Landover Baptist Pastor Preaches To Atheists

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

It was more the simplification of the orthodoxy = the church that won. It was substantially more complicated than that, and that many of the gospels that were refused were simply too similar or way too questionable in origin and message. The fights are overstated, and it was rather tough to unify an orthodoxy until the 4th century, seeing as Christians were being hunted down and killed until Constantine.

Exactly. The history of the early Church is far more complicated than some reductionists want to make it out to be.

Not only was the Church dealing with Roman oppression, but also a very painful and difficult separation from its Jewish roots, especially after the destruction of the Second Temple.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

The chaotic and human nature of the origin of the NT doesn't detract from its content IMO (unless you are a literalist I guess).

And I personally believe all the 'other' writings have something to add to the Bible.

But they're not directly in line with what the Bible says.

Its like writing a book and straying off topic. Wouldn't garner much interest, so authors usually write books that tend to say the same thing. IMO, that is how the Bible was put together.

Still don't think its the literal, un-biased, 100% true, without error....word of God though.

There is WAY too much room for human error from translation to translation.

Interestingly enough, the people selected to translate the original version(Latin?) into the KJV were secular. Supposedly King James wanted a complete un-biased translation.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I personally believe all the 'other' writings have something to add to the Bible.

But they're not directly in line with what the Bible says.

Its like writing a book and straying off topic. Wouldn't garner much interest, so authors usually write books that tend to say the same thing. IMO, that is how the Bible was put together.

Still don't think its the literal, un-biased, 100% true, without error....word of God though.

There is WAY too much room for human error from translation to translation.

Interestingly enough, the people selected to translate the original version(Latin?) into the KJV were secular. Supposedly King James wanted a complete un-biased translation.

i wish more christians felt that way, but instead, 63% of Americans believe the bible to be 100% fact. that scares the hell out of me, when you have over 3/5ths of the most powerful nation on earth who think that the earth is only 6000 years old and who believe Moses really did put 2 of every single living creature on the planet on his boat, it's cause for alarm. and you can bet out of that 63%, it includes many powerful people who have the jurisdiction to govern millions of lives. do you see now why Atheists get so passionate over this stuff?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

It was more the simplification of the orthodoxy = the church that won. It was substantially more complicated than that, and that many of the gospels that were refused were simply too similar or way too questionable in origin and message. The fights are overstated, and it was rather tough to unify an orthodoxy until the 4th century, seeing as Christians were being hunted down and killed until Constantine.

Really? Can you provide any proof of what you say? As photon mentioned what I posted is pretty much common knowlegde about the OT and NT from biblical and other scholars. If you dont believe what I posted than we would love to see your proof from any other scholar/society/church that you wish to post. Dont just suggest its more or less complicated without information. You can search the website I posted for additional information if you choose, as all articles are based on the facts known and created by both theists and atheists alike.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i wish more christians felt that way, but instead, 63% of Americans believe the bible to be 100% fact. that scares the hell out of me, when you have over 3/5ths of the most powerful nation on earth who think that the earth is only 6000 years old and who believe Moses really did put 2 of every single living creature on the planet on his boat, it's cause for alarm. and you can bet out of that 63%, it includes many powerful people who have the jurisdiction to govern millions of lives. do you see now why Atheists get so passionate over this stuff?

I don't think that believing such things necessarily makes someone a 'bad' person.

Ignorance is bliss my friend. Hopefully in years to come we'll 'evolve' more....religion will evolve more.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Really? Can you provide any proof of what you say? As photon mentioned what I posted is pretty much common knowlegde about the OT and NT from biblical and other scholars. If you dont believe what I posted than we would love to see your proof from any other scholar/society/church that you wish to post. Dont just suggest its more or less complicated without information. You can search the website I posted for additional information if you choose, as all articles are based on the facts known and created by both theists and atheists alike.

I can't really summarize it in a post, but I would suggest reading Karen Armstrong's "The Bible: A Biography" and "A History of God".

