MWR : Can we learn from an atheist?

Religionists were more likely than not born to their chosen faith, whereas atheists, more often than not, have had to learn their way to their chosen belief set, having been born into more or less religious families. The path of that learning results in a larger accumulation of knowledge about religions, often many religions. Meanwhile, the religionist can be content with a relatively small knowledge set that supports their chosen faith.

Of course atheists will test high in general religious knowledge. I've also contended, and have known two men of which this is true, that those that go thru seminary tend toward agnosticism, even though they go to work in the faith field, entering into the work to help humans, not in the exaltation of something supernatural. Seems Michael King came to the same conclusion.

Through much questioning and biblical study, including the Hebrews 11 vision of faith as “the conviction of things not seen,” King found God and became a Mennonite pastor. “It can be possible to live by faith even when not entirely convinced we can know, based strictly on the evidence, whether or not there is a God,” he wrote.

True enough, Sky Dog. But it's even funnier when they then tell the people who know more about their faith that we can't possibly understand it because we're not Christian. Seems you can't win for losing. If we know more, too bad because we don't understand what we know. It seems very hypocritical, especially since most atheists were religious at some point, like you say.

most atheists were religious at some point

At one point in my life, I held a priesthood in an internationally recognized church. Then, (long story, short) I stopped believing in fairy tales.

If it is true that most atheists were religious at one point, than all they knew was their religion, usually catholicism. They did not know Christianity because you cannot know Christianity without knowing faith in Jesus Christ. And if they did have faith at one point, and let someone talk them out it: How much could they have really known?

Further, one can be religious and not know GOD or the Bible. The Pharisees were religious. But Jesus Christ knew The Father. Can you differentiate?

From my experience atheists especially here on Newsvine don't really even know the Bible that well. For example, they keep being confused when true Christians say that Christians don't follow the Old Testament Law because we Christians are not under the law. Atheists post the Old Testament scriptures and don't "understand" we Christians are under grace and follow the New Testament; and regularly accuse us of hypocrisy because of it. Atheists rarely quote the New Testament or what Jesus Christ has said, and have never shown any firm grasp of His precepts. So how much can atheists know about Christianity? Their knowledge is superficial at best.

I have yet to meet the atheist who knows more about the faith of Christ than I. Certainly no atheist that I have come across on Newsvine. And there are plenty of Bible believing Christians who know far more than I do. So, if you'll take my advice, get around Christians who believe the Word of GOD and walk the walk.

You might learn something.

Rank, I've talked to those people. And they tend to embrace willful ignorance, so it's hard to learn anything from them.

It is absolutely possible to have faith in Jesus Christ and then realize it's all bull@!$%# as you learn actual facts. I know, you think embracing blind faith and ignorance should last a lifetime, but for many people who value knowledge, it doesn't work that way. Especially as you research other religions instead of sticking to your insular little book and find that they make just as much sense, and that being exclusionary is a horrible way to live.

If it is true that most atheists were religious at one point, than all they knew was their religion, usually catholicism. They did not know Christianity because you cannot know Christianity without knowing faith in Jesus Christ.

Many did have faith in Jesus Christ. Who are you to tell them they didn't?

And if they did have faith at one point, and let someone talk them out it: How much could they have really known?

According to the study, they knew more than the faithful. That alone should tell you something. And in most cases, no one person talked them out of it. I never had an atheist come to my door and tell me I shouldn't believe. It's usually a slow progression towards not believing. Hell, even Mother Theresa had doubts near the end. Are you going to be arrogant enough to say she had no faith in Jesus?

From my experience atheists especially here on Newsvine don't really even know the Bible that well. For example, they keep being confused when true Christians say that Christians don't follow the Old Testament Law because we Christians are not under the law.

The Bible is one book. Believers cherry pick from the OT all the time. And honestly, I've never seen you win an argument yet here on NV when it came to debating religion.

Atheists rarely quote the New Testament or what Jesus Christ has said, and have never shown any firm grasp of His precepts. So how much can atheists know about Christianity? Their knowledge is superficial at best.

