I love Of First Importance. It describes itself thusly "A thoughtful quote each day to remind you what’s “of first importance”: the gospel of Jesus Christ."
If you're looking for articles, it won't be what you're seeking. But, I still recommend adding it to your favorites. I mean what could be more edifying than being reminded to live in the goodness of the Gospel!?

Ray Ortlund. Best i know of.

Try the Gospel Coaliton: Justin Taylor and Kevin DeYoung. ReformationTheology.com also stimulated deep reflection.

Thanks everyone! I appreciate this more than you know.

I am going to put the sites you've mentioned in my reader and try them out. Thanks!

Thanks Raindream. I know you meant well.

That video made me feel like crap (I made it halfway through). The biggest sadness in my life is seeing people walk away from Jesus.

Yeah, it keeps going, but by His mercy, I'll keep a level head and throw more seed.

Edifying to me is The Thinklings, of course, and also Gospel Driven Church. Desiring God is also helpful.

daily dose of spurgeon:

http://www.spurgeon.org/daily.htm

(if it's true it's not new.)

The guy in the video says "we are the Creator," pointing upwards. That's explicitly idolatrous and blasphemous. It is the opposite of Christianity.

His struggle is terrible, his abandonment by Christians unconscionable, and his zeal for activism respectable. But his new view is not excusable.

On a general note, I find Jesus Needs New PR perhaps the least edifying site I occasionally peruse.

I haven't spent much time there myself.

Speaking of edifying, Seven Samurai is in Netflix instant view.

Edifying? This is absolutely the most edifying blog I've ever read. This post in particular:

http://www.stuffchristianculturelikes.com/2011/05/blog-post.html

Hey guys I don't want to learn anything new. Nothing provocative for me thanks. I just want to be told what I believe is right.

Chris, Bryan, Steev, Ryan: Does daddy know you're on his computer?

Chris, Bryan, Steev, Ryan: Does daddy know you're on his computer?

I'm sure they're using their daddy-provided iPhones.

So heartening to know that this wonderful christian forum can be brought to the maturity of 4chan by one comment disagreeing with the predominant opinion. Your religion is obviously the one for me. Teach me how to love my fellow man like you do.

I think your concern about people walking away from Jesus is shameful when you should be more concerned (and, indeed, not concerned at all, since the man likely never even existed) about the fact that people suffer needlessly, and what you can do about it.

If people walking away from a fictitious Christ is the saddest thing you can imagine, then you need a very serious mental priority shift, because there are -far- more disheartening problems in the world: problems that have solutions.

Ryan, funny you make a rather inarguable point, and the response is accusations of you using your daddy's iPhone. You're debating with people that have allowed their upbringing to override their rationale - an almost impossible uphill battle. We are finite beings in a world of atoms and molecules. We have the amazing oppurtunity to experience the phenoemena of consciousness for 80 years or so, and then it's over. If you need to appeal to ficitious spiritual entities in the face of insurmountable counter-evidence to cope with this fact...then there lies the sadness...not somebody growing up, developing autonomy, and walking away.

And Bill, Chris was referring to the fact that Ryan made a solid counter argument, and got trolled on, much alike the daily traffic in the infamous 4chan forums. He was then sarcastically advocating to join a religion which evidently doesn't practice what it preaches.

"If Christ were here today, there is one thing he definitely wouldn't be - a Christian" - Mark Twain

Yeah maybe 'solid counterpoint' wasn't the correct word choice, haha, but I think you got what I was getting at.

I vaguely know Ryan through college, and I just happened to see something pop up on the news feed...one thing led to another and I found myself here.

Perhaps I was seeming too dogmatic about my aetheistic views...I admit to not knowing much about the universe or the nature of our existence. Claiming there's no creator, even to me, seems slightly contradictory as it's apparent that somewhere, somehow, something was created as we are both here having this conversation now.

My problem lies largely in organized religion. I was brought up Christian, got baptized, confirmed, and went to boarding school where we went to chapel four days a week. Before that, I was a regular bible school attendee and for all practical purposes interested, and a believer in God.

Today, there's nothing more I'd like to believe that when I die I go to heaven, hang out with my ancestors and friends, say hi to Adam and Eve, and live forever in eternal bliss. However it is not a choice to stay a believer...your rationale must permit it. One, or at least I, cannot trick myself into suddenly believing something I find irrational. I have family who are devout Christians who I love, and you seem like a pretty intelligent follower yourself.

So perhaps you can help me at least undersand how a seemingly intelligent, rational human can become a believer. This is obviously an enormous subject, and I have many questions, but help me understand at least this one...which I'm sure you have encounted many times. To me, one's religion seems to largely come down to one's geography. If you were born in the Middle East, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in a Jewish family, you'd be Jewish. If you were born in pre-colonized Canada, you'd believe in the spirits in the trees, and that the world is attached to a turtles back with an infinite ammount of other turtles beneath it. I just want to know how a believer reconciles the fact that his interpretation of the universe, and religious beliefs are largely, if not wholly, attributed to how and where he or she was brought up. Doesn't that make religion ridiculously arbitrary? Are the kids born into different religions simply unlucky, and their particular indoctrination simply false? Basically in a world of thousands of religions, what makes one so special? Holy books? It's easy to say 'well I believe because I believe' but why? Why not question the fabric of one's childhood indoctrination?

There are many other qualms I have, such as religion being incompatible with modern science (which, I admit, I am not an expert - my field is Philosophy and English).But perhaps you can settle the aforementioned one for me...I have asked this question to local believers (along with my family) constantly, and have never gotten an intelligible answer.

