Let's put it this way, you might feel all manner of self-righteous claiming 'non-Christians' don't know love.'

You don't get to deal with the folks who believe you.

I have.

I still don't believe you, or them.

No thanks to you.

What you say about others is on you.

I'll aslo add that when I *did* make my 'choice' to get out, the school headmaster-priest put his hand on me inappropriately to try to either blackmail me into going back to an abusive situation, or, well, other things that'd happened to other kids in vulnerable situations. .

All properly theologically-couched and all.
Same language as you use, though.

And I said to that through clenched teeth, "If I got so little to lose you'd better get your hand off me right now, Padre."

I, of course, made my choice to cover my ass, pretty literally, ...and being a pretty bright girl, had gathered enough leverage to make what I'd hoped would be a fair start... all of which was spent to walk away with a fricking high school diploma.

*Just* enough, it turns out, to almost parlay high academic awards from a Catholic institution into, well, half of a state college education.

I got into several top schools, among them the Ivy League. I went to state university *just to escape* what you call 'my choice.' Someone 'righteously' decided that even *that* needed some moved-goalposts, in the incessant sports metaphors of the time.

Could have even gone to three top Catholic schools ...all I had to do was lie.

Chalk it up to a Pagan heart, but I could not.

So don't you tell *me* what I chose. Cause I *did*.

As for Evangelicals.

Still not seeing you taking accountability for what *you* choose.

Oh, and on this, btw: (Me and Luv:)

""but, hey, you guys had me for a 'captive audience,' sometimes literally, for eighteen years. Pardon if I think a debriefing is in order."

"That was your choice.........and I made mine, end of story."

It certainly *was not my choice.* In retrospect, I may as well have run away sooner, but, no, in fact I was not given a choice.

And when I did, I paid for it. And then some.

Ah, Luv, so this was a computer glitch: Your words:

".but at least we love some of the time as you stated and not "none of the time" as you failed to state about yourself and many other non-christians."

Are you saying I love no one 'none of the time,'

Or am I misinterpreting?

PP, "Careful about your attributions of statements, 'Luv2Bme:' you implied I wrote something which I only quoted."

*************

First, I could care less what "you" think about me and secondly my post was to "lwms."

I believe there was a computer glitch when my comment was posted that is why it was re-posted.

However, I do not expect you to believe me because as it is well known from your previous comments posted you think christians are anything but truthful.........a bit of paranoia I would call your problem, I recommed counseling.

Have a great day, I have work to do and bust tonight after work for fun, thank God!

PP, "I know that's the basis for a lot of political policies Evangelicals clamor for, but, hey, you guys had me for a 'captive audience,' sometimes literally, for eighteen years. Pardon if I think a debriefing is in order."

That was your choice.........and I made mine, end of story.

Yaknow, 'Luv?'

You're the one claiming anyone not of your religion is some subhuman creature that doesn't know 'love...'

Then try to turn it around backwards to call people 'hateful' simply for not obeying your aggressive seekings-for-control.

Easy to pursue agendas that hurt real people, if you say, 'You're subhuman, only Christians know 'love.'

You call it 'love' when you do things which actively seek to hurt others. You just redefine 'love' as 'That which Christians have and which others don't.'

You bet you get criticized.

Someone's gotta do it.

Careful about your attributions of statements, 'Luv2Bme:' you implied I wrote something which I only quoted.

"And how is it that you act again?"

In politics? Like an American.

"I asked because I see that you judged everyone else's behavior but your own."

Would you really like to hear me talk to myself?

"Ironic isn't it, or maybe you intended to leave yourself out and do what you normally do, criticize Christians."

I certainly criticize those who, when, and inasmuch, they hurt others through not being self-critical, themselves, yes.

"Don't be so quick to judge christians we are human..."

Actually, I only tend to criticize when you start thinking or speaking as though you're *more* than human or that others are less so.

"...but at least we love some of the time as you stated and not "none of the time" as you failed to state about yourself and many other non-christians"

Who's, not only *judging,* but speaking bigorty, here?

Can you even hear yourself?

Speaking of 'humanity,' who are *you* to claim I don't know love, ...ever?