The study says otherwise. Not only do most atheists know the Bible better, but they know the history behind the Bible better as well.

I have yet to meet the atheist who knows more about the faith of Christ than I. Certainly no atheist that I have come across on Newsvine. And there are plenty of Bible believing Christians who know far more than I do. So, if you'll take my advice, get around Christians who believe the Word of GOD and walk the walk.

Watch a Hitch video where he debates a believer. Watch when he tears them a new one. There is no debating believers because the entire structure of their faith sits atop faith with no evidence. Most fundamentalists would believe no matter the evidence and many aren't even curious enough to explore their faith. They just believe like cattle.

You might learn something.

I'm always open to learning. You have to have something to teach first. The only thing I've learned from you is during that one debate where you said: You don't need evidence, you just need to believe!

Hardly a landmark moment for religion.

Atheists rarely quote the New Testament or what Jesus Christ has said

It's pretty hard for anyone to quote Jesus when he never wrote anything, and the bible was written long after his death - mostly by people who never even met him. The fundamentalists pretend they're actually quoting him but they aren't. Nobody has a clue as to what Jesus did or didn't actually say, assuming he even existed.

Most of us stopped believing because we DID learn and study the bible. We just refused to block out the unpleasant parts so we could keep pretending worshipping a mass murderer was a good thing. You can say whatever you want about Jesus fulfilling the laws of the OT, but that doesn't change the mass murders, rape and slavery that your god condoned and committed. Or are you admitting that the OT is a bunch of bull@!$%# and that your god never committed those atrocities? Do you actually admit that the stories of Noah's Ark, Genesis, the Exodus, and so on are just allegories and never happened or do you stick up for the psychotic, insanely jealous deity who did those things?

I keep seeing that reference to that Pew poll. I also see it used to crow about how much better atheists did on it than most Christians apparently did. I took the test as well. The one thing that struck me about it was that it concerned general knowledge about several religions and not simply Christianity.

What I wonder is, how does one conclude that because they may have done well about general knowledge of major religions that it translates into actual knowledge of Christianity? Or to put it another way, what about the test makes one think they know more about Christianity than a Christian? As I said, I took the test. I know what was on it.

The test consisted of a total of 15 questions. Not all of them about Christianity. None of the questions had anything to do with what Christians believe or about christian doctrine. So, could someone explain to me why this particular test means anything concerning what Christianity is???

I suppose one thing it points out is that many Christians are so convinced they're special that they have no interest in understanding other points of view. That's a shame. We should all try to learn about other cultures, religions, etc. because we're all in this world together.

I suppose one thing it points out is that many Christians are so convinced they're special that they have no interest in understanding other points of view. That's a shame. We should all try to learn about other cultures, religions, etc. because we're all in this world together.

I'm sure there are some Christians who feel that way. For others, it's probably not that they feel special but just that they don't see the point (rightly or wrongly). They're all different and there's probably many reasons. Of course, there are those who do not ignore other religions.

In any event, I agree to a point, about being in the world together. It helps to know who your neighbors are.

Please don't consider this a dig at your reply, but it didn't really answer my question. That's fine, though. I'm not really expecting one because the answer is obvious. I may have correctly answered the Islamic questions on the Pew servey, but I'd be a fool to think that means I know the Islamic faith. Same with Christianity. Just because I answered those, doesn't make me an expert on those either. One question I got right was the sheer conincidence of just having read the name a few days ago.

Anyway, my question was just in order to make that point. Thanks for the reply.

Good point, Drak. I'd say it shows more that atheists are willing to look at all religions, while religious people ignore (or ridicule) other faiths and only believe in the one that they were raised in most of the time.

Drak, sorry for not addressing your question - and thanks for your response, it was very good. I'm just so curious that it always surprises me when other people aren't - my latest interest is to find out if we have any Messianic Jews here on NV because I'd like to hear about that from a personal viewpoint. To me, if you accept Christ as the savior, you're a Christian. I always like to learn new things.