They put people in psychowards because they 'hear voices' or something to that affect all the time. Preachers claim they hear the voice of God in them...I honestly, wholeheartedly fail to see the difference. Maybe I am taking the preacher's claim too literally? I am not a manevolent, unrestricted 'hater', I just think that it is almost a crime to, in this day an age, spread superstition and indoctrinate the youth to any particular form of religion. We can all have happy, meaningful lives following a rational morality...there is no need for occultism...we need to progress. Thank you for the intelligent, well-written response. One of the paper's I am going to write is going to be on occult morality, so I would really enjoy an intelligent perspective from the other side. Like I said I don't know all the answers, this is just my opinion, and I am entitled to mine as you are yours.

Dan, thanks for the response, I'll write back when I can (probably tomorrow, though - too much going on tonight!)

Chris,

Thanks for filling me in on 4chan. I can't remember when I was 14, it's been so long ago. So the chances of me ever going there were nil anyway.

On Ryan.

I'm as confused as ever as to what the controversy is. I made an assumption that he was criticizing me for not caring as much about people's physical well being as I do about their relationship with Jesus. That's true as far as it goes, although if you state it the way I just did, it sounds pretty bad. For all he or you know, my concern for their eternal state is a 10 on a scale of 1-10 and my concern for their physical state is a 9.8.

The truth is, though, I don't care for either as much as I should. He told me to be ashamed of myself and I am - I should do more, on both counts. And they are not, as I mentioned earlier, an "either/or"

I don't know how to offer a simple apology here for the conversation, as you have urged. I thought we were just talking and I'm trying to be nice. I do apologize for misrepresenting what you said, Ryan, if that's the case (and I hate "I do apologize if" apologies, but I don't quite know what you're getting at Chris. So have back at me if you must).

And looking silly is something I'm pretty used to.

Now, about you - I'm glad to hear that you are a believer. Guess I need to go check stephy's site out to see where we were linked, and in what context. My guess is it wasn't complementary!

Have a good evening, all!

Alex, the samurai thing is tongue in cheek. People with senses of humor (and a sense of charity) understand that really easily. Others . . . not so much.

And the "circle jerk" thing is a tell-tale remark. It's a favorite phrase of a commenter from the Stuff Christian Culture Likes/Jesus Needs New PR circle. And it's oh so yawwwn.

It is impossible to debate, by the way, with people who begin by insulting and condescending. Real, fruitful debates don't work that way. So to now blame me/us for being afraid to debate (or whatever dumb thing you're accusing us of) is disingenuous and silly.

Also silly is to come to this blog, be condescending, and then call our views (or us) repellent. If they're so repellent, why are you so attracted to wasting your time here?

Alex,

Could you consider d) - I wasn't speaking with mathematical, literal precision? Kindly consider that, because that's the truth.

I'd love to be able to sway an unbeliever on this blog over to faith. As far as I know, it's never happened. Of course it could happen. God can do anything, even use me. I do plan on taking a run at Dan's excellent questions, probably tomorrow am.

This has turned into quite an invigorating comments thread! I've been poked by representatives from all sides - atheist, stuffChristianCultureLikes-ites, and believers too.

It's all good. In real-space we've got a bunch of people over right now (just ducked in to check the thread, and that's new too - it's been awhile since we've had a comments thread with some spice in it, so there's some blessing in disguise going on here.)

Bird,

Actually, in answer to your question, I'm not really familiar with that term.

Circle jerk = group masturbation, usually in a circle. That's how I understand it, not sure why it's being brought up here, haha.

Good morning, Dan

You wrote:
To me, one's religion seems to largely come down to one's geography. If you were born in the Middle East, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in a Jewish family, you'd be Jewish. If you were born in pre-colonized Canada, you'd believe in the spirits in the trees, and that the world is attached to a turtles back with an infinite ammount of other turtles beneath it. I just want to know how a believer reconciles the fact that his interpretation of the universe, and religious beliefs are largely, if not wholly, attributed to how and where he or she was brought up. Doesn't that make religion ridiculously arbitrary? Are the kids born into different religions simply unlucky, and their particular indoctrination simply false? Basically in a world of thousands of religions, what makes one so special? Holy books? It's easy to say 'well I believe because I believe' but why? Why not question the fabric of one's childhood indoctrination?

As you mentioned, you've asked this question many times to others, so there's a good chance you won't hear anything new here from me. But I will provide the best answer I can. It is a very good question and one, of course, that I've thought through before as well. While I was raised in a Christian home, I didn't really *get* Christianity until I was in College, where I came to faith. I spent a decent amount of time during the first months of my Christianity looking at contra opinions, reading anti-Christianity screeds, etc, because I really wanted to know that what I was getting myself into was true. And there have been many times since that I have wrestled with the questions you wrestle with.

I'll start with the last part of your question. What makes Christianity so special, in a world of thousands of religions? It is more than just the Christian Holy book, or Bible. The claim of Christianity is that it is based on a historical event, the Resurrection of Jesus. Internal to the Christian scriptures is the admission that if Christ really didn't rise, our faith is in vain. That event is what everything stands and falls upon. Now reams of debate, back and forth, could be written just on this subject alone. I won't be able to do justice to that :-), but I can give a few points, from my perspective. First, the idea that Jesus never existed at all, though popular in some circles, doesn't make sense in light of the historical record and my understanding is that most people, both believers and non, don't give much credence to that. The existence of Jesus is, of course, attested by the New Testament and also in other non-Christian and non-Biblical contemporary records. And something happened in the early first century that had a profound impact on world history. And something extraordinary happened on Easter Sunday. The evidence of the very rapid spread of Christianity, from the point of the resurrection to the end of the first century, in the face of first small and then growing, and then enormous and vicious opposition, has to be explained somehow. Why did the disciples go into all the known world? Why were they willing to die? Men will not die for a known lie. What made the change?

