighing of the chances of getting away with it against the benefits to be gained by eliminating a competitive threat? Or to put it more simply, if I KNEW I would get away with it, why shouldn't I kill them?

I submit that in the absence of higher moral authority, there is only the unforgiving brutality of tribalistic Darwinism - the survival of the fittest. When viewed from the perspective of animal survival (if, in fact, humans are nothing more than smart animals), the very concept of human compassion is a meaningless abstraction. Determinations of human value are reduced to simple calculations about the personal value any given person provides to the holder. Those who provide value are accepted and protected, while those who do not are eliminated.

In thirty-plus years of debating atheists, I have yet to hear an argument from them that did not lead, from the extension of their own logic, to my being "morally justified" in killing them merely because I thought it would serve my interests.

The beauty of the situation
As the country continues to become more secular, the faith of the faithful continues to become more and more refined.

When the country was filled with people who were "Cultural Christians," not really believers, but attached to the faith because it was the "thing to do," it was like diamonds tossed in a pile of Cubic Zirconia.

As the false believers abandon the church because they no longer feel social pressure to attend, it becomes easier and easier to spot the true believers.

More and more, the faithful are like diamonds tossed in a pile of dirt: their sparkle is not hidden, but shines forth all the brighter.

dumb, dumb article
Mr. Burney:

The essence of Protestant Christianity is "protest" (that is why it is called "Protestant," duh...). The essentially "Protestant" act is to go off on your own and start new because you perceive that what you are being given is wrong.

As long as those "Protestant" churches had traditions of their own (e.g., Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist), there was some control over what a given church or pastor proclaimed. With the rise on "non-denominational" churches, there is no control whatsoever. Non-denominational churches are very much based on "each his own pope."

It is not enough to argue that the Bible is in control, because the Bible can be interpreted from very literally to very non-literally and back -- and is so interpreted in various churches.

Burney doesn't realize it, but he's making a very "Catholic" argument here: when everyone's his own pope, no one decides orthodoxy -- in other words, no one can decide just what "Christianity" is, and so what he or I might consider frighteningly false gets proclaimed as Gospel.

For Mr. Burney as an "evangelical" Protestant to complain that other churches proclaim a different message than his own is wildly hypocritical. This does not mean he cannot criticize Mr. Bell's preaching; he has every right to do so. But wringing his hands over various churches proclaiming differing and contradicting messages is simply dumb. The very way Protestant Christianity works guarantees that there will be a Mr. Burney and a Mr. Bell, and never the twain shall meet. Wildly differing interpretations of the Christian message are what Protestantism was all about from the beginning.

The light of the body is the eye
Luke 11:34 -
: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
----------

The church world has gone backwards, left and right and not forwards, just like Lot's wife.

God is seen as a hireling to support the ministry and not as it is, the ministers are to work for God.

The masses look to the Priesthood for direction, and the Priest leads them astray.

Proverbs 17:24 -
Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth.


No need to look "out there" for any answers, the answers are right in front of our eyes.

Hebrews 12:2 -
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; .............NOT PREACHERS.


Priests, preachers, pastors are to blame and the ones who will answer for all back slidden nations as America is today.

This is indeed the problem with Church's today, not Christianity.

Foundations of God are unmovable and is all this is an attempt to do.
quote:
Young theologians were taught by their professors that truth was unknowable—even the truth of Scripture. They were instructed to believe that the Bible had to be re-interpreted by each generation.

My Sheep Hear My Voice Continued
Referring back to my last post, this is why the Left hate the True Church so much, because their attempts to control the believers has failed. They take over the organizations and the buildings, and the sheep scatter, leaving them with empty buildings. Then the sheep regather in new buildings where the voice of the Father and the Son are not distorted and censored by those with a Leftist agenda.

Sometimes I picture the Lefties trying to control the Church as a bunch of cattle drivers coming in with their horses and riding rough shod through the herd of sheep, hoping to drive them the way they have the cattle at the Universities, the Courts and the Media.

The sheep scatter and immediately come back together, while the cowboys scratch their heads.

In a way I guess it is a bit like herding cats.

My Sheep Hear My Voice
The reason why the Left will not succeed in taking over the REAL CHURCH, that is to say the BODY OF CHRIST, is because the real Church is not a building or an organization. Any church building/organization that gets taken over by apostates will be fled by the faithful.

When one is truly "Born Again" and not just in lip service, The Holy Spirit comes to that person and gives them the gift of discernment.

Listen to what Jesus had to say about this subject:

"...the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out...the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers. This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand..."
John 10:3-6

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down H