News-Record.com

"Atheism" is defined as "the belief that there is no God, or the denial that God exists."

Personally I see atheism as the acceptance of god's non-existance. BeLIEf and denial have nothing to do with anything.

"it is amazing that a "religious" newspaper column in the Bible belt would even consider printing the remarks of an atheist."

Actually you're right. I'm surprised(only sometimes) that there are some people that actually judge people by their character rather than something as silly as what religion they subscribe to.

" This speaks volumes as to where we are as a society. "

You're right again. We have come aa long way in the past few decades, haven't we? It hasn't been that many years ago, an atheist writing to a religious column in a newspaper and getting a letter printed in that newspaper was unheard of.

Whose faith should matter?

Easy.

Everyone's.

And the pastor who wrote in, if he is an American citizen, needs to ask himself why he hates America because he clearly has some issues with religious freedom.

As far too often happens, the messenger becomes the center of attention, not the message. How could that be, I wonder? Is said pastor feeling threatened to see an atheist having something to say on the subject of "faith"?

And if one reads the article, I really don't think you'll find anything "threatening" at all. In fact, it was written in an effort to be friendly, prehaps to lighten the mood a bit and find a little common ground between two groups (theists and the rest of us) who rarely take time to pause in the business of demonization.

Oh well. I gave it my best shot. :

I haven't had much time to post in the last few months, but I enjoyed placing Eric's face with the name. He and I disagree on many subjects, but he is entitled to express his opinion, even if it is wrong! Actually, some incidents he pointed out were truly silly or inconsistent as are many things that atheists and agnostics do as well. However, none of those incidents prove or disprove the existence of God and that was not a point that Eric tried to make anyway.

Maybe I'll make the time to write a piece for the N&R myself this year. I have written letters to the editor in the past as well as an opinion piece so I appreciate the work that Eric put in.

God is still allowing those who deprecate His name and reject His eternal truths to exist, so they still have the "freedom" to do so. Although it vexes me to read the anti-Christian opinion in this blog (and newspaper) I do assert that atheism IS a real "religion" Man cannot exist as a sentient being without having a religion: a comprehensive ultimate working principle, by which all of reality is perceived and lived. It is either the one true and living God, or something, anything, else. For the atheist it is materialistic unbelief. Even the drunk in the gutter has his bottle, or the druggie his needle. Something is the focus, goal, MO of existence.

One of the larger questions is, which set, or non-set, of moral principles produces a just, stable and caring culture; and which produces moral chaos, social instability and a dwarfed spiritual fulfillment. As a proponent of Christianity I do not assert any particular church, its historical phases - only the Word of God and the orthodox, creedal explication of it, with the Word being the ultimate authority.

I am perfectly willing (as long as God allows) to debate and interact with atheists as relgious persons; but ultimately all godless blasphemers will face the living God in judgment - whether they believe it or not. God's Word clearly asserts these truths, and in the mind of faith, they are as absolute and inevitable as the air we breath or the rotation of the earth.

"I haven't had much time to post in the last few months, but I enjoyed placing Eric's face with the name."

Oh great. Now I have to wear a disguise every time I go to shop out at Four Seasons... Bummer. :)

"He and I disagree on many subjects, but he is entitled to express his opinion, even if it is wrong!"

Yeah, but how often does that ever happen?

"Although it vexes me to read the anti-Christian opinion in this blog (and newspaper) I do assert that atheism IS a real "religion" Man cannot exist as a sentient being without having a religion: a comprehensive ultimate working principle, by which all of reality is perceived and lived."

It's always amusing to see how wildly some people can work to re-define the English language to suit their purposes, rather than simply accept even the possibility that they might in fact be wrong.

Nikos, I agree that everyone goes through life with a means of perceiving reality, but to call that means of perception "a religion" is stretching quite a bit, don't you think? Oh yeah, that's a silly question, I know -- see my first paragraph. But I rather expect that any sensible person might balk at your attempt to re-work the language just so you can feel like you're right.

happy new year Ecuman and God bless you.

“It's always amusing to see how wildly some people can work to re-define the English language to suit their purposes, rather than simply accept even the possibility that they might in fact be wrong.”

