Obama Must Be Clear Where He Stands

"It would be odd to be in the church and be opposed to it. So membership implies a certain endorsement." This statement shows enough endorsement without need to even mention the 20-some thousand dollars that Obama donated to Wright and his church.

I would, however, have to disagree on the topic in general. The issue to me is not what should Obama do now. It is understandable, yes, that Obama should flee this church in order to save his political career, but that's not what I want to see. I want to see his true colors so I know what I'm voting for. If Obama believes any of these views that his pastor has been preaching, those are the types of things I want to know, because I don't want to be duped into thinking that his views are something different than they are for the purpose of saving his candidacy.

To Former Christian

Sorry for the delay in posting. I have been up to my ass in alligators.

You stated,

Many Christians claim that the bible is the ultimate source for morals -- that without it, we would be running around raping women and stealing from each other.

This is not my position and should not be the position of any careful reader of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. ‘Old Testament’). When Abraham argues with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah he challenges God, ‘Surely the judge of the all the earth will do right.’ This presupposes a moral standard to which even God must adhere.

These points are made better than I made them in C. S. Rodd, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is just? (Gen. xviii. 25)," Expository Times 83 (1972): 137-39. and.John Barton, "Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament," Journal of Theological Studies, N. S., 30 (1979): 1-14.

Such a view also ignores the contribution of wisdom literature which believes that humans can study creation to gain some conception of moral obligation (e.g. “Go to the ant Oh Sluggard and observe its ways.”

You have raise many other questions which merit a further response but time does not permit right now. I’ll get to it when I can although I cannot guarantee that anyone besides myself will be satisfied with my replies (and to be honest I may only be partially satisfied).

Peace,
Rip

To: D.W. Van Winkle

Well, you're right about a couple of things. Giving God credit for your wife's survival means you choose to look at one aspect (which of course is your perogative because of free will) and ignore the other. Ultimately, you say that the selection of car and tires means responsibility lies with us and yet when the blowout occurred, it's God's intervention that prevented injury.

Many people believe that when an accident happens and no one is hurt, it must have been God intervening. Of course, the question can be raised why god didn't intervene sooner to prevent the accident from the beginning.

If you believe what Jesus said in the new testament, then anyone with just the smallest amount of faith can do anything. There are no qualifications nor limitations, just have faith and ask God through Jesus and you can do anything. (I can send you the specific verses in Matthew and Mark if you want them).

The Christmas before last, the wife of the drummer of our contemporary church choir was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. It's our practice, at the end of Monday night choir practice, to join hands and pray for people needing help. In the beginning, when Jo was first diagnosed, we asked god to heal her. Just to cure the cancer.

During the next 6 months Bob and Jo travelled to a number of different medical centers -- Rochester, NY and Baltimore and then Wake Forest. We prayed for her cure and there were more than a few people (myself excluded) who are very faithful and even started prayer chains for Jo. These were in addition to the prayers on Monday night.

After 6 months as Jo continued to deteriorate, the prayers changed. No longer were we asking for God to heal her but were now asking God to comfort her. You see, our expectations of what God would / could do changed. Once it becomes obvious that prayer is not working (curing her) then we lower our expectations for God which is what I think you are doing when all that you ask of the creator of the universe, is to make you a better person. We lowered our expectations for god to the point where he can't fail -- who can tell how much comfort Bob and Jo had during her final days. She died 9 months after being diagnosed.

Here's where I'm on shakey ground because you're background and area of expertise, gives you superior knowledge of the bible and, if I recall correctly, the old testament in particular. But, I'm going to use old testament (OT) stories to illustrate my point anyway.

Many Christians claim that the bible is the ultimate source for morals -- that without it, we would be running around raping women and stealing from each other.

My own interpretation is that the bible, particularly the OT, offers poor moral values and generally describes a god unworthy of worship.

God commands us to love him. Now, I don't know about you, but no one ever had to command me to love anyone. I never had to be told to love my children, nor did I have to tell my wife to love my children. Doesn't it seem like he isn't much of a god worth loving if he has to command you to love him? And what are the OT punishments for not loving God or worse yet, for trying to convince someone to follow another God? (I believe if your children try to get you to worship another God, you're supposed to stone them.)

Second, pick almost any of the popular OT stories. They generally describe not a loving God but a vengeful, unjust and unfair God.

The story of the passover. Certainly Pharoh's word was law and yet all of Egypt's first born were held accountable for Pharoh's actions. That would be like all of America paying for George Bush's lunatic war in Iraq except that at least we Americans voted for that idiot while the people of Egypt had no choice.

What about God's actions there reflect love or fairness? Let's see, you live in Egypt, sorry, your first born must be killed.

Or take the story of the flood. Having created the world and pronoucing it good, God feels compelled to pretty much start over again.

You indicated that in the case of your wife and her friend, the selection of the car moved responsibility to them for the accident. Okay, but after creating the world and pronouncing it good, shouldn't God be held responsible for the result of that creation? Blaming man for God's poor design is just another example of excusing god.

And, excluding the fact that I don't believe any of these stories, couldn't the creator of the universe come up with a better correction process than killing all of the sinful, the completely innocent (children) and all the animals? In fact, if you ascribe to the idea that animals have no souls and operate without knowledge of right or wrong, then they are completely innocent. Why would God have to kill them too?

And here's my final thought for the night. If God is so inconsistent that you can never tell when he hears your prayers, when he answers prayers, how he answers a particular prayer or when he will intervene, you've really concluded that God is completely unpredictable. If God is unpredictable, what makes you think that you understand how he wants you to live?

Isn't it true that most of the horrors of religion were committed by people believing they knew what God wanted them to do?

Remember, God has never unambiguously intervened. There is nothing in recorded history where the best minds have concluded this action could only have been performed by God. And so, there's virtually no chance that when a bozo gets a bomb and decides that God wants him to blow up as many people as possible, that God will intervene to stop it. Certainly God has had plenty of opportunity to stop human initiated trajedies but, as far as we can tell, he never has.

I leave you with these thoughts -- even if the resurrection occurred (which is highly unlikely) explain to me why Jesus' death did anything other than kill another man. Much like the ancient Aztecs who used blood sacrifice to (take your pick) ensure a good harvest, protect the village from being conquered; how in the world does it make sense that a blood sacrifice is pleasing to God (or gods)?

The whole idea of the resurrection whose purpose is to reconcile man and God, makes no more sense to me that the idea that in 5,000 BC, the ancestors of the Jews would sacrifice their first born sons before the age of 2 or 3 in order to protect the village / city.

I don't see why blood sacrifice, conducted by other religions, is stupidity combined with mysticism but when it comes to Christianity, it seems perfectly reasonable and acceptable.

Mr. Colson obviously never listened to the entire sermon of Mr Wright. He could not come to the conclusions that he has if he had actually heard the comments in context.

To Former Christian (Tom)

This continues my answer to your question, “So do you think God answers prayer? Does he intervene? And if the answer to that last question is yes, can anyone ever predict when he will and when he won't?”

As I said earlier, I think God sometimes answers prayer and sometimes intervenes and I cannot predict with certainty when God will and won’t intervene. But, God has always answered my prayers to make me into a better person.

I think that God occasionally intervenes in the physical world too although I can neither predict when it will occur nor explain why God chooses to intervene selectively. As I stated earlier, I believe that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. I also believe that God revealed themself to Israel in the Hebrew Bible. Apart from God’s special involvement I have great difficulty explaining why Hebrew religion differs so much from the other religions of the ancient Near East.

At times in my life, I have concluded that God does not intervene in the physical universe in modern time. I visited my own tormented questions upon my dear wife. I asked her, “With whom would you chose to be in a relationship? A man who was an Olympic swimmer and for reasons known only to himself allowed his children to drown or a man who did not know how to swim and in spite of his valiant efforts, his children drown. When she said she would choose the latter, I responded that perhaps it is better to believe in a finite god that attempts to save but cannot rather than a God who can save but does not. (My wife is a saint to put up with me; perhaps she uses her experience with working in special education with me).

But there are times that I have to admit that if I take my own experience seriously I have to conclude that it is likely that God did intervene.

My wife almost died this last summer. She and her fellow teacher were driving west on I-90 from Seattle to Yakima on a traffic filled Sunday. They were in the HOV lane (far left lane) driving about 70 mph as was the rest of traffic. Although her educational partner was driving a new car, a tire blew out. They lost control of the car. It spun through all lanes of traffic and ended up facing on coming traffic by the side of the road. This was the only place where there was room on the side of the road for miles since it is mountainous terrain. No one stopped to help them; but when the state patrolman stopped to render assistance, he said they were very lucky since there was no other pull out for miles. He was also amazed that they were not struck by other traffic.

How do I explain this? I am tempted to view this as a chance occurrence but I think there may be something more to it than that. Of course, it taught me that I need to value people more and stop taking them for granted. Of course I was overjoyed that she survived; but I was also theologically troubled.

Would I have blamed God if she died? No. I would have reasoned that God gave people free will. We chose to manufacture autos, drive them at high speeds on roads that to not have much of a margin of error.

But if God did intervene to save her and her fellow teacher, why doesn’t God intervene more often? Why is there so much evil in the world. I just don’t know.

You may not be satisfied with this answer and I am not sure I am altogether satisfied with it either. But as I said earlier, I think God sometimes answers prayer and sometimes intervenes and I cannot predict with certainty when God will and won’t intervene. But, God has always answered my prayers to make me into a better person.

I will work on attempting to answer your question regarding God’s guidance and discernment of true guidance from God.

I have written a few articles on true and false prophecy in the Old Testament that you may find interesting.

“Kings XIII: True and False Prophecy.” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1989): 31-43 reprinted in David E. Orton (ed.) Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible: Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum (Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies, vol. 5; Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2000) pp. 211-223.

1 Kings 20 22 and True and False Prophecy.” in Klaus Dietrich Schunck and Matthias Augustin (eds.) Goldene Äpfel in slibernen Schalen: Collected Communications of the X111th Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leuven, 1989, (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments and des Antiken Judentums, vol. 20; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992) pp. 9-23.

“I Kings XII 25 XIII 34: Jeroboam's cultic innovations and the man of God from Judah,” Vetus Testamentum XLVI (1996) 101 114.

Peace,
Rip

To: D.W. Van Winkle

You posts require more thought than I can give it now. I found your last post very moving and interesting. I particularly liked the analogies you used with your children.

I'll be heading to Chicago for a week starting Monday so it looks like we both may be out of pocket for a while.

Thanks for the references. I'm heading to amazon.com now.

Have a good and safe trip. I will be thinking about your responses.

Tom

To Former Christian (Tom)

You have raised many great questions. I fear that my answers will not measure up to your questions.

I will only be able to begin to answer them because time is limited for me. I will be out of the country for a week starting Saturday and do not know if I will have access to the internet.

You asked:
Do you mean that your conception of God and whatever God really is do not match or that your conception of God is different than the more traditional?

