Posted by Hemant Mehta on: 03.07.2006 /
As to the postings about gay people and church, I thought that was more a philosophical issue, so I posted about it on my blog. Feel free to go and comment.(http://ebayatheist.blogspot.com/2006/03/gaytheists.html).
I would like to mention that the Christian churches (on the whole) tend to oppose many other issues– not just gay rights– that most Atheists are in favor of…
This includes:
– What we see and hear in the media. Atheists favor less censorship. Religious groups usually want more of it.
– Abortion. Atheists tend to favor it to some degree. Christians are usually against it.
– Stem cells. Obvious.
There are plenty more. But in all of these issues, I’ve always had the impression (from talking to my religious friends) that Christians are more divided on these issues than Atheists are. Meaning, you’ll find people for AND against gay rights in most churches, but you won’t always see that range at an Atheist gathering.
Judging from the Posting on Gay Person Asks why, this was certainly evident.
Do others get this same sense?
I would think if the church was more openly divided on these issues, people wouldn’t pigeonhole all churches into the right-wing side and this would bring more people to the church. It seems that a lot of people that stay away do so because they don’t appreciate the one-sided views they think exist, but may not actually be there.
Comment by: Siamang
1Why stop with those, Hemnant?
What about welfare?
What about evolution?
What about global warming?
What about the right to die “death with dignity” movement?
These are a lot of hot-button issues now. I do think that there’s a cultural draw to religion in America. Part of it is urban vs rural. Part of it is dem vs republican.
But there is a cultural identity to different churches. I wouldn’t put the Quakers in the same crowd as Ted Haggard, for instance.
I get what you’re saying, of course.
My mother and stepfather are methodist, and they go to a methodist church in the south.
My mother in law is gay.
I have a beautiful baby daughter who’s two years old.
Now, within my family, it’s all good. Everyone gets along, methodist and lesbians alike.
But when being invited to my mother’s church, I looked around warily. I didn’t want my daughter to visit a church that her other grandmothers wouldn’t be welcome in.
It doesn’t seem to be the case. Their church seems pretty hip and with it (female minister! My gaydar was going off!).
But that worry crossed my mind. If I visit this church, am I betraying my loved ones?
Comment by: Katherine
2Good point. It’s easy for us atheists to think that all Christians think in such a way (probably because those that are loudest think like that!) but there is a lot of liberalism which we should see more of.
I wouldn’t say that I favour abortion, it’s not something I think i could go through myself, but I still think the choice should be there.
Comment by: TXatheist
3In one word:Freedom. When I need you to decide for me on such choices I’ve obviously become a vegetable and can’t decide for myself. That’s honestly how I see it.
Comment by: Rick
4On the flip side I have frequently seen Christians pigeonholing non religious people as Commies. Maybe this got popular during the cold war era, but its been what, 15 years since the fall of Soviet Union?
Comment by: fran
5It’s all about freedom of choice in my opinion. As long as it doesn’t harm another in any way or it physically, environmentally, emotionally or in anyway impacts on another ,and it’s kept personal, no one should have the right to step in and stop another’s persuit of happiness . Dismiss it as liberal if you wish but in this country we need to come up with a working definition of freedom . That way lawmakers can have a guide and not be influenced by outside radical thought .We also need to do away with lobbyists roaming the capital unless they are specifically requested by the committee involved in the laws enactment . That would solve the problems surrounding favoritism and keep criminals like “Lay” at bay.:)
Comment by: Stephan
6I have made an interesting progression over the last ten years or so. I used to be a far right religious Republican, listening to and agreeing with the likes of Rush Limbaugh. The farther I got in my faith, the less comfortable I was with that line of thinking. On many of the so-called “cultural” issues I am still fairly conservative - abortion, pornography, etc. But I am certainly not with the Republicans on Iraq. I think taxes on the rich should be higher. I think we should give more money to schools. I think education, all the way through college, should be free. I think we need to do more to take care of the poor. I believe affirmative action is a good idea.
I recently enjoyed reading “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis, which encourages Christians to consistenly apply their Christian beliefs to their political views. I have, in the past, considered running for office, but I am at a point in my life where I don’t think either major party would endorse me. I am either a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…
Comment by: Steve
7Hemant,
Your observations are interesting indeed. However, I have to say that I’m actually a little more curious as to why there’s not more diversity of opinion among atheists. Is it because atheists have been marginalized and labelled and have come to accept that if you’re gonna be atheist, you’re gonna hold these political/social views (subconsciously, of course)? Or is it that the kind of thought process that you took toward atheism is the same kind of thought process that would lead to those views?
My hunch about your real question - why Christians don’t more openly disagree on things - is that there are multiple reasons at work. First, the Bible talks a lot about unity in the church, and we tend to feel guilty about conflict. Second, many who would stand up and disagree with others have been and will continue to be shouted down by those with louder voices (you’re familiar with who I’m talking about here) - and they would be treated at times worse than non-Christians with the same views. Third, and most personal to me, is that Jesus tells us to love one another. While disagreeing about a political or social viewpoint doesn’t mean we don’t love, but knowing how to talk about that in public forums is really tricky - we would often rather not say anything publicly than to say something harmful.
Comment by: KSG
8I have to weight in onside with Stephan.
As I Xian, my circle is composed of persons who are much more right wing than I, but for me it’s a challenge to balance some political issues with Xian values. And often blind logic is at play when dealing with fellow “believers”, as though disagreeing with your brother (or worse, leader) makes you a rebel. Or that believing what you’ve personally read in the Bible over believing the interpretation of the Bible that your leader espouses somehow means you are challenging their authority.
Ir, this is why I would be crucified, because if my church leaders knew that some of my views are much different than their own, their reaction would be negative, and I would be asked to step down from my service and possible attendance, and doing so would strain family-in-law stuff.
That’s the short answer. The long one is much longer.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
9Hemant, you wrote There are plenty more. But in all of these issues, I’ve always had the impression (from talking to my religious friends) that Christians are more divided on these issues than Atheists are. Meaning, you’ll find people for AND against gay rights in most churches, but you won’t always see that range at an Atheist gathering.
That is very interesting. Are you suggesting that there is more of a “party line” among atheists than among Christians - some acceptable code of positions on social issues that all atheists seem to share? Or is it coincidence that atheism carries such a unique set of social and cultural baggage? Intelligent people (which most atheists obviously are) disagree on things both important and unimportant all the time. What do you think explains the “inside-speak” you’ve observed more among atheists than among Christians?
Rick L in TX
Comment by: KSG
10oops, I left the italics on.
Comment by: KSG
11AARGH, now I can’t turn them off
Comment by: KSG
12there, fixed (I hope).
Comment by: KSG
13okay, Ir, I need help.
Comment by: Ir
14Ok, KSG - seeing if this works…
Comment by: TXatheist
15Can we get a seperate post just to show us how to use italics? I say that because I don’t know how but want a step by step process layout.
Comment by: Ir
16(To turn italics off when it’s already on, start your post with, say, three /i in arrows. It seems to work. For some reason, one /i in arrows doesn’t seem to work in that situation)
KSG wrote: Ir, this is why I would be crucified, because if my church leaders knew that some of my views are much different than their own, their reaction would be negative, and I would be asked to step down from my service and possible attendance, and doing so would strain family-in-law stuff.
That’s the short answer. The long one is much longer.
