All Comments (53)

http://google.com google [url=http://google.com] google [/url]

hello world
hello world http://helloworld.com hello world
[url=http://helloworld.com ]hello world[/url]

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Sam and E Favorite,

I had to laugh when I saw your posts. I just don't get it. So any evil person that TWISTS a religion to do their evil acts is done inside that belief set? What???

But on the other had when an athiest sets up an anti-religion regime and becomes a totalitarian government, it is no longer about athiesm? What???

You can't have it both ways. Evil is done with the tools at hand. If you actually follow the scripture it does not lead to harm of others, ever! If you twist it to fit your own personal power view to gain control of others, of course it is evil. But, it is no longer a part of that faith. If harm is concieved, you are acting against the dicates of the faith you are supposed to be following.

Likewise, if someone like Chairman Mao comes along and uses an anti-religion stance to gain power, offers to give the people a reasoned and enlightened life based on reason (the whole point behind communism) where all men are equal, and then develops a totalitarian government it is a twisting of the belief set of athiests. They use logic and reason to show how they can make life better than that under any "religious" sway and gain many followers as such. By the time anyone sees how twisted they are, they are already in power, control the army, and are on their way to destroying lives and killing countless numbers of people in the name of their new society.

The point that seems to be constantly overlooked by those posting on the athiest side is that evil is evil. If you remove religion completely these kind of people will just use something else to give them power over, and then ability to control, others. Saying religion is the root cause of all problems is about as logical as saying science is the root cause of all problems. They are both very pervasive in society and have been for some time. Neither in their true form will cause harm and are not even mutually exclusive as witnessed by the fact than many of the greatest scientist were very devout. And don't confuse modern means of communications as meaning that your way of thinking is very new. It all started with "natural philosophers" in the enlightenment period.

E FAVORITE:

Like so many skeptics, you ignore evidence. On the basis of investigation that all historians use to determine the reliability of an ancient text the NT documents - particularly those of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - stand up against any ancient document.

Now, I would not presume to approach these according to E's "straw man" arguments - "it says it in the Bible so it must be true" (of course, N.T. Wright recognizes the foolishness of engaging with a closed mind) but for the sake of making the actual point here - I'm approaching these docs not as "inspired" but as just the writings of men.

When we do that and investigate them for their historical reliability, they are quite reliable documents, more so than virtually any ancient document received as historical writing. At this point it is simply a matter of investigating the actual internal testimony of the documents. When we do so with integrity, there is powerful evidence for the death and resurrection.

Ultimately, it is only an a priori rejection of the possibility of miracles that would prevent one from truly engaging the evidence. Yet, this rejection is simply unwarranted. The fact that one does not see miracles of this sort today does not negate whether such have occurred in the past or whether they might in the future.

The resurrection is accepted by faith, but not a blind leap of faith. Rather, a faith based on reasonableness of evidence. Much like the faith we exercise every day in any investigation of history.

Dr. Wright wrote:

"'but that's simply normal human behavior, however regrettable'. The proof of the pudding is that, with the last two centuries in our mind, we could substitute the word 'atheism' for 'religion' in Hitchens' quote and it would still work (think: French Revolution, Gulag, etc etc)."

This is precisely the point. What Hitchens wrote is common to all men. Just read the book of Genesis! Hitchens acts as if informed Christians don't know this? Or ignore this reality? Hitchens comment says nothing about what Christianity would refer to as "true religion."

Among the many other problematic issues for Hitchens is that he continually judges Christianity on the basis of what Solomon would describe as "life under the sun." That is, what does Christianity offer to humanity only, "here on earth." While, indeed, arguments may well be mustered, and Bishop Wright has done a fine job in his writings on this topic, to demonstrate the value of the Christian life here on earth - ultimately, there must be some future hope that makes the call to suffering (which Hitchens summarily and in subtle, non-sequitur form denigrates) a worthwhile proposition ("For I consider the sufferings of this present world not worthy to be compared to the glory that follows" - Rom. 8:18-24).

Many thanks for your fine work ...