But I digress yet again. I haven't actually seen the poll, but from what you said, it doesn't seem like it tests knowledge of Christianity, specifically. I'll have to find it and take it. And I suspect that thirst for knowledge does define many atheists; we're not happy with blind faith, we want to know more.

Thanks and Happy New Year to you!

...and only believe in the one that they were raised in most of the time.

Sorry to get off-topic so fast but that's a pretty interesting statement all by itself. I often give it thought and wonder how true your statement actually is. Your statement suggests, probably correctly, that the biggest determining factor in what one believes is in what faith (or non-faith) they were raised in. Yet, my faith leads me to believe that it isn't really that random. That I was born to the parents God intended me to have.

But that begs the question, why me and not someone else? Why did God favor me with Christian parents, but not the Hindu child raised in India? It wasn't because I had deserved it because I hadn't been born yet to do anything deserving. And I don't think it was because of something I would eventually do. That is, I'd deserve it later. My faith says none of us deserve it but that in spite of that, God grants mercy on whom He is pleased to grant it.

Still, though, why me and not him? I tend to think it has something to do with God judging a person by the light that they have, but I'm not sure. I think it was Katrix in another post somewhere else that said she will not be judged under Christian rules. I think she's right about that. I still consider myself a pretty new Christian and I don't have all the answers. Actually, I never will in this life. God doesn't tell us everything about why He does what He does. Which I think is one of the biggest obstacles for you atheists.

Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting comment by you.

I personally think it has more to do with geography. North America is predominantly Christian. Middle East Muslim etc. Just luck of the draw I guess.

God doesn't tell us everything about why He does what He does. Which I think is one of the biggest obstacles for you atheists.

That too is an interesting comment. I'm not sure I understand it though. Care to expand?

I think if there is a God, it would have been very short sighted of him to make only one religion correct. After all, most religions are based around the idea of trying to get in touch with our spirituality and ultimately, God. I think religion loses a lot because of the dogma. It would seem more prudent to accept that everyone who believes in God is after the same thing. Then all religions could learn off one another. The search is what's important and it gets lost within the rigid dogma.

But what do I know? I'm only a heathen. *wink*

Yet, my faith leads me to believe that it isn't really that random. That I was born to the parents God intended me to have.

So, if you feel that way, why can't you consider that there are many paths to your God, and that those other kids are just as special as you are? That they aren't being punished but are finding their own paths to morality? That's what started me on the path to losing my faith - realizing that I was being taught that my non-Christian friends were going to hell, where I got the everlasting reward. It made no sense at all, even as a child.

Still, though, why me and not him?

Why not both of you?

Rank, I've talked to those people. And they tend to embrace willful ignorance, so it's hard to learn anything from them.

Katrix,

One person's 'willful ignorance' is another's foolishness. I think atheists willfully (and woefully) ignore GOD. They simply choose to believe He does not exist. To Bible believing Christians, that is foolishness and 'willful ignorance'. So I imagine it must be hard for you to learn anything from 'those people' who don't entertain foolishness gladly.

It is absolutely possible to have faith in Jesus Christ and then realize it's all bull@!$%# as you learn actual facts.

What "actual facts" are those which would make a Christian believer cast away his genuine faith in the Savior? Atheists usually don't have any actual facts when it comes to Christianity. All they have is more fodder for doubters.

I know, you think embracing blind faith and ignorance should last a lifetime,

No, you can't know that, because it's not true. Christian faith is not "blind faith". Unless you mean atheists are blind to the concept of true faith which seems to be the case. But Bible based Christianity is faith in what is written. Specifically in the New Testament.

but for many people who value knowledge, it doesn't work that way. Especially as you research other religions instead of sticking to your insular little book and find that they make just as much sense, and that being exclusionary is a horrible way to live.

I guess it must be for you, K. But for those who already know the Truth, there is no need to continue the idle search for esoteric ''knowledge". When you have what the Bible calls 'the knowledge of the Truth', it is GOD Who reveals Himself and holds your fascination!

