"The Best Way to Combat Christianity is...From Within"

So says the Sexy Atheist, who thinks I know something about doing this:
I believe that the best way to combat Christianity is with Christianity. John Loftus at Debunking Christianity can deconstruct Christianity from within. I do love Dawkins and Hitchens, but I think that the future, the part that will further the secular cause and put religion on the shelf with myths and books by Joseph Campbell is to destroy it from within. Link
Thanks for the encouragement! I'm doing my best.

40 comments:

C. Andiron said...

This title is more forcefully true in an alternate sense: nothing has been more successful in decimating Christianity than liberals who have infiltrated its ranks over the years. Only a few people like Paige Patterson were wise enough to see these charlatans for what they are. I have infinitely more respect for people like John, Barker, Price, etc. who at least have the decency to confront Christians honestly and openly, as opposed to the methods liberals used to take over various churches seminary by seminary, vestry by vestry.

Look at what these people have done to the Episcopal Church. UCC. Now ELCA. What is the difference in worldview between Spong and Dawkins, except Spong wears his collar backwards? I don't understand why atheists think anything more is necessary, with these sophists and charlatans decimating the flock at ever increasing rates.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

The problem with arguing from within, as the post describes, is that you require adoptions of certain doctrines to argue against. Take for example the problem of evil? John himself calls it an internal contradiction for the religious believer. But if it is, then evil must be a proof of Gods existence by this very definition. How can you say this is evil and this is not unless there is a omni-benevolent God with which to contrast? If it is not, then there must be some evil standard, or evil doctrine that the atheist has in his pocket? But rarely do atheists try and define evil, if at all. John fails to do so in his book and in subsequent posts. I suggest atheists generally cannot define evil. Consequently arguing from within tends to be a rhetorical word game where some doctrines are taken and used against others. This simply is not effective, just smoke and lights.

Phil.

Mike D said...

Honestly, I think the best way to persuade believers is simply to encourage them to think for themselves. When you have the opportunity for discussion, raise the issues of fallacies and such, but do it with an understanding that most of us ex-believers are atheists because we had the balls to question everything and think for ourselves, not because we found a new crowd to follow.

godlizard (aka dotlizard) said...

@Mike D -- exactly. It's all about asking the right questions, and not threatening their faith - merely opening up the possibilities of critical thought.

It helps to have a good knowledge of the Bible and be able to discuss it, because the best way to refute a biblical passage is with a contradictory one. Fortunately, that's not particularly hard to do :)

tinkbell13 said...

There is also another element to it, and it is one of the most basic aspects out there that seems to always be overlooked.

Many people do not place the Bible, what has been canonized within it, and the mythology that was personalized within the scriptures within the proper historical context. The Bible is a highly political document that clearly reflects the various ideologies of the time that it was created.

To Reverend Phillip Brown- I know that it is easy for you to generalize, because clearly you have a very unique intellectual pipeline that allows you to understand what all atheists can and cannot define. Evil is pretty easy, isnt it? How about Nazi Germany, George W Bush, Benny Hinn? Getting a rough idea?

Laurel said...

C Andiron - "This title is more forcefully true in an alternate sense: nothing has been more successful in decimating Christianity than liberals who have infiltrated its ranks over the years. Only a few people like Paige Patterson were wise enough to see these charlatans for what they are. I have infinitely more respect for people like John, Barker, Price, etc. who at least have the decency to confront Christians honestly and openly, as opposed to the methods liberals used to take over various churches seminary by seminary, vestry by vestry."

Infiltrated? Charlatans? You write as though you believe liberals stealthily sneak in from outside the Church to take it over. That would be a silly waste of time and energy. Liberal Christianity and non-theism arise and develop from the failure of orthodoxy to make sense and convince those in the modern day who question doctrine and who aren't content with glib platitudes and limp attributions to "mystery."

Mike D said...

I should add too that the overwhelming majority of Christians are not armchair apologists. A healthy chunk of them, even some of the more devoted ones, have no idea what kind of sick stuff is in the Bible.

Not only that, but a lot of them - most of them, I think - just haven't really pondered the logic or sheer absurdity of what they believe.

But nonetheless, people are usually indoctrinated at an early age and have both a strong confirmation bias and sociocultural attachments that are difficult to penetrate with reason.

ZDENNY said...

How do you destroy something that is known through faith?

