News-Record.com

The "out front" folks are still pretty hard to see in everyday life. I wonder why such "luminaries" as Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins didn't make the cut?

I expect Newdow is the best known "infidel" in the public eye. Whether he's the best representituve of the non-theist community, I have my doubts. It's maybe a little lik the Democrats having Hillary or John Kerry at the front of the parade. It can be a bit isleading and sort of bad for public relations at times.

Such is life...

So, are we to expect the Mahdi or Messiah of the atheist cosmos to appear, so that they will have no embarrassing reps - atheist purity and orthodoxy? (chuckle)

This entry by the editor is just another in a string of all-too-obvious anti-Christian blasts. Just about everything you enter, Nancy, tends toward this bias. This is by no means meant to detract from your abilities, but it would seem that balanced and objective journalism is a thing of the past in this blog. There is an huge axe grinding! If I sat down to deliberately bad-mouth the biblical Christian Faith I couldn’t have done a better job.

Include your stuff; but how about including a genuinely positive and cogent story or article by a REPUTABLE orthodox Christian representative now and then – not just goofy media-hatched airheads, chosen DELIBERATELY to look bad. One could just as easily find a batch of off-the-wall atheists, secularists and humanists. Just a little balance! A good journalist makes at least SOME effort to be fair and balanced, though we all have our particular slants.

Atheist orthodoxy is easy: rational skepticism. Public relations -- that's tough. I have to say that I liked the inclusion of the Infidel Guy... he's pretty cool.

But regarding your complaint about few "good" Christian examples: I, for one, think it's just fine to see a few entries that challenge people to reconsider the "we're the standard-bearers for all goodness" image that Christians prefer to use. I mean, don't Christians already have enough good press going for them already?

And I find it interesting that Nancy will from time to time include subjects that touch on other religions. I enjoy learning about the Muslim and Jewish items that she posts. I keep hoping to see some stuff from B'hai, Buddhists, Hindus and others, but I know those might be sort of hard to come by.

I agree. I've always enjoyed learning about world religions, and still read the literature. It hones my theological thought and brings up points that are seldom addressed. But my initial commitment to biblical Christianity came about, not becuase I lined up all religions and chose my favorite, but because I encountered the risen Christ in His life-transforming grace and power. My experience synced with Jesus' teachings, Acts and the Epistles. Hence my commitment to the biblical Faith.

I actually enjoy the variety of this blog site; it gives me the opportunity to defend the Faith. I just think it's telling that stories of sound Christian thought and action are not included along with the rest of the fare. Clearly, it's what's missing that shows the bias.

And the press coverage of Christainity in the larger media is usually only of some loose cannon pretending to know what good biblical interpretation is, or about Catholic priests being indicted. I'm fine with the exposure and prosecution of the latter, but stories about great charitable works, successes in treating drug addiction or sacrifical service are scarce at best: that would make Christianity look credible. Your mention, Eric, of Hilary and Kerry being "bad for public relations at times" should help you to understand my concern.

The liberal media has been on the warpath since the emergence in 2004 of conservative Christian voting power, taking every opportunity to feature the worst and zaniest examples they can find. So I don't expect them to espouse Christian doctrine and values, but it would be nice, at least once a year, to see a postive story, or an intelligent, competant representative of the Faith interviewed about an issue. I'm weary of seeing Jerry or Pat every time they want to feature an "expert" on Christain thinking.

"I, for one, think it's just fine to see a few entries that challenge people to reconsider the "we're the standard-bearers for all goodness" image that Christians prefer to use."..............

eric i am currently reading a book and just today i jotted down a quote from it that struck a cord in me.....i was wondering when i would be able to share that thought and after reading your above quote - i feel compelled to share it....

" truth will not be destroyed by questioning or scrutiny - it will always stand unbeatable. questioning only confirms truth and makes it visibly stronger, it never crumbles it. on the other hand the manmade distortions of truth - those we hold to be so valuable, and use as a criteria for fellowship and even sometimes willing to die for - will fall apart under such scrutiny and honest questioning. and anything that is destroyed by honest inquiry is obviosly spurious and deserves to be junked. by crumbling and falling apart, it proves to be in vain."

so eric i am in complete agreement that honest challenges to our faith are helpful and even needful.

nikos, as usual i am in your camp and appreciate your heart and your intellect in your thoughtful and heartfelt responses.

