Big Think

Musycks on May 24, 2008, 7:44 PM

Not sure that ascibing a euphemistic sex act descriptor to Xtianity is useful? it’s certainly succinct.
and not that I’m keen to defend much about Xtianity, it is not resposible for all the ills of the world.. but it’s as useless in the face of greed and self interest as every other system.

Denys Artasevych on May 24, 2008, 8:17 PM

Christianity is plenty flawd true enough, hardlly anything good came from the belief system. But its just like any other dogmatic faith, islam is probablly even worse. And judeism is what started all these faiths.

And in modern time christianity is one of the more reformed faiths. I would probably go after the even more dogmatic and violent Islam first. Though by no means am i a supporter of cristianity i just think your attak is a bit to focused on a single religion.

dennis ilic on May 24, 2008, 10:24 PM

T.V. is the root of all evil.

pokój! on May 25, 2008, 1:36 AM

Christianity is evolving as well…

“hardlly anything good came from the belief system”
I would say hardly anything good that has been documented as well as the ills… but not for the wrong reasons…

pokój! on May 25, 2008, 1:44 AM

Or at least separating itself from its past and returning to its roots to try again…

Big Thinker on May 27, 2008, 2:53 PM

Dear All,

We don’t permit profane language on Big Think. So, we have edited the use of it in this idea’s title. If user dgoodness feels that it no longer is representative, he is free to delete it. We do appreciate your contributions!
Many thanks

Musycks on May 27, 2008, 7:22 PM

RO… I second that emotion!!

Luke Allen on May 29, 2008, 9:44 PM

Well I, from the looks of it, will be the first openly Christian to post here.If that admittance doesn’t cause you to scorn my points any misspellings or incorrect grammer quickly might.

I am asking for a brief open mind against these untopical debate tactics, and hoping that any dialogue will not be off topic and you choose to debate with my ideas and points and not my grammer or your perception of my intelligence. I hope specifically, to connect in dialogue with Roakes. Roakes, you seem to be intelligent and considerate and that is something rare from both our communities. Atheist and Christians have for too long, in my opinion, held each other as enemies.

I concede my camp started the war by attempting to hang your camp as heretics, however, today’s society seems, from my perspective, to be mostly fought against Christianity. Do you disagree Roakes? Why or why not?

Today’s Christians (still there are plenty of crazies on our side but the majority.) know the #1 cause of atheism in America is Christianity and its followers. My favorite Christian book is titled: “Lord Protect Us From Your Followers subtitled: Why is the Gospel of Love Dividing America?” Meaning I am well aware of our faults. This does not mean that someone like Rick Warren (Who gives more money and time to Africa than most countries!) Or a genius like Dr. Francis Collins should be debased and thrown into the “Christians that don’t contribute to society camp”. Which since the author of this post doesn’t specify anything different it would make their obvious contributions to society no contributions at all. This confuses me; Do most atheist think Christians aren’t helping out with the world’s problems of poverty and crime? Are our missionaries that bring food and aid to the most destitute of place really not helping from the atheist perspective? If so, how come?

With any good comes bad. Even atheism suffers from this. I heard a political commentator state: Stalin may one day be considered the worse killer of all time: He clung to an atheistic government. The Dalai Llama can’t talk and his people are treated like second class citzen’s because of atheist china. Mr. Roakes I would not hold you responsible or claim atheist responsible for such horrendous atrocities because a few in your group commit these acts. So my question is how come people will lump all of us Christians together like the author of this post does? How come it is ok to say Christianity is the worse part of America, when I would say hungry children are? I don’t know any Christian’s that don’t try to feed the homeless or help the hurt; our whole doctrince is based upon helping those in need. I understand our modern day Pharisee mess things up for how we appear; but the vast majority of Christians are good people trying to help each other. What is wrong with that doctrine? One could argue that help is in and of itself debasing, however, standing on the sidelines of Darfur would be worse right? Where do you stand on the Darfur issue Roakes? Is the Christian aid there helping or in someway perpetuating “white power”?

I’ve been reading and studying these debate for a long time and am thoroughly confused as to the extremist on both sides. Anytime I have attempted open dialogue with anyone not Christian on any other site it always turns into name calling and bashing. Not by me the “evil” Christian by the way. I simply can not disrespect atheist’s or anyone else holding different belief’s than my own because my God, Jesus, doesn’t allow it.

With that long winded introduction out of the way, this is just an open question to all atheist:(but I would love the opinion of Roakes particularly) Because the law of thermodynamics specifically states that energy can never be destroyed, where do atheist believe our energy goes at the end of our lives? And how did we conceive of eternity if our short human live’s are all there is? Where did the concept for the word even come from? Any answer is appreciated since this is pure speculative thinking I don’t expect to debate or hear any “wrong” responses I’m just curious to how the atheist mind answers these fundamental human questions.

Thanks for your time guys and please know not all Christians are dumb and some have made VERY measurably valuable contributions to society both currently and in the past.

Denys Artasevych on May 30, 2008, 12:48 AM

Interesting. I also am completlly against, this kind of agressive attack. its fine for us to criticize each others beliefs, but i think if the conversation is to be at all usefull or thought provoking, it must be respectfull.

Long post there Luke i will respond one point. Yes atheism much like any other belief system can be takent to far. As in the case of USSR, or china. When it is imposed, it becomes nothing short of an opresive belief system much like religion has been. But i guess its just the entire governemet system that is messed up, and they happen to have chosen atheism. But the country would work much the same if it had a state religion. Norway for instance, is mainlly an atheist culture, but by choise rather then state impiosed and they are runing just fine. It has to do with politics more then anything.