Dr. Wright wrote:

"'but that's simply normal human behavior, however regrettable'. The proof of the pudding is that, with the last two centuries in our mind, we could substitute the word 'atheism' for 'religion' in Hitchens' quote and it would still work (think: French Revolution, Gulag, etc etc)."

This is precisely the point. What Hitchens wrote is common to all men. Just read the book of Genesis! Hitchens acts as if informed Christians don't know this? Or ignore this reality? Hitchens comment says nothing about what Christianity would refer to as "true religion."

Among the many other problematic issues for Hitchens is that he continually judges Christianity on the basis of what Solomon would describe as "life under the sun." That is, what does Christianity offer to humanity only, "here on earth." While, indeed, arguments may well be mustered, and Bishop Wright has done a fine job in his writings on this topic, to demonstrate the value of the Christian life here on earth - ultimately, there must be some future hope that makes the call to suffering (which Hitchens summarily and in subtle, non-sequitur form denigrates) a worthwhile proposition ("For I consider the sufferings of this present world not worthy to be compared to the glory that follows" - Rom. 8:18-24).

Many thanks for your fine work ...

The word 'religion' needs to be defined there. Like Dan Brown, it smells as if the writer is conveniently forgetting the untold amount of what we might define as "good" that has and is coming to our society as a result of religious beliefs. Can I conclude, then, that Hitchins, again like Dan Brown, is only hearing and stating one side of the story, because of an a priori investment in a particular position despite the whole truth?

Having said that, Hitchins does have an also 'untold' amount of evidence from history - some of it not too far distant - to prove his claim. It wouldn't be hard to do so. I think it behoves persons who profess a religion not to turf out the half of the truth that Hitchins presents. If we take the undoubted historical facts to heart, and consider them carefully, as a body of whatever religious position, we can use his critique to warn ourselves, keep ourselves real. Hopefully to stop ourselves pursuing our religion in such a way that the Living God is obscured by religious pursuit.

When you add up the totality of what I might call "the Biblical revelation" the overwhelming fact that comes shining through is the infinite grace, mercy and justice-love of YHWH the covenant God, expressed in Christ. In obsessing like scientists, cognitively, over this and that shade of theology, do we forget this overarching and in the End, dominant theme? Do we let our scientific obsessions and reliance on our titanic mental strengths, drive us out of this theme, thus losing touch with the Author of the Biblical revelation? Does the koinonia of those in Christ consist merely of cognitive thought matters, or are there other matters, other realities of unity in Christ, that are sadly forgotten?

In other words, does everyone else have to think exactly like me in order for them to fellowship with God in a living relationship? Can we get back far enough from our super-sharp theological choppings in order to hear the flabbergasting arrogance keening through in such a presupposition?

Cop Hitchins' critique on the chin and use whatever is true in it. To avoid that truth would be to act cultish. Fess up and get real with God, hence get real with yourself.

Amen! I heartily agree. Hitchens and his turbo charged rhetoric are over done and at many times absurd. He is what I like to call an "evangelical atheist." Let's grow up and stop throwing mud at one another. It's time for Christians to love one another and reach out to hostile people such as Hitchens in love.

Amen! I heartily agree. Hitchens and his turbo charged rhetoric are over done and at many times absurd. He is what I like to call an "evangelical atheist." Let's grow up and stop throwing mud at one another. It's time for Christians to love one another and reach out to hostile people such as Hitchens in love.

Ben Wiebe

"But there is no talk about 'if Jesus never came, died on a cross or rose from the dead' we just believe - that would be not merely foolishness but nonsense."

Yes, to history we must go. We live in the year 2007 a marker based on the probable year of the birth of Jesus, who towers over all human history as the Lord of all time and space.

The primary documents (i.e. New Testament)that history has provided us attest to the reality of Jesus of Nazareth and to the certainty of his death and physical resurrection.

The Christian church universal is founded on that knowledge. It gives vitality and meaning in a world full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The promise of the resurrection assures us that creation is not headed for the garbage dump from nuclear incineration or environmental collapse from our impropriety, but for renewal and the reign of justice and mercy in a new heavens and earth. What we all long for and know only in part now will be realized at the revealing of the ever-present Lord. His love sustains us.