My answer is both. As a theist, I live in dialectic between the knownness and the unknownness of God. God is greater than I can imagine and God has revealed themself sufficiently clearly that I can recognize God. I know that the unknownness of God may sound like a wild card or an escape hatch when atheist’s questions become too difficult; but, this has always been a prominent feature of Eastern Christianity. It is known as apophatic theology.

My conception of God differs from some if not much of traditional Christianity. I do not believe in determinism of any kind. This excludes me from the Augustinian and Calvinistic versions of Christianity. When others try to persuade me of the truth of this position [such attempts at persuasion strike me as illogical since they assume my ability to change my mind] I inform them that I have not been destined to believe this proposition. I do not believe in transubstantiation which excludes me from Roman Catholicism. I also do not believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome [a.k.a. the Pope] nor his infallibility. I do believe in a personal loving God who is involved in the world but I freely confess that I don’t understand God’s involvement very well. I will address this later.

As I mentioned earlier, I am an open theist. I believe that God knows all things that are logically possible to know. When God created free beings, God limited themself in power and knowledge. God knows all possible universes but not the actual universe that free beings will chose. I used this illustration when I attempted to explain it to my children when they were young. God knows all possible combinations of notes and rests but does not know what combination of notes and rests that Mozart will chose when he begins a composition. When that explanation failed I tried another. God knows every shirt in your closet but God does not know which shirt you will chose to wear. My son responded that God could wrinkle everyone but the blue one to make sure that I wore it. I agreed but noted that I would no longer be given a free choice.

Here are some books that articulate an open theist position:
THE CASE FOR FREEWILL THEISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL ASSESSMENT, David Basinger, 1996, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1876-6
THE OPENNESS OF GOD: A BIBLICAL CHALLENGE TO THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF GOD, Clark Pinnock editor, et al, 1994, InterVarsity Press ISBN 0-8308-1852-9, Paternoster Press (UK), ISBN 0-85364-635-X
GOD OF THE POSSIBLE, Gregory A. Boyd, 2000 reprint, Baker Books, ISBN 0-8010-6290-X
PROVIDENCE, EVIL, AND THE OPENNESS OF GOD, William Hasker, 2004, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-32949-3

You asked:

So do you think God answers prayer? Does he intervene? And if the answer to that last question is yes, can anyone ever predict when he will and when he won't?

I think God sometimes answers prayer and sometimes intervenes and I cannot predict with certainty when God will and won’t intervene.

In my experience God did not intervene to keep abuse from occurring while I was a child. I prayed with innocence and fervor but to not avail. God did intervene by keeping the abuse from destroying me. God has always answered my prayers to transform my character so that I might become a better person. I cannot blame my lack of progress upon God.

Does this make God’s intervention beyond the test of verification and falsification? I don’t know. I do know that therapists who are familiar with my story have told me that I have no right to hold a steady job, to have steady relationships, to be a loving husband and definitely not a loving father. But I have been and am all of these things. My sons have told me independently of one another that none of their friends feel like they were ever good enough for their fathers; but they knew that they were always good enough for me and that there was nothing they could do to alienate themselves from my love. I might disapprove of their choices or actions but I would always love them.

I have little patience with facile arguments for God’s intervention and existence. At an American Academy of Religion/ Society of Biblical Literature Meeting I had a conversation with Jesse Jackson about the problem of evil and God’s intervention. During a lecture he explained that he believed in God because when he was in South Africa he saw jets drop bombs on the ANC but that the bombs were blown off course. This provided for him proof of God’s existence. Even though it was a large convention, I asked him why the wind didn’t blow more often. When he asked me to explain, I asked him why the wind did not blow the cluster bombs away from the UN school bus in Beirut in 1982. When he replied that it blew enough to sustain faith, I responded, “How convenient.”

I have to stop now. Your questions deserve more time than I can devote to them right now. I will attempt further responses as I am able. I still have not even completed my answer to your question about prayer.

Peace,
Rip

PS. A book on theodicy that provokes thought is John Hick’s EVIL AND THE GOD OF LOVE. I have also had recommended to me Gregory Boyd’s GOD AT WAR and SATAN AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: CONSTRUCTING A TRINITARIAN WAREFARE THEODICY. I have not yet read the last two titles but I did skim his THE MYTH OF A CHRISTIAN NATION: HOW THE QUEST FOR POLITICAL POWER IS DESTROYING THE CHURCH and liked it.

To: D.W. Van Winkle

Wow. Those were two very different and powerful posts.

I have some questions.

You stated that there are "both intellectual and volitional issues for my rejection of theism". This is going back to the rejection period.

Have you found intellectual arguments for theism? In other words, are you satisfied that in your mind, you can reconcile the notion of God and the corresponding image of God, with the evidence or lack of evidence? Granted, I have not read N.T. Wright, so there may be evidence for a resurrected Christ of which I am unaware. What evidence in particular do you find compelling?

You also stated the following:
I have had and continue to have religious experiences that cause me to believe in God although I recognize that my conception of God does not match the actual God.

Do you mean that your conception of God and whatever God really is do not match or that your conception of God is different than the more traditional?

Many theists like to point out that even Einstein, with his understanding of the universe, believed in God. My understanding of his belief is that you have the universe and its laws -- some of which we understand and others which we don't. Einstein seems to refer to this "everything" as God and doesn't seem to share the typical American view of a loving, personal, involved God.

A few more questions. Sorry for all the questions but your knowledge of theology and philosophy is so much greater than mine, that I need the Monarch Notes sometimes.

So do you think God answers prayer? Does he intervene? And if the answer to that last question is yes, can anyone ever predict when he will and when he won't?

Your initial rejection about God either lacks goodness or power (or both) is very close to my current beliefs, assuming he exists. I usually phrase it that either God doesn't care about man, God is not loving or just (which is well documented in the bible), and if he does exist, which I doubt, he is unworthy of worship.

These conclusions were derived from reading the bible and concluding that either he's inconsistent and therefore cannot be counted on.

You also said, " I have had and continue to have religious experiences that cause me to believe in God".

Many of my friends make the same claim. They describe it as being at peace or feeling a calm come over them when they've been struggling and praying about a particularly difficult problem.

Not to sound trite about this but doesn't meditation do the same thing? I know that when I'm at my most creative, I usually am relaxed and have Steely Dan or Dave Matthews playing in the background. How do you tell the difference between the holy spirit and training your brain to relax?

A final thought for the night and this gets back to the worthiness of worship issue. If you were God with unlimited knowledge and power, would the only means of communication you would invent be essentially one-way, and subject to error and interpretaton?

George Bush's claim of having God telling him to invade Iraq is one of many possible examples. Just think of all the evil that has been done by people thinking this is what God wants them to do.

This is one of those critical issues that my intellectual side will not let me accept. I honestly believe that my Christian friends are perfectly willing to suspend reason in this one area and are guilty of setting the bar for god so low, that it's impossible for him to miss. In other words, all good things are attributed to god, all bad are someone else's fault.

If I were to say to my good friend Brian (we both started at AT&T together) that I can fly, without the aid of man-made equipment, he would want proof. If I were to tell him that by eating this particular flavor of yogurt, he will become invisible. His response would be to put his arm around me and ask me how many beers I've had.

But, because his church tells him that by eating a wafer during communion, the wafer physically transforms into the body of Christ, he accepts it without question. Religion is the only field where perfectly reasonable and intelligent people suspend reason and intellectual honesty.

I'll have more to talk about tomorrow. I'm finishing up a book by an evolutionary biologist who has provided some of the best reasons for the formation of religion that I've ever read.

Peace,
Tom

Former Christian (Tom)

You stated, “We stopped going to bible study when, after just about 3 years, my wife (who is the smarter of the two of us) suggested to the group that it was time to stop studying Jesus every week and to put some of the things we've learned into practice. We started working for the Somerset county Division of Aging. We didn't do much, hang curtins, caulk around tubs, build ramps for wheel chairs, etc. It was very satisfying.]”

Bravo. Many are satisfied with study and never put it into practice. I am impressed with Jesus’ final exam in Matthew 25:31-46. I am sure that the “least of these” refers to all people. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that even the hypocritical clergy ‘loved’ each other. The verb he uses is ‘agape.’ The demand is to love (agape) people who are not part of the in group.

I laughed to myself when I read your comment, “Of course last year, they decided they were tired of fixing the organ and bought a new one for $110K. I refused to give any money for that because I viewed it as a waste.” Some in the church I attend when I am not in prison are pushing for the purchase of a new organ. I oppose it so much that I am tempted to steal the money from this special offering and give it to the poor. To my mind the road to hell is paved with sanctuary remodels.

My wife who is on the sanctuary remodeling committee since she has an eye for visual detail (which I lack) agrees that this should not be funded until all church programs that benefit the poor and needy should be fully funded.

I enjoy our posts too.

Peace,
Rip

Former Christian (Tom)

I confess that I don’t understand fully the Christian doctrine of the atonement. As I was driving today I wondered if perhaps scholars should retrovert both the gospels and Paul’s writings into Hebrew. They already retrovert the gospels into either Hebrew or Aramaic depending upon what language they believe Jesus actually spoke. It seems likely that Paul though theologically in Hebrew. If so, perhaps his Greek vocabulary is borrowed from the Septuagint (the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and we too should think in Hebrew categories instead of Greek categories or categories shaped by the Greek language instead of the Hebrew language. Language has a way of furnishing our minds. (I don’t claim that these thoughts are original. I’m sure that someone has already thought of this before and articulated it much more carefully and thoughtfully than I have).

There is a major divide between the Eastern Church and the Western Church regarding the problem of humanity and the atonement. The Eastern Church believes that humanity’s problem is illness. We are sick with the effects of sin. Jesus is the cure. In Western Christianity, the court room is the setting. Humanity’s problem is crime and the atonement is a balancing of the books so that x amount of sin merits x amount of punishment regardless of who receives the punishment. (Again, I claim no originality and am sure that others have articulated this better).

I am a Christian because of a cumulative case argument but I have a lively internal dialogue. Imagine Fyodor Dostoevsky, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Mark Twain, Randy Newman, Monty Python, Nelson Mandela, Saint Teresa of Ávila, Moses, Jesus, the prophets, the Devil and all his demons living together on a deserted island involved in heated debate punctuated by jokes. That is what goes on in my mind.

Here is a longer answer to the question about my spiritual journey.

I became an atheist in elementary school. In the light of unspeakable evil, I concluded that God either lacked power or goodness. As a child I wondered if I were to have grown up in Nazi Germany, what would have kept me from becoming a Nazi. My answers were that I would never be swayed by emotion. I vowed to distrust everything and everyone. I vowed to think everything through carefully before committing to anything. I resolved that my commitments would always be subject to revision in the light of new evidence and that to the best of my ability I would live in a way that was consistent with the truth as I knew it. While I was a faculty member at a ‘Christian’ college, my faculty colleagues have told me repeatedly that I embody the hermeneutic of suspicion. This trait was not considered a virtue at a ‘Christian’ university.