Eric, I thought I made my intent clear when I said, “atheism IS a real ‘religion’ " in quotation marks. I am merely boiling the accepted meaning of religion down to its essence. Webster says, “6 a : a personal awareness of the existence of a supreme being (lower case, mine) or of supernatural powers OR INFLUENCES (impersonal/determinism) controlling one’s own, humanity’s or ALL NATURE’S destiny.” There is clearly room here for a religion to be non-theistic. And so, I am using it in this philosophical sense, not the traditional popular sense.

Buddhism is considered universally a world “religion,” but it is essentially atheistic, or as Hindus say, “impersonalist.” There are a number of religious systems that do not have a personal deity, and many that have a deity quite alien to the God portrayed in Scripture. All of the above factors enable the polemicist to extend the idea of “religion” to all those systems that seek to order the universe around ANY ultimate concept, even non-theism. You may propositionally assert that you decry any organizing Ultimate for the universe, but with any speaking or acting of any consequence, you MUST use your organizing Concept to make any sense of what you have said or done – or be devoid of all reference points and ability to reason.

For example, with atheism these days seems to come a commitment to accept just about any sexual expression as valid and good. This means that you have placed man’s “law” above God’s Law BECAUSE Man is the center of your universe and the arbiter to all values and principles. The new religion is seeking to displace the old in our society, because there can be ONLY one religion and law in a culture, because all the public laws, policies, artistic standards, educational approaches, flow from a culture’s religion. In America’s case today it is humanism/atheism that is seeking to become the organizing principle of all our cultural expressions.

Worship is another hallmark of religion, and atheistic humanism has

its creed (Manifesto), its priests (movie stars and professors) and its sacraments (free sex and drugs etc.) All humanists and atheists (although not synonymous) worship themselves, or mankind. Man is the ultimate arbiter of what is true and good; not the biblical God. Their great temples are America’s humanist universities; and their SELF-exalting rituals are celebrated a thousand times a day in classrooms and rock concerts across the continent. Their belief (theological) systems are called liberalism, postmodernism, existentialism, Marxism, etc. And they are on a Jihad to rid the nation of theistic religion, especially Christianity, and its influences.

So, you may not like to called true believers of your religion, but you most certainly are. You are not, in fact, opposed to religion, but to the God of the Bible and His Messiah. We are not in the midst of a culture war, but a religious war – intense, ubiquitous and unavoidable. With St. Paul I say, “Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory.” And David: “Let God arise and his enemies be scattered.” Ps. 68.1

Nikos, I do not think every atheist who has ever lived, including many fine thinkers and creative minds, not just movie stars and academics, but scientists and deeply compassionate persons, would disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of their set of beliefs (or doubts). Yes, we all choose certain ways to order our lives, to whatever extent we can; although recent experiments show increasing signs that we control very little and thus, "free will" may be just illusory. (see New York Times, January 2, 2007, Tuesday By DENNIS OVERBYE- archived article)
Several prominent Nobel laureates have been uncovering similar results for years. But that's a different topic.

There is a significant contingent of non-theists who do not espouse belief in nor live their lives according to
"a comprehensive ultimate working principle, by which all of reality is perceived and lived." Many don't subscribe to a "single" or "ultimate" narrative or principle, seeeing "reality" as necessarily, radically contingent.

Even Zen Buddhism (as distinct from the "religious Buddhism" you describe) is extremely wary of such one-size-fits-all standards. The Void is not a thing one believes in, as I understand it. It is the very lack of all such things. It is no-thing, no-mind. As discussed on this blog before, though, I am not a Zen Buddhist myself.

Many other people who do rely on some sort of numinous explanation for all existence will turn out to twist the actual chaos and uncertainty of daily life into a projected system, just to assuage their fears of randomness. Order does appear, but it doesn't have to have been "ordered", as many atheists have discovered. Life can still be interesting, involving and full of wonderful reasons to live, without there being a singular cause or reason for living.

Just as you rightly chide those of us who may lapse into using the worst examples of what you would call errant Christians, isn't lumping all atheists into the camps of movie stars (I don't know any off the top of my head who claim to be atheist, by the way), sexual experimenters and Marxists just as presumptuous?

I, for one, do not ascribe to any of those camps. Although, as you point out, the level of tolerance extended to those who practice differing (non-criminal, non-coercive, etc) behaviours is higher among most atheists, I gather, than among, say, Christians.

As for the other theories you mention, I have read and investigated, applied and dismissed several at various times, but none has ever become for me the sort of idol and singular guiding principle you attribute as required of all non-believers.

"its creed (Manifesto), its priests (movie stars and professors) and its sacraments (free sex and drugs etc.)"