Thus says the Lord: Let not the wise and skillful person glory and boast in his wisdom and skill; let not the mighty and powerful person glory and boast in his strength and power; let not the person who is rich [in physical gratification and earthly wealth] glory and boast in his [temporal satisfactions and earthly] riches;
But let him who boasts boast in this: that he understands and knows Me [personally and practically, directly discerning and recognizing My character], that I am the Lord, Who practices loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord. Jeremiah 9:23-24 Amplified Bible.

King David

These are some very common Scriptures that are brought up and used as rebuttal to Christian who say the OT is not to be followed to the letter. First off we must recognize that the word "Testament" means in a more direct translation "Covenant". So in truth it is the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, one replacing the other according to Jesus.

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus us addressing His disciples. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" The law still stands and always will according to Jesus. He did come to fulfill the Law, in that the penalty of death at the hands of man will be no longer needed, the need to sacrifice in the Temple for the atonement of sin will no longer be needed. Jesus was saying that He upon the cross will fulfill that purpose for all. In verse 19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus points out that to follow Him is to keep the law and God's commandments as an example to others that you are a follower of Christ. Whenever we see the word "Therefore" we need to look back and see what it is there for. and Jesus in this passage is referring to verse 16 "In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

When referencing John 1:17 perhaps we should look at the whole verse "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ": The Law given through Moses was harsh and had harsh penalties. Jesus provided us with grace unwarranted favor by dying on the cross so that we did not have to endure such punishment. He also came in truth as the revealer of God's love and justice as One who walked in truth and lead a sinless life.

In John 7:19 Jesus was talking to the Pharisee pointing out their hypocrisy. How they expected everyone to live by the law except themselves.

Again with John 10:35 a cleaver attempt of taking things out of context At this point in Jesus' life He was accused of blasphemy and was going to be stoned because He claimed to be God. He was pointing our in scripture Psalm 82 where the people at one point who had received God's message called themselves gods. And He doing miracles in the name of the Father really was God. He was once again pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisee.

I hope this clarifies a few things for you.

H

Grisham and Katrix,

Sorry I didn't get back to you last night. Your posts of #2.14 and #2.15 are proving very hard for me to respond to. I've typed and discarded a lot of words, trying to find something that will convey meaning to my answer to you both. What I believe isn't that tough, but why I believe it is proving harder than I imagined. I really want you to understand the why of why I have chosen to believe it.

One thing I'd like to address straight up, though. I'm not special. I mean, we're all special in the sense that each of us is the only one there is, but I'm not special in that I have something that puts me above anyone else. There isn't anything about Drakkonis that is more or less deserving than anyone else, no matter who you compare me to. That isn't parroting of doctrine, that's what I believe.

Anyway, you're both essentially asking about why not many paths to God. I'll try to answer without turning this into a short book.

As far as I can see and without considering the tenets of any religion, the many paths idea doesn't seem supported by the evidence of creation. That is, if I look around at the universe I am a part of I don't see the idea supported there, either. To my mind, there doesn't seem to be any chaos anywhere except with us humans. Everything that happens happens because it is following some law or perhaps more than one, but it's all covered by laws. I see no chaos because I've yet to see something that just decided to forgo the laws of nature and do it it's own way. Because of that, we have an ordered univers where cause always follows effect and people don't just float off the planet into space because gravety decided to do things it's own way.

But that's all physical stuff. Chaos does seem to reign in the course of human affairs, which, if you will allow it, I consider the spiritual realm. If God did create the world (in whatever fashion) that is governed by unbreakable laws, would it not be reasonable to assume that He created spiritual laws as well? Please consider that question without regard to any religion or individually held beliefs. To restate the question, is it not reasonable that God created and determined the parameters of spiritual laws just as He created the laws that govern the natural world?

If this is so, it would seem logical that God wants us to follow these spiritual laws. Yet these spiritual laws do not seem to be like the physical laws in that we seem to be able to break these laws. But is it really like that? Can we actually break spiritual laws? I'm going to ask you to think of it in a new way.

