Christian Nationalism
I stumbled upon an article at FindLaw, that highlights a new book by Michelle Goldeberg about the rise of Christian nationalism. I have not read the book yet, though I think I will order a copy, so I can’t really speak to the validity of it’s claims. However, the snippets from both the FindLaw piece and the authors site suggest that it may be worth reading.
The FindLaw piece starts out this way:
If more Americans would read works like Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, the longevity of our democracy, as we know it, would be more assured. I say this because the more people who understand the thinking and agenda of the growing forces of “Christian nationalism,” the less likely it will be that these forces will succeed. Not many people want to go where Christian nationalists want to take the country.
The last 6 or 8 years have already shown us what we can expect from a Christian nationalist government; holy crusades fought at the expense of the tax payers, the suppression of scientific and medical research in the name of perceived biblical doctrine, and the steady dismantling of individual rights. Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg for what the Christian nationalists (CN) really want.
Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.
- The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant
This is the type of religious imposition that we need to guard against most stringently. Sure, being subjected to “in God we trust”, “under God”, or the Ten Commandments is annoying, but all that pales in comparison to what this country will be like if the CN succeeds in their quest for “dominion”.
How do they intend to do it? The strategy has already begun. They are systematically breeding, training, deploying, and installing judges into the US legal system in an attempt to adjudicate the conversion of our country from quasi secularism to full blown theocracy. Again, from the FindLaw piece:
Reconstructionist leaders see federal judges — probably correctly, Goldberg notes — “as the only thing protecting American secularism. They know that if they can take the courts, they’ll have the country.” Their strategy to take the courts is twofold, although, as Goldberg notes, it’s also “somewhat contradictory” — and it envisions a protracted battle.First, Christian nationalists plan to pressure politicians “to pack the bench with their ideological allies,” and they are “training a new generation of home schooled jurists who will approach the law with a Christian worldview.” […]
Second, accompanying the attempt at court-packing, Goldberg reports that Christian nationalists are “trying to strip the courts of much of their current authority” while “railing against judges who override the popular will.” Or as Goldberg nicely summarizes Christian nationalists’ strategy, they “are simultaneously fighting a war for the judiciary and a war on it.”
Goldberg cites two right-wing judges nominated by President Bush as the kind who would satisfy the court packing plans of the Christian nationalists. Both judges — William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown — initially provoked Democratic filibusters. Unfortunately, my quick search of the debate in the Senate on these two highly controversial nominees does not reveal that anyone in the Senate opposing these nominees was aware that behind them, lurked the hand of the Christian nationalists.
The CN is a small segment of our society, but they are very well funded. Millions of saps pouring money into the coffers of Pat Robertson and company, all in the name of “gifts to God”, generates allot of cash. I am certain that most of those people assume their money is going to feed little Misha or Alina or to help convert Godless “Moslems” in Indonesia. If they really understood that their money was also being used to fund a covert takeover of the American government, I wonder how many of them would still be so generous. The CN are well organized and hold regular meetings. No they don’t meet under the club name “Christian Nationalists”, but they all meet up every Sunday and receive their marching orders. They also control large segments of the media, many many blogs, have a plethora of radio shows, and several TV shows.
I have often thought that atheists need to get their own TV shows. It would be particularly good if it could come on right after the 700 Club. To be acceptable, it would have to have a title that’s more palatable to the general public, so the Angry Atheist Hour, or Religion Sucks!, though accurate, would probably not go over very well in our current society.
The CN is why I started blogging, and why I vote, and I encourage other atheists to do so as well. Atheists should never allow themselves to give in to feelings of apathy or inevitability. Every atheist should be a constructive, active, voice in their local community. There are quite a few atheists that prescribe to the notion that government itself is illegitimate and invasion of personal rights. Whether that is true or not, I will not try and argue in this post. However, I can say with complete confidence, that if we adopt and maintain an abstinence approach to government, the Christian Nationalists will step in and take over.
LBBP
August 26th, 2006 at at 11:27 am
My wife likes ” Happy Pagans”, but as a non-beliver in invisible things I can’t go there. Is there a word for those of us who know that this world is the only thing.
Maybe “Realiststs” or “Realisim”
August 26th, 2006 at at 1:09 pm
I am about halfway through with this book, and I’d like to withhold my review until I’m finished. However, I will say that it is certainly worth reading.
August 26th, 2006 at at 2:20 pm
I intended to buy it but will wait until the paperback version comes out. For such a slim volume, I found the hardcover to be very expensive.
I have some ideas for tactics to fight and roll back the religious right.
While most Americans are religious, even if in a largely symbolic sense, most of them do not want to live under a theocracy. The majority of Americans remain between fundamentalism and secularism. Right now, the Religious Right can rally the middle to its side by scaring them with horror stories of godless liberals and secularists trying to remove God from American public life. What the secularists need to do is find a way to get the nominally religious middle to revolt against the Religious Right.
The best tactic against the religious right is ridicule. But that ridicule can only work if it reaches a mass audience. A major novel or motion picture that lampoons a literalist interpretation of the Bible would be ideal. However, another similar idea on a smaller scale would be to get a group of people together like a Monty Python type of comedy skit team that I would call “Sacred Cows” and have produce video segments on a web site.
August 26th, 2006 at at 3:15 pm
It’s funny how much these people have in common with the supposed terrorists they love to fight. They both use hate and fear to exert power over the masses. Their followers believe they must do X to do the will of God, get into heaven, etc. The terrorists use violence to further their agenda since that is the most effective way to further their agenda. Since this country is more civilized, political means are the most effective way to inflict their will.
Don’t be fooled by the differing means. The desires are both dangerously the same.
August 27th, 2006 at at 4:21 am
Also see Goldberg’s Saving Secular Society, and if you’re interested, my take on theonomy.
August 27th, 2006 at at 8:57 am
Hmmmm, I’m not sure that the best angle is to use a vocabulary of “fight” or “war.” It is overused, dangerous, and can be turned quite rapidly against those of us who want to change the situation, not to mention that it provides “ammo” for their “see, I told you so” attacks. We do need to address the issues forthrightly, and to highlight inconsistency, contradiction, places where their logic fails miserably (most everywhere but we need to be selective at first, it is like pulling a thread in a fine garment), and to above all, direct ourselves to respond to how their agenda limits, circumscribes, and subverts good values. I think we neeed to focus on those things that they eschew: friendliness, interconnectedness, our common humanity, the importance of not finding more ways to be divisive… people respond to such a message much better than to “confictual” ones, although along with that we must have a message that clearly stipulates our differences. In particular we need to find the spots where there are frayed edges in their coalitions, and tug at those hard. The strategy is to undermine their comfort with each other, by making others recognize that behind the facade of harmony, or religious value, comes an agenda of separation, dominionism, and intolerance. We also need to use humor, irony, ridicule, in the service of awakening a realization that others can see through their veil of blidness and/or ignorance.
The values that others will rally around are not “atheistic” values, they are more likely to see them (and want to see them) as common sensical “American” values (or whatever language they’ve grown accustomed to), hence no sense in waging a fight between atheists and religionists. But we can stand for critical sense, for bridging division, for respect, freedom, responsibility, helping those least among us, strong community, etc. One lesson to be learned: we need to take those values and their banner before they do. Otherwise, we will be struggling to define ourselves.