I know that's the basis for a lot of political policies Evangelicals clamor for, but, hey, you guys had me for a 'captive audience,' sometimes literally, for eighteen years. Pardon if I think a debriefing is in order. ;)

The God Vote
Jacques Berlinerblau
Jacques Berlinerblau is associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Many years ago he received a doctorate in ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University. Soon after, for reasons that he himself has never fully understood, he completed another doctorate in theoretical sociology from the New School for Social Research. Feeling sufficiently credentialed to write about and research any topic under the sun, his areas of interest include the Bible, its composition, its interpretation, and in particular the way that it has been dragooned into modern political discourse. To this end his new book is called "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics" (Westminster John Knox), described by First Things as "laugh-out-loud funny as well as astute." He also has published "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously" (Cambridge:2005). An earlier book, "Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals" (Rutgers: 1999) probed the manner in which institutions of higher education handle scholarly dissent. He has written extensively in scholarly journals on the subject of heretics, intellectuals, secularism, and Jewish civilization. This confluence of interests accounts, to a great degree, for his fascination with modern Jewish-American literature. A life-long New Yorker, he has recently moved to Washington D.C. with his family and is beguiled by the strange traffic lights that count down the seconds until they finally change colors. Close. The God Vote
Jacques Berlinerblau
Jacques Berlinerblau is program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of the new book "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics" and "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously." The God Vote is a critical look at the religious rhetoric, activity and theology behind the 2008 presidential campaign. Full bio »
The God Vote | Georgetown/On Faith Archives | On Faith Archives | Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs | Georgetown

The Intellectual Evangelicals
A more professorial and thoughtful strain of Evangelicalism is finding its public voice, (Please note that “professorial” and “thoughtful” are not necessarily synonyms for “liberal.”)

» Back to full entry
Posted by Jacques Berlinerblau on May 13, 2008 4:24 AM

All Comments (62)
Paganplace:
"America needs a strong sign from Christians as a whole unit, a public recognition that their two-faced deceptive actions had caused harm to many and that they are going to implement an awareness program to help prevent harm like that from happening again."

This is one thing we certainly haven't seen yet, from this, particularly not from the Evangelical posters, here. Will this manifesto convince anyone? I wonder.

It certainly doesn't seem to speak strongly enough about *setting priorities* in civil life, or even suggesting that Evangelicals let go of certain discriminatory and theocratic agendas in favor of working on the real problems our nation and world face.

The tenor of many Evangelicals' comments here still seems to indicate, if not say, outright, that they'd still rather try to use government to interfere in private morality and impose religious beliefs, ...and blame any noncompliance on the rest of the world's part for the effects of the agendas they've relentlessly voted for in the past twenty to thirty years.

May 15, 2008 9:39 AM, Posted on May 15, 2008 09:39

lwms:
I believe evangelicals have gotten too entangled in theater. I see too many Christians acting like two-faced theater characters; one time with the image of Christianity and another with the deception of the devil. This inconsistency alienates people from Christianity because the two-faced behavior is more a characteristic of NAZI Germans, white segregation, and other elitist behavior. Remember Hitler had the best theater arts. It is like Christians got sold a new image and they wear these two faces like the Emperor’s New Clothes.

As a result of this behavior when encountering a Christian I ask: Does this person who claims to be a Christian act with two-faced deception like a wolf in a sheep’s clothing or do they stand and act like Jesus when people wanted to stone Mary Magdalene?

************************

And how is it that you act again? I asked because I see that you judged everyone else's behavior but your own. Ironic isn't it, or maybe you intended to leave yourself out and do what you normally do, criticize Christians.

Don't be so quick to judge christians we are human......but at least we love some of the time as you stated and not "none of the time" as you failed to state about yourself and many other non-christians.

The God Vote
Jacques Berlinerblau
Jacques Berlinerblau is associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Many years ago he received a doctorate in ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University. Soon after, for reasons that he himself has never fully understood, he completed another doctorate in theoretical sociology from the New School for Social Research. Feeling sufficiently credentialed to write about and research any topic under the sun, his areas of interest include the Bible, its composition, its interpretation, and in particular the way that it has been dragooned into modern political discourse. To this end his new book is called "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics" (Westminster John Knox), described by First Things as "laugh-out-loud funny as well as astute." He also has published "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously" (Cambridge:2005). An earlier book, "Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals" (Rutgers: 1999) probed the manner in which institutions of higher education handle scholarly dissent. He has written extensively in scholarly journals on the subject of heretics, intellectuals, secularism, and Jewish civilization. This confluence of interests accounts, to a great degree, for his fascination with modern Jewish-American literature. A life-long New Yorker, he has recently moved to Washington D.C. with his family and is beguiled by the strange traffic lights that count down the seconds until they finally change colors. Close. The God Vote
Jacques Berlinerblau
Jacques Berlinerblau is program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of the new book "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics" and "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously." The God Vote is a critical look at the religious rhetoric, activity and theology behind the 2008 presidential campaign. Full bio »
The God Vote | Georgetown/On Faith Archives | On Faith Archives | Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs | Georgetown

The Intellectual Evangelicals
A more professorial and thoughtful strain of Evangelicalism is finding its public voice, (Please note that “professorial” and “thoughtful” are not necessarily synonyms for “liberal.”)