KSG, I’m sorry to hear that you can’t be fully honest with your leaders without losing something you don’t want to lose. I completely understand why you value serving there and good relations with your in-laws more than you value speaking your mind, no matter what the consequences. I know that some people would find it an unacceptable compromise, but — I understand your choice. I’m still there in many respects. I’ve told very few Christians the extent of why I am not going to church. In my ideal world I would have no disincentive to be honest. But this is not an ideal world.
Anyway, I read your statement of faith and I would deduce from that that you most likely agree on the ‘fundamentals of the faith’ with your leaders. Can you indicate the general realm of disagreement — is it politics? I know you want to be anonymous, so if you can’t say more, I understand. You said a lot already and I appreciate that.
Stephan wrote: I have to say that I’m actually a little more curious as to why there’s not more diversity of opinion among atheists. Is it because atheists have been marginalized and labelled and have come to accept that if you’re gonna be atheist, you’re gonna hold these political/social views (subconsciously, of course)? Or is it that the kind of thought process that you took toward atheism is the same kind of thought process that would lead to those views?
Stephan, if a Christian knows a person has just contemplated whether to jump off a cliff and has decided to do it, the Christian feels morally obliged to stop that person doing it.
Christians tend to respond to most choices of people that way because they label choices as ‘morally right’ or ‘morally wrong’ and they believe that doing something morally wrong is a dangerous choice that they should prevent if they can. An atheist seeing someone about to jump off a cliff may try to stop them; but the atheist may value ‘freedom of choice’ so highly that they think it’s better to let the person do it than to interfere with their freedom of choice. It’s a very different way of looking at things.
Comment by: Ir
17TXatheist, italics are coded in the exact same way you use them in html - if I find a page about html that shows how I’ll link to it. Or maybe Jim can write about it in a blog entry. You can see the coding if you do ‘view source’ in your browser and then find an italicized passage (if you try that try it on a short page).
Comment by: TXatheist
18Thanks Ir, but I don’t use them in html so I was asking for a complete set of instructions:)
Comment by: Ir
19TXatheist, the following webpage shows how to italicize a sentence (or paragraph):
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/tut/tut5.html
Also, I think someone helpfully just added buttons above the comment box that we can click to add various things to our comments.
If you click str before a block of text and then click it again at the end it will put it in bold, I expect.Let’s try thatThis is what the em button does
But you can also type the tags in yourself as shown on the html reference page I linked to.
Comment by: Ir
20Ok, so the em button does italics - click it right before the italics text starts and click it again right after it ends.
Comment by: Ir
21Anyway, back to Hemant’s comments.
I hear what he’s saying. I think part of the problem with being openly divided is that many Christians are of the opinion “no true Christian would disagree with my position on this”. Rather than saying “Christians disagree on this issue” they say “They aren’t really Christians - that’s why they disagree”.
I actually think the problem is that issues are too much of an issue.
It seems ironic that many missionaries now recognize it’s unreasonable to force all the cultural trappings of US or UK Christianity onto people from a very different culture. Yet in the US Christians often present Christianity as a complete cultural package, not realizing that, since Christianity has become so inculturated here, witnessing is, in the US in 2006, a cross-cultural endeavor, just as it is overseas.
It seems to me that OTM is about letting go of everything that is a non-essential of Christianity, so that whatever is essential will show through again. Right now it gets very obscured, so it seems to me, with all the ‘moral’ stuff.
Comment by: Cully
22I’m going to express what will doubtlessly be an unpopular opinion: There is less debate about these issues within the Christian community because they feel that expressing a counter opinion puts their souls in jeopardy.
Do you know how many times in my life I’ve heard the phrase “I PERSONALLY don’t have a problem with gay people, but the BIBLE says….” or similar statements? How many Catholics willfully break church edict regarding birth control? If enough of those people spoke up and put pressure to bear on the Vatican, don’t you think that edict might change? The Jewish church, a church that still follows Old Testament law is considering allowing gay rabbis and gay marriage because they see that this issue is going to alienate them from their younger members eventually. (see this article at the NY Times.)
I know that Christianity is not supposed to be a democracy, but questioning church dictum in the past has led to cultural advancement. If you disagree with the churches stance on stem cells what harm is there on asking for clarification from your minister? Can he adequately explain his position? If he can’t are you then following a follower?
Comment by: TXatheist
23Cully, I agree, I am currently reading Sam Harris’ book “The end of faith” and his basic stance is the moderate Christian is why religion won’t die out. They don’t really adhere to the bible, in his opinion.
Comment by: Stephan
24Cully, I think there is more openness to debate in some denominations that in others. The Catholic church is well known for sqashing debate. Some more liberal denominations allow members to believe anything they want. The ones at the extremes seem to get all of the attention, but there are quite a few of us in the middle.
My own denomination clearly states that you can believe whatever you want, as long as you can back it up with scripture, and not just “proof-texting”, but giving it a true read. You are free to try to convince others of your interpretation, but you are not free to belittle those who disagree with you, or question their faith. I don’t believe it actually works that way in every instance in every church, but it’s at least the goal for which we strive.
I think most people at my church would honestly listen if they felt you were sincere. They might not agree, but they wouldn’t call you a heathen because you disagreed with them.
Gotta try
buttons. Sorry, it had to be done.Comment by: Siamang
25Cully, I’m there with you.
But HECK, among a lot of churches, asking them when the Jurassic period was is a controversial issue!
I mean, we’ve gotten quite wierd in this day and age with christianity when Rick Warren, whom Jim calls a good example christian, makes the children in his church choose between believing their science teacher and believing the bible:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_30
These are the things that WILL backfire on Christianity. Children raised in a rigid church that has a “Meet the Flintstones” view of natural history are in for a rude shock upon entering college. At which time, the questions will come hard and fast. “If the church is wrong about dinosaurs, what else are they wrong on?”
In a larger sense, it’s what adults do all the time. “If they’re wrong about……”
Put any issue you feel passionately about after that.
Comment by: Ir
26Yes. I so think this should be a non-issue. I wish Christians would back off asserting that the first page of the Bible is a scientific document providing grounds for rejecting scientific working hypotheses that pretty much everyone else accepts these days.
Oh well.
I agree, Siamang. Actually, for a lot of children it probably happens before college. College may just be the time they have gained enough independence to dare to ‘fess up to their parents.
Comment by: skikid
27Hmmm Ir can that work in reverse? :)
justreally wanted toplay with the buttons
Comment by: Ir
28LOLskikid! :)
Comment by: David
29Hello Hemant. I am glad you are investigating God. A book that may be of interest to you is “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Geisler & Turek. You can pick it up at Amazon. I am an actuary and found the logical argumants compelling.
David
Comment by: TXatheist
30David,
Would you have any books you’d recommend to investigate atheism?
Comment by: Ir
31David, I have a problem with the title of that book.
Consider the daily life of a Christian and an atheist. Which one talks to a person they can’t see with their eyes, touch with their hands or hear with their ears, who is recorded as having died 2,000 years ago? It seems clear to me that that person has the most faith. And that person isn’t the atheist.
Comment by: MQ
32“I am either a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican.”
Don’t let this stop you from exploring politics. There are many places in the country where this is a winning political position, especially in the Midwest and South. And especially I might add on the conservative Democrat side, there are anti-abortion Dems out there.
