The New Atheist Crusaders

don · 05-12-09 6:48 am

Isn't it more correct that we both have a chosen bias? Yours is based on faith with some or no evidence as supporting that position; while I look for historical facts and when they cannot be confirmed, I do not accept things written, no matter by whom and how old, as being a very subjective (and yes, biased) position. Surely, you do not believe that all the stories and characters in the Bible were not biased and the reports were events that all occurred as reported? Faith needs no evidence. Which is it: Faith, or objective reasoning? I don't view faith in opposition to objective reasoning. Faith deals with matters which objective reasoning cannot. For me, the issues of God cannot be resolved by objective reasoning alone. Claims have been made by individuals, both past and present, that they have a message from God for humanity. Since I believe in God and that He communicates with us, I choose to assess these individual's and their messages. This calls for a certain amount of objective reasoning along with faith (faith: when I decide that a certain individual communicates a god-given message.) Historical facts are useful in building history and in bolstering faith. I believe I should "wear different hats" depending on my activity. If I am "doing history", then as an historian, I look at the various sides to the assertions of historians. (Because of your worldview, you can interact with me on this.) If I am "expounding on faith", I have rationally established how to use the "sacred text" and then express ideas from it. (Your worldview can sort of help with this, but not in a major, and usually not in a positive, way.) Both as a social scientist (historian) and as a person of faith, my worldview affects me; makes me who I am and how I do my work. When matters of faith overlap matters of objective history, and they do, my worldview influences which way I lean. That seems like an oxymoron. Leaning a certain way when doing objective history. Yes, but it happens. Notice the quote from <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=120&post=4923#POST4923" target="_blank">a previous post</a>:<blockquote>The other, and more central, problem with the decision to prohibit the intrusion of historians into narrative is that it avoids letting students in on the messiness of history. As Keith Barton (1996) reminds us, History isn’t a story; stories are simply one way of talking about the past, and any single story invariably involves selection, simplification, and distortion . . . . Much of the business of history, in fact, is argumentation over whose selective interpretation is best; presenting history to children as ‘a story’ independent ofhuman intention is an unconscionable misrepresentation of how historical knowledge is created. (p. 403), page 1049 (page 11 on this pdf site) </blockquote> Doing history is messy. Doing faith often is not. I attempt to do both. . (Message edited by Don on May 12, 2009)

neal · 05-12-09 8:39 am

But I will not allow my knowledge of science to negate my faith in God. This has nothing to do with negating your faith in God. It has everything to do with assertions made by the writers of the Bible about God. For instance, the claim that this god created the first humans on the 6th day. We now know for a fact that what the Bible writers claimed their god did on the 2nd day is utterly ridiculous and false. It was just a common belief of the day. That leads rational people to dismiss any claim about the 1st day, or the 5th day, or the 6th day, or the 7th day. In fact, you need incontrevertable evidence that there was any creation at all since 1/6th of the story is known to be a myth. Since these original 2 people supposedly proceeded to eat some fruit which introduced sin I am bound by the fact that there is evidence these people never existed except in a fairy tale and, in order to be intellectually honest, have to reject the theory of the introduction of sin. And pain in childbirth. And the sexist idea that men rule over women. Then Paul claims that just as Adam brought sin in, Jesus defeats sin and gives everlasting life. How could I believe Paul when he is a literal believer of Genesis 1? Genesis 1 is false. I can't believe it. It would be dishonest to believe it. Likewise the Flood. We know for a fact that there was no global flood with water pouring out of the windows in the dome ~4,300 years ago. Yet the Gospels claim Jesus stated that "As it was in the days of Noah...". Jesus didn't know what he was talking about if he ever said that. So, its not "that successive generations have had to modify their conceptions of God's actions based on the discoveries of science." Its that successive generations have had to modify their reliance on the Bible as being true based on the discoveries of science. I.E., the Bible gives us no basis to believe that the writers knew what they were talking about let alone that what they wrote was inspired by some all-powerful creator sky god.

