News-Record.com

Ms. Lipman has her job cut out for her. I just read some comments over the Pledge issue, and I cannot see how freethinkers will get the Supreme Court to overturn precedent on that one. I agree there are many other issues where atheists might have limited success lobbying; my one fear is the backlash which would likely ensue once, like gays, atheists are "out".
Would an atheist lobby perhaps even seek to reveal identities of so-called "closet" atheists? There are many jobs to be lost that way, not to mention possible intimidation and violence.

All in all, however, I do agree that it is time someone let Washington pols and the ugliest of the theocrats know there is a small but impressive co-hort of intelligent voters who won't be ram-rodded.

From the article: "Her two goals: keep religion out of government and win respect for a stigmatized minority."

That ought to keep her busy for a very long time. I can hardly wait to hear what certain people around here think.

Although not an atheist, if she suceeds in turning back the tide of fundamentalist theocracy,more power to her.

After all, when America was founded, all voices were respected and heard. There were Christians, Deists, Freethinkers, etc. Anyone who says that this nation was founded by Christians alone certainly have not read Jefferson or Paine.

Does anybody know of an athiestic government that is still in existance? I can think of 3- China, North Korea, Cuba.

Anybody think of great athiests in the news- outside of scientists? How about great men of the Christian faith?

"Anybody think of great athiests in the news- outside of scientists?"

What does this have to do with the subject?

"How about great men of the Christian faith?"

Can't say I know many "great Christian men" in the news these days. Most "Christian men" in the news that I can think of at the moment are petty, superstitious purveyors of incredible nonsense.

It has to do with the fruit of atheism. From your believing days, you know about judging a tree by its fruit. There are, of course thousands of examples of great men of faith- past and present. On the other hand, ahiestic leaders and governments...

"It has to do with the fruit of atheism. From your believing days, you know about judging a tree by its fruit. There are, of course thousands of examples of great men of faith- past and present."

I see. You only mentioned people "in the news." If you're looking at history, that's a slightly different question, isn't it? Among the folks who have been condemned as atheists:

Giordanno Bruno
Voltaire
Mark Twain
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Paine
Isaac Asimov
Susan B Anthony
George Eliot
Richard Burton
Robert Ingersoll
Ambrose Bierce
Robert Burns
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Thomas Huxley
Bertrand Russell
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Arthur C Clark
Clarence Darrow

Yeah, there are a fair number of famous folks who don't follow your creed, Chip. I wonder why you asked about atheists "other than scientists"? Because they don't contribute "fruits" to humanity?

So... what about the "fruits" of Christianity, eh Chip? What about the persecution of Jews -- a long-cherished tradition of Christians, even from the time of the New Testament. Or what about witch hunts, the centuries of auto da fe rituals, and all the other fun stuff that came out of Europe when it was a purely Christian realm?

You really want to go there, Chip?

Persecution of the Jews?
Was Jefferson an athiest? Samuel Clement? I don't think so.

Yes, persecution of Jews. I suggest you read a history of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition in Spain. Also, you might want to take a look at Martin Luther's little treatise called "On the Jews and Their Lies." And you might want to do some research into the term "Pogrom."

Thomas Jefferson has been and still today is often called an atheist, though he was really a deist. And if you don't think Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain) was an atheist, perhaps you could pop down to the library and check out a copy of his book "Letters From the Earth."

Jefferson was a Deist not an atheist regardless of how hard the atheist community tries to place him there or others as well.
Samuel Clemmons was a writer as well as one of the most renown satirist even to this day. Letters to Earth do not prove his standing as an atheist. His references,in other writings, to "his creator" would not qualify him as an atheist since according to atheist there is evidently no "creator".

Of course believe what you want and I shall do the same.

I didn't say Jefferson was an atheist. The folks I was referring to who labeled him as such are generally Christians who want to demonize him. It's a favorite method of many televangelist stars, you know.

So, have you in fact read "Letters From the Earth"? Just curious.

And why would I not have read "letters from the earth". With a minor in American Lit, I have read most of the writings of American writers, especiall those from Clemmons perioid, even though his Letters from Earth did not get published until sometime in the 70's. I continue to read many of what I consider Classical writers not only of this country but others as well. I am of the opinion that learning never stops as long as one is willing to learn. My education in this respect is far greater than the education evidenced by a couple of sheepskins that I may have hanging on my wall. I fell in love with American lit. in high school because I had a teacher that made it come alive. Also as a history major I felt that American Lit and American History had to be studied together in order to understand either. After I changed major's in my senior year, I found that much of what I had read in Literature was very helpful in my primary major of Psychology/Counseling. and my graduate degree in the same. I went off the wall for post grad work, guess that is why it did not seem important enough to finish or of relevance other than to say that I had read and retained much of the material.
I am currently taking courses in theology and find that much of the reading that I had done earlier in school is beneficial in this course of study also. Surprising to most people "Letters From the Earth" is on the reading list as an optional read. So yep, enjoyed it the first time and enjoyed it the second time. Satire is an excellent way of questioning ones own questions.