Comment by: KSG
33I remembered seeing a Xian magazine (in my parents bathroom) with an article on stem cell research and it held an interesting view, you can view it by following link href=”http://www.joycemeyer.org”>www.joycemeyer.org and then under the heading America Links click on stem cell research.
Xians shouldn’t be opposed to all forms of stem cell research.
In #22 Cully said There is less debate about these issues within the Christian community because they feel that expressing a counter opinion puts their souls in jeopardy.
and I would add a hearty “amen”.
Ir, regarding comments in #16 & church leadership, it’s that I can’t disagree, and we can agree to disagree as long as it’s clear that I’m wrong. Actually it’s not even that, it’s that I see what I believe is hypocrisy between words and actions. In the role of leadership, what is said behind the pulpit and what is done behind the closed doors of church governance don’t line up. It may also be church politics…if you know the right persons and follow all the rules then you may have an opportunity to climb the ladder. Due to my independent nature, I have very little time or interest in playing political games or trying to please self-proclaimed leaders. That doesn’t play well with people who want you to conform to their mold. My challenge is how to disagree with someone while still respecting the office they hold.
Comment by: Albert
34Ir said “Yes. I so think this should be a non-issue. I wish Christians would back off asserting that the first page of the Bible is a scientific document providing grounds for rejecting scientific working hypotheses that pretty much everyone else accepts these days.”
A lot of more moderate and liberal Christians would agree with that statement. But this means that the vast majority of Christians over time have held a false belief about creation. Which leads to the question how much of traditional belief, that is contradicted by modern knowledge, can you dismiss and still have a meaningful version of Christianity?
Comment by: Rick L in TX
35Many Christians, myself included, do not feel that faith in Christ and a commitment to some specific understanding of origins are required to be inseperable. I do not demand that the creation accounts of Genesis be understood scientifically. And incidentally I would not define myself as either a moderate or a liberal Christian.
Rick L in TX
Comment by: fran
36Approx. two weeks ago a vatican publicist issued a statement saying the first 11 chapters of genesis weren’t to be taken literally.I’ll try and find a source cite before the weekend and I’ll post it
Comment by: TXatheist
37Albert, last I heard 45% believed in a young biblical earth, 45% believe god created an old earth using evolution and 10% said it was old and god didn’t do anything.
Comment by: skikid
38Albert said~
Can you give me some more expamples of this?
Comment by: Ir
39Well, so what if they have? Did Jesus ever tell anyone to insist that the earth was less than 100,000 years old? Was that the ‘good news’ he came to bring? If not, then why does it matter if Christians have been wrong about the age of the earth.
I don’t see that it would matter if Christians didn’t make it matter by making such a big deal about it.
Great. How about we dare to ask that question, then? Why does a meaningful version of Christianity have to include the earth being less than 100,000 years old?
Comment by: skikid
40I dont think it does… I think Genesis (1 and 2) tell me that God created humanity b/c God wanted to be in realtionship with humanity. Humanity messed it up with disobedience… the Earth being 4 billion years old doesnt do much do that message for me.
Comment by: Ir
41Thanks, skikid. I don’t see why it does much to that message either. Nevertheless, the ‘age of the earth’ issue sure gets some Christians stirred up…
Comment by: TXatheist
42Ir, Are you familiar with Galileo and Bruno and what happened to them for daring to say something against the biblical version of the earth and the solar system?
Comment by: Albert
43It’s the “slippery slope” here. To what I’ve written above let’s also throw out virgin births, literal physical resurrections, “ascensions to heaven”, casting out demons which cause disease plus where the heck are heaven and hell located anyways now that we’re not in a little three tiered universe.
See here what happens when you follow the conclusions of modernity
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/liberal.html
Comment by: Stephan
44Many Christians feel like they need to read the Bible literally, and if one part is unreliable the whole thing is in question. Geneologies that have been done show between 4000 to 5000 years from Adam to us, so that’s the age these Christians need to believe, from their perspective.
I think they make several errors here.
First, the Bible does need to be read literally. Some is poetry, some is history, some is prophecy. Poetic and prophetic language is usually intended to convey a larger truth, not give blow by blow facts. I read the Genesis account of creation more as poetry than history.
Second, they think the geneologies are precise. I have heard that “was the father of” in these geneologies can mean “was the ancestor of”, so they may have skipped generations. This could throw their dates way off.
Third, just because you question one part does not mean the rest of the Bible. The author’s intended meaning and our interpretation may differ in many areas, and we have to keep exploring until we get it right.
Comment by: Ron
45Ir,
I really respect your thoughts and I think that you offer a great intellectual response to questions that are on the mind of Christians. If you don’t mind I have another one for you that I am still pondering. If evolution is true and their is no truth to creation, then why have some creatures not evolved with others? Like the Coelacanth caught in 1938 and again in 1998?
Comment by: Stephan
46Oh, this is going to hurt. I can feel it already.
Comment by: Ir
47A little with what happened to Galileo; sorry, I don’t think I know who Bruno was? As I recall it didn’t go so well for Galileo.
But in American today, we should be able to ask questions, right?
Comment by: Albert
48It’s not only the supernatural and the non scientific that’s a problem. An honest person has to admit that there is a clear expectation of the return of Jesus (even by himself) before all his contemporaries would have died in the New Testament (y’all know the passages). Even C.S. Lewis in “The world’s last night” admits this. But it never happened. Instead you got all sorts of rationalizations about “delays” and “temple destructions” etc ad nauseam. And don’t tell me those expectations are “symbolic” either because if that’s the case you can’t take anything in the bible literally anymore.
Comment by: TXatheist
49Ir,
It went even worse for Bruno…burned at the stake. It’s called the copernicus theory and it’s still a theory today just like evolution. Question yes. Face consequences? Unfortunately sometimes.
Comment by: Ir
50In other words - better not question anything because it all might fall apart? Is that what you’re saying?
Proof by induction and proof by counter-example - I’ve heard of them. But, proof by ’slippery-slope’?
Comment by: TXatheist
51Ron,
60 years is hardly enough time for a species to appear changed.
Comment by: Ron
52I understand. 80 million years is and that is at least how old the species is.
Comment by: Albert
53No, it’s that things fall apart precisely BECAUSE of questioning. Remember that Christianity prides itself on being a “historically true faith”. Once you realize that certain things are not true then you wonder what else is true or false. Plus given the limited amount of data you really have to work with it might just end up as a guessing game. Who’s got the lock on truth here? Origen, Augustine, Luther, the Pope, Jerry Falwell?
Comment by: Ir
54Hi Ron,
Thanks for the compliment.
Really you should ask David Attenborough or Richard Dawkins that question, but I’ll give it a go.
Firstly, evolution happens slowly and one wouldn’t necessarily expect to see any changes over 50 years. I doubt anything has really evolved since 1938. What we do see over 50 years is that the mix in a population may change. Moths in a polluted area of the UK darkened over a period of time, not because the species ‘evolved’ but because all the light ones got eaten and the dark ones survived and reproduced. Therefore the proportion of light colored genes went down very quickly. But the dark color gene was present all along. I suppose some might call the color change ‘evolution’ but I’m not sure it is strictly speaking.
Secondly, a species evolves only when a changed form of the species is better able to survive than the original form. If the coelecanth did not change over a period long enough that other species changed, it implies that alternate forms of the coelecanth, when they appeared, were less able to survive than the original form. So the original form persisted.
