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
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Third Letter to a Secular Nation
by Mike Adams
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?


In a previous installment of this series, I criticized Sam Harris for lumping together “old world” and “new world” creationists. But I must admit that before I became a Christian I was also guilty of over-simplifying the arguments of believers. Back then, I’m sure I appeared just as narrow-minded as Harris appears  throughout the pages of Letter to a Christian Nation. Nonetheless, statements like the following still grab my attention:

“Consider:every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian.”

That is an odd statement indeed. During a polite discussion,a Muslim fundamentalist admitted to me that Jesus led a sinless life and Mohammed did not. But he chose to become a Muslim, in part, because he did not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. I disagree. That is a large part of the reason why I am a Christian and not a Muslim.

On the other hand, I know of those who have reached different conclusions without even knowing that Islam teaches that Jesus lived a sinless life. Indeed, for many Muslims the decision is made out of fear of the consequences of rejecting Islam. Many are not even familiar with basic Christian arguments or the evidence supporting them.

Accepting Christianity, on the other hand, is far more likely to have come from a rational appraisal of the evidence. And it is far less likely to have come from the threat of the sword. That is important to remember when looking at statements such as this:

“Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.”

This is absurd. Radical Muslims view Christianity as a religion of peace. That is why they are not hesitant to attack Christians in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. But Christians, including George W.Bush, believe the opposite – that Islam is a religion of war. And that is why we know we must fight back when they attack us. If Muslims and Christians did not have such disparate views of one another – including, but not limited to, the capacity for violence – conflict would be less likely.

It is difficult to take Harris seriously when he says that he views Islam and Christianity in the same way. In order to draw such a conclusion, one would have to be an incurable moral relativist or simply profoundly ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. This quote suggests both interpretations are correct:

“The Golden Rule really is a wonderful moral precept. But numerous teachers offered the same instruction centuries before Jesus.”

Of course, this is not true. Numerous teachers offered the instruction that we should not do to others things we would not want others to do to us. But Jesus asks us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.Jesus’ reference to sins of omission – echoed in James 4:17 – is a reference to a newer and higher moral standard. To call it equal is to reveal one’s historical ignorance and to lend credence to the notion of moral relativism –as if moral relativism really could lend credence to any teaching.

But Harris is unable to maintain consistency in his relativistic statements:

“The Jains preach a doctrine of utter non-violence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe,they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition.”

Here, Harris indicates that he views Jains as superior to Christians. But, remember, this is the same Sam Harris who claims to see all religions the same way.

Harris continues with his secular praise of Jainism:

“(T)he doctrine of Jainism is an objectively better guide to becoming like Martin Luther King, Jr., than the doctrine of Christianity.”

This raises a couple of interesting questions: 1) Is it the intent of Christians to use Christianity to become more like Christ, or more like King? 2) Is Harris really prepared to admit to the existence of objective truths?

Harris goes on to say this:

“Anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas either about guidance or morality.”

The two key words are “best” and “we.” There is, therefore, a superior moral code by which “we” can all live. But it does not come from God. So what is the source of this superior moral code to which we may all subscribe? And have the principles of this code always been obvious to the civilized world? Read Harris’ statements about slavery:

“Consider the question of slavery. The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination. What moral instruction do we get from the God of Abraham on this subject? Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves.”

The key phrase, of course, is “now agrees.” There is a reason why the civilized world “now agrees” with the notion that slavery is wrong. It is because of the teachings of the Old and New Testaments.

Prior to the Old Testament there were no limitations on the institution of slavery. In the Old Testament there clearly were. And in the New Testament we see even greater limitations. Indeed, in the Book of Galatians,Paul clearly states that there is no longer a distinction between freed man and slave. He says that we are all one in Christ Jesus our Lord.

But, of course, Harris selectively quotes the Old and New Testaments in order to obscure these important points. And he also relies upon historical ignorance, hoping that the reader will assume that slavery in the Roman Empire was the same as slavery in America.He does not mention that people often chose to be slaves in the First Century.Nor does he reveal that they were often in that state temporarily and as a means of paying off a debt – rather than as a permanent function of their racial identity.

Sam Harris’ opposition to slavery is due to the role the God-inspired Bible has played in shaping our Christian nation. Christianity taught America that slavery is wrong,and America taught Sam Harris that slavery is wrong.

Clearly, it is time for Sam Harris to admit the source of his belief in objective morality. Sam Harris derives his beliefs from God, not the other way around. God never told Moses to say to the people of Israel “Sam I Am has sent me to you.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Atheism is bankrupt
Great job on Harris. The atheists who post here seem to be a bitter, frustrated bunch. No wonder Church going people always rate themselves as much happier than those who never go to church, for example, 2006 Pew survey.

DocJ
Spot on, as they say, but be prepared for these lonely, scared, confused, conforming, and easily led misfits to pounce on you like a cat on a bird. Who said "there are no atheists in fox holes"? There are no atheists on the cancer ward either. Sometimes God waits for us to come to Him, other times He intervenes in our lives and we do not realize that fact until much later, sometimes too late. Because I have never seen a black hole, and cannot prove it exists, anymore than any astrophysicist can prove dark matter or dark energy exist does not mean they do not exist. God is real. Otherwise, why do Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share the Pentateuch? (Look it up you godless atheist liberals.)

Rationalized Christianity
A person does not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ due to the appliciation of a rational argument. There is nothing irrational about the gospel, but nowhere does God or any of the prophets or apostles present an argument for the truth of the most basic propostitions declared in the gospel. For example, the gospel openly declares the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. However, it never attempts to explain how it happened or give any "scientific" evidence of it.

In fact, Romans 1 shows that an "apologetical" approach does not produce saving faith. Paul wrote that the creation, itself, gives sufficient evidence of the existance of the God of Scripture and was convining enough that men are rendered without excuse for their unbelief. But, such evidence resulted, no in the worhip of the living God, but in the invention and worship of idols.