Thanks Buz,I agree that honest and legitimate challenges to the Faith are part of being in the world as we now know it. I certainly did my share. And God often uses the hostility of others to challenge my complacency and smugness.
(Romans 8:28)

But there is of course a difference between sincere critique and questioning, and that singleminded desire to undermine and destroy.
But some of the most frutiful and devoted Christians were once hostile to the Faith; like the Apostle Paul. Those who earnestly seek after truth will surely come to know him who IS the way, the TRUTH and the life. "Seek and ye shall find."

No, we don't wait for nor need a non-theistic Messiah. To the contrary, I'd like see the day when humanists/freethinkers felt as at ease in this land as any other citizen has a right to. Then, it wouldn't take lists of celebrighties, just an acceptance by others.

If a Christian or other faith-follower cannot extend a loving acceptance to a peaceful non-believer, what good is their belief? What kind of ethics is that?

Now, the real fights begin when public policy is driven by a refusal of scientific evidence or by faulty reasoning, in order to adhere to one's faith. That's when we need the voices of all conscientious rational thinkers (including Christians) and not just materialists nor evangelists.

Of course, the comment about the “atheist messiah” was merely a humorous jibe. I realize that a free thinker does not need any supernatural assistance; he simply draws upon his own all-sufficient insight. But, in the end he MUST affirm values and morals that look strikingly like biblical ones if he is to function on a daily basis. Theoretical atheism is a viable position, but practical theism is unavoidable if one is to live in loving and harmonious community.

Thought and insight is neither true nor profitable, in and of itself. Criminals think; even a few graduates of the public school system avoid brain death. Contemporary humanists seem to find it difficult to believe that such concepts as peace, justice, love, mercy and truth did not begin with Voltaire, Marx, Freud and Michael Moore. This cosmic myopia is not because of the faultiness of the human brain, but because “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” and “walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them.” (Eph. 4. 17, 18) This ubiquitous spiritual malaise becomes clear only at the point of existential despair, sometimes ending in the ultimate despair of suicide, either personal or cultural.

Atheism, to the Christian, is not just another innocuous idea, which can be politely accepted; but rather implies the repudiation of many of the truths and principles God has revealed in His Word for a righteous and blessed society. And although atheists draw upon biblical truths liberally, they tend to twist them to their own ends. Worst of all, they do not give honor and worship to the Creator. Even so, it is the nature and calling of Christians to extend respect and patience, not because they agree with their opponents, but because they themselves have been the objects of God’s redemptive grace: “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.” Furthermore, it is God’s prerogative alone to pass judgment on PERSONS: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Rom. 12.19) But it IS the responsibility of Christians to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)

" But, in the end he MUST affirm values and morals that look strikingly like biblical ones if he is to function on a daily basis."

Morals and values did not originate with the bible. And the only thing a person must do is live until he dies.

" Theoretical atheism is a viable position, but practical theism is unavoidable if one is to live in loving and harmonious community."

This statement reeks of ignorance.

" And although atheists draw upon biblical truths liberally, they tend to twist them to their own ends."

How so?

" Even so, it is the nature and calling of Christians to extend respect and patience, not because they agree with their opponents, but because they themselves have been the objects of God’s redemptive grace: “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.”"

So that must be why muslim terrorists are trusted more than atheists are, all that respect and patience.

Just to try another name, one of the very best of non-theists, whose despair led him to write heart-achingly funny plays. He also risked life and limb as part of the French Resistance, saving Jews from the Nazis and Vichy government. He once wrote:

"Ever tried? Ever failed?
Try again. Fail again.
Fail better."

Sounds like our ongoing blogging of these issues.

Nikos, while you claim it is Christians' duty to respect atheists (or maybe you think it is just their choice to be "patient", and some are within their right to be more forceful and disdainful?), you also say: "Worst of all, they do not give honor and worship to the Creator." This certainly can't be held against them --- they don't honor or worship what they cannot believe in. Literally, CANNOT. Unless you would hold that we can all truthfully take on beliefs at will?