» Back to full entry
Posted by Jacques Berlinerblau on May 13, 2008 4:24 AM

All Comments (62)
Paganplace:
"America needs a strong sign from Christians as a whole unit, a public recognition that their two-faced deceptive actions had caused harm to many and that they are going to implement an awareness program to help prevent harm like that from happening again."

This is one thing we certainly haven't seen yet, from this, particularly not from the Evangelical posters, here. Will this manifesto convince anyone? I wonder.

It certainly doesn't seem to speak strongly enough about *setting priorities* in civil life, or even suggesting that Evangelicals let go of certain discriminatory and theocratic agendas in favor of working on the real problems our nation and world face.

The tenor of many Evangelicals' comments here still seems to indicate, if not say, outright, that they'd still rather try to use government to interfere in private morality and impose religious beliefs, ...and blame any noncompliance on the rest of the world's part for the effects of the agendas they've relentlessly voted for in the past twenty to thirty years.

May 15, 2008 9:39 AM, Posted on May 15, 2008 09:39

lwms: "I believe evangelicals have gotten too entangled in theater. I see too many Christians acting like two-faced theater characters; one time with the image of Christianity and another with the deception of the devil. This inconsistency alienates people from Christianity because the two-faced behavior is more a characteristic of NAZI Germans, white segregation, and other elitist behavior. Remember Hitler had the best theater arts. It is like Christians got sold a new image and they wear these two faces like the Emperor’s New Clothes.

As a result of this behavior when encountering a Christian I ask: Does this person who claims to be a Christian act with two-faced deception like a wolf in a sheep’s clothing or do they stand and act like Jesus when people wanted to stone Mary Magdalene?"

**************

And how is it that "you" act again? I asked because I saw your judgment of everyone else in your post "except" you. Ironic isn't it or maybe not? maybe your point was to criticize Christians, again and you and all other non-christains get a "free get out of jail card."

Don't be so quick to judge christians we are human.....but at least we "love" some of the time as you stated and not "none of the time," like you failed to state.

"America needs a strong sign from Christians as a whole unit, a public recognition that their two-faced deceptive actions had caused harm to many and that they are going to implement an awareness program to help prevent harm like that from happening again."

This is one thing we certainly haven't seen yet, from this, particularly not from the Evangelical posters, here. Will this manifesto convince anyone? I wonder.

It certainly doesn't seem to speak strongly enough about *setting priorities* in civil life, or even suggesting that Evangelicals let go of certain discriminatory and theocratic agendas in favor of working on the real problems our nation and world face.

The tenor of many Evangelicals' comments here still seems to indicate, if not say, outright, that they'd still rather try to use government to interfere in private morality and impose religious beliefs, ...and blame any noncompliance on the rest of the world's part for the effects of the agendas they've relentlessly voted for in the past twenty to thirty years.

I believe evangelicals have gotten too entangled in theater. I see too many Christians acting like two-faced theater characters; one time with the image of Christianity and another with the deception of the devil. This inconsistency alienates people from Christianity because the two-faced behavior is more a characteristic of NAZI Germans, white segregation, and other elitist behavior. Remember Hitler had the best theater arts. It is like Christians got sold a new image and they wear these two faces like the Emperor’s New Clothes.

As a result of this behavior when encountering a Christian I ask: Does this person who claims to be a Christian act with two-faced deception like a wolf in a sheep’s clothing or do they stand and act like Jesus when people wanted to stone Mary Magdalene?

I believe if Christians would stop taking deceptive theater/political acts to the work place and streets and once again consistently act with the kindness of Jesus, society would change for the better. Christians would gain respect, there would be less civil unrest in America, there would be better communities, and probably even fewer abortions. Until then society continues to grow distrustful of all Christians.

America needs a strong sign from Christians as a whole unit, a public recognition that their two-faced deceptive actions had caused harm to many and that they are going to implement an awareness program to help prevent harm like that from happening again. Something like the Catholic Church did in response to the sexual abuse harm. A manifesto is a good first step.