neal · 05-12-09 8:43 am

After all, where else can you read about your own salvation and how it is obtained or received? Well, Bob, you obviously read it in the same book that explains how the earth has a dome over it with the ocean in the sky! <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/kiss.gif" border=0>

john8verse32 · 05-12-09 9:24 am

where else can you read about your own salvation and how it is obtained or received? maybe the Quoran/Koran? and if things work out there, you might get 72 virgins and some little boys to enjoy as a reward for using all your anger to kill non believers.... maybe the book of Mormon.... if you can find and read the legendary (imaginary?)golden plates.... ...or, if you're nice to your kids, or their kids, down to what, the 7th -8th generation? if you're really lucky some of them down the genetic line will convert to Mormonism, and pray you retroactively into salvation long after you are dead and buried. or you could convert to Hinduism, and come back as a holy cow....and be treated like a god....and ruminate up and down the crowded streets of Mumbai Personally? if the harp on the cloud thing doesn't work out because I ask too many questions, I wanna come back as a drummer in a rock band...and make enuf <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/120/1229.jpg" alt=""> so that someday I could retire to a ski lodge in Aspen with its own helipad, and a beach front home on maui and write a book about how all that sex, drugs, and rock and roll worked out.....and only then come back as a holy cow and be treated like a god somewhere that vegetarians are in charge. hey...I can dream too, right?

don · 05-12-09 9:31 am

It has everything to do with assertions made by the writers of the Bible about God. Day Two:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: 6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>This account seems to reflect the belief that there was water above the heavens. Some Christians suggest a water layer that was lost at the time of the flood. I have considered such a view until I came across a Bible passage written after the flood still referring to this expanse. Psalm 148<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: 1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. 2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. 3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. 4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. 6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass. 7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: 8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word: 9 Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: 10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: 11 Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth: 12 Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children: 13 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven. 14 He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the LORD.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I am not prepared to consider the Genesis One account as fable and myth. But I have concluded that my scientific understanding of the cosmology cannot depend on it. It even becomes necessary (for me) to refer to what can be called Biblical Cosmology. Biblical Cosmology and Scientific Cosmology overlap, IMO. Some of the Bible's spiritual concepts make better sense when one understands the features of Biblical Cosmology. Consider this presentation for further reading: <a href="http://www.kjvbible.org/firmament.html" target="_blank">The Firmament, Third Heaven, and Structure of Things Biblical</a> I have not studied this article thoroughly, but find it useful in its facing the Biblical terminology straight on. .

john8verse32 · 05-12-09 10:14 am

4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they the waters above the earth? were created. Biblical Cosmology and Scientific Cosmology overlap,.... so did Hitler and Christianity "overlap".... ....."Gott mit Uns" = God is with us..... and which you believed might have been a luck of the draw on where and when you were born. progress is painful, huh? I have concluded that my scientific understanding of the cosmology cannot depend on ...the Genesis One account. but it was all such a neatly tied up package..... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/120/1232.jpg" alt=""> and Don, your above linked article concludes with..... Just because we cannot observe or understand something does not disprove its existence so if the space shuttle hadn't already proven that the dome does not exist, we might still believe in it even tho we can't find or see it. same with the flying spagetti monster? and those mansions being built just beyond the "hole in Orion" seen by our profitesse... which btw, is about 1,600 light years away ...meaning, we may have to wait for our new housing allowance at least another 1,600 yrs if they start bringing it "down" to us immediately at the speed of light. (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 12, 2009)

don · 05-12-09 10:41 am

John, I have learned much from you over these past few years re: science. I have also learned that you have come to your conclusions some time ago. My interaction with you seems best to simply compare notes and worldviews. I have come to believe that people of earlier times did view the earth and the heavens in a very limited manner. I also believe that in all of this limiting, God still conveyed to humanity the issues of life needing to be addressed. It has been suggested that my belief in God is almost like no belief in God. I disagree. But, I have come to view myself as a skeptical believer; an oxymoron for sure; for me, a necessary stance. I usually leave to others the grande assertions of religion. For me, the Biblical writers could only write from their worldview and that God did not tamper with it very much. Even in areas of morality, we find the later writers drawing closer to our perspective than the earlier writers. After all is said and done, I must organize my personal universe. The Bible plays an important role in that universe. I do not relate to the Bible as you do, nor do I relate to it as my fundamentalist friends. But, God is very real to me and an extremely important part of my universe. As I read the Bible, it helps me to keep the principles of historical empathy in mind. Those ancient people were different, not inferior or superior, just different. My conception of them is very limited and thus incorrect. Yet, as I read the Bible, it still speaks to my heart and inspires me to be a better person even in the way I relate to unbelievers and atheists. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Regarding Hitler and God. I understand that Adventists, like many Germans in the pre-World War II years, admired Hitler and supported him for more than we like to admit. Part of "historical empathy" is the quest to find out why a whole society followed this man into the jaws of hell. . (Message edited by Don on May 12, 2009)