It seemed to me that ‘god’ was a symbol used by the master class to dupe the slaves into submission. I reasoned that all morality was a construct of the master class so that I needed to shock my conscience so that it no longer registered moral judgments. Then I would be free to create my own morality. In High School and College, I lived by the adage “A felony a day keeps the Judeo-Christian ethic away.” I wrongly reasoned along with Ivan from the Brothers Karamazov that that if there was no God, there was no right or wrong and that all was permitted. I no longer believe that atheism entails the lack of an absolute morality but do note that J.L. Mackie’s Book on Ethics was subtitled ‘inventing right and wrong.’

What happened? I came to recognize in myself that there were both intellectual and volitional issues for my rejection of theism. I am not universalizing this, I am merely trying to explain my non-religious and then religious experience. I came to recognize that there were more intelligent versions of theism than the one I rejected [I think that Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism articulates a more intelligent version of theism although I agree with Dawkins that his treatment of theodicy is particularly weak]. I came to believe that there were good historical grounds for believing in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth [N.T. Wright, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” articulates this position well.]. I have had and continue to have religious experiences that cause me to believe in God although I recognize that my conception of God does not match the actual God. I came to recognize that although God did not intervene to keep the abuse from occurring while I was a child, God did help me to heal from it and helped me to make good out of evil. I have been a loving father to my children. I work with prisoners to recognize that regardless of our background; we have the ability to choose who we are and who we want to become. Our destiny has not been completely determined by choices others have made for us. I seek to incarnate the love of Christ.
Peace,
Rip

To D.W. Van Winkle:

First, let me say that I very much enjoy your posts. Although we disagree on a number of conclusions, your thoughts and the way you present them have me thinking. And your presentation has never seemed harsh nor attacking and for that I am grateful.

I've copied snippets of your previous post here so that I could reference specific items.

There are many more books that I need to read too. I was not favorably impressed with Hitchens. I do like Dawkins so long as he sticks to evolutionary biology. [From Tom --> I agree. When he ventures too far from his area of expertise he seems to stretch believability.]

My Ph.D. is only in Hebrew Bible. If I had it to do it all over again, I probably would have studied philosophy of religion at Oxford instead of Hebrew Bible at Cambridge. Much of our conversation really relates to philosophy of religion instead of Hebrew Bible. [From Tom --> And I was saying to myself that I'm not well versed enough in other, ancient religions. Your ph.D. leaves me in the dust. I have a degree in Environment Science specializing in Marine Biology. It wasn't until my senior year that I discovered computers and fell in love. Joining AT&T in 1974, I started a Masters in Comp Sci in 1976 but soon found that I could teach the profession and decided not to pursue it. In 1983 I started the first of two software companies (the first was sold in 2001).]

I too have been in Bible studies and have made myself unpopular with others with questions I have raised. I fear that at times I have made myself unpopular even with my wife with questions I have raised too.

I make my faith commitment daily and potentially I might cease to be a Christian. When she asked me if I wouldn’t remain a Christian based on my personal religious experiences, I responded that I would not because potentially all of the experiences I have had for the last thirty plus years could be the result of a delusion while in a comma from a motorcycle accident I suffered back in 1974. This is one of our tamer conversations about religion and certainty. [From Tom --> Well, we are again in the same. During the years that my wife and I attended various bible studies, she viewed her role more as smoothing out my edges and questions that were unanswerable. It was at one point where one of the other people said, "it's obvious he just doesn't get Jesus" that my wife took a more active role in articulating what we both saw as inconsistencies between a common understanding of a loving/involved God and life in general. Now remember, my background in Marine Biology and all my professional experience with software makes it hard for me to ignore evidence of evolution while at the same time what I saw as inconsistencies within the bible and the evidentiary record.

We stopped going to bible study when, after just about 3 years, my wife (who is the smarter of the two of us) suggested to the group that it was time to stop studying Jesus every week and to put some of the things we've learned into practice. We started working for the Somerset county Division of Aging. We didn't do much, hang curtins, caulk around tubs, build ramps for wheel chairs, etc. It was very satisfying.]

It must have been very hard for you yesterday to play guitar at an Easter service that celebrates an event you do not believe occurred and to worship a god you do not believe exists. [From Tom--> In some cases it is but in most cases I really enjoy it. A few of my closer friends know about my beliefs although at some point, I should talk to the ministers. I don't mock anyone for their beliefs and my wife and I still give a good amount of money and time to the church. This church in particular is very good -- better than most. It gives a substantial amount of money to very worthy causes. We'll be sending a team of doctors and nurses to Honduras in April where they will spend some time performing minor surgery. This is exactly the things I like about this church. Of course last year, they decided they were tired of fixing the organ and bought a new one for $110K. I refused to give any money for that because I viewed it as a waste. But, I do admit that as I listen to a sermon about God's love, it really doesn't mean anything. And, in all honesty, I find the concept of blood sacrifice to be primitive and immoral. What kind of good would require a blood sacrifice to reconcile himself and mankind? And how is Christianity, which is basically dependent upon this sacrifice, any better than the Aztecs?]

I agree that Christian scribes tampered with the text of Titus Flavius Josephus but I believe there still is an authentic core. Again I have not studied this in detail but here is a website you might find helpful [From Tom--> I haven't looked into this yet, but plan on doing so the first chance I get. Thanks again for your thoughtful posts. I look forward to hearing from you soon.]

To Former Christian:

You have raised many thoughtful issues that merit a much longer and more thoughtful reply than I can provide this morning. Today is a very long day for me. I will be at work for the next 15 hours. While I am in prison, I will not have access to a computer.

There are many more books that I need to read too. I was not favorably impressed with Hitchens. I do like Dawkins so long as he sticks to evolutionary biology.

My Ph.D. is only in Hebrew Bible. If I had it to do it all over again, I probably would have studied philosophy of religion at Oxford instead of Hebrew Bible at Cambridge. Much of our conversation really relates to philosophy of religion instead of Hebrew Bible.

The philosopher to whom I made reference is indeed the Scottish philosopher David Hume.

I too have been in Bible studies and have made myself unpopular with others with questions I have raised. I fear that at times I have made myself unpopular even with my wife with questions I have raised too.

I make my faith commitment daily and potentially I might cease to be a Christian. When she asked me if I wouldn’t remain a Christian based on my personal religious experiences, I responded that I would not because potentially all of the experiences I have had for the last thirty plus years could be the result of a delusion while in a comma from a motorcycle accident I suffered back in 1974. This is one of our tamer conversations about religion and certainty.

It must have been very hard for you yesterday to play guitar at an Easter service that celebrates an event you do not believe occurred and to worship a god you do not believe exists.

I admire your intellectual honesty and curiosity. What is the purpose of an unexamined life and an unquestioned faith?

I agree that Christian scribes tampered with the text of Titus Flavius Josephus but I believe there still is an authentic core. Again I have not studied this in detail but here is a website you might find helpful; http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm.

Peace,
Rip

PS. I play guitar too.

To D.W. Van Winkle:

You've given me plenty to think about. I will have to re-read your post in more detail becuase I might have missed it, but I'm still not understanding why you believe in god.

You indicate more intelligent versions of theism and suggest those whose readings you agree, but I didn't see anything in my cursory review of your post indicating what intellectual arguments, what specific signs, which miracles and how they are historically supported that would lead you to the acceptance of God.

And I'm sorry, I mispoke. I had assumed that you accepted the bible as the inerrant word of God and in support of God.

Are you speaking of David Hume, the Scottish philosopher? If so, I'm only casually familiar with his work along the lines that man's minds are not miniature versions of God's; and I've read a tad on his rejection of miragles.

I freely admit that most of my beliefs have been shaped by what makes sense to me, versus what I want to believe (although I spent 17 years as a very active member of a church back in NJ. The last 6 on the ruling board and of that 6 the last 3 were as the president of the board).

During those 17 years, I attended bible study with my wife. I'm sure I seemed like a heretic to the other couples with which we studied. You see, I was trained as a scientist in college but went on to build a career as a software engineer. (I've owned a software company since 1983). This background and experience forced me to question conclusions that people make concerning an active, loving God, when the evidence and support for that conclusion is lacking.

I've read widely (but compared with the authors you cite, not as widely as I thought) on both sides. But "the Case for Christ", "The Heart of Christianity", and "The Case for Faith" just seemed to leave out so much and require great leaps of faith -- something that is difficult for a person who spent their life defining instructions for a computer.

On the other hand, "The End of Faith" and to a lesser extent "A letter to a Christian Nation" really resonated with me. From there I've read just about everything from Dawkins and Dennett and some Hitchens (but I have a hard time getting past Hitchens arrogance).

I just came back a few hours ago from playing guitar at our church's Easter service. Most of what is preached I out and out reject. It doesn't make sense to me and rather than looking for parallel universes where a God who created the universe might reside, I'm fine with the idea that we are the product of physics, chemistry, biology (including evolution) just like all other living organisms. I have no need to ignore mutantion and evolution that we see all around us (antibiotic resistant bacteria) or new species that have emerged in our lifetime (HIV). My more conservative friends need to somehow restrict evolution to the microbial level while at the same time ignoring the fossils and skeletel remains of Australopithecus because they have both ape and human characteristics.

For me, reason and intellectual honesty rein supreme and my beliefs are best described by Sam Harris. I can not believe in a loving, involved, personal God when the prayers of millioins of Jews were ignored or when we start counting all of the evil done in God's name while god has remained absolutely silent.

Michener's novel, the Source, is an interesting one which traces the history of the Jewish people. In it, he describes some early villages before Christ, who worships many Gods. In a few particularly painful chapters, the story describes the religious ritual of sacrificing the first born before the age of 4 (I think it was before 4) to ensure that the god of war would protect their village.

It touches upon one of the most fundamental problems with Jesus and the resurrection. No one in their right might would consider it useful or acceptable to appease a god by sacrificing a child. Apparently, in almost all cases of human sacrifice as described in this story, in real Aztec historical records and with Christianity, the individual being sacrificed must be pure to be effective. So, in this primitive villiage, the first-born children were used. With the Aztecs, it was predominantly virgins and of course Christianity has the sinless / guiltless Jesus.

Just like it doesn't make sense to me why a God would damand a sacrifice, it doesn't make sense to me why the killing of Jesus somehow erases the sins of mankind. There is no more logic in that statement than that behind the Aztecs who just know, it requires a virgin to appease their gods.

So, I've concluded that the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, especially the notion that the only way to reconcile man and God is through a blood sacrifice, to be nonsense and no more logical than the Astecs use of virgins.

Finally, the historical case for Jesus is a weak one at best. Even if there was a single individual named Jesus (doubtful, it's probably more likely that Jesus was a combination of preachers at that time), the events depicted during his life were certainly not true. All the records except for those authored by followers, failed to describe the events that took place during Jesus' life. Event the records of Titus Flavius Josephus were obviously doctored to try and shoehorn Jesus into Josephus' historical record.

I'll read up on some of the authors you've mentioned.

Regards and Happy Easter,

Tom

Former Christian

I think you misunderstand my point about belief in my own existence. I believe it in but I lack certainty. There is no absolute certainty. I don’t think “I think therefore I am” is sufficiently skeptical.