Thanks for the post, Christian Nationalism is a major threat here indeed and Goldberg’s book is well worth reading.
Best,
N
August 27th, 2006 at at 3:44 pm
I personally don’t think there’s very much of a chance of this happening. Fundamentalists have nowhere near enough money or media access to influence the government. You certainly can’t substantially change the nature of a government by simply going and voting in elections every 2 years.
However, they do pose a threat in that they allow for a great deal of corruption in the government. They are content with politicians doing the most atrocious things in exchange for a mention of Jesus in an inappropriate situation.
However, I agree that we shouldn’t have a hands-off approach to politics and elections. There is only so much that you can do by these channels, but we have nowhere near exhausted them.
I actually think that the existence of the CNs could be useful for people who want to change things for the better. It’s no secret that Christian leaders are upset due to the fact that they’ve essentially gotten nothing in return for voting Republicans into office year after year. And in the same vain of what I’ve said above, they will continue to go home mostly empty-handed. However, they would get better representation of their fucked up beliefs if they had their own political party, with a proportional system of representation. Might it be possible to use the huge Christian political machine to the supporting of proportional representation? They might actually be in support of it. And I don’t think there is much to worry about if we did succeed in this cause. The average American, when given a large selection of choices of who to vote for, are unlikely to vote against the majority of their interests in order to support fundamentalists.
August 27th, 2006 at at 5:54 pm
Say, you like-a dë Athiest
Yeah, you do.
Visit moi’s lill’ blog for the MOSTEST groovin’ godless/satanless comedy.
Stay on Groovin’ Safari,
TOR Hershman
August 28th, 2006 at at 3:23 pm
It’s funny how much these people have in common with the supposed terrorists they love to fight. They both use hate and fear to exert power over the masses. Their followers believe they must do X to do the will of God, get into heaven, etc. The terrorists use violence to further their agenda since that is the most effective way to further their agenda. Since this country is more civilized, political means are the most effective way to inflict their will.
You must be writing from within the US. ‘political means’ are only more civilised when you’re inside the country dropping the bombs. The ‘political means’ the Christain right use external to the US involves a very large military machine. Just ask the Iraqis if they think the christians are using ‘civilised means’ to push their agenda forward…..
August 28th, 2006 at at 5:55 pm
No, I think LBBP’s assessment is correct here. You are right that the US often acts in ways that can easily be called state terrorism, but this has been happening for a long time, and really has nothing to do with Christian Nationalism. It’s generally materialistic motives that drive the imperialist nature of the US, and doesn’t have too much to do with a particular religious ideology. Like I said earlier, religious forces have little say in the larger issues. Even with the Israel situation, I don’t think that religion plays too much of a part.
August 30th, 2006 at at 12:49 pm
I am a Christian, and I view politics as a moral science - therefore as a subset of theology.
I hope that does not mean that we need to be enemies. I had some atheist friends in high school, and we got along very well.
I’m curious. Would you agree with me that politics is a moral science? Wouldn’t you agree that your worldview affects your political views? Isn’t it true that what you believe about epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics (that is, what you believe to be true, what you believe to be real, and what you believe to be right and just) influences the manner in which you vote?
I understand that you are concerned that we Christians will take away freedom. But do you believe that we need to have the “rule of law?” On what should that law be based? Isn’t this a moral question?
If there is no God, then how do you say that things like murder and rape are wrong? (I am assuming that you do think that murder and rape are wrong, and that they should therefore be illegal. Is this assumption correct?)
See, the reason why morals matter, and the reason why politics matter, is due to the fact that we have been created in God’s image - and therefore have dignity and value.
If you throw out God, then you are denying reality. By denying the fact that you have been created in God’s image, you have no basis to assign value to people.
On a different topic, atheism is a self-defeating religion. Let me explain.
An atheist claims to know that there is no God. In order to “know” that there is no God, the atheist must be omnipresent (because God might be hiding), but he also must be omniscient (because God could be invisible and undetectable to our 5 senses). Therefore, in order to “know” that God doesn’t exist, the atheist must be ominipresent and omniscient. That would, of course, make him God. So, he would have to deny himself. Conclusion: atheism is self-defeating. Those who are atheists have taken a step of “faith” and have chosen to believe that there is no God.
You could also choose to believe that there are no stars beyond the stars we currently know about, but how likely is it that that conclusion is right. Our limited technology leaves us ignorant about those stars that our beyond what we have been able to observe. To conclude that no other stars exist - except what we have been able to observe seems kind of foolish - doesn’t it?
Agnosticism seems to make much more sense than atheism.
Well, that’s all I got for now. God bless you. May He reveal Himself to you. He loves you all.
August 30th, 2006 at at 1:50 pm
ConcernedEngineer -
We don’t have to be enemies, but if you insist on forcing your idea of morals down my throat because it says so in an ancient book, using the gang mentality of organised religion to orchestrate political and legal change to support your ‘morals’ over democratic rule of law then we’ll end up that way.
You cliam that we’re created in Gods image as fact. That’s untrue. That’s a belief system, not a fact.
You say that by throwing out god, we’re denying reality. I say that by choosing to believe in something with no proof *you* are denying reality.
before you start - ‘because the bible says it’s so’ is not proof. ok.
btw, what makes your ‘morals’ superior to my sense of ethics? I am willing to bet almost anything you like that I, as a hard athiest, actually live a more ‘moral’ life than almost every christain I’ve ever met. I’m a pacifist for a start. never hit *anyone* in my life. I’ve never cheated on my wife of seven years. I don’t like or use porn, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with those that do. I’m generous to my friends and family and give to charity when I can afford it. I like to think these things (and many more) make me a good person, and I do all of this without any belief in god, without fear of supernatural retribution or hope of eternal afterlife in paradise. I do this because I believe that my time here on earth is all I have and I’m going to make the most of it.
It is not a step of faith to believe there is no god, it is an act of logic.
finally, to answer your first question, about belief in politics as a moral science - I think that the term moral science in oxymoronic. morals are an arbitrary set of human values. science is the process of measuring, theorising and explaining the natural world. the two are pretty incompatable things.
Well, that’s about it. I hope you come to your senses and grow up, stop believing in a non-existant sky daddy and stop participating in a corrupt authoritarian religion that has caused and enabled more wars and suffering than any other force in human history.
August 30th, 2006 at at 2:01 pm
No, I think LBBP’s assessment is correct here. You are right that the US often acts in ways that can easily be called state terrorism, but this has been happening for a long time, and really has nothing to do with Christian Nationalism. It’s generally materialistic motives that drive the imperialist nature of the US, and doesn’t have too much to do with a particular religious ideology. Like I said earlier, religious forces have little say in the larger issues. Even with the Israel situation, I don’t think that religion plays too much of a part.
I wouldn’t say that it is christian nationalism that drives US foreign policy, but it is, in part, religious belief on both sides of the equation that enables the conflict. It’s almost impossible to deny that, for many people involved, the current conflicts the US are involved in are about christianity Vs islam. While the realpolitik may be very different (oil, power, prevention of the development of other powerful nations etc), there are very heavy religious overtones to all the current conflict in the middle east.