Saving faith is a gift from God. It comes no other way than by the simple declaration of the gospel.

Sam Harris writes:

"Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do not have moral obligations toward rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply. The idea that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is simply astounding, given the contents of the book. Admittedly, God's counsel to parents is straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod {Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13-14}. If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them {Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7}. We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes."



Some book of morality. Written by (human) nomadic jews in the Jerusalem area 2500 years ago. No wonder you christians are all so bitter as you cling to your religion and call atheists "bankrupt".

Joe T
The Bible is full of its own apologetic arguments. Consider the recording of the miracles performed by Jesus to demonstrate the authenticity of His ministry. The statement that over 500 people at one time saw Jesus alive after He had been crucified and buried. The recording of the many prophesies that Jesus fulfilled, which the Roman and Jewish authorities were free, but unable, to refute. The appeals to the Israelites to remember the miracles that had been performed among them and among their ancestors.

Not scientific evidence, but eyewitness evidence.

And you're wrong that apologetics has nothing to do with accepting the Gospel. I was raised Catholic and then became an atheist (now evangelical), and I had many objections that were overcome before, and at the same time as, my exposure to the love of Christians at my university. I had read and heard the Gospel many times, but that alone did not cause me to believe.

I contend that God uses apologetic arguments (including the wonders of His creation) and loving acts of Christians to work His grace in us.

Romans 1:20 (NIV) - "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Without excuse. That suggests to me that saving grace can be given to those who do not have access to the Gospel, although it is certainly easier with it. That's why Jesus gave us the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

3wire
I have to issue a gentle rebuke, brother.

You wrote about atheists: "these lonely, scared, confused, conforming, and easily led misfits..."

What do you expect from them when some Christians, and many more so-called Christians (I don't mean you), treat them like that? We need to maintain a loving attitude towards them, even when it's hard to do. Even when they're purposely trying to taunt us and demean us and ridicule us, ostensibly for their own amusement.

Even when they're feeding us to the lions. That's a sobering thought for any Christian, including me, who is given to self-pitying nowadays.

I'd bet that many of those atheists who are bitter (clarification: not the ones who aren't) towards us got that way because someone who is, or claims to be, a Christian crapped all over them at some point. All we can do now is try to show them the kind of unconditional love that God shows us and emphasize that while we will often let them down, God will always be there for them.


For Will and others, that doesn't mean approval of homosexual behavior or other sins. It means loving the person unconditionally, but trying to persuade them that God's way is better than our rebellious ways and will ultimately make us much happier. I have need for the same tough love in my own life, but with other sins, not sexual sins.

Atheism
Atheism has difficulty making its case because it is practically impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, the way they go about it is to loudly denigrate the faith of those who believe in the existence of God.

There is one indication that at least supports the believers and we've witnessed it in our own lives. The most obvious events, supported with irrefutable proof, are quickly discounted and/or denied by significant portions of the human population - landing on the moon, soviet created famines, mass Nazi exterminations, etc. - while these same types are quick to latch onto the most ridiculous lies - AGW, UFOs, Bush sponsored twin tower attack, etc.

Even though the history of merely a decade ago is readily forgotten, the events of the Bible and Christ, of at least several millenia ago, are still observed - a tribute to the form and acceptance of the proofs that were witnessed then. The time tested resiliency of these observances speaks volumes to truth of this faith in the human experience.

Now what really do the atheists have other than their arrogant condescension - and hope they are right.

Militant Agnostic

I don't know. And you don't know either!

That's why it's called faith. There is no point in argument on this subject. Look at the history of religious differences. It leads to war, persecution and social exclusion. Religion should be a private matter for all, until world societies can grow and accept the wide differences in beliefs. Otherwise keep your beliefs to yourself. I don't really care who you worship.

Pity party
Hate to rain on the theists' pity party, BUT:

What is so terrifying about a wholly natural universe without any supernatural component? Grow up and get over the fact of mortality.

It's quite frankly hilarious that this "anti-atheism" column mainly consists of bitter reports about conflicts BETWEEN religions and hackneyed rationalizations about the evils that religion has tolerated or even promoted (slavery, war, etc.) There's a clue there folks.

Funny how an omniscient God's views of morality, science, etc. coincidentally change to fit neatly with the belief systems of the particular religious establishment in question.

Naturally, Adams fairly concludes that his religion, Christianity, is the best of all. Gee, what a shocker! How brave!

Pathetic column. Pathetic posts.

Sam Harris and Will
both show the truth of the old precept, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Lestat at 2:18 a.m.
Good job. How I wish _all_ the Christians (many are but not all) were like you in this area.

Lestat
I'll give you one more apologetic argument, in my mind the greatest one of all because it leaves absolutely no wiggle room around the fact. You cited the statement (from ICor. 15:6) that over 500 people saw Jesus AFTER His crucifixion and burial. Eight verses later Paul makes a statement that is as concise and unambiguous as anyone could demand: that if Jesus is not risen from the dead, both his preaching and our faith is in vain. That verse leaves absolutely no room for "interpretation"; Paul forces the resurrection of Christ front and center as the ONLY foundation of the Christian faith.

A Letter to Adams
Let me open with a caveat: My challenging Adams is not a defense of Harris. I found his _End of Faith_ to be a rant against religion bordering on fear and hate. As Goldwater said, you don't need to be disagreeable to disagree. Something Adams also needs to learn.

"Accepting Christianity, on the other hand, is far more likely to have come from a rational appraisal of the evidence."

If that were so, then your faith would be grounded in reason and you would know not need to believe in God. You merely claim rationality without a rational defense.

"Numerous teachers offered the instruction that we should not do to others things we would not want others to do to us. But Jesus asks us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

Aren't you splitting hairs? Beside numerous teachers taught both the positive and negative forms before Jesus.

James 4:17 "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."