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Free sex and drugs? Are you kidding? I've been married for almost 30 years now and I'll tell you one thing I've learned... sex is and always will be ANYTHING but free. {;-)

You are flippin' hilarious. LOL!

And BTW, the only drugs I do on a regular basis are the ones I have for my diabetes and high cholesterol. I hope you don't mind.

"Just as you rightly chide those of us who may lapse into using the worst examples of what you would call errant Christians, isn't lumping all atheists into the camps of movie stars (I don't know any off the top of my head who claim to be atheist, by the way), sexual experimenters and Marxists just as presumptuous?"

In the "real world" it is. In Nikos's world... I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he will claim -- as always -- to know more about the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (not that it exists!) than any atheist in town. He has Truth to dispense, not mere facts.

Nikos,
Whenever I read one of your posts, one particular saying comes to mind.
" He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a fool, avoid him."
Your head is so full of wrong information it's pitiful.

" and atheistic humanism has its creed (Manifesto), its priests (movie stars and professors) and its sacraments (free sex and drugs etc.)"

How come nobody ever told me about any of this??:(

Nikos, funny you should mention Ps 68. It's one of my favorites to point folks to in the Bible:

Ps 68:22,23 - The Lord said, "I will bring them back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea, so that you may bathe your feet in blood, so that the tongues of your dogs may have their share from the foe."

Don't you just feel the love for humanity there? {;-)

eric,
Ps 68:22,23 - The Lord said, "I will bring them back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea, so that you may bathe your feet in blood, so that the tongues of your dogs may have their share from the foe."

Don't you just feel the love for humanity there? {;-)

to the unregenerate those are only words and the best you can do with them is to decipher on that level.it's a Holy Spirit thing, ya know (but we've covered all this before).

"to the unregenerate those are only words and the best you can do with them is to decipher on that level.it's a Holy Spirit thing, ya know (but we've covered all this before)."

All right, Buz. Since you know all about this passage, perhaps you can translate it. Tell us what the Holy Spirit tells you. I suspect it's a collection of words you'd rather not deal with because it's flat-out embarrassing. But if I'm wrong, I'd like to see how that is.

I do apologize for getting so animated; but you guys are so provocative in your anti-God statements. I can’t imagine how God views all this. The passage you mentioned, Psalm 68:22.23 is an integral part of the whole psalm, which is a kind of poetic rehearsal of God’s favor towards his covenant people. As ALWAYS this sort of passage also tells of the judgment of God upon those who reject and revile Him, and who oppress and maltreat his holy congregation – as in vv. 1-3; 28-31 - and 32-35 is the final doxology of God’s omnipotent rule and victory over his enemies.

Eric: “Don't you just feel the love for humanity there?”

No, the passage has nothing to do with “humanity;” just with those who have touched the apple of His eye: Israel; despite all her trespasses and failures; because she is His Bride, the OT expression of His covenant love and faithfulness. In the NT it is the Church. He may deal strongly and redemptively with her own unbelief and sin; but those who seek to destroy her will know His divine wrath. That’s what the passage is all about. It is about God’s promise to wreak vengeance on the pagan, unbelieving hordes who attack His Bride – and, by contrast, to bless her.

This may sound harsh – and it is – but if you do not understand the stakes, you cannot understand these passages. All you seem to be able to do is impose your facile, unstudied and a-theistic worldview on it. Facile because you think Christians proclaim a mushy all- accepting God; unstudied because you didn’t bother to put it in context by researching the meaning of the imprecatory psalms; and as an non-theist you see it with hostility and disdain – all in all, a formula for misinterpretation and error.

It is only by seeing the horrors of sin as they are played out on the bloody and tragic stage of history that one can appreciate God’s saving act in the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. That only in making cosmic atonement on the Cross was God’s mercy and love brought to bear, and His sure judgment assuaged. For those who, in childlike repentance and humility believe, His love and mercy is fully engaged. For those who deny, hate and berate Him the imprecatory Psalms apply – in principle if not in method.

Why? Because the consequences of denying God’s Law and deprecating His Word bring ruin and chaos to HIS earth (“The earth is the Lord’s), thus dishonoring His holy Name and touching His glory. The penalty for such heinous and destructive acts is death and judgment. You may not like it or accept it; but neither did the arrogant Pharaoh or the prideful Nebuchadnezzar – or Hitler, or Stalin. God’s holiness is real and He will not leave it derided and mocked forever. It is only His mercy through the Gospel that extends the time for repentance and faith. I strongly advise the same.