A second point - it's hard to lump Christianity in with thousands of religions as a co-equal. Firstly, Christianity wasn't sprung from whole cloth - it was birthed out of Judaism, and it should be noted that Islam was birthed out of and was a response to Christianity. The three major religions of the world were all born in the same monotheistic stream. My belief is that Judaism is true but only completed in Christianity, and that Islam is a corruption of the beliefs of both. Judaism and Christianity both claim to root themselves in God's interaction with his creation, in real history, rather than just in inspired holy writings.

On the geography question. That is a tough one and has been a conundrum for many, including yours truly. As a side note, while I, of course, disagree with the views of atheists on this, and also note that a lot of atheists appear, to me at least, to just be mad at God more than anything else, I can appreciate that many atheists base their unbelief on some profoundly moral difficulties. Is God fair? Is he worth worshipping? etc. Regarding your question, the New Testament itself recognizes the issue in several ways. One is in Jesus' command to the disciples to go into all the world, starting in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then to the ends of the earth. The Kingdom is said to spread like leaven in dough, or like seed along the path, etc. So - although my preference would have been for God to appear to all human beings in a really cool heavenly demonstration, he has chosen to appear to us first in history through the ethnic descendents of Abraham, who were to steward his moral and sacrificial law and utter his will through the prophets, then to come himself, incarnate in Jesus at a specific point in history, offering atonement for sins in his own body and triumph over death in his resurrection, and finally to be taken to the ends of the earth through his indwelt followers.

Portions of scripture, such as the first chapter of Romans, Psalm 19, and others, seem to indicate that all men everywhere have evidence of God through creation, even if they don't know the details, have no scriptures, don't know of Jesus, etc. And, though a non-believer would explain this differently, there is ample evidence for this. Men at all times and all races have, for the most part, felt a need to reach up in worship, to have gods or a God. This can be, and usually is, explained away as man's fear of death and the unknown driving him to invent supernatural beings to provide help and hope to him. The Bible, on the other hand, seems to indicate that this universal desire to worship comes from God himself, as revealed in creation. It's inborn in us. Even the old myths of the Greeks, Romans and Norse, or the proto-canuck tree-worshippers you mentioned, were, in some fashion, inspired by the divine light and hunger for light that God plants in every man. C.S. Lewis referred to this in his magnificent Perelandra as "gleams of celestial strength and beauty falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility". J.R.R. Tolkien called the story of Jesus the "true myth".

So, all have heard or been given evidence at some level of God. Another New Testament assertion is that to him who much is given, much is expected, whereas less is expected of him to whom little is given. I think there's something to that (or a great deal to that). I don't know what happens to a person in Africa who has never heard of Jesus. There is evidence in the Bible that those who came before Jesus could still be saved through Jesus. Bottom line, I've been given much, as have you. I tend to believe that it will be far more intolerable for me if I reject Jesus with all the truth I've been given, than for the person who has never heard of him. At the end of the day, I have to rest in this that God is both wise and just and will not, as Cliff Knechtle used to say, "rip anyone off".

Well, I've gone long here. I hope this helps, or at least gives you some context around why I would believe in Jesus. Others who are better spoken and smarter than me could probably give a much more effective (and concise) answer.

If I get time I'll dig into a few other things you mentioned in your comment. Feel free to comment back, counterpoint, etc. Have a good one.

In response to people's seeming confusion

Ryan, there is no confusion whatsoever. I completely get what you're saying. I just disagree (as you disagree with me). You think I should be ashamed. Understood.

Can we please drop this subject? :-)

Bill- I am not sure what is going on with you and Ryan. It almost seems like you are not able to follow your own comments on the subject. He references your own comment where you say "I am confused" then in your response you say that there is no confusion and want to drop the subject. Again, this is a forum where you can go back and re-read what you and others say. So now I am confused...

Dan-I'm curious about something. What is the fence that your brain is unable to jump in regards to the existence of God? I guess my thought process goes something like this. The universe is vast, unbelievably so. Entropy and Thermodynamics demand that something had to start it all. You can go back far enough to the "Big Bang" but any one who doesn't ask, where did the Big Bang start is just being lazy in my opinion. So, from there Science tries to look for answers, philosophers try their route, and religion goes their own.

So, what about one route over the other causes the hurdle to arise? I hope that makes sense. I personally hop back and forth between the varying ideas and explanations because frankly they all have pretty good points.

Chris,

Yes, that's a good point, and leads to an almost irreconcilable debate in my head. However, if one commits to that train of thought, it evitably begs the question "Where did God come from". If we were created from/on the earth, the earth was created from the Big Bang, the Big Bang was unleashed by God, then God was created from...? I don't see the logic in stopping at God and saying "well for Him it's different, he always was and always will be". Why? "Always was" by itself seems like a logical contradiction. And simply appealing to the atypical "well, His conception is beyond human comprehension" never really rests that well with me.

Like I said, no matter how I look at it the 'hurdles' are very difficult to get over. That is precisely why I'm so interested in this subject and wish to some day have a reasonable, well-grounded answer. I think the best way to describe me is a hopeful agnostic...but I can't help but lean towards aetheism. Although science can not adequately explain the primary, initial source of what caused us to exist (although I've read some Stephen Hawking where he describes a 'fluctuation of the nothing' the source of the Big Bang) I feel like as the centuries have passed science has explained more and more, and perhaps will eventually discover how we could arise out of nothing.