August 30th, 2006 at at 2:08 pm
OK ConcernedEngineer, I’ll bite…
Yes, of course politics is a moral science. The problem is, religion is not. Religion is a bunch of arbitrary, and self contradictory rules dictated by ancient sheepherders, that is then twisted and distorted to fit the whims of those that wish to control the masses.
Most atheists make their political decisions based on empirical evidence. One can make simple basic assumptions about existence without invoking spiritual beings. For example, I exist, I wish to continue to exist, I wish to enjoy my existence, and I wish for my children to have the same opportunities (or better) that I have. I can make a reasonable assumption that most other people have similar goals. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that laws that allow humanity to coexist without killing each other, are mutually beneficial to everyone. The details can get sort of muddy of course, but that is true in any system of politics. No invisible sky friend required.
“An atheist claims to know that there is no God.” I don’t know many atheists that don’t allow for the possibility that they could be wrong. Most will state that if confronted with actual physical evidence of the existence of “God”, as apposed to impassioned hearsay or intentional deceit, then sure I’ll believe in God. BUT, to date NO ONE has been able to offer any EVIDENCE for the existence of anything even remotely similar to an all powerful being.
Your star reference is a good example, but not for you. I can’t choose to believe in God, for the same reason I can’t believe that there are no stars beyond the ones we know of now. New stars are being discovered daily, but we’re still waiting on ANY evidence of Gods.
So which is more likely; “A”, even though we know we have only mapped a tiny portion of the visible sky, there aren’t any more stars? Or “B”, because we have an idea of how big the universe really is, there must be more stars than the tiny percentage we have documented.
Conversely, which of these is more likely; “A”, there has been zero evidence EVER for the existence of God, but some guy told me God exists, so I’m going to ignore the lack of physical evidence and believe, just ’cause it makes me feel good. Or “B”, there is no evidence, so until someone can show me some, I’ll continue to NOT believe in God.
Obviously the answer is “B” in both cases.
As to your rather silly point about atheism being self defeating, I reply with this equally silly retort. I have a dragon that can’t be smelled, felt, heard, or seen, living in my garage. Prove me wrong, without becoming a self defeating, ominipresent and omniscient, and non-existent being.
August 30th, 2006 at at 7:53 pm
To ConcernedEngineer, you ask how can there by morals without God. That is a stupid question because societies that had no contact with or were unaware of the Israelites or Christianity were able to develop complex moral systems.
In ‘The Analects’, Confucius is asked ” Is there a single word which can be a guide to conduct throughout one’s life?”
Confucius replied ” It is perhaps the word ’shu’. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.”
Now we are all probably familiar with the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would have done to you. But Confucius takes it further. He says that we must not do to others what we do not want to be done to us.
None of us wants to be stolen from, beaten, robbed, oppressed, raped, or murdered. Consequently, we should not want to do the same to others. One does not have to believe that some divine being created us and our universe in order to not want to robbed, raped, cheated, oppressed or murdered. If you take two people who live there life according to this principle, one a Christian and the other an atheist, can you really say that the Christian is superior to the atheist? If so, then you are arguing that belief is more important than action.
August 30th, 2006 at at 8:26 pm
Check out this post from ConcernedEngineer’s blog. I’m just pasting the first paragraph.
Mormonism
I had a pretty lively discussion with a couple Mormon guys today. It is amazing to me how a religion that is so bizarre can be so “successful.” Once you suspend disbelief, people can be brainwashed to believe anything.
Oh, how I couldn’t agree more.
Christianity claims their book is inerrant.
Mormonism calims their book is inerrant.
Both have no evidence.
So at least 1 group is wrong. And if 1 is wrong, for all intents and purposes they are all wrong because there is no evidence available that would allow one to determine which one is correct.
So by dismissing one religion, he really is dismissing his own. Of course, his own admitted brainwashing won’t let him see this.
September 1st, 2006 at at 8:02 am
Chelfyn,
Can you define “fact” for me.
The issue here is an issue of epistemology and metaphysics. What is true? What is real? How do we know?
Everyone has assumptions, postulates, axioms with which to start. You can’t really talk about “facts” without presupposing the reality of our existence and the reliability of our senses. These assumptions, in a sense, are taken on faith.
Descartes started with the fundamental presupposition, “I think; therefore, I am.” What I appreciate about Descartes and Christians is that they are upfront about their own presuppositions and axioms. In my experience, those on the political left (whether or not they believe in God) are not upfront (even with themselves) about their presuppositions.
Atheists have presupposed that the best way (and only reliable way) to discern truth and reality is by our empirical senses. But I should like to point out that you did not arrive at that presupposition by “proving” that empirical evidence is more reliable than other forms of evidence. You presupposed it.
The problem is that what we observe with our senses often leads us astray. Our senses fool us all the time. For example, we often observe something that seems “linear,” but we are really observing local linearity. The truth of the matter is unknown to us, because we don’t “see” the big picture. What looks like a line could be a parabola, a circle, an exponential decay, or something else.
That’s why I find it ridiculous for atheists to put so much “faith” in themsevles and in their own finite ability to observe reality and make conclusions about that reality. You atheists think quite a bit of yourselves.
Isn’t it possible that what you observe about reality could be wrong?
Your believing friend,
ConcernedEngineer
September 1st, 2006 at at 8:22 am
On Evidence:
I would suggest that there is a great deal of evidence that points toward the existence of the Almighty.
I would suggest that the existence of the Universe and the existence of life - human life in particular - is some strong evidence that points toward the existence of a Creator.
I know that you are going to bring up the Big Bang and Evolution. But there are some problems with these hypotheses.
The Big Bang suggests that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny ball. But that’s not where it starts - that is supposedly in the first - I don’t know - microseconds (I may be off mathematically by several orders of magnitude here). But before that the ball was even smaller (perhaps in the picoseconds age of the universe). But before that, supposedly, right at the beginning, there were photons.
Who said science was not consistent with the Bible? “Let there be light.”
Now, how do you explain that scientifically? Where did all the matter come from? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then has the universe been oscillating from all eternity past? Or was there a beginning (perhaps not this past big bang, but some other big bang)?
Also, if the Big Bang was an explosion, then it seems like it would be awfully chaotic? How does ordered complexity come out of an explosion? If I threw a grenade into a junkyard, I would not suspect that I would be able to produce a car. Yet, there is a tremendous amount of ordered complexity - and information - in the universe.
This leads me to the evolution/ID debate. Evolutionists believe that non-living matter somehow morphed into life, and then that life continued to morph into more complex life. I have four scientific objections to this:
1. The Second Law of Thermodyamics - Nature left to itself tends to get more and more disorderly - not orderly. It is true that the local entropy can decrease (while the entropy of the universe is increasing), but to get from non-life to life to life as we know it by “natural selection” is a pretty wack hypothesis that has not been proved bythe scientific method.
2. Gaps in the fossil record. Darwin thought that by now (2006), the gaps would have been filled in. But they haven’t been. The “kinds” of life are very distinct - both in what we observe today - as well as in the fossil record. There are similarities, but there is also a distinction.
3. Irreducible complexity.
4. DNA - The human “microprocessor.” The idea that the information contained in DNA just happened to develop from a disorganized explosion - that takes a lot of faith.
All of the evidence then seems to point in the direction that the Universe is as it is because it was designed. When you read these words, you don’t think that my cat just jumped on the keyboard and pressed keys randomly. You don’t believe that because these words contain order and ideas that are fairly complex. Yet, you hold on to the idea that the ordered complexity of the universe and of life happened - by chance?