Which is why I almost never take the bait to discuss the meaning of any biblical scripture. Why even ask for any probable reason for finding logical, pragmatic or physical reality in them, eric? It's their book, there's no way to use it to convince them of its contradictions or implausibilties.

Frankly, I have no idea why atheists like ourselves continue discussion of the idea of god with theists. It's a dead-end conversation. better to stick with the rare times Nancy brings up Buddhism or maybe at some point philosophy rather than only religion and theology.

eric,
my statement was not meant as a personal attack against you, just my observation and my understanding of God's word. anyone who has not received Christ as Lord and Savior and thus receiving the benefit of the indwelling Holy Spirit, cannot comprehend the mind of Christ, thus not comprehending His word. Nikos reply was more adequate than i could have expressed (thanks Nikos).

f.niche also expressed his view well.

2007 is a new opportunity for us all and i will continue to supplicate God on the unbelievers behave.

"Which is why I almost never take the bait to discuss the meaning of any biblical scripture. Why even ask for any probable reason for finding logical, pragmatic or physical reality in them, eric? It's their book, there's no way to use it to convince them of its contradictions or implausibilties."

I'm not entirely sure of that. One of the most important points in my journey away from faith was when I became convinced that my faith in the Bible needed to be questioned openly. I set out to read the entire book, front to back, asking myself if it honestly struck me as being a "holy" book.

What I found surprised me and destroyed my faith completely. I believe that Isaac Asimov had it right when he said that the Bible can be a most potent force for the destruction of Christian faith.

"Nikos reply was more adequate than i could have expressed (thanks Nikos)."

Please forgive me if I'm impertinent, Buz, but Nikos' reply read as if it came straight out of a Christian theological text book, not some set of reasoning that would be impossible for mere mortals. I believe you said that you had "deciphered" that passage with supernatural abilities.

"Please forgive me if I'm impertinent, Buz, but Nikos' reply read as if it came straight out of a Christian theological text book"..... you're entitled to that opinion.

"I believe you said that you had "deciphered" that passage with supernatural abilities."...........
yes you are correct.

Eric, you say you've been married for 30 years (and I applaud your faithfulness). Got any children? If so, ever punish them for wrongdoing? If so, did that express hate or love? God, as our creator, is absolute sovereign. As Legolas says in the LOTR movie, "you owe Him your allegience."
That being so, He has the right to punish disobedience as he sees fit. Heaven is not a democracy.
I am curious as to where you derive your apparently universal ethical yardstick by which you presume to judge your Maker. By what authority do you proclaim universal moral principles? Your own reason? Tradition? Cultural mores? None of these are universally binding.

And since they are not universally binding, but only fallible, subjective opinions, how can you be so sure that your failure to see the love in the Bible, especially considering the torture Christ endured on your behalf, is not simply the result of your own rebellion. Because people refused to acknowledge God, although they knew Him through His creation, their imaginations were darkened and their reasoning became folly, Romans 1:20, 21, as you will no doubt recall from your reading. "Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world?", 1 Cor. 1.

"Eric, you say you've been married for 30 years (and I applaud your faithfulness). Got any children? If so, ever punish them for wrongdoing? If so, did that express hate or love?"

I have a son, and when he was young, I did indeed correct him when he did things that I saw as being wrong. But the difference between my correction as a parent and what the Bible says God's plan is is that my actions were aimed at correction rather than punishment. In the scheme that includes hell, there is no correction involved. Only eternal, infinite pain -- as a return for what? Getting an answer wrong on a theology test? Is that not what John 3:16-18 truly boils down to?

"God, as our creator, is absolute sovereign. As Legolas says in the LOTR movie, "you owe Him your allegience." "

I give allegiance to things that I see evidence for. There is no evidence that conclusively points to the existence of this God -- no more than any of the other ones that men have ever made up.

You refuse your allegiance to Zeus, Odin and Allah, in part because you are at least passingly familiar with the problems that exist in the "holy scriptures" of their religions. At least a reasonable man would be. I merely refuse to give your god any easier pass than the others. And frankly, I don't see any reason why I should.

"I am curious as to where you derive your apparently universal ethical yardstick by which you presume to judge your Maker. By what authority do you proclaim universal moral principles?"