The danger in this is moral relativism of the worst sort, each and every individual determining the good of all. This is the basis of modern do-good liberalism, the notion that an elite few can even know the good of all, and impose it on others. Hayek called this the fatal conceit. Sowell called it the anointed vision.

"To call it equal is to reveal one’s historical ignorance and to lend credence to the notion of moral relativism –as if moral relativism really could lend credence to any teaching."

Nice poisoning the well trick, so anyone who disagrees with you is automatically ignorant? Especially when you're advocating moral relativism.

"Clearly, it is time for Sam Harris to admit the source of his belief in objective morality. Sam Harris derives his beliefs from God, not the other way around."

Surely a man does not create morals of an absolute and universal sort, but then how are morals absolute and universal if created by the Christian God?

I like Mike and even share his faith ...
still, this paragraph doesn't sound quite right:

"This is absurd. Radical Muslims view Christianity as a religion of peace. That is why they are not hesitant to attack Christians in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. But Christians, including George W.Bush, believe the opposite – that Islam is a religion of war. And that is why we know we must fight back when they attack us. If Muslims and Christians did not have such disparate views of one another – including, but not limited to, the capacity for violence – conflict would be less likely."

I'm a bit confused on the point he is trying to make here. I know he is trying to explain the quote from Harris in the preceding paragraph, but something is lacking. I don't necessarily disagree with the paragraph, I just don't think it argues the point of disparate views Christians and muslims have of one another.

It's almost like Adams is stating that because Christianity is viewed as a religion of peace (which I believe was Christ's intent, but not always practiced) that is why we must fight. I don't think that is Adams' intent here, but that's how it came across to me.

Will
You can denigrate the Bible all you want, but after seeing what your fellow non-theistic brethren (the communists) wrought in Russia under Stalin, in China under Mao, in Cambodia under Pol Pot, in Romania under Nicolae Ceauceascue, in North Korea under Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, in Cuba under Castro (meaning that all these regimes were characterized by great slaughter and great misery for those who managed not to end up at the wrong end of the communist execution squads), you non-theists are going to have a very hard time making your case to the nation that you have a better moral sense to offer the nation than what is found in the Bible. This is why you better expect to die never having seen an open atheist in the White House; given the record of atheists who have risen to heads of state, very few Americans are willing to take a chance on one even in this country (a topic Michael Medved covered in a recent thread). I'm sure your rejoinder is going to be a recounting of the history of medieval Europe and the Inquisition, but these are events that ended long ago, long before your lifetime, whereas the brutality and murder that has characterized the atheistic communist regimes has been a constant that has NEVER ended and continues right up to this very moment.

Oh, and Will, nice post!
I don't agree with it, but it was on topic and devoid of tributary topics not mentioned in this column.

However, you are slipping! The FOURTH post? Tsk tsk. You must be so frustrated.

will
this is for you!
Sam writes:
"Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do not have moral obligations toward rocks."

I beg to differ with you and this statement! I had a "pet Rock" back in the 80's that I cared for daily! I talked to my rock and dusted it at least twice a week. One day, someone took my rock. I wept that day, will. How mean spirited can you and Sam be. I have to go now, as I am tearing up over my past and fond memories of my lost pet rock!

sniff
sniff

THat Sam I am ,That Sam I am
How do the non-believers in your comments argue against the Bible when it is obvious they have no idea what they are talking about. Sam Harris is clearly ignorant. I'm guessing that is the point of your column. To show us his ignorance. A sensible person would not write a book on a subject unless they were an expert. Why has this book brought about any discussion on University campuses. It is embarrassing.

Mr. Lonestar
Faith is not wishful thinking. It does not fall from the sky and hit you on the head.
God gave us brains.
We do use our brains to come to faith.
When a Christian says they come to Jesus and Redemption " by faith" they mean not "by works". They do not mean by wishing. There is no secret voodoo. But like the thief on the cross beside Jesus we do need to want to believe and we do need to ask for belief. Remember this man was watching everything that was happening. He said"Do you not even fear God? since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And indeed we justly,for we are recieving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." "Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom"
Basics for becoming citizens of His kingdom.
1) fear God - Allpowerful,Creator
2)we are guilty
3) Jesus was not guilty
4)we deserve condemnation
5)Jesus has a heavenly kingdom
6) We need to ask to enter in
This thief was using his brain, common sense, reason. He had every reason to believe just by what He had seen. His faith was also a gift. He wanted it.
Then Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

How do I know Islam is false?
Consider Jesus life versus Mohammad.

Matthew 7:16

"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?"


what, again?
This pointless argument keeps popping up and it goes no where. To the atheist, no one can provide empirical proof of the existence of God. To the faithful, no one can refute the existence of God because they are sure of it in their heart as well as head. All we ever achieve here is an endless debate that eventually degenerates into abuse.

Religion of peace? There is no such thing. Except for a few pacifist sects, Christianity is just as prone to violence as any other religion. It is undeniable that we have changed greatly from our medieval past; but our faith, however devout does not prevent us from taking up arms when we deem it necessary.

Reason, Faith, Truth, and Evidence
I agree reason alone cannot bridge the chasm to salvation, but faith, the conviction of things not seen, transcends reason; it is not opposed to it. Christ rose from the dead and provided evidence:

Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you."
He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
-- John 20: 24-31 (NASB)

Christ made exclusive truth claims. The resurrection is a unique fact (yes, there are extra-Biblical references too). He also said He is the only way to the Father (John 14:6). Truth is true whether one accepts it or not.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

MikeR
There may have been violent *Christians* but there is no call to do violence from Christ.

The violence you will no doubt list of Christianity was in fact by those in political power abusing it for their own purposes. Hardly something unique to religion.

Mr. Lonestar
Don't throw rocks at people if you don't want them to throw rocks at you.
vs.
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison, open your home.

There is a huge difference in these 2 teachings.