I'm not an expert on all religion, but I think it's safe to say that they all pretty much find murder a breaking of spiritual law in some fashion. But when one commits murder, did they actually break the law? They have not broken it. They have disobeyed it, but the law itself is not broken. Murder may have occured but the law itself still stands, unbroken, accusing the actions of the murderer. This may seem like the splitting of hairs but I think it's an important point in suggesting that spiritual laws are as unbreakable as physical ones.

Yet we can disobey spiritual laws, so how can they be alike in that regard? Perhaps the difference isn't in the laws, but in us. While we weren't created with the ability to defy physical laws, we do have the capacity to defy spiritual laws. This is free will. It isn't the ability to create or break these laws, it's just the ability whether or not to obey them.

This, so far, doesn't answer the many paths question, but it seems reasonable to me that we need to answer "paths to what" before considering whether there are many path to it in the first place. Thus far, I've hopefully explained that not only do I believe there is a God but that He not only created laws for an orderly physical universe, but He also created the same for spiritual existence. I think it's also important to note that these laws, both spiritual and physical, have been established without human input on these matters and in fact existed before we did.

Now I think we're ready to talk about paths. Sorta. Because what are we assuming when we talk about the path or paths to God? Well, we're assuming the person on the path is seeking God, right? Not necessarily. As is often pointed out and taking a person on the Christian path as an example, some just think it makes them better than others. Or some go to church because it gives them better connections in the community. That's just two and just Christianity. The bible says we are all alike under sin, which can simply be said to mean we're all screwed up in some way. I doubt many would argue the point. So rather than get bogged down there, I'll just tell you about me and why I'm on the path of Christianity and why I chose that. After all, I can only speak for myself.

To reiterate what I said before, I believe God established spiritual laws. I think they are as ironclad as physical laws. But why do I care about that anyway? Well, I look around the world and see how we treat each other. How petty and cruel we are without even having to think about it. I wonder why it is almost always harder to do the right thing rather than the wrong. I think we instinctively know what right and wrong is on most occasions yet there is something in us that allows a man to steal a child and do unspeakable things to it before killing it. We know what is right but we commit such horrors. Even those of us who've never harmed a child or killed someone else do essentially the same things only on much smaller scales. But because they are on much smaller scales we dismiss them as just part of being human. Nobody's perfect, we say. Each one is such the center of their own world that often they don't even think to consider if their actions will be detrimental to another. The thought doesn't even occur to them.

For me, it's this thing in us that leads me to God. I want to act better than that. I want to be better than that. Not in the sense of being superior to someone else, but in the sense that doing what is right is it's own reward. In all of creation, in all the vastness of all that is, only humans have the power to choose. I want to choose what is right.

Yet as much as I want that, I've learned that I often don't choose to do right. Can any of you say that you always do, either? That something in us is so powerful that we often don't have the power to do what we wish we could do. Worse, how often have you worried and fretted over what was right in the first place. How many times have you been in the position of wanting to do right but you didn't know what the right thing to do was?

So this is a large part of why I'm on the path to God. I believe God knows what is right because He designed it all. He knows how it's supposed to work. But I still haven't answered the many paths question. If you've stuck with me so far, I'm about to answer. I hope.

The reason I dont' believe in many paths is because the idea is human driven. I think God created everything and us for His purpose. It wasn't as if God were sitting there thinking, "well, humans are expecting me to create them so I'd better get busy". That is, He didn't make us for our sake, but His. I don't think He is too interested in what we think about how things should be done. I think He has a plan and a method for getting it done. Our job is to fall in line with it or not.

I don't think it's a case of, well, buddism works for me and what I think, so I'll just approach God from that angle. Nor do I think Christianity works for me because I feel its a good match for me. In all actuality, I think that if there were many paths to God, I'd have chosen something like wicca. That appeals to me on many levels.

But I don't think God works that way because thinking of it that way makes God subject to us. It's like saying, "God, I want you to be like this" and then serve the god you have in your imagination. I think God wants to declare to us who He is and to accept that, even if we wish He might be different.