Atheism is more about the heart and the will than it is about reason and logic. You are committed to the idea that there is no God, because you are determined to be independent of God and you find it pathetic to be dependent on God. You want to be independent. That is why you don’t believe. Reason has nothing to do with it.
Your believing friend,
ConcernedEngineer
September 1st, 2006 at at 8:51 am
TommyKey,
Even those who don’t believe in God have “moral sense” because they have been created in God’s image. That is why you find murder and rape abhorrent, yet (I would presume) that you are okay with eating meat (or at least I would presume that you don’t condemn others eating meat). You know that killing cows and pigs for the sake of food is not “wrong.” But you also know that murdering humans is wrong. You can’t escape the truth and the implications that arise from being created in God’s image because that is reality.
The idea of “not imposing” on others sounds good. Often it is good. But where do we take this logic? Are you an anarchist? Any law or rule or policy is going to impose on others. Should we have a lawless society? I would think not. So, then we agree that the law should be based on that which is just. Thus politics is clearly a moral science. We need to be careful not to deny the essential human rights and freedoms (which, by the way, God wants us to defend), but we also must maintain justice. We need to have law and order.
I really think that we agree much more than we disagree - at least on this point.
This is why we actually agree more than we disagree. With or without faith, we have moral sense, and I’m saying it is due to the truth that God created us in His own image.
Since you don’t acknowledge the Creator, then on what authority do you assign “value” to people? On what authority do you determine what is “right” and “wrong.” These are not stupid questions. These are questions that have been discussed and debated for centuries by the most intelligent of philosophers. Let’s not let the debate stoop to low levels by calling “believers” stupid.
There are people who believe in God who are very intelligent, and there are people who believe in God who are very stupid. And the same goes for atheists.
I think that your bottom line - the way you determine what is right and wrong - is by your own judgment. You decide yourself - based on whatever you think. Do you not? Correct me if I’m wrong.
So, then, how reliable are you? If you are your own authority on morality (and if you are not, then I would be intersted in what you hold as your authority on morality if you hold to anything), then are you worthy of placing that kind of trust in yourself? Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever stolen? Lied? Cheated? Have you ever hated your fellow man? Have you ever been less than generous?
I’m not trying to be mean. God knows, I’m a sinner. I’m no better than you. But the point is that you and I are not worthy of trust when it comes to issues of morality - because in our hearts and in our actions - we have done that which is wrong, and we have failed to do that which is right.
Your believing friend,
ConcernedEngineer
September 1st, 2006 at at 9:03 am
ConcernedEngineer,
People used to justify slavery and racism not that long ago to the will of a “creator.” Not much has changed since then, except replace blacks with gays.
Yes, religion obviously makes very moral people.
September 1st, 2006 at at 10:23 am
Concerned, how can God be a HE? Does he have a penis? It cracks me up when Christians refer to God as HIM.
I will followup with a more definitive reply to the points you raised shortly.
September 1st, 2006 at at 11:14 am
Okay Concerned, my friend, now to address your points. But first off, I merely said your question was stupid, I did not say that you or any other religious believer was stupid.
The existence of the universe proves nothing more than that the universe exists. If the universe was designed by some higher power or a collection of intelligent beings, the existence of the universe tells us nothing about their characteristics. So, even if one or more “gods” created the universe, it does not follow that the Bible is the word of God, or that Jesus was the son of God etcetera.
You say that God created us in HIS image. To elaborate on my somewhat flippant response above, what exactly does that mean? An image is visual in nature. Thus, I would interpret your statement as meaning that God created us to look like him. But of course, that is ludicrous on its face because we are all different in appearance, and there are males and females. Or are you arguing that God has a body that is symmetrical in appearance, has two arms, two legs, a head, two eyes, two mouths, a nose and so forth?
What we would call morality did not arise because some God spoke to early man in a thunderous voice “thou shalt not kill” and so forth. Morality and order arose because early humans, in order to survive in harsh and dangerous environments, needed to cooperate with one another in order to survive. Certain animals were too large and strong for one hunter to kill, so a group of hunters would band together and cooperate to take down the animal. Presumably, they would reach some kind of agreement beforehand to divvy up who would get which parts of the animal for food. If a member of the tribe was injured and needed to be cared for, other members of the tribe would provide the injured member with food and water and other basic needs. Why? Because they knew that if the same injury happened to them, they would want to be cared for too.
How did the idea of God come about? Primitive hunter gatherers knew very little about how the world worked. If a volcano erupted or if there was an earthquake, they reasoned that some spirit beneath the earth was angry. If there was thunder and lightning in the sky, some spirit in the heavens was angry. Thus was planted in the minds of humans at an early period the belief in spirits, demons, gods and so forth. Early man knew nothing about plate tectonics, meteorology, that the sun in the day time was like the stars at night, that is hot balls of gas that emitted heat and light.
As humans adopted agriculture, the belief in gods and spirits were already ensconced in their mental universe, and new gods needed to be appeased. The god who made it rain, the god who made the river banks flood and so forth. Somewhere along the line, some crafty men must have figured out that the river banks would always flood at a certain time of the year and claimed to other people that they could speak to the god of the river who would demand certain sacrifices in order for the river to continue to flood so that the farmers could irrigate their crops. Thus, the priestly class was born.
All religion since then has basically been about crafty people claiming to be an intermediary between humanity and the gods, thereby arrogating to themselves a position of importance in society.
In my next post, I will explain to you why I came to reject Christianity and the belief that the God of the Bible was real.
September 1st, 2006 at at 12:06 pm
You have argued Concerned that our morals come from God. Since you have identified yourself as a Christian, then you obviously believe that the God from whom these morals allegedly spring is the God of the Bible.
Now, in order to believe that the Bible is the word of God, you are accepting the following:
God is an all knowing and all powerful being who created the Universe.
The Universe is infinite, or so large in extent that it is infinite to us.
God created intelligent life on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy of that universe. On that planet, he chose to make a pact with one guy, Abraham, and all his descendants, and that he gave Abraham and his descendants a strip of land in the Middle East that roughly approximates present day Israel and the West Bank.
Right away, this smacks of one thing, a tribal god, not a universal deity. This “god” makes a pact with one man and his descendants, which means that bloodline is more important to HIM than a person’s qualities or moral nature, and that this God is assigning to Abraham and his descendants a clearly defined territory. Again, this is an attribute of a tribal god and not a universal deity that supposedly loves and cares about ALL of humanity.
Now, it just so happens that this land of Israel is so geographically situated as to be vulnerable to invasion from more powerful neighbors. On the otherhand, an important factor in the longevity and stability of Egyptian civilization was its relative geographic isolation. To the west of Egypt that land was desert except for a narrow and temperate coastal strip which could not support a population mass sufficient enough to pose a threat. Likewise to the east, an invading army would have to cross the forbidding Sinai peninsula. True, this did not mean Egypt could not be successfully invaded. The Hyksos did manage to rule Lower Egypt for a time, the Nubians invaded from the south. But it was not until the 7th century B.C. that powerful states arose that could invade and conquer Egypt with relative ease. But even as late as the Ptolemaic Greeks, Egyptian civilization was so strong that they would culturally absorb their conquerors much the same as the Chinese did to their military conquerors.
