A Revolutionary of Revolutionaries

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Now why would I listen to the ignorance of atheism?

All Jesus ever did was preach a message of love and completing people's lives. The atheism of Hitchins , your self, and Andrea(who can't even bring herself to acknowledge jesus being alive once) is an example of sticking one self's head in the sand and ignoring common sense about the origin of life and human's role in the world.

If all you can fathom is your five physical senses and you can't conjure up the spiritual side of yourself, I feel just as sorry for you as you "think" you are for me. The difference is .. I pity you from a sense of love for mankind, and you do it from a sense of elitism, which is the common theme among many atheists and agnostics I have encountered on the net. At least most people know within themselves God exists. that is at least a start. You want to depend on yourself and think that we are all just a random mixing of molecules, have at it. A higher sense of purpose is evident in the universe, and the order of it did not come by accident.

Mr. Mark,

Yes, I knew the X in Xians was shorthand and recalled it from my days as a college pledge pointlessly memorizing the aplhabet.

I appreciate your comments and only know part of the background of the history of Christmas. Personally, when and how it is celebrated is, once again, peripheral to the reason we celebrate it. If Jesus was born on November 1, 2 the church should not have had any reason to fear a celebration so close to Halloween, the satanic high holy day. After all, it is not what goes into a man that hurts him but what comes out.

Giving to those in need is not specific to the Church nor to the Bible's commands to do so, but in so doing in Christ's name (meaning that you do so as a means to bless him and obey him - not to tell everybody what you are doing as a good Christian, then we'd be no better than the Pharisees of the day. When I did help some people, I made sure to keep it to myself. No need to advertise; God saw and I'm good with that) if followed by ALL Christians would have a huge global impact. I have long thought that the reason for the burgeoning welfare bureaucracy (sp?) is due largely to the Church's abdication of it's responsibility to the poor. Again, look at Isaiah 58 and see how many different people the reader is told to look after. If the Church really did, rather than build it's monoliths to itself (that's a pet peave - sp? - of mine), then there would be many more people less isolated, with a better support network, and not fearful of asking for help. AND, this should not be a Christmas project, as some churches make it, but a lifestyle. It should be done on a regular basis. Heck, if the church spent 10% of the money collected in offerings, tithes, etc. to that end then that would make a huge difference. I could pontificate about this at length, but the bottom line is that the Church needs to be faithful not to its teachings but to the what scripture says and it is CRYSTAL clear on this. It is not a "social Gospel" but THE Gospel with vast social implications.

I know on some of these points we will disagree, but you must admit that we could work shoulder to shoulder at a soup kitchen, a homeless shelter and be in full agreement as to our goal - to help those who cannot help themselves or burden the system. (My ultimate goal would be to share the Gospel, but only after their needs are tended to and it is NOT to be shoved down their throats, but shared, like bread or something to drink. After all, they'd probably ask why we're there).

Check out day here at school, kids gone so peace reigns. Can I hear an Amen? (no offense, Amen is Greek for "so be it", the "right on" of the day and language). Good news, get to keep the laptop over the summer to we can continue our civil disagreement ala ultra long distance. I think the time diffference between Cebu and DC is 1 full day to the hour, I'm not sure.

Have a good day, peace out & God bless,

George, currently of AK

Dear DS -

You are delusional. Many of us don't share your delusion, even if we did at one piint in our lives.

As Daniel Dennett wrote today in his review of Christopher Hitchens' latest book, "god is Not Great":

"In earlier ages reliable information was rather hard to get, and in general people could be excused for taking the founding myths of their religions on faith. These were the "facts" that "everyone knew," and anybody who had a skeptical itch could check it out with the local priest or rabbi or imam, or other religious authority. Today, there is really no excuse for such ignorance. It may not be your fault if you don't know the facts about the history and tenets of your own religion, but it is somebody's fault. Or more charitably, perhaps we have all been victimized by an accumulation of tradition that strongly enjoins us to lapse into a polite lack of curiosity about these facts, for fear of causing offense. It is rude, after all, to point out somebody's ignorance or gullibility. Besides, if you start calling attention to the frankly incredible creeds and deeds of other religions, they may retaliate and expose some of the embarrassing signs of all-too-human tampering with the heroic tales and traditions of your own tribe."