A part of me wishes that premarital sex was ok with my God. A part of me loves having that need met in me. I enjoy the intimacy and experience. Yet my God says it's wrong. I even understand why, but it doesn't stop the desire. The temptation is to remake God into my own personal Idol that really isn't God, just to satisfy my desires.

This why I don't believe in many paths. It's our attempt to accept God on our terms rather than His.

There's tons more I could say about this but I'd never finish this. Instead, I suppose you'll have questions and maybe the other stuff will get covered then, if you're interested.

If you're still with me, thanks for listening.

Grisham,

sorry, forgot.

God doesn't tell us everything about why He does what He does. Which I think is one of the biggest obstacles for you atheists

God is sovereign. That is, He doesn't need our permission to act. He does what He does because it pleases Him to do so. Sometimes He explains Himself but often He doesn't. Atheists aren't satisfied with this. They always have to know. They always have to have proof. This is because they also believe they are sovereign. They feel they have a right to self determination.

I'm not slighting you in this. It's just human nature to feel that way.

(atheists...) They feel they have a right to self determination.

And I have a hard time understanding why religionists pick beliefs that leave little or no room for this concept. Is it not a virtue for humans to have self-determination? Since when has this become a negative value? Certainly not during the writing of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution!

Katrix,

Yet, my faith leads me to believe that it isn't really that random. That I was born to the parents God intended me to have.

So, if you feel that way, why can't you consider that there are many paths to your God, and that those other kids are just as special as you are? That they aren't being punished but are finding their own paths to morality? That's what started me on the path to losing my faith - realizing that I was being taught that my non-Christian friends were going to hell, where I got the everlasting reward. It made no sense at all, even as a child

I have a brother who is also a Christian, yet our faiths are different in a lot of respects. For instance, he believes that to be saved one literally has to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. I asked him once, what about Indians in South America a thousand years ago who never heard about Jesus. He said they were all going to hell because not hearing about Jesus was no excuse.

I do not believe the bible teaches this. The bible makes it clear that a person is judged by the light a person has. Jesus is the savior of the world. That much is true, but I think God knows who would have accepted Christs sacrifice, and who wouldn't, had they the opportunity to know of him.

In Romans, Paul speaks of people who were not Jews being considered Jewish because although they did not have the law, kept the law better than the Jews born Jews did. Their consience let them to live better, more righteous lives than some of the Jews themselves. Although they didn't have the law, they were judged by the light they had.

The child who was not me, the child born into Islam, may have as much a chance at salvation as I do based on the light he has. It will still be Jesus that saves that person, even though that person is not aware of Jesus. It will not be Islam that saves the person, but what's in the person's heart. It won't even be a matter of how well the person tried to keep God's law but the why of why he tried in the first place. It isn't about what you do as much as it is about the heart, for out of the heart comes what you do.

This is what I believe the bible says. It is up to you to determine if it's true or not.

Hello, skydog,

I believe we humans were not created for our own purposes, but for God's. In that sense, I don't believe in self determination beyond making the choice whether to obey God or not.

What you choose to believe is up to you.

Where in the bible does Jesus abolish or even suggest not to follow the OT laws? Please quote that for us.

King Dave, I think Hiram @7.18 did a very good job of patiently explaining and rebutting the Scriptures you cited and put the issue of the Old Testament in context with regard to the New Testament. There is nothing I need to or would add.

(Thank you, Brother Hiram! Your contribution to a discussion of the Bible is always invaluable.)

You are welcome Rank, I am just trying to impart understanding as that is the foundation to tolerance and peace.

H

KIng David

Luke 19 was parable that Jesus told to make a point. We can go around and around and there really is not end in sight. You will and have always read into it what you want to see. Doing exactly what many accuse Christians of doing and thatis cherry picking out of context to make our point. When we look at Scripture we need to s understand what was the historical context it was written, Who was being addressed and under what circumstances was it being said. To do otherwise is folly.

There are many things that Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin have written that I disagree with and much that I agree with. They are however not the last word in Christian theology. They were indeed influential but I would not say they are to be held higher than other Theologians. I discern the teachings of Christ through study, meditation, and the Holy Spirits guidance. The same tools I would hope that all Christians use including the a for mentioned Theologians.