Thirdly, as I recall, the big deal about the coelecanth was that it was thought to be extinct, but in fact it wasn’t, as shown in a David Attenborough program where some fishermen hand one to him.
It’s a little ironic for me to be asked about evolution because I have trouble with it myself; it seems to me that genetic mutations are much more often negative than positive. Dawkins seems confident that a chain of tiny changes could have happened which led to a fully-formed eye, for example, but I don’t find that easy to envisage.
I don’t mind evolution being taught but ideally I would like to see it taught as a working hypothesis with the problems of it fully disclosed, rather than ‘fact’. I suspect it is taught more as fact than I’d like, but my children are not old enough yet for me to know how it’s presented in public school.
Comment by: Stephan
55Albert, the only real truth is the intended truth of the author. This is difficult to discern for many reasons:
1. The author (God, as Christians believe) did not do the actual writing. He inspired the writers, and there is some debate about what this means. Did He dicate, word for word? Did He give them ideas to write about? Did He reveal certain mysteries to them? We don’t know.
2. We don’t have the original texts. They have been transcribed, translated and, in some cases, added to by imperfect humans. We have no way of knowing what the original text may have said.
3. The concepts that are conveyed are not simple math or science. These are things far beyond our human ability to think, so the whole process of putting them on paper and trying to get the meaning 2000 years later is a risky venture.
There is a huge “innerrancy” debate that continues to go on in the church. Some believe that what we have today is the perfect Word of God, unchanged and unblemished from the time it was written. Most serious scholars have a problem with this, as I’m sure you can understand, but it’s still a widely held belief in the church in general.
I think for anyone to say that they have a complete understanding of the “truth” is arrogance beyond belief.
Comment by: Ir
56Indeed.
Albert, I just remembered we’re on the ’same side’ - we both asked questions and we both found that it did fall apart, right?
Comment by: Stephan
57Ir, the way you talk about evolution you’re going to have people calling you a Christian again.
One thing I’ve learned in my short time here is not to challenge atheists on evolution. They know their stuff.
Comment by: TXatheist
58Ron,
I’m no expert but if anyone wants better explanation.
http://www.google.com/custom?q=Coelacanth&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
Stephan,
Are you familiar with the book “Who wrote the bible”?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=br_ss_hs/104-3825882-7566354?search-alias=aps&keywords=who%20really%20wrote%20the%20bible
Comment by: Albert
59Stephan,
Thank you for your comment. How about your take on the parousia?
Comment by: Ir
60It’s ok, Stephan - I struggled for a while with how much people seem to love placing labels on others but now I’ve accepted it. Sometimes I even enjoy watching people make their assumptions about me and then seeing how long it takes them to realize they don’t quite have me down after all.
Comment by: Stephan
61Albert, I’m only an amatuer theologian, but I’ll give it a go.
In some ways it gets back to how you read scripture. Prophecy is often poetic, which makes its intent a little difficult. When Jesus said they would not all die before He returned, He may have been speaking of the coming of the Holy Spirit. He later speaks of the Holy Spirit in the third person, so this may not hold up, but it is one possibility. He may have been speaking of his appearance to Saul/Paul. He may have been speaking metaphorically.
I think, in general, prophecy is not written so we can predict events, but so we can recognize them when they come. To try to use scripture to show when and how Jesus is going to return is risky, as is evidenced by all of the predicted returns that have come up dry. The Bible is pretty vague on the whole thing, so I think I’ll wait until it happens to figure it out.
I actually had to look up parousia. And I have a Bible degree.
Comment by: Albert
62Stephan said “I actually had to look up parousia. And I have a Bible degree”.
That’s scary :-)
Comment by: Ron
63Ir,
Thanks but I was unclear with my original question, so I was misunderstood to be asking about an evolutionary change over a short period of time. The species was thought to be extinct and was discovered in 1938 and 1998 unchanged over the course of 80 million years.
My intent is asking questions is to get an honest atheistic answer in a kind manner and I know that myself and other Christians are asking some tough questions that I truely wonder what the other side of the idea world replies to.
Charles Edward White recently wrote an article using math and science to prove the existance of God. In it he quotes a formula from Jacob Beckenstein and Steven Hawking that says that the chance that the universe is created at random is one 10 to the 10 to the 123.
The second number that points to God comes from William Dembski. He says that there are 10 to the 80 elementary particles in the Universe. The fastest they could mutate would be Plank time or 10 to the -42 seconds. If every particle in the Universe had been mutating at the fastest possible rate since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations. He says that for Darwins theory to be right the Universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is.
The other number that White says points to God is the formula e pie i (I do not know how to make a pie symbol on my computer).
His science my be flawed, like I say I am just curious as to what the other side to this is.
Comment by: TXatheist
64Stephan,
Don’t feel bad, I had to look up parousia. I’ve always heard it called the second coming, except for the jews explanation.
Comment by: TXatheist
65Ir said:
Problems? What problems? I can understand there are unknowns but the word problem is a stickler.
Comment by: Siamang
66Oh, jeez. I’m out for awhile and ron was bursting with questions about evolution.
Actually, he was bursting with some questions he gets from ID websites that he wanted to spring on the atheists here. Is this a gotcha trap? You know there are dozens of sites devoted to science where you can ask scientific questions… you know, of actual scientists. But you wanted to spring it on atheists, huh Ron?
Can we de-thread the discussion about evolution to a different forum? This forum is about atheism and christianity, not science.
Ron and Ir, and everyone else is also welcome, I’ve created somewhere else to discuss this:
http://storymatters.blogspot.com/
Come and post there to discuss science. Let’s leave this place to discussing atheism and christianity and how those two get along.
Comment by: Ir
67Ok, I’ll go with ‘unknowns’. :)
Ron, if it’s raining I don’t really care how unlikely that is. I just wish I had my umbrella.
Likewise, with all due respect, I don’t care how unlikely the universe is. It is what it is and I just want to make the most of my life in it.
And I don’t see that the best way to accomplish this is by trying to live the way people I’m not sure I trust [to advise me] say that Someone I’m not sure exists, or that I like if He does exist, wants me to live.
Comment by: Albert
68In my research I’ve found that all these calculations are rather speculative because in many instances we don’t necessarily know all of the relevant parameters.
Comment by: Ron
69All,
I was seriously just curious that is all. I am sorry.
Comment by: Siamang
70No, please Ron, come over to my blog and we can discuss this stuff. I’m really fascinated about evolution, and maybe I can help you find the information you’re looking for. I just know that the last time evolution came up on this blog it was a serious derail. So there we can discuss it. If IR needs some brushing up on his science too, I can help. I’m a science buff.
http://storymatters.blogspot.com/
Comment by: Albert
71No apology needed. Keep posting :-)
Comment by: Texan
72It didn’t seem to me that Ron was looking for a “Gotcha” arguement.
Ron said:
It seems to me he’s just trying to get a feel for an Aethiest response, to know how they respond. I haven’t seen much of his posts here, let’s cut him some slack. He’s new.
I do agree, however, that discussions on ID probably ought to go to Siamangs site or somewhere similar so we can talk further about Aethiesism and Christianity and how they get along at this blogsite.
We need focus! ;)
Comment by: Ir
73Ron, no need to apologize to me - if I sounded irritated, I’m sorry; I didn’t intend to come across that way. I was just trying to express where I’m at.
Siamang - I probably could do with brushing up on my science but I’m not sure I have enough hours in the day to do that until helping with homework forces it upon me!
