Neon Genesis

It's a fiction book but it's surprisingly been pretty popular with the Christians at my parents' fundamentalist church: The Shack by William Young.

 

My other suggestion is that if someones opposes abortion then step up to the delivery room and take responsibility for raising the child. Make them a wanted child and take them home. When there is no need for a Foster Child Care System then lets talk about abortions.

 

Dutch

I've had warts removed too. It's called zit removal.

This post is flagged as not appropriate. Posters position on this subject has already been stated and this remark adds nothing to the conversation for this forum when considering Tea's post above it . Neon will not be posting for 7 days.

JosephM (as Moderator)

I thoght Richard Carrier was also a trained scholar and mythicist?

I think we should focus on getting more liberals and moderate Republicans elected into office instead of trying to create a third party who could be just as easily lead into corruption once they become elected like any other party can be. I think the problem lies with the candidates we elect and not the party system. A third party just seems redudant to me. My thoughts on Obama is that I voted for him both in the primaries and in the national elections because I wanted somebody different in office besides the Clintons and the Bushes and I liked a lot of the poliicies he was promoting while running.

I'm a lot more critical of Obama's policies now and I wish he would be more principaled in his beliefs, but I don't regret voting for him and I'll probably vote for him again this time unless somebody more liberal comes along. But I'm pleased with Obama's health care reform even though I think he could have went further and he's probably the most gay-friendly president we've ever had and he's done lots of progressive things for gay rights, like passing the Matthew Shepard Act which would make killing somebody for their sexuality a hate crime and repealing DADT and also no longer defending DOMA. I wish Obama would hurry up and "evolve" his beliefs on gay marriage already, but I understand he's in a critical position now of trying to win the next election and not wanting to jepordarsize his chances by making controversial stances before the election though I think coming out in support of gay marriage would be a big energy boost to the Democrats to get out and vote if he did come out in support of it.

Does Ehrman address the Christ myth arguments of Robert Price in his new book, George? Although I don't agree with his conclusions, I have a great deal of respect for Robert Price and his vast amount of knowledge about the bible and I think he's the only one who's made the most convincing argument in favor of the Christ Myth theory. But I think his argument still has some flaws in it and I would be curious to see what Ehrman thinks of Robert Price and his multiple messiah hypothesis.

I find it ironic that the same right wing politicians who try to use the bible to force their religious extremism on everyone else accuse Obama of being a secret Marxist radical leftist for his support of health care reform and the health care mandate yet Obama has stated himself that his support for health care reform comes from his belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Obama's comments about the teachings of Jesus remind me a lot of what Marcus Borg has said in his books about how the teachings of Jesus call Christians to participate in radical social justice: http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-i-pushed-dodd-frank-and-health-care-reform

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'"

"I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato," Obama added.

The president said he often falls to his knees in prayer, and emphasized the role of his religious values in determining where to lead the country.

"I’d be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends. So instead, I must try — imperfectly, but I must try — to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation."

Obama maintained that his call for the wealthiest to give up their tax breaks, he's doing so out of economic necessity, but also in line with biblical teachings.

"And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,'" Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing.

Obama also defended foreign aid from assault, noting that it not just enhances the nation's security — but fulfills the biblical requirement to look out for those who cannot speak for themselves.

"And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.'"

It seems like we don't really discuss current events here as much as we do politics in the abstract so I thought it would be interesting to see what everyone here thought about President Obama, particularly in regard to his religious beliefs and how he stands in the progressive Christian community. You have some people who think Obama is a far left ultra liberal communist who is trying to take away our religious freedoms. Then you have other people who like Obama but think he could be a little more progressive and more principled in his beliefs and then you have the cynics who think Obama's policies are no different than George H.W. Bush's were. Where do you stand on this? Do you like Obama or hate him? Do you think he's the most progressive Christian president we've ever had or do you think there's someone who could do the job better? Will you be voting for him or for somebody else in the elections this year?