The Rev. Hagee is an intellectual evangelical. He has read Revelations and knows exactly what the future holds. Aren't we lucky to have him with us?

L. Kurt Englehart:

For what it's worth, at this point, you totally clipped something out of context back there:

You posted this:

"Paganplace: "nothing defined as 'supernatural' can possibly be real"

Where it *came from* was this:

"One thing that people who insist nothing defined as 'supernatural' can possibly be real have in common with those who believe a book of Scripture confines or controls such experiences..."

I was observing something related to previous discussion, not making that assertion, myself, as you misquoted.

Article by Richard Behar in Time Magazine

Report in BBC UK Panorama by John Sweeney

Claire Hoffman's blogs - UNDER GOD - 7 and 12 May

Compare the Evangelical Manifesto with beliefs and practices of Scientology.

Links to info posted on Claire Hoffman's blogs on Scientology.

Posted on May 15, 2008 02:13

dvdpt:
To me proof of faith is when all religons
do the work of their Lord! Love do not hate
your brothers and sisters,
white,black,brown,asian,gay,homeless people
the poor the hungry,the crazy,
your religon spreads and teach HATE! RACISM!
and you compete who is the true religon.
Shame on all your religons (END OF STORY!)
*********************************

LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN
IS WHAT OUR LORD DOES
SO WHEN YOU CAN PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH
THEN YOU CAN DETERMINE WHERE "HATE" IS THE CAUSE
(PERIOD)

NON-CHRISTIANS are full of hate yet they expect Christains to take their abuse and say or do nothing in return. Grow up, you want to claim we are all brothers and sisters then you act like we are.

I had a so called friend stand by and watch me "suffer" under a time of great duress and he never lifted a hand to help me when it was within his power to do so. I received greater compassion from my enemies during that time then I received from him. And he wonders why I don't have any respect for him.

In fact he made things harder on me and commented to several of his friends how he was morally "upright" a "leader" in the community and deserved my respect and therefore I was in the wrong. He can "shove" his moral respect where the sun does not shine and keep it there! With friends like him who needs enemies.

Who murdered the choir director at the Trinity Church in Dec 2007 and why?

To me proof of faith is when all religons
do the work of their Lord! Love do not hate
your brothers and sisters,
white,black,brown,asian,gay,homeless people
the poor the hungry,the crazy,
your religon spreads and teach HATE! RACISM!
and you compete who is the true religon.
Shame on all your religons (END OF STORY!)

DZ wrote "Moreover, I do not necessarily believe in a 'civil public square'. If you believe that it is OK to deny equality under the law to American citizens (yes, I am talking about same sex marriage), then I have no wish to have any conversation with you at all. If you seek to have prayer in public schools, then I desire no conversation with you at all. If you wish to teach creationism or 'intelligent design' in science classes in public schools, then I desire no conversation with you.

So, what would be the point? What would be the goal? I don't really want to understand your beliefs, and I don't care if you understand mine. Mostly, I want you to keep your religion out of my life and away from my family. I will do the same. That's religious freedom - something very few evangelicals actually support."

********************

I understand you desire to protect your family, however to ostracize others based on their belief is totally bias, judgmental, and anti-social. Not to mention "egocentric" on your part.

Do you think that others do not have anything to offer you in life to aid in even the smallest way? Do you also think that you are "self-contained" and self-sufficient to the point of not needing anyone outside your own household? Lastly, do you think that other people's beliefs are not note-worthy to the point of you discriminating against them and severing all contact?

People have the right to believe as they chose. Yes, and so do you but that does not mean that they have nothing to offer you in some way, shape, or form. I agree with Collin in that you need a new perspective regarding your interaction with these types of people, ones that believe different then you.

When you are ready, try to see the good in another, aside from the hurt and pain others have caused you and your family. Even a warm smile or a friendly hug can speak "volumes" when you are having a bad day or feeling down. What I am saying is try to let "others" in your life instead of keeping them out. Don't let anyone be abusive but people can care from a distance if you let them.
I appreciate your candor.

DZ,

Your last post just earned the respect of this liberal Christian. Thanks.

Arminius

Believer:

Thank you for your response.

First, you know almost nothing about me. I was not hostile to you in my post - I merely asked about the point of having dialogue. In fact, I am not actively hostile, as you put it, to anyone.