Christians know love because they know the love of God.

The godless offer the world a fickle love based on a feeling. They have a good feeling and call it love.

Christianity on the other hand does not depend on fickle feelings; rather, we know love itself.

John's attempts to destroy love itself is a pursuit done in vain. While John blogs and wins one convert, a thousand people place their faith in Jesus Christ during that same period of time.

John is only digging a very small hole in this world which will turn into his own grave someday.

kriss the sexy atheist said...

If "mere Christians" knew more about their own religion then we would not present them like caricatures. It seems like the New Atheist(& agnostics), John, Erhman, Price, Avalos, Carrier, etc..are doing the job of the top apologist which is educating. thanks John.

Kriss

Anthony said...

Zdenny: While John blogs and wins one convert, a thousand people place their faith in Jesus Christ during that same period of time.

There is a substantial difference in the type of convert. In John's case he won the convert through reason. The largest majority of the Christian converts are due to culture, emotion, and other factors, reason usually not being one.

The godless offer the world a fickle love based on a feeling. They have a good feeling and call it love.

Christianity on the other hand does not depend on fickle feelings; rather, we know love itself.


This is just preaching with no substantial argument to justify your conclusions. We are not interested in your theology of love.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

It was written: "s to destroy it from within. LinkThanks for the encouragement! "

Ah, yes - the symptoms of cynicism - to destroy that which offends oneself - not a truly unique approach. Try considering something outside the "fight" or "flight" instinctual reaction and see what happens - maybe "loving the enemy"???????? Nah, probably not.

BTW, Jesus already admonished ppl who abuse religious authority so your views and cynicism are nothing new- these issues, including that of the outsider tests (Jesus indicated His followers would be gathered from all nations) and slavery issues (Jesus came to set captive humanity free) have already been addressed in the gospel. But, of course, you reject such, so the best of luck to you!
3M

Laurel said...

ZDENNY said...
"How do you destroy something that is known through faith?

Christians know love because they know the love of God.

The godless offer the world a fickle love based on a feeling. They have a good feeling and call it love.

Christianity on the other hand does not depend on fickle feelings; rather, we know love itself."


LAUREL - If you "know love itself" you're no longer in the realm of faith and belief, but in the realm of knowledge. Unfortunately, you aren't in the realm of knowledge, but in the realm of faith and belief.


ZDENNY - "John's attempts to destroy love itself is a pursuit done in vain. While John blogs and wins one convert, a thousand people place their faith in Jesus Christ during that same period of time."


LAUREL - John isn't trying to destroy love. It's a Christian conceit that one can love and knows love only if one believes in the Christian "God." People can be led to believe many such things, but belief doesn't make such things true.


ZDENNY - "John is only digging a very small hole in this world which will turn into his own grave someday."

LAUREL - Wielding the threat of death as an argument to disparage unbelief is an admission that one's "love" argument has failed through its own lack of merit.

Lynn said...

I know there are things about me that helped de-convert me. I cannot figure out how people unlike me would de-convert. Maybe someone could help.

What personality traits or life experiences or something keep people believing and vica/versa (sp?)??

For example-I'm a critic and a reader.

Lynn said...

Laurel,

I especially love your last statement.

Brad said...

Mike D,
You say that the best way to persuade believers is simply to encourage them to think for themselves. Would this be the best defense against Christianity? Because, atheists may seem to rest upon the notion of thinking and reasoning for themselves but then they quote and side with people such as Richard Dawkins. Isn’t this contradicting this argument? Christians, in most denominations are encouraged to read for themselves, question, and study, learn, and apply the Bible. There is much reasoning and thinking that goes along with being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Being an atheist just isn’t going to change the truth. I pray that you will continue to search for the truth and find it.

Steven said...

Christians, in most denominations are encouraged to read for themselves, question, and study, learn, and apply the Bible. There is much reasoning and thinking that goes along with being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.

Brad, while I won't deny your claim, and I'll even admit that some denominations due encourage their followers to think for themselves, this encouragement is always done with the presupposition that their beliefs are already true, especially with regard to the existence of their deity. In other words, you are thinking inside a carefully constructed box that keeps you from examining anything that might lie outside of it very closely. It's pretty ironic for you to tell an atheist that you hope they will find the truth when most christains automatically exclude the possibility that their conception of god might be totally wrong, while insisting that they know the truth.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Laurel wrote:"Wielding the threat of death as an argument to disparage unbelief is an admission that one's "love" argument has failed through its own lack of merit."