I don't "proclaim universal moral principles." I undertand that there is no such thing... I've studied this thing called "history," you see, and I have learned that few such things, if any, exist.

"Your own reason? Tradition? Cultural mores? None of these are universally binding."

I think you are correct in this. At least I face that void with the understanding that life will be much easier for all to live if we use our reason to establish some common rules that we can agree to live by. Perhaps we will one day find a way to reach that stage. But one thing is certain -- it will never happen so long as so many people are so certain that they have all the answers to moral problems handed to them by so many different "universal soveriegns."

“Why even ask for any probable reason for finding logical, pragmatic or physical reality in them, eric? It's THEIR book, there's no way to use it to convince THEM of its contradictions or implausibilities [sic].”

It strikes me as noticeably condescending, Freddy, to refer to fellow debaters in the third person: a form of ad hominem. (Just a little aside).

“. . . better to stick with the rare times Nancy brings up Buddhism or maybe at some point philosophy RATHER THAN only religion and theology.”

Uhh, Freddy, this blog is called: “The - Front – Pew.” Normally the word, “pew,” conjures up notions of churches and synagogues, not university classrooms or DNC rallies. So God, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and the peyote cult all fit the label – and if you insist that atheism is a NOT a religion, then perhaps you atheists are the one’s that should be excluded. But I enjoy our dialogue, even if I do not agree with your views.

“. . . rather than only religion and theology.”

Apparently, you would rather we just go away, and would prefer to exclude us from the forum - par for the course nowadays. You seem to expect Christians to be nice tolerant little members of the Relativism Club. It ain’t gonna happen! So let’s just accept the fact that we vehemently disagree and get on with the very interesting and stimulating debate. You help me sharpen my “two-edged sword” – thanks!

And John, I always refer to far greater minds and souls than mine for help in interpreting more difficult passages of Scripture. One would have to be extremely arrogant not to do so. But, as Buz rightly noted, the same Spirit that inspired the writers of Scripture also takes all the personal thought and research we can do and gives us understanding. Though some passages and concepts are certainly more difficult. St. Peter puts it nicely:

“ . . . as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the WISDOM GIVEN to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”

With humility, study of the original languages, research tools, and the unction of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God is readily understood and applied. (Of course, every Christians has points he or she does not understand; and maybe never will this side of glory). Perhaps if you had brought all these things to bear, Eric, and had been born from above (anothen) you would have come to a much different conclusion of your reading of the Bible. I know many who did so, and came to faith as a result of simply reading the Scriptures.

No, Nikos, I had no wish to exclude anyone from the forum; I simply have decided that I shan't partake of argument dealing with the Christian Bible. I thought by ceding that ground entirely to Christian believers, you would have been happy. No condescension, quite the opposite: I respect and completely defer to any Christian's interpretation of their own scripture.

There have been many traditions in Catholicism and Judaism, among others, which encourage strictly philosophical discussion and debate, including honoring doubts while pursuing logic. The universities of Europe grew out of the monasteries, but then were greatly expanded during the Enlightenment by secular-minded monarchs like Frederick the Great and others, including some high-minded democrats (and some bloody ones, too, admittedly). I suspect many of those hallowed halls have their share of "pews", in lieu of desks. Prayer and worship would seem to make limited blog material; thus, I thought there might be room for other things beside apologia or mere name-calling.

The pew is open, I know, to any religion or religious topic. I had sensed it was also a place for philosophical deabte based on logic, not merely rhetoric. If the understanding is that the blog is only for those who want to argue for or against various or singular religious points of view, however, I am choosing to discuss from here on out, myself, only the philosophical implications of whichever belief system is proffered for comment. I will not try to dissuade anyone from their interpretation of a "holy text". Have at it all you want. I just realize it makes no headway for either the theist side or non-theist side to quote and counter-quote the King James version (or any other) to each other. I will continue to READ said posts, because they have something to offer usually, but I can't see how edifying for anyone would be my engaging in fruitless debate with anyone who has taken a radically different way of understanding what I consider metaphor.

I'm sorry you won't come out to play anymore, Freddy. I certainly don't mind your voicing your rejection of the truth and value of Holy Scripture. Hoever, there can be no true debate between atheistic unbelievers and genuine orthodox Christians without reference to the Word of God.

I readily admit that I'm a presuppositionalist and that Scripture is the ultimate, only and final authority for me. The interesting debate comes in challenging and defending that presupposition - which is a key factor in the current relgion wars. To withdraw from this debate in an intellectual huff, serves only to put down the opponent and quash the dialog. And you're so good at what you do.