Believers are to show forth Jesus's love for the world. When the world looks at a believer they should see a reflection of Jesus. Of course that is the goal. But since we are still sinners we fall short.Very short.

Is this "moral relativism"? When a person believes that Jesus is who He says He is the Holy Spirit comes to live in his heart. No longer a heart of stone but now a heart of flesh with His statutes written on the heart. The rest of his life the true believer is guided by the Holy Spirit. The fruits of this are love,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

What's absurd?
>Radical Muslims view Christianity as a religion of peace. That is why they are not hesitant to attack Christians in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. But Christians, including George W.Bush, believe the opposite – that Islam is a religion of war. And that is why we know we must fight back when they attack us. If Muslims and Christians did not have such disparate views of one another – including, but not limited to, the capacity for violence – conflict would be less likely.<

Who's doing the attacking? The Sadrists in Iraq called for a cease fire last August, and extended it last month. Our response was to fire hellfire missles into heavily urban areas that they populate. Then we wonder why they fight back.
Conflict would be less likely if our Christian nation were more honest about the capacity for violence, and more honest about who is doing the attacking.

DavidM
To ME, the greatest proof that Islam is false is the fact that Muslims seem to have no interest in sharing their "truth" with others. I would argue that if anyone would claim that THEIR way is THE way, it should be universal, meaning that it should be for everyone. Obviously, we Christians believe that about the faith that is in Christ. But if Muslims really believe they have THE truth, why is their posture toward the non-Muslim world not to try to convert it but to want to slaughter it for being infidels? The fact that they regard non-Muslims not as potential CONVERTS but as automatically assumed ENEMIES fit for immediate slaughter says everything I need to know about Islam. I know that naysayers of Christianity on this thread who will subsequently be posting will undoubtedly retort that Christians take the same view toward non-Christians as Muslims take toward non-Muslims, but my answer is that Jesus called us to be SERVANTS toward the world just as he was and not condemners since He Himself didn't come to condemn it, and you can find myriad examples of Christians serving the world (look at the names of some of the hospitals in your community, just to cite one example, and see how many begin with names like Saint or Baptist or Adventist or Lutheran, etc.). I defy anyone to show me any examples of Muslims extending a helping held to their non-Muslim neighbors; in fact, many Muslims in our OWN nation are open apologists or sympathizers with their brethren who murdered 3,000 of us on September 11, 2001.

Islam vs. Christianity
Read the Koran. Read the Bible. This is a free country. Decide for yourself.

Standshisground easily answered
The problem with all those regimes is that they were/are communist, not that they aren't theistic enough. Totalitarian governments can just as readily be established among the religious as the non-religious - remember Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? The Nazi Wehrmacht had the slogan "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) on their belt buckles. The first group targeted by Hitler upon taking power were the atheists and free-thinkers. German Christians eagerly participated in the Nazi Holocaust.

Today's left-wing bishops have nothing but praise for the communists and collectivists infesting Latin America.

Non-theists have no trouble whatsoever making the case for a better moral basis than religion: how about the Founders idea of inalienable human rights and freedom? How about a rational morality based on a proper assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality?

Five thousand years of recorded human history shows that governments that don't adhere to the supremacy of individual rights will always be oppressive, regardless of whether they are theistic on non-theistic.

irrational atheists
Will does exactly what Harris does and Mike refuted it, but Will does it anyway. He pulls a few verses out of the Bible and says, "there, I can't believe the Bible because of that." Ok, be irrational. And angry. But don't tell me your an expert on the Bible or morals when you can't even put together the point of the Bible, or where exactly morals come from. They don't come from being "good" to each other since you can't even define "good." An atheist can say Hitler was good and make a very good argument for it from a Godless, evolutionary standpoint.

This is simply false
Adams quotes Sam Harris (I think) saying this:

"Consider:every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian"

I've spoken with devout Muslims, and I can assure you that this statement is not even remotely true.

My reason for being a Christian is that I MET CHRIST. No, he didn't show up in a body and shake my hand, nor did I see visions. However, those are not the only ways we experience people, and God is unsurprisingly adept at communicating clearly with beings He's created, the only proviso being that the subject needs to be willing to admit that's what's happening -- and an awful lot of people are not willing to admit that.

I continue, after 34 years of Christian life, to communicate regularly with the Almighty, as do millions of other Christians. God communicates freely. When we talk to Him, He talks back.

In my conversations with Muslims, and in the first 20 years of my life as a Jew, I never heard anybody say anything remotely like this about their religion. Muslims and Jews are NOT, in any way, Muslims or Jews for the same reasons I'm a Christian.

Harris is simply wrong.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

DavidM
No kidding, and Islamic law opposes killing women and children. Now if you really want to get in to it. Voice that opinion to Mike’s spiritual advisor Doug Giles who firmly believes that Jesus would carry a concealed deadly weapon.

Mike Adams
Good article, really enjoyed it.

Of course I am sure all the libs and feminazis and freaks will be here to criticize you without having one shred of any kind of rational argument against your column.

But then, what do you expect?

As the Bible says, "ye shall know them by their fruits."

Their words demonstrate their foolishness and lack of goodness.

Folks
An honest question. How then were the Southern Churhes able in any fashion to not only support slavery but even worse to my thinking support and reinforce state sponsored segragation? How? Yet, the South is hands down the "bible belt".

I'm just curious, Will...
Will writes: "Some book of morality. Written by (human) nomadic jews in the Jerusalem area 2500 years ago."

I'm just curious, will -- do you know what the (human) Talmudic scholars who wrote about this same book of morality in the New Testament say about those morals from 2500 years ago?

I'm guessing not.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Mike ARRRRRRRRRRRRR...
You wrote that our faith doesn't prevent us from taking up arms when we deem it necessary. Good observation!

You and Adams are gonna end up having a cup of coffee together yet.

Tacitus X
You wrote: "Pathetic column. Pathetic posts."

I agree with part of your observation. Yours is truly a pathetic post.