I made no comment re: the virgin birth. There is no historical evidence for this and my faith is not based upon this.

My comment regarded the resurrection. I believe there is historical evidence for this. I don’t believe it because the Bible says so; I believe it because I think it is the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity.

I have said nothing that indicates I believe the there is no morality apart from God or that godless atheist behave in immoral ways. Your argument must be with someone else at this point.

Re: “Other than wanting something to study for 30 years, why do you believe in God?”

I moved from atheism to theism because I came to recognize in myself that there were both intellectual and volitional issues for my rejection of theism. I am not universalizing this, I am merely trying to explain my non-religious and then religious experience. I came to recognize that there were more intelligent versions of theism than the one I rejected [I think that Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism articulates a more intelligent version of theism although I agree with Dawkins that his treatment of theodicy is particularly weak]. I came to believe that there were good historical grounds for believing in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth [N.T. Wright, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” articulates this position well.]. I have had and continue to have religious experiences that cause me to believe in God although I recognize that my conception of God does not match the actual God.

I am familiar with David Hume’s arguments against miracles but found that even J.L. Mackie (I believe this is in his “Miracle of Theism”) thinks that Hume’s position is too radical. If memory serves me correctly, I recall that Mackie argues that if someone predicted something exceedingly unlikely over which they had no control at t1 and this took place at t2 this could be a miracle.

I have not found the traditional arguments for the existence of God to be very compelling. This is especially true of the cosmological arguments. Since I do not have access to parallel universes one in which God is active and one in which God is not active, I don’t find natural theology to be all that helpful. I am familiar with Lessing’s ugly ditch. I don’t believe that theological beliefs are necessary beliefs to use his terminology so that I base my contingent beliefs upon the contingent beliefs of history.

If I ever give up theism, it will probably be over the issue of theodicy.

Peace,
Rip

In answer to D.W. Van Winkle:

First, your response to my last post is a little on the disingenuous side. If you don't really believe absolutely in your existence, then what's the point? Why discuss things? Why communicate with people? Why take any stand?

I assume from your prior comment that you believe in the historical Jesus. Can I also assume that you believe in the virgin birth?

I find the historical support for Jesus as described in the bible to be unconvincing. When the angel visited Mary to announce the importance of her birth, who was around to record that event? Of course there was no one.

So, your beliefs are based on a single assumption for which there is not a shred of evidence -- that God revealed his word to people who then wrote the bible. Of course if there were a bible that didn't need translating I'd be inclined to believe its authenticity. But the fact is that the bible had to wait for the 1500's before the first version of God's word were to be translated into a common language. A real god could have made it so it didn't need translating.

All religions believe in the divinity and infallibility of their holy books. There is no indication that any of them are particularly well writen, inspiring, or display very high morals. And what's worse, as I indicated before, they are each subject to interpretation and here's where we get into trouble.

Now, to your latest question. There is no harm nor no good from Rev. Wright daming America just like as you indicated, there's nothing to be gained by stating "God bless America". That's like me saying "Easter bunny, bless America". If it makes you feel good do it. But you're right, America is no more deserving than any other country and probably less so.

Here's one other point to consider for those people that believe that without God, we would be running around raping and pillaging each other.

Of the developed countries in this world, America is the most religious. I think 88% state they believe in God. Now here's the irony.

By most measurements, the US falls behind in quality of life from most other developed countries. We have the highest incarceration rates, one of the lowest life spans, below average infant mortality and here's the kicker, many countries surpress the US in charitable giving as a percentage of GDP.

The least godly countries, those with the higest percentages of atheist/agnostics, beat us in every one of those categories. They have lower infant mortality, higher life spans, fewer violent crimes, lower incarceration rates and HIGHER charitable giving.

You would think that these godless people would at least have more crime (don't Christians believe God gives us our moral values) and lower charitable giving. But, the truth is that you need no belief in God in order to lead a "blessed" life. You don't need God to be nice to your fellow man and you certainly don't need God to tell you give to others.

Other than wanting something to study for 30 years, why do you believe in God?

I would like to get back to the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Why shouldn't God damn America? Why do we think that America merits God's blessing?

Is it on the basis of its distribution of wealth?; care for the poor and the oppressed?; the mentally ill?, its leadership in world peace?; the fact that it is the forefront of the environmental movement?; that it sets a consistent example in human rights?
Please tell me on what basis America deserves to be blessed by God?

There is no peace for the wicked
Rip

Former Christian

You stated, "I exclude the biblical stories because their authentication is impossible."

It depends upon what you mean by authentication. If absolute certainty is demanded, no historical event can be authenticated. Lessing's ugly ditch yawns yet again. The necessary truths of theology cannot be based upon the contingent truths of history.

However, I have given up the quest for certainty. I freely admit that I know nothing with certainty including my own existence. I have not fallen for Rene Decart’s linguistic game. The existence of the “I” he wants to prove is surly much greater than the “I” of the information processor. His argument is less convincing than Anselm's ontological argument

I believe only in probability. Epistemology based on probability allows for weighing historical evidence in order to determine if an event is probable. I believe that it is more probable than not that God raised Jesus from the dead and that this accounts for the origin of Christianity.

Peace,
Rip

To D.W. Van Winkle

Thank you for your remarks. I don't claim that religion is the root of all evil. I do believe it is a problem that more and more we need to confront since each of the examples I cited were people acting on their faith.

The problem with all religions is that it takes the suspension of reason while requiring individual interpretation in order to "know" what God wants you to do.

Give me a single example of an action God has taken that can be identified unambiguously as performed by God. I exclude the biblical stories because their authentication is impossible.

But show me where God has performed a miracle like writing a bible that can be understood by anyone with a desire to read it, no matter what their native language. Or maybe a mathematical equation that was written so long ago and yet we are still working to understand it. Or a prophesy that is even the slightest bit specific -- one that says something like in the latter part of the 20th century, mankind will create a global network that will allow one to communicate with another almost anywhere in the world.

Alas, there has never been a documented action that could only be attributed to God. I've kept an open mind waiting, but I really don't expect one to be forthcoming.

Conversely, show me a nation or group of people that are afflicted with too much reason, too much compassion for each other. Even as we fall short because we are human, if you look at the least religious countries in the world -- Sweeden, Norway, Finland -- you find that by every conceivable measurement, they are far better off than the US which is the most religious of developed countries.

Examine their crime rates, rates of incarceration, murder rates, even those areas normally attributed to religion like percent of giving to charities, they are far better than America. How is that possible if we are the most devout and faithful developed country in the world?

Because every religion thinks that their dogma is the only true one and there's no one upstairs to correct these abhorent actions.

Former Christian

Again you site good examples of misguided faith. However, how do you account for the heroes of the faith? How do you account for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, etc.? Do you minimize their faith like Christopher Hitchens did in his GOD IS NOT GOOD: HOW RELIGION SPOILS EVERYTHING? If religion is humanities only problem, why hasn’t the secular 20th century been known for its great accomplishments in human rights, especially in the countries where religion has been outlawed?

Humanities problem is deeper than religion. Our capacity for self-deception shows that it is even deeper than knowledge can ever touch.

I am no hero of the faith, but I do volunteer in prisons. I supervise Muslim worship; Jewish worship and even Wiccan worship because I believe in that human’s have the right to exercise their religious freedom. I am not paid by the state. I work a part-time job so that I can do this ministry.

I have not grown up in a bubble. I have seen more evil than anyone should have to see. I am haunted by the cries of grieving mothers as they identified their dead children who were bombed by a jet while in a clearly marked UN school bus in Beirut in 1982. I saw the victims of cluster bombs. I work with victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. I am haunted by the stories of the prisoners with whom I work. I am appalled by the USA’s institutional racism and the fact that we are number 1 in terms of the percentage of adults incarcerated and the number of children sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

I read philosophers of religion. My favorite atheistic philosopher of religion is James Mackie. I do not base arguments for theism on natural theology since I do not have access to other possible universes.

There are more intelligent versions of Christianity and theism than the ones you have encountered and criticize. I encourage you to read more widely. Of course, you may not be persuaded to become a theist, but you might enjoy the exercise.

Peace,
Rip

To the faithful, anonymous and GaryD

Thank you to those who have responded to my questions, whether I agree with them or not, your responses are appreciated.

In a small town in Jordan, a new husband turns out the light with his new wife. It's the first time they will be together as husband and wife.

The husband, in his first of what he hopes will be many intimate encounters with his wife, discovers she is not a virgin.

He drags her out of bed, and drags her to her father's house where he proceeds to beat her to death. He finishes by piling a few stones around her body and leaves her on the doorstep of her father's house, as it is written to do in the Koran. Now a widower, he is satisfied that he has preserved his honor and carried out God's will.

In Youngstown South Africa, a nun gently wipes away the sweat from a 21 year old woman who is in the final stages of dying from AIDS. The nun, like the 12 others from Catholic charities, will spend at least 12 hours a day, tirelessly working to care for these people, so many of whom are afflicted with HIV/AIDS.

Despite the long hours and the genuine compassion, not one of these care givers will do the one thing that will prevent the next generation from contacting AIDS. They will not do the one thing that will prevent another generation of orphans from being born and raised by strangers. And they shouldn't because they know, that giving a condom to someone is interfering with God's will. They know that God does not want any type of artificial birth control even though the religious beliefs of the young women to whom they are caring, have no prohibitions against birth control.

It's a good thing these nuns know what God wants. To paraphrase GaryD in an earlier post, better to have physical suffering and death than spiritual death.

In a small town near where I live in North Carolina, a police dispatcher was recently fired from her job for violating that department's moral standards.

In fact her police chief became aware that this 26 year old woman was living, outside of marriage, with a man. Once he found out, the police chief, who is a strict Southern Baptist, fired her. He knows that living together outside of marriage is a sin and an affront to God. He did what he knew God wanted him to do.

In another church in nearby Asheville, back in 2004, a number of members of the ruling board of this church were excommunicated (thrown out). Some had been members for more than 30 years.

The current minister of this church spoke eloquently about the sanctity of life. He spoke about the importance of standing up to those -- whether legal in the US or not -- who violated God's laws. One of those individuals who had violated God's laws was John Kerry because he supported abortion rights. Anyone planning on voting for John Kerry will be removed from his church because this minister knows what God wants. God wants us to stand up for those that cannot defend themselves and to obey God and his laws.

Anyone attending church who is unwilling to do this is not welcomed in God's house. And so, for a short period of time, a significant number of members of this church were forced to leave.

In a small town outside of Dallas Texas, the owner of a restaurant made the newspapers for refusing to serve another man.

Apparently, the restaurant owner believed that this particular man was gay and the owner knows, because it's written in the bible, that God abhors homosexuality. He was not going to violate God's laws no matter what the US government says. The owner has every right to defend the moral integrity of his establishment, even if man's laws will not.

All of these are examples of people acting in accordance with their faith. They are all doing what they know is right because their faith defines what is right and what is wrong. Most of these actions are in violation of US law except of course the honor killing, which took place in Jordan and the prohibition against birth control in Youngstown.