But if the study showed the opposite results and showed a positive result for prayer on health, Christians would be jumping all over it and trumpeting it to the skies as proof of God's existence and would suddenly change their mind on science and objective proof. Relativism is only popular in religious circles right now because there's no proof on the theistic side.

 

 

And you cannot put God in a science lab.

Considering the fact that God created the universe, you can't confine Him to it and it's laws.

Fraud in itself doesn't disprove faith healing yet neither does sincere belief prove it as it is possible to be sincere in your belief and be mistaken at the same time. Creationists sincerely believe the book of Genesis is a literal scientific account of the origins of the universe and that doesn't make them right and evolution wrong just because they sincerely believe it nor does that mean they should be protected from criticism just because they're sincere in their mistaken position. But if you go through years of scientific research and extraordinary claims and the best you have is either frauds or some "inward" placebo effect healing, shouldn't that make you at least a little bit skeptical?

It's not arrogance; it's the truth that the church throughout history has tried to hide criticism of the bible from its flock through censorship and fear mongering and have discouraged Christians from reading anything not written by a bible believing Christian. In one of his books, Ehrman relates a story about a lady at a church he gave a lecture at once and the lady told Ehrman she was upset not by what Ehrman said but she was upset that the church never told her anything about mainstream biblical scholarship. Bishop Spong has described encountering this problem of ignorance among the flock in several of his books. In any case, Bishop Spong has given his support of Ehrman and his books but some people think any non-believer challening the church is being "arrogant" no matter how mild their critique is.

I also find it interesting that the modern day concept of faith healers doesn't match up with how they're portrayed in the bible. In the bible, the only ones who could pass down the ability to faith heal were the original apostles and while the disciples they baptized could perform faith healings, they couldn't pass the power down themselves to another person. Since the original apostles are all dead now and only the original apostles could pass the power to faith heal down to others, if modern day faith healers really performing miracles, where did they get their power from?

The amputated arm aimless looking for an elbow to lean on is an incomplete challenge in the world of process thought. Process thought sees that all things, from atoms and cells to humans, are related externally and internally. There is the external world which is what we refer to as objective and there is an internal world, which we call subjective. In a process approach to faith healing the reports of those who have experienced such healing are evidence to be considered not demeaned.

 

Dutch

Neon,

 

I glanced through the thread and found no "inflammatory accusations." Maybe a specific quote would be useful to make your point.

 

George

In my opinion we stand at great risk today because the secular -- while endorsing the highest moral values -- has a tendency to undermine the very rationale for the morality it endorses. Why this tendency? Because of a metaphysics of nihilism. Nihilism and morality make awkward bedfellows. Not that secularism necessarily entails nihilism. Just that we live at a time when the metaphysics most closely under girding secular movements are nihilistic. How many secular people today would have written anything like what Jefferson wrote? From what metaphysical basis would they derive their course of action against oppressors? Whence the narrative of the good and evil?

Faith healers make all sorts of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence of being able to cure everything from arthritis to cancer yet there's not a single account of a faith healer ever healing an amputee. If faith healers are really performing miracles yet never heal amputees, either God must have something against amputees or more likely the faith healers are full of it.

Jesus does still heal people, I have witnessed it.

 

Someone close to me was experiencing a narcotic withdrawal, and was shaking and crying and in extreme pain because of it. I laid my hands on them and prayed to God in Jesus' name for their pain to stop, I prayed for awhile, and then all of a sudden they stopped shaking. Their fever left, and they told me later that they had felt a supernatural warmth come over them, a peace that can't be explained. And they were able to rest and get some sleep.