Regarding the citations of historic “Christian” errors and actions, such as persecution of the Jews, the Crusades, the Inquisition, et al.; this is a very tired and unstudied atheist/humanist conundrum, a blunt instrument of critical ad hominem diatribe. No one seeks to deride democracy because certain democracies have perpetrated horrific things over the past centuries: like Dread Scott, the legitimization of income and inheritance taxes, varieties of wars, Roe vs. Wade and other retrograde initiatives. And what of the horrors of the atheistic French Revolution or the unbelieving Stalin: are we to judge all atheists by their own plethora of black sheep?
There is absolutely no doubt that Christians, of various expressions, played the leading role in founding the American Republic – or those who, even though not orthodox Christians, shared its essential world view, and who, generally at least, embraced the teachings of Christ and understood that the rule of law, based on the biblical Ten Commandments, were the bedrock of human freedom. At least a little credit where credit is due! -even if it goes down hard.
The fact is that the Christian Faith, and the Church generally, have been in a centuries-long process of change and maturation; and besides, all of the negative things heaped onto “Christianity” have nothing to do with the genuine New Testament Faith, but were the result of residual cultural and historic forces improperly admixed with evolving Christian institutions. These effete kneejerk critiques are mere straw men that reflect a studied ignorance of the Christian belief system as per the original apostolic writings and the initial vigor and purity of the Church.
Even the Reformers realized that they were merely scratching the surface of purifying the Faith from corruption, superstition and error. And God is still actively convicting, purging and transforming His Bride. And whatever you may think of Vatican II, it at least evidences a keen awareness of the need to reassess and to change. These examples, and many others, coming from all sectors of the Church, show that Christians are not closed-minded ideologues, intent on vain repetition of historic sins and failures; but are, rather, serious about their Faith and eager to repent and return to the essence of that Faith.
As for TV Christianity, it is certainly a mixed bag, most of which only makes me cringe. There is some relatively good programming; but the medium seems to make the worst of just about anything come forth. So how about a little original study of the New Testament documents and citation of the best and most sincere examples of the Faith since its inception, not just its weaker and immature examples. There can be no cogent and enlightening discourse without such a balanced view.

Haven't we missed the point of the article and Ms. Lipman's goal: to protext the rights of a minority in danger of increasing persecution?

Yes, there have been rotten Christians, rotten atheists and all other belief or doubt systems. And non-scientists as well as scientists have indeed been influential non-believers. Jefferson's Deism would not be recognized by the vast majority of Americans as Christian in the least. Sam Clemens (note the correct spelling) was one angry sonofa--- who became especially belligerent against the Christian project after the death of his daughter. His Letters from Earth are satire, all right, but with more than the ring of the all-too-sad truth.

Back to the real subject: shouldn't ALL Americans' views be given the wide berth afforded by the 1st Amendment and Article 6 of the Constitution? The latter prohibits any kind of REQUIRED test (and hence, I would argue, any general allegiance pledge) to hold office. People take oaths not because they MUST by law, but because they CHOOSE to by tradition. They could just as legally choose to "affirm" their intent to uphold their responsibilities, with or without "god"'s help.

But can we ever be a free enough nation to imagine an atheist serving their country openly? Thousands of scientists and humanists do at this very moment. But to acknowledge them and their contributions publicly in tolerance and acceptance of their doubt or rejection of supernatural beings...that may be something this country will never be truly free enough to allow.