Therefore, would a universal deity make a pact with one man and his descendants, and then assign to them a strip of land that would virtually guarantee that they would be invaded and conquered with great frequency? In the Bible, Israel’s neighbors are often portrayed as being caused to war against the Israelites by God because the Israelites did that which was not right in the eyes of the Lord. In order to believe this, one must accept an interpretation of ancient history in which everything revolved around the Israelites and that Israel’s neighbors did not exist for their own purposes but rather to be used by God as a means of punishing his “chosen” people. Again, this interpretation screams tribal god, not a universal deity.
In the book of Exodus, God is described as dwelling at the top of Mount Sinai. A universal deity that created the entire vast universe would not need to “dwell” on a mountain. This God, we are told, gave Moses a set of commandments to be followed by the Israelites. But did anybody witness God speaking to Moses? How do we know that such a thing occurred? We only have the word (supposedly) of Moses that such a thing happened. If God is the most powerful being in the universe, “HE” could have “spoken” to the entire nation of Israel simultaneously. Yet, instead he reveals his laws to one guy. Remember my last post where I talked about all religions basically being created by crafty guys who posed as the intermediary between men and god?
But to step back even further in the Exodus story, its main theme is the enslavement of the Israelites by the Egyptians and their subsequent liberation. At various points in the story, Pharaoh considers letting the Israelites go, but then God hardens his heart and Pharaoh changes his mind, which God then uses as a pretext to inflict more suffering on the Egyptian people. Since the ten commandments (and the other commandments in the Old Testament) are considered so important by Bible believers for living a moral life, wouldn’t a universal deity reveal these truths not only to the Israelites BEFORE they left Egypt, but to Pharaoh as well? After all, as I have already discussed above, Egypt had an advanced civilization. It was in a perfect position to be a transmitter of laws and morals to the rest of the known world at the time. Instead, God leads the Israelites out of Egypt and does not reveal these really important laws until the Israelites are encamped in the barren Sinai peninsula. Again, I repeat, these are the actions of a tribal god, not a universal deity that purports to love and care for all of mankind.
Serious bible scholars will tell you that most of the books that comprise the Old Testament were not written until around the 6th century b.c. What had happened to the Israelites around that time? Well, they were conquered by the Assyrians. Then after the Assyrians were destroyed by an alliance of the Medes and the Babylonians, the Israelites had a brief spell of restored independence until the Babylonians conquered them and many Israelites were carried off to Babylon. Now there is very little in the archeological record to my knowledge to demonstrate the Israelites were anything more than a confederation of sem-nomadic tribes up to the Assyrian conquest. Basically, this means that the Israelites carried off to Babylon were a collection of country bumpkins who suddenly found themselves exposed to Babylonian civilization. So, what did the Israelite priests who read and learned of the mythology of the Babylonians do? They borrowed from the Babylonians and created a past for the Israelites that they were chosen by a one true God in order to create a sense of cohesion and strength in the diaspora community. Their past victories and glories, real and imagined, were due to faithfully adhering to the laws of God, and their failures and defeats owed to their straying from the laws.
Now, to wrap things up, because I don’t want this to drag on, where does Jesus fit into all of this? Well, we are taught that Jesus was the Messiah and that his time on earth was in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. But once you debunk the idea that the Israelites are the chosen people of the creator of the universe, then that collapses the floor from underneath Jesus. To accept that Jesus is the son of the one true creator of the universe is to believe that this one true god acted for most of recorded human history as a tribal god and then suddenly poof he really does want to be the god of all of us.
Concerned, you claim that those of us who are atheist do so because we are controlled by what is in our hearts rather than by reason, that we want to be independent. Well, I can’t speak for anyone else who is an atheist, but as someone who was once a believing Catholic, I abandoned belief in the God of the Bible precisely because the story cannot withstand reason and inquiry. I would turn it around and say that some (but not all Christians) cling to belief in the Bible and Jesus because they have such an emotional investment in believing that it is true that they just cannot permit themselves to believe otherwise.
September 1st, 2006 at at 6:42 pm
OK, concerned, this is my last post on this thread as you’ve successfully trolled this thread way off topic from an article on christian nationalism into a bog standard attack on athieism. I’ve spent enough time in my life arguing religion and philosophy with believers to be, quite frankly, a little tired of running over the same old ground time and time again.
You’ve just done the standard approach for the more intelligent and non-biblical believer. You’ve gone running off to the edges of science and philosophy in an attempt to shoehorn ‘god’ in. equating ‘let there be light’ with the big bang and all that.
I’ll let dictionary.com do some work for me - you ask me to define fact…
fact? /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened
I’ve stuck to the main four here, bit it seems pretty simple.
You then go on to ask ‘what is reality’? It’s the stuff that stays the same every time we look, listen or measure it. It’s the stuff that independant tests and observations get right time and time again, and which doesn;t depend on a personal belief system, isn’t affacted by what country you were born in, or what religious or political cult you follow. If you’re going to push the discussion in to questioning the very nature of reality, then you could argue anything exists and we’re into flying spaghetti monster territory.
You are the one making the claim that god made man in his own image as a fact. a fact requires empirical evidence. you have none.
Athiesm isn’t a belief that there is no god. This is where you’ve got it wrong. I simply have never observed anything, nor has science, that suggests to me that the christian notion of a god exists, in exactly the same way that I’ve never seen any evidence for pink unicorns. If the almighty came down to earth on the end of a lightning bolt and announced his existance and agreed to hang around long enough for scientists to measure, record and take empirical evidence, then I’d change my belief like a shot. I wouldn’t though, if I was the only observer, as I’m well aware how strong an hallucination the mind can create, after all, I dream every night.
You finally ask is it possible that everything I observe could be wrong - well, there’s some miniscule possibilty, yes, but If everything I observe about reality is wrong then I’m a mad person living in a fantasy, or we’re all in the matrix.
What you are essentially trying to do is find the fuzzy edges of known science and reality, and then squeeze in something very very specific: a christian god made in his own image. now I have no idea what happened before the big bang, I’m not even 100% sure that the big bang theory is accurate as, well, I’m open minded enough not to believe anything 100%. There is after all, the possibilty that I’m a nutter in a self-made illusion and nothing is reasl and I’m just imagining that I’m typing this. but just because there are holes in my factual knowledge and exerieance of reality doesn’t mean that the christian god exists. there are many other explanations, with varying levels of credulity. I choose not to believe in any of them without proof.
you choose one supernatural belief over all others. where, though, is your proof. where is your evidence. it’s too grand a leap to go from ‘you don’t know what happened before the big bang’ or ‘I can’t believe that life just arose from random chemistry’ to say ‘that means there is a god, and we’re made in his own image, and that’s where morals come from.’
so, please, stick to the topic. I’m just as responsible for the drift as you are, as I went ahead and bit and engaged in your christian apologist argument, but the article was about the rise of christian nationalism, not my (or anyone else’s here) athieism.
I leave you with this question. I have a 6″ Pink Unicorn that lives on my desk. It claims it made the universe, and talks to me all the time. The question is, why don’t you believe me?
September 1st, 2006 at at 8:51 pm
Chelfyn, Concerned may have dragged uss off topic, but we sure kicked his butt!