I have a question though, to you seemingly well educated and rational followers. Do you hold the belief that at one time, there was a man actually walking on water, actually being ressurected from the dead, actually turning water into wine...that there was actually an impregnation without any male participant? These are scientific questions. As is the question as to whether we experience consciousness after we die. Do you believe there was a talking snake who deceived the first woman? Or do you hold these happenings as some type of metahpor? I just can't believe the world had magical, fantasy like qualities a mere 2000 years ago where it was roamed by men and women with much less intellectual development than we have today. I think the more likely answer is that these writings, and recordings of these happenings are askewed by the fact these people had an incomplete, perversive view of the world. When I was six I could swear that there were monsters under my bed, I could almost hear them at night. After some intellectual development, it's easy to see how the mind can play tricks on you...

One final question, do you guys deny evolution? I know this is in effect Religion vs. Aetheism 101, but the perspectives here seem rather refined and I am interested in hearing them. Evolution is something which, perhaps like the Big Bang, science was unable to explain, comprehend, articulate clearly until we had the proper resources to do so. If you deny evolution...how? And if you don't deny it, how do you take so earnestly the word of a book which seems to go against evolution's very essence? Thanks again.

Dan/Chris,

Interesting conversation - I'll try to take part tomorrow if I can.

Alex - not sure what you're after with Jared here but I don't think you two are going to get anywhere.

Chris,

Bill- I am not sure what is going on with you and Ryan. It almost seems like you are not able to follow your own comments on the subject. He references your own comment where you say "I am confused" then in your response you say that there is no confusion and want to drop the subject. Again, this is a forum where you can go back and re-read what you and others say. So now I am confused...

No need to be confused. This is silly.

Please, follow me one more time: I was confused by your reaction to Ryan's and my completely non-confusing discussion. He thinks my stance on a certain subject is shameful. I understand why he thinks that, and, from his perspective, I don't blame him for feeling that way. I am not confused.

What confused me was your response that somehow I owed him a simple apology, etc. But I offered one anyway.

I don't know how to satisfy you on this. I'm tired of talking about it, but if I have to do something else, I'll be glad to.

If you want to continue asking me about it, gently chiding me on my inability to read comment threads, ruminating on my lack of intelligence, please do. As far as I know, Ryan, while not satisfied with my basic beliefs, is satisfied that he's had his say, that I understand what he's saying, that I see his point, and that I disagree with it because I am a Theist and he is not.

All that being said. If I can satisfy you on this, I will, if only to move us off this topic :-)

I love circle jerks, personally. Just one of the many things the total lack of human decency and morality in my atheistic worldview permits me to do.

Finally - Chris, not to belabor this, but I just did go back and re-read your comments to see where you're coming from. The only thing I found was that you (rightly) thought I misrepresented what Ryan had said regarding my concern for people's physical needs. True enough. I thought I offered an apology for that way back in comment #56.

Again, Ryan, if you feel I need to apologize again, I'll be glad to.

Chris. Have I satisfied you?

Hi Ryan,

Thanks.

You wrote: "You said that your concern for someone's spiritual state is a 10/10, and their physical state is a 9.8 or so. That means, in effect, that you -do- care less about someone's body than their soul."

Well, that was a hypothetical. I then admitted that my concern on both counts is not as high as it should be. I don't claim 10 out of 10 concern for my fellow human beings on any account.

But perhaps this will help: we're talking about this incorrectly, I think. My concern for people's physical needs has actually heightened because I'm a believer in Jesus. That's a point I'd like you to consider.

Putting me aside (please! :-) If you conduct an objective assessment of charitable work in this world, you will find that a whole lot of good work aiding people's physical state is being done by people who are Christians. Why is that, do you think?

Regarding your feeling that your friends choice (and my words) are immoral. Something I'd like you to ponder: where do you get your basis for morality? Why do most humans have a moral sense? If we're really just atoms bouncing around, any thought of what's moral or immoral is resting on thin air, wouldn't you agree?

I appreciate your passion around this and I take your flabbergastedness toward what I've said in this thread seriously. I think your moral sense, as an atheist, is offended by people like me. But, again, my question is why? What are you basing this moral sense on? The most good to the most people? Ends justifying means? Utilitarianism? How do you define good?

Morality that is not based in an objective standard, such as the will of God, can get very dicey. Today it's "let's feed hungry people". Tomorrow it could be "kill the jews".

Finally, I urge you to read the gospels sometime and examine the character of Jesus. Matthew 9, for instance. Jesus' ministry was largely based upon concern for the poor and sick (and he got criticized for it). The Old Testament is filled with commands for justice for the poor, for care of widows and orphans, etc. He's a much better example to look at than me or anyone else.

Thanks Dan,

I agree that without a true Objective standard for morality, the standards you have written above are the best hope to build a livable world. I think it's a fairly remote hope, though. Look at societies throughout history - heck, take just the 20th century for example.

I posit to you a few things:

You wrote: "However, the more one neglects the desires of others to fulfill his own desires, the further he will get from actually attaining his desires."

Plenty of people live lives devoted only to their own well being and many of them do quite well.

The concern I have (and I think this has been demonstrated in history) is that without a true standard for the intrinsic value of each human being (again, if we're just clouds of atoms, why are we valuable), it's ultimately possible for the most well-meaning moralists to decide that the path to the greatest good is to, for instance, get rid of all the people who don't contribute to that. We are hurting our planet with overpopulation anyway, they might reason.