john8verse32 · 05-12-09 12:12 pm

as I read the Bible, it still speaks to my heart and inspires me to be a better person that's good....especially if you concentrate on the NewTest, and stay from theOld, and no longer feel the need to honor the command to kill all your neighbors and inseminate the virgins I guess? also probably good for a teacher to appreciate that speaking in parables to deliberately mislead some while rewarding others might not be the best method to reach the commonly agreed goals of education.... <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=120&post=4926#POST4926" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=120&post=4926#POST4926</a>

pilgrim99 · 05-12-09 1:34 pm

John, It is my understanding that those whose motives were pure understood the parables as Jesus intended. Being God, He is able to look at our hearts and motives. As humans our perspective is limited under the sun, and our tendency is to judge based on outward appearances, not so with God. Maybe this can help you to understand a little better:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:When they found him on the other side of the lake, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted. Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life – the food which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has put his seal of approval on him.” So then they said to him, “What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?” Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires – to believe in the one whom he sent.” So they said to him, “Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Then Jesus told them, “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread all the time!” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty. But I told you that you have seen me and still do not believe. Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. Now this is the will of the one who sent me – that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father – for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:25-40 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>and<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Jesus said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, “This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?” When Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining about this, he said to them, “Does this cause you to be offended? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus had already known from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) So Jesus added, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.” John 6:59-65 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> John, answers to many of the questions that you ask can be found if you search for them as you would for silver. I can't judge your motives, but Jesus always knows. At one time, I did not believe and so, could not understand either. Belief is the first step in understanding, this is the exact opposite approach than that which our human nature is inclined to take. God calls all of us to Himself, but for a myriad of reasons, all rooted in human nature, not all simply come.

john8verse32 · 05-12-09 2:09 pm

Being God, He is able to look at our hearts and motives. then why didn't He take the omniscient precaution to look into Adam and Eves hearts and understand the power of human curiosity and the desire to understand?..both of which God allegedly invented for his creatures.. and then He failed to forewarn them about the lying talking snake? who was apparently more convincing than God...to the point that the tale admits that Eve was deceived. and some extrapolate this into claiming that we also are guilty just because we are their human offspring, despite Hebrew law which said that only the guilty should be punished, not their kids. It seems especially unfair since it appears that God allowed Eve to be deceived, and being God, as Devon stated, He might have known better. mof, God said they would die that very day they ate the magic fruit!!! while the talking snake got it right and promised they wouldn't die that day.... and they lived happily ever after, at least for almost a millenium if you believe the story literally. Belief is the first step in understanding,.... while this is the exact opposite approach than that which our human nature is inclined to take. I agree with the last part.... but if you really "believe" the first part, Devon, why not become a Moslem....since they get virgins in the sky, while the rest of us will be like the angels according to EGW, and therefore we may be limited to being asexual or looking for occasional privacy.... and theres probably no pizza and beer up there for us either**...while if you just "believe", as a Moslem, you'll have access to tables of fruit and dates, and possibly dates with young doe eyed boys !!! iow...if "belief" without evidence is all it takes... why not switch? **since both cheese and beer result from the life, metabolism, procreation, and death of tiny organisms like yeast.... and there's no procreation or death up there, right?