There is no law that says a church's beliefs must be reasonable and as evidence by these examples, to me at least, all of these actions are unreasonable. And yet all adhere to the guidelines and dogma of their respective faiths.

Since God has NEVER made his wishes unambiguously known, he's never performed a single action that can be attributed to him and only him, man is left to interpret what he/she thinks God wants us to do.

God never came down from heaven and struck dead the Pope who started the Spanish Inquisition -- the torture and killing carried out by the church to uncover Satan's warriors. He never killed any of the torturers. He never clarified in a new book of the bible, that magically appeared one night in bibles all over the world, all the different interpretations of how we should live.

He never explained why his son could say "ask anything of the father through me and it shall be granted" and yet, when tens of thousands of people ask for peace this Easter weekend, why it is not forthcoming.

I can only conclude that for a God to allow such attrocities to be carried out in his name and to never bother to clarify what he really wants and doesn't, either God doesn't care and therefore is unworthy of worship or doesn't exist and should not be worshipped.

Either way, it's apparent to me that man's laws are now much more fair and compassionate than those described in the bible. We should leave religion, churches and the mythology of God behind and work toward worshiping reason and compassion toward our fellow man.

Dear Mr Colson

I wish you a wonderful Easter 2008!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

The latest response to Former Chritian is mine. I forgot to add my name.
Peace,
Rip

Former Christian

This responds to your post of March 21, 2008 10:07 AM.

You raise significant questions with which I continue to wrestle.

I do not want to defend the inerrancy of the Bible; creation vs. evolution, etc.

Your questions have exposed the weakness of naïve Biblical literalism.

I am intrigued more with your questions about theodicy. As I have said in previous posts, theodicy is the one issue that may lead me to reject theism.

On the topic of omniscience, I find open theism to be compelling. Briefly it states that God knows all possible universes but God does not know the actual universe. So long as God has created beings with free will; God does not know the outcome of future contingent conditionals. Furthermore, if God truly values human free will, interventions must be somewhat limited.

Why doesn’t God reveal themself [yes, I am an orthodox Trinitarian] more clearly. I don’t know. The first time I read Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV especially the chapter “The Grand Inquisitor,” I found myself asking why God did not make guest appearances weekly on each continent if God was so interested in promoting faith. I have come to believe that God communicates less directly in order to preserve humans’ freewill. I do not mean this in the sense that too much evidence would cheapen faith, but in the sense that too much evidence would make our initial rejection of God into our ultimate rejection of God. I believe that the human dilemma is a volitional instead of intellectual. At least for myself in at an earlier time in my life, I did not believe in God because I did not want to believe in God.

You challenge others “Show me one example of where God and only God, took some action.”

I believe God resurrected Jesus from the dead and that God did this in public history. I know that this sounds like foolishness; but I cannot explain the origin of Christianity apart from Jesus’ resurrection. I suggest reading N.T. Wright’s THE RESSURECTION OF THE SON OF GOD.

The problem with theism is that God is greater than we can imagine and yet God has revealed themself enough that we might recognize God.

Peace,
Rip

PS. I realize that this post probably raises more questions than it answers but I thought it worthwile to at least trace out a response.

To GaryD and other Christians who feel the same way.

It must be a sad world indeed when you make statements like all people are bad, it's just that some are less bad than others.

I guess you wouldn't consider the designer / creator of these bad people at all responsible right? You buy a new car and go to drive it out of the lot and lo and behold, it dies.

Now, who do you blame, the car or the manufacturer?

So why blame man for the obvious shortcomings of the design? Is it really "justice" to hold every human responsible for the sins of an ancestor? But then again, the God described in the bible is anything but just or moral for that matter.

You still haven't answered the basic question I posed 3 posts ago. Since Jesus promised to do what we asked if we were even the slightest bit faithful and if we asked God anything through Jesus, it would be granted.

I have many faithful friends. If I asked them tonight, they would all pray for the war in Iraq to end. Wanna bet the war will still be going on tomorrow?

You also didn't answer my question about why a loving God would allow his children to hurt each other -- especially in hurting each other in the misguided interpretation of what they think God wants them to do? And I don't buy it one bit, that since people are presumably with God, no one really gets hurt. Because I watched my friend die of leukemia at the age of 23. I saw him kiss his wife and 1 year old son goodbye before he died.

The pain that Andy's death caused that family and his parents and siblings was enormous. So, I don't buy it for a second that we should be comforted by the fact that Andy may (or may not) be in heaven.

The ironic thing about religion is that the most faithful people in the world are generally the craziest. Those that have so much confidence in a better afterlife that they strap a bomb around themselves and blow themselves and other people up are the most faithful, albeit misguided.

Your faith is nothing more than your understanding of what God wants you to do and how you should do it. You presumable arrive at this by praying and reading the bible.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the 19 hijackers also believed they were doing God's work, as did the pope that initiated the Spanish Inquisition as did the people of the south who, reading from the same bible as those from the north, concluded that slavery was just fine and dandy. (Well, when it comes to the bible God tells you where you should get your slaves from, the conditions of their freedom, but NEVER ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE does God say slavery is wrong).

You see Gary, everyone interprets these 2000+ year old rules and guidelines that could have been written by virtually anyone that could write. There are ways that God could have proved the bible to be his inerrant word, but alas, like everything else, god has failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence as to his existence.

I look forward to your response.

Reductio absurdum I see. Sorry I don't speak for the God of the Jews or the God of the Muslims or the Not God of the atheists.

From a strictly Christian perspective dying young isn't a bad thing whether you are saved or not. If you are a Christian you get to spend that much longer in heaven with God and do not have to continue on in a land that operates by rules which are on the whole ludicrous. If you aren't then your life of sin will have been cut short and your punishment for those sins made less severe. And yeah I expect upon this revelation I'll likely hear from someone, then why don't you kill yourself and go home to see Jesus sooner. And of course the answer is that my life isn't my own it is God's. He made me and He will call me home in his own good time until then I shall attempt to do what ever God would have me do.

I will not always succeed for I am but a Human being and like all such I see but through a glass darkly and the way isn't always clear to me but when it is I will go and do that which is necessary to serve my Lord and God.

By the way there are no innocent people. We drop out the shoot selfish and therefore sinful and for all too many of us it's all down hill from there.

That age old Question why do bad things happen to good people is in fact based upon the false premise that there are some good people somewhere.
There are not. Some may be somewhat better than others but that scarcely makes them good.

Hi GaryD, thanks for the quick response.

You asked an interesting question you said; "For instance if your 3 year old asks you for poison will you give it to him?"

First, are you trying to say that the millions of Jewish mothers or daughters or sons who were praying for the lives of their loved ones during WWI is equivalent to a child asking for poison? Asking that your mother or your father not be killed is analogous to your child asking for poison?

In the quotes that I used from my original post, I didn't see anything where Jesus qualified his blanket statement (ask ANYTHING). He didn't say ask only for spiritual benefits or ask only for things for other people or ask only for things that are possible. He said to ask for anything and it shall be granted. Other than reinterpreting Jesus's words to cover for this apparent contraction, I don't see where you can conclude that there are any restrictions. So why don't we see any evidence of it? Why don't we see the end to the Iraq war or the devastation in Sudan? Certainly there have been enough prayers rendered.

Finally, to use your question to further my point, it's obvious to me as well as everyone that a loving parent would not give something to their child that would hurt them. But, you need to take that one step further.

I have three sons. If one of my sons were drinking and tried to drive, I would do everything I could to stop them. That's what loving parents do.

Give me one example where God has proactively protected one of his children from harming another. Give me one example where God unambiguously put a stop to some of his children hurting others. Certainly letting 12 million Jews die was a time of breathtaking inaction.

Allowing 19 hijackers who, again in the name of God, killed nearly 3,000 innocent people. Why didn't God strike them down dead? Can you honestly say that you see a loving, father-like figure in these inactions?

A reasonable conclusion by anyone objectively looking at the evidence is, there is no God.

I've read and studied the Bible for going on thirty years now, Former Christian. More I have contemplated it's teachings and statements and meditated upon it. While I make no claim to knowing all the Bible's secrets - no human being ever will this side of heaven - I have discovered many things.

For instance if your 3 year old asks you for poison will you give it to him?

PART 1 of 3:

Att: Prezident "Chuck" Colson of "Prison Fellowship iNDUSTRY's" [not Ministry's] , et al:

Shame Shame on your organization & partners in un-holy crimes against the 'down and out of sight troddin' , threir loved ones etc. becoming a multi million dollar Illegal Industry within the Structure of our great government!

hence ye will surely , yet inevitably be destroyed, both out of Prison & within!

NO MORE MR & MRS. NICE GUY'S! Soo

It is TiME to un-do your Hipocratical & cunning organization. And Here is a essay on;

===

On: "HOW TO "LEGALLY" GET RID OF GOVERNMENT CHAPLAiN(s) in good ole U.S. of A.:

HOW TO LEGALLY GET RID OF GOVERNMENT CHAPLAINS -The so-called Christian Nations are nothing but SYMBOLIC {VAMP} {IRE} NATIONS and SYMBOLIC CANNIBAL NA-TIONS with their own GOVERNMENT CHURCH disguised as "Chaplain Services" in the
structure of the government contrary to the right of the people to FREEDOM OF RELIGION Under the CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF MODERN RELIGION which is also writtenly guaranteed by the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS through the General Assembly of the United Nations issued during the Christian 1940s as an International Treaty Of the member nations.

In the PRE-APOCALYPTIC lives of such treaty makers, they would write and issue nicely worded laws against what they intended to do anyway in the official name of their Jealous God, which was their way of systematically enforcing their own JEALOUSY, such as in the United States of America a SYMBOLIC VAMPIRE NATION and a SYMBOLIC CANNIBAL NATION, where the BIBLIO-MANIACS ran a federal prison SYSTEM with five "Regions" covering the entire country from Coast to coast and from border to border, each such Region being like one of the Dioceses of Catholicism over which the Pope of the Catholics (SYMBOLIC CANNIBALS and SYM-
BOLIC VAMPIRES) presided for PRE-APOCALYPTIC purposes, except

[Continued]

GaryD said:
God won't give you stuff that will cause you harm no matter how much you pray for it and spiritual harm is higher up the list of God's concerns than physical harm.

So how do you know that GaryD? How do you know what God's priorities are? Aren't you doing exactly what I'm accusing all the faithful of, which is thinking they "know" how God thinks?

And how well did that work out during the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the crusades?

Show me where God says what you are saying or do you just have a "feeling" which you attribute to the holy spirit?

When I sit down or lay down and put on a good Steely Dan album, I sometimes seem to more better connected to the world. I get my best ideas when listening to Steely Dan or Bruce Springsteen, playing in the background and completely divorcing myself from the rest of the world. Is that God?

Finally, is it your idea that the deaths of 12 million jews caused no spiritural harm? Any God that would let something like that happen, when nothing more than 4 or 5 strategic blood clots / heart attacks would have stopped it either is not a loving God or doesn't exist.