Why are people valuable?

You have, admirably, adopted some guards against that kind of thinking with your Kant and Rawls standards, among others. Guys like Stalin and Pol Pot didn't.

I believe that very few moral statements have been as earth shattering as this one: "Love your enemy". Which may be a statement made by an occultist :-) - but what a world that would be if we all followed that standard, eh?

So Bill, I believe morality can come from reason, from the constructs of the human mind

I agree. Although I think that the fact that there exist universal moral standards throughout history in the human race to be a curious phenomenon that the unbeliever should consider.

(in fact I believe it's the ONLY place it can rationally come from)

disagree. If there is a Creator, he created the human mind with the proclivity toward reason and moral thinking. As the tortured ponderer from Ecclesiastes declares, God has put eternity into man's heart.

and by considering these 5 moral values I have mentioned we can establish a rational morality. If the whole planet could follow this type of moral code and avoid occultism, we would have one hell of a planet :)

And if "ifs" and "buts" where fruits and nuts, we'd have Christmas every day.

(just pulling your chain :-). I would like to live in a world where everyone followed your moral code (except for the item you alluded to about people "avoiding occultism" - I mean, I don't support occultism either, but my guess is that you and I mean different things by that word and you're lumping all of us super-naturalist together there. I'd prefer not to be an enemy of the state - heh).

I think that without true heart-change and the transforming of the mind that comes through faith in Christ, that this code has a small chance of succeeding.

Here's the society that the early church created, shortly after Jesus' resurrection. More my speed!

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." - Acts 2:42-47

I'm enjoying the conversation. Have a great day

Dan, also, while I'm at it (and I'm trying to keep straight in my mind the various threads going on here), I'd like to respond to this portion of one of your questions.

Do you hold the belief that at one time, there was a man actually walking on water, actually being ressurected from the dead, actually turning water into wine...that there was actually an impregnation without any male participant? These are scientific questions.

Yes, I hold to all of that. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the resurrection is the lynchpin of Christianity. True, there are some who are satisfied with a "metaphorical" resurrection or "Jesus is alive as long as we follow his teachings" type of faith, but the Biblical authors themselves believed it was an actual occurrence. Paul said that if the resurrection didn't happen, our faith is in vain, we are still in our sins, and we are above all men the most to be pitied.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." - 2 Peter 1:16

They claimed to be eyewitnesses to it.

I just can't believe the world had magical, fantasy like qualities a mere 2000 years ago where it was roamed by men and women with much less intellectual development than we have today. I think the more likely answer is that these writings, and recordings of these happenings are askewed by the fact these people had an incomplete, perversive view of the world. When I was six I could swear that there were monsters under my bed, I could almost hear them at night. After some intellectual development, it's easy to see how the mind can play tricks on you...

Well, they certainly had the same intellectual capacities as we do. Your argument here is what has been termed "Chronological Snobbery" - the assumption that because people long ago had beliefs that differed from the common beliefs today they are, by definition, wrong.

Some of the most brilliant human beings that ever lived lived during this time. We still study their writings today, and many of our ideas (ideas on government, mathematics, philosophy, and morals) are based upon their intellectual foundations.

But, to your larger point - the world back then wasn't brimming with sprites and zephyrs and magic flutes any more than our world is. But there did seem to be a great deal of spiritual activity centered around, for instance, the incarnation of Jesus. More demon-possession than was normal, more miracles performed, etc. This is what we might expect if Jesus was God in the flesh. That kind of occurrence would certainly stir things up on the spiritual plane.

Assuming you can accept (and I realize you may not be able to) that miracles can happen and that, if that's the case, it wouldn't be beyond the pale of reason to assume the Son of God would perform some in his incarnation: the interesting aspect of the miracles of Jesus is that they weren't done for show. Half the time he seemed very assertive that the beneficiaries not spread abroad the miracle. Following the feeding of the five thousand he chastised those that were excited about this miracle bread-making to not look for bread that satisfies temporary hunger. The bread of the miracle was simply to point people to him. Read John 6 sometime. The people didn't like this, and many of his disciples left him. They wanted the show, and the benefits, and he wasn't going to satisfy that want. He was trying to help them understand that the real answer was he, himself, not the spectacle.

The pharisees sought a sign from him (as did Herod and others). He told them that the only sign he would give them was the sign of Jonah - that one buried for three days would rise again. And there were plenty of skeptics in his day as well. The Sadducees opposed him, in part, because he taught the resurrection of the dead and they did not believe in a resurrection. The Romans, though they had a pantheon themselves, were mostly concerned with power and domination. They nailed him up because they were convinced by the jewish authorities that Jesus was stirring things up - and nailing people up was the way they demonstrated what happened when you challenged Rome. It was what they did to people who challenged the lordship of Caesar, not because Jesus performed miracles or taught people to love their enemies.

Sorry that I'm jumping around to different questions. There's so much I could pull from what you wrote to discuss, but I'm having to pick my spots as I am just able to jump into the conversation periodically today.

First of all, I want to apologize for my previous ass-less chaps comment. I was merely trying to stick a little humor into the conversation, but if I came off sounding snarky or condescending, that wasn't the intent.

Anyway, to the fun stuff:

Bill said:

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the resurrection is the lynchpin of Christianity. True, there are some who are satisfied with a "metaphorical" resurrection or "Jesus is alive as long as we follow his teachings" type of faith, but the Biblical authors themselves believed it was an actual occurrence.