neal · 05-12-09 2:26 pm

At one time, I did not believe and so, could not understand either. That is a very dangerous philosophy. Sounds like something a pedophile would use on a 10 year old. Paul says to test all things. He didn't say to believe in spite of evidence and then learn the rote apologetics. Maybe you could start believing the Book of Mormon, then progress to understanding it. Or the Koran. Just believe! Then it'll come to you. Come on Devon. That is sacrificing your reason for whatever cult/philosophy/religion you happen to stumble across first. Belief is the first step in understanding.... That is just blatantly false. Believing that the world is flat or has a dome which God created on the second day is the first step toward delusion, not understanding.

elaine · 05-12-09 2:52 pm

For an excellent explanation of the different perspectives and spheres of religion and science, Adventist Today has a blog online of Ervin Taylor and the comments discussing how one can be both religious and scientific. Francis Collins has managed to be both, but without the fundamentalist' view.

pilgrim99 · 05-12-09 2:53 pm

Christian belief is based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence. This is shown in many cases, such as that of Simon Greenleaf the author of A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. Considered by some to be the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.”(Dr. Wilbur Smith) Greenleaf wrote the following:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:“All that Christianity asks of men…is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubted conviction of their integrity, ability and truth (Testimony of the Evangelist)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Even though Dr. Greenleaf lived and died a long time ago, I would feel comfortable in saying that his systematic approach to the evaluation and admissibility of evidence exceeds that which I have observed from many here. There is zero evidence that either Mormonism or Islam is true. In fact there is much in both movements that flatly contradicts the Bible, and are not supported by archeologial or genetic evidence. After evaluation of the evidence, some Mormons and Muslims become Christians, despite the sometimes fatal consequences for doing so.

neal · 05-12-09 3:05 pm

Devon Using your line of thinking if you just BELIEVE in the Golden Tablets then the understanding will come to you. As I have said before, just because something happened in history (is historical) does not lead to the conclusion that the people's beliefs about spirits/deities/cosmology/nature are true. The Egyptians existed. Shall we bury some food with your mummified body? We know for a fact that this earth and its species were not created out of thin air 6000 years ago. As the basis for the god of the Bible's authority rests on it being the creator then the god of the jews has no authority whatsoever. Its a false god. The god of the hebrews has just as much authority as Zeus, Apollo, Marduk, or Aton- NONE.

neal · 05-12-09 3:11 pm

As for your 1800's authority, the witnesses in the Bible should be treated the same as other writers/historians of their times. There is no reason to treat them as if they had our civilized rules about plagiarism or any other moral and ethical advancement, the scientific method, or technology. All the evidence points to the Bible writers regurgitating a variation of what their surrounding cultures had concluded. Please show me ONE idea from the Bible that is original to the hebrews other than the ridiculous, disregarded saying of Jesus to turn the other cheek (which there may be a precedent for).

elaine · 05-12-09 3:12 pm

Here is an excerpt from Ervin Taylor on the differences between science and religion: "It is widely appreciated that the contemporary scientific world view--the often unstated assumptions that the mainline scientific community makes about the natural world--is completely and totally materialistic. It has to be. The only arguments and data of relevance in standard scientific discourse are explicitly physically-definable elements whose presence and nature can be observed, recorded, and/or detected in terms of some objectified physical form by multiple trained observers. The often complex methodologies worked out over time in the various branches of the sciences are the means by which the data produced within that world-view is gathered, evaluated, and interpreted. A concise statement of what contemporary science is all about was published in 2004 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS): "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science." Please note that the NAS statement says that science is "a" particular way of knowing. It does not say that it is the "only" way of knowing."

pilgrim99 · 05-12-09 3:18 pm

Neal, I'm not hung up on the age of the earth, nor do I see any reasonable evidence for belief in any golden plates. I have often wondered how old Adam appeared to be when he was created, likewise how old did the animals and trees appear to be on their first day of creation. However the answer to these questions does not prevent me from believing in Jesus. Thank you for your comments, I guess you must think that I am as misguided as I think that you are. If I was a Moslem I would take offense at some of what you say, but as a Christian I understand that unbelievers think and write as unbelievers. After all I was not always a believer. I did not conduct a serious evaluation of the evidence until I was over 30 years old. Isn't America great though? I can't force you to believe as I do, and you don't have to force me to believe as you do. Even though I know that you are dead wrong <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>

neal · 05-12-09 3:32 pm

I'm not hung up on the age of the earth.... So you don't care whether the claims about God in the Bible are true or false. Its a proven fact that there was no flood as described in the Bible. Since Jesus claimed the last days will be as it was in Noah's days I cannot accept that Jesus, if he existed, knew anything about the future. He was just as ignorant as the next guy running around the middle east in a robe 2000 years ago. I'll stick to accepting a conclusion after studying evidence and reasoned arguments. You are welcome to stick to your a priori beliefs which are evidentially false.