As often is pointed out by defenders of atheism. Stalin did not kill in the name of atheism.

So the problem with religion is that most of them come with dogma, and if a religion is prominent in a nation that dogma tends to be imposed. And atheism becomes a problem when it develops its own dogma. The only superiority is, its tough to kill in the name of nothing.

Pastor Jennifer on May 30, 2008, 2:50 PM

Dear Luke 84848:
I appreciate your efforts to engage in a meaningful dialog with the atheists. However, I do not agree with you about the benevolence of Rick Warren’s mission in Africa. He has expressed hatred every bit as mean-hearted as that of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

The Kampala Monitor reports:

Dr [Rick] Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. “We shall not tolerate this aspect at all,” Dr Warren said.


Warren was speaking in support of Ugandan Anglicans who intend to boycott the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, and this harsh rejection of tolerance for gays and lesbians may have serious consequences in a country where homosexuals face harrassment and and the threat of imprisonment.

Warren’s comment is of a piece with his support for Martin Ssempa, the Ugandan evangelist who has been a keynote speaker at a Warren conference, and who has received US global AIDS prevention funds. Ssempa wants to ensure that homosexuality remains illegal and that gays and lesbians are identified in the public mind as sexual abusers. Ssempa calls for media censorship against opposing views and the dismissal of dissenting academics, and last summer he organised a rally with the theme “A Call for Action on Behalf of the Victims of Homosexuality”, at which he railed against “molestation and sodomy.”
——-
So Luke, maybe you are a gay-basher because of your faith, or maybe you are a genuinely nice guy.
The Jesus I know never said a word of hatred against gays or lesbians and I doubt if he would condone the suppression and victimization of this part of humanity, and God’s creation that is, like it or not Luke, here to stay! If this is Rick Warrens plan for Africa to eradicate AIDS then its going to be more genocide. Sure you want that?

Luke Allen on May 30, 2008, 3:32 PM

Dear Pastor Jennifer,

No. Not at all do I support ANY discrimination against gays or lesbians. Actually the book I said was my favorite Christian book: Lord Protect Us From Your Followers the author Dan Merchant actually set up a confessional during a gay and lesbian pride event in Orgeon and confessed and apologized to any that wanted to come in. See, he acknowledges as I do as well Christians really have screwed up with the whole gay and lesbian community. However, my church Calvary Chapel Spring Valley in Las Vegas does not support or condone negative or hateful behavior to anyone.

With that being said: I do not doubt your position and think Mr. Warren would be wrong to state ANY hatred, however, I have a lot of things that are VERY wrong about myself. I can be too judgemental. I too often think I am right. I am not making enough or working hard enough to give as much as I should. Too often I have hurt those close to me etc. etc. Even with that being said I don’t think I am a bad dad, in fact almost all my friends think I am the best parent they know. I spend my life (as a massage therapist) working to give help and comfort to any and all. Therefore, I wouldn’t want to be judged by my bad points and I’d hope as a Pastor Jennifer you wouldn’t only report on Mr. Warren’s bad trait. He gives over 90% of his income (WHICH IS HUGE by the way) To developing and stabalizing the third world parts of Africa. However, much I disagree with his homosexual position I can not disagree with his work and efforts. Therefore, on balance I conclude, he is a great and honorable man. My whole point of my first post was to point out first: Yes Christians have messed up. Yes Atheist have messed up. Yes it is easy just to scream at each other but no that isn’t what I want to do. I want to engage in dialogue and be friendly with all not jump on the negative aspect of one’s beleif’s. I hope this clears up my position a bit as to why I would call someone who doesn’t share all my belief’s, great.

Dear Skeptic44

Thank you very much for your response. Again, I want to reiterate, however, I only pointed out the negative examples of atheist to show atheist could be judged the way some atheist judge Christians. I don’t do that at all and respect you for your position whatever it is.

Now I’ve never been to Norway personally but when I heard it was predominately atheist from you I questioned that because one of our minister’s talks about our Church’s great relationship with the Church in Norway. I googled Christianity in Norway and found this site www.reisenett.no/norway/facts/history/christianity.html in the article it claimed: “Per capita, Norway is among the countries in the world with the most active Christian population” Among other statements like praising its outreach and missionary work.

I’m sure that it may be exaggerated but do you think maybe your claim of “Norway for instance, is mainlly an atheist culture” might be slightly exaggerated as well? Again I don’t know, haven’t been there but am curious as to how far off both of our perceptions are of this culture. Do you live there? What was your backround information when you made that statement? This is why I want to engage in dialogue with Atheist. I am aware as a Christian most my information is bias towards that truth and I am truly interested in others perceptions. Thanks again Skeptic44 for your response and I look forward to your answers to the above questions.

Denys Artasevych on May 30, 2008, 4:31 PM

According to the most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2005,²

32% of Norwegian citizens responded that “they believe there is a God”.
47% answered that “they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force”.
17% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force

The survey is from the european comission. I guess the word would be abstract spiritual culture that seems to be the plurality. But still 64 % that dont belive in “god” and that is what i was refering to.

No, i live in the states. Originally im from Ukraine. There the outlook on god is similar, some people claim abstract beliefs. And some belive in god, but not to the point of starting to doubt science. I have never meat anybody there who took the bible literally.

About the stalin bit. I hate to resort to the argument of Hitchens, but i think he has something here. You dont kill in the name of atheism, some men are violent and what we call “wiked” by nature and they will do bad things, some happen to be atheists. But in order for kind loving people to do evil they need a strong belief in something.