Ummm, a little reality check, but the acknowledgement of death isn't a threat to be wielded - our physical bodies actually do die. Just didn't want you to lose your argument for disbelief due to lack of merit - ciao!

Laurel said...

An earlier response I made to MMM hasn't been posted, so I'm offering another.

MMM wrote: "Ummm, a little reality check, but the acknowledgement of death isn't a threat to be wielded - our physical bodies actually do die. Just didn't want you to lose your argument for disbelief due to lack of merit - ciao!"

Yes, we all inescapably die, but true believers, believing in heaven and hell, use death as an end-point threat when evangelizing the so-called unsaved, i.e., "Do you want to risk dying without accepting Jesus and live in torment in hell for eternity?" As I see it, such foundational premises and evangelistic threats have nothing to do with a loving god, or with love itself.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Laurel- Acknowledging the truth is not the same thing as using it as a threat. Acknowledging the existence of something bad can be perceived as a threat - I realize that. It can also be an act of love to intervene upon actions that one recognizes as destructive towards onesself or another. Religious ppl can be infected with moral conceit which does, seek to use intimidation to subjugate followers. In contrast, faith, seeks to connect with a free spirit.

Also, I just wanted to add, that arguments substantiated by merit are not the same thing as extending grace, which is not based upon merit.

The best to you, Laurel!

3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Also, just for the record, I cannot find where Jesus ever "proved" Himself - in fact, He did not cooperate with cruel and demanding ppl in their attempt to corrupt His nature. Rather than "proving" Himself, He revealed Himself, and how ppl responded showed a great deal about the conditions of their heart preference in dealing with human vulnerability.

Laurel said...

MMM wrote:

"Hi Laurel- Acknowledging the truth is not the same thing as using it as a threat."

As I see it, the existence of reward in heaven and punishment in hell after death aren't established truths, but concepts of religious faith.


MMM wrote:

"Acknowledging the existence of something bad can be perceived as a threat - I realize that. It can also be an act of love to intervene upon actions that one recognizes as destructive towards onesself or another. Religious ppl can be infected with moral conceit which does, seek to use intimidation to subjugate followers. In contrast, faith, seeks to connect with a free spirit."

As I see it, the very concept of reward in heaven and threat of hell is coercive and terrorist, and as I see it, is no part of love at all but is a human concept of authoritarian power projected onto an imagined being in the sky and euphemistically described as "love."

[quote]Also, I just wanted to add, that arguments substantiated by merit are not the same thing as extending grace, which is not based upon merit. - MMM[/quote]

As I see it, the concept of grace in the context of religious faith is rooted in a concept of capricious authoritarian power.

MMM wrote:

"The best to you, Laurel!"

And to you, MMM.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Laurel - You wrote:"As I see it, the concept of grace in the context of religious faith is rooted in a concept of capricious authoritarian power."

I too shared this viewpoint, never realizing that it came from a very compelling and habitual form of relationship that I experienced fristhand in my own life. It is true that we do not know where the spirit comes or where it goes - but now, gradually by faith, and trust, I no longer need to know because I understand the purpose of a free loving entity. The "need to know" used to be a symptom I exhibited out of a deep seated insecurity never being able to grasp that God loved me even when I was insecure and demanding and angry. Also, as a former atheist, I shared in many of your perspectives and I could no longer believe in a god that was cruel and subjugative.

What I was blind to was that I could not "see" the gospel because my perspective was corrupted by my experience/relationship with human authority. This is why Jesus says that He does not condemn. That can be a problem for those who harbor an unarticulated desire to punish and condemn those who have hurt them.

The gospel offended my pride and conceit and I am forever grateful to be set free!

Laurel said...

MMM: You have your reasons for becoming a theist. I have mine for---after many difficult decades trying to hang onto it by increasingly flimsy threads ---finally rejecting theism. I found it endlessly untruthful, with one unbelievable precept piled upon the next one, on and on and on. As I see it, Christianity offers a cure for a disease it created. The positing of an inescapable need for salvation, set up a need for a savior. Take away the premise of a need for salvation, and there's no need for a savior---or any of the rest of it.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Laurel - thanks for conversing here - I appreciate your writing.