Comment by: Siamang
74Well, the “atheist” response on questions of evolution, if the person has a firm grasp of the science are going to be the same as the christian response if the person has the similar grasp of the science.
There are a lot of christian biologists, and most of them, probably 99.9% of them don’t only accept evolution, they use it every day to explain the work they do.
We don’t have posters coming here and demanding that the atheists defend the theory of aerodynamics, or give the atheist point of view on the controversial germ theory of disease or of relativity.
The “Atheist -> AHA, Account for your own existance, evolutionist!” point is really the kneejerk reaction in the america right now.
The best parody of that idea is this one:
“Oh yeah, well if you don’t believe in Bacchus, where does WINE come from, smart guy?”
As Ir, points out, not all atheists are big on evolution. Not all atheists are big on math or pro-wrestling either. There are lots of reasons to be an atheist, but evolution is not one of them.
Evolution absolutely does not disprove God, so no atheist I know says “evolution is real, therefore God does not exist.”
Comment by: Siamang
75Ir, you a parent? Yeah, that’s a lot of work!
I’ll tell you what, I’ll help with your science if you help me with something I’m not good at, when my little one’s old enough to do homework!
Comment by: fran
76Hasn’t anyone here taken biology courses . Evolution occurs “”" daily “”"( Think )!!!!!!
Comment by: Ron
77Siamang,
I tried to post on you blog but it would not let me. It said something about a cookie being in the way. I don’t understand computers. It is amazing that I even was able to blog here.
Comment by: Siamang
78You should be able to post anonymously. Can you clear your cookies and try again?
Your webbrowser should have an option to reset the browser, clear the cookies etc.
Comment by: Ir
79Ron, I had to register before I could post on Hemant’s blog; Siamang’s blog looks to me like it requires registration too, if you haven’t done that. Siamang is that correct or can a person post without registering?
Siamang - I sure am a parent. Re: homework - if the science doesn’t come back to me when I look over the homework, it’s a deal!
Comment by: Kassy
80If the Biblical creation of the world is taken as a parable, there’s no real conflict between christianity and evolution. Much of the Bible is parable, isn’t it?
But to get back to an earlier question, why do atheists seem all on the same page on some issues while there is dissent on them in the church (if underground dissent) - I don’t think atheists are all on the same page, we are just less likely to catagoize ourselves as atheist. I’m a member of many groups, and atheism is only one of them. I identify myself with evolution (yes Ir, most mutations are harmful, that’s why evolution is so slow), and with a woman’s right to choose (although it is not a choice I would make), and with a liberal philosphy, and with a crochet guild, and straight sex with equal enthusiasm as I identify myself with atheism. And while I don’t consciously compartmentalize these multiple identifications, I also don’t drag abortion into the crochet guild. So when the news talks about atheists who supporst one issue or another, it isn’t necessarily all atheists. We don’t have a church to go to talk about atheism, so we meet each other only haphazardly, or where we join in some other facet of identity.
Comment by: Gina
81I would think if the church was more openly divided on these issues, people wouldn’t pigeonhole all churches into the right-wing side and this would bring more people to the church. It seems that a lot of people that stay away do so because they don’t appreciate the one-sided views they think exist, but may not actually be there.
There is some very interesting and respectful conversation going on here. What a nice change from the usual…
Hemant askes a very good question, one that I ask every time Pat Robertson shows up on the evening news with another embarrassing comment. The truth is that many Christian churches are already dealing very well with the issues that side-track the vocal right wingers but these congregations don’t get any media coverage. Honestly, what will generate more attention “Pastor preaches that gossip is just as sinful as homosexuality” or “Church pickets high school graduation to protest gay rights activities”? Both of those happened in my town within the last year.. guess which one was front page news?
gina
Comment by: TXatheist
82kassy,
As a fellow UU I would like to ask you something. I am atheist but when a fellow UU tells me about God and heaven I just end up saying nothing. What do you do?
Comment by: TXatheist
83Gina,
There are various churches. Some more liberal on issues than others. Southern baptist vs church of christ is different.
Comment by: Kassy
84TXatheist,
I was raised UU but haven’t been in a church (except for weddings and funerals) in a long time. The particular UU congregations I attended were more interested in civil rights that the state of anyone’s soul. Shows how long its been, doesn’t? However, my usual reply to anyone who talks to me about god and heaven is to shrug and say I’m a Bright and don’t believe in the supernatural and change the subject (if I’m in a good mood, if I’m spoiling for a fight anyway my response will be different).
Comment by: skikid
85Kassy~
If you dont mind… what is a Bright?
Comment by: Gina
86TXatheist,
Yes, that is my point. There are various churches. Hemant asks why, despite these differences, Christians are still pigeon-holed. The answer is simple… what gets coverage?
gina
Comment by: Kassy
87TXatheist,
I find many people, including many atheists, are uncomfortable with the word atheist. Having another word to use instead eases social intercourse. I have a friend who is only comfortable calling me agnostic - whish is not correct. Therefore I use Bright, which is correct. Its a recent term, for a wide-ranging group of atheists, and human secularists and others who have a naturalistic world view (nothing beyond nature - no elves, fairies, ghosts or gods) It hasn’t yet acquired the negative conotaions that many have toward “atheist.” You may find it easier to use than atheist too. THere’s a website http://www.the-brights.net if you want to know more.
Comment by: skikid
88Thanks for sharing Kassy!
Comment by: Kassy
89sorry Skikid - I should check who’s writing better!
Comment by: skikid
90No worries :)
Comment by: skikid
91General question~
Why do some people feel the need to tell other people (espically non-believers) that they are praying for them? I have in general thinking about prayer in my life and reading some of the posts here I am wondering a) why do believers do it? and b) How does it make non-believers feel?
Comment by: Ir
92Those are great questions, skikid!
a) Why do Christians feel the need to say “I’m praying for you”?
I think it’s partly because among many Christians “I’m praying for you” means “I care about you”. In fact, among many Christians, if one tells another about something difficult in their life, the other almost has to say “I’ll pray for you”, because not saying that implies “I don’t care about you enough to pray for you”.
I like how you phrased the question, because I think part of the problem is that Christians feel the need to say it. Which means it’s about them meeting their own need to feel like they’re a good person because they’re praying for someone — rather than being about the other person — unfortunately.
And, also unfortunately, praying for someone is a way to easily and conveniently ‘check them off the list’ without having to do anything inconvenient or awkward, like give them money or babysit for them.
b) How does it make non-believers feel?
Well — exactly! How many Christians have stopped to think what it is like for a person who doesn’t believe in God to be on the receiving end of that comment? First of all, it sounds presumptuous and patronizing that the Christian didn’t bother to ask “Would you like me to pray for you?” but simply announced “I’m praying for you!” Wouldn’t it be more respectful of Christians to ask first whether the person actually wants to be prayed for?
Secondly, to someone who doesn’t believe in God, what “I’m praying for you” means is “I’m talking to myself on your behalf” or “I’m wasting time on your behalf”. Is the person who doesn’t believe in God supposed to be grateful for that? How would a Christian feel if an atheist said to them “I’m wasting some time on your behalf”? The Christian would probably say “Ummm…thanks, I guess, but, please don’t!” I expect that’s what many atheists think, but don’t say, for the sake of politeness, when Christians announce to them “I’m praying for you!”