Pastor Jennifer on May 30, 2008, 4:33 PM

Dear Luke:
I thank you for your response. I appreciate your humility and ability to accept your fallibility. The Christian admission that we are sinners is in secular terms an admission that we are all imperfect, we are all sometimes tempted by things we judge to be contrary to our morals. It is our obligation to strive beyond those things and evolve as human beings. We should all strive to become more than we are. And so we must condemn that which we know to be wrong. Rick Warren’s hatred of gays is just wrong wrong wrong! And I know you agree. But he has put people’s lives in danger in an active way… not just by passive ignorance. And this knowledge requires a radical assumption of responsibilty. It means speaking out against what is wrong. Luke, do it! Tell it like it is! Disown it! Change it! The Christian community has to stop sweeping this stuff under the rug and saying… ok, but he does really good stuff too in his defense. It’s not good enough when people’s lives are being threatened by fanatical biblical interpretations. Draw the line! Say ‘No Rick, it isn’t good enough!’
Luke I like you. But the Christian community needs to be held to a greater degree of accountability.
Peace.

Luke Allen on May 30, 2008, 5:10 PM

Dear Pastor Jennifer,

I believe I specifically noted that he was wrong for his belief in denouncing gays and lesbians. I don’t think that can in anyway be thought of as “sweeping under a rug.” What I am doing is showing that yes he is wrong there, but there are literally MILLIONS of life’s his money and efforts are saving. Malaria alone kills millions in Africa that in our western society we would never die from. There was a world report that Malaria only costs $0.25 to eradicate per individual, I know that Rick Warren has given millions to this cause. Drinking water is another common form of death there Mr. Warren works against. Admitting this doesn’t stop him from wanting to be better but not admitting these positive facts is sweeping under the rug his “good” aspects.

Meaning what I try to do is speak of both people’s good and bad and do not take in consideration just one faction of one person if I am going to reference them as great or not. Hitler was a vegatarian which is good for the enviroment, but I don’t mention that when I call him an evil man. The greatness of Mr. Warren is outweighed, in my opinion, by his flaw.

Dear Skeptic44

Maybe it is just what I think… but the stats you represented only 17% would be considered “atheist” as far as I know atheisism is defined by: “they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force” So I would conclude that spirituality is alive and well in Norway and that your original assumption: “Norway for instance, is mainlly an atheist culture” would be incorrect by your own statistics. Is this conclusion wrong? Or do you see my point?

Calling Roakes or any proclaimed atheist…
How does your mind answer these two questions.
1. Since the law of thermodynamics specifically implies energy CAN NOT ever be destroyed what happens to our energy when we die from your perspective?
2. How would your perspective answer the human ability to conceive of eternity? Nothing in our material live’s that I know of would even make this word conceivable without an eternal source. I recgonize this answer of my original question of how did we conceive of eternity is bias by Christianity so that is why I am asking from your perspective’s where we got the understanding to contemplate eternity?

Luke Allen on May 30, 2008, 6:05 PM

PS. Pastor Jennifer I like you to!… but the original post here is held up as proof that Christians get held up to an incredibly high standard!

Denys Artasevych on May 30, 2008, 6:35 PM

Luke

You are correct sir. That is why i rephraised, abstract spiritualist, culture. But still not a theist one.

I am an agnostic, but i am very non spiritual so i think i am qualified to answer these questions from the atheist point of view.

1. Energy that is present in our bodies does transfer into other forms and other beings. However there is nothing here that implies a soul or a reincarnation. Reaincarnation requires an identity, the energy that is present in us does not have an identity. Thus reaincarnation is not implied by energy thransfer. It is simplly a physical ocurence, nothing spiritual about it.

2. First, eternity does not implly a sourse, or a universal conciosness it simplly implies endlesness. Our conception of eternity comes from us deveoping into the knids of paterns the behavior ow which alows them to grasp logic and mathematics.It is logic that implies eternity. But eternity can not be proven with physical experimentation. And if it could be again there is nothin in eternity that implies a god.

Luke Allen on May 30, 2008, 7:46 PM

Hey Skeptic44,

Thanks for your response! I am sorry I missed the point of distinction in your previous point. I really am appreciative of how logically and honestly you answered the two questions. Would you consider this the standard answer to these questions from the atheist perspective? Also, you still are agnostic but don’t choose to be spiritual at all, how come? Is it purely relevance? Hmmm very interesting and again I look forward to your response.

Denys Artasevych on May 30, 2008, 10:34 PM

I would wager those would be the standart answers, from any atheist who is even supeficially versed in science and mathematics.

I am an agnostic not for spiritual reasons. I am an agnostice because skepticism and pure logic will not alow me to make an absolute claim discounting any kind of god.

I can discount certain conceptions of god due to logical pardox, but not all of them. And atop that the physical science does not disprove god. So there is no physical reason to make such an absolute claim. And if the physical disproved god, we can never be sure that what we experience as physical is true. (the matrix argument). I can not objectivelly prove that my coffe cup, you, or even me as i conveive myself are real. Thus anyone making an absolute claim, god definetlly exists, or definettly does not is making an unsubstantiated claim.

However since there is some logical evidence for gravity, my coffe cup, and you i mke the assumption that they are reall. Even though there may not be able to be proven completly. God on the other hand has no reall evidence to suport the assertion therefore, I rank certain conceptions of god on the same level as Santa Claus. He cant be disproven objectivelly either. So there is no reason to belive in god, but there is no logic that can absolutlley refute all formulations of a diety.

Musycks on May 30, 2008, 10:41 PM

PJ… Jesus said he was a supporter of the laws.. ‘I have come not to overturn the Laws of Moses, but to see them come to fulfillment’.. In the Laws it states that god ‘hates’ homosexual love between men.

Xtians can re-write all they like, but their own books seem pretty plain on this matter.