At any rate, I believe human helplessness is a pivotal and identifying factor in human life. What happens to us when we are helpless? Ppl tend to loathe or enable various forms of weakness and become abusive and exploitive towards such. We can be trained to hold our vulnerabilities in contempt and the resulting coping mechanisms to avoid or eliminate weakness can create a lifetime of dysfunction and more!.

Previously, in another comment, you articulated the purpose of salvation so accurately - Jesus came to save ppl from the vision/projection of an all-powerful entity that abuses power over helpless ppl. Jesus portrayed a God who not only desired to serve ppl, but demonstrated sacrificial love for mankind (rather than us sacrificing/appeasing a demanding and angry god). He portrayed a God Who is not offended or intimidated by all our various degrees of human infected nature.


At any rate, thanks once again Laurel,
3M

Laurel said...

MMM wrote: Jesus came to save ppl from the vision/projection of an all-powerful entity that abuses power over helpless ppl. Jesus portrayed a God who not only desired to serve ppl, but demonstrated sacrificial love for mankind (rather than us sacrificing/appeasing a demanding and angry god).

I don't mean to be cantankerous, MMM, but seriously, if people 1. hadn't been and weren't superstitious in the first place, and 2. hadn't been taught to believe in a demanding, judging, and angry all-powerful God in the second place, there wouldn't be or at least might not be such a projection. Christianity as you describe it seeks to cure a disease it caused by its doctrines: "You're diseased and failed creations who deserve to be utterly destroyed, BUT God will magnanimously provide you with a savior to save you from the destruction you rightly deserve, and if you believe in the authority of the Church and the salvific powers of Jesus, and pay homage to him through worship, and in obedience and allegience to the Church, you, miserable sinners, can get a free pass."

MMM wrote:He portrayed a God Who is not offended or intimidated by all our various degrees of human infected nature.

"Human infected nature, MMM? " That sounds like just another way of talking about Original Sin and the need for a savior to save us poor "infected" creatures from the wrath of "God."

:)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again, Laurel--- you wrote this: "Christianity as you describe it seeks to cure a disease it caused by its doctrines: "You're diseased and failed creations who deserve to be utterly destroyed,"

A corruption of the gospel message -- in this you demonstrate a denial of the existence of antagonistic forces, something that is very real throughout the history of mankind. How about this revision of what you wrote--- "You're suffering and led astray-well loved creations who are well loved".

Then you continue: " BUT God will magnanimously provide you with a savior to save you from the destruction you rightly deserve,"

Another corruption of the gospel. Here, try this: "But God has prepared a Way to save you from blindly cooperating with the destruction that seeks to devour you".

And you wrote more: " and if you believe in the authority of the Church and the salvific powers of Jesus,"

Another corruption --- here it is for real, "and if you trust Me, I'd like to invite you to dinner and adopt you into my family - We'll enjoy each other's company - hey, BTW, invite some more ppl to come along! love, God".

Oh, and then you wrote, "and pay homage to him through worship, and in obedience and allegience to the Church,"

Wow! You really got a dose of the seed of the Pharisees girl! Especially that "allegiance to the church" bit! This is more like it, "Let's celebrate and when you magnify me I will bring you with me to the level you can tolerate - hang on tight,it can seem scary at first..I will give you a spirit of love to inspire fellowship and friends worth dying for."

And finally - you said this: "miserable sinners, can get a free pass." Wasn't too sure what you were saying there, but although God's love is freely offered, overcoming the fear of connection with a powerful authority requires giving up our old defense mechanisms. This latter part is not "a free ride",but it is a more than worthwhile pursuit. Shedding cynicism is akin to going to the dentist - good, but painful.

Another thing, cynicism doesn't come from God, but instead, through ppl infected with pride and the unveiled wounds collect around our perspective and approach to ourselves and others.

Yes, there are the religious who abuse their authority - again, Jesus already alerted ppl to that hazard. Why didn't you trust Him when it sounds as though you have experienced this firsthand??

But, take away religion and you will still have secular abuses of power, unrestrained, and whoever is the most empowered will set the standards for acceptance for everyone else -- abuse of power is a symptom of pride, whether it occurs within the secular or religious communities. It won' go away unless humanity goes away (Jesus said there will always be war - there will always be poverty) To me, pride is the original sin - but original sin is a qualifier, it sets an equal ground for all ppl to receive God's grace. No one is superior or inferior in their need for it.