neal · 05-12-09 3:45 pm

If I was a Moslem I would take offense at some of what you say, but as a Christian I understand that unbelievers think and write as unbelievers. Muslims still treat nonbelievers the same as christians did until the actions of the pious were outlawed by civilized society 300 years ago. There are plenty of your fellow believers that would kill me and any other nonbeliever without a moments hesitation if they were allowed to do so. They did it for 1700 years. Muslims still kill apostates, adulterers, and blasphemers just like the Hebrew Bible commands. A few months ago I went to the D'Souza-Hitchens debate. Dinesh started by telling how christianity had come to his ancestral village in India. Christianity came at the tip of a bayonet.

pilgrim99 · 05-12-09 4:11 pm

Neal, since you seem to know all of the answers, maybe you can tell me how old Adam, the trees, plants and animals appeared to be on the first day of their creation. If they had been evaluated using modern dating methods on their respective first days, what would the results have shown. As for the flood, does it matter if it covered all of the inhabited earth or the entire earth? I've even heard some people say that it impacted the entire galaxy, but don't know enough to evaluate that claim. Is that a reason for unbelief? maybe for you, it's certainly not for me. Many people evaluate evidence and come to different conclusions. Happens everyday and it seems that we have both evaluated maybe similar evidence and come to far different conclusions. As I've said before, I'm just some guy made out of dirt sitting a laptop keyboard, no one special. I used to be someone who believed that technology had all of the answers and that Christians were a joke. Now i know better, I'm actually a fundamentalist Christian now, who said that God doesn't have a sense of humor? If it makes you happy to feel that your worldview is superior, then by all means be happy, I'm not offended in the least. Your writing has a touch of patronization, which could turn some people off, perhaps it's unintentional, or merely a reflection of human nature. It's good to remember that people much smarter than either of us have also evaluated the evidence and have come to different conclusions, it's not that unusual. My role is not to convince you to believe as I do. In fact I am actually incapable of convincing you to believe. Deep down, you may have questions that no other human can answer. God has placed eternity in all human hearts and when you are open to gaining an eternal perspective and willing to accept that human intellect or human nature or activity do not have the answers, God will be able to reveal Himself to you personally. Uttil that time, it's probably best to pursue your passions and desires to the fullest extent. Who knows, maybe you'll come to the end of yourself faster that way. I still have natural empathy towards you as a fellow member of the human race, and have zero ill will towards you. May you live long and prosper. Even though I still think that you are dead wrong.

pilgrim99 · 05-12-09 4:33 pm

A few months ago I went to the D'Souza-Hitchens debate. Dinesh started by telling how christianity had come to his ancestral village in India. Christianity came at the tip of a bayonet. Fortunately that is no longer the case, I'm inclined to believe that the motive was human as was simply using Christianity as a cover. I say this because I do not see Biblical efforts to convert anyone by force. Note that I did NOT say there was no Biblical evidence for the use of force of any kind, but as related to conversion efforts. The tables do seem to have turned, now people are being persecuted for becoming Christians, maybe you know what motivates the persecution. Perhaps after investigating, you might also consider offering support. <a href="http://www.persecution.com/public/homepage.aspx" target=_top>Voice Of The Martyrs</a>

elaine · 05-12-09 7:27 pm

I do not see Biblical efforts to convert anyone by force. The Hebrews weren't even told to convert, but to kill all those non-Hebrews. Except, of course, the young virgins who they were told to take home for wives. In their view, all non-Hebrews were "pagans" and unworthy of living. Which is better: conversion by force or killing if a non-believer? If people are being persecuted today for becoming Christians, they helped institute the practice. Think: Spanish Inquisition; conversion or the sword by the Spanish Conquistadores, and the "Westernization" under the guise of Christianity for the many countries under colonialism.