September 1st, 2006 at at 9:09 pm
One reason why I don’t believe your 6 inch unicorn created the universe or speaks to you is that your argument is not very convincing. One of the reasons why your argument is not very convincing is that you do not really believe it.
When someone brings up a crazy hypothetical, of course, I am not inclined to believe it. But when someone who has a reputation for sanity and honesty gives serious testimony to that which he observed, I am forced to take his testimony seriously.
Of course, I am still a million miles away from the Christian gospel, the infallibility of the Bible, etc, etc. One step at a time. If I can do nothing else but to convince some of the readers to abandon atheism and become agnostics - well that is a step in the right (and reasonable) direction.
I have the original topic in mind - Christian Nationalism. But in order to make a good argument, I need to establish a good foundation. I can’t build a tower without establishing a foundation. If the foudation is flawed, then the whole system falls a part. If what I believe is not true, real, and able to absorb the toughest of questions and ridicule, then I am a fool and ought to be pitied.
But I contend that the foundations for Christian theology are solid, and that believing in the God of the Bible is reasonable and right. In fact, I contend that we were created to believe the Christian gospel.
Tommy,
Your analysis of the Bible and of the history of Israel is interesting. It would be worth pointing out that in Genesis 12, God did choose the people of Israel - but he chose them to be a blessing to all nations. (See Genesis 12:3)
God is not a racist. But He did choose to bless Israel. He did this according to His Sovereign plan.
But you are right to say that if we can’t believe what I just asserted, then believing in Jesus makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - because Jesus was a Jew. It is very obvious that Jesus believed the Old Testament - the Law and Prophets.
So, it comes down to this: What do we do with Jesus? If Jesus really was/is the Son of God, Yahweh, I AM, then it necessarily follows that the Old Testament must also be taken seriously and believed. You can not consistently believe in Jesus and reject the Old Testament. You can’t have a high view of Jesus and a low view of Abraham and Moses - not consistently.
So, what do you do with Jesus? Was he just a nut? Was he liar? All educated historians agree that the man existed. And, in point of fact, he didn’t exist too long ago. 2000 years sounds like a long time - but when you consider that the last widow of a Civil War Veteran died only about 10 years ago - 2000 years wasn’t too long ago.
Jesus showed up on the scene in Palestine in the time that he did, and he left his mark. The church was born and advanced in the face of persecution, and the gospel message has impacted cultures for the past twenty centuries.
How do you explain these events? Jesus of Nazareth - Liar? (doubtful - his reputation for honesty and integrity is too strong) Lunatic? (Don’t think so. He was too wise. He was too purposeful. He was taken too seriously.) What other possibilities? … Lord? Could it be that He was who He said He was? Could it be that He really did come in the fulness of time (recall the setting in which he came) to show us the way and to give his life for us - to redeem sinful men to God?
The idea that the only way to discern truth is through empirical evidence is a rigid, almost non-human, completely unromantic way to approach life. Look into your heart. You are a person. You are more than the sum total of your chemicals. You’ve been created to love and to be loved. There are truths about life that can be known to a little child - whose heart is full of love - that a cynical trained scientist can never understand or comprehend. Love and joy and friendship - these things can not be measured. But they are real. And I would suggest that people who reject all that can not be measured or observed empirically are missing out on some of the greatest wonders of life that God has graciously offered to us.
I’d like to go a little deeper into my argument that atheism is more a matter of the will and heart than it is a matter of reason and evidence. Not to offend you, but the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
I paraphrase Michael Shermer more for your sake, because I think that you have more respect for what he says that what I say. For those of you who don’t know, Michael Shermer had a “born again Christian” experience in high school (or maybe college), but then later had a “born again atheist” experience in college. Now, to the best of my knowledge he is an agnostic - with atheist leanings. He appeared on a panel on TBS when they did a series a while back: “The Question of God.” The series was an analysis of Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis. I found the series fascinating, and I suspect that some of you might too. Anyway, he said that what led him to his current stance (agnostic with atheist leanings) was basically his desire to be independent. He said that, in general, people don’t use reason to arrive at their worldviews, but that they choose a worldview - based on what they want to believe, and then use logic and reason and even science to justify that worldview. Essentially, as Simon and Garfunkel said it, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
And I am suggesting that that is why atheists are atheists. They haven’t used reason to prove that God doesn’t exist. If they were going on pure objective reason, then it seems to me that most atheists would be agnostics or maybe they would believe in God (since reason does point toward Design). But atheists WILL not believe. It is a matter of will, a matter of the heart. In your heart, you want independence from any despot who would impose restrictions on you. And God is a Benevolent Despot. He is the Sovereign LORD. He chose Abraham and the children of Israel (the foolish and despised and, frankly, incompetent and very often evil) to display His glory to the whole world. And that goes against your American dream of radical egalitarianism and independence. He died on the cross - the just for the unjust - so that those who believe could be saved. But those who do not believe are condemned already. Note that those who reject Christ are not condemned for their lack of faith, but that they are already condemned as sinners. By not believing they are rejecting the free gift of salvation that has been offered. By rejecting the gospel, you hold on to your own sense of goodness and righteousness - of independence and radical egalitarianism. This is pride. You are attempting to rob God of the glory that is due His Name.
You don’t believe in God, because you will not to believe. I stand by my assertion that reason has nothing to do with it.
I know that this argument is by no means complete. But I hope that it gives you something to think over.
Peace to you, dear atheists.
Concerned
September 2nd, 2006 at at 8:31 am
Concerned, you quote in Genesis that God chose the people of Israel to be a blessing to all nations. But the people of Israel never acted in any such capacity. They were a confederation of semi-nomadic tribes who before the Babylonian captivity had no literature or civilization worthy of notice. The Greek historian Herodotus, in his writings of the peoples of the Near East, makes absolutely no mention of the Israelites, though he does find the time to mention that the peoples of Colchis in Asia Minor have woolly hair similiar to the Egyptians. If God chose Israel to be a light to all nations, then why did such a well travelled and knowledgeable person such as Herodotus fail to notice? Or anybody else for that matter. To reiterate my previous post, Egypt was best positioned to serve as a light to all nations if that was what God really wanted. Egyptian temples and other buildings from 3,500 to 4,000 years ago still stand today and the hieroglyphics can still be read. Thus, if God had communicated his laws to the Egyptians, we would likely have found the relevant hieroglyphics containing these laws today. There are no Israelite monuments or temples from 3,000 to 3,500 years ago because there were none.
Try as you might, you cannot get around the fact that the God described in the Old Testament has all of the attributes of a tribal god, and not a universal deity. If you wish to believe in the face of all logic and reason that the God described in the bible is the actual creator of the universe and that Jesus is his son because it makes you feel better, then by all means do so. But I can no more will myself to believe in the myth of the divinity of Christ than I can make myself believe in astrology and tarot cards, in spite of all the timeworn, recycled arguments you have presented to me.
I call on you to reject belief in the existence of the God of the bible and embrace secular humanism.
Get your head out of the mental prison called the bible.
September 2nd, 2006 at at 8:21 pm
Yawn.
Have any of you read “The History of God” by Karen Armstrong. It is a very well written book that shows the evolution of the notion of God from Judism, Christianity through Islam as well as the histories of those three religions (Christianity and Islam are basically offshoots of Judism).