If ppl are not allowed to develop a heartfelt preference for light or dark, then there is no grace. Grace allows for the existence of dissension/enmity. I'll take grace, thanks.

Good evening,
3M

Laurel said...

3M, you've obviously extracted from the NT a personal gospel that you find comfortable and empowering, but you seem to be in denial about what's contained in Christian doctrine---but thank you for your engagement in this exchange.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Laurel - Doctrine is one thing- getting set free to become like a little child is more in keeping with the gospel -- :-)

Take care Laurel,
3M

Laurel said...

3M wrote: Hi Laurel - Doctrine is one thing- getting set free to become like a little child is more in keeping with the gospel -- :-)

Christianity is doctrine, 3M. The "gospel" is whatever one sorts through the NT and chooses it to be---as you have done. For example, I know an evangelical believer who argues that the Jesus of the Sermon On The Mount is wimpy, and that the violence of Jesus chasing the moneychangers out of the Temple is what it takes to make him a "man's man" worthy of worship as the Son of God. I know other believers who similarly argue that the gospels depict Jesus as a warrior and that the loving Jesus meek and mild who just "teaches people to be kind to one another" stories are irrelevant to the gospel of salvation from hell by means of the death by torture of Jesus on the cross. The US military is well-supplied with believers who see Jesus as a warrior---an idea they've extracted from their reading of "the gospel."

As for becoming like a child as Jesus is said to have advised, the Bible also teaches that when one becomes an adult, one puts away childish things. The thing is, 3M, the Bible is a book and from that book, people extract different conclusions---and each believer supposes his conclusion is the right one. The Bible then is to some extent like a phone book from which one takes the phone number he wants and leaves the rest.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again Laurel - you wrote this: "The thing is, 3M, the Bible is a book and from that book, people extract different conclusion"

You have correctly observed the truth of human nature --- that is why Jesus described faith in terms of spiritual birth and connection into this family for the purpose of become human hearted.

I don't know if you're aware of the time that is told in scripture where Jesus stood amongst a crowd of ppl and asked who they thought He was. Did you notice that He got a lot of different personifications projected upon Him? Just like today, huh? I like how the truth travels with us throughout history. Anyway, His response was not to chastise or hold the ppl who were incorrect in contempt, but rather, the one who correctly identified Him would be elected to form a foundation for a church.

Oh, and about childish ways --- I seek to maintain spontaneous innocence coupled with wisdom, having set aside willfulness, tantrums and ad hominem attacks.

May the force be with you,
3M

Laurel said...

MMM: Given that believers often if not always attribute unbelief to personal flaws of one sort or another in the unbeliever, ad hominem attacks---veiled or overt---seem to go with the territory.

Cheers.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Laurel, you noted this, "MMM: Given that believers often if not always attribute unbelief to personal flaws of one sort or another in the unbeliever, ad hominem attacks---veiled or overt---seem to go with the territory.

Cheers."

Seems pretty accurate to me - but it fits both sides of the fence if you ask me.

Also, mind if I ask you a quesion (no pressure to respond); but what is so far fetched about believing that a God exists that thinks you are loveable?? jw...

Bye for now,
3M

Laurel said...

MMM wrote: Seems pretty accurate to me - but it fits both sides of the fence if you ask me.

Surely not among those who have become as a child and set them aside!

Also, mind if I ask you a quesion (no pressure to respond); but what is so far fetched about believing that a God exists that thinks you are loveable?? - 3M

As a means of self-help, such a belief is at least understandable and even empowering. Promoted as actual fact, the idea far too often is propped up by thin rationalizations, convoluted excuses, and, all too often in the face of awful events, appeals to "mystery" and "God's greater wisdom."

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again, Laurel -- You said, "Promoted as actual fact, the idea far too often is propped up by thin rationalizations, convoluted excuses, and, all too often in the face of awful events, appeals to "mystery" and "God's greater wisdom."

Just to clarify, but when you say the idea is propped up by thin rationalizations, etc. etc., are you talking about ppl requiring excuses to express Godly love towards one another or propping to withhold love??? jw again....

Laurel said...

MMM wrote: Just to clarify, but when you say the idea is propped up by thin rationalizations, etc. etc., are you talking about ppl requiring excuses to express Godly love towards one another or propping to withhold love???