One way to avoid anger is to avoid people whose views make me angry. Ergo, I do not associate with anti-homosexual bigots, for example. What would there be to learn? There are no acceptable bases for bigotry and denial of equality under the law.

Next, what do you think a discussion of our beliefs might produce? I appreciate that you did not just rip as many Christians do, but you believe in god, I do not. Where does that discussion go? I never engage in theological arguments on these boards, because I am quite happy to be what I am and I have no wish to denigrate most beliefs of others. Bigotry is an exception. So, with regard to belief or unbelief, what is there to say?

You are quite wrong ininterpreting my comments. I actually believe in religious freedom, so I'm not fussy about who or who is not a member of society. You have exactly the same rights that I do. I am not close minded. I have had enough of fundamentalist Christianity in my life to last a lifetime. I do not want any more. Now, if the primary discussion is about non-religious issues, then we might have something. Slavery in Sudan might be an area of agreement. Combatting pornography is just a euphemism for restricting freedom of speech, and we would disagree on that. Religious oppression in China is not high on my issues list, but I almost certainly would agree that repression of any kind, religious or otherwise, is not acceptable. But, can we ever get past the belief/unbelief thing to get to those discussions. I am not convinced that it is possible.

I do not have religious freedom here in the U.S. Oh, we do have limited religious tolerance, not an altogether bad thing, but we do not have religious freedom. If we did, religious stuff would not be on our money or the Pledge. Also, churches, synagogues, etc. would not receive property tax exemptions that other non-profs do not get. In 1968, I spent 4 days in jail, because I refused to put my hand on a bible or say the words 'so help me god' when I was a witness to a crime. In 1969, I went to jail for 10 months because I was an atheist - have you ever had that experience in this country? I would be willing to bet that you haven't.

You may say anything you want. That's why it's called freedom. I have no desire whatever to convert you or anyone else to atheism - it just isn't my business. Conversely, I am offended by proselytizing which, as I understand it, is a core tenet of evangelical Christianity. Have you ever had atheists come to your door to try to convert you to unbelief. Have you ever been accosted in an airport by atheists who want to 'witness' to you about there being no god?

I did not raise these questions to be mean or to bait you. I asked a serious question. I had evangelical fundamentalism jammed down my throat by my mother's side of the family until I was 14. At that point, I refused to deal with that half of the family. I have no desire to learn more about Christanity nor do I have much to say about atheism per se. Based on the evidence, I do not believe pretty much sums it up. Atheism is just one attribute of mine - there are many others. In my experience, however, evangelicals want to talk about religion most of the time, and that is not a basis for discussion.

So, how do we start? How do we avoid the discussion killers to enable other discussions? I sure don't know the answers. As another example, read Hugh's post about Christian truth claims. That is a discussion in which I am not remotely interested. If you understand atheists at all, I hope you understand that such a discussion is absolutely absurd to us. So, my questions remain. Harmonious coexistence has always been my goal, but how do we get there? How do we start? My main point is that dialogue cannot begin with discussion of Christian truth claims. That creates disharmony, the antithesis of my goal.

I hope this clarifies.

Collin:

I don't believe that I need to change my attitude at all. I'm not the one trying to impose my views on other people. I live in a world full of mostly Christians, and I get along well with them. Half of my family is Christian and most of my friends. We do not talk about religion very much.

I do understand what you're saying, but I do not respect the views of anti-homosexual bigots, for example. Why should I? My brother is gay and has had the same partner for 24 years. When people continuously deny him equal rights, they are attacking my family. Those who attack my family are my enemies. Why is that hard to understand?

Fred Evil,

I agree with you that if faith means believe without proof (or even evidence) then it is foolishness. As a religious person, I have a different conception of faith. I'm sure you are like me and hate it when people say "you just gotta believe." Why? Must I believe in the tooth fairy just because I "gotta"?

But my definition of faith is different than yours. It is trust in evidence that is there. I'm not sure if I agree with Paul who says faith is evidence of things not seen that are true. I think faith is trusting those things that you have reason to believe are true.

So I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, though I have no proof. I make dentist appointments even though, who knows, I might be dead or the dentist might be dead by then. I trust my fingers to type the right letters though my only proof that they will is that they have done so in the past. A farmer plants crops not knowing for sure that they will grow. That is the faith that I have. As for Christianity, are you sure there is no evidence for it?

Lets face it we, believers and non-believers live in two different worlds. The attitude of the non-believers will always be hatred toward the believers, there is really nothing to talk about.