So former Christian you were had by the prosperity theologians - a pox upon their houses. God is God he is not your Genie in a bottle. God won't give you stuff that will cause you harm no matter how much you pray for it and spiritual harm is higher up the list of God's concerns than physical harm.

The Religion Of Everything is Born In USA, not Tibet, Armistar, Jerusalem, Mecca etc.

*J
**O
***Z
****E
*****V
******Z.us
***********J
*************O
***************Z
****************E
*****************V
******************Z.Us
***********************J
************************O
*************************Z
**************************E
***************************V
****************************Z.Us
*********************************J
***********************************O
*************************************Z
***************************************E
*****************************************V
*******************************************Z.Us
************************************************J
**************************************************O
***************************************************Z
*****************************************************E
*******************************************************V
*********************************************************Z.Us
**************************************************************J
****************************************************************O
******************************************************************Z
********************************************************************E
**********************************************************************V
************************************************************************Z.Us
*****************************************************************************J
*******************************************************************************O
*********************************************************************************Z
***********************************************************************************V
*************************************************************************************Z.us
******************************************************************************************J
********************************************************************************************O
**********************************************************************************************Z
************************************************************************************************V
**************************************************************************************************Z.Us
*******************************************************************************************************J
*********************************************************************************************************O
***********************************************************************************************************Z
*************************************************************************************************************E
***************************************************************************************************************V.Us

PEACE: PAZ: SHOLOM: AHIMSA: SALAAM:…,

Believe “IT” (ye ECLATi) or Not, “Healing Of Nations & World Peace & many more Good Prophecy is Near!

WE are COME to save Lives via the "NEW-SONG!" and MORE good Tidings!

"It’s unimaginable to me that any serious political leader in America could sit silently while a pastor used blasphemy to condemn his own country and made the kind of extraordinary charges that Dr. Jeremiah Wright made."

What, like the Republicans did when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed gays and feminists and Pagans for 9/11?

Like McCain's pastor echoed?

It's with a note of alarm and dismay one would hear such things from *anyone* close to a political leader.

But.

Obama did not sit silently. Nor, clearly, has he pursued policies in line with such talk, which is more than can be said for the conservatives, who have dutifully tried to oppress and marginalize people that the right-wing preachers targeted with such inflammatory, fear-mongering speech.

Hello Angela and others who believe their faith to be strong and the bible to be the perfect word of God.

Let's start with some basics.

In Mark 11:24 Jesus promises:
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells us just how easy prayer can be:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

There are 3 more quotes from the new testamont that say essentially the same thing -- if you have a modest amount of faith and believe in Jesus, God will do ANYTHING you ask.

Okay, so give it a try. Pray to God right now that the war in Iraq will end today. I'll wait.....

Any luck? Okay, maybe Jesus didn't mean ANYTHING. Or maybe Jesus didn't mean you could ask for WHATEVER, as quoted in Mark above. Although he did kind of say that, didn't he?

In Matthew 17:20 Jesus talks about moving mountains directly and says quite clearly:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Now, based on your posts I suspect you are a person with a significant amount of faith. Am I right?

I would also suspect, since you used the bible to support your positions that you believe the bible to be pretty darn close to the inerrant word of God. Right so far?

So how do you explain unanswered prayers. If you look at the quotes I referenced, Jesus didn't qualify them at all. He didn't say, don't ask for big things and in fact, he said just the opposite -- ask for anything including making a mountain move from here to there.

Jesus also didn't say anything about numbers. He didn't say you need to have 10,000 people praying in order to move a mountain, but to heal a lame person only takes 11. There were no qualifications at all other than a little faith and belief in Jesus.

You see Angela, the problem with this line of thinking is that God has never done anything in this world that can be unambiguously attributed to him. And conversely, he has been silent when some kind of action was clearly required.

During the Spanish Inquisition, when the Pope started this inhumane program of torture and killing, these things were all done in the name of God. How many thousands of innocent people have to be tortured before a loving God would come down from heaven and say, "Stop! This is not what I want you to do."?

And yet tens of thousands were tortured and killed over the years; all in the name of God and for the purpose of rooting Satan out of our lives.

And the list goes on, even today. President Bush speaking in front of a group of religious leaders in 2003 stated quite directly, that God told him to invade Iraq so that freedom and democracy would spread throughout the middle east.

There are so many problems with this line of thinking that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try.

God, being omniscient, should know ahead of time that there were no weapons of mass destruction and would know just how many innocent Iraqis would be killed in this war. The estimates range from 120,000 - 600,000.

Knowing ahead of time just how many innocent people would be killed, why didn't he stop President Idiot, ah, I mean President Bush? The bottom line for me is, I would think when terrible things are being done by my children to each other in my name, I would want to tell them to stop. God has remained silent on this and all other actions one would expect from a loving God.

The second question that no one has given me a good explanation for is why doesn't God use CRC when answering prayers? (Sorry, CRC stands for cyclical redundancy check and is used in contemporary digitial communications to insure that the data sent matches the data receieved.) Another way to frame this question is, couldn't God come up with a better form of communication that allows for error correction and that was at least a little more 2-way?

I have a hard enough time communicating with my three sons and when we talk they can say, "What?" or "Say that again."

But I bet that you believe that God listens to your prayers and actually answers them. It's all a matter of how you phrase your questions or concerns, you will at some point get a certain feeling which means that God approves of something or disapproves of something. You mean to tell me that this is the best that the creator of the universe -- the being that you believe invented the rules of physics, light and sound transmission, gravity, the whole enchelada -- can do. This is the best that he can do to communicate with his people?

And how well is prayer working anyway? When the pope conducts a world-wide prayer service for Easter in a couple of days, literally millions of people will be praying for world peace. Think it will happen?

Just look back at the quotes I sent you and tell me why I can't pray for someone returning from Iraq who lost both their legs, and why God won't grow them back. It's never happened. In all of recorded history, no one has ever had amputated or severed legs grown back. If the bible is literally true, then any number of friends of mine with strong faith should be able to ask God to grow those legs back.

Or; there's no one listening to prayers and the only purpose they serve is to make the person who is praying, feel good.

Now it's your turn Angela or anyone else that wants to chime in. Show me one example of where God and only God, took some action. I can send you hundreds of times where a loving God would have taken action but the world was met with silence.

Angela

I fail to see the relevance of your New Testament quotation unless you are saying that Paul claims that sin has abrogated the image of God in humanity. He does not say this. There is nothing in your quotation from Romans that leads to this conclusion. Your apparent view that humanity is no longer created in God’s image is a radical departure from orthodox Christianity since it is contrary to Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant theology (at least the varieties with which I am aware). The reason I made reference to John Calvin is because I have yet to hear him referred to as a liberal, etc.

Concerned the Christian now Liberated,

My previous argument with Angela is neither verified nor is it falsified by the historicity of Adam; therefore, I deem your comments to be irrelevant. My point is based on the coherence of the Christian story. Coherence and historicity are two different matters.

If you are interested in my views of the historicity of the Hebrew Bible, you might want to consult my previous comments at http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2007/10/an_atheistevangelical_dialogue/allcomments.html.

Peace,
Rip

To: FORMER CHRISTIAN,

I say this in the spirit of love, atheists give and support missions (may not call them missions) but since you do attend church, I beg you to ask God to reveal Himself to you. I would ask, if you would check out these sites and I've seen these and it is part of my discussion with evolutionists regarding the authenticity of God's existence and proof of archaelogical evidence. I welcome the thought of all of us seeking truth: May you know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Love, in Christ.

http://www.crosstv.com/apologetics.htm
http://www.crosstv.com/apologetics.htm#wp04

Take a chance and look into this information.

Have a wonderful weekend!

Mr. Colson,

I think I have answered one of my own questions. What Wright said about whites using HIV to destroy black people is anti-white. However, Wright did not invent this idiocy. Ir originated with Farakhan years ago. He, of course, did not consider the numbers of whites killed by AIDs, but then again, he didn't and doesn't have to.

He is not a person who wishes or needs to concern himself with facts.

Farnaz

Mr. Colson,

I have seen no evidence of Wright being an anti-Jewish racist. There was a remark to a reporter that could be taken as somewhat patronizing and bigoted, but I have seen nothing at the level of Arun Ghandi racism. If there is something you know that you haven't shared with us, I would appreciate it if you would do so.

My concern is with his association with Farakhan to whom he not only gave a lifetime achievement award, but whom he accompanied to Lybia to meet that paragon of democratic virtue and brotherhood, Gadaffi.

As I have said elsewhere on this blog, Farakhan's racism and love of Hitler is ironic. As Science showed twenty years ago, in nazi evolutionary science black people evolved from Jews. George Mosse covered this phenomenon much earlier with full-text nazi science documents. (See Nazi Culture, Nazi Ideology) However, in bringing German denial into the scientific discourse community, Science pretty much ended it.

Farakhan must know what Hitler's race politics really were. However, they don't matter to him. What matters to him is power and the ability to live in luxury off the suffering of others and courtesy of the Lybian government.

Many, many African Americans are aware of Hitler's anti-black racism and despise Farakhan.
Many, many African Americans eschew anti-Jewish racism as well. Black and Jewish is a false binary. There is the Ethiopian Jewish community with over 100,000 living in Israel. Many Yemeni Jews and Egyption Jews are also what the Americans would call black. There are African American Jews, as well. I found when I came to this country that there are some Jews of European descent who are offended if you refer to them as white. For most Americans, I am a brown Jewish person.

All of this has conveniently eluded the racist, opportunistic thug, Farakhan. I should add that his religion bears very little connection to any sect of Islam.

Betty Shabazz believed and many others outside and inside NIS believe that Farakhan was responsible for the murder of Malcolm X in whom I became interested not too long after I came to this country and in whom I remain interested. It is, therefore, ironic to me that Rev. Wright, friend and supporter of Farakhan, should use the chickens coming home to roost metaphor, Malcolm's assessment of the Kennedy assassination, in referring to 9/11. In the aftermath of JFK's murder, Malcolm, too, was referring to this country's romance with violence.

It is a romance in which we are hardly alone. However, for many people the U.S. is suis generis. It is the most powerful country on earth and it has slept with strange people, among them Osama, whom it trained and supported.

None of this makes Wright a racist with respect to Jews, and I do not see his rhetoric as racist with respect to "whites." I really would like some clarification.

I would like clarification on another point. Given the long friendship between Wright and Farakhan, and that between Obama and Farakhan, I find it unlikely that when Farakhan endored Obama, he was endorsing someone he had never met. This is not to say that I think Obama solicited Farakhan's endorsement or shares his views. Some illumination on their connection, however slight, would be desirable, however, since saying that he didn't solicit Farakhan's support doesn't sarisfy.