The central issue in all of life is whether God's enscripuratied truth or man's speculative assertions will be the determining wordlview in our and the world's soceities. We don't have to ALWAYS talk about the Bible, but I cannot argue from my own opinion alone; I must always refer and defer to God's revealed truth in all matters.
Please do come out to play. You challenge, provoke and inform me.

On philosophy, of course I will. But I see no reason to try to dissaude you or any other person who believs in divine scriptural authority. It's just a non-starter. The actual, practical implementation of any views taken from those sources, though, are open for discussion without necessarily conceding all to the quoted source's authority, I hope.

Why are we discussing this? Of course you don't believe in the authority of Scripture. I'm fully aware of that, and accept that as the starter. There is ample room for debate and discussion re. this issue, as well as all the "actual, practical implementation of any views." found therein.

I respect your acumen and well-read citations, even though I am diametrically ooposed to some of your positions. But don't let that dissuade you. I may become assertive when directly challenged; but don't we all. We, as a culture, must fully debate the serious issues that press upon us from every side. I simply bring my biblically-based views to the table; but I do not presume to understand all the dilemmas we face, or even the biblical solutions to them.

That is the problem in the public arena today. Rather than debataing Christians, humanists/ atheists often want to simply put us in our little cloister to silence and marginalize us. That will only inflame the situation. Although I am aware that the breech is wide, and communication difficult; it must be attempted. We must all/each try to ratchet down the adrenalin level and seek to discuss specific, germaine issues intelligently and openly; accepting the other side's sources of authority and go from there.

At least on the blog we can get a little testy at times and have a little fun, as opposed to the stuffy and often pretentious envionment of academia. To blog or not to blog, that is the question.

I enjoyed the skeptic's perspective in this article. My friend* Eric writes and expresses himself well and hit some good topics. He supports my practical axiom: "Everybody is a jerk in their own special way" with his quirky observations of Ted * Jesus Camp movie observations.

Providentially, Eric did make one mistake, He wrote:
"Finally, to provide a little balance, I include a note on my own side of the religion spectrum, atheism."

Eric, when you define a freethinker and what it takes for membership in the PFA you now have to include "THE" religion of atheism, and then figure out how to keep Christians out of the "freethought" association.

*Eric's a little sore at me as my presence at the Piedmont Freethought Association over the last six months has been a little too challenging, but with time I think he will develop a little more lighthearted perspective as he did with this past year in religion ;-)

love your writing! its Fun!

We may be discussing this because I don't think a number of Christians out there DO accept the authority of most sources quoted and relied upon by atheists. Why should they? If one's god is the ultimate authority all all things, and the Christian Bible is claimed to have enough in it to decide all ethical matters, in the end, there's no reason a believer in such a set of flexible and yet unchanging scriptures ever needs to deign to listen to anyone else's arguments, except as entertainment and a point of vilification.

Freddy, don't you see it? You're making your statements on the basis that YOU are right. Your unbending authority is your, or another atheist's, argumentation that there categorically is no God who has spoken and revealed Himself in the Incarnate Word. All your philosophical positiosna dn moral values etc are predicated on that premise. The Christian does not come at this thing with only relativistic and changing speculation, but rather authoritative revelation given over many millennia.

The task of the atheist is, and will always be, to counter and remove Christianity from the public forum, because it is the polar opposite of his worldview and value system. The reason there is such a virulent anti-Christian move among its opponents today is that the world is at a point of epistemological self-consciousness such as was not possible before, because of rapid communication and unprecedented information dissemination. The result is that many more people realize that the future course of the national and world community is at stake: values, spiritual commitments, morals, economic and political policy, et al.

Simply put, the Word of God is absolute moral, spiritual and practical TRUTH, rightly and intelligently interpreted, and, as such, is Being itself. All other thinking and ideology is non-being; i.e. it has no intrinsic substance whatsoever. St. Paul says,

“And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am NOTHING.” (I Cor, 13) and:

“But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to NOTHING the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.” (I Cor. 1)

Non-biblical thinking derives any sense of being and reality only from God’s revealed Truth: OT, NT, Decalogue, Jesus’ teachings OR by simply interacting with GOD’S universe. However, man’s sinfulness and fallibility always distorts his extra-biblical observations. Any morality worth adhering to and practicing can ONLY be some version of the Scriptural revelation, or a perverse variant thereof. All attempts to invent or create a different morality or ethic will forever end up a version of God’s revealed archetype.