You wrote: "Funny how an omniscient God's views of morality, science, etc. coincidentally change to fit neatly with the belief systems of the particular religious establishment in question."

What are you talking about? Because man's ideas and beliefs may differ and change does not mean that "omniscient God's views" have changed.

You wrote: "Grow up and get over the fact of mortality."

You're telling this to Christians? We Christians got over the fact of mortality the day we became Christians. It is precisely our mortality that makes us follow an immortal Savior.

Hal, why don't pose that...
question to the great patron saint of all libtards, James Earl Carter? After all, he's the one who went to a church that didn't allow black people for many years.

Uh, Say What?
MikeR writes:

****No kidding, and Islamic law opposes killing women and children****

Hey, MIke, welcome to reality.

Islamic law has many provisions for killing women, and it happens often in the islamic world.

Where have you been?

LMAO

The South and slavery
Hal Donahue perpetuates his love of ignorance with this nonsense:

"How then were the Southern Churhes able in any fashion to not only support slavery but even worse to my thinking support and reinforce state sponsored segragation? How? Yet, the South is hands down the "bible belt"."

A) Of the 27 civilization identified by historian Arnold Toynbee, all but one practiced either slavery or human sacrifice. Only one civilization abolished both. It was the civilization built by Christianity, and the abolition of both were declared in purely Christian terms. So, how does anybody familiar with history credibly make the claim that Christianity SUPPORTS slavery?

B) The South was not "the Bible belt" at the time of the nation's founding. Quite the contrary; it was the northern states who were founded by religious pilgrims, and the southern that were founded by greedy merchants and the dregs of British society.

C) Southern churches produced a bastardized version of Christianity with the teeth removed to keep the slaves compliant. Northern churches condemned them for it, and established the Abolition movement (which, both sociologically and theologically, is REMARKABLY similar to the modern Pro-Life movement). Anybody who says Christianity PROTECTED slavery in the south while omitting the fact that Christianity CONDEMNED slavery in the North is selling something, and dishonestly. Categorize yourself, Hal (but then, we already knew that, didn't we?)

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

impressive
I tend to find Harris to be overly simplistic in his writing and approach. What impressed me was the way that Adams attacks on Harris actually made Harris' arguments look better than Harris does.

The funniest bit was the idea that muslims consider Islam a religion of war while they consider Christianity a religion of peace. (But of course Christians must fight because after all Islam is a religion of war). The reality is, if you want to understand what the muslims really think, just substitute all of the instances of Islam and Christianity above.

It is a separate question as to who is right. But muslims consider Islam a religion of peace that is pushed to war. And they remember the Crusades, so they do not buy the peaceful nature of Christianity.

It is true that if you take some passages from the Bible you get support for slavery, while other passages work better in opposition. But that just means that to get to a message of opposition one needs to apply outside ethical ideas to decide which are the points that count. When the Southern Baptists split off, they were not atheists looking to embarass Christians by selectively quoting the Bible. They were people who brought different intuitions to the Bible and so came away with a different view. That is Harris' point in scoffing at the idea of the Bible as the source of ethics.

His point is if you bring the right ethical view to reading the Bible you can get the right answers back. If you bring the wrong ethical view, you get the wrong answers back. And nobody really brings no view to it and gets it just as it is written. On what basis would one decide which were the passages that count and which ones not?

Ah, Hal
Hal Donahue writes:

****An honest question. How then were the Southern Churhes able in any fashion to not only support slavery but even worse to my thinking support and reinforce state sponsored segragation? How? Yet, the South is hands down the "bible belt".****

Your statement betrays your ignorance of the South.

Firstly, it was a small percentage of the population that actually owned slaves.

Secondly, many people in the South, especially religious people, opposed slavery. Many of these people helped slaves get to freedom in the North by way of the Underground Railroad. I guess you've never heard of that, Hal. The Underground Railroad was supported by many Southern christians who opposed slavery.

Thirdly, there was a lot of racism in the South, but there was an equal amount in the north.

Do some more research, Hal....your ignorance is quite stunning.

Hal Donahue
Because the southern churches supported slavery (by the way, most did not) has no bearing on this column, or Christianity.

The fact that humans are sinful is the basis of Christianity. It is why our Lord suffered and died.

Hal
It is easy for anyone to begin with a conclusion or belief and then select Bible verses to support it. The Klan started with the premise that slavery was the natural order of things because other races were inferior to whites. They used the Bible to back this up and thus influenced a large segment of the population. Your use of the word "were" in your question shows that you are cognizant of the fact that this mindset is far from the norm in Christian churches today.

Tacitus X
But where did the Founders get their notion of "inalienable human rights and freedom"? I seem to recall a phrase from the Declaration of Independence that goes something like "we believe that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights".

inkling_revival
"....Anybody who says Christianity PROTECTED slavery in the south while omitting the fact that Christianity CONDEMNED slavery in the North is selling something, and dishonestly. "

I asked how and expected a reasonable answer. Furthermore I asked how the Southern Churches supported segragation. I didn't hear an answer. It wasn't to throw rocks I wanted to see how you rationalised it. I mean Hagee is moderate compared to the Hate from preachers that I heard in the South in the 60s. As I said an honest question

Ignorance abounding
Mr. Adams, you need to find out more about your topics before you write about them. Even though I am not a Muslim, I am going to defend Islam because your article only serves to incite anti-Muslim bigotry and hatred.

You write: “a Muslim fundamentalist admitted to me that Jesus led a sinless life and Mohammed did not.”

Whereas Christians worship Jesus as part of a holy trinity, Muslims do not worship Muhammad. Muslims consider him a prophet and a man, not a deity. (That is, they do not worship Muhammad) Whereas Christians worship their god, Jesus and the holy spirit, Muslims worship their god and only their god. By the way, Muslims consider their god the same god as the Christian god. Also, they consider Jesus to be the second most revered prophet, behind Muhammad.