Yes, we did get off-subject a bit. Mr. Niche expresses the cause of the atheist very well, but I beg to differ with him about the idea of rights. We have gone rights-crazy in this country over the past few decades: from the legitimate rights of excluded citizens in the civil rights struggle to just about every odd and fringe group demanding their own “rights” of whatever nature. It has become a tactic of such groups to cast their own desire to be legitimized and accepted by identifying themselves with those who struggled, and still work, to secure their constitutional rights.
From a biblical standpoint there are no rights except what God Almighty grants. And even then, they are not something we demand, but rather gratefully receive. Nothing can be a “right” unless it is right; i.e. commended or allowed in God’s Law-Word. Anything else is a perversion of the whole idea of freedom. From a Christian viewpoint, freedom is at its zenith when a human being conforms to God’s moral and spiritual principles, and loves God by joyfully desiring to please and honor Him. Therefore, anything that God deems sinful (anti-life) cannot please him and only casts the perpetrator into the chains of darkness and bondage.
The desire to steal what belongs to another may seem the expedient and satisfying thing to do, but it deprives the other of something he or she has labored justly for and hurts them, or those they provide for. The ravages of conscience and the sanctions of the state bring the offender into dire bondage and, hopefully, remorse. Cheating on one’s spouse may seem like an option to one who despises the vows he or she took, but the pain and anguish it causes both spouse and children can hardly be measured.
In this light, no one has a right to commit adultery or steal or murder. He does have a “right” to serve and love and be ethical in his actions. What we have today in our culture is a large-scale rejection of God and His moral law(s). The door has been flung open for almost anything to be accepted and legitimized, from infant murder (abortion) to gay marriage, to prostitution. All of these things are directly forbidden by God in His Law; not because He wants to curtail our fun, but because these things lead ultimately to personal and societal ruin. This can be conveniently ignored because the short term ramifications of sin seem just fine. It takes a while for STD’s and AIDS to become manifest.
So what about atheism? I know you won’t agree, Mr. Niche, but to publicly tolerate and honor atheism would clearly lead to a rejection of God’s moral and ethical standards, except the ones deemed expedient. Stealing and murder (expect for pre-born infants) would probably be kept around because of their dire consequences. But just about everything else would be up for grabs, since the absolute nature of God’s commandments is being supplanted by a growing moral relativism.
I will not defend the theological and practical weaknesses of Christians today; but I will defend the actuality of God’s existence and the moral perfections of His Word, rightly and intelligently interpreted. In light of God’s Law-Word, seen as the bedrock of all societal order and freedom (as per above), to publicly approve atheism is counter to all that is essential for continued blessing and prosperity. Atheism is not just another belief system, it is contrary to the belief system that under girds all that is lovely, decent and elevating in human affairs. While I believe that no one should be persecuted or physically injured for his beliefs, I do believe that certain ideas and beliefs are best relegated to private opinion, and not approved or promoted in the forum of the nation’s public and ceremonial life.

Excellently spoken, Nikos. I thank you for your response. May I retort?

How does one know the ethical correctness of the laws of gods or men? By consulting conscience. Abraham not withstanding, most persons would NOT consider the command to kill their own child, even when given by the very godhead they adore and fear, as ethically correct.

Atheists do not seek applause for their doubt. They doubt their doubt, if they are honest. But the non-believer is not inherently ethically disadvantaged. We have consciences. Beyond the anti-species behaviour of murder, which has been abhorred by agnostic and atheist philosophies throughout history, there are always situational ethics, even if there are not always absolutes.

This means that the PROBABILITY that what a Christian who is ethically minded and an atheist who is also will be rather similar in many cases is very high. Loving, caring and doing waht one would wnat done to oneself are not the sole province of believers in supernature.

I encourage anyone who fears simply acknowledging the unbelievers in our midst to open their minds and hearts, and realize love is not the property of a single system of living.

I see I left a major opening for anyone wanting to pick up on the abortion issue. To forestall such, let me clarify: to most atheists, I assume the category "child" does not include early-stage zygotes and embryos. Thus, Abraham's plight is less of a condundrum if he had been asked to abort a fetus rather than Isaac. I did not actually intend the refernce to pull my point away from the issue at hand:

Since many non-believers do live and have lived honorable, loving lives, why assume acknowledging them as valued contributors to society would make the whole house of cards crumble? We as a nation of laws, not men, seeking to extend liberty around the world, no less, should be able to openly tolerate those atheists who evince no ill-will to believers. I am one of those, and am not opposed to individuals expressing either their faith or lack thereof in most public and all private spheres. The only restrictions should be when someone in public authority (teacher, politician) seeks to evangelize/proseletyze those who are subordinate to them. Here, the issues of subtle coercion and outright abuse of power are paramount.

I will steer clear of the abortion issue too. I know my views against it are already obvious. The problem with Christianity today in the market place of our national life is that it has allowed itself to be marginalized and cowed before the secular behemoth. This wasn’t always the case, of course; but then the hegemony that it once possessed was not well used in all instances. In some instances it was horrendously misused. But, again, that doesn’t negate the truth and validity of the New Covenant revelation and its initial vitality.
St. Paul called the Church the “pillar and ground of the truth.” (in its pure and apostolic form). Whatever goodness, altruism, love and greatness any atheist (or anyone else) has had was borrowed from the moral and ethical truth of the Bible – ultimately from God himself as the Creator and Lawgiver. God’s moral Law is universal, and according to Paul, written on the heart of all people, whether they recognize it, or seek to keep it or not. Therefore it is imperative that it be openly and institutionally acknowledged and enforced if any society wants to prevent anarchy and dissolution. The wretched circumstances in New Orleans of late testifies to what happens when law breaks down – even that on the personal level, of both populace and police.
The fact is that the moral and ethical standards that good and benevolent atheists possess can more than likely be traced back to Christian or Jewish predecessors who inculcated those values in their progeny. All cultures have the Law of Moses in their codes and standards to one degree or another, in one form or another. They either recognized the need for them from the organic law in their inner being (“heart” in Paul) or it was derived from the earliest societies after the Creation, which still had objective standards at their disposal.
While atheism should be tolerated in our pluralistic society, it should never be promoted or approved of in the public forum, because it not only rejects the Supreme Being who loves and governs the universe and gives it, not only consistent and absolute moral Law(s), but personal transformation through the atoning work of Messiah so that those laws can be more consistently and ably kept. Atheism tends toward moral relativism, situational ethics, which leaves us with no reason to value one moral precept over another, especially at the popular level. If the situation seemed expedient to Bubba Jones he might apply the situational solution of murdering his problem child. We see the horrific results of moral confusion and relativism all across the land. What we have lost by rejecting God and His Word and salvation will only be fully seen when the consequences become so horrific that we can’t but see them.
Having opened up the Pandora’s Box of moral relativism we have given the most far out kooks the tendency to claim their right to do their thing – whatever that might be. You may have a fairly good ethical and moral sense, Mr. Niche; but you are probably a well educated, middle class guy who had decent upbringing, etc. (maybe not – just surmising), but to cut to the chase: remove God and His absolute moral Law from a society and espouse those who repudiate Him and all hell will ultimately break loose. (And please, please don’t bring up the inquisition, etc. Only those who are regenerate and are filled with the love of Christ qualify as true Christians – much evil has been done in the “name” of Christianity, by those who had no part in Him.)
I have atheist friends and certainly do not espouse persecution; but I also do not believe it is good for a society to approve of that which removes it from the grace and moral high ground of God’s Word. Well, I’ve gone on far too long. You were civil and astute, Mr. Niche. I respect your views, but I must express my rejection of them as ideas, not you personally.