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i wish more christians felt that way, but instead, 63% of Americans believe the bible to be 100% fact. that scares the hell out of me, when you have over 3/5ths of the most powerful nation on earth who think that the earth is only 6000 years old and who believe Moses really did put 2 of every single living creature on the planet on his boat, it's cause for alarm. and you can bet out of that 63%, it includes many powerful people who have the jurisdiction to govern millions of lives. do you see now why Atheists get so passionate over this stuff?

Come on man a poll?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Come on man a poll?

so if you can't attack the argument, attack the source?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I can't really summarize it in a post, but I would suggest reading Karen Armstrong's "The Bible: A Biography" and "A History of God".

Ha! Those were the exact sources I was going to point Cheese towards.

Also... I didn't say they were wrong... I said the way they worded it had a clear undertone of bias against Christianity. There's a difference.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

so if you can't attack the argument, attack the source?

you believe in polls, they believe in god...not seeing the difference between the 2 really.

[jammies]

People believe all kinds of crazy things. Whatever. Using logic on crazy people doesn't work, you have to out-crazy 'em. I'm working on it.

If there really was an atheist religion, we could have temple orgies, free checking accounts, gladiatorial games and other goodies that would bring in the converts. Get 'em while they're young - "Ma, you go on to your church, I'm heading over to the atheist temple for hookers and blow. Don't stay up, I might be late."

That's the whole issue with atheism - too cerebral. It needs a marketing department. It needs a theme song. It needs to reposition the brand. However you want to say it - it needs to get out of the head, and into the body. That sexy body.

Get on it, brothers and sisters. Get out there and tell people to shake it 'cause they can, 'cause nobody's watching and that means everybody gets naked and nobody pays for it down the line. You are human and you need love right here, right now, not in some imaginary heaven when you're dead.

Today is all you'll ever have - wasting it is the only sin.

Over and out.

[transplant99]

actually...nevermind...stupidity will always exist in a hundred ways.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jammies

If there really was an atheist religion, we could have temple orgies, free checking accounts, gladiatorial games and other goodies that would bring in the converts. Get 'em while they're young - "Ma, you go on to your church, I'm heading over to the atheist temple for hookers and blow. Don't stay up, I might be late."

Absolutely untrue. That there is LeVeyan Satanism. Which I don't think would be adopted by most atheists.

As an atheist I don't have my morals dictated by any book, but rather by a believe in utilitarianism with a dash of the belief in the right to life (the latter is thrown in because I don't believe that a perfectly healthy newborn baby should be hacked up and the organs used to save 6 other babies with faulty organs). I'm also SxE, in that I have logically and reasonably come to the conclusion that people should not be polluting their bodies with drugs. When freed from being told what is right and wrong by some book, you then have to start deciding right and wrong for yourself. Perhaps Levayan Satanism is where you have ended up. For myself, my beliefs go all over the map. I believe it is wrong to smoke marijuana, but I think that it should be legalized even if it means more people start using it. I am pro-choice, but oppose late-term abortions because the fetus then has a developed nervous system. I can have weird and wacky and unusual stances on ethical issues because I'm not tied to any doctrine given to me by a church.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know many (any) people that "dedicate" themselves to convincing people not to believe. They might say they don't believe, and question why people do, but they don't meet once or more a week in building (that enjoys rather favorable tax-status) to re-enforce their ideas and talk about where they'll end up after they die if they don't follow the rules from "the book".

I think you would be surprised at how many atheists do exactly this "type" of thing. There are some very large orginizations dedicated to atheism.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

http://www.atheists.org/

And this guy gets downright defensive about people being labeled as such. interesting read if nothing else.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/wcc.htm

[Devils'Advocate]

BTW - back onto the topic of the video in the first post.

My issue with religion is that it makes public discourse near impossible. I want to discuss stem cell research on a logical basis:
Me: Stem cell research is promising research that will improve the lives of millions of people.
Other person: Stem cell research requires fetal tissue and people will start having abortions so that they can sell the fetuses to researchers.
Me: Well, then we make it illegal to sell fetuses just like we do body organs.
Other person: Well, I'm still against it because my priest says that it is evil.
Me: ----

You can't go anywhere from there. Reason, logic, it's all out the window. You can't discussing things rationally. And when you have public policy influenced by a force that you cannot reason with, then there is something worth fighting against.