Curtal Friar
Hal's ignorance goes far beyond just the subject of the South. From what I've seen from his posts all these months, any book he wrote entitled "What I'm Knowledgeable About" would take its place in the collection of world's thinnest books, right alongside "Arab Military Victories".

Part two
“Radical Muslims view Christianity as a religion of peace. That is why they are not hesitant to attack Christians in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. But Christians, including George W. Bush, believe the opposite – that Islam is a religion of war.”

Your ignorance here is simply astounding. What do you mean by your (extremely vague) claim that radical Muslims are not hesitant to attack Christians? I assume you are possibly referring to the attacks on the WTC in 2001? If so, you simply must come to understand that those attacks were not directed at Christianity; rather, they were directed at Americans for supporting the continued U.S. occupation of Muslim holy land. Furthermore, how egomaniacal of you to speak for all Christians! Why don’t you simply speak for yourself rather than every believer of the religion to which you adhere? To believe that the entire religion of Islam is a religion of war only shows your own ignorance. Muslims are taught to respect both Jews and Christians because both are people of god. If you want to denounce radical Muslims, that is your prerogative. However, by denouncing the entire religion, you are engaging in hate speech of the most indefensible sort. In the US today, there are nearly two million Muslims. If they actually hated Christians and believed in a religion of war, don’t you think they would cause a few problems here?

MikeR
I had a concealed weapons license(just expired).

Please tell me why you think that God wants us to sit idly while violence is done to us, fellow Christians or any innocents.

Christ said to turn the other cheek vis a vis insults, he never said to die like sheep if someone wishes you harm.

All this and more, Hal
It is common for people to look at other people and try to project sinful human nature onto Christ. But it’s too late. Christ already took our sin on Himself, died, and rose again, defeating sin and death and providing the way back to God for those who trust Him for forgiveness and redemption. Look to Him. He has already explained why people do things that are terrible, and He can explain it to you too.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

DavidM
The point is not about whether it’s right of you to carry a weapon (you should get your permit renewed if you can). It’s about whether Jesus would walk around with a pistol under his robes.

An "Honest" Question
Hal Donahue does what dishonest liberals always do -- pretend that there is no history, that they didn't lie yesterday and on dozens of previous yesterdays. They always want the courtesy we show people we don't know.

Sorry, Hal, we already know you here, and we know your character. You don't get to pretend you're innocent.

Note "I want to see how you 'rationalized' it." Hal is already planning to sneer, before he's even heard. How typical.

Having been soundly thrashed on the question of how Christianity opposed and eliminated slavery, Hal now runs like a cowardly rabbit, and revives the one part of the question I did not address:

"I asked how the Southern Churches supported segragation... I wanted to see how you rationalised it."

I don't know. I wasn't a southerner in those days. Ask somebody else.

However, I'll note that Christianity is not by nature a political action religion, it demands that the disciple focus on his own inward sin. Christians in the New Testament are not exhorted to overthrow Rome, nor to effect any particular legal structure or system, but to learn personally to reflect the character of Christ in whatever situation they find themselves, even if that situation is grossly unjust -- like slavery or imprisonment. Harris (ignorantly) takes this as an endorsement of the injustice, but it's not even remotely that. Christianity says "You deal with YOUR OWN sin."

Thus, it takes a sense of calling to observe the social situation in which one finds oneself and say, "This could be better, and I'm going to do something about it." Mature Christians routinely do such things, but it's not always preached in churches that they need to; it's voluntary, not forced.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Long memories
Lon writes: "And they remember the Crusades, so they do not buy the peaceful nature of Christianity."

A) The last Crusade occurred roughly 850 years ago. Isn't that an inordinately long time to remember offenses? I'm from Lithuanian Jewish stock; would you think me normal if I hated Russians, and expected them to come burn me out of my house like they did my ancestors (that was about 130 years ago)? or would you think I was a xenophobic idiot for thinking like that?

"They remember the Crusades." Bosh. I know they do, I just can't figure out why you don't recognize that as a completely laughable rationalization.

B) Do they remember how their own people treated the Jews and Christians in the Levant and North Africa, as Muslims conquered those areas? Do you?

Just curious.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Curtal Friar
"...Firstly, it was a small percentage of the population that actually owned slaves.:"

but all tolerated it well never all but most

"Secondly, many people in the South, especially religious people, opposed slavery. Many of these people helped slaves get to freedom in the North by way of the Underground Railroad. I guess you've never heard of that, Hal. The Underground Railroad was supported by many Southern christians who opposed slavery."

Actually I didn't but I will check my local underground railroad museaum but it does make a lot of sense

"Thirdly, there was a lot of racism in the South, but there was an equal amount in the north."

Ahhh but the state enforced and sponsored South actually enabled the racism of the North and made it hard to oppose. My experience is that blacks in the US didn't really become "free" in the US until the 60s

"Do some more research, Hal....your ignorance is quite stunning. "

Well it was never an area I had need to consider it was and is a major blot on the US reputation thru most of its history

Hey Drunkahue
are we living in the 60's? Your a pompus morooon that spits out comments that make no sense, are inaccurate and just plain stupid. Do you understhand how dumb you sound?

Ivory
Thank you and I suspect you are very correct

Rational?
“Accepting Christianity, on the other hand, is far more likely to have come from a rational appraisal of the evidence.”

What is rational about believing ANY of the so-called miracles in the bible? None of them (water divided so people can pass through, healing leprosy, raising people from the dead, Jesus rising from the dead) passes rational judgment. Each sounds like a work of fiction written by a highly superstitious person. No, there is really nothing rational about accepting Christianity.