pilgrim99 · 05-12-09 8:27 pm

Elaine, thank you very much for your comments. As expected they appear to accurately represent your worldview, as they should. As uncomfortable as it makes us to think about, do you think that dying a violent death is the worst fate that can befall a person? Or do you think that dying peacefully in one's sleep, yet still being on the wrong side of God's judgment is a greater tragedy? All who have chosen to reject God and His freely offered gift will die a permanent death, or a permanent seperation from God and any goodness, which to me is the real tragedy. God's plans will not fail, and we have a written record of what happens to individuals, tribes, tongues and nations that have tried to thwart God's plans, we do well to pay attention. We do even better to accept the price that God paid Himself for our sins. A price that none of us have enough status to actually pay. Embracing atheist and agnostic theology is dangerous for one's permanent well being, as shown in many OT and NT accounts. God offers a free gift simply for believing in His Son, He even gives the ability to believe as a gift, That's love that we can't really understand, we can either choose to accept His love, or reject it, God does not force anyone to accept. I pray that this is not true of you:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me. You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time, nor do you have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the one whom he sent. You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life. John 5:37-40 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Elaine, are you a Christian? If so on what basis do you consider yourself to be one? The imperfect Christians that I am personally acquainted with, and count myself as one of, are followers of Jesus, and respect the Written Word of God as special revelation, in the same way that Jesus did. Your status as believer, or unbeliever does not negate your right to an opinion. May your days be blessed with the love and mercy of God, your creator.

don · 05-12-09 9:46 pm

respect the Written Word of God as special revelation, in the same way that Jesus did. How did Jesus "respect" the Hebrew Scriptures?<blockquote>1) He used the ideas of Scripture to defend his choices. <blockquote>In facing specific temptations He used ideas from passages in Deuteronomy as authority in countering the Devil. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=4&version=31" target="_blank">Matthew 4</a> </blockquote> 2) Jesus Upheld the Law and the Prophets as part of His Kingdom of Heaven.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:17" Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote>The Kingdom of Heaven is another name for Jesus' organization. He says that the Law and the Prophets have His support till all be accomplished; until Heaven and Earth disappear. Here we have clear support for the Hebrew Scriptures. Some have suggested that at Jesus' death all was accomplished. The context doesn't seem to support that. Jesus links Heaven and Earth passing away and the Kingdom of Heaven with the littlest precept of the Hebrew Bible. </blockquote></blockquote>More later?

elaine · 05-12-09 10:04 pm

Devon, I will be 85 this year, so am probably closer to death than anyone here. No, I have absolutely no fear of death because I trust that God will do what is right. Micah described what God wants: "To do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." That, plus the Golden Rule is how I and my family have tried to lead our lives. Since no one has returned from death to describe it, we cannot know what is on "the other side" and imagination has gone wild, from Dante's "Inferno" to Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." I refuse to be afraid or intimidated by what is ahead. Like Tennyson, I will lie down with my ancestors and go to restful sleep. There are people who have lived long past all their families and loved ones who look forward to death. For those who have lived a long life, it is a blessing which we should not fear.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 05-12-09 6:48 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#52 05-12-09 8:39 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#53 05-12-09 8:43 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#54 05-12-09 9:24 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#55 05-12-09 9:31 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#56 05-12-09 10:14 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#57 05-12-09 10:41 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#58 05-12-09 12:12 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#59 05-12-09 1:34 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#60 05-12-09 2:09 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#61 05-12-09 2:26 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#62 05-12-09 2:52 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#63 05-12-09 2:53 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#64 05-12-09 3:05 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#65 05-12-09 3:11 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#66 05-12-09 3:12 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#67 05-12-09 3:18 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#68 05-12-09 3:32 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#69 05-12-09 3:45 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#70 05-12-09 4:11 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#71 05-12-09 4:33 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#72 05-12-09 7:27 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#73 05-12-09 8:27 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#74 05-12-09 9:46 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#75 05-12-09 10:04 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

Board footer