Knowledge of that love comes to us by the moving of the heart and the consequent understanding of the mind.

Eager Berean,

Thanks for the reponse. We certainly do not follow a "rationalism" that before it considers the matter knows what is true. On 1 Cor 1:18ff, for people in the "world" the cross is "foolishness." The "worldly wise" know of themselves how God ought to act (if there is a God), the very idea in a world that exalts power and self-sufficiency that God would come in humilty and self giving love - foolishness). But there is no talk about "if Jesus never came, died on a cross or rose from the dead" we just believe - that would be not merely foolishness but nonsense. As we see in John 20:30ff the good news, our faith, is based on something real that has taken place (real data).

Peace,

Ben Wiebe

"I believe the resurrected Jesus myth has been reviewed on the this blog many times. No sense beating a "dead corpse". Scroll through the archives before your next bible group meeting."

And you can read the Jesus biographies called Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John and not snuff out the debate by calling them "myths."

What ever happen to the post-enlightenment open mind? I don't see it very much today.

Ben Weibe,

You say, I believe with disapproval: "We may even have a piece thrown in from the "religion" side to say "the more ridiculous the more it is to be believed"

Revisit the 'Father O'Marlowe' post and pay attention to his qualifiers. Seems to me that he is making a point about epistemology and echoing closely St. Paul's perspective in 1 Corintians 1:18 ff.

We must go to history to document the presence of the one and only Jesus, Lord of time and space, but I think when we allow opponents to establish the sinking sands of so-called rational thought as the foundation of discussion, we give the day away. Ours is an epistemology of love.

As Christians our task is less to argue than to proclaim and leave the Holy Spirit to use resurrection power to raise those dead to the 'seemingly' ridiculous.

Sam: “but it is innaccurate to prescribe such actions as stemming from an atheistic 'values set', it is poor reasoning….”

You’re too generous, Sam, I think it’s purposeful attempt to distort atheism to be perceived by Christians as evil.

GK,

I believe the resurrected Jesus myth has been reviewed on the this blog many times. No sense beating a "dead corpse". Scroll through the archives before your next bible group meeting.

"Study on. I have and found orthodox Christianity to be severely flawed starting with "pwtfft"s and their ugly counterparts. May your mythical guardian keep you well!!!!"

Oh, boy.

E Favorite:

I'm a living example of someone whose life totally changed because of the resurrected Jesus invading my life. If you only knew the half of it.

My hunch is that Bishop Wright would say something similar.

In the midst of the sound and fury of this post come the majestic words of the Lord of all time and space:

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Millions from every nation around the globe have responded to the invitation of Jesus, and in ways ordinary and sometimes eccentric, have aspired to follow him in the way of peace, love and hope. The glory is in the details.

Anybody out there here the call?

GK,

Study on. I have and found orthodox Christianity to be severely flawed starting with "pwtfft"s and their ugly counterparts. May your mythical guardian keep you well!!!!

Concerned:

The liturgical phrase, "Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy." is a prayer for all people including and especially me!

Sorry that you interpreted this comment as me being judgmental. It was meant to do the opposite.

Regarding atonement theology, you are fixated on a Middle Ages church interpretation which Crossan rightly calls into question. However, by calling into question one understanding of the atonment, does not mean that you need to walk away empty either. It appears you do so, gladly. I'd love for you to come to some of my bible studies where we examine many ways that the meaning of Jesus' suffering and death are explored.

It is very difficult to accept the premise for the Bishop's argument, it assumes a consistent set of values, motivations and actions from atheists as a 'belief group' - something approaching a religion.

Atheism could in some ways be targeted as a group - but it would be a group defined merely by one characteristic - a refusal to beleive in the supernatural because of a lack of evidence so near complete that such a belief could not be reasonably supported.

There is no associated beleif structure, so yes, someone like Pol-Pot was a genocidal mass murderer, however his killing was not motivated by a belief in reason. Nor is atheism a motivation for mutilation, rape, oppression or discrimination as there is no values set to motivate such actions.