DS,

"Dear Luke: In life in general, the principles laid out in the gospels and in Paul's letters are truths you just don't want to confront."

Just as the possibility that Jesus never existed or was, in fact, a mere man is a truth you just don't want to confront?

To Luke:

"There is no denying that Christ (whether he existed or not), was a great man, but I don't believe the Bible any more than I believe any other book of mythology or religion. It doesn't speak to me, and I don't think I should be subject to it."

Dear Luke: In life in general, the principles laid out in the gospels and in Paul's letters are truths you just don't want to confront. You are subject to those truths whether you want to admit it or not.

Do you have to die first to realize this, or will Christ's life and death mean something for you personally NOW?

Christ was not just a mere man....

Dear George -

Thanks for the comments.

I have little patience with Christians who rail at "Xmas." They do so for no good reason. They actually do it for a BAD reason - they don't have a clue about the history of their own church and faith! They invent demons where none exist. They are, in short, looking for a fight.

In fact, they are missing an opportunity to revel in their church history. A Xian SHOULD look at "Xmas" and say, "neat! The old shorthand still works and still has meaning, and those damn capitalists don't even know it."

BTW - as far as Madison Ave having a hand in it - they only have a hand because the Greek believers came up with the shorthand in the first place.

Further BTW - would I be correct in assuming that you already knew about the X as Greek shorthand before my post?

As far as Xmas gifts - that's a practice that traces its root to pagan festivals, which is why the church decided to glom onto the existing celebration of Winter Solstice when they picked a date to celebrate the birth of Jesus. I think Jesus was probably born in August, but as Andy Card so fatuously said, you don't roll, out a new product in August. Could you imagine Xmas in August? Yikes! Boogie board sinstead of snowboards! What would Jesus think?

As far as the tradition of celebrating Xma, the early church in America was dead set against celebrating Xmas. The "traditional" American Xmas that we all imagine is only about 100 years old (the History Channel airs a decent show on this every Dec.). Celebrating Xmas in the USA grew out of parents finding an excuse to lavish gifts on their children. It had nothing to do with helping the poor and everything to do with taking care of one's own first, more often than not in total absence of helping the less-fortunate.

Have fun on your trip!

Russell,

"Luke's got the ball and you can have it back after he's pelted you with it" didn't really make sense!

Mr. Mark,

Yes, I realize that you are referring to Christians. I have, however, known Christians who chaffed at Xmas, the abbreviation; it takes Christ out of Christmas, they say. Hardly, for that is up to the individual. At any rate, Madison Ave. has had a hand in that, for they have known that the more they separate people from their money, the more they separate them from their God, at least that is the sad end result.

So, why do we give each other gifts at Christmas when it is the celebration of Jesus birthday? Back when we were much more agrarian, most presents, at least a large portion, were hand made, so the investment was time, not money. Now, a gift certificate or a card with a check or $ is nice but requires no thought or much effort, very reflective of modern society. Just Burger King-give it your way. To put the icing on the cake, if we are to really celebrate His birthday we must how can we give to Him? He said that what ever we have done to the least of these, we have done also unto Him. No quotations or reference since I do not want to misquote nor do I recall which gospel(s) has that in it. So, for Xmas we should give to those who CANNOT give in return. For when we give to each other gifts of similar value we keep that money/goods at the same socioeconomic strata. To give to those who cannot give in return is to fulfill Isaiah chapter 58. Read it if you have a Bible - not trying to convert you, but just read it and see what it calls for. If the church did that for Christmas (the church being all believers globally) then we would have a much, much less burdened welfare system. Take a look and see if you do not agree. Some in the church would call me Scrooge, worse than Xian. What we would do is to give lesser gifts to family and friends, spend considerably less money than in the past yet make their birthdays a veritable national holiday and spend the money that would have been spent on them Christmas then. This is not my original idea, but I whole heartedly endorse it. One industry that this would affect is the credit/collection industry, as Jan-Feb is usually when the first of the Christmas delinquencies arrive. :):):)

It is a radical idea, but then Jesus was radical also. It would really help a-lot of people and by extension we would, by His own words, have given to Christ. I know that you do not believe in Him as the object of faith, but IF the church could enact such course of action, not policy, it would really change the face of this and most every country where Christians practice their faith. The needy would be tended to and also have someone to all in times of severe need and loss. Personally, I have done that in the past, informally adopted a family in Lincoln Heights, and helped them through some losses. I am NOT tooting my own horn, but have seen the effect it has had.