One fascinating point that Armstrong makes is that at a certain historical point Christians started trying to use reason to “prove” the rationality of their beliefs. I can’t remember, off the top of my head, when this began, but her point was that once Christians started trying to “prove” themselves, the secularization of society (Western society, at least) began. Why? Because YOU CAN’T USE REASON TO PROVE THIS SH*T!!!! Religious belief is based on faith, not reason. A religious person must make that “leap of faith” to say, yes, this stuff doesn’t make much sense, but I believe it anyway.
Some of us just can’t make that leap of faith. So “Concerned Engineer” please stop trying to convince us! Your logic is actually hurting your cause–as Karen Armstrong pointed out in your book. Keep the mystery of the your religion, keep the weirdness, keep the irrationality! That is what makes it powerful. Once you try to “prove” it, it just dies because you can’t prove a mystery wrapped in an enigma, etc. You have your faith–we can live without it!
September 3rd, 2006 at at 2:33 pm
First of all, at no point have I attempted to use reason to “prove” the gospel. The gospel starts and ends with faith. Reason is good, but reason says nothing about presuppositions. Rather people proceed from their presuppositions with reason.
So atheists presuppose that the best way to know truth is through empirical evidence. Then, they proceed from there in a reasonable manner and derive a worldview. Christians, on the other hand, presuppose that the best way to know truth is via divine revelation (and empirical evidence plays a part in general revelation). We then proceed from that creed with reason and logic.
But logic does not dictate which presuppositions we choose to base our lives upon. That is an issue of faith. Atheists are betting that God doesn’t exist, and are betting on their own ability to observe reality via empirical evidence. I choose not to put so much faith in myself - since I know that I am so very far from perfect. Instead, I entrust myself to God - who has revealed Himself to me through creation, through His word, through His people, and through His Holy Spirit.
Tommy, the children of Israel often failed in their calling to be a blessing to all nations. I didn’t suggest otherwise. I merely asserted that God commanded them to be a blessing to all nations, and that God promised that they would. Through Christ, they have. The gospel has influenced nations for the past 2000 years, and many millions of all different cultures, languages, and nations have experienced the blessing of the gospel - which is a fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis 12.
Also, God, being the Alpowerful God that He is, did not need the position and the glory of Egypt in order to spread His Name and His fame. God very often stacks the deck against Himself, and then still wins. A God who became famous becaue of the “greatness” of Egypt wouldn’t be too impressive. A God who would need Egypt wouldn’t be worth worshipping.
But a God who took a nation as screwed up as Israel, and then proceeded to use that nation to reveal to the world His greatness and glory - that is an awesome God.
More later….
September 3rd, 2006 at at 8:48 pm
Concerned, it really boils down to this. There is right conduct and wrong conduct. If a person acts with right conduct, regardless of whether the person follows a particular religion or is atheist, that person is a benefit to the world, and if that person acts with wrong conduct regardless of whether that person professes to be religious or atheist, then that person is not a benefit to the world. If there is a God and a person behaves in a way that is pleasing to God, even if that person is an atheist, then God will clearly be pleased with that person, and if a person believes there is a God and that person acts in ways that are harmful to others, then God will not be pleased with that person. And if there is no God, the person who acts with right conduct is still a benefit to the world and the person who acts with wrong conduct is still harmful to the world.
In the Hindu classic “Bhagavad Gita”, Krishna tells Arjuna that “A man who is born with tendencies toward the Divine, is fearless and pure in heart. He perseveres in that path to union with Brahman which the scriptures and his teacher have taught him. He is charitable. He can control his passions. He studies the scriptures regularly, and obeys their directions. He practices spiritual disciplines. He is straightforward, truthful, and of an even temper. He harms no one. He renounces the things of this world. He has a tranquil mind and an unmalicious tongue. He is compassionate toward all. He is not greedy. He is gentle and modest. He abstains from useless activity. He has faith in the strength of his higher nature. He can forgive and endure. He is clean in thought and act. He is free from hatred and pride.”
Now this one paragraph from the “Gita” contains greater moral truth than all of the moral teachings attributed to Jesus in all of the Gospels put together. Even if you disagree with this statement, you cannot deny that just this one paragraph from the “Gita” describes what would be considered right conduct. And whomever wrote the “Gita” had no knowledge of the Israelites or the God of the Bible. So much then for Israelites serving as a light to all nations.
Now, let us visit the writings of someone who was even further away from ancient Israel and had beautiful and profound things to say. The Chinese philosopher Mo Tzu, who lived around the 5th century B.C., said:
“Humane men are concerned about providing benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities, Now among all the current calamities, which are the worst? I say that the attacking of small states by large states, the making of inroads on small houses by large houses, the plundering of the weak by the strong, the oppression of the few by the many, the deception of the simple by the cunning, the disdain of the noble towards the humble - these are some of the calamities of the world… Added to these, the mutual injury and harm which the vulgar people do to one another with weapons, poison, water, and fire is still another calamity in the world.”
“When we come to inquire about the cause of all these calamities, whence have they arisen? Is it out of people’s loving others and benefiting others? We must reply that it is not so. We should say that it is out of people hating others and injuring others. If we should classify one by one all those who hate others and injure others, should we find them to be universal or partial in their love? Of course, we shouls say that they are partial.”
Mo Tzu goes on to argue that “Partiality is to be replaced by universality. But how is partiality to be replaced by universality? Now, when everyone regards the states of others as he regards his own, who would attack the other’s state? When everyone regards the houses of others as he regards his own, who would disturb the others’ houses?” Mo Tzu then asks “Is this a calamity or a benefit to the world? Of course it is a benefit.”
He goes on to conclude that the causes of such benefits is universal love and that “since universal love is the cause of the major benefits in the world, therefore Mo Tzu proclaims that universal love is right.”
So Concerned, here we have a philosopher in China in the 5th century B.C., who had no knowledge of the Israelites or the God of the Bible, proclaiming that universal love is the answer to the strife of the world, that we must regards others as we regard ourselves, not just on a personal level but on a level between nations. These are quite profound teachings and yet only a handful of Westerners likely have ever heard of Mo Tzu. I would wager a large sum that you never have.
Now, as for your ridiculous argument that Jesus was a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12, for several hundred years after Jesus is alleged to have lived, only a small portion of the world’s population were aware of his teachings. Now, evangelical Christians are always concerned about “saving” people by getting them to accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior. Funny then that it took some 1,500 years after his death for the message of Jesus to circle the globe. Up until the journeys of Columbus, the tens of millions of people of the Americas had no knowledge of Jesus or the god of the Bible. Neither did many of the millions of people in the present day archipelagos of the Philippines and Indonesia, the inhabitants of central and southern Africa. Add to that the populations of Japan, Korea, much of China, Siberia, Australia etc. We’re talking hundreds of millions of people who never even had the opportunity to be “saved”. For a deity that is supposedly all powerful and omniscient, the Christian God sure chose a lousy way to get his message across.
And when Christianity did take hold in Europe as the official religion of the Roman Empire and then the successor barbarian kingdoms, how did the Christians treat the descendants of Abraham, who God supposedly intended to serve as a light to all nations? The Christians visited upon them the worst forms of oppression that were far greater than anything the Christians suffered under the sporadic persecution of the Romans prior to Constantine.