An all-powerful, singular supernatural being who made all things and knows all things simply is not within the scope of some, nay, most minds to fathom. Some say that implies or even demands submission. Others, who take a stance of skeptical analysis, would prefer to wait for solid proof, not to mention non-contradictory arguments. This dichotomy may well go back to a factor within the very molecular makeup of the brain. The faultiness, as you say, of human limits. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in oursleves." Neither believers nor non-believers in gods possess, on that account, superior brains. Nor, I accede, inferior.

Faith passeth all understanding. This is true in friendship and love, and even mundane relations of trust. But most daily events can be teased out to reveal the basis for power structures, tit-for-tat games, and a host of ethical rules.

"...in the end he MUST affirm values and morals that look strikingly like biblical ones if he is to function on a daily basis. Theoretical atheism is a viable position, but practical theism is unavoidable if one is to live in loving and harmonious community."

Functioning on a daily basis has gone on for millennia before the arrival of Yahweh, Jesus or Buddha. It's never easy (although since 2000, it has become easier for the top 1% so richly awarded with tax cuts while the working class's sons and daughters die across the globe). Biblical mores and values may actually be a compendium of those that preceded them. Thinking may be insufficient at times (e.g., when declaring undying love...often prematurely), but it got us the civilzations, technologies and cultural rules and traditions, even religions, we have had, good and bad.

No one lives, of course, "theoretically". But we all are constantly making and adjusting theories to help navigate our lives. Contrary to what you say, Nikos, atheists do actually live as atheists and yet are loving and loved, by some.

"In practice", what makes living in the U.S. community difficult, an thus not "harmonious" for atheists (note: Europeans and Japanese do quite nicely --- less crime, for instance --- with the hefty percentages of agnostics and atheists among them) is not their unwillingness to accept or pretend to a belief they cannot and/or choose not to embrace; it is the sheer hatred espoused by Christians and, yes, Muslims, and a few other sects towards them.

Freddy, thanks for your studious and respectful reply. Atheists aren’t the only ones that are hated and derided nowadays. First, I do not see human history as evidencing the moral and spiritual teachings of Messiah across the ages. Yeshua is said in the Scriptures to have come in the “fullness of time.” It was the perfect prophetic moment in human history for Him to reveal the sum of the Law and the pristine values of love and forgiveness. Yes, and righteousness and judgment as well. A mere cursory study of the cultures and religious practices of His day reveal a stark contrast to Messianic standards.

My point about practical theism is that living in conflict with the Decalogue (stealing, committing adultery, bearing false witness and being greedy and covetous) produces abject human misery and corruption, causing any community to ultimately disintegrate. Of course, these values and morals existed before Messiah came, as they are to be found in the OT and also in other cultures.

In Rom. 1: 14 & 15, Paul declares that “when the Gentiles which have not the law, do BY NATURE the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS . . .” This teaches that the sense of right and wrong, of moral issues in life is part of the imago dei, not merely evolved community ethics of survival. True, they are necessary to survival, but that is not their source and nature.

The Law is linked in the Scriptures to God’s very nature, and thus man’s; the violation (sin) of which separates man from God and brings ruin and destruction upon individuals and societies. The moral law certainly existed even before Moses, but was expressed in its pure and complete form by linking it to the first table of the Law, showing its true purpose and origin.

As far as your Marxist comments are concerned, all types of economic systems are corrupted by greed and power, including socialist models. The root problem is not economic or sociological, but man’s innate predilection to sin. As history proves, changing economic systems only changes the environment of sin, often producing an extremely oppressive régime in order to force Law-ful behavior.

I was hardly suggesting we change our economic system, Nikos. But I do think there need to be checks and balances, and not just for the accounts of the Überrich. One needn't be a Marxist to critique power relations. Deconstructionists and their forebears include some Marx, but even phenomenologists and, I suppose, RealPolitik acknowledges the role of gamesmanship and outcome theory.

