Landover Baptist Pastor Preaches To Atheists

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

But not his religion..

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

This is actually a fascinating topic. A great place to start is a series of lectures by Bart Ehrman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman).

Early Christianity looked very different than current Christianity.. none of the books in the NT are first-hand accounts of Jesus, they're all written well after his life (decades or even centuries), and there are no direct accounts from other sources, so knowing exactly what Jesus said and did is problematic.

Early Christianity had many different beliefs (Jesus as divine but not human, human not divine, there was 1 God who wasn't the God of the OT, there was 3 gods, there was 30 gods, there was 365 gods), all of which used Jesus as their source. Over time as the church grew and the struggles over which writings were used, one set of beliefs and set of scriptures won out, eventually being ratified 400 years after Jesus or so.

Your information is faulty and biased. The last book written in the New Testament was Revelations and it was written within the first century at about 90A.D. About 57 years after Jesus' resurrection. Churches were small and under constant persecution within the first few centuries. No church had copies of all the 27 books of the New Testament at first. They would slowly gather them whenever they could. The older and larger churches would have a more complete collection then the younger churches. Of course just like today there are false teachers and literature that is trying to influence Christianity. What you've described above is doctrines associated with Gnosticism. It was a blending of Greek mysticism with Christianity. The gospel of John was written in part to counter this heresy. Actually if it wasn't for the Gnostics and the Ebonites much of the New Testament wouldn't have been written. The Ebonites were Jews who were trying to mix Old Testament law and ritual with Christianity.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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.

I know of Karen Armstrong...shes a good writer...and labelled as a "Christian apologist". A Nun who gave up her Catholic ways to become an atheist and now follows no direct path or perhaps Pantheism. She likes to talk about mysticism no matter the religion, and is a stout defender of Islam.

Her thoughts on mysticism:
• There is no objective physical god.
• Understanding of god is unique to every mystic.
• The realization of god comes from some form of subjective introspection.

A fellow of the "Jesus Seminar"...Im sure textcritic would love to take this one on...
Karen Armstrong was a nun in the Society of the Holy Child Jesus.

She regards herself to be deeply religious but with no denomination. 'Sometimes I call myself a freelance,' she says in her melodious English accent. 'I can't see any one of the great religions as superior to others.

Quotes attributed to Ms Armstrong:

Religion is not a nice thing. It is potentially a very dangerous thing because it involves a heady complex of emotions, desires, yearnings and fears.

Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal.

A God who kept tinkering with the universe was absurd; a God who interfered with human freedom and creativity was tyrant. If God is seen as a self in a world of his own, an ego that relates to a thought, a cause separate from its effect, "he" becomes a being, not Being itself. An omnipotent, all-knowing tyrant is not so different from earthly dictators who make everything and everybody mere cogs in the machine which they controlled. An atheism that rejects such a God is amply justified.
-- Karen Armstrong, A History of God, pg. 383

Karen is a great writer who has the ability to put her thoughts into words very forcefully. Is she a biblical scholar or simply an ex-nun?
She has come under crtiticism from many who consider her work as "revisionist", hence the apologist label.

You point out ONE source as the basis for your thoughts, and dont point out any idiosyncrasies or irregularities in the articles I posted?

Biblical Scholarship to me is (scientifically verifiable discoveries about the history, archeology and literature of the Biblical).
It is not simply opinion.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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

tranny...these groups dont get together once a week in a church or any other grandiose building to congregate. They certainly have meetings once a year...maybe twice and they use their strength in numbers and cash to fight back against religion involving itself in politics and the lives of those who dont want it pushed on them. There are local groups that get together more often...but its not to figure out ways they can manipulate people into joining.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

Again CalgaryBorn...Atheism is NOT a belief system. You are in a belief system.

As a child I can hold a “belief” that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real characters. I can have a “belief” that Unicorns exist and that Ghosts and Goblins etc. are also real.

As an adult I can hold a “belief” that any one of the numerous gods purported, do actually exist, and that humans have an immortal "soul". Some even have a "belief" in UFO's, the power of crystals and a myriad of other unproven paranormal activity.