Pastor Jennifer on May 31, 2008, 5:33 AM

Dear musycks:
Not all Christians are fundamentalists that believe in the inerrancy of every word in the Bible. I think this is a mistake that radical atheists make. Things aren’t as black and white as Dawkins’ vitriol would have us believe. The situation is far more nuanced than the fundamentalist-atheists claim. If there is any hope for religion (and its not going to go away, so the atheists need to find a way to deal with it more constructively) it is to encourage the more enlightened open-minded ones to change it in positive ways. Enlightened theologists do not agree with the ‘God hates homosexuals’ thesis of the OT for example. And Luke is trying to meet me half way on this and I think the ingenuousness of his effort is worthy.

Pastor Jennifer on May 31, 2008, 6:31 AM

Dear Luke:
More for you about Rick Warren.
You seem to think he is an admirable fellow because of all the money he donates to Africa. Well, it isn’t his personal money is it? It’s the money he gets for the church from his congregation. And he benefits himself quite comfortably with a millionaire life-style paid for by his faithful.
That aside, let’s think about what he does in Africa… the PEACE initiative. The P in the acronym was originally formulated to stand for Plant more churches. Pastor Rick is at heart a dominionist not a compassionate altruist. He is serving an ideological ideal of establishing Christianity around the world in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ. Health and social services are to be based in churches. What ever happened to the good old American ideal of separation of church and state? The Red Cross in contrast helps people in need around the world without mixing it together with Christian prosleytism. That is genuine compassion and altruism.
Because Pastor Rick is immersed in his own dominionist ideology he misses the point. And I disagree that his attitude towards gays is peripheral to the ‘good works’ you believe he does. How can you determine where to draw the line? Oppress 10% of the population in order to save the remaining 90% for the Lord? What about 20% or 30% or 40% … when do you stop making apologies and looking the other way? At 0%. Nothing less. The same for secularists as for religionists, no exceptions. This is no moral litmus test for people of faith only. In Rwanda and Uganda, lives are at stake, from theocratically conceived governments, and that’s not a problem for Warren? Judge a tree by its fruit.
Peace.

Luke Allen on June 1, 2008, 12:18 AM

Hey Pastor Jenn,

Maybe I didn’t make the point of distinction very well but I am devoutly Christian. I believe Christ saved my soul and that through his blood I have eternal salvation. Therefore, proselytizing isn’t even remotely wrong from my perspective.

Furthermore, how is it even slightly an issue of seperation of church and state? We aren’t even talking about our state, and as far as I know, aid can come from any source it wants, one of my bones of contention with Atheist’s is for the affluence of the subculture the lack of charity in the group. I would love to see more Atheist organizations giving aid even though I am Christian, why would you care, as an Atheist, if Christian’s provide aid?

Is ure implication because it is from a church it is somehow wrong to give health and aid? My church gives food to the hungry and I they would much rather hear our Jesus with food then turn them away without food.

I draw the line simply, stating that one thinks one others behavior is wrong, isn’t remotely the same as genocide. The absurd connection is really far reaching. I think Muslim extremism is wrong; I would even give lectures against it but wouldn’t condone genocide of every Muslim extremist. Does that argument make sense? If Mr. Warren had a machete and was attempting to kill all homosexual then your point would be understood otherwise your point comes off to me as extreme.

Mr. Warren gives 90% of the income from his book that he wrote, (The Purpose Driven Life) brings in. Being that it was a multinational best seller that is a ton of cash and alot of folks not dying and I refuse to not state that when speaking about Mr. Warren.

The idea that the God hates the homosexual community bothers me. I don’t endorse it and I think it is wrong. However, I make so many statements anyone who reads them will find a few they think are wrong. I hope you won’t judge me by an opinion that is wrong like you judge Mr. Warren for his wrong idea.

Pastor Jennifer on June 1, 2008, 5:51 AM

Dear Luke:

Thanks for your comments.
I accept your assertion that Rick Warren contributes a large part of the income from his book to the PEACE initiative. I stand corrected, thank you.
(Could you tell me what his annual income is by the way? It would be interesting to compare it with some of the other mega-church leaders, like Copeland etc under the Greeley commitee’s microscope)

But that aside, there are two important points I want to make:

First, yes I am glad that people are receiving help, but I take exception to your assumption that it’s OK to combine charity with an underlying motivation of prosleytism.
That is called taking advantage of someone’s vulnerablity and desperation. In India they call such converts Rice-Christians, because they are not genuine Christians, just poor people in need of help.

Secondly, how do you manage to come to the conclusion that atheists are not charitable? No-one wants to live in a world without love, not even atheists! I think you are confusing the fact that they are not organized, as religionists are, into representative bodies, and therefore tend to appear invisible. Atheists often channel their efforts through secular organizations to help ameliorate the world’s ills because they don’t want to include the element of prosleytizing in their charitable acts. It is motivated by altruism and empathy, not for the furtherance of an ideology.

I support and uphold the American conception of separation of church and state, even in our activities abroad. It respects people’s rights for freedom of religious choice. Rick Warren’s PEACE initiative denies that human right. Therefore I am opposed to the way he is doing what he is doing. And I reiterate that it is utterly immoral for Warren to promote the suppression of minority groups by denying their human rights, and possibly their lives, by using his personal influence on Rwanda and Uganda’s political leadership. Wrong wrong wrong! It is not a preposterous assertion but very real.

I am relying upon the moderates within Christianity to start desanctifying the excesses of even the Rick Warren’s. If I can help push the debate in a better direction by talking with you and others I will.

By the way, why did you call me an atheist?

Peace

Luke Allen on June 1, 2008, 11:35 AM

Hey Pastor Jennifer.