MikeR
Why would Jesus, God the Son, carry a pistol, under His robes or anywhere? His Word alone is infinitely more powerful than a gun.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Will's self-hate continues
//Will writes: Thursday, April, 17, 2008 12:50 AM
Some book of morality. Written by (human) nomadic jews in the Jerusalem area 2500 years ago. No wonder you christians are all so bitter as you cling to your religion and call atheists "bankrupt".//

Will,

In the last 2,000 years please list the No.1 and No.2 societies which killed the most homosexuals; either real or projected? Yes, we know that both of them were atheistic in nature and premise.

Evidence
Jeff writes:

"Christ made exclusive truth claims. The resurrection is a unique fact (yes, there are extra-Biblical references too). He also said He is the only way to the Father (John 14:6). Truth is true whether one accepts it or not."

Where are these extra-biblical references and are they contemporary? Please elaborate.

Eddy

Joycey
"Faith is not wishful thinking. It does not fall from the sky and hit you on the head."

Did I say it was? No, nor do I think it that. Faith can be quite reasonable, but, still, there must be that step or leap of faith from reason to something that lies outside it. I don't understand that, don't share it when it comes to beliving in God, but I don't disrespect it as wishful thinking--better, I think you'll agree, to call it hope.

"God gave us brains.
We do use our brains to come to faith."

If God gave us brains, that is reason, then it seems imperative to use it to the best of our ability. As Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." (Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787).

And I'll agree believers, many, use reason to approach faith. But, still, faith lies outside reason, it is not reason, or reasonable. For if it were, you could tell me what it is, and I could understand and have it too.

"When a Christian says they come to Jesus and Redemption 'by faith' they mean not 'by works'."

But some do. I'm curious about that endless Christian debate between faith and works, would it not be true that by works ones shows one's faith? I don't know, not being a Christian and all, just curious.

...

Joycey, 2
"...like the thief on the cross beside Jesus we do need to want to believe and we do need to ask for belief. Remember this man was watching everything that was happening. He said 'Do you not even fear God? since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And indeed we justly,for we are recieving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.' 'Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom'"

I think you need to know what it is you want to believe before you can believe, that where I get stuck, so to speak. I don't know God to believe in Him, and no one seems to be able to tell me much of anything meaningful about Him. Of course, if that were possible, it leads to a paradox, for if I know God, I have no need for belief.

"Basics for becoming citizens of His kingdom.
1) fear God - Allpowerful,Creator
2)we are guilty
3) Jesus was not guilty
4)we deserve condemnation
5)Jesus has a heavenly kingdom
6) We need to ask to enter in"

So you're saying God is powerful enough to violate the laws of nature? If He created those laws, why would He violate them? It doesn't make sense. Sets a poor example.

We are guilty, we are flawed and corrupt.

If Jesus was not guilty then He was not a man and that defeats the whole purpose of the story of salvation.

We deserve condemnation for immoral choices and actions.

The OT prophesied an earthly kingdom.

Enter in where? This heavenly kingdom? Where is it? What is it? Just as I can't have faith in what I don't know I cannot get there without knowing where to go.

Curtal Friar
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”

I’m not saying that they follow this. Obviously, the Islamo-fascists couldn’t care less about such injunctions. But that‘s my point. Islam is not a religion of peace and many Moslems are not peaceful. Something similar could be said about many Christians. They are willing to focus on any Biblical passage that offers justification and disregard any injunctions.

Question for Will
Do you hang out at internet locations with a lot of Muslims and bash their religion that today regularly, and openly, executes homosexuals?

Just curious if you despise just Christians, or do followers of the guy who married the seven year old get to read your rantings too?

Joycey
"Mr. Lonestar"

You call me lonstar or lsb. It's more freindly than the formal Mr. :-)

"Don't throw rocks at people if you don't want them to throw rocks at you. vs. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison, open your home. There is a huge difference in these 2 teachings."

Not really, they're easy to convert. Don't not feed etc. You seem to have forgot the second half of feed, if you want them to feed you.

There is a difference on a political level, one expresses negative liberty and the other positive liberty. Negative liberty is don't tread on me, and concerns personal and economic liberty; positive liberty is let me vote, it concerns political liberty. See "Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions" @ http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm for a longer discussion.

It is, imho, positive liberty that leads to what Plato called the Noble Lie, or what might be called the Liberal Lie leading to welfare, taxes and other intrusions in the name of fairness but unjust interference with liberty.

"Believers are to show forth Jesus's love for the world. When the world looks at a believer they should see a reflection of Jesus. Of course that is the goal. But since we are still sinners we fall short.Very short."

OK, yes, this is what I mean by my question about needing works to show one's faith.

"Is this "moral relativism"? When a person believes that Jesus is who He says"

It is when you tell me one thing and another believer something different, and another another, however slight those differences are. And it all rests upon faith, you believe what the authors of the Bible believed, and they in turn what Jesus believed.

"love,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

But those exist Jesus or no Jesus.

Jeff
I can’t imagine why he would. That’s Doug Giles’ opinion. In fact, he makes a fair case that Christianity is not a religion of peace.

Koran (Quran)
Surah Ch 4 V56
"Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire, whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them that they may feel the punishment; verily Allah is sublime and wise."
Surah Ch 47 V4
"Therefore when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them bind a bond firmly on them."
Surah Ch 8 V39
"Fight them until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely Allah's"

According to the Koran your choices are: convert to Islam, death or dhimmitude. There is no provision for peaceful coexistence.

a couple comments
as far as christianity and slavery in the south.

most protestant denominations split apart over slavery in the 1840's and 50's over slavery.

for example, you have northern(now called american) baptists and southern baptists.
additionally, the presbyterians and methodists did the same.

the southern protestants supported slavery and even found biblical justification for that belief.


The Southern churchmen based their argument squarely on Scripture. They pointed out that the Old Testament specifically advocated slavery both on the basis of sin and on the basis of relations with the heathen. These are the Scripture texts used:

"And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Gen. 9:25.)

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." (Lev. 25:44-46.)