The problem with this is that the Gospels were actually written DECADES after Jesus' life. I don't know whether Jesus the human existed or not (I'm leaning more toward his existence than not), but it seems awfully strange for the apostles to wait thirty years before writing everything about the resurrection down. Plus, that time gap raises a lot of questions about the accuracy of the Gospels, along with the question of what the early church looked like between the time Jesus died (or was resurrected) and Paul started writing.

Add on to that the fact that almost EVERYTHING written in the Bible is unverifiable. Bill, you quote a lot of scripture, but that scripture doesn't hold any weight for me because I don't believe the Bible is infallible. In the first place, back before the printing press scribes had to copy books word for word, by hand. One scribe makes a single error, and that error will be repeated in every subsequent edition, unless somebody went all the way back to the original text to cross-check. What happens when 2,000 (heck, even 100) years go by and the original is no longer readily available? Plus, the Bible has been through so many translations, editorial changes, committees, and reformations that it's impossible to keep count; and guess what, all of these edits and translations were done by humans, who usually ulterior motives. Does a particular passage not jive with a council's beliefs? Take it out, substitute it, or use a slightly different translation! There are several examples of this being done (for example, why do Catholics use the Apocrypha? Why is there no gospel of Judas in the present Bible, though there was at some point?).

Finally, the Bible uses circular logic to back up its claims. It says that it is the holy word of God. The Quran, the Bhagavad-Gita, almost all the other holy books also say they are the holy word of God. I assume you don't take these books' word for it. So why should you take the Bible's word for its own infallibility? If someone makes a claim, there needs to be evidence for it: the claim itself can't count as evidence.

There are many other issues with the Bible's accuracy, so many that I can't in good faith view it as the holy word of God. Even if you believe its validity, it contradicts its own message in more ways than one. The four current gospels' accounts of Jesus don't even match up with one another (check out NPR's interview with Bart Ehrman for more on this). And if you can't trust the Bible, how can you trust any information that comes out of it?

I know this is a long post, but I hope this gives you a halfway decent idea of where many atheists are coming from, and why scriptural evidence doesn't really do it for us.

Bird:

About the Gospel of Judas, it seems a lot of erroneous rewritten church history has popped up since Dan Brown started to get popular. That "gospel" was never a part of canonical scripture.

I haven't read any Dan Brown books, and whether or not it was a canonical gospel more proves my point than defeats it. What made the Judas' "gospel" less permissible than Matthew's? Or Mark's? Or Peter's? That sounds like humans deciding what's God's word and what's not. How do you (or how did they) tell the difference?

Bird:

If observable, real-time verification is what you need to believe anything, there's no point in trusting any history written by anyone, even modern history, since practically the totality of human understanding is based on believing what others tell us to be true.

You're right, most history is based on accounts by scholars who weren't there. However, there are at least two differences between the Bible and history:

1)History does not make any claims of being holy or infallible: it's open to be proven wrong. It is subject to the burden of proof. Scholars can argue differing opinions, using outside evidence to support their claims. The Bible, on the other hand, claims that it is "the truth:" typically, it's not open for discussion. Certainly theologians debate about it all the time (which also begs the question: if there are so many differing opinions about this supposedly obvious Truth, which one is right?), but most of these discussions are based on what the Bible says, rather than whether or not the Bible is true.

2)History does not attempt to pass moral judgment or change the way people live their lives. It does not proscribe a system of rules for people to follow. It simply provides the facts as we understand them at this point. The Bible, on the other hand, attempts to bully people into living the way it prescribes: those that don't will supposedly burn in Hell forever. Therefore, I would argue that confirming the Bible should require a higher level of rigidity than confirming history, if only because it imposes a certain lifestyle on everyone. Wouldn't you want to know whether or not your entire lifestyle was based on something factual and real?

Bryan,

Just saw your latest post. Regarding items like the Gospel of Judas - that's a large topic and I'm not anywhere near an authority. But I do know there are big differences between the canonical gospels and the ones you're referring to. One test was how close in time they were written to the life of Jesus. You have a problem with Matthew having been written several decades after Jesus life on earth. The Gospel of Judas can probably be dated no earlier than the second century, and it's highly doubtful it was written by Judas.

The story of the canon is a long and complex one. Worth digging into - your mileage may vary with what you hear from us here, since none of us are experts. But there are Christian scholars that are.

Thanks for the post, Bill. I really appreciate the candor; I don't expect anyone on here to be a Biblical scholar (I'm certainly not), but I feel like it still requires a burden of proof, just like other things we accept as "fact."

Also, I just want to say that I HAVE read the Bible (ok, the entire New Testament and probably 3/4 of the Old Testament). I was a Christian until about a year and a half ago. I was seriously considering going to seminary just after high school, but went into a different field instead. Yes, the Bible says you should love your enemies. But the Bible also says that you should stone adulteresses, that you can own slaves as long as you don't hurt them too much, and many other things that modern society (and even the modern church) would be appalled at.

And I understand about the "Old Testament being about how nobody can possibly live up to the laws, thus proving the necessity of Jesus" argument. But didn't Jesus also say he came to fulfill the Old Testament law, not abolish it? And what caused this big change in God between the Old and New? He goes from being a vengeful, jealous god who slaughters Canaanites en masse to a benevolent, loving god who supposedly cares about people yet sends them to Hell on a regular basis. What gives?

This comment has already run way longer than I intended it to, so I'll stop here. Whew! I need to back off this comment board for a while, let my fingers rest :)

What made the Judas' "gospel" less permissible than Matthew's? Or Mark's? Or Peter's? That sounds like humans deciding what's God's word and what's not. How do you (or how did they) tell the difference?