The non-believers are set to always be a non-believer and "look down" on belivers as being narrow-minded people which is really a "judgmental" attitude that says, "you don't believe like us so you are outside our group."

They are always out to prove believers wrong and critisize believers by saying that we are narrow-minded. A non-believer is what I consider being narrow-minded which says "you don't belive like me so we have nothing to talk about or share.

I may not like what you do or how you live as a non-believer but I will treat you with respect until you otherwise prove to me that you do not deserve to be treated with respect. All joking aside, which we all do, non-believers are "hateful" people towards believers most of the time.

Belivers get the message, trust me, they do; "unwanted."

'Militant Atheism'?

I'm absolutely stunned by such an ignorant label. I am hardly militant, but I do draw the line at lazy thinking and broken logic that strains cerudlity.

Religion requires faith
Faith = Belief without proof
Belief without proof = Foolishness

Therefore religion = foolishness

Any argument for which the end result is 'beyond the grasp of man's understanding' should be called what it is, foolishness.

You want me to believe it? Fine, show me proof, give me evidence. Until you can do that, you are intellectually lazy, and intellectually void.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Is it militancy? Or simply Logic you cannot refute?

Dieterman,
I too wrote a respectful post that WaPo didn't post. I even pointed out that believers can quite obviously be intellectuals; all you have to do is look at history to find plenty of intellectual believers. I even gave an example of an intellectual evangelical (perhaps in shorter supply than intellectual believers)--Mark Noll. But WaPo didn't post it. Can it be simple incompetence by WaPo, rather than an attempt to censor points of view, that leads to perfectly innocuous and respectful posts not getting posted? It makes one less inclined to bother with WaPo when they so inexplicably censor or otherwise botch the posts to these blogs. I might have to go elsewhere.

I wouldn't want to seem rude, but can you blame the public, non-evangelicals for not realizing that 'Intellectual Evangelicals' actually exist?

After all, it's not the 'Intellectual' wing that's trying desperately to modify the curriculum of our public schools to reflect their ideology. It's not the “professorial” and “thoughtful” who are shouting terrible things at gay pride parades, intimidating women in front of planned parenthood clinics, or blaming Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 on Liberals, Secularists and other people that don't fit into the nice, neat world view that preachers with TV shows and book deals tell us (falsely) is the bedrock of the American tradition.

'Intellectual Evangelicals' don't distribute pamphlets telling me I'm going to hell. 'Intellectual Evangelicals' don't tell me that as an Atheist, I'm not a real American. (Those are the nice ones - some think I should be killed.)

It wasn't 'Intellectual Evangelicals' that camped out in front of Terri Shiavo's hospital room and inserted their ideology into a family's very personal and very difficult decision.

'Intellectual Evangelicals' aren't trying to pass laws denying gay people the same rights that everybody else has.

Evangelicalism, and really all of Christianity, has to deal with the fact that they've allowed their public face to become something that many people - Christians included - find repulsive.

The growing numbers of Atheists (or really, the growing number of people who will say they're Atheists in public) has much more to do with what Christianity has become than any nefarious plot by 'liberals' or 'secularists.'

The Neural Buddhists
The New York Times
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 13, 2008

In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called “Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died,” in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.

To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are “hard-wired” to do this or that. Religion is an accident.

In this materialist view, people perceive God’s existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems. You put a magnetic helmet around their heads and they will begin to think they are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are conversing with God.

Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of thinking: Everything is material and “the soul is dead.” He anticipated the way the genetic and neuroscience revolutions would affect public debate. They would kick off another fundamental argument over whether God exists.

Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as “The Origin of Species reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going to end up challenging faith in the Bible.

Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.

If you survey the literature (and I’d recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.

Believer-

You can't have a conversation with people like DZ and others on this forum. They are closed minded- they are "right" damnit and that is all there is there is to it. If you DARE suggest that the only way evolution works is if God or a superior intelligence worked through it, they will flip out.

If you dare claim that marriage between a man and woman has a dynamic to it that the so called same sex marriage can't- they'll flip out.

He says he wants to keep religion away from his family- does this mean that if one of his kids later on in life becomes a Christian, or a Muslim, he would cut himself off from his offspring?

And evangelical is defined as

"belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ."

And intellect-" the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.
2. capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, esp. of a high or complex order; mental capacity.

So basically in the opinion of many here, you can't come to know or understand that salvation come through Jesus Christ, and that people with the capacity to think and understand this- that they have faith in that atonement, that this these two can not be congruous.

Again, very elitist. Bigoted also.