Atheists do not accept that any of the above imaginary creatures or powers do exist as no scientific evidence is extant in support of those propositions. This is not a “belief”, it is just lack of scientific evidence in their support.

As a matter of fact CB...if you do NOT have belief...you dont have your God.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by 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.

I personally find it a sad thing that religions use lies to control the minds of so many as opposed to the facts that are right in front of their face.

Again...unless religions can provide real facts about things like the Ark, a 6000 year old earth, flying horses, talking snakes, making man from dirt, etc etc etc, when we know for a fact that what they say is impossible and a lie, then quite frankly they choose to foist ridicule on themselves. Science and History are there for us to learn from...fantasy is for story telling alone...like Aesops fables or Dr Seuss.

Pre modern religion was used to try and describe the world and what was happening to uneducated farmers and goat herders. It was and still is used as a control mechanism. Goat herders couldnt debate what they didnt know...they believed what their religious icons told them.

Modern culture is losing its religion because we are more educated...we can see with our own eyes the lies before us.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Lol, that's really scientific (by scientific I mean stupid). How about this then, we'll determine who is more intolerant by a google fight shall we?

There, "I hate atheists" has 1,900,000 results on Google, while "I hate Christians" has 282,000 results. That makes about as much sense as your suggestion, so I claim victory.

Actually because Atheism is embraced by such a small number of people I still might be able to claim victory on a per capital basis. But what I was trying to communicate is the fact that hostility towards Christianity is central to your religious camp. Show me atheists who have web sites that don't attack Christianity. I don't know if you will find any. If you can there number would be far less than the I hate Christian sites you've found. Hatred of Christianity is a preoccupation of atheists.

Conversely their are millions of Christian sites where Atheism and other false faiths aren't even mentioned.

[peter12]

I don't think Thunderball or myself was bringing forth Armstrong's name as a justifiable end to your perspective, just as a very respected writer who opposes your own viewpoint.

As for a dismissal of someone's evidence based upon a label of apologist, well that's just silly. She does do good popular scholarship and charges of revisionism can essentially be called meaningless. We live in an age where revisionism is seen as a positive re-statement of truths outside of the modern/colonial context in which they were written in.

Biblical truths should be seen as mystical and on an individual's experience. That's what gives them their meaning and it's obviously a very powerful effect on someone's life.

You cannot escape viewing God outside of the modern context. There is a powerful pull on the Western mind to attempt to view God as a scientific or material being. That has never been a dominant tradition among religious seekers and is only the result of the Scientific Enlightenment, which was initiated by mystics such as Newton and Bacon.

As for the beliefs of atheists... It is definitely possible for an individual to live with a lack of belief. Although I think it's a tough and difficult process. It all to easily falls into iconography and linguistics which bears a startling similarity to the beliefs of literal fundamentalists.

Anyway, those are the basis of my beliefs. It's tough to argue about these things with you, Cheese, as you have had (I'm guessing) a much longer time to think them over and process them. I am really just in the beginning stages of my journey, so a scholar like Textcritic is someone who can really give some good answers. I think that you would join me in believing that questions regarding a divinity, in existence or not, are some of the most fundamentally important questions that humans must answer.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

I'm accountable to something far greater--my own sense of what is right and what is wrong. I'm answerable only to myself for my actions--shall I do good and be a good, kind, considerate person, or shall I do evil and be an unkind, ungenerous person? Shall I fill my thoughts with love and fellow feeling or hatred and judgment? Shall I treat others with dignity and respect, even if they don't return the favour?

I like to think I do all of these things, most of the time. Certainly I do them more often than some people who call themselves "religious," though by no means am I special--many people who are religious do them too, for the same reasons.

The point? You don't need accountability to a deity to guide you towards a moral life. If you do, then you're not actually behaving morally--you're just avoiding immoral behavior for fear of punishment by a more powerful being.

The first doctrine is responsibility and self-reliance. The second is submission to authority. I know which one I prefer.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I personally find it a sad thing that religions use lies to control the minds of so many as opposed to the facts that are right in front of their face.