Thus, they argued that the Bible upheld the buying, selling, and possession of slaves so long as they were not Christian and of a different race. In vain did the Northern Christians argue that the passage applied only to the Jewish people in their particular condition. The Southerners replied that Jesus nowhere condemned slavery nor ever spoke a word against it. Paul went so far as to send a slave back to his master. If slavery was an evil or sin, would not Jesus or Paul have condemned it by name?


http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1663&C =1665

Re: MikeR
Your passage is an early passage in the Koran. There is a precept in Islam that the Koran's message changes as the book was written. In other words passages that come later in the text over ride the passages earlier in the text. The same goes for the Sharia. You're quoting an early passage which devote followers of the Koran believe is no longer valid. There in lies the problem with Islam as a religion. In order to deal with the numerous places in the text where the Koran says one thing then later says another requires a fair amount of moral and mental elasticity. The simple solution is that what's written later is true and what was written earlier was true but no longer is true.

Remember that Mohammad was a brigand who created a religion to make his rapes, pillages and thefts somehow a holy act. I find it instructive that one of the names Mohammad gave himself was son of the morning star. Which happens to be the name that is the basis for the greek name of Lucifer. The same name has the angel who was cast down to become the devil. When you consider that Christianity was the going religion in the region of the world where Mohammad was committing his acts it explains a lot about the religion that he specifically chose to take the name of the Devil as one of his titles.

Swiss Air and Saudi Arabia
Don't know if it is true, but it is a great story.
Saudis claimed to be offended by the cross on SwissAir planes and asked for their removal.
The Swiss claimed they were offended by violence and requested the crossed swords on Saudia planes be removed.


Peace?
MikeR writes: Thursday, April, 17, 2008 9:01 AM

"Religion of peace?"

Sure, the Peace that passes all understanding.

inkling_revival
The British gave up the Palestine Mandate in 1948, the US helped a coup in Iran in the 1950's to replace a democratic government with a dictator. We have just launched two invasions of muslim countries, one of which was the source of an attack on us, while the other was unrelated to the attack on us.

Muslims do not need particularly long memories to think that christian countries are not notable for their peacefulness.

MikeR/Jeff
"I can’t imagine why he would. That’s Doug Giles’ opinion. In fact, he makes a fair case that Christianity is not a religion of peace. "

How can anyone claim that Christianity, at least the type of Christianity practiced by the far right, is a religion of peace???? Please come on...

Golden Rule (lsb)
lonestarblues writes: Thursday, April, 17, 2008 7:37 AM

""Numerous teachers offered the instruction that we should not do to others things we would not want others to do to us. But Jesus asks us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

Aren't you splitting hairs? Beside numerous teachers taught both the positive and negative forms before Jesus."

I looked them all up and couldn't find one with the formulation in positive form, so I don't think that it is splitting hairs. Have you found one?



inkling_revival
And it should be noted that Serbia's claim on Kosovo is largely based on a battle from the 1300's while the Hungarian interest in Transylvania dates back to events in the 1200s, so having a long memory is hardly unique to muslim countries.

9/11 was a rarity of muslims killing a large number of Westerners in a Christian majority country. The killing of large numbers of muslims in muslim countries by christian countries is not such a rarity. (That is not to say that the particular cases were not justified, just that it is not surprising that the muslims seem the predominantly Christian West as militarily encroaching on their territory rather than the other way around.)

Fivo asked Will
"Will,
In the last 2,000 years please list the No.1 and No.2 societies which killed the most homosexuals; either real or projected? Yes, we know that both of them were atheistic in nature and premise."


This happens to be something I know about - there is actually a body of research on the subject and I have read all of it, just about.

Of course there are no statistics for the past 2000 years but Christian nations are among the most famous and have the most recorded cases of executions and torture of homosexuals, many of their laws are still available for research.

As late as 1700 gays in Switzerland were tortured to death by having their bodies cut into small pieces over a course of 4 days.

As late as 1885 gays could be imprisoned in England indefinitely. Oscar Wilde's imprisonment ultimately caused his early death. The last handing of a man for being gay was in the early 1800s.

Islam has not always taken the form of the fundamental version we see today, any more than Christianity did not always take the rigid, literalist forms we often see in our own culture.

Often, when I read TH I think that if religious conservatives were in power, we would easily get a mandatory death sentence through the supreme court for people who are gay. At least, I've read a lot of posts lamenting the fact that it doesn't exist.

I_hate_liberals
UMMM
No,
I'm not your kinda guy.
even though I don't like libs!

Evidence for Eddy et al
Josephus (AD 37–100) wrote in his Antiquities (some have questioned whether or not parts were added): “Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was the Christ and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”

Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan in AD 112: "…they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God..."

Tacitus wrote in AD 115: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, ...but even in Rome.”

Origen (AD 185? – 255?) quoted Phlegon (AD 80?- ?), who wrote in his Chronicles: “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.”

Again, evidence is corroborating, but it is not sufficient for salvation. Trusting in the person and work of Christ is the key. He has shown Himself to be trustworthy.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Faith can't be forced...
but it can be learned.

Is that rational?

No Christian (or Jew) will put a sword to anyone's throat and demand conversion to Islam.

Some Muslims might.

No Christian or Jew will murder someone for leaving the faith or believing something else.

Muslims are required to do so.

To all you atheists and agnostics, the Bible documents God's attempt to teach us faith. Why does He bother, why must we learn faith and why is faith so important?


More history
Gays didn't really band together and form their own subculture until late Edwardian/Victorian times, but it was still mostly populated by writers, artists, and the intellectual classes.

After that, approval of death for gays, at least in America has been mostly covert - in the 20th century Gays who were murdered by beatings etc. rarely had "their day" in court - police looked that other way and judges sympathized with the murders or attackers. So, what we saw, among Christians and non-Christians alike was a form of shadow persecution. It's a little late now but all most people have to do is ask someone who was live in the early 20th century, particularly in more rural areas, what happened to the known gays in their towns.