No person in this debate questions the moral wrongness of these actions, but it is innaccurate to prescribe such actions as stemming from an atheistic 'values set', it is poor reasoning that is generally below the standards set by many who are prepared to confront irrationality. Merely casting aspersions should not be accepted as reasoning or rightness.

GK Chesterton - Bishop Wright needs to hear it too - he's perpetuating myths as truth that he and his kind know are myths.

I know it would be tough to acknowledge this after all this time, perhaps he can't even admit it to himself, after a lifetime of dissonance. But it certainly would be Christian and Humanist thing to do. Bishop Wright is an honorable person, unlike the religious fanatics and terrorists, so I am hoping he will do the honorable thing.

GK,

Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy?? and you need none of it having talked to Jesus today unlike the rest of us poor souls???

And to reiterate what Professor JD Crossan has to say about atonement theology:

"(from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

For the record, I have been labeled a "bible thumper" on this NT Wright board for referencing one verse in a post. There is obviously a bias against Christianity among most posters here, not all but surprisingly many. Why surprising? Because Dr. Wright represents mainstream Christianity that does not veer to the far left or far right but is grounded in the scriptures, tradition, and reason. Evidently, this doesn't matter since any brand of Christianity (especially orthodox Christianity) is discounted from the start on board like this.

I mean, even if I was an atheist, I would choose my battles more carefully - like speaking out against the crazy homophobic church in Kansas that protests at the gravesides of veterans claiming they died in battle because America is tolerant toward the homosexual lifestyle. I could give a number of other twisted things that go on in the name of Christianity and other religions for that matter (who can't?!)

But I can also give many, many examples (which I have on several of my posts) of where the church gets it right including the church I attend (although, of course, we sometimes get it wrong but at least our practices are mostly congruent with our theology which is based on the historic Christian faith.)

And so, I stand amazed at the arguments people pick with Christianity on a board like this while all the time some Christian fundamentalist who appears on Larry King Live claims that we should get involved in a preemptive war because Jesus referenced wars in the scripture and that must mean Jesus condones war. Ughh!

I would love to introduce that fundamentalist to someone like Bishop Wright who represents a much more historic approach to Christianity that has somehow been lost, especially in America.

But alas - there will still be more misinterpreted pieces of the Christian faith (such as the doctrine of the atonement - see in previous post which has more to do with Mel Gibson's Passion movie than it does with Dr. Wright's theology or historic Christianity for that matter!)

Bottom line - most of the arguments on this board would be better suited to people who really need to hear it. And sadly, there are many. Lord, have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.

To Lydia Bean,

You make a strong point. We get groundless challenges thrown across the empty chasm of our cynical culture from both sides. We may even have a piece thrown in from the "religion" side to say "the more rediculous the more it is to be believed" and there is a kind of "blind faith" in reason on the other side. This is reason that can say "it is all a hoax" no matter what the evidence.

Can reason have any meaningful function without regard for evidence or data? But in some ways it should not surprise us, knowing what is true still is a function of wanting to know what is true (i.e. not reacting simply out of cynicism), and it confirms the reality of sin as described in scripture. Humans can "use religion" as they do other things simply in self-serving ways. Of course in Wright's terms the question is, are we still talking about authentic Christianity?

Peace,

Ben W

To Lydia Bean,

You make a strong point. We get groundless challenges thrown across the empty chasm of our cynical culture from both sides. We may even have a piece thrown in from the "religion" side to say "the more rediculous the more it is to be believed" and there is a kind of "blind faith" in reason on the other side. This is reason that can say "it is all a hoax" no matter what the evidence.

Can reason have any meaningful function without regard for evidence or data? But in some ways it should not surprise us, knowing what is true still is a function of wanting to know what is true (i.e. not reacting simply out of cynicism), and it confirms the reality of sin as described in scripture. Humans can "use religion" as they do other things simply in self-serving ways. Of course in Wright's terms the question is, are we still talking about authentic Christianity?