P.S. I agree that those who are in positions of power over less powerful and immature persons should not seek to unduly influence them into assenting to their religious, spiritual or political convictions; be they Christian, anarchist, Muslim or atheist. On the other hand, anyone who believes that his position is one essential for the well being of people, and the nation at large, would certainly seek to encourage others, young people and children included, to adopt and live out his convictions.

In fact, the public schools have been promoting a “religious” viewpoint (ultimate values) for many decades – humanism. The traditional American Christian viewpoint has been systematically suppressed and eliminated in favor of promoting abortion “rights,” perversion normalcy and multi-religionism (including an accepting view of witchcraft (WICA) et al. Christian parents have had to watch their children being subtly – or not so subtly – pressured in these directions. Yes, they could pull them out and send them to overtly Christian schools – and they have in large numbers. But my point is that all strongly-held ultimate value concepts (religions) are bound to be promulgated among developing minds for the purpose of seeing those values implemented in their lives, and consequently in that of the society – for the greater good thereof. To assume otherwise is to embrace unreality.

The problem is that secular humanists (mostly atheists) have virtually won the day in the public schools, media and colleges, and are seeking to shut out Christian views and anyone who seeks to advocate them in their tightly controlled environs, under the false premise that they are not “proselytizing” or inculcating THEIR views. They are. What Christians want, as the majority religious belief system in the nation, in the public arena (schools, etc.) is equal time and fair exposure. The fact that someone might just choose their views, after critical consideration, is NOT coercion or misuse of power. If coercion or abuse of power is proven to have been perpetrated by Christians or atheists – or anyone else – they should be censured and/or removed. There is a considerable difference between setting forth views and positions and asking a student, to repent and pray to become a Christian: the former belongs in schools and the latter outside the schools (as avowedly pluralistic institutions).

The prevailing mood of the secularist power elites at this time is to complete their elimination of the Christian Faith as a major player in the nation’s life so that THEIR ultimate values and behaviors can be freely taught and promulgated. In reality, there is no “reconciliation” of these two worldviews and the confrontation will continue until one or the other is victorious. I hate to say it that way, but they are polar opposites and lead to entirely different moral and cultural places. The idea of some kind of “neutral” society where ANY view goes is sheer fantasy. No open-minded atheist would want to give equal time to radical Muslim terrorists, ACTUP or neo-Nazis in elementary schools. In fact, the civil values and respectful behavior they probably advocate is nothing less than de-supernaturalized Biblical morality: you know, loving one another, not stealing, forgiving, caring for the downtrodden, etc. What lies beyond consistent biblical morality and ethics is misery and human tragedy on a scale we dare even to imagine – but are even now beginning to see unfold in our midst.

Say, why don't you have a comment, Nancy? I even notice in retrospect your initial blog is in quotation marks. Is that from the story, or a way of distancing your own voice?

Being an "out" atheist or even feeling charitable towards one seems to carry more approbrium than being gay in our culture. talk about your minority status! I think only 3% or so of the U.S. claims to be either atheist or strongly agnostic.

Yet one would think we were in control of everything by the reaction some have when some ask not to be implicitly treated as second-class or at least "undesirable" citizens.

It's in quotes because it's actually someone's quote, and stylistically, it was just a way to introduce a new topic. I have to admit that I don't jump in and comment a lot because as a blogger who blogs on a topic she has to write about objectively, I have to walk a tight rope. However, I see my interest in bringing up topics from a full spectrum of viewpoints and what's in the news, and letting you have your voice.