Enough for now, need to get ready to say good bye the kiddos I teach. That's the other reason I am wholly in favor if how Christmas is celebrated today (at least on the calendar), for it gives us teachers a nice break.

Have a good blessed day,

George of the North

PS - tomorrow I turn in my laptop to the school district, so may be a while til I post. I'll be in the Philippines all summer. Slight climatic change from Alaska to Manilla, then to Cebu (and Bohol and Boracay) in one day. Have a good summer if I do not hear from u.

George Miller writes:

"how you refer to Christians really has no bearing on me and no effect at all. You can call me, us, whatefer you want and they are only words."

You do realize that when I write Xian I am referring to you as Christian, don't you?

Andrea:

Basketball reference? Really?
What happened to our dodgeball team? Least that way you could pelt someone with the ball and it's legal! :)

Mr. Mark,

Finally, a response from that is only fairly mean spirited. At any rate, how you refer to Christians really has no bearing on me and no effect at all. You can call me, us, whatefer you want and they are only words.

:)

Someone,

Luke's been on defense...he's got the ball now. You'll get it back once he's scored.

Luke:

Seeing your beliefs as they are, it should be just as right for others to believe in the Bible without others trying to reign over them, right? So, if you have the right not to believe and not to be harassed about it, then others should have the right to believe and not be harassed about it.

And you did say that you have known some kind Christians, yet your posts on here have lately been attacking Christians as a whole.

I don't want to pick on you Luke. I just wanted you to realize that I don't think you were allowing people the freedom of belief that you are expecting for yourself.

Sounds like a pretty fair and honest description.

I used to be Christian, and I know some Christians who are the kindest people I have ever met, worthy of heaven (although I don't believe it exists). Also, I have a friend who is a Satanist (he paid his fee, and he has Satanist dog tags), and he is by far the most loyal friend anyone could ask for. I don't believe that a rapist or murderer could repent for the lives he has ruined and suddenly be gained entrance into eternal bliss for the lifetime of torment he has caused. I think that people who have a personal relationship with God are good people, but that those who use it as a weapon need to be stopped no matter what their religion - with force if necessary. I don't want a book dictating what I can and cannot do, and I don't think that people should reign over me when they are ill-prepared and intentioned but have the guise of Christ to help them hurt others. There is no denying that Christ (whether he existed or not), was a great man, but I don't believe the Bible any more than I believe any other book of mythology or religion. It doesn't speak to me, and I don't think I should be subject to it.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Oh oh...can I?

Luke wrote:

"Mr. Mark I agree. I say that a rose is red because it absorbs every other color of the spectrum other than red, which it reflects. They say it is red because God made it that way, and I'm the one being close-minded. I'd rather be close-minded and advanced than primitive. Regardless of what you believe, science is the pinnacle of human understanding - and religion is an afterthought."

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about Christians?

No way, check out the one by the ex-bishop! It's tooth and nail in there!

Luke,

Had to go get it out of my car. Maybe I can use it next question. I feel like I've missed out too much on this discussion to chime in.

Andrea you were missed! Bring your beat-down stick?

Dear Jeff -

Ha! That was funny! You said that Bernie Goldberg chastised Whoopie and asked that she, "at least say something in the form of a logical argument." Pot, meet kettle!

Luke,

Good to read you again! Four days away from this board and I feel like I need a Prozac...

Yeah Jeff because religious people are ALWAYS open to listening when it comes to telling them that their religion may be wrong. Your problem is you don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

Mr. Mark I agree. I say that a rose is red because it absorbs every other color of the spectrum other than red, which it reflects. They say it is red because God made it that way, and I'm the one being close-minded. I'd rather be close-minded and advanced than primitive. Regardless of what you believe, science is the pinnacle of human understanding - and religion is an afterthought.

Isn’t Liberation Theology caught in a fate acompli with capitalism? With over twelve million aliens in the U.S. *most of them from Mexico and further south* one would think this theology to bloom here as well. It is not happening.
To blame this on capitalism is wrong. Once a person’s penchant for money is realized this theology seems to be abandoned. Like scripture says it’s not the money, but the love of it that destroys.