I’ve seen atheists suggest that other atheists could respond to “I’m praying for you!” with “And I’m thinking for you!” I find that a little rude, myself, but it does show that at least some atheists find the announcement “I’m praying for you!” irritating enough that it provokes them into a less-than-civil response.
Anyway, I hope that OTM’s ministry will help Christians understand better how weird some of the things they say can sound to people who aren’t Christians. “I’m praying for you” is a good example, in my opinion, of one of those weird things.
Comment by: Kassy
93As a non-believer, I do find the phrase “I’m praying for you” annoying. I know some people mean it well, and its fine if it follows information about an illness, etc - being then capable of being taken as sympathy. But when its used a kind of parting comment it leaves me with the feeling that they feel I need to be changed in some way, and that they are going to ask a figment of their imagination to make me conform to their idea of what I should be. That I find presumptious and condescending. I mean, I don’t ask them to change to conform to my standards, why are they trying to go to a third party to make me change?
Ir says to someone who doesn’t believe in God, what “I’m praying for you” means is “I’m talking to myself on your behalf” or “I’m wasting time on your behalf”. I do recognize that to them god is very real, so I don’t see it as wasting time, but as the above complaint of trying to force a change in me. And I do find that rude.
Comment by: Ir
94Good point - especially since that is how they feel if their prayers are for you to move from non-belief to sharing their belief.
Comment by: KSG
95What about a person who asks permission to pray for someone?
Kassy, I’m not familiar with you, but Ir and I have met (along with others from the earlier posts). So as a Xian trying to be respectful of atheists and former Xians, but who is also committed to living his faith, how would I go about getting permission to pray for someone and what would you allow me to pray for? I’m asking you, but would like to get an answer from some of the other non-Xians with whom I’ve interacted - Saimang, TXathiest, Ir, Cully, Mark, etc.
Comment by: Ir
96For the sake of clarification: KSG means we’ve ‘met’ on this blog, by posting to each other. We haven’t actually met ‘in real life’.
Hi KSG :)
Comment by: Ir
97KSG, why not simply say “Do you mind if I pray for you?”
I would say “no I don’t mind, go ahead if you’d like to do that”.
Comment by: Cully
98Skikid–and KSG> I find being told that someone is praying for me pretty offensive actually. The things is, the phrase carries connotations of the unpleasant. Normally who are Christians most often asked to pray for? The ill, infirm, the bereaved. I know that this is slightly skewed, and that people also for those they love to be protected, or to receive some other blessing, but the first thing that springs to mind for me is illness. As Kassy said above the implication is that I am in some way ailing and need relief from God. Or I am in some way incomplete and need God to finish me.
If your purpose is simply wishing me generic good will, calling God to bless me in someway… I don’t suppose I mind. It’s no worse than the things I wish for when I blow out my birthday candles. Just don’t tell me about it. ;)
If your purpose is as I posit, and you are asking for some change to occur in me, for “God to soften my heart” (see I remember the things that get said in church) then… to be blunt… keep it to yourself.
How would you as a Christian feel if a practicing witch said to you “I’ll light a candle for you and ask Odin to bless you.” Would that make you uncomfortable?
Comment by: KSG
99Ir’s right, I have not “met” anyone on this blog in real life, only that we have interacted in this forum.
I’ve been on the receiving end of the “I’m praying for you” more then a few times and have to say that depending on who it’s coming from it can be nice or really off (Grandma = nice, mystical priest foaming at the mouth, spewing curses and incantations to his ghostly blood god = weird).
Cully said,”How would you as a Christian feel if a practicing witch said to you “I’ll light a candle for you and ask Odin to bless you.” Would that make you uncomfortable? ”
I guess because I don’t believe in that god I wouldn’t mind, although I readily admit it might weird me out for a while. Of course, I was weirded out when the pastor’s son came up to me and told me he had been praying for me.
So Ir & Cully, “Do you mind if I pray for you?” Basicly, I would pray God would be revealed to you. If you say “no” then I won’t.
Comment by: TXatheist
100KSG,
I do realize praying is an act of concern just like saying bless you. However, if someone insists on praying for me because I’m an atheist I respond that’s fine but when I wake up an atheist tomorrow we’ll both know why, there’s no god and prayer doesn’t work. Please accept you may not like that but pushy praying is the same to me.
Comment by: Ir
101KSG: no I don’t mind - and I appreciate that you asked me first to see whether I minded or not! :)
I also appreciate that you want to pray because you care. Thanks for caring.
One of the hardest things for me lately has been that Christians who don’t know ask me to pray for them and as a general rule I don’t pray any more. Usually I don’t want to get into that - especially since if they asked me for prayer they’re already going through something themselves and don’t need the added concern of worrying about my spiritual state. So I say “ok” and say a quick prayer later rather than put myself in the position of having knowingly misled them into thinking I would pray if I wouldn’t.
Someone called me for advice a month or two ago and then caught me off guard by asking me to pray for her on the phone. I did, because - like I just wrote - I didn’t want to get into ‘my issues’ right then.
Comment by: Cully
102KSG> If you feel you must. But my opinion would be that God has already been revealed to me. Remember, I wasn’t raised in an atheistic household. By birth I am Southern Baptist, but I’ve been a member of several different churches. I’ve been baptized 7 different times. I’ve read more religious texts than the average seminary student. I SEARCHED for God, and what was revealed to me was a straw man.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
103Most views of reality make sense from within and can be appreciated from that vatage point. What gets us into trouble is when we say “This is how your view of reality appears from out here, outside that view of reality, so that’s how it must look to you as well from in there inside that view”. And so, for the Christian, atheism looks like something other than how it feels to the atheist, and the atheist looks at prayer as something quite other than how it is experienced by the Christian. Like blind men describing an elephant - you know the story I suppose - we can only articulate the part we have experienced.
Rick L in TX
Comment by: KSG
104Ir, thanks.
Cully, I don’t feel that I “must” (like some sort of Xian obligation), but based on geography it’s the only other way (besides posting here) to demonstrate that I care. If we lived in the same neighbourhood, I’d ask to go for coffee or invite you over for supper with my family, but I don’t live in your neighbourhood, or your country (I’m Canadian).
TXathiest, thank you for your honesty. Is that a “yes”?
Comment by: Cully
105Rick, do you feel that my “conversion” to atheism blinded me to the reality that I had already seen before hand? Did I see the elephant for myself and then forget what he looked like when I put my “blindfold” on? Or is it your position that I never truly saw the elephant in the first place?
Comment by: Cully
106KSG> I accept and appreciate that you care. You’ve show that in the best way a Christian, (or any human) can, by listening with compassion, and without judgment. Pray for me if you like, but I prefer receiving your care in the ways I mention.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
107Cully, re: your post #106. I have no feelings re: your conversion to atheism. I do not know what you did or did not see experience beforehand. It is not my position that you never truly saw the elephant nor that you forgot what you saw. There are varieties of religious experience. It would be as wrong for me to define for you what your experience was, as it would be if a Christian-turned-atheist were to tell me that I must be a lot more stupid/naive than he/she because I have not jettisoned my faith. (Please note Cully, in offering that comparison, I am not making that objection towards you or any other person on OTM.) Does that make sense?
Comment by: KSG
108Cully,
I’m curious to hear Rick’s response, but if I could hazard a guess I’d say that your experience was primarily a religious one and not as much a “God” one. I like how Bono put it (my version) “Religion is what happens when the Spirit has left the building”.