As the last election showed, the American public is still oriented toward Christian ethics and morals, if not truly committed to the Faith, or a specific Church. If you were operating in a college or university setting, your atheism would be accepted with almost total approval and glee. It is clear that the Democratic Party is filling up with leftist intellectuals who pander to those who have little regard for God’s Law - or biblical morality generally. Even the most simple and uneducated among us are able to see where all this will lead. And the Republican Party is not much better; but enough-so that conservative and Christian types sense some hope. But political parties are far from being the answer.

All this eagerness to “out” by gays, socialists/communists and atheists shows just how effective the humanist educational system has been, and how far we as a nation have drifted in their direction. Having tasted a measure of success, their patience with non-acceptance has run thin enough that they are willing to “risk it all” to take their place in the halls of social normalcy and moral acceptance. Regenerate, biblical Christians will never, ever accept anything contrary to God’s moral Law/Word. So the concern over backlash is a valid one; thank God. As I said before, there is no reconciliation between biblical Christianity and anything that contradicts God’s moral and social standards. Tolerance of expression, yes; but cowering acceptance, no!

By the way, good retort Nancy. Mr. Niche, why would you need to impress Nancy to uphold your arguments,. You could have just as easily responded to my too-lengthy comments with solid arguments; but none yet.

Apparently, the common issue of alck of tone has its downfalls in blogospherical writing. I was not goading or questioning Nancy's commitment to the conversation. I don't seek her backing. But I do note the generally hateful or dismissive tone many Christians entertian regarding the supposed "DEgenerate" class of people who aren't "REgenerate" enough for them.

This is the same rhetoric found in Hitler's speeches, by the way. That doesn't lump Nikos or others in with Nazis. But if some group decides they have the one and only key to some absolute knowledge that trumps everyone else's, well...that way lies the justification for much "evil".

My wife teaches public school. She does not promote any witchcraft or the like (although the witches I have known are hardly evil; they are quite like everyone else, except perhaps more attuned to natural surroundings).

Rather, I beileve many schools are heavily run and populated by Christian teachers. The evidence is always around: staff lounges have cards and tracts wishing one or the other person holy blessings in time of need (not a terrible thing in itself, since it indicates caring); much lunch-time gossip and talk about the goings-on at teachers' respective palces of worship and their off-shoot organizations; boys' and girls' scouts; etc.

I am not personally threathened by any of this. But I know if my wife was known as an atheist, she would face stiff reprimands and outright attempts to convert her...ON SCHOOL TIME and GROUNDS. That is unacceptable. And any yeacher who tried something like this with a student would be trespassing across the lines of the First Amendment.

And thank you, Nancy for the response. I honestly did not know it was a direct quote. Do you, however, feel it is good atheists "at least have a voice" in Washington?

While we are on Washington and the voices of non-believers:

Shouldn't the Bush administration pay a little more attention to accredited, mainstream scientists on the councils that advise EPA and various health and environmental departments, although their "theories" conflict with Christian doctrine about origins and ends of the world?

After all, if this is only the material existence and the life to come is better (or eternally worse), why work to salvage this one? Isn't Bush's policy heading happily for Armageddon, to get it over with and herald the coming of Jesus?

I didn't think you were goading me, Freddy. I made that comment because it would be hard for me as a writer covering a beat if sources questioned by objectivity. That said...I'm really glad that you question me because that adds to the conversation.

And you're right, sometimes I don't jump in as quickly when the discussion turns heated or pointed because there are a lot of you who email me anonymously instead of posting how you feel. I guess I see it as encouraging the dialogue so that other viewpoints get in. I probably need to rethink that.

Anyway, you are also right about your wife. A friend who is an atheist told me about a Christian who slipped a 'conversion' book in his briefcase. What if it had been the other way around?

I'm sorry Freddy. I was typing my last post and I didn't see your other comment. Playing devil's advocate, I'd say the more religiously diverse we become as a country, the more problems we'll see, because I don't think Christians don't want to equally share the pie. If we were really honest, how could we not allow Muslims to swear on their holy book? We won't see Rosh Hashana treated like Christmas, or Ramadan like Labor Day, even.

Interfaith prayer services are nice, but we also turn out backs when the police arrest Muslims, detain them for months, and then release them without a word (or ship immigrant Muslims back to native homelands).

I'm not saying it's right or wrong regarding the scientific questions, but for Christians it's a faith issue and no amount of scientific dialogue is going to change their belief that the earth and all therein was made by God in his infinite wisdom.

I do apologize for trying to second guess your motives, Mr. Niche, in asking Nancy why she hadn’t commented – (presumably about my remarks); and then implying that she was “distancing her voice.” Because of these phrases there was some modicum of justification for my comments. Nevertheless, one should not attempt to read something into another’s comments. I do apologize.

I appreciated the substantive arguments and comments in the last two blogs; although I did think, Mr. Niche, that the ad hominem insinuation of the Hitler comment was a bit over the top,. But I do understand your concerns. And I am not free of such jibes myself.