First, I can’t tell you his annual income but I know that 90% goes to Africa and other charitable organizations.

Now if one doesn’t accept that Jesus is their saviour and responsible for eternal salvation, then I understand how that one could find proselytizing unacceptable and taking advantage of the vulnerable like you do. However, consider from our perspective, this man known as Jesus conquered even death and was raised on the third day (again I don’t expect you to believe what we do just follow and consider if you did) His blood is the price and the only price of our salvation for eternal life. This Jesus says he comes to find the poor and give salvation to the destitute. If you believed this, like I and Mr. Warren do, then you wouldn’t find proselytizing wrong right? So can you conclude that the difference in this point of contention is simply from our premises?

Also, I ask and still do; why would you mind who gives aid to the poor and destitute? It seems you answer by the pretty standard these people our vulnerable and therefore shouldn’t have anything shoved down their throats, but personally the point for me is the aid and whether it is Muslims, Atheist or Communist (which I disagree with in all situations) I couldn’t care less who feeds hungry children as long as hungry children are fed. Why would you?

Now I didn’t say that Atheist don’t give aid what I said was “my contention with Atheist’s is for the affluence of the subculture the lack of charity in the group.” ‘Lack of’ for me doesn’t mean 0 but I understand how you could think that it did so I will clarify. I think most people are charitable however, the affluence factor (atheism is largest in the riches nations) means that the percentages are smaller. I believe Atheist would be greatly advanced by having groups and organizations that give aid, otherwise alot of their arguments fall on deaf hears. This is because ‘reason’ as great as it is, is just a luxury of a rich country. When you are worried about dying from the water you drink or giving your hungry baby sand to eat to stop the crying, or if your in a population’s where the average age of death is early thirties, ‘reason’ isn’t the way of the mind, ‘survival’ is. Help people survive, Atheist, then work on their reasoning.

I understand and agree with your work of getting moderate Christians to: “moderates within Christianity to start desanctifying the excesses of even the Rick Warren’s” You can be proud of me then because I promote and talk to every Christian about how wrong and unlike Christ it is to disparage any group. Just about everyday I get into a conversation with a Christian where I point out there “Love one another” is off. I have to have these conversations with great humility, however, because I fail that standard often as well. Maybe, the problems with Christians is, damn it, they know they mess up! UGH! Sorry.

If I called you Atheist incorrectly Pastor Jennifer I deeply apologize. I was reading a couple nights ago everyone’s posts and maybe I read wrong but weren’t you the one who wrote you had “an hour enveloped in God’s Love and were just more convinced the expirience was neurologically based.” Further readings of your writings and I was pretty sure that was an accurate description, am I wrong? How would you define yourself on the God issue? Specifically is there or isn’t? I look forward to reading your response.

Pastor Jennifer on June 1, 2008, 3:24 PM

Dear Luke:

Thank you again for your time and consideration in replying to me. I commend you also for your rejection of the intolerant excesses. I am thankful that you are engaged in an effort to moderate extremism from within. Right on. I call you brother!
I want to remain in debate with you because of that. I guess for now that my beliefs that helping others should not be coupled with prosleytism and your contrary beliefs are as yet irreconcilable.
However I must reject your claim that secular altruism is negligible(If I understood you correctly that is). Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are two human beings who together have donated more in the history of mankind than any religiously identified philanthropists. Their generosity is not predicated on prosleytism. It stands alone.
Finally, I have only expressed publicly what I consider to be adequate or inadequate foundations for belief. I have very exacting standards as to the ethics of belief. Please do not make assumptions because you disagree with my foundational premises.

Luke Allen on June 2, 2008, 1:56 AM

Hey PastorJennifer,

I continued this discussion on your idea profile, it seemed my appropriate there because it seems that we are agreeing to disagree with all points except my claim your erroneous claim your Atheist and my apology is on your profile. I look forward to further discussion.

Musycks on June 2, 2008, 2:18 AM

nice discussion guys..

PJ.. I tend to point up the inconsistancies in the bible based messages as a way of showing how untrustworthy that book is. Xtians like Luke I think find the loving god Jesus (Yahweh v.2) in those pages, sometimes in spite of what is said and written.
I think it’s fair to point up the theological twisting and turning required to keep gentle Jesus in the game, without assuming that all Xtians subscribe to the fire and brimstone set.

Also I heartily agree with your assessment of the egregious Rick for just those reasons. It’s McReligion, and it exploits the vulnerable. Morally you’d have to praise Hezzbollah for helping the poor by those standards?

and no, religion ain’t going away in a hurry.. and as for atheists forming organisations? like dawkins said, it’d be like herding cats!

peace to you both.

Luke Allen on June 2, 2008, 3:48 PM

Hey Musycks,

I don’t care who or what feeds hungry children as long as they are fed. The extreme example of Hezobollah, Musycks, even that group, which I disagree with full heartedly, I would applaud feeding children. After the feeding of children and the ending of hunger or death from treatable diseases ie Malaryia then we condemn acts that are wrong.

An earlier comment I made in a post is simply that reason is a luxury of a rich society. What precedes reason is survival (neurologically speaking, since you Atheist love that science, lol, The Amygdala is responsible for human behaviour if the “flight or fight” response isnt subdued, the pre-fontal cortex, where you find reason, can’t really be responsible for behaviour.) and to reason one must get all the worlds people past the constant need of survival. What are your thoughts on this perspective Musycks?

I love the Atheist quote btw about Dawkins. However, I would appreciate the Atheist community accepting their positions are due as much to birthright as our religious ones are. And I wish they would applaud our efforts vs. condemning them because they need us to get these people able to reason.