However I was not with you during your experience so you are welcome to dismiss it as pure speculation.
Comment by: TXatheist
109Yes, I mind if you remain pushy about it, if someone simply says I’ll pray for you I usually let it go. I’ve seen blogs/forums where people find that out and every sign off is, I’m praying for you TX..that’s annoying and past concern,imo.
Comment by: Ir
110But Rick, isn’t the point of this diablog that people who have experienced what we haven’t can tell us what it’s like? And then our understanding will go beyond our experience?
Comment by: KSG
111Re. #105,106 & 108 — Oops, I should have refreshed before I posted…
TXatheist, I wasn’t telling you that I’m praying for you, I was asking permission.
Comment by: Cully
112Rick> Yes, that makes sense. My point in asking was that a lot of us as atheists started on the Christian side of the fence, as is the cultural norm in America, and we converted. I remember what prayer meant to me as a Christian, and I know what it means to me now.
Comment by: Ir
113Why would you guess that, KSG?
I think my guess, if I were hazarding one, would be that Cully, since he was raised by Southern Baptists, may well have become a Christian at an early age, then later rejected what he believed early in life.
Comment by: TXatheist
114KSG,
You can do what you want but why would I give you permission to something like that? Atheists don’t think like that is all I can say.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
115Ir, re: your #111. Sure, I agree that’s the point. But the trick for all of us is to hear what the other person is saying, and not assume we already know what the other person means by what is said. This will come about by asking questions, and by not passing judgment. But for many (often including myself, to my regret), our natural default is to stop listening and say “I know where you’re going with that and this is how that sounds to me, therefore it means the same thing to you.” And then to say as much, which effectively cuts off discussion because the recipient of that message feels dismissed.
Rick L in TX
Comment by: KSG
116Ir, I don’t dispute that Cully was and now is not a Xian. I am saying that a lot of what is experienced at church is not God, and my guess is that a lot of what Cully rejected was religion as he understood it.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
117Cully, re your #113. Thanks. Glad it made sense. (I don’t always articulate well, and one of the great values of this forum is the challenge it presents to make myself clear when you can’t read body language and facial stuff…)
You wrote I remember what prayer meant to me as a Christian, and I know what it means to me now.
Exactly, and either one of those may be the same and/or different than what prayer means to me now, 5 years ago, or 20 years ago. “Varieties of Experience” - All Christian experiences are not like Cully’s, like Rick’s, like KSGs, like Ron’s. All atheist experiences and positions are not like Hemant’s, like Cully’s, like fran’s.
Rick L in TX
Comment by: KSG
118TXatheist,
You remind me of my son whan I offer to give him a chocolate and he looks at me like I’m trying to poison him. To continue the analogy, I’m offering you a chocolate and you are saying, “well, you can feed it to me if you want”. And I’m saying, “no, you don’t understand, I’m offering you a chocolate and it is up to you if you want to take it or not”
Comment by: Cully
119Just to end speculation, here’s a brief outline of my religious life:
First baptized as a Southern Baptist at age 10 having attended church with my grandmother for my entire life up to that point.
At age 12 my dad remarried. His second wife was Weslyan. I decided to join that church and was rebaptized.
Following my stepmother’s lead between age 12 and 15 I was Free Will Baptist, Church of God (twice), Church of Jesus Christ Holiness, and Pentecostal. Each time I changed denominations
I was rebaptized and reaffirmed.
At various points along the way I taught Sunday School, sang both in solos and in the choir, participated in outreach missions, going door to door to witness, testified during services, and actively participated in many “extra-curricular” church activities.
At 15 I was witness to some things that were definitely more “religion” than “God.” and decided that the church my family and I were in at the time was not right for me.
For the next 5 or 6 years I explored religion outside the church. Reading all the various religious texts, the bible in several translations, the qu’ran, the talmud, the books of apocrypha and the other “lost” biblical books, the book of Mormon, books on buddhism and taoism, books on wicca, druidism, and various other “new age” religions. Not to mention concordences, books of commentary and other texts designed to compliment biblical reading.
I came out of that as an agnostic.
Then I began reading Sagan, Shermer, Gould, Randy, and the other “skepetical” writers. It was still probably a decade before I fully took on the identity of atheist.
Did I mainly experience religion or God? I can’t say. At that the time I certainly thought I knew God, or was at least on the way to knowing God. I feel that i rejected religion before I rejected God. I certainly made an attempt to find a path to God outside of the church.
Comment by: TXatheist
120KSG,
You are not offering me chocolate.
Comment by: KSG
121TXatheist,
I know.
Comment by: skikid
122KSG or anyone~
Can you distingush a little more what you mean by religion vs. God? I think I have a vague idea but a clearer one would be helpful.
Comment by: TXatheist
123KSG,
So you understand why I don’t want god/chocolate? I don’t think what you are offering is good and I mean that respectfully.
Comment by: TXatheist
124Skikid,
I look at the early works of our Founding Fathers and deism.com or deism.org I forget and can understand that use of the word god. When I absolutely stop using it is when god is attached to religion/books/dogma.
Comment by: KSG
125skikid,
I’ll do my best to explain… let’s start within the context of a standard church service (as Hemant is experiencing) (and let me add that if you are just experiencing God in church you are missing out on the biggest part of your relationship with God).
Okay, so your standard church service has a few songs to start, announcements, then an offering, and then the sermon (that covers most Protestant churches from baptist to pentacostal). Well, all of that is religion. It is man’s attempt to reach out to God and to understand God. Now it is possible to meet with God in that context but God is so far beyond us that to think that we can only meet within that template is foolish. So even if we change the decor, lower the lights, play rock music and light candles or use video screens, all we are doing is changing the template (context), but it is still man trying to commune with God on mankind’s own terms.
I’ve gone to church and experienced God, and I’ve gone to church and not experienced God.
Simply put, religion is man’s idea of what God is (what we think God should be).
God exists outside of Xianity, Judaism, islam, etc. (unless you believe that God doesn’t exist).
As well, the only way to experience God is to believe that God exists (Heb.11:6).
As a Xian, I believe that, based on the Bible, the only way to experience intimacy with God is through the belief that Jesus is the way to God (John 14:6).
So, church is a way to experience God, but in order to experience God we also need to choose to experience God through personal prayer, worship, nature, work, play, etc.
I recommend a short book by a 15th century monk called “The Practise of the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence. I’ll even buy it and send it to you if you are short of $$$.
Comment by: KSG
126TXatheist,
I appreciate that you think what I have to offer isn’t good. All you had to say was, “thanks” but, “no thanks”.
Comment by: skikid
127KSG~
LOL yeah I am a poor student. Thanks for the offer but no thanks. I think that sometimes people are just using different words to talk about the same idea, thanks for clearing it up. :)
Comment by: skikid
128BTW~ Ir or anyone how do we turn off the italics?
Comment by: Taren
129Click the Italics button agains, it will have a slash infront of it.
Comment by: skikid
130did it work?
Comment by: skikid
131how ’bout now?
Comment by: Taren
132nope lol
Comment by: Taren
133it was off before!
Comment by: Taren
134ITS OFF DONT PRESS ANYTHING
Comment by: skikid
135Are you sure?
Comment by: skikid
136where’s ir, ir could totally fix this mess :)
Comment by: KSG
137skikid,
you’re welcome. ask any questions you want.