Dieterman:

That was a pretty funny post. Most of us here have had polite posts impounded. Apparently the crap WaPo uses to screen posts is a textbook example of software anarchy.

Arminius

Dieterman, you're making my stomach hurt. I look like a laughing fool at my desk right now. I can't contain myself.

Maybe God can tell me why I wrote a respectful and on-topic comment here - twice - and it was never posted. Just watch. This will get posted.

Maybe God can tell me why I wrote a respectful and on-topic comment here - twice - and it was never posted. Just watch. This will get posted.

"The Way is to find agreement on a more abstract level. That level is philosophy, but respect for and understanding of the role of philosophy is very low."

Kurt, I largely agree with you here. The problem I've had in the past is connecting with people who have a completely materialistic world view ("materialistic" as in believing nothing exists other than the physical universe observable by the senses, rather than "materialistic" as in carries around small yappy dogs in extravagantly expensive purses while shopping at exclusive stores), and are unwilling to accept metaphysics in particular, or philosphy more generally, as a legitimate field of study. I do understand how someone gets to that world view, and the arguments for it. What frustrates me is when a materialist fails to realize that he is himself making certain philosophical assumptions - and as a result is unable to explain why he made them, and unwilling to explore why I may make different ones.

"Dialog to achieve what?"

Living together more harmoneously is one excellent goal - and in my mind, an entirely sufficient one to justify every effort we can make to understand each other.

More than that, I might actually learn something useful from you, even if I don't end up agreeing with you - and you might learn something useful from me.

Make no mistake, understanding each other is _exactly_ what it's going to take for people to live more harmoneously together. Nothing less is going to do, because if I don't understand how you can in good faith believe what you believe and demand what you demand socially and politically, then I _will_ end up assuming bad faith and ill-will on your part. That's simply human nature.

The "civil public square" is a necessary part of this. Where else are we going to talk?

I find it profoundly discouraging when you say "I don't really want to understand your beliefs, and I don't care if you understand mine." You're not the first non-believer to say that on these blogs - and it tends to reinforce all the worst stereotypes of non-believers.

Just as a thought experiment, step back and try to imaging the message it sends to someone who disagrees with you. First, it suggests that you're completely dismissive of my intelligence (I'm using "my," "me," and "I" as an illustration, just to make things more concrete). Second, it suggests that you are completely closed minded - so closed minded that you not only can't imagine being wrong, but you lack the intellectual curiousity to wonder what would make someone disagree with you. Third, it suggests that you are completely uninterested in and unwilling to consider accomodating my interests and concerns - whatever they may be, whether slavery in the Sudan, or combatting pornography, or fighting religious oppression in China.

Taken together, what I'm hearing is that you really do not want me to be part of your society, at best you'll tolerate me as long as I shut up and stay out of your way, and if I read between the lines you may well be actively hostile to me and my beliefs. What's worse, the situation can't change because you don't give a flip about what I think, or why I think it.

We're not talking about curtailing religious freedom - you have every political and moral right to disbelieve. I certainly don't want to change that, and I'm not aware of any one else who'se trying to change it. Belief of any kind can't (and shouldn't) be forced. But we're treading on very dangerous ground if we, as a society, say to certain groups "no, you can't say that, because I disagree with it and don't want to hear it." That may not be what you intended, but that's how it sounds to a believer when you say that you don't believe in a "civil public square" because you want our beliefs "out of my life and away from my family."

Am I misrepresenting you, or somehow painting a false picture of you here? If so, that's why we need to talk. The picture of themselves believers see in the comments of secularists is every bit as distorted as the picture of yourselves you see from us. The only way to fix this is to take the time to understand, really understand, each other.

to DZ,

I think you should change your attitude. If you have respect for people and their ideas then you will at least sit down and listen to them even if you disagree. I will listen to your ideas, your philosophy even if I disagree or find them very incorrect. I am willing to respect you and your ideas. But your attitude seems to be to slam the door if you don't like the topic.

It is a pleasing thought that some of the hidden minority that call themselves evangelical intellectuals can peer into the sunlight and not be too afraid of the religious fanatics that dominate faith and values industry. But that being said, like all revolutions that have occurred in history the intellectuals are the first to have their neck stretched on the chopping block. You cannot control the flock if the sheep can think for themselves. It is in the interest of the falwells and dobsons that their followers not be confused by logic or science. Teach fundamental religion in schools. Redefine history by taking away all complexities of politics and human events. Make science a subject of fiction and imaginations that has no bearing on people's lives. A narrow and well defined dogma keeps people from self thought and disagreement with their so called leadership. This is the ideal that the hypocritical, power hungry prophets of spirituality aspire to. Evangelical intellectuals need not apply.

