Post-Reformation America

I read this article as well and I commented on it. I think it does make a valid point. People of a strong faith are good for a society. I've studied reasearch that shows communites with strong religious ties are less deviant and more peaceful than communites that aren't. There is also a strong correlation with the nature of the religion that affects the community. If it is preached in a peaceful means such as the Christianity mentioned in the article, it has more positives. The same effect can be observed with other faits as well such as Islamic communities, Jewish communites, and even Buddhist communities. It's how the message is presented that determines whether or not the effect is positive. If it is militant, hateful, or violent then the community will reflect that.

It's also worth pointing out that in the research, this effect is observed only at the community level. These effects do not seem to propagate when religion is centralized, beauracratic, or state sanctioned. If anything state sanctioned religions have been shown to deteriorate over time under it's own weight. That's why it is important for the government to stay out of the affairs of the church and stick to protecting individuals, thus allowing them to operate on a community level on a voluntary basis. Local level churches without a doubt outdo larger state churches when it comes to doing good.

It's a fascinating subject. Check out this link for more insight:

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=47 38

You should know by now that I consider nothing more arrogant than for men to put God in the dock. We are in no position to judge God.

I have no interest in the world’s view of Christianity, because like Mr. Paris, they always get it wrong. My interest lies in God’s view of men as revealed in the Bible.

The point of my article is that the very thing he identified as post-Reformation was in fact a major tenet of the Reformation; that is, the priesthood of every believer. The New Covenant has given men open access to God through the Spirit, based on the merits of Jesus Christ alone. [John 4]

Valiant, I was not judging god or Christianity. I was commenting on your post and the article you linked to. Regardless of biblical interpretations, people and communities approach god and faith in different ways. Culture plays a large role and so does politics. I am arguing that in a free society, people of faith have the best chance to leave a positive impact on their fellow man. In America, Christianity is a dominant force and peaceful Christian communities are a prime example of how this positive impact can reverberate in a society.

I know since I am an atheist, you don't take a lot of my arguments very seriously. But I'm speaking on the side of faith here. I'm not so arrogant to assert that the world would be better with no religion. I'm okay with people believing anything they want so long as they don't impose it on others. That includes Christianity.

Jack, I told you the subject of my article.

Inherent in comparative studies of religion is the judgment that one is no better than the other. You have already missed the uniqueness and preeminence of Jesus Christ, and in doing so you have missed who man is and his condition in sin and his need of redemption and the glory of salvation.

All other religions are man's attempt to define God. Christianity has a self-revealed God that speaks truth to man.

Valiant, there's a problem with that logic you speak of. When you approach any subject, be it religion or what not, to negate any sort of objectivism is to lose sight of its meaning. You say that by taking this approach, not taking one religion over the other, it somehow is flawed. But that misses the point. All people of faith believe their right. Just as you speak of the validity of Jesus Christ, Buddhists speak of the validity of the Buddha, Muslims speak of the validity of Muhammed, and Shintos speak of the validity of the Kami. This doesn't show a state of sin it shows a state of diversity. To not give any view respect besides your own is to be arrogant. It's like I've said before. We must have doubt in all things including doubt itself.

Jack, all religions that teach their own uniqueness cannot all be right. They must all be wrong as you profess as an atheist, or there is something else going on that explains the counterfeit religions.

Has God said? This is the root of false religion from the father of lies. All men are born idolaters and must be born again to escape their captivity.

You brought up an interesting point, Valiant. You're right. Every religion does claim to be right (those that don't really can't last that long), but they all can't be right. As an atheist I don't claim they're wrong either. The reason is this are spiritual matters that can't be proven, reasoned, or rationalized in a traditional notion of being right or wrong. As such, it's impossible to make a truly objective and assertive judgment.

There is no right or wrong when it comes to faith. You either have it or you don't. It is as 'right' as people believe it to be. And in doing so, these faiths write off all other faiths. That is the nature of group dynamics. As an atheist, I just don't adhere to these notions of faith. But I try to respect each viewpoint. I draw the line when one group dehumanizes others and tries to impose on them, either by force or rhetoric. Other faiths don't have to accept each other, but if they don't respect each other then conflict is inevitable. Without respect, there can be no understanding. Without understanding, there is only fear. Because one way or another, we always fear what we don't understand and to not even try and understand others it live in perpetual fear and ignorance.

Hmm ...

Jack, I like you because you do ask tough questions and present fairly logical thinking from the atheist point of view. Often, though, I feel compelled to point out what the "faith" blinders you wear won't allow you to see. It's not a condemnation of you or your thinking process, but a hope that someday, you'll actually look at what is beyond your accepted scope of "knowledge" to the larger picture that I think everyone "sees" but refuses to acknowledge.

YOU may not be able to "prove" faith as right or wrong, so YOU insist that no faith can actually be right or wrong, but that is just because YOU will only accept the evidence that meets YOUR standards. I guess you could pat yourself on the back for your integrity in the matter, but ultimately, you're going find out that faith in Jesus Christ is RIGHT faith. The Bible tells us that Jesus will return one day to claim His people. Those who have not accepted Him as Savior are going to be caught unawares and flat-footed. That will be the PROOF of the rightness of the Christian faith. I hope you are not one of those who are left out because you held out. The evidence for Christ's claims (what Valiant and I have put our faith in) is available if you'll accept it. It won't be proven by the scientific method because, well, frankly, the Creator of the Universe does not have to submit to human-created standards. He sets the rules for who He'll let into His kingdom and who He won't. Fortunately for all of us, His rules aren't that hard -- believe that Jesus Christ is God Almighty and Savior of Mankind and confess that belief. I pray that one day, before it's too late, you will do that.

Aurora, I understand that the concept of faith requires people to look beyond the limits of reason. But by going beyond reason, you enter a world of speculation. Supernatural elements like god and religion are all based on personal experiences. And personal experiences are not proof of anything other than the experiences themselves.

And it is not me that is rejecting this notion of faith in Christ. It is the logic of reason that rejects these claims. You and other believers assert Jesus is the son of god and the only way to get into this supernatural realm called heaven. But that is an unprovable claim. That is something you have to have faith in. The same goes for Jesus's return and all the stories in the bible. There is nothing reasonable about the claims they make. They have to be assumed on faith. By saying god is omitted from these standards is a cop out because it makes it so you don't have to prove your claim. You can just believe it without it ever being questioned. And that is just unreasonable.