As far as the book goes, you may be able to read it online, and I’m sure a used bookstore will have one, I found my first copy for something like a buck or so. Oh, if you look for one, get one that has been given the modern day English treatment otherwise the words are tough to grasp - kind of like trying to read Shakespere’s plays.
Comment by: Taren
138yes im sure =)
Comment by: skikid
139Last attmept at the italics
Comment by: Ir
140Hey everyone, good job fixing the italics without me! :)
Comment by: skikid
141Are they fixed on your computer?
Comment by: UGR
142Hemant-
I just want to say that I think what you are doing is EXTREMELY cool and fascinating. It’s very interesting to see what someone who does not practice a particular faith thinks about those who do. And just for the heck of it, I would call myself a medium Christian. I don’t attend church on a regular basis, but I do believe that there is a higher being in the form of Jesus Christ.
Anyway, moving on to what I wanted to say–I haven’t read through every single post in this thread but I’ve read a few, and the one about the dinosaurs, evolution, and the like really struck me. I come from the Baptist denomination and most of the people I know who are of the same denomintion are against the idea of evolution. This is one area in which I disagree with many of the people who follow my faith. There is credible eveidence to say evolution happen(ed,s), and I can’t help but think that it occurs in some shape, form, or fashion. Also, someone said something about dinosaurs, and I have never actually confronted my pastor or any other Christian on the issue. But you simply cannot deny the scientific evidence that says dinosaurs really existed. I mean, there are bones in museums of these creatures that walked the earth. What more could you want, short of a living, breathing, animal? So what do some of you other believers think about the dinosaurs and evolution?
Comment by: Ir
143They are fixed on mine, skikid. If they aren’t on yours, try clicking ‘refresh’ or F5. See if that helps.
Comment by: Ir
144UGR you might like this website:
Reasons To Believe
It’s the Christian ministry which I think does the best job at reconciling the Bible with science - because, unlike most other Christian sites, this one doesn’t throw out all mainstream science and replace it with some dubious ’science’ of their own.
Reasons To Believe gets criticized a lot by some other Christians because of RTB’s position that the earth is as old as mainstream scientists say it is. But they also hold to the Bible being the Word of God. So - check it out; you might like it. I think what they say about evolution is that God’s intervention brought about the gradually increasing complexity of life on earth (and also the beginning of humanity), rather than it happening ‘by itself’.
As for dinosaurs, I haven’t heard any Christians deny their existence. Christians believing the earth is much younger than mainstream science says tend to say the dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood. I’m not sure what RTB says about them.
Oh, RTB also says that the flood was not over the whole world, but it was over everywhere humans lived. They find textual justification for this and they say this is what is supported by the geologic and written record evidence, whereas a worldwide flood is not. Something like that, anyway :) - well, go look. See what you think.
Comment by: Kassy
145Sorry, I was at work way too long today. Its been great catching up on all this!
I don’t care if you pray for me or not, that’s your choice and your belief and your path. What I don’t like is having to hear about it. The assumption that I agree and want you to or need you to do it. If you care about me and your way to show it is prayer, go ahead. Just don’t tell me about it.
On the other hand, and contradictorily, I’m fine with “bless you” and say it myself. I don’t like “God bless” because I have no need of someone else to intercede for me with an imaginary - to me- third party, but I’ll take your personal blessings freely.
I also don’t like having god thanked for work I did. My mother, who is religious, once thanked god (and not me) for a new concrete walkway I sweated off five pounds to make her. I was not pleased.
Comment by: Siamang
146Back when I was a kid there were creationists out there saying that dinosaur bones were created by satan to decieve us.
To which, of course, the answer is, “how do i know that YOU weren’t created by Satan to decieve me!”
Comment by: Kassy
147and some creationists admit “minor evolution” like breeding for different kinds of dogs or cattle, but not “large evolution” like primates to man.
Comment by: Siamang
148Kassy,
Man is a primate.
What you said sounded really wierd. It’s like saying “nobody believes that sharks evolved from fish.” Sharks ARE fish. Humans are primates, according to the definition of the word “primate.”
Comment by: leopold stango
149evolution takes place every single day of our lives . Even leopold stango knows that :):) :) Leo knows everything!!!
Comment by: Kassy
150So my science is shaky. I’m on here as an atheist not a scientist. What should I have said? Apes? or zinjanthropus?
Comment by: Siamang
151We’re apes too. Sorry if I jumped on you there!
Maybe a way to phrase it would be “they don’t believe that humans evolved from earlier primates.”
Or you could say they don’t believe that humans and other apes have a common ancestor.
You could even say they don’t believe in macro-evolution like from fish to humans, because some don’t.
Comment by: skikid
152KSG~
“The Practise of the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence is in the public domain (I guess its older than Mickey Mouse). I downloaded it and have read about half… its not too long at all. Its very thought provoking (maybe prayer provoking is better). Anyway I am out for the weekend… going skiing. Hopefully ill have finished it by Monday. Thanks for the reccomendation :)
Comment by: Kassy
153Well, Siamang, we’re not zinjanthropus anymore, so I’ll go with that. Although your other rephrasings work as well. The point was that some creationist are naturally selective in their belief in evolution (excuse the pun). Isn’t there something about straining at a gnat? Seems to me if you accept the concept, that species can change over time in response to local conditions, you accept the concept whether that change is brought about naturally by changing climate etc, or artificially by selective breeding instigated by man. I actually have more respect for straight creationists (logically at least) than for those who can accept part of the science but not all. At least they are consistent in their beliefs.
But, as I think I said above somewhere, if you consider genesis as a metaphor, the science doesn’t conflict with belief. Darwin was, afterall, a preacher.
Comment by: UGR
154Ir-
I haven’t checked out the website yet, but I will definitely get to it. I don’t see how it is justifiable that the dinosaurs were wiped out with the flood because of the fact that dinosaurs have been proven to be many millions of years older than man, and the earliest remnants of man only date back about 250,000 years (I think). If that is true, then man would have to have existed way before what is now assumed. I’ll get to that website though, and then check back.
Comment by: Siamang
155Kassy,
The question is, where we ever Paranthropus boisei?(Zinjanthropus is no longer the official name for p. boisei.)
To pick a certain species of hominid, you can never quite know if they were our ancestor, or a cousin to our ancestor, unless you have an uninterupted lineage or DNA evidence. DNA has shown, for instance, that Homo Neandertalensis, while walking upright, posessing language, tools, wearing clothes and doing a bunch of human stuff, is nevertheless not our ancestor. The neandertal split happened earlier and didn’t recombine significantly back into the line of homo that produced homo sapiens.
At least, as far as the latest stuff I’ve read indicates.
If p. bosei isn’t our direct ancestor, he probably shared a lot of traits with our ancestor which was his contemporary, and we can learn from that. He certainly is in our family of man, if not grandpa, perhaps a fascinating uncle!
Comment by: TXatheist
156KSG,
But then it comes off as if I don’t find your concern compassionate. I meant I can’t stop you from praying but I am not going to tell you/ask you to or not to. Also, keep in mind I was a xian so I find prayer something internal still. I really do understand what it implies so that’s why I choose not to state what you should or should not do.:)
Comment by: Kassy
157Siamang, I bow to your fuller knowledge of science. If nothing else, this proves you don’t have to be a scientist to be an atheist.