Peace,

Ben W

To Lydia Bean,

You make a strong point. We get groundless challenges thrown across the empty chasm of our cynical culture from both sides. We may even have a piece thrown in from the "religion" side to say "the more rediculous the more it is to be believed" and there is a kind of "blind faith" in reason on the other side. This is reason that can say "it is all a hoax" no matter what the evidence.

Can reason have any meaningful function without regard for evidence or data? But in some ways it should not surprise us, knowing what is true still is a function of wanting to know what is true (i.e. not reacting simply out of cynicism), and it confirms the reality of sin as described in scripture. Humans can "use religion" as they do other things simply in self-serving ways. Of course in Wright's terms the question is, are we still talking about authentic Christianity?

Peace,

Ben W

Sue: “Has anyone ever noticed that the very worldly power seeking institution that was originally called the Church of England was founded by a man who was a serial killer, a mass murderer, and the "greatest" thief and vandal in English history.”
And don’t forget that scoundrel of a father who brought us Jesus, the inspiration for Christianity. Before sending his son to earth to be brutally murdered, God ordered the killing of whole tribes, plus rape and stoning just because some people weren’t “his” people. I could go on, but anyone can pick up the Bible to get the full story on Jesus’ father, the God of Abraham, who demands our worship under threat of eternal damnation.

Lydia Bean: “All the atheists do is parrot the same old schoolboy lines that they learned from their Supreme Leaders….”

We atheists call them best selling authors, or journalists, scientists or philosophers. Religious believers are the ones with Supreme Leaders – Bishops, Primates, Holy Fathers, Your Eminence and all those outdated titles of trumped up respect and worship.

And parroting “the same old schoolboy lines” is reserved for Bible thumpers.

Father O'Marlowe - You must be related to pastor Deacon Fred.

Father M,

As with many of us, you suffer from the Three B's to include a belief in "pretty wingie talking fictional flying thingies" aka tinker bells or angels and those demons of the demented aka satanic spirits. But hey, that is your right!!!

Father O'Marlowe:

Yes Hitchins is foolish if he thinks a little logic will stand bteween me and my God.
The reason my faith is so secure is that I know it is on another level from logic and reason and overrated rationalism.
There's more to life than making sense. Sense is for the weak and unsteady.
The highest virtue is accorded those who believe in the least likely,and the most seemingly irrational.
Any fool can believe in logic and earthly common sense.
It takes a man of true Faith to believe in the apparently ridiculous.
The Lord understands because he is The Lord.
That transcends earthly logos.

New DISPATCHES Documentary by UK's Channel 4 about Persecution of former muslims in UK who chose to embrace Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXF-rJAOHGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLqpDRYWE6M

(Find the last 2 parts in utubes related column)

There is no compulsion in religion??? Some of the most courageous people on earth are ex-Muslims.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

If anyone cared to take the time and look at what Christians actually believe they'd see that this kind of behavior is quite expected given the Fall, Original Sin and all that. The New Testament fully expects a lot of evil things to be happening, some of it even in the name of God. I mean honestly, has anyone of these Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris-types ever considered comparing "religious" violence to "atheistic" violence and the evils that were perpetrated under the Soviets, China, & so forth? There are easily more deaths and suffering that can be attributed to atheistic regimes in the last century than to all the religious wars of all the centuries before it. So, its not as if a move into some fully-enlightened, secular society would be the cure to all ills like in some bad throw-back to the Enlightenment project. You'd simply move the locus of conflict and poor behavior to another issue or area of life and lose the benefits and checks that Christianity and some of the other religions have had on that kind of thing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

If anyone cared to take the time and look at what Christians actually believe they'd see that this kind of behavior is quite expected given the Fall, Original Sin and all that. The New Testament fully expects a lot of evil things to be happening, some of it even in the name of God. I mean honestly, has anyone of these Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris-types ever considered comparing "religious" violence to "atheistic" violence and the evils that were perpetrated under the Soviets, China, & so forth? There are easily more deaths and suffering that can be attributed to atheistic regimes in the last century than to all the religious wars of all the centuries before it. So, its not as if a move into some fully-enlightened, secular society would be the cure to all ills like in some bad throw-back to the Enlightenment project. You'd simply move the locus of conflict and poor behavior to another issue or area of life and lose the benefits and checks that Christianity and some of the other religions have had on that kind of thing.