Isn't this blog called "On Faith"? Thus, it's natural that writers and bloggers would discuss faith, and if they had no faith, they could discuss that, too, but it makes no sense to use this forum to rip religion without making reasonable arguments. A reasonable arugument includes some basic assumptions, which get defined, then built upon in the form of premises, and finally, a conclusion is to be drawn. Even someone as well-known to be against religion like Christopher Hitchens at least goes to the trouble to craft an argument instead of ad hominem attacks. Hitchens wrote a book to young contrarians emploring them to make reasoned arguments, even offensive arguments, instead of just calling people names. Likewise, Bernard Goldberg was on tv the other night asking Whoopie Goldberg to "at least say something in the form of a logical argument" instead of simply making an emotional statement.

Would anyone in this forum care to discuss what has actually been happening with regards to Liberation Theology in Latin America? Wasn't that the topic? I'm not offended by any of the comments here, just disappointed at the lack of thoughtful responses...and I can just hear someone saying that Christians don't deserve a response, which would be the most smug position possible. A reasoned debate would naturally take place between people with differing opinions - nobody should be afraid of that. Bloom wrote in 1987, I think it was, about The Closing of the American Mind, and his point was that college campuses were caving into protests and power struggles instead of fostering debates and discourse on the issues - once students and professors made up their minds, they were not even open to discussing the possibility that they could be wrong - it was considered offensive simply to claim to know "the truth" - a different truth - on certain subjects, such as race, religion, economics, gender, science, etc., and that was the beginning of political correctness in America. There were certain opinions that it was deemed inappropriate to even consider, to even weigh the pros and cons. Sadly, if this blog is any indication, it appears that Bloom was right.

Dear George Miller -

You are correct. I do not believe in absolutes that are based in fantasy. The natural world has its absolutes, of course, and I think we can all agree on those. Stating that my only absolute is a "mirror" is a cheap and childish shot that reflects your worldview, not mine. Wallow in it...or grow out of it. Your choice.

Dear George and Voice -

You seem irked that I use the "X" as a shorthand for Christ. I'm sure that you know from your extensive study of church history that this shorthand has been around since the formative years of the early Greek church. The "X" is the Greek letter chi that is used to form the word Christ. The church was also enamoured of the fact that the X turned 45º made a cross.

We live in an age of internet blogs and text-messaging where - AFAIK - abbreviations are all the thing, and where the old Greek shorthand comes in quite handy, especially if you're posting on a blog where the word Christian comes up in every other sentence.

It's a shorthand I started using back in my days as a believer, and I see no reason to stop using it now that I'm an atheist. Sorry if you take offense where none is intended. I'm a bit surprised - it's so unlike religionists to take offense where none is intended.

The post of above is for Mr. M K

The Voice of truth is the Word of God that I depend on not me. As for me I am a sinner saved only by the mercy and grace of God. I am not any better than you. If you see your sin and turn to God and trust His Son Jesus you too will be saved by His grace and mercy. I see that you take Jesus' title "Christ" and replace it with an x for the word Christian. Are you a angy bitter person?

Mr. Mark,

Obviously, someone as well read as yourself has covered ALL of the bases on Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. In light of this, I really do not know how I can respond to you in a cogent responsible manner without a short lesson in theology. Given your avowed atheism, that would not be welcomed by you, ergo it would be like chasing the wind, trying to find an intelligent common ground.

I believe in certain absolute truths, whether I like them or not, live up to them or not, and realize that they are what they are - absolute. You, do not believe in absolute truth. The only absolute truth is in your mirror. Death is absolute, but subject to defintion, etc.

To continue to communicate with someone who openly admits that all "Xians" irk him woul be fruitless, sad to say. In today's age of "enlightement" it is difficult to comprehend so closed and antagonistic a mind.

The explanation is not diffucult to understand.

Have a good day, sir,

George in AK

Chuck,

Give up the pen...please, you are embarrassing yourself. Really, nothing more to say here.

Voice of Truth writes:
"Jesus came for humble sinners who see their need not self-righteous self-sufficient people who think they have no need."

One of the things that really irks me about Xians is their penchant for making statements like the one above, statements that reek of arrogance posing as humility.

Who is being self righteous, Mr Voice? Re-read what you have written and think about it.

Jesus came for humble sinners who see their need not self-righteous self-sufficient people who think they have no need.

Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Dear George -

Did you ever stop to consider that if Jesus was god, he knew full well that his "death" would last ONLY three days? I think that most human beings would accept a 3-day death sentence if it gave them eternal power. Hell, I'd accept a 3-day death sentence if the reward was a measly million bucks American.

BTW - a slight correction - Jesus actually had a day-and-a-half death sentence: died Friday at 3pm, spent all day Saturday in hell and was resurrected on Sunday morning.

George, you called also say that is what Xtians have EARNED.

Mr. Mark,

Not that it will matter to you, but Jesus was not guilty for the "time" He did, as Chuck was. Also, His punishment was death, not "3 days".

Chuck,

Thanks for the post, very good. It is too bad that those who disagree with Xians usually do so in a denigrating way. But then, that is what we are warned to expect from the world.

As they say in Yup'ik, Quyanaq va (thank you very much),

George in Alaska

As much as Colson's self-righteous smugness repulses me, I find myself agreeing with him in regard to Latin America. Chiapas, Mexico, where I live, is the poorest and most illiterate of the Mexican states. Here there is one Catholic priest to maybe 700 people. The Catholic Church has always looked the other way in regard to the epidemic alcoholism problem here. In order to complete Catechism, one must read which many here can not do. Pentecostals have small congregations that help alcoholics recover and pay attention to their families again. And, although the state is emphasizing literacy, one need not read to participate as an adult in the Pentecostal churches. Many alcoholics here are recovering thanks to the growth of the evangelical movements.

Ah yes, Colson the criminal comes out from, no-doubt, compassionate and tolerant folks with no political agenda. Look, the guy did time, he confessed his sins, and he also repented. This is extraordinary. So if you are compassionate and tolerant stop throwing stones at this man. You may not agree with him but to open up the wounds of his past to try and discredit him is to show intolerance and haltered. Are those your values?

Joe Campbell WRITES:
"I can't help but wonder "How much time would jesus serve?""

I'd guess...er...eh...THREE DAYS!

That seems to be the limit for Jesus when it comes to amount of time he'll do for the crime.

I can't help but wonder "How much time would jesus serve?"

With all due respect to the sincere intentions of On Faith, why on earth are you giving legitimacy to a cynical political operative in sheep's clothing like Mr. Colson?

The man is a convicted felon who has exploited the Christian faith into a business for his own selfish personal and political gain.

Can any two-bit guru or religious huckster get published here, or is there at least some minimal standard for honesty and legitimacy? What's next, commentary from the Rev. Moon and Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda?

Let's try to keep it serious...

Chuck, thanks for the report on all the good being done by the church in South America. It is almost too good to be true that people are getting away from relying on government to provide justice for the poor and instead are changing their personal behavior. That is something to rejoice about and is the kind of revolution to be thankful for.

It seems that the pentacostal churches that are popular there, are the sort that support Liberation Theology, and safe sex, by handing out condoms. This has the pope very worried.

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9874/80/&cid=0

Russell and Andrea how the heck are ya? Although the Gospel has changed many people's lives, I never saw a reason to stop drinking, smoking, or engaging in promiscuous sex UNTIL I became an atheist. I don't care about being forgiven, I just don't want to die in a drunken car wreck or get AIDS.

"he came as a helpless babe born in a manger."

I always get a chuckle out of Xians who wallow in the "poor baby destined to die for me" aspect of their faith. It's one of the sucker moves that gets them ooing and awing about the precious little baby. Who doesn't like babies!!?

This attitude was wonderfully lampooned in Will Farrell's movie, Talledega Nights, where his NASCAR-driver character Rickie Bobbie offers his prayer of grace at the family dinner to, "the little baby Jesus...not the eight-year-old or grown-up Jesus..."

Pity. I had thought liberation theology is closer to the teachings of Jesus. Except for the part of only government providing for the poor. The liberation theologists and activists also called for community self-reliance in helping each other and for community well-being. Not just to rely on government. And they should spurn governments that are ineffective and corrupt.

What can I say, this Muslim heart and mind relate to and emphatize with the liberation theologists in what they are doing for their community.

Mr. Colson,
Inspirational post. Thank you.

Aw, seeing the two of you posting together again...priceless!

Chuck, I agree with your first sentence.

Right-o that dude is DEAD.

Got news for ya Chuck:

Jesus ain't coming back.