Denys Artasevych on June 2, 2008, 5:29 PM

Malsov’s hierarchy of needs mate. It follows as such lowest to heighest. PHYSIOLOGICAL needs breathing, food , sex. SAFETY, security of body, employment, home.
LOVE/BELOGING, family, intimacy, friendship
ESTEEM, acheivement, status, reputation.
SELF ACTUALIZATION, personal growth, fulfilment, genuine interest.
and finally SELF TRANCENDANCE. when self actualization has been fulfiled, and the focus is others. (example a scientist that becamea professor).

It is almost imposible for humans to focus on the higher order needs if the lower order ones have not been fulfiled. You really cant think on an empty stomach. People in the third world nations are focused on the Physiological and Safety needs. People in the second world (examle: eastern europe) are concerned with safety, belonging, and esteem. And people in the first world are concerned mainlly with belonging and esteem. There are a few that manage to concentrate on self actualization, and self trancendance is trully rare. because all the lower needs need to be fulfiled and that is dificult to acheive.

Luke Allen on June 2, 2008, 5:43 PM

Absolutely Skeptic44 Maslov’s hierarchy of needs are another reasons Atheist and Christians alike should be giving aid to third world and not have that aid condemned.

Musycks on June 3, 2008, 1:15 AM

Luke.. superficially you are right.. one of my favourite quotes was a Sth American priest who said ‘If I feed the poor they call me a saint, if I ask, why are they poor? they call me a communist’.

I still think to link aid to any political cause is wrong. I condemn Hezzbollah in the same way I did the IRA years ago… violence to achieve their goals is not acceptable to me. They exploit people as well, and co-opt them into their agenda, hidden or not, as does Rick W.
A starving person is in no position to refuse a feed, and the person proffering the help, should not wash it down with a spoonful of anything, it demeans the act.
Would I prefer no help to Rick’s? no.. life is precious and where there is life there is hope.
it’s a black and white solution in a grey world.
rock on Luke.

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 12:46 PM

Thanks Musyck’s,

And I understand your positon but from our perspective, as Jesus freeks, we think the man is God, who was raised from the dead and conquerer of death. We can’t not talk about our Lord. Anymore than I can ask you not to be like Dawkin’s description “herding cats” at some point I wish you guys could set up more organization but I respect your differences and hope you can disagree without shouting us down because for us, in our minds, we KNOW we are doing right. Once one knows something, nothing, can change that perspective, good or bad.

Pastor Jennifer on June 3, 2008, 1:44 PM

Musycks:
Thanks mucho.
You said it like I was going to with Luke. I was going to posit a hypothetical world in which Islamic fundamentalists were offering him a hand-down to his starving family predicated upon his attendance in a mosque.
What say you Luke? Embrace the prophet Mohammed so you can feed your family? I hope the question is merely rhetorical.
Why not just separate our empathy and mutual love from our religious paradigms and differences?

Pastor Jennifer on June 3, 2008, 1:52 PM

Luke:
Please see comments to Musycks. The message is don’t take advantage of someone’s vulnerabilty to further your own ideological aims.
If you are ever in San Francisco go to Glide Memorial Church and see non-judgemental compassion in action. Love without conditions, no religious requirements for help and support. That for me is the essence of true love. Rick Warren doesn’t do that. He divides and hurts minorities because of his dominionist ideology. I don’t think that is what Jesus wanted!

Kenton Sallee on June 3, 2008, 3:22 PM

Christ’s teachings and life (whether real or not) have very little to do with the actions of the “Church” or other entities claiming their beliefs are from his teachings. So I would substitute the word “christianity” with “organized Christian organizations”, and probably agree with you almost completely. Also, keep in mind that the bad seeds get all the publicity, and the people who actually do follow Jesus’ teachings usually don’t even get local press…which is the point. As for the organized atheist idea, take a look at Unitarian or Universalist churches. I was told many are led by proclaimed atheists.

Luke Allen on June 3, 2008, 3:25 PM

Deep question PastorJennifer, I appreciate the thought process. My belief’s will not kill my family. I would die for my belief’s; I will not expect my family to. Therefore, my faith and my God would forgive me. And I wouldn’t be angry with the Muslims for making me change my faith in public; I would be happy my family wasn’t starved to death.

I understand this is a wimpy answer. I don’t care. My views of being a man means I have to take care of my family. By any means necessary. Not just spiritually but physically. I hope this doesn’t appear too hypocritical but my Lord says “only God knows the heart.” and I only expect to be judged for eternity by my heart and not my needs of survival.

I believe Jesus wants us to feed in the humility of accepting that it isn’t us, but him that are doing the works. This is a belief. I can’t prove it anymore than you can prove yours, therefore, I would agree to disagree but hope you have a better understanding of why we would put our aid in the cross. We Love non-Christians at our church and would still feed and aid them in our church even if they denounced our church. I don’t know if Mr. Warren is stating they MUST be saved to get Malaryia aid. That would be wrong, but just saying I believe this is from Jesus, come get your aid from our Lord, isn’t wrong. Does that point of distinction make sense PastorJennifer and Musycks?

eileen fleming on June 3, 2008, 4:26 PM

The problem is NOT with Christianity; only that too few have ever done it THE WAY Jesus taught and lived.

The term ‘Christian’ was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man.


Jesus, while never a Christian, was a social, justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up against the corrupt Temple authorities and challenged their job security by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God LOVED them just as they were:

Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.



What got JC crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant.


2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning.



When JC said: “Pick up your cross and follow me,” everyone back then, understood he was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.



St. Paul, who never hesitated exercising his freedom of speech warned the followers of Jesus:

Who am I to judge the non-believer? IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS! But PROVOKE the believers onto good works.