And any morality, other than the biblical kind, will BY ITS VERY NATURE produce chaos and ruin in the long term. No one pretends that murder is just OK, or that stealing and adultery will produce social good. And most atheists and humanists would agree that selfless, all-giving love (epitomized by Christ) has lasting, absolute and positive value, as opposed to the existential void of hate and murder. Thus, God calls everyone, everywhere to repentance and faith in the Messiah, who is Himself the “Way, the Truth and the Life” – the “fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

And so, Freddy, your ASSERTIONS will always come off sounding just as doctrinaire as Christian dogma. As Jesus said, we are either for Him or against Him. There is no other position; there is NO neutrality, only submission to Almighty God or adamant rebellion, which God will judge, because it dishonors Him and corrupts His universal order.

I am perfectly willing to read a Christian's defense of an idea based on scripture, but I ahve to say there is no way to respond to it as a non-theist in any way that the believer would find useful in conversation. I do not agree, clearly, that all non-biblically-based thinking is illegitimate. Should we discard all the treasures of non-biblical philosophy back to Plato and the Pre-Socratic Greeks? All of Eastern thought?

And on many, many issues, the "authority" I may rely upon is Reason alone; at other times, it may in fact be a theist thinker, but where his/her logic and argument do not stand solely on biblical precedent. Of course, on some issues, I do refer to non-theists' ideas...particularly on the arguments over what is needed to live a good life. Ethics is open to discussion without reference to god, and that is where I think the pew should be open as well, aince so many topics for discussion here center around right and wrong acts, as defined by society, not only by religions.

I am happy to allow all bloggers the space to air their thoughts, but to engage in a complete, two-sided dialogue, one has to expect a middle ground where no specific belief in one particular named deity is required to carry out that conversation. Otherwise, the pews would be effectively reserved for members of one faith only.

I'm coming to agree with Freddy in some respects regarding the conversation between theists and non-theists. But only in regards to the theists who have convinced themselves that they are somehow in posession of "The Truth(tm)." It's a waste of time trying to find even a little common ground with such people, because it's nearly impossible to find the least bit of willingness to admit the possibility that they might have some shadow of human frailty in their lives. In their mind "The Truth(tm)" makes them superhuman, and they have no need to bother listening to the likes of me, or Freddy, or anyone from outside their church.

The Pharisees had absolutely nothing on people of that sort. So yeah, I think it's best to let them have the last word, so long as that last word isn't "burn the Infidel!"

Eric wrote:
"But the difference between my correction as a parent and what the Bible says God's plan is is that my actions were aimed at correction rather than punishment. In the scheme that includes hell, there is no correction involved. Only eternal, infinite pain -- as a return for what? Getting an answer wrong on a theology test? Is that not what John 3:16-18 truly boils down to?"

No. Hell is a punisahment for sin, which in turn is a result of bad theology. Most sinners I know wouldn't want to spend eternity worshipping the God of the Bible. (Would you?) That's why they're sinners. God simply gives them what they've wanted all their lives: an eternity without Him. It's not His fault that they don't like it when they get there; He tried to warn them. But He will not drag people kicking and screaming into Heaven. John 3:18 says sinners hate the light because their DEEDS are evil, not because their theology is defective.

Eric continued:"You refuse your allegiance to Zeus, Odin and Allah, in part because you are at least passingly familiar with the problems that exist in the "holy scriptures" of their religions. At least a reasonable man would be. I merely refuse to give your god any easier pass than the others. And frankly, I don't see any reason why I should."

You shouldn't. Nor does anyone ask you to. I've never worshipped Allah, but I did give my allegiance to the others at one time, and found that the many reasons to trust the Bible do not apply to the Eddas or Greek myths. For one thing, the Bible is based on the history you studied, as other books held to be sacred are not. There are whole books devoted to reasons to believe Scripture; I recommend the Baker Book of Apologetics and Josh McDowell's Evidence for Christianity as good places to start. If you want "reasons why you should," they're available.
If not, that's your choice, but don't go telling us there aren't any just because you haven't looked at them.