It's like gay marriage in the U.S.. Who opposes it? The church. The church members. Is there reasoned logic behind opposing gay marriage? None that makes any sense to me. But you can't argue that with most people in the United States because the public policy is simply "OUR BOOK SAYS GAYS ARE EVIL AND SHOULD BE STONED TO DEATH".

I'm with Mr. Lennon. The world would be a better place without religion. So I have no problem with atheists pushing back. Perhaps ridicule isn't the best means converting people to reason, but I don't think that was the goal of the video. It was at a gathering of atheists so it was likely meant to entertain fellow atheists.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i wish more christians felt that way, but instead, 63% of Americans believe the bible to be 100% fact. that scares the hell out of me, when you have over 3/5ths of the most powerful nation on earth who think that the earth is only 6000 years old and who believe Moses really did put 2 of every single living creature on the planet on his boat, it's cause for alarm. and you can bet out of that 63%, it includes many powerful people who have the jurisdiction to govern millions of lives. do you see now why Atheists get so passionate over this stuff?

Well if they believe that, they're not very careful readers!

Seriously, I think you've put your finger on a key problem in this debate. I remember a thread a while back where I somewhat incautiously used the term "religious right"--which is a term that really only makes sense in the context of American politics. There are similar types in Canada, but they have nowhere near the influence or money, and certainly haven't succeeded in putting their followers into the seat of power.

It's not that all religious people are right wing, or even that all people who are religious and conservative are members of this movement. It's a very specific movement comprised of a minority of Christians who have worked to change the political debate and wield influence at the highest levels of government. They're not even that secretive about it--their agenda is to promote a moralistic, conservative agenda at the expense of the government itself if necessary--and along the way to discredit both scientific thinking and what they call "materialism."

This last part is jargon--but it's their jargon, and it merits some explanation because of how scary it is. Being a materialist simply means that you believe that you yourself have some kind of access to truth through observation or experience--in other words, you can decide for yourself what to think. Being anti-materialist means in this case that the only path to truth is submission to authority.

So they're a tiny minority, but perhaps a solid plurality of certain denominations--southern Baptists being one. In that case, we should be openly mocking them, because their values seek to erode the enlightenment society that took hundreds of years to build in the West. Their agenda is nothing less than a fascist theocracy. To make a video marginalizing this small minority of Christians? IMO, that's God's work! It doesn't extend to a condemnation of religion altogether or of Christians as a whole. Just this one group of whack-jobs who have way too much influence right now, especially in a society with a nominal separation of church and state.

[flamesfever]

Great post IFF. I agree the atheists should be much more specific as to who they consider their enemy, instead of attacking religion in general.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, that was kind of weak.

The point is "CalgaryBorn" claims my atheism is based on who I think god is and what my response to him is. My atheism isn't based on who I think god is, because I think god isn't, and I don't have a response.

Sort of like what I think of the woman who scored the big goal and my response to her. She doesn't exist, so I don't have a response.

But your response is what makes you an atheist. You believe there is no God and therefore you are not accountable to any deity. That is your belief.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

you believe in polls, they believe in god...not seeing the difference between the 2 really.

...Most polls on the subject have been in that ball park, with the lowest I've seen being around ~48% who believe in the literal word of the bible (Young Earth Creationism). That number does seem a little high, but not that high.

[peter12]

I think we are coming to the point in Western life where a real examination must be made of how our modern secularism has come to actually create conflict with the religious beliefs of individuals. It is modernity that is the cause of Biblical literalism and religious fundamentalism. To loosely quote Karen Armstrong, it is a sad thing that we live in a world where something must be scientifically or historically demonstrable in order to be true.

Pre-modern religion was intended to provide human beings with an account of the divine experience and of human nature's spiritual place in the universe. It never stifled debate or quelled policy. In fact, if you know anything about early Christian, Muslim, and Jewish culture, you would find that these texts were in fact the cause of all meaningful debate within a society.

Modern culture can't understand religion. Fundamentalists are a product of this misunderstanding. In an effort to counter scientific rationalism, they have attempted to rationalize their own faiths, which is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the standard of the absolute secularists, like atheists and socialists, which is to apply a standard of absolute rationalism to the private beliefs of their fellow citizens.