“If enough Christians followed the gospel, they could bring any state to its knees.” -Father Philip Francis Berrigan


e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Pastor Jennifer on June 4, 2008, 3:06 PM

Luke:
Actually I do not believe that you would object to publicly denying your faith. Sorry, this is called cognitive dissonance. You would find it objectionable, demeaning, coercive and a corruption of your basic human rights. And so it is. See the United Nations Charter.
Thanks for your answer.
Peace

Pastor Jennifer on June 4, 2008, 3:07 PM

Luke:

I meant to say you would not object!
…typo sorry

Musycks on June 4, 2008, 9:59 PM

Eileen.. come on in and get your feet wet!

any thoughts on why Paul never called Jesus a god?

Musycks on June 4, 2008, 10:13 PM

PJ… all this talk of politics in faith threads is interesting… a lot of the faithful don’t see the connections.. for me if the Jesus ‘story’ is real at any level then it’s at a political level.. (oh dear, am I lining up with Eileen here?)..
we may need a thread to distill these thoughts? JC as political icon?!
rock on.

Pastor Jennifer on June 5, 2008, 4:11 AM

Luke:
I am really worried about you. You said you would die for your beliefs. That’s what the suicide bombers say and do. That’s the evil side of religion…it makes people into fanatics.

Pastor Jennifer on June 5, 2008, 4:21 AM

Musycks:
The evangelicals mix up faith and politics BIG TIME. The neo-cons realized they could gain enormous power by politicising the evangelicals. (The evangies used to stick out of politics before the 1970’s) Who do you think got G.W.B into the White House? Rev. Ted Haggert (ah poor suppressed gay Ted)used to brag that 80 million evangelicals (his numbers not mine) held the power to make or break a presidential campaign.
The connection between religion and politics is a critical one. Erosion of the separation of church and state has been underway for a long time. It’s all very well that we debate here about religious issues, but I would hope that there is also going to be an element of activism that results from all the talk.
Peace.

Pastor Jennifer on June 5, 2008, 4:32 AM

Musycks:

Actually I think Paul, in a clever political move of assimilation, did apply contemporary Gnostic notions of cosmic deities to Christ. See the hymn in Col 1: 15-20
He is the image of the unseen God and the first-born of all creation,
for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible,
Thrones, Dominations, Sovereignties, Powers -
all things were created through him and for him.
Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity.
Now the church is his body, he is its head.

(Paul continues describing Christ in these terms throughout the rest of the hymn)

It sure sounds like Paul calling Christ a deity to me.

Peace

Musycks on June 6, 2008, 12:01 AM

PJ.. sorry I didn’t get back to the Paul bit earlier.. but you’ll probably know that some of the texts attributed to him have been disputed by scholars as for either authenticity or later corruption (the usual suspects)… and Colossians is one of them.
Either way it’s a bit flowery and poetic? and a hymn has licence to be non-literal where a letter does not? I think you could mount a more convincing case that Paul regarded JC as ‘son’ of god in the Jewish sense of close to god… a prevalent enough view at the time. The more unlikely is that he thought him god, so on balance I’ll lean that way…

there was a philosopher who distilled that idea, where the more unlikely event gets less weight in the argument? but I’m having a seniors moment and can’t recall his name?!

oh dear…

keep posting… peace on ya.

Pastor Jennifer on June 6, 2008, 5:41 PM

Musycks:
Are you referring to Ockhams’s Razor?
Regardless, I defer to your biblical understanding of Paul. I was leaning heavily upon Roman Catholic exegesis on this one.
Peace

Luke Allen on June 6, 2008, 10:44 PM

First a Gnostic now being equated to a suicide bomber pastorJennifer? What you fail to understand is that there is a huge gap between willing to die for a belief and willing to KILL for one. Suicide bombers KILL for their belief’s. I could never do that.

There is one reason though you miss about why we debate all this religious stuff. Nothing is provable either way. It is easier for the human mind to debate the irrefutable; than it is to debate the tangible.

Pastor Jennifer on June 7, 2008, 5:52 AM

Luke:
I want to understand why you would die for a belief? I want to understand why a suicide would die and kill for a belief. And no I am not equating you with a suicide bomber, you are a gentle soul. But you share the same desire to self-immolate for a belief in God. Isn’t that just throwing away God’s most precious gift. I can’t imagine that would be part of the plan.
btw – what is the distinction you make between reading and agreeing with gnostic texts as a source of wisdom and not being a gnostic? If I read the bible and agree with and embrace its content doesn’t that make me a Xian?
Peace

Luke Allen on June 7, 2008, 11:09 PM

PastorJennifer,

I would die for a belief because the advancement of that belief would live on. Martin Luther King died for a belief, Malcom X died for a belief and they paved the way for Barack Obama to be the democratic nominee.

If I died for the rights of homosexuals to marry, for instance, the fact that people killed me for that, is proof enough that it should be spotlighted more. You can’t end bigotry and ignorance without a few deaths. Corporate personhood is literally killing thousands of people in Iraq. Good soldiers and people are dying for Haliburten and Lockhead to get Government subsidies; if I had to die to stop that, absolutely sign me up.

I think dying for beliefs is the only way to die. We are all going to die either by old age or by standing up for what we believe in and I would choose the latter.

As an aside, my biological father was shot in his head. His father was shot in his head and his father was shot in his head. If your mother died of cancer and her mother died of cancer and her mother died of cancer; you would expect to die of cancer right?