Bryan,

You seem to be a very intelligent guy. I suspect you may know a bit about how the canon came into being? True, some non-canonical books were used by various Christians until the current NT canon was recognized, but that was to be expected with so many writings floating about. In short, those writings did not ultimately pass the test of apostolic authority in the early church, and were never universally recognized.

The Bible, on the other hand, claims that it is "the truth:" typically, it's not open for discussion.

The Bible certainly proclaims the truth. Namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even secular scholars like John Dominic Crossan concede that something profound happened in the first century, revolving around one Jesus of Nazareth and His followers' claims about His resurrection. Crossan's explanation? Mass hallucinations. In light of the history of the rapid spread of the Christian faith, often in the face of adversity and death, Crossan's worldview can't offer any other explanation. (See The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue.) At least he's true to his paradigm.

The Bible, on the other hand, attempts to bully people into living the way it prescribes

That's a misunderstanding of the heart of the Bible, the Gospel. But we can agree to disagree. :-)

Just an afterthought, this is how I kind of see the occult morality vs. rational morality picture (I do realize there are many different interpretations of 'occult', but the dictionary captures what I was going after. Occult: Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena . 2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension)

Occult Morality
1.Requires us to accept implausible, metaphysical baggage

2.Incompatible with natural, modern science

3.Huge diversity of belief systems with no normative core

Rational Morality
1.No metaphysical baggage

2.Compatible and supported by natural science

3.Interelated family of moral approaches that show a common, normative core

These are more so objective, factual claims...one would think. Maybe you see it differenly though?

Bill:

The Law of the Jungle would seem more consistent, but my guess is that I'm misunderstanding what you're assertion is.

The "Law of the Jungle" or "survival of the fittest" is a fairly popular misconception about the core concepts of evolution. Yes, according to Darwin, only the strongest species survive, but the key word here is species; the strongest species or groups survive, not the strongest individual. This is where an evolutionary explanation of "rational morality" comes in. It benefits humankind when we share resources, treat each other with respect and kindness, swap ideas, defend each other, so on and so forth. There's much more complexity to the concept, but I'm not a scientist or a sociologist.

As far as the natural world goes, that was one of my last hang-ups for God: "this world is so beautiful and precise, how could it have come from nothing?" First of all, I later discovered the Big Bang is not "something from nothing." But regardless of that, I don't reject the possibility of a God. There's just too much we humans don't understand about the Earth, let alone the vast universe and its origins, to completely discount the possibility. However, I feel that the Christian God (and Allah, and Shiva, and Zeus, and whoever else) is not the answer. In my opinion, He's another myth created to explain things that originally could not be explained. In fact, the universe is SO BIG that it almost seems madness for the god who created it to be concerned with the day to day functions of one species on one planet's (out of billions) surface.

That said, if your faith is strong, and your belief in Christ helps you to do good things and gives your life purpose, then so be it. You are 100% welcome to your own ideas and beliefs. Just don't let it influence your judgments of other people or use it to define the way people who don't share your beliefs should act (not saying that YOU specifically do this, but this is a common theme in Christianity).

Yes I don't have time this morning either, but again - good stuff. Very interesting for me to read. I'd be interested to know what in fact the common age is around this forum (or I guess specifically this thread)? This is much more sophisticated dialogue I have with my friends/peers, so I imagine that I may be slightly out of my league. I'm 22, but hopefully that doesn't immediately invalidate my opinions. Maybe it's nice to get a somewhat unrefined, unmoulded, curious perspective on the matter?

And Bill, that's cool you're a programmer! I'm taking my first computer science classes - I find them very enjoyable.

Unfortunately, religion usually seeks to impose its standards on people who don't put stock in those standards in the first place.

I'd say that's a human trait overall, and not unique to religion.

Bryan,

We're stepping into an area that usually ends up pretty unfruitful. And I don't want to appear to be making any excuses for horrible things done in God's name, because I'm not.

But I'm often amazed this argument comes up from atheists, in light of the 20th century. Just count the hundreds of millions of people who were killed by atheistic regimes in the Soviet Union and China. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (because I'm sure Marx and Engel had good intentions). Holy cow, what a horrible century. Do you think Stalin or Mao paid any attention to "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in their attempts to build the communist paradise?

As a very, very side note: I was kind of smiling at the McCarthy/Red Scare thing - I didn't realize that was something perpretated by Christianity. Plus, any negative effects of that pale into insignificance compared to what went on the rest of the century. And, no, I'm not defending McCarthyism or the Red Scare ;-)

Okay, so I'm not completely up on blog etiquette, but is it okay if I jump in this late in the game?

Bill asked back at #75:

But I would be interested in your story. What caused you to lose your faith?

This word "lose" troubles me. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to nitpick and take offense, but the words we choose say a lot about our understanding of the things we are talking about. When Christians talk about those of us who, for whatever reason, no longer identify ourselves as Christians, they almost exclusively use this word, "lose." It connotates an involuntary action, something which the subject would change if she or he could. Why must it be assumed that my lack of faith, the change I have undergone, was not of my own choosing? Why must it be assumed that I was deceived? I am trying very hard not to find assertions like this insulting to my intelligence (perhaps because at the place in my journey where I am now, I highly value rationality and clarity). I do not feel that I have lost anything. Rather, I feel that I have gradually (yes, gradually...this process has been going on for about five years now) been awakening to the mystery and complexity that truth really is, and I don't feel that Christianity alone can encompass it. Why is my honest pursuit of truth labeled as a loss? I suppose what I'm really asking for is not so much an answer, but understanding. I'm looking for a Christian to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am perhaps better off, as a whole person, now that I have taken personal responsibility for my life and my beliefs. To be honest, I do hope that someday I can once again call myself a Christian while honestly pursuing truth, because I do value the community and human connection that religion offers. But, similar to what Dan has expressed before me, if I am honest with my rationality I cannot at this point be a believer. Why is that honesty a loss? Anyone's response?