All of us have firmly held convictions, some stronger than others; but that in no way connects us with the corrupt, occult-oriented, twisted, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian philosophy of Nazism. This is a time-worn tactic the humanist camp uses to impugn and inhibit Christian opposition to its agenda. The motives and basis of Nazi and Christian opposition to abortion (the Nazis loved it) or homosexuality are light years apart.

The Christian opposition to gay marriage, for example, is a moral opposition, based on honoring the ideal biblical model of healthy heterosexual marriage, not sociopolitical hatred, as with Hitler. And the goal is to preserve this most basic and essential institution in the face of increasing perversion and corruption of it – as well by adulterous practice as by perverse. It seems that once the floodgate of perverse practice is opened, the pedophiles, practitioners of bestiality, polyandrists et al. want their place in the sun as well. This is a well established principle in the Scriptures (the progressive moral descent of Israel and other peoples are cited often; also Romans 1).

And in this regard, I did not call atheists and humanists “degenerates;” my comment was simply that all people are separated from God through the sin nature, and do not exhibit a desire to honor Him or keep His Commandments unless they humbly repent and receive the inner transformation of the new birth, thus becoming “regenerate”. This is the core of the Gospel and the New Covenant. Not that this did not exist in the Old Covenant, but that it becomes much more extensive and complete through the atoning power of the Messianic Lamb of God.

The unique truth of Christianity is thus based on the fact that there is no way that anyone can be born anew (regenerated) apart from receiving the Gospel, and no way that true spiritual growth in Christ can occur apart from being united with Him by the Holy Spirit. If God could have made perfect atonement any other means than the sacrifice of His Son, He surely would have.

And regarding the implication by Nancy that Christians are the culprits in hindering the spread of religious pluralism, and do not want to share the “pie;” I assume that the “pie” is the tutti fruiti religious mix. Although we are told in the Scriptures to “live peaceably with all men as much as is possible,” the exclusivity of the Gospel is non-negotiable.

All non-Christian religions lack the essential dynamic of atonement, regardless of their good principles and moral tenets. Jesus the Messiah came specifically because man is helpless to save himself, even with the most rigorous disciplines and law systems. This is why Islam should not be encouraged in this still largely Christian nation. (not persecuted either). It is merely a law system, with no atonement and no new birth. The endemic approbation of Jihad in the Islamic world, owing to the lack of the grace of the atonement is largely responsible for the wanton and merciless destruction of human life by the terrorist Jihadists and the harsh legalism evident in Islamic countries.

The task at hand is not to jettison our precious Messianic heritage for the porridge of unbelief and pseudo-religion, but to receive God’s gracious gift, all the while seeking to purify and mature the Church and build the Kingdom Jesus promised in the Lord’s Prayer. St. Paul tells us in Colossians that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are stored in Christ.” We seek only to share these spiritual riches. This is the passion and proclamation of Christians. But it cannot be forced on others, or accomplished through legislation, but only by the loving proclamation and free reception of the Gospel of grace.

Nikos

Your prediction of moral decay following perceived threats to nuclear marriage (does this include intentionally perpetually childless married couples?) certainly sounds like the fear of degeneracy. The "essentialist" tone of it is quite similar to many doctrines of that ilk.

You write eloquently of your faith, but by abrogating the idea of atonement for Christianity exclusively, in the very wake of Nancy's reminders of the two other monotheist tradtions (Judaism has its holy day and much tradition revolving around atonement/at-one-ment), you insult believers world-wide.

Non-negotiable as faith must be, if it remains the "one true" faith, I predict increasing troubles ahead as we fully enter not the demeaningly named "tutti-frutti" ( your own veiled homophobic reference?) world, but rather one where the only path to the survival of the species will be mutual vulnerability to one another's weaknesses so we might share scientific and humanistic knowledge and concerns.

Witness the awful destruction in kashmir and our need to respond, and embrace WITH others of different beliefs. Even atheists give to charity.

And what of the impending almost-certain pandemic of bird flu?
Without the walls of self-righteous rhetoric a-tumblin' down, we'll all go to the grave in a chicken-egg basket. Some Easter on the horizon, indeed.

Or maybe it would be better if Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and , heck, Jews, all got the hell they so richly deserve, with plenty of earthly suffering to boot?

To start with, in response to Mr. Niche’s pointed remarks; my use of the term “tutti fruity” was in reference to a multi-RELIGIOUS situation, and had nothing to do with, and did not include, “homophobia.” Biblical Christians do not have homo-PHOBIA, which means “fear of homosexuality;” rather, they consider it, as God does in His Word, to be an abomination, which The American College Dictionary defines as an “intense aversion, a detestable action; a shameful vice.” Neither should Christians HATE gays personally, any nore than they should hate prostitues; but rather should see them (like any other person) as sinners in need of God’s saving grace and mercy – as they themselves were. (All Christians still sin by virtue of their human weakness, but have assurance that their sins are forgiven – an occasion for humility and grace, not personal animostiy)

In regard to the remarks concerning atonement, it is at the very core of the Christian Faith, that Yeshua accomplished the only true atonement for sins, which the Jewish Old Testament animal sacrifices were only a type and shadow (Colossians 2.16) Hebrews tells us: For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

In I Corinthians St. Paul tells us that Christ’s atonement was - a stumbling block to the Jews and to the Greeks foolishness. Of course this was not the case with all Jews, for Paul himself was a Jew, as were all the earliest believers. It was because of their religious pride and legalism that the Jewish religious elite (not the common people, per se), rejected Yeshua ha-Meshiach. And the “Greeks” were Gentiles, who had no sense of Jewish prophetic expectations and atonement for the sins of the Law.