 

One thing I've noticed though is that as society has become more modernized, the miracle claims of the faithful have become less sensationalized in the process. Like in the pre-scientific era of ancient times, you had all these fantasitical miracles that would completely revolutionize the way we think about reality if they were true, like Moses parting the Sea of Reeds or Jesus walking on water and bringing a dead man back to life after being in the tomb for several days. But now that society has become more advanced and modernized, we get less specatucular and frankly rather disappointing miracle claims like "God cured my artharitis that none of my other doctors could" or "I had a hallunication about Jesus and a shining light while I was on the operating table" or something. But you never hear anyone claim that they can raise someone from that was dead and in the grave for three days anymore and you never see anyone claim they can part the Atlantic ocean anymore.

All I'll say is if he was healed by a miracle from God, the miracle had nothing to do with any preachers. If miracles do exist, they come from God, not preachers.

I also think faith healing can be very dangerous to both a person's health and faith. It can damage your health by encouraging Chrisitans to hate science and doctors in favor of false promises when they might really need to see a doctor for their health. And it can damage a Christians' faith by placing a blame the victim mentality on the believer by teaching that if you're sick and not miraculous healed, then it's because you don't have enough faith and God must be punishing you for not really believing enough. Besides which, if God performs miracles, why do you need to turn to a preacher to be healed? Couldn't you just pray to God yourself for a miracle instead of being required to pay a so-called love "offering" to be healed? Aren't faith healers essentailly turning prayers into a commodity to sell, as if you can somehow buy God's love? What makes faith healers' prayers somehow more special than any other Christians' prayers? I thought Jesus was supposed to be the only priest that intercedes on Christians' behalf according to the bible?

Ask a faith healer to regrow an amputee's arm without the aid of any science at all and then I'll believe they're authentic.

My question is, how can we describe our brand of Christianity to people who may call themselves Antitheists? Some of them are quite hostile to religion, but especially to Christianity, and not completely without good reason, I think. How would you describe your take on Christianity to an Antitheist or New Athesist? I'm not asking in the name of conversion, but in dialogue and possibly healing and friendship. This is something that has challenged me for a long time.

 

And if I have any of my facts wrong, feel free to set me straight.

1. Don't start the discussion assuming atheists have no standard for their morality. This topic has been debated to death already and you can find tons of youtube videos on the subject if you really want to know and they'll just think you were a bigot for even thinking it.

2. Don't try to blame atheism as being responbsible for Stalin and Hitler. Again, this topic has been debated to death all ready and you'll come across a bigot for saying it and they'll probably just ridicule you for it.

3. Do a search on youtube for Bill Maher's video "atheism is not a religion."

4. Don't try to compare Dawkins to the Crusades just because you think Dawkins is mean. Again, you'll just make yourself look like an embarrassment to Christianity and you won't be taken seriously.

5. Don't assume all atheists think exactly alike on every issue and listen to what other people have to say before you start preaching.

6. If you think you have a surefire argument that really truly proves the existence of God, chances are, they've already heard it.

7. Don't ever use Pascal's Wager.

8. Try actually reading the books of the New Atheists all the way through first before you actually start ranting about them. Speaking as someone who does not always agree with the New Atheists on every subject, my biggest pet peeve when Christians try to "respond" to them is that the vast majority of them have clearly never read their books and are just repeating stuff they heard their preacher say about them or they're just responding to cherry picked quotes in news articles without actually reading the whole thing. If you can read the entire bible in spite of all the fire and brimstone and bloody genocidal passages and still find some good in it, surely actually reading The God Delusion before you discuss it isn't going to hurt you.

I feel a bit bad for having spoken in this so brashly about the history of the Catholic church...from what is a perspective apart ffrom the experience of those of Catholic back ground...they may see it differently, and I meant to offense to them. That the Church has done such things does not confer guilt by association upon any that have been brought up in or themselves Catholic. Catholics, too, have surely had to wrestle with these questions.

Yes, some insight from a perspective closer to Catholicism would help.

 

Jenell

Isn't it based on the story of Onan?

Two more PC books I have to add to this list: Beyond Belief: The Gospel of Thomas also by Elaine Pagels and Paul Among The People by Sarah Ruden.