Hmmm,

We are not superior to those "bible timers" but we sure are smarter. Evolving, we are indeed!!!!!

The bible is a hoax? None of those people ever existed? All of those stories are just fairy tales? Academic knowledge bears this out?

I'm just so glad that we who live in the 21st century are so superior to the people who lived in the biblical time period.

We are back full circle to Dr. Wright's point in his post above.

The bishop says, "What's more, few people prior to the eighteenth century would have doubted that 'religion' in general could be allied with the behavior patterns which Hitchens describes." And, goes on to say that at the time that was "normal human behavior."

That leaves the door wide open to ask what is it that we are now doing with zero resistance from religion that is being chalked up to, "normal human behavior?" They were too dumb during the 18th century to recognize what they were doing. How about now? Has dumb gone away.

Religion takes advantage of dumb and rest easy on the theory that it will never go away, that religion is here to stay. That is most likely so but religion has taken some abrupt turns throughout history. One is just around the corner.

What Hitchens says fits today as well as the 18th century. Religion has remade itself enough to "get by" without being wiped out. Now there is something new on the horizon.

The Bible, the foundation of all three great faiths and a blue print of a sorts for all others is a proved hoax. That's not the rant of an atheist venting his frustration with 18th century religious outrages. It's a matter of the academic, knowledge.

The Bible is the source of all religious outrages you're talking about claiming they're "normal human behavior." The outrages will never end as long as the manual or religion is a hoax.

You need a new book bishop. Old book has been found out. It's just a matter of time. The stranglehold religion has on the academic can only slow down the inevitable, not stop it. Whatever will be will be and there's nothing we can do to stop that.

Is her majesties church taking steps yet? Others are.

I think web-based arguments between atheists and Christians are so tiresome.

All the atheists do is parrot the same old schoolboy lines that they learned from their Supreme Leaders, Hitchens and Dawkins, and then ask Christians to answer silly rhetorical questions on the order of "When will you stop beating your wife?"

And then they challenge Christians to atone for everything that every foolish or cruel person has done in the name of God since the beginning of time.

Then there's a macho pissing match in which we add up who has done more harm, true-believing "atheists" or so-called "believers".

This strange little tally always ends in a draw, and then the atheists slip out of it by saying, "Ah, but when atheists do bad things, it's because they're really totalitarians, which is just another form of religious belief."

In the meantime, our climate is warming at an alarming rate and the United States continues to incarcerate over 2 million people. Since I love God, I think I should stop wasting my precious time arguing with angry twelve-year-old boys, and focus on making things better in this world with whoever wants to help--Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, whoever. I think ultimately, people are going to follow the worldview that bears the most fruit in righteous and kind action.

G K Chesterton? You're alive? It's a miracle!

On a more serious note: Yes, we could use a different word for such beliefs. As Bemused remarks, the best candidate seems to be totalitarianism. Religion seeks to control every aspect of our lives. Fair enough, the members of a religion does not follow every commandment, and can in fact be perfectly reasonable in their dealings with other people. But I would submit that this is not due to anything you find in their belief system, but rather the effects of a secular society. And the fact that atheism cannot promise to make you happy, is hardly an argument for sticking with religious beliefs. Does the universe owe you a happy life?

Religion, by any other name, would mess things up just as badly.

Bishop Tom,

Agreed. The delusional idea that "religion" can be seperated from the rest of life must be rejected. Everything we say and do during the course of the day involves inplicit religion in the sense of a system of values or security that is taken on faith. We go to work thinking, not knowing, that it will be there when we arrive, as will the check at the end of the week And our motive for going is perhaps because we either worship money as a god or, in the best case, believe that God, the true God, has commanded that we work hard, do our best and take care of the poor.

However I'm not sure that it started in the Eighteenth Century. The concept of "religion" as divorced from real life is found in the Epistle of James, where "religion" is the sense of pius formality is contrasted with serving the needy and the hurting.