Eric: "I don't "proclaim universal moral principles." I undertand that there is no such thing"

But you do proclaim such principles when you say things like "punishment is evil" or "God has no right to punish us." Human reason cannot arrive at moral certainty because it has only argument; it has no authority. Only a being like God, Who knows everything, can have the wisdom to declare moral principles that are truly good and lead to our happiness. What you really object to is rules imposed by God rather than yourself. If the Bible's God exists, you would be obligated to obey Him, but you'd rather make up your own rules. That doesn't make you free, it makes you a slave to your own blind passions. Surely history has taught you this as well, even if Scripture didn't.
I don't claim to have "all the answers." But I do have some; and it's a lot better than having no answers at all.

"But you do proclaim such principles when you say things like "punishment is evil" or "God has no right to punish us.""

See, this is where you slipped up, Steve. I said neither of those things. I said that the notion of infinite punishment for finite crimes is wrong. Is it really beyond the realm of reason to think that a punishment should fit the crime that is committed? In the course of a limited human life, how many crimes can be committed, Steve? Can you honestly make a case supporting the notion that it is "just" for even the most horrible lifetime of crimes to have a response of infinite punishment?

Also, I think you missed my point when talking about "correction." In the real world, punishment should be done in order to correct a person's behavior. Hell has no such function. The Bible says that it exists ONLY for eternal torture. How can anyone's life be corrected if they can never leave to torture chamber?

"John 3:18 says sinners hate the light because their DEEDS are evil, not because their theology is defective."

Did you even bother to read that verse? In case you have trouble finding it, here's what the King James Bible says it translates to:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Sounds like Jesus was saying it's only a matter of a theology test, dude.

Yes, it is indeed a matter of "knowledge of God" (theo-logy); but not just truth principles, but a personal knowing and trusting and allegiance (faith, believing).

But one cannot simply will oneself to believe that which goes against one's entire way of thinking and evaluating what can be believed, based on logic and reason. Faith is a gift, I think some people say...sort of akin to one's genetic predispositions. I also have read some researchers posit and have come close to isolating structures in the human brain and/or genome that could well account for exactly this sort of predisposition.

If someone is genetically programmed to find faith in supernatural causes wholly untenable, what sense is there in describing them as sinfully proud and arrogant?

Doesn't "personal knowing" come down to "feeling", really? The proof being that one wholehearted believes, period, seems enough to distinguish a believer in one religion from another.

When I asserted "not JUST truth principles" (doctrine) I was saying precisely that. The Gospel is a body of truth principles to be believed intellectually. My point was that upon such belief, or trust, in the declarations of atonement and forgiveness, one's response to that body of truth causes an inward transformation of the soul and spirit which becomes the basis of continued spiritual growth and development.

Eric: "I said that the notion of infinite punishment for finite crimes is wrong." One is not consigned to eternal (absolute) separation form God on the basis of accumulated "crimeS;" but because of the sinful and disobedient disposition of the soul towards God; out of which specific sins or "crimes" are committed. Our condemnation is that we are sinners by birth and disposition, not that we commit such and such sins. Without the intervention of the Gospel of grace and the Law of God man would careen into abject debauchery and despair because of his degenerate and sinful condition.

Regeneration (salvation) radically changes that rebellious and hateful attitude towards God to one of love and a desire to please. If one has heard the offer of redemption in the Gospel, and has consciously and willfully rejected it, one is utterly culpable. All this is because of the Imago Dei, which makes our rebellion and sin heinous acts of cosmic sedition, which have destructive and debilitating consequences in people's lives, marring God's creation and hurting those he created and loves.

Thus far, my own readings of gospels of any sort, and any and all explanations of them to me by others, have not come anywhere near convincing me of truth principles worthy of intellectual belief, or assent, or trust. Thus, there is no way in your declension of events, Nikos, the next stage could occur, right? No inward transformation of what are, to me, equally un-believed entities: soul and spirit (though I am aware of some wonderful analogies which these terms serve in a movingly poetic sense).

I suppose my paltry brain is incapable of being convinced because I simply don't grasp the logic of the essential doctrines as remotely empirically provable, or even plausible. There is no way to even begin to believe, for me, in any literal sense the notions of divinity, eternal life, resurrection or virgin births (aside from sci-fi sorts of genetic stuff), for instance. And then there's the less supernatural but terribly weird, to me, accounting of what is supposed to be allowed or not allowed (aside from some generally common human principles many, many cultures have shared to maintain societal relations).

So, intellectually, I am a lost cause right from the get go. Thus, no chance for the rest of the salvation package.

This does not, somehow, trouble me.