Face it Concerned, the preponderance of the historical evidence can lead one to the following conclusions, the god of the Bible does not exist, the Jews are not the chosen people of the creator of the universe, Jesus was not born from a virgin and was not the son of the creator and therefore one does not become “saved” from anything by believing in him.
Renounce your belief in the divinity of Jesus Concerned and embrace the humanism and the universal love preached by Mo Tzu and you will have a happier and more productive life. Get your head out of the mental prison of the Bible.
September 3rd, 2006 at at 10:53 pm
Tommykey,
You should have your own blog. I mean you basically have one in the comments section right here, why not make it the real deal?
Even though Concerned probably can’t appreciate your writings, I sure have. Thanks.
September 4th, 2006 at at 7:02 am
Thanks Jay.
I hope to one of these days. It’s hard right now between my work schedule and having to take care of my two little kids when my wife is at work plus all the things that need to be done around the house. But I do hope to get a blog going some time in the near future. Thanks again for your kind words.
TK
September 4th, 2006 at at 7:52 am
Tommy,
First of all, I appreciate your decency, your honesty, and your civility. In my mind there are two brands of atheists - those who are antagonistic towards people of faith - and those who are not. Your civility is truly appreciated.
Secondly, I will say that by the doctrine of “common grace,” people who don’t have all the particulars of theology down right can still get some things right. There are beautiful creeds and doctrines in many of the world’s religions. By believing in Jesus, I do not say that every other religion has everything wrong. What I do say is that on the points in which they contradict Christian dogma, they are wrong.
So, many people of many religions have essentially said, “Love your neighbor.” Well, the greatest commands of the Bible are, “Love the LORD your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And the second is, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Furthermore, many people who have called themselves “Christian” have done many wicked and evil things. These things are wrong. It is worth noting that the people who opposed Jesus the most (according to the gospels) were the arrogant, prideful, and self-righteous religious people - not the “sinners.” Jesus confronted their pride and hypocrisy and exposed it for what it was. This is how he got himself got killed.
But when you assert, “Now this one paragraph from the ‘Gita’ contains greater moral truth than all of the moral teachings attributed to Jesus in all of the Gospels put together,” with all due respect - you are plain wrong. You are obviously a very learned individual. How can you make such an assertion in view of the beattitudes and the rest of the Sermon on the Mount? Or what about the example of servanthood that Jesus set for his disciplies by washing his disciples feet after the Last Supper?
You said, “If a person acts with right conduct, regardless of whether the person follows a particular religion or is atheist, that person is a benefit to the world, and if that person acts with wrong conduct regardless of whether that person professes to be religious or atheist, then that person is not a benefit to the world.” There is truth in this statement, but what I don’t appreciate about this statement is your utilitarian view of people. It seems like in your eyes people need to work in order to have value. People are only valuable if they can be “of benefit to the world.” This is a dangerous idea, and frankly a rather mean creed. I would assert that people are valuable because they are people (created in God’s image). Realizing this, they ought to work and live fruitful and productive lives so that do benefit the world. But they can also know that their worth is not based on what they do, but on what God has said about them - that they are loved and are valuable just as they are.
Do you communicate to your kids that you won’t love them until they earn it, or do you love them as they are, and hope that because of that love, your kids will live a wonderful and productive life which benefits the world?
One of the biggest problems of the world is the problem of wicked people thinking that they are good people. One of the signs of really bad people is their denial of being really bad. See, many religions (and atheists) are in agreement about the “moral code” (love thy neighbor, etc). But what Christianity asserts is that we have all fallen short of that moral code and therefore deserve to be punished. Christianity also asserts that there is nothing you can do to make up for your failure; perfection is the standard. If we stopped here, then this would be really bad news. But we don’t stop here. Christianity asserts that, “God demonstrated his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” By the atoning sacrifice of Christ - the Lamb of God - heaven’s gates are opened wide, that we may now be justified by faith and not by works. For by observing the law, no one will achieve righteousness. But God gives us His righteousness as a free gift. Having humbly received that gift, we are set free to be fully alive in Christ. Then we are ready to do the good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do. Then, and only then, will we be of any good to the world. Without Christ, all the “good deeds” that we do - that which we do in our own power according to our own self-proclaimed goodness - these “good deeds” are nothing but filthy rags. We are sinners in nature and in practice. But thanks be to God, there is a Redeemer. Christ redeemed sinners at the cross. When He cried out, “It is finished,” it truly was. The price had been paid. I belong to Jesus, who loved me and bought me with His blood. I have been justified by faith - not by works.
See, you have been created to believe this gospel. God put you together in your mother’s womb, and you are fearfully and wonderfully made. He has made you with wonderful gifts and talents. He knows your DNA. He knows your needs, wants, and desires. It is His will for you to experience life - abundant and eternal. He speaks to you. Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart. Today is the day of salvation. Take a step of faith. He loves you, friend.
ConcernedEngineer
September 4th, 2006 at at 8:24 am
“Up until the journeys of Columbus, the tens of millions of people of the Americas had no knowledge of Jesus or the god of the Bible. Neither did many of the millions of people in the present day archipelagos of the Philippines and Indonesia, the inhabitants of central and southern Africa. Add to that the populations of Japan, Korea, much of China, Siberia, Australia etc. We’re talking hundreds of millions of people who never even had the opportunity to be ’saved’. ”
This is a common objection to the gospel. I don’t have this completely figured out yet, but I will offer a few thoughts.
First, let’s take the worst case scenario - that the people who had no knowledge of the gospel were not saved - nor did they have the opportunity. I’m not saying that I necessarily agree that this was the reality of the situation, but let us suppose it for a minute.
What if someone had found a cure to cancer and started sharing that cure with people who had cancer? And let us say, for whatever reason, the cure does not make it all around the world right away? And let us say that you have cancer? Are you going to refuse the cure because people on the other side of the world do not have the same opportunity as you? I would think not. Rather, I think that you would receive the cure, and then go on a life crusade to the other side of the world to share the cure with other people.
The failure to propagate good ideas has caused many of millions to suffer all kinds of injustice for thousands of years. Furthermore, the evil powers that be have oppressed the masses successfully, because people are ignorant and sinful. See the cancer cure analogy only works to a point. The gospel addresses and confronts the sinfulness of the human heart, and many people don’t want the truth, because they fear that their evil deeds will be exposed. So, they resist the gospel - without even knowing much of what the gospel is about - because they resist anything and everything that would bring their evil deeds to light.
On the other hand, there are those who are committed to truth and justice. They will go through the hard process of being exposed, because they have faith that as they go through that process, they will find truth and that good will result. It is interesting to note that in some of these tribes in New Guienea, missionaries who have recently evangelized those villages found the village to be expecting them. There were people who had had visions and had prayed to some God out there to send someone to explain the truth.
Those who seek will find.
This brings me to my second scenario. God has revealed aspects of Himself to all people - via the Holy Spirit and through Creation. When you look at the wonderful ordered-complexity of nature (whether the stars, or human DNA, or the mathematics of particle physics), you are oberving the handiwork of God, and you are supposed to be inspired to seek Him. When you hear of the wisdom that says, “Not might makes right, but might for right!” you are supposed to marvel at the little bit of the wisdom of God being revealed.
I believe that in every person’s life, the