Most people derive their moral guidance from example: they follow their parents or other close models. As for innate, survival-base behviour, whether Darwinian or Dawkinsian, theories exist and are often convincing to explain what we call a moral code, without need of positing a divine image scrawled into one's soul. If it seems to simplify matters to say "God put part of himself in each of us", Occam's razor does not allow for adding an outside supernatural being replicated within a person, almost like a homonculus.

Freddy, I didn’t mean to imply that you are a Marxist-Leninist out to destroy American free enterprise, but that your comments sounded rather anti-capitalist. Although I tend toward laissez-faire economics, I agree that a legitimate function of government is to regulate interstate commerce, check corporate excesses and prosecute legal violations. However, business functions best when not hindered by undue governmental regulation and interference.

And being rich is no sin, but the rich can be sinful. The problem with any nation that forsakes the precepts and morals of God’s Word is that free enterprise is crippled and corrupted by sinful practices (Enrons, insider trading, embezzlement, et al.). The irresponsible and sinful use of financial resources is not a systemic problem, but one of a dearth of personal morality and ethics. Trying to force moral integrity by atheistic socialism is an implicit acknowledgement of sin; while, at the same time, a refusal to accept its true source and remedy: the fall of man and the Gospel of grace applied in the hearts and minds of individuals.

And even though economic theory and practice is complex and varied, I believe that free enterprise capitalism is by far the best, and preeminently biblical. But its effective practice requires large scale personal integrity. The negative repercussions of the failure to produce a just and morally-sensitive society impels man to opt for socialistic controls, which may remedy some of the symptoms, but never cures the disease of sin and depravity; and suppresses real freedom in the process.

The idea that God created man in his image is that we have self-consciousness, volition and moral awareness. We are not monistically part of some pantheistic God-stuff, but rather discreet entities who can love and adore their Creator in a dualistic relationship. The Bible does not speak of merging with the Godhead, but of an harmonious unity of love and action (John 15: 1-12 and 17: 21. & I Cor. 6: 17).

The presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul of a Christian is a reuniting of man with God, in and through Messiah, as in the Garden (Hebrew: Eden, “delight”) There is no homunculus within, but a dynamic spiritual presence and influence. Human consciousness is nothing less than the imago dei possessed by a discreet individual, interactive with God and neighbor. This is the source of our moral responsibility to God and one another. Divine nature = true responsibility and accountability. Seeing man as anything less, robs him of his full personhood and noble character (Psalm 8:5). Even those who deny God and the imago dei, generally act out and aspire to transcendent ideals, impelled by the God-endowed urge to greatness, knowledge, beauty and meaning.

Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (and elsewhere) in which he taught that one must be born again and become like a little child to enter the Kingdom, portends more, I believe, than outward behavioral change; it implies a radical change of consciousness, in which the mature human being once again sees and acts with unselfconscious, child-like joy in his relationship with God.

Much of man’s philosophizing and psychoanalyzing is simply a vain attempt to heal his profound alienation and guilt. And his seemingly uncontrollable urge to anal-yze his consciousness must remain unsatisfying and autoerotic, because the indispensable circle of love in relationship with God is missing: a sign of his alienation and lostness. Getting back to the Garden is possible only through the grace and power of the Gardener. And frankly, I would rather be a divinely-created homunculus than an ooze-spawned hu-monkey-lus. (Sorry about that)

P.S. I do not hate or dislike atheists. Profound disagreement does not imply hatred, or even personal dislike. I try to love everyone as God, for Christ’s sake, has loved me. Forgive me if I sometimes fail.

"Good intentions and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee and not much else."......................
do you HONESTLY believe this statement. are you saying that the millions if not billions of dollars that Christian organizations collect and distribute does no more than buy a cup of coffee ? if you believe that then you are not being intellectually honest.
have atheist organizations rallied efforts like this to help their fellow man??
i did a quick internet search and from what i could see, many atheist wouldn't contribute $$ b/c they fear that an evangelical message is tied to the giving. is this a convenient excuse not to give i wonder ?