Again...unless religions can provide real facts about things like the Ark, a 6000 year old earth, flying horses, talking snakes, making man from dirt, etc etc etc, when we know for a fact that what they say is impossible and a lie, then quite frankly they choose to foist ridicule on themselves. Science and History are there for us to learn from...fantasy is for story telling alone...like Aesops fables or Dr Seuss.

Pre modern religion was used to try and describe the world and what was happening to uneducated farmers and goat herders. It was and still is used as a control mechanism. Goat herders couldnt debate what they didnt know...they believed what their religious icons told them.

Modern culture is losing its religion because we are more educated...we can see with our own eyes the lies before us.

But is it a lie? Once again, I can't really answer this question as I'm a political scientist, not a Biblical scholar, but this lack of understanding is the result of the complete rejection of myth in the Western World.

The myths of Genesis, like the Flood and Creation, were meant to give a much deeper meaning about humanity, our nature, and our relationship to the universe. This is evidenced in the vast amount of commentary produced in the Talmud. Is it changing the original intent of the documents? Perhaps. However the ancients viewed this flexibility as evidence of God's presence in the writings, as the lessons learned were flexible enough to adapt to changing environments.

We have forgotten the incredible meaning of myth upon people's lives. A real question here... are we losing our religion? The world seems more religious than ever.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually because Atheism is embraced by such a small number of people I still might be able to claim victory on a per capital basis. But what I was trying to communicate is the fact that hostility towards Christianity is central to your religious camp. Show me atheists who have web sites that don't attack Christianity. I don't know if you will find any. If you can there number would be far less than the I hate Christian sites you've found. Hatred of Christianity is a preoccupation of atheists.

Conversely their are millions of Christian sites where Atheism and other false faiths aren't even mentioned.

Quite frankly CB any Christian site that has message boards or a means of discussion are "firmly controlled". There are very few that allow open conversation(s) with atheists...they are afraid we might actually make sense.
Again...for 100s of years...actually a few thousand, we have been told we are wrong...we have been prosecuted, murdered and forced to stay quiet. Now in a freer world when we do speak up it is taken as an attack? Isnt that like the pot calling the kettle black?
Maybe it is an attack...but what gives the church (of any kind) free right to postulate its choice on the population without someone or some group pointing out its fallacies...especially when those fallacies are as plain as the nose on your face? Christians would love it if we shut up and simply let them do what they pleased. The vast majority of atheists do exactly that...Im not one.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

But is it a lie? Once again, I can't really answer this question as I'm a political scientist, not a Biblical scholar, but this lack of understanding is the result of the complete rejection of myth in the Western World.

The myths of Genesis, like the Flood and Creation, were meant to give a much deeper meaning about humanity, our nature, and our relationship to the universe. This is evidenced in the vast amount of commentary produced in the Talmud. Is it changing the original intent of the documents? Perhaps. However the ancients viewed this flexibility as evidence of God's presence in the writings, as the lessons learned were flexible enough to adapt to changing environments.

We have forgotten the incredible meaning of myth upon people's lives. A real question here... are we losing our religion? The world seems more religious than ever.

I have no problem with the church teaching their stories as myths peter. Do you think thats reality?

[Azure]

Where is Textcritic anyways?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I have no problem with the church teaching their stories as myths peter. Do you think thats reality?

No, absolutely not. But that's my point. We have forgotten the power of myths and have dismissed them without cause. Myths are stories with powerful meaning, spiritual meaning, that can give people meaning that science and logic cannot.

As for your question, what is reality to you?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Again CalgaryBorn...Atheism is NOT a belief system. You are in a belief system.

Wrong! You believe there is no God. You believe that all religions are wrong. You hold these beliefs with a very limited understanding of the universe around you and what lies beyond. You've never seen beyond death but, believe there is nothing. Your understanding of the millions of religions in this world is so limited that you couldn't even name most of them but, because of your atheistic beliefs condemn them as folly much in the same way as I do because of my belief system.