Also, the thing about Christianity I have found most damaging is this emphasis on self-degradation. I have read it a few times in this thread. As one example, Bill said earlier (emphasis mine):

The Bible is about restoring a relationship with God, and becoming beings that line up with what he created us to be - perfect and sinless (and none of us are there yet. I'm nowhere close), and hell is separation from him forever.

I'm not trying to pick on Bill exclusively, this is just the one that I found first scrolling back up. I hear this theme over and over: "I'm sinful, I'm dirt, I'm nothing, I'm no better than the worms" etc. I used to do it myself, because the Bible and my Christian culture encouraged it (incidentally, it fed my depression fiercely). What purpose does this serve, in your view? (I really respect the intelligent answers I've been seeing here, so that's why I'm throwing this out there.) I can find nothing but harm in it. If a person was saying this to another person, it would be called abuse. If a person says this to herself, it is a psychological disorder. Why, then, should Christianity tell us this, if it really has our best interest at heart?

I hope I haven't spoken inappropriately, but because of the spirit of this honest, thoughtful, and respectful conversation, I hope that we can discuss these things too...many of the Christians I know wouldn't be open to discussion like this. This is refreshing for me.

Chris, thanks for the response, and I agree that my wording was lazy. My apologies.

Wish I had more time. Will try to write more later.

Dan,

Isn't it much worse when Christians who preach "Thou Shall Not Kill" go Crusading and kill thousands? In God's name...I don't know what could be worse than that?

I don't either.

I need to correct comment #90 - I wrote:

Chris, thanks for the response, and I agree that my wording was lazy. My apologies.

I meant to say "Cheri", not "Chris". Just got confused. Sorry.

Callie - I don't have an answer for you, other than the one in your last paragraph. Jesus. And I don't mean that to be glib. Your story is heartbreaking, and I am not (ever) going to defend abuse in the church. Jesus didn't defend it either, as you know. He was all over the religious leaders of his time, and he wept over the sheep of Israel who were without shepherds. He is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep, and he loves you beyond reckoning.

The Bible, both Old and New, brims with condemnation for religious abusers and hypocrites, for false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing.

Someone earlier commented on the negative view Christians like me express about human nature, our own sinfulness, etc. Well, this is one reason why. People are broken and fallen and the heart is desperately evil.

I'm reminded of this:
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
- John 2:23-25 (ESV)

Jesus knows what's in us. It's profound to me that he did not entrust himself to the people who ostensibly believed in him. He knew the shallow and fickle nature of human belief.

Do I hope that you make peace with the church someday, and - most importantly - that your on again/off again faith in Jesus is restored to something strong, constant, joyful, and healthy? Yes. Beyond what I can express. There is a remnant of true Christians who love as Christ loved, who live like a body, in honor giving preference to one another, forgiving one another, healing one another. I pray that you will find yourself in fellowship with them one day soon.

I am in a healthy community of believers. I have many friends who are as well, in other churches. While no community is perfect, for some reason I've been spared what you've endured. I've seen the church surround my hurting friends in love and support. And it's not like things don't happen. Our church had a pastor resign because he had an affair with a church member (this was some years ago). We've been through some tough times. I have friends who are pastors of small, struggling churches and that can be an amazing trial. But to me its a beautiful thing to see. The Bride is beautiful. It hurts to think you haven't been able to experience that.

Thanks for commenting.

Bill, you say:

People are broken and fallen and the heart is desperately evil.

I'm sorry, but I must vehemently disagree. I have never met someone who is truly evil, and I doubt you have met many. The overwhelming majority of people I have ever met are just trying to do the best they can with what they have, with the way they understand the world. Yes, we often cause each other tremendous pain, out of selfishness or out of ignorance, but rarely do I believe this is actually caused by evil motives. Most of the time it comes out of our own pain that we have not dealt with; and how can we deal with our injuries when we're busy telling ourselves what awful people we are?

Not to deny that there is evil in the world, that is obvious. Perhaps some people are completely and purely evil, but I think that is philosophically questionable as well (Reading Crime and Punishment changed my view that there is a clear line between good and evil). And perhaps this term "evil" is ill-defined. I tend to think of it as more of a force in the world than something that can be attributed to a person's nature, so I balk at its use to describe people who are simply human and out of (still inexcusable) selfishness and ignorance hurt others. This is not evil. This is humanity in relation.

Bill, thanks for your response! Very thoughtful and gracious. :)

I see that we have more in common than not, and that is encouraging to me. We may name our worlds in different ways and interpret through different frameworks, but there is an undercurrent of hopefulness and care and respect for people. That you find your inspiration for this in Christianity is wonderful and fully legitimate; I hope you don't think I'm denying that. I wonder if your interpretation of Christianity, what it means for you, allows you to grant legitimacy to my faith in my honest pursuit of truth as well? Many Christians wouldn't—I was one of them once. Not that I'm trying to require that of you, I have neither the right nor the power to do that of course. I'm just curious.

Bill,

Thanks for engaging with me on this. I feel good about the things that have been shared and the relation that is experienced when people really hear each other. Though of course I'm still working out truth as well, I have a suspicion that this kind of relation is a huge part of it.

And, if I may say it, I feel very edified. ;)