So it is not surprising that you, and anyone who “has not the Spirit of Christ,” stumbles at the idea of the atonement of Yeshua; even considering it “foolishness” – that is, its exclusivity. But we Christians consider atonement the very essence and sine Qua non of all true spirituality. And since NO OTHER Faith has such an atonement, we preach Christ and Him crucified as the only hope of salvation. All else is futile boot-strapping and self-deception.

Says Paul: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God! - In short, people don’t want to believe and be redeemed by the blood of God’s Messiah because they want to continue in their sin and prideful self-salvation. Nancy and the N&R have obviously bought into the whole can’t-we-just-all-get- along, multi-religion idea. It looks and sounds nice and PC on the surface, but betrays an utter lack of understanding of Christian and biblical theology, especially as it RADICALLY differs from all other legalistic, occult and mystical religions – all of which are humanistic, auto-salvific bootstrap systems. Christianity is just fine as long as it plays the - let’s-all-be-nice-and-loving-and-tolerant game – and shoves the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in the closet, as they it were irrelevant to the game. They is not! But are key to solving all the dilemmas man faces – or ever will face. Regardless of how long one sits za-zen, writes hip poetry, sacrifices chickens, composes libraries of intellectual critiques, or keeps all manner of religious rules and regulations – it avails nothing! It is an exercise in spiritual futility.

Thus St. Paul again says: I . . . did not come to you with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. But this isn’t chic, trendy or esoteric. It would never fly on MTV or the hallowed halls of modern secularist academia.

In short, for an orthodox, biblical Christian to become just another part of the pie, another kid on the block, is not only to deny the consistent teaching and declarations of Holy Scripture, but to utterly dishonor the sacrificed Lamb of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords: - the only name, given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I know this assertion makes the bleeding heart liberal, PC, humanist, inclusivist pulse race with indignation, but it was just such sinful, carnal hearts that drove in the nails and sealed the tomb (or had it done). But then again, we who have known the grace of God in our souls through the new birth know full well that only those, thus redeemed, can understand and embrace these things. And so, like the early martyrs, we are willing (though surely not eager) to suffer ridicule and rejection for the sake of our blessed Redeemer. As brother Martin said so eloquently - My conscience is held captive to the Word of God. Here I stand, I can do no other.

I failed to address the question raised about how exclusive-atonement Christians should get along with others, and felt I must respond. The writer to the Hebrews says - Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. – and in Romans 12, Paul says: - If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men – This is not a call to compromise, but to charitableness and patience.

Christians are not to oppress people with the truth of Christ’s gracious atonement (the Gospel), but in humility to serve (Salvation Army, Red Cross, Samaritan’s Purse, et al.) and, yes, share, in love, the uncompromised message of forgiveness and new life in Christ as well. But then, the truth is the truth is the truth! And to have been the recipient of its grace and power should move one to live in humble gratitude; not arrogant condescension. On the other hand, to horde the message of grace is reprehensible if it makes the difference between joyous, Godly living and self-preoccupied despair.

So, the point is that Christians should, and must, work TOGETHER with all people of good will for the common good – and do! It is in the West, with its Christian traditions, that there is plurality and tolerance (imperfect though it must be, and has regrettably been in certain historical contexts because of error or immaturity – and in spite of on-going efforts by some to rain down terror upon us), compared with systemic Islamic and Hindu violence and intolerance. And private Christian agencies have been in the forefront of charitable efforts across the globe.

The onus of intolerance is heaped upon Christians because they openly profess the uniqueness of Christ’s atonement and uphold God’s Law/Word as the standard for all people everywhere. But atheistic humanists are INTOLERANT of this stance. They would undoubtedly retort that they MUST be intolerant because it is axiomatic that intolerance must be opposed and repressed at all costs. Hmmmmm!

Everyone understands at the end of the day that Truth is that which under girds the entirety of human existence and that not to profess and promulgate it is to contribute to human suffering and social dissolution. The only question – and the irresolvable one, is: which Truth system is correct and worthy of instituting. Christians say it is the Gospel and God’s revealed Word; Muslims, sharia law; Buddhists, the 8-fold path or sudden enlightenment; humanists, whatever YOU decide is best.