Next to Atheism probably the only other religion you would have an intimate understanding of is Catholicism because of your background. Your understanding of scriptures is so limited you can't even differentiate between Catholic beliefs and New Testament beliefs. Nor can you differentiate between the old covenant and the new covenant. But ignorance doesn't stop you from defining and condemning my beliefs. In this you are more of a zealot than me.

[T@T]

Religion just shows how weak human beings really are!

When all humans start thinking in a "Spock" way the planet earth will be a safer place.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by T@T

Religion just shows how weak human beings really are!

When all humans start thinking in a "Spock" way the planet earth will be a safer place.

Dangerous thinking there. A professed belief in a complete transformation of human nature is more fundamentalist than almost anything.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, absolutely not. But that's my point. We have forgotten the power of myths and have dismissed them without cause. Myths are stories with powerful meaning, spiritual meaning, that can give people meaning that science and logic cannot.

As for your question, what is reality to you?

Hey Im all for teaching myths too....we dont disagree on that point at all. Great things can be learned from stories...but only if thats the way they are taught. Aesops isnt taught as a fact....Peter and the Wolf isnt taught as fact.

Reality is what we can see, feel, touch. It is not illusion, fantasy or fiction. This is a VERY basic answer.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cheese

tranny...these groups dont get together once a week in a church or any other grandiose building to congregate. They certainly have meetings once a year...maybe twice and they use their strength in numbers and cash to fight back against religion involving itself in politics and the lives of those who dont want it pushed on them. There are local groups that get together more often...but its not to figure out ways they can manipulate people into joining.

I never suggested that they do get together once a week...or at all for that matter, but merely they ARE orginized with common goals. What are those goals? Seems to me it's to make sure that everyone knows they dont believe in a god. Good for them. Why should I care though?

Hell, beyond weddings and such, I have not been into a church for decades. I dont have the need to belong to group whom thinks like I do either though.

As you well know, I believe quite assuredly in a god, however i am FAR from religious. Again I dont need others with like mindedness to congregate to make me fel better about it. Seems to me that there are lots on both sides of this debate that do however, and that in and of itself is very starnge to me, especially from the anti-deity side.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

Not all atheists believe there is no God, some think there is no evidence of God. Did you bother to find out which before telling him what he believed?

What does accountability to any deity have to do with intolerance?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your information is faulty and biased. The last book written in the New Testament was Revelations and it was written within the first century at about 90A.D. About 57 years after Jesus' resurrection.

Some of Epistles which were likely not written by Paul may have been written later, but in general I agree, not sure why you said this.

Churches were small and under constant persecution within the first few centuries. No church had copies of all the 27 books of the New Testament at first.They would slowly gather them whenever they could. The older and larger churches would have a more complete collection then the younger churches.

You make it sound like there was only 27 books that they were after, there was many more that were in use (else why decide on a canon!). There are fragments from 100-200 where lists containing some of the 27 are circulated, argued for and against, etc... By 400 though the current 27 were pretty much standard I think.

Of course just like today there are false teachers and literature that is trying to influence Christianity.

False to you after the fact in view of the Christianity that won, the followers of those teachers and literature didn't view them as false. Especially since they based their beliefs on their information on the life of Jesus. Boy it would suck to go to hell just because you followed and believed a teacher who used religious writings in circulation that ended up not getting into the canon.

What you've described above is doctrines associated with Gnosticism. It was a blending of Greek mysticism with Christianity. The gospel of John was written in part to counter this heresy. Actually if it wasn't for the Gnostics and the Ebonites much of the New Testament wouldn't have been written. The Ebonites were Jews who were trying to mix Old Testament law and ritual with Christianity.

Yup, the Ebionites were strict monotheists, so Jesus was fully human to them. Paul's arch enemies I would think. The Marcionites went the other way, they thought that the God who sent Jesus was not the same God of the Old Testament. Gnostics were another. These are the ones with very significantly different views.

It's easy to call these things heresies from the point of view of the beliefs that actually won.

Christianity today is filled with many different beliefs and people coming to different conclusions, and it was the same back then as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christian.../dp/0195141830

A good book on the subject of early Christianities that is a current and scholarly view without being too dry. Really accessible (it was to me anyway).