"have atheist organizations rallied efforts like this to help their fellow man??
i did a quick internet search and from what i could see, many atheist wouldn't contribute $$ b/c they fear that an evangelical message is tied to the giving. is this a convenient excuse not to give i wonder ?"

Have you looked at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? That is an atheist charity. As is Carnegie. Warren Buffet's latest donations in the news represents a pretty significant contribution by an atheist, I believe.

On a personal level, I give to several charities, though ones that are carefully chosen to avoid the risk of my money falling into Christian hands. Do you have a problem with that?

eric,
i think it is wondeful that you contribute to the charities of your choice.
i was not aware that gates and buffet were atheist, thanks for that info. but can you tell me if they specifically screen every $ spent to insure that some Christian doesn't get their hands on it ?
eric let me ask you the same question i asked of rsnake.....do you believe Christian organizations do more than just buy a cup of coffee with the millions (billion?) that is contributed and then dispensed ?
eric if you (an atheist) solicitied $$ for an needy family and were simply going to hand it over to them as a gift with no strings attached, i would not have a problem with giving an atheist (you) $$ to help this family. it sounds on the other hand that you make CERTAIN that a Christian won't get any of your $$. i can attest that many Christian give $$ just like you do with no strings attached and no evangelizing going with it. like yourself, i've done it numerous times.
it's funny how we will tell our kids there is a santa claus and a tooth fairy just to give them hope and encouragement but some would stop short of giving encouragement by way of telling them God loves them.......

The Christian/Jewish Bible has anti-usury laws. Square that with Capital One's unfettered capitalism. My earlier aside was not calling for wholesale socialism, just fairness so we don't end up so diametrically inverted the poor outnumber the rich, who keep the rabble at bay with myriad financial inanities, gobble up the goods while paying less and less tax, while holing up in barricaded subdivisions. Les Miserables will always be us, I suppose. But that's not as easy to say when they make up a majority.

"Curing" sickening greed by social experiment is a pipedream, I agree. The threat of prosecution may curb its worst excesses, though. Religion, I submit, is a social experiment. I, too, decry the lack of personal integrity. It is theoretically possible many respond best to the strictures of religion's codes, by self-regulating their behavior under the (imagined, I say) threats of divine disfavor. But I don't see how one can expect everyone to believe in what for many is simply not plausible, or possible, or necessary. I would settle for people living lives of conscience, irregardless of their supernatural beliefs or lack thereof.

Does it matter to religionists, practically speaking, if an atheist lives an ethical life? Isn't the result the same for believers as if that atheist were instead a believer who lived a similar life?

Not to be the Grinch, here, but, who is this "we" who tell their children Santa is real but God isn't? Ditto the tooth fairy (who has been raking in the dough at outrageous inflated rates for years). I don't intend to when mine ask; I 'll tell them the truth. What hope is it we give our children by telling them lies about some Santa bringing toys down a chimney? The kids will get presents, often, anyway. I'd rather discourage my child from the very greed that a sense of entitlement can bring. Besides, my wife adds, Santa is a "dream from which they wake", whereas the myth of god is meant to be hewn to for their whole lives. We do at some point admit to our children (most of us) that Santa is a myth. When, then, ought we do the same with other divine non-entities?

Love does not have to be in short supply. Telling children every day, showing them in many ways, that they are loved and that they can love others, should spread plenty of warmth and security without recourse to a supernatural being.

I would settle for people living lives of conscience, irregardless [sic] of their supernatural beliefs or lack thereof.”

From whence this conscience? How do we insure some kind of functional unanimity of values within a social unit? Even if one posits that morals are merely the “natural” result of thousands of years of social evolution, it begs a general universality: a sort of organic and necessary MO among civilized peoples. Agnostics seem to value and attempt to live by biblical standards of ethics and morality (to varying degrees), and embrace the importance of love, but deny that these interpersonal dynamics are absolute or ubiquitous. I suppose they could concede the latter and still deny the existence of a conscious personal deity.