Here is a link to a WaPo column on the lifetime achievement award Wright gave Farakhan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

Farnaz

He is responsible for being a member of a church in which particular doctrines are preached

So are you and you will be answering for your church's doctrines of supporting pre-emptive war, capital punishment, intolerance and exclusion of gays and judging others with threats of eternal damnation. Pull the friggin tree out of your own beady eye first before you condemn others, you hypocritial Pharasee.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

You noted: "....and by the way Mr. Colson, perhaps, in being member of Pastor Wright's church these many years, Barack Obama may be sensitised and made aware of what he must do to reduce or close the chasms and heal America's racial divisions that still exist - even as perceived in his Caucasian maternal grandmother and in his African-American pastor."

It should have read: "...and by the way all you Muslims, in being a member of your imam/cleric's mosque these many years, you might may be sensitized and made aware of what you must do to reduce or close the chasms and heal Islam's Sunni and Shiite divisions that cause so much violence on a 24/7 basis-"

One does not right a wrong by doing still more wrongs. Hate begets hate begets hate begets hate begets Hate. In order to short circuit this vicious circle someone has to step outside that circle and say enough is enough. If you don't do that nothing else you do will matter.

You can't do that and make excuse for haters to be haters. If you aren't willing to denounce the haters regardless of whether they are friend or foe then you become part of the problem rather than part of the solution and that in a nutshell is the problem Obama faces.

....and by the way Mr. Colson, perhaps, in being member of Pastor Wright's church these many years, Barack Obama may be sensitised and made aware of what he must do to reduce or close the chasms and heal America's racial divisions that still exist - even as perceived in his Caucasian maternal grandmother and in his African-American pastor.

Thanks
"J"

Mr. Charles Colson,

Thank you for your essay.

No one is not respecting your right, you free will, your own choice to be member of the Southern Baptist church and its teachings.

No one is saying what the Pope said on any faith, or what Pat Robertson said, is agreed to, or endorsed by all members of their respective flocks in spite of being leaders of their churches.

Whoever said and do anything is to be held personally responsible and to be held accountable for his words and actions. Perhaps, in not tolerating and not doing anything if we disagree, is as equally reprehensible as the originator of the words and actions not acceptable to us.

It would be unimaginable for any man of God of any faith, seeing how his flock suffered indignities, unjustness and injustice as a people, would not say God damn us and our country for the injustice, the unjustness we have wrought against our fellow men.

Pastor Wright may know what his flock have been through, are going through. What he is saying may be an articulation of their frustrations and in offering some solutions to their state of being.

Desmond Tutu did not quite use such words regarding South Africa's apartheid. Neither did Martin Luther King on segregation in the US. But one get the drift of the passion and fire of where they are coming from. That God will damn us and our country to divisive hell if we don't right a wrong.

God damn America if there is no fair justice and racial equality assured by its Constitution for all its people.

God damn Malaysia if there is no fair justice and racial equality assured by its Constitution for all its people.

We will all be in the hell of anger and hatred among us.

They are our fellow citizens. We are disconnected from their specific history. experience and aspirations and measuring and judging them by our own?

Happy Easter to you and your family.

Thank you and regards

"J"

Angela,

This is going to take a little more time than I have at the moment. Whether I was ever a real Christian is open to debate. The interesting point is that I still attend church every week, I play guitar in the contemporary worship service, I give a considerable amount of money to those "missions" that I believe in and do not give for others.

So when my church sends a team of doctors and nurses to a third world country and performs literally hundreds of routine surgeries -- I support that whole heartedly.

But as to my personal beliefs, the "Former" tag is put in recognition that God is no more than an idea -- although I would be happy to change my mind given even the slightest amount of evidence.

I also believe that many of the evils that man performs on his/her fellow man, are done in a misguided, mistaken attempt to appease a nonexistent God.

Further, even if there was a God as described in the bible, he is unworthy of worship. In fact, he should be disclaimed in the loudest of voices.

Now, in your last post to me you referenced scripture and it seems you took the time to backup your statements and that you put considerable effort in your response. I will try to do the same. And although I disagree with much of what you've said, I appreciate the thought that went into them and the nonhostile way that you presented them.

Van Winkle,

Since the OT is mostly myth, there is no discussion involved unless you are into fiction.

Some brief facts about "Adam":

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" "DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago (not 6000 years ago as per the OT) began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

To Former Christian:

First let me ask you why you call yourself a former Christian: once you've been saved you cannot become unsaved. You really didn't believe. Also, there were more than 2 speeches and remember Obamas speech about just words: No I don't judge people on the basis of 2 sermons much less it in a hateful church. In Matthew: 17: it states: by their fruit you shall know them. Tell me about Obama's fruit and Pastor Wright's fruit. Also, people say that God loves the sinner but hates the sin; where is that in the Bible: people made that up to feel comfortable about their sinful behavior. God hates sin and cannot even look upon it. God's word speaks very clearly about those who live like the following: 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Also read Romans: 1:18-32; 18For (A)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (B)suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because (C)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For (D)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (E)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not [a]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (F)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22(G)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and (H)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [b]crawling creatures.
24Therefore (I)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (J)dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (K)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (L)who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason (M)God gave them over to (N)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (O)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (P)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (Q)gossips, 30slanderers, (R)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (S)disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, (T)unloving, unmerciful; 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (U)death, they not only do the same, but also (V)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

To: D.W. Van Winkle:

Yes, we were created in God's image and if you read the New Testament it states the following: Romans: 6For while we were still (L)helpless, (M)at the right time (N)Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.  8But God (O)demonstrates (P)His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, (Q)Christ died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified (R)by His blood, we shall be saved (S)from the wrath of God through Him. 10For if while we were (T)enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved (U)by His life. 11(V)And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received (W)the reconciliation. 12Therefore, just as through (X)one man sin entered into the world, and (Y)death through sin, and (Z)so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (AA)sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (AB)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](AC)type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of (AD)the one (AE)the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by (AF)the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand (AG)the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (AH)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (AI)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18So then as through (AJ)one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (AK)act of righteousness there resulted (AL)justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience (AM)the many (AN)were made sinners, even so through (AO)the obedience of the One (AP)the many will be made righteous. 20(AQ)The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, (AR)grace abounded all the more,  21so that, as (AS)sin reigned in death, even so (AT)grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. NOT MINE BUT GOD'S WORD SAID IT.

Angela

You stated:

“Lastly, if you read the bible, it states "we were (past tense) created in God's image until Adam came; now we are all ancestors of Adam; fallen and corrupt. Dont twist doctrine...Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”

I agree that it is unwise to twist doctrine; however, before making such a charge perhaps you should re-examine your own interpretation.

I agree that in Genesis 1:26 it states that God made humankind in his image after his likeness and that the past tense is probably the best translation of the Hebrew text although Hebrew verb tenses are notoriously difficult to understand and translate.

However, you seem to believe that humanity ceased to be made in God’s image after the fall. According to Genesis 9:6, God seems to believe that humans retain God’s image even after the fall. If memory serves me correctly, even John Calvin believed that humanity retained the image of God even after the fall.

Perhaps it would be wise to re-examine your own interpretation; for when people doubt what you say it may be that they doubt your interpretation instead of the Bible.

Former Christian:
Thanks for your Christian understanding of the issue. In fact you seem to be current Christian.

And, well well well, what do we have here, but Chuck Colson *himself* hinting that America "deserved" Hurricane Katrina:

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7307

While not quite as inflammatory as the Robertson/Falwell hate speech just two tender days after 9/11, or the Religious Right hatemonger Dinesh D'Souza writing an entire book that basically sides with Islamic terrorists and blames America for 9/11, Colson himself is using the tragedy of Katrina for a generally anti-American message.

To Colson's credit, rather than the usual blame-the-scapegoats tack, Colson takes an unexpected twist and uses Katrina to convince Christians to look in their own mirrors.

But there are a lot more mirrors that need to be handed out, it appears. Here, Obama's pastor is being ridden for "anti-American" and divisive speech, when the Religious Right's leaders -- and the Republican candidates and elected officials that do their bidding -- engage in hate speech that is ten times more vile, most every Sunday of the week.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

"Former Christian" nails it. I'll repost what I wrote elsewhere:

Wanna know how to get ourselves past the divisive comments of Obama's pastor?

Easy. Pretend that Obama is a Republican. Many Republicans attend churches that preach divisive hate week after week, and that doesn't seem to hurt them. In the "right" parts of the country, that actually gets them elected.

Sometimes, the candidate himself is a pastor in a hate-preaching religious sect.

Take former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, for example.

Huckabee is a pastor in the Southern Baptist denomination. A very high official in the Southern Baptist Convention, Wiley Drake, has actively been praying for the DEATHS of certain religious freedom activists* -- and the rest of the leadership of the SBC refuses to repudiate him.

Here, we have a high official in the SBC issuing, for all intents and purposes, a death fatwa -- yet this hasn't been brought to bear against Huckabee's candidacy whatsoever.

Yes, indeed, the argument can be made that affiliation with a church can be considered a sharing of values. But the argument ONLY seems to be made when you're a Democrat.

If you're a Republican, your pastor or denomination can house the most vile, hateful leaders -- and nobody utters a word.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

* More info: http://blog.au.org/2008/02/19/the-diabolical-dr-drake-sbc-official-had-more-power-than-sbc-flack-admits/

I'm all for people being "clear where they stand."

Perhaps Mr Colson could get the ball rolling by adding "convicted felon" and "former prison inmate" to the bio that heads his OnFaith column? It might give the uninitiated a better sense of where Mr Colson has "stood" in his own life journey.

Dear Chuck and Angela,

Where to begin.....

Let's start with the statement that Obama did what many churches teach -- hate the sin, love the sinner. He rightly refused to cast off the man who has been an important person in his life while criticizing those aspects of his sermons with which he takes exception.

I've read some posts about other ministers, white and black, who have visited this church and listened to sermons. If you've watched these on YouTube, you might notice that there is a 5 year gap between the two most offending sermons. These other ministers claim that during their respective visits, Wright spoke about helping others and the need for people to take personal responsibility regarding their actions. I'm assuming you don't have problems with that kind of sermon.

Then there is the yardstick used to judge another man. All, including Obama's remarkable speech, have spoken about Wright's untiring work with the poor and the needy, especially those infected with HIV. I would presume that you would want to encourage that kind of behavior.

So where are we? Are you stating that you will judge a man by two sermons in five yours and ignore all those in between? And will you ignore the work he's done in the community?

Remember, some of the more famous evangelical Christians who Colson associates himself with, made just terrible comments on America right after 9/11. Falwell and Robertson blamed homosexuality and pornography as the reason why 9/11 occurred saying in effect, America earned God's wrath.

Is this any less hateful than what Wright said?

And, after these guys made those hateful (and inaccurate speeches) did you hear Chuck say anything in criticism?

I didn't. It just shows you that Obama has far more courage than Colson could ever muster.

The church isn't a twelve step program nor is it meant to be. There was at one time and still is in many churches both Black and white in the deep South what was called the Amen corner. It's purpose was not to rubber stamp the pastor but to assure the congregation that the Pastor was speaking God's own truth. But that was in the days when Elders were actually men knowledgeable in the word of God rather than local businessmen whose primary purpose was to guarantee that the Church could support the pastor in the manner to which he would like to become accustomed.