Woman’s rights issues are another area I will risk my life for my belief’s. I just massaged a wonderful woman today who was the inventor of software for fashion designer’s, besides being loaded, nice and funny she remarked how incredibly sexist the rest of the world was. She said in an exhibit with potential buyers from Japan, they literally wouldn’t listen to her speak. They preferred the man to talk. This isn’t half as bad as forced marriages or Africa’s craze for raping virgins because of the WRONG idea virgin’s are an immunity against AIDS. If I had to die to stop that or try to… absolutely. Would I ask my daughter or dad or mom to… absolutely not. This is what I mean.

Jesus knows my heart I don’t worry what other religions would need me to do, but this life, this existence God gave me the passion, will and desire to believe and proclaim freely as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did: “An injustice ANYWHERE is a threat to justice EVERYWHERE.” I wouldn’t mind dying trying to fight an injustice.

Does that make sense?

The distinction I make between reading and acknowledging is the main premise. I couldn’t go to a church that said Jesus wasn’t God but rather God in us and we are all Gods. The only two Gnostic’s I know claim this. I could not claim a religion that claims to know, my basis of religion is I don’t know and am trying my best to learn. This doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy the information.

Stenger’s book: God The Failed Hypothesis has great information for science and I appreciate and learned alot from it; I still believe God is the truth. Make sense?

Pastor Jennifer on June 8, 2008, 4:43 AM

HI Luke:
Wow That was a very detailed response. Thanks for your time. I have the following observations. I don’t think Martin Luther King or Malcolm X wanted to die. I think they wanted to live and get to see their grandchildren grow up.
I can understand that someone would die to help protect other people’s lives in an act of ultimate compassion. I am on the same page with you there. But to die for a belief in a supernatural being, (or for a political ideology for that matter) doesn’t make sense to me. It scares me.
I am still really fascinated by yopur remarks about gnosticism. Are there any Gnostic Christian churches in the US?
All power to you for reading Stenger’s book. and still believing what you believe!
:-)
Peace

Luke Allen on June 8, 2008, 5:42 PM

Hey PastorJennifer,

I agree with religion (because omnipotent God means knows the truth) But I think you could’ve died for your political party if it was fighting the Nazi political party, honorably.

Just because one doesn’t want to die doesn’t mean they aren’t willing. That is all I stated was I was willing to die for my belief’s.

Gnostic Christian churches in US? I don’t know I guess I could google it real quick, but we have a Gnostic Priestess at my work and another co-worker goes to her church.

I think anyone alive who thinks they are God is the biggest idiot segment of population of all.

Pastor Jennifer on June 9, 2008, 1:33 PM

Luke:
I agree, but unfortunately the majority of the New Agers are self-sacralizing, self- obsessed nutters. Shirley McClaine declared herself to be God and believes that she creates everyone in the world with her mind!
I didn’t ask about the gnostics because I wanted to join them btw! My interest is purely academic.

I draw a distinction in one of your comments. You tried to mingle two concepts together, my willingness to fight against nazism you concludes that I would die for an ideology. No, I would die only if I was morally convinced that my death would be outbalanced by the lives I would save, and if my other personal obligations didn’t have significant moral weight to require my survival. And even then, to say yes I would, hmm, it would really depend. I could not make a glib assertion here that I would or would not.

Musycks on June 10, 2008, 2:42 AM

PJ… the fact that a bright young man like Luke can read Stenger and still hold to his religious convictions is an indication of what it takes to dent that mindset? this is powerful devilry at work methinks!

Pastor Jennifer on June 12, 2008, 11:19 AM

Musycks:
Keep on being devil’s advocate!
I am not so sure you haven’t had an influence on Luke’s mind. Or that Stenger hasn’t also. It takes some people a long time to shift perspective, especially from something as emotional as religious belief. Maybe Luke’s an atheist wannabee and maybe not :-) (Don’t yell at me Luke for putting labels on you again. Sorry!) I find it refreshingly hopeful that I can talk together with all of you, especially you and ss for your humor, Skep, Luke and HP.
Hey Luke, this isn’t an outreach faith initiative of yours is it? ;-)

Luke Allen on June 13, 2008, 12:42 AM

Hey PastorJennifer,

I would never expect you or anyone else to die for any belief’s. I was just explaining the one’s I would die for.

To PastorJennifer and Musyck’s:

I have read Nietzsch, Rand, and Levay. If those three geniuse’s can’t make me lose faith in my Lord; no eartly person can.

No; I would never try to convince anyone to live with the knowledge I know. I pray I’m a delusional nut and that eternity and life in general isn’t what I know it is. Don’t ever worry about converting arguments from me.

What I am doing on bigthink, sometimes unsuccessfully, is showing that one can believe and love logic, science and everything else Atheist claim is only their domain and still be devoutly strong in Christian faith.

I also want to engage in dialogue with all individuals because I believe we all have some truth.

Stay Strong my bigthink family.

Pastor Jennifer on June 15, 2008, 4:05 AM

Love you Luke
but stay of the Nietzche! He should come with a warning label like cigarettes! I agree with you that the atheists don’t have a monopoly on logic or science.

Luke Allen on June 16, 2008, 1:57 AM

I love you to PastorJennifer, but why avoid Nietzsche? He is still my favorite philosopher? “Some may look at my short life and use it as an excuse against my philosophy; but I will ask them in all their length of life; have they ever lived?” The herd mentality is prevalent and the most destructive force in our lives. This is the one thing that is most important for all to know. “Madness is rare in individuals- but in groups, parties, nations and ages it is the rule.” Nietzsche.

What can possibly be wrong with a man who gives homage to Dostyovsky (Is my favorite non contemporary author) as “the only psychologist I had anything to learn from”

I look forward to your critiques of Nietzsche PastorJennifer.

Pastor Jennifer on June 16, 2008, 3:00 PM

Luke: you have knocked me out. I will think a while before I reply. Thank you.