The importance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify universal human moral and ethical values in a theocentric context, which gives them needed authority, and also implies accountability. The depressing fact is that people (we) do not keep the law because of the sin nature, and belief that they will pay no price for their transgressions. This is why we have police and courts. This is why we teach our children to be honest and kind and just. Yes, Freddy, I rejoice that anyone, atheist or otherwise, keeps the law or loves others; because to the degree that a population despises and transgresses the moral law, to that extent we have crime, drugs, unwanted pregnancies, school massacres, wars, hated, prejudice, child abuse, serial murders, ad nauseam.

The problem today is that people today tacitly embrace the vital importance of the Law, but desire to break one or more of God’s moral laws in order to indulge their particular lust: perverted sex, abortion, pre-mairtal sex, drug use, etc. In order to do this they have to convince the general public that their lust is OK, that God and His Word are outdated, and that morality is plastic, situational and redefinable. The general public, under the powerful influence of powerful lobbies and the media, seem to be going along with this idea, if the lust being pedaled is not too serious, or doesn’t directly touch their lives. They can accept gay marriage, but not bestiality; abortion, but not post partum infanticide. What they cannot seem to see is that it won’t stop at one or two sins, but the slippery slop will soon lead us into the most gruesome and destructive cesspool. The Scriptures teach that sin is a downward spiral; that once the floodgate of lust is opened it is extremely hard to close it.

“Curing” sickening greed by social experiment is a pipedream, I agree.”

We would probably find a huge degree of agreement as to the excesses of Western capitalism and the absurdity of Santa-ism and the Spring bunny thing. Still, better dead than red; because the problem is not systemic, but moral and individual. Changing systems is merely changing the arena of sin, not its presence and effects. I know, you said you aren’t asking for this quantum change, merely justice and balance; but good luck without the Gospel and personal moral commitment, without which it surely is a pipedream.

What passes for Christianity today in America is woefully short of the biblical model. I really do empathize with those who are having a hard time with it; but I also know that if they knew about and studied genuine and intellectually solid expressions of the Faith they would see things very differently. There is a VAST difference in believing in Santa Claus and the true and living God of all eternity.
No one can outgrow their Creator (except maybe Data); and no one can grow enough to be fully conformed to the image of Christ, or love to the max. Perhaps, your “God is too small,” (or the one you are rejecting).

"i was not aware that gates and buffet were atheist, thanks for that info. but can you tell me if they specifically screen every $ spent to insure that some Christian doesn't get their hands on it ?"

I have no idea. They may have different ideas on the subject than I do.

"eric let me ask you the same question i asked of rsnake.....do you believe Christian organizations do more than just buy a cup of coffee with the millions (billion?) that is contributed and then dispensed ?"

I think that there is both good and bad done with the money. Depends on the situation. In some cases, there are charities run by Christians that give aid and don't do any preaching on the side. There are others that require recipients to attend worship as a precondition for aid.

What do you think of that spectrum? Would you prefer to deal with charities that exist at one extreme or the other? Just curious.

"What do you think of that spectrum? Would you prefer to deal with charities that exist at one extreme or the other? Just curious."....................

i think the spectrunm is just fine and i would rather not deal in extremes.

Thanks for reminding me of the ir- mistake, Nikos.

This non-theist does think the combination of responses and feelings we lump under the label "love" have ubiquitous, if not universal, similarities in most (non-sociopathic) humans and some animals. I do not think that begs the question of "who/what entity put those correlating factors together in such a way".

Emotional responses and factors that promote healthy realtions among families and peoples do not "need" a theocratic authority.
They can be effective and "true" for those who feel and benefit from them without the imprimatur of a godhead.

The "god" I conceptually posit to try to go on with theses blog conversations is no "small god", but the equivalent size as that believers propose. Its size is not the issue. For me, it is its superfluity, its irrationality. That said, as an artist, I recognize the intense passion and succor many find in such myths. I would not ask anyone to drop that from their lives. Perhaps I, too, am unknowingly addicted to some sustaining myths: the continuity of space; the "thereness" of the 'slippery slop" of our material cosmos; the very existence of an "I" writing this sentence. These are helpful adaptations for a sentient being to develop and perpetuate, if one is to navigate this fractious reality and its daily demands. Maybe the greatest ruse is the sequence of "time".