Pastor Wright is not some poor black preacherman. He's a millionaire. And he has gotten rich spewing bile and hatred. He has gotten away with this largely because people like Obama who ought to know better are all to willing to cut people like him "a little slack".

I hate to tell you this but as long as you make excuses for racial hate either on the part of blacks or whites you will have racism.

In 12-step programs, they have a saying - "take what you like and leave the rest." Obviously, that is what Sen. Obama did. He found what he needed in the TUCC community and stayed. He left the anti-white speeches of his Pastor inside the Church, and didn't internalize them. He probably did what most of us do when we hear someone say something that we don't agree with - roll our eyes, grumble a bit, then ignore it.

Rev. Wright isn't a guru or cult leader. He's a preacher. He preaches. The person sitting in the pew can ignore him or pay attention to what he's saying. He's not some kind of weird svengali who is controlling Obama's every move. He's one of many advisors. Obama can choose to listen to his advice, or follow someone else's, or ignore everyone and follow what he thinks is right. That's what adults do.

This is not a debate about race - it is about anger and the resulting behavior......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/20/rev-wrights-self-fulfilling-prophecy/

I agree with IBH. Did Chuck read/hear the speech??
If so how can he make this statement?
"sit silently while a pastor used blasphemy to condemn his own country"??

This looks like misrepresentation.

D.W. Van Winkle:

First, Pastor Wright has a log in his eye, not a speck. Also, God spoke to Jeremiah because he lived amongst the same kind of hypocritical religious, ungodly people that we live amongst today. Also, Jesus spoke of savage wolves coming into the church and the pulpit not sparring the flock. Revelation: it speaks to the church and the unchurched about ungodly behavior. False doctrine is in our midst each week; just turn on your television on Sunday. I read and also saw Obama's speech and although it was quite eloquent, it left me believing now that he wants his cake and eat it to. Lastly, if you read the bible, it states "we were (past tense) created in God's image until Adam came; now we are all ancestors of Adam; fallen and corrupt. Dont twist doctrine...Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Mr. Colson,

I agree totally. Everyone keeps saying: well in his speech he denounced some of Pastor Wright's comments but I choose to believe as Mr. Colson states: if you don't agree with the ranting of a blashemous, angry, pastor, why would you have stayed for 20 years.

Gee, Chuck, now let's see. With regard to homosexuals, it might be prudent to call the Southern Baptist Church a hate organization. Not only does the Church and it's members express this hatred, they also seek to deny American citizens equality under the law. Also, the book of Revelation could reasonably be construed as anti-semitic. So, why are you still part of that Church? The bigotry you endorse is not superior to the bigotry you oppose. Bigotry is bigotry.

There is no evidence worthy of the Name that Sean Hannity and Hal Turner are even business associates let alone friends.

Nice attempt at character assassination Gina. To bad the only thing on three pages of Google was one nut bar comparing falsely Hannity and Turner.

There is little doubt that Turner is every bit if not more of a hater than Obama's now retired Pastor but attempting to link Turner views with Sean Hannity's is at best ludicrous.

Gina I highly recommend that you very closely fact check anything you find at the DAily Kos, Huffington Post, Or Media Matters very thoroughly before buying it as even a near approximation of the truth

I think the point of Obama's speech, had Chuck bothered to read it, is that we need to encourage and facilitate open dialog with those whose opinions we denounce to have a full understanding of where they're coming from and to perhaps educate them (and ourselves, if necessary) on the reality of every situation (although my reality may not be yours). We need to understand the whol person, why they've come to believe what they believe - experiences shape opinion and those experiences could be racism, sexism, homophobia, abuse, etc. We also need to stop all the polarizing that continues to divide this society. We hear one thing, one word, that we don't agree with and we refuse to hear anything else. If Obama completely denounced Wright and left the church, what opportunity would that create for open dialog? None - it would further divide him from his pastor and create even more misunderstanding and hostility. Even for those politicians who may have attended a KKK meeting at some point in their past - shouldn't we at least offer them a chance to talk about why they did it and what they gained or lost by doing so? Aren't people allowed to change? Shutting people up doesn't change anything. I personally believe in holding my opinions and beliefs in an open hand, ready to re-assess those beliefs should I find that I am in error. Of course, for those who are extremists (such as Fred Phelps or perhaps even Geraldine Ferraro) who refuse to listen, the dialog will probably never be an option.

What I do know is that as long as he isnt standing in that White House with anyone by the name of Bush I am ok!

Chuck, why is it when we the people or should I say some of the people don't agree or subscribe to the aparthied system in Palestine we are been anti-Semitic. That anti-Semitic card is the joker in the deck. Our disagreement is not with people of the Jewish faith but with the policies of Israel. In America the land of the free and home of the brave, there is this gag order that seems to be in affect that if you disagree with Israel you must be anti-Semitic. Sorry, that is irrational and unfair and it saddens me that someone as smart as yourself is blinded by bias. Bombs are falling on innocent Palestinians- as well as the average Israel citizen. Land is a scarce commodity and so for Israel invites everyone from all corner of the world to immigrate to Issrael ia unfair and serve no purpose and this what is stoking the fire unrest in this area or it is part of the problem. So as far as the Reverend went, his language were in inappropriate but not the basic principle behind it. We will reap what we sow. Israel is not innocent or have clean hands. You say never again- but does that never again only apply to Jews or that a cry for all people that fear and loathing and brutally will not be accepted. The spirit of fear is loose in America-try spinning it when it runs amuck- Fear was what Hitler used in rousing the German People to hate their neighbors, their teachers and people who they work with and live next door to. Stop perpetuating fear, Fearmongering is acrime against human dignity.

It seems to me that Mr. Colson has not watched or read Senator Obama's speech.

You can't really compare accepting an endorsement to
listening to hate speech for 20 years.
What would you say if a white candidate only once in his life went a KKK meeting?

NOW THAT THE INTERNET IS BURNING-UP WITH A BRAKING NEWS ALERT: SEAN HANNITY'S BEST FRIEND IS HAL TURNER, TURNER HAS AMITTED HE IS A NEO-NAZI-SKIN HEAD AND A MEMBER OF THE AYRON NATION, A NEW REVELATION HAS TAKEN FORM IT SEEMS THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME SEAN HANNITY HAS TRIED TO BRING DOWN AFRICAN AMERICANS RUNNING FOR POLITICAL USING THE SAME OLD TRICKS: HANNITY repeatedly attacked Democratic candidate and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante as a racist for refusing to renounce his association thirty years prior with the Chicano student group MECHA.
Hannity demanded time and again that Al Gore fire his black campaign manager, Donna Brazile, for her comment that "we're not gonna let the white boys win. SOUNDS FAMILIAR? Yet Hannity remains silent about his racist affiliations,Please google Hal Turner on the internet,Turner talks about killing African Anericans Jews, And Hispanics and even speaks about a homosexual tryst and cocain use. Since you SEAN HANNITY has taken credit for the Rev.Jeremiah Wright's
storY you can give all the credit to the NEW BLACK PANTER PARTY LEADER THAT YOU WANTED TO OVER TALK THE MINUTE HE CALL YOU OUT ABOUT YOUR AFFIFIATION WITH HAL TURNER AND YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM. WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKE, OR BETTER YET DON'T THROW STONES WHEN YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE.

NOW THAT THE INTERNET IS BURNING-UP WITH A BRAKING NEWS ALERT: SEAN HANNITY'S BEST FRIEND IS HAL TURNER, TURNER HAS AMITTED HE IS A NEO-NAZI-SKIN HEAD AND A MEMBER OF THE AYRON NATION, A NEW REVELATION HAS TAKEN FORM IT SEEMS THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME SEAN HANNITY HAS TRIED TO BRING DOWN AFRICAN AMERICANS RUNNING FOR POLITICAL USING THE SAME OLD TRICKS: HANNITY repeatedly attacked Democratic candidate and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante as a racist for refusing to renounce his association thirty years prior with the Chicano student group MECHA.
Hannity demanded time and again that Al Gore fire his black campaign manager, Donna Brazile, for her comment that "we're not gonna let the white boys win. SOUNDS FAMILIAR? Yet Hannity remains silent about his racist affiliations,Please google Hal Turner on the internet,Turner talks about killing African Anericans Jews, And Hispanics and even speaks about a homosexual tryst and cocain use. Since you SEAN HANNITY has taken credit for the Rev.Jeremiah Wright's
storY you can give all the credit to the NEW BLACK PANTER PARTY LEADER THAT YOU WANTED TO OVER TALK THE MINUTE HE CALL YOU OUT ABOUT YOUR AFFIFIATION WITH HAL TURNER AND YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM. WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKE, OR BETTER YET DON'T THROW STONES WHEN YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE.

NOW THAT THE INTERNET IS BURNING-UP WITH A BRAKING NEWS ALERT: SEAN HANNITY'S BEST FRIEND IS HAL TURNER, TURNER HAS AMITTED HE IS A NEO-NAZI-SKIN HEAD AND A MEMBER OF THE AYRON NATION, A NEW REVELATION HAS TAKEN FORM IT SEEMS THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME SEAN HANNITY HAS TRIED TO BRING DOWN AFRICAN AMERICANS RUNNING FOR POLITICAL USING THE SAME OLD TRICKS: HANNITY repeatedly attacked Democratic candidate and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante as a racist for refusing to renounce his association thirty years prior with the Chicano student group MECHA.
Hannity demanded time and again that Al Gore fire his black campaign manager, Donna Brazile, for her comment that "we're not gonna let the white boys win. SOUNDS FAMILIAR? Yet Hannity remains silent about his racist affiliations,Please google Hal Turner on the internet,Turner talks about killing African Anericans Jews, And Hispanics and even speaks about a homosexual tryst and cocain use. Since you SEAN HANNITY has taken credit for the Rev.Jeremiah Wright's
storY you can give all the credit to the NEW BLACK PANTER PARTY LEADER THAT YOU WANTED TO OVER TALK THE MINUTE HE CALL YOU OUT ABOUT YOUR AFFIFIATION WITH HAL TURNER AND YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM. WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKE, OR BETTER YET DON'T THROW STONES WHEN YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE.

Has the Southern Baptist church been in the forefront of racial reconciliation? Chuck, where were you during the civil rights struggle? Where was your church during this struggle?

We are so grateful that you have extended your white hand to remove the speck from Jeremiah’s eye.

Don’t you wonder if the practitioners of American civil religion have made God into their own image instead of recognizing that all are made in God’s image?

Have you read the book of Jeremiah? The prophet Jeremiah certainly did not buy into Judaic civil religion.

What would you know about any black church? Stick to what you know.

ZERO! Ya Ya!

Two words: John McCain. He has actively sought the endorsement of notable pastors (who happen to be white) who made more extreme comments condemning their country and made extraordinary charges about natural and man-made disasters that hit their country. John McCain has exhibited the worst hypocrisy in pandering to the "agents of intolerance" he rightly criticized in 2004.