Intellectual Evangelicals = oxymoron!

Daryl and Believer:

Dialogue to achieve what is my question. I am certainly not opposed to dialogue, but, if it has any purpose other than to try to live together more harmoniously, then it is doomed to failure.

Moreover, I do not necessarily believe in a 'civil public square'. If you believe that it is OK to deny equality under the law to American citizens (yes, I am talking about same sex marriage), then I have no wish to have any conversation with you at all. If you seek to have prayer in public schools, then I desire no conversation with you at all. If you wish to teach creationism or 'intelligent design' in science classes in public schools, then I desire no conversation with you.

So, what would be the point? What would be the goal? I don't really want to understand your beliefs, and I don't care if you understand mine. Mostly, I want you to keep your religion out of my life and away from my family. I will do the same. That's religious freedom - something very few evangelicals actually support.

I will meet with you and talk to you at any time, but what would we talk about?

The difference between those Christians who believe in separation of church and state is that the more "liberal" Christian respects the rights of those who believe differently. This is what it means to live in America. We don't force our beliefs on others even when in the majority.

? I don't know, the archeaologists are regularly advancing the frontier of documented proof for the geographical accuracy of the bible. Textual criticism already establishes that we have what was originally written in the time of Jesus. Dead Sea scrolls established the accuracy of the book of Isaiah which establishes a bulk of the prophecies attributed to Jesus. To turn a blind eye to the hard and fast concrete facts (as they continue to accumulate) seems like a pretty supernatural decision to me.

I would just like to say that secularists can indeed be quite coercive. Several years ago, I remember a lady who sued to have all Christian music taken off the radio because it offended her. And how many times do we have to go to court because an atheist breaks out in hives every time he sees Christmas decoration? Every time someone bows their head to bless their meal, seven judges have to put in overtime. Everyone who disagrees with them is automatically labeled an idiot. This is why atheists get reputations for being militarist party poopers. That's exactly what they are.

Merci, Jacques! As a naturalist, I welcome those people to help oppose the extremists-but as you do, want them to know that we are for their liberties and only oppose them intellectually.
They should know that denying state-imposed prayer and Bible reading is in the interest of all. They should know that we atheists in our denunciations of religion are no more extremist than they in their wanting to convert others.This is an intellectual debate as between liberals and conservatives.Religion is not out of bounds for debate.
We certainly do indeed have common goals!

Many people on these forums appear to be looking for some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers.

I don't see how this is useful. People can believe whatever they want: in a devine Jesus, leprehauns, Gods talking to people, being a "chosen" people, Zeus etc... its all simply not true.

So, whats the point? I just don't want to be exposed to peoples idiotic beliefs, in the public arena, on television, or anywhere.

To state that someone can't believe in the supernatural - the resurrection, hell, etc, and can't be intellectual at the same time-

Just reveals militant atheism for what it is.

It's atheists like Kenneth , "Fred Evil" that give atheism its bad name, along with its reputation for bigotry towards believers .

Elitism at its best, or worst.....

It smacks of bigotry for sure.

From Wikipedia:

"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology"

You guys fit perfectly.

Believer: "a way to improve understanding between us"

Paganplace: "nothing defined as 'supernatural' can possibly be real"

The Way is to find agreement on a more abstract level. That level is philosophy, but respect for and understanding of the role of philosophy is very low. Philosophy attempts to answer questions about the nature of reality, of which religion is an essential part. From the perspective of philosophy, religions are relative, a view that some find irreconcilable with faith and belief. Abstract thinking is a valuable tool, but it is ultimately syncretic, to which dogma must ultimately succumb.

Dr. Berlinerblau,

Something might help to promote the kind of dialogue you applaud and are, no doubt, seeking. If somehow you could filter from all this 'discussion' certain undesirables whose only wish is to disrupt and shout down any such effort, it would be most refreshing. This is not a forum, per se, to debate the merits of either the positions of secularism or religious belief. Rather, it should be a forum to discuss the feasibility of any discussion in the first place. It can be done by establishing what sort of ground rules are required, acceptable assumptions to grant, and even what sort of venues would work. Alas, such openness to any naysayer who walks by a forum like this is tantamount to setting a delicious steak outsi