No religion or philosophical system would be attractive, or effective, without SOME degree of truth. But truth, to be such, BY DEFINITION, must be consistent, systematic and universal (wholly holistic) or it lacks the credibility and viability to be of any real purpose and use in human affairs. All that’s left is the confusion and chaos of relativism. And so, defense of the truth can be gracious, but not weak-kneed and vacillating.

I know. I know; I’m going on much too long – forgive me; but post-Christian culture is headed down the primrose path of moral decay and spiritual dissipation – and precious lives are being lost or compromised in the process. Trying to reinvent God’s wheel will get us no where, fast. I guess, if you must; go ahead and nail me to the PC cross. I deserve no better than my Master. As I said before, there is really no resolution of this debate at the level of ultimate truth. Either God is, and reveals, Truth, or man does. I stand with God’s Word as it declares: – Let God be true and every man a liar

Nikos-

Here is the crux of all major disagreements between Christains and others of faith: if one claims Christian doctrinal beliefs as "sine qua non", and dismisses the deeply-held beliefs of others in contempt or at most in condescension ("futile boot-strapping and self-deception"), why would anyone wish to continue the conversation? What basis is there for any consensus?

I am no great friend of the major PoMo philosophies, with a few exceptions. Existentialism, in the way of Merleau-Ponty (but not far from Tillich) rhymes closer with me than Derrida. The phenomenologists hew nearer to Einstein/Spinoza in their insistence (like Ernst Mach) on verifiability (not unlike ex-Pres. Reagan). Thus, I can empathize with your clear longing for a solid kind of (capital T) truth.

But the language of truth does differ, even among some who claim to see its manifestations in several religious tradions (see again Huston Smith or Carl Jung). Humanists don't reserve the right to call ANYTHING true. The Renaissance, in fact, saw the first systematic search for empirical evidence to many long-suppressed questions placed off-limits by doctrinal (and psychological) walls. The gifts of humanism include constitutional democracy as we know it.

As opposed to the free inquiry of open minds, the vast majority of your arguments are cloaked in such thick dogma and theodicy, it is clear we have entirely different "final vocabularies", as Richard Rorty describes; our ultimate grounds for the style of our individual THOUGHT and hence how we process MEANING are far apart.

The criteria you present for truth SEEM "universal", but their context reveals as many suppostions as all of us are prone to (inevitably, as imperfect communicators and thinkers with hidden agendas). Each of us seems rational to ourselves because we set up these contexts whereby the words we use "fit" the meaning we want. Sometimes we can manage to get something across because we are each also bodies, with arms, stand (usually) upright, and have other biological and perhaps extremely common psychological similarities.

Unfortunately, though, since you and I share almost no other basis for what either of us would appreciate in the other as "rational" thought-process, it seems we've reached the end of this conversation.

In my experience, this is the usual direction that such conversations go with humanists/atheists. In their journey, they have been fully engaged the process of subjective and philosophical speculation, and when they come up against the authoritative Word they can’t indulge this urge, and thus break off the dialogue. The satisfaction they gain from bantering about the unanswerable questions is the great philosophical addiction. God offers us the freedom of relationship, worship and divine service. The insatiable intellectual tonguing of the Adamic wound ends with coming to know the glorious Messiah, whereby the blessed rest of spiritual living-out begins. I have been in that place of subjective struggle concerning the nature of reality, and reading all the other speculators, and ending up in the deep despair that such wrangling induces. While in the midst of it, it seems like some kind of freedom, but because there is no resolution and no answer, it ends in bondage and despair.

And simplistic religionism can lead to a place of inertia and thoughtless platitudes. So much of American Christianity has devolved to this state, but does NOT reflect the high road of orthodox thinking and living. Jim Bakker does not compare with St. Francis, C.S. Lewis or Francis Schaeffer. There is enough thinking and pondering and study within the domain of orthodoxy to engage the most astute mind - and heart. Christianity, in its essence, is really not about philosophizing and wrangling, but about living the life of love, holiness, service and worship of the Living God. The call to repentance is the call from out of the shadowy realms of self-preoccupation and sinful rebellion into the bright sunlight of living Truth. And there is no greater life-challenge. As Jesus put it – Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Truly free!

We can talk about all this, and I am willing, but we have to accept the rules of engagement that allow you to be you and me to be me. I have not broken it off because you offended me or did not conform to my views. They are indeed different; but since when did civil dialog require surrendering in agreement in order to continue. There would be no dialog if that were the case. The dialog is between relativist and absolutist thinking. There has been many a hotly contested, and protracted, debate and dialog over this issue. However, the goal of all sincere and able Christian apologists has always been not to win the argument for its own sake, but to gain a brother or sister. Mere intellectualizing is not confronting the real issue, which is redemption and love – God’s unique love – demonstrated in the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb. The soul is what must be filled with joy and truth, not merely the frontal lobe. Jesus again puts it best: I have come that they might have life and that more abundantly.

Well, my friend, if this is the end, may God bless and keep you and fill you with all the fullness of his Light and Love.