Bishop Tom, you seem to have a creation and fall story the varies a bit from the Biblical one. In it things were great in the age of Faith and Attila the Hun and so forth But then people like Thomas Jeffereson came along and messed it all up with the idea of religious and intellectual freedom and the dignity of the individual and so forth. And yes, I know all about his anotated Bible. But in the country he founded I am not forced to subscribe to it. Again, you need to read the Bible Scholar N.T. Wright. He sees it quite differently.

Bishop Tom,

Agreed. The delusional idea that "religion" can be seperated from the rest of life must be rejected. Everything we say and do during the course of the day involves inplicit religion in the sense of a system of values or security that is taken on faith. We go to work thinking, not knowing, that it will be there when we arrive, as will the check at the end of the week And our motive for going is perhaps because we either worship money as a god or, in the best case, believe that God, the true God, has commanded that we work hard, do our best and take care of the poor.

However I'm not sure that it started in the Eighteenth Century. The concept of "religion" as divorced from real life is found in the Epistle of James, where "religion" is the sense of pius formality is contrasted with serving the needy and the hurting.

Bishop Tom, you seem to have a creation and fall story the varies a bit from the Biblical one. In it things were great in the age of Faith and Attila the Hun and so forth But then people like Thomas Jeffereson came along and messed it all up with the idea of religious and intellectual freedom and the dignity of the individual and so forth. And yes, I know all about his anotated Bible. But in the country he founded I am not forced to subscribe to it. Again, you need to read the Bible Scholar N.T. Wright. He sees it quite differently.

"Has anyone ever noticed that the very worldly power seeking institution that was originally called the Church of England was founded by a man who was a serial killer, a mass murderer, and the "greatest" thief and vandal in English history."

Actually, the full history is that the Church of England has roots from as early as the 4th century I believe.

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

Has anyone ever noticed that the very worldly power seeking institution that was originally called the Church of England was founded by a man who was a serial killer, a mass murderer, and the "greatest" thief and vandal in English history.

Like it or not, understand it or not, this profoundly negative legacy still haunts the said church. History is never dead, it very much shapes and haunts the present.

This is the church that Tom Wright belongs to.

I'm 'Enery the Eighth I am,
'Enery the Eighth I am, I am.
I got married to the widow next door –
She's been married seven times before.
Ev'ry one was a 'Enery
She wouldn't 'ave a Willie or a Sam.
I'm her eighth old man named 'Enery –
'Enery the Eighth I am!

Behaviorism by any other name is still neural reflex training to have D()G salivate at the sound of churchbells. Constraining belief and thought is the raison d'etre of clergy and secular demonologists likewise. Something rotten in the state of Mass. for as the Rottenberg Center is subject to the name of Israel, Amen.

Behaviorism by any other name is still neural reflex traing to have D()G salivate at the sound of churchbells. Constraining belief and thought is the raison d'etre of clergy and secular demonologists likewise. Something rotten in the state of Mass. for as the Rottenberg Center is subject to the name of Israel, Amen.

These related references other a critique of Tom's Sunday School tooth fairy, santa claus, good-luck "god"-idea.

1. www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm#idol.htm
2. www.dabase.org/exochrist.htm

This reference gives a unique understanding of the origins & consequences of the secular vs exoteric religion culture wars----plus an Illuminated Understanding of the nature of Real God

1. www.dabase.org/noface.htm

Plus:

1. www.dabase.org/dht7.htm
2. www.realgod.org

"we could substitute the word 'atheism' for 'religion' in Hitchens' quote and it would still work (think: French Revolution, Gulag, etc etc)."

The word you are looking for is 'totalitarianism'.

Yes - How to you know? and how greatly?

PS for the first question, the following answers won't be taken seriously:

"It says so in the Bible"
"It's our Christian Tradition"
"a few non-contemporaneous and non-verifiable sources say so"

Dear E Favorite:
Yes.
Greatly.
Any other questions?

So, Bishop - did Jesus die on the cross for our sins, then rise from the dead or not?

If not, how does this affect Christianity?