H

Thanks for the responses, drakk. I'm on my iPad now so can't really reply, but you spent a lot of time and thought addressing my questions, so I will try to find time tomorrow to reread them and respond.

Luke 19 was parable that Jesus told to make a point.

This is the second time on NV I've seen this apology for Luke 19:27. Strange thing is, jesus routinely taught by parable, and they are considered stories of right action. If this particular passage is demeaned and excluded since it is "parable," so too should all the other parables in the bible. The bottom line is that christianity has within its holy book, new testament, the same admonition for which the koran is routinely excoriated.

This isn't a case of cherry picking, as long as christian organizations leave this passage in the bible. This is a case of calling a spade a spade.

If you want the bible to be nothing but an historic reference, leave material like that in your holy book. If you want the bible to be a living document of right action, toss out the parts of your book that are reprehensible.

I do not consider standing up for what I believe unenviable but an blessing. It helps my faith grow stronger and gives me the task of looking into it further. "That is a form of Christianity that is hardly recognizable as a religion" An interesting statement to say the least. Perhaps it is unrecognizable because that is not the Christianity that is portrayed by the popular media. It is the Christianity taught by Christ as He was a teacher. He did not say go out and find people to follow blindly. He said Go and make disciples. All Christians are to be disciples and to learn and study and explore.

The proverbial last word if that were only true but the last word will only be spoken upon our demise and then we will all either stand before a Holy God in judgement or turn into worm food. That my friend will be the last word.

H

As for Hitchens tearing believers a "new one" I am going to say that is a matter of opinion. I have seen many of his debates and can honestly say he did not win them all.

LOL. I've watched three - Sharpton (who was clearly out of his league), a Jewish Rabbi (fairly young who looked silly) and one with a Harvard guy. That last one I'd say the Harvard guy held his own. More because he knew his history and didn't get frazzled. I'd still say he lost, but not badly. That was my favorite debate.

If you know one where you think he lost, point me in that direction. I'd love to watch it.

Oh and one where there were three religious people against Hitch, Dawkins and another guy. They took a vote from the audience before and after the debate and afterward, the audience voted far more favorably in the atheists favor than the religious. It was a butt kicking. The Rabbi in that one did a pretty good job as well. Although, that might be because she was a very liberal rabbi.

Sharpton? LOL - is there any topic at all where he isn't out of his league in a debate? So give Hiram a break here ;) I seriously doubt our friend is going to give Sharpton that win!

Rabbis just don't have that "my way is the only way" mentality and I like that. That's one of the first things that made me lose my faith - I just cannot accept that any god worthy of worship would say there's only one way to it and that everyone else is doomed.

Yes, the Rabbi's tend to do better. There was one I was watching where the Rabbi made a joke about circumcision though and Hitch tore him a new one.

LOL. I agree about Sharpton. The guy was very clearly out of his depth and it showed.

As a former Atheist I know that I studied and understood the history and philosophy better than most lay Christians

That was my experience, too, Hiram. I became a Christian as an adult and knew more about it (having actually read the Bible) when I converted than most of the people I talked to about it. They get served their dollop of Bible every week at church (or not) and that's all they ever learn.

I no longer consider myself to be a Christian, but it still surprises me how little most Christians actually know about the Bible.

Grisham and katrix-

I have seen all three of those debates, granted Sharpton was way out of his league. However the other two were not in my opinion clearly won by either side. In the last where you pointed to the voting audience, we must take into consideration that that audience was clearly pro Hitchens. Who wins or looses a debate such as this is never black and white as it is solely up to the interpretation of the listener and their bias plays a big role in that. Had these been a debate competition with a panel of judges, grading on speaking style, evidence, persuasiveness and civility I do not think Hitchens would have come out on top each and every time.

TVOR

You are right about the dollop ( always wonder how that was spelled). I have been increasing the number of classes I teach on history of the bible. Many thing sin the bible have a different meaning if you understand them in the historical context of the time.

H