I'm talking about the tortured explanations believers engage in in the face of evidence to the contrary in order to convince and reassure themselves and others that there's an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving personal God who finds them lovable. For example, I'm pretty sure the man I read about in the paper yesterday whose daughter was tortured to death believes that "God" loved/loves her. He'll undoubtedly hear many reassurances from fellow believers in coming days and weeks and months about "God's love" for his daughter, but it takes "faith" to keep that belief alive, not reason.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Laurel,

Ah, the old POE raises it's head once again. As I've written somewhere around here before, labeling evil a problem is a bit redundant and has nothing to do with a God Who fully acknowledged the truth of it.

Let me ask you this --- as we witness evil such as this incident you reference, do you believe you are viewing the root of it? What I mean to point out is this --- most ppl who commit horrendous crimes are raised in abusive, horrendous conditions themselves. But, where was the outrage, the raised offense and the intervention for this person?? On a very personal and very real everyday level, I have witnessed malevolent gossips (both religious ppl as well as secular) marginalize and isolate their victims and keep them starved of the kindness and caring that could potentially lead them out of dangerous involvements. It is common for Ppl to justify marginalizing others in cruel ways because they lack the courage and the faith to reach out at a basically kind level. Who of these ppl that are marginalized are,in turn, justifying the contempt that has been spread to them??

So, Jesus advised of this very real everyday cycle - He didn't lie about it or make a promise that nothing evil would ever happen. And so, ppl complain and make the issue into a debatable topic to assuage their own impotence in responding to everyday evils. God offered deliverance - we ought to take Him up on it. And He isn't hypocritical - He told us to love our enemies, because He has already done so. So yes, God loves all ppl, BUT not all ppl know and love Him in return. The symptoms of evil show up in insidious ways and sometimes in sensational, horrific ways.

So it is that the problem of evil, for us, is twofold --that we blindly cooperate and perpetuate the cycle, and that we have a problem with God's grace. Our definition of evil is usually reserved for the sensational but God sees it more completely.

We have, at any given time, the opportunity to take God up on His offer to share in His work to intervene and offer a way out of evil, especially if we recognize the seeds of it.

Bye, Laurel,
3M

Laurel said...

3M wrote: So it is that the problem of evil, for us, is twofold --that we blindly cooperate and perpetuate the cycle, and that we have a problem with God's grace. Our definition of evil is usually reserved for the sensational but God sees it more completely.

We have, at any given time, the opportunity to take God up on His offer to share in His work to intervene and offer a way out of evil, especially if we recognize the seeds of it.


One doesn't have to be a believer in order to work to try to overcome the ill-effects that can and do easily eventuate in the process of living a human life.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again,Laurel, you said, "One doesn't have to be a believer in order to work to try to overcome the ill-effects that can and do easily eventuate in the process of living a human life."

It is true --- as a nonbeliever, I was able to do good deeds, but with a set of rules and regulations that were part and parcel of my own limitations and expectations. And in the process, I was condescending and conceited without even realizing it - in comparison to what I now know, my perspective of my contributions to society were way overestimated!

If God were only concerned about deeds, then we certainly do earn His approval with our deeds. And I do believe He does give us credit for good deeds --- but I have discovered that it is a cruel blindness that provokes someone to pursue approval that has already been offered freely.

God's Way is to infuse us with the truth that He actually loves us - actually doesn't require that we earn His approval or work our way out of shame and condemnation. Faithful love is an invitation, an inheritance, an expression - not an earning or a conditional requirement. Those are human projections and human requirements. But we are loved, even when we are attacking, rejecting or holding God in contempt. His grace is antithetical to the nature of fight or flight.

Okay, that's all for now,
3M

Brian said...

@Reverend Phillip Brown

"How can you say this is evil and this is not unless there is a omni-benevolent God with which to contrast?"

How does a god help? Either he is communicating what is moral to us, or defining it as his will. If he is communicating, then he is not needed for morality. If morality is being defined as "what a/the god says," that's pretty useless.

"...there must be some evil standard, or evil doctrine that the atheist has in his pocket? But rarely do atheists try and define evil."

You're confusing a proposition's needing the existence of something with the ability of its proponent to produce it. The atheist does not need to claim any knowledge of what evil *is* to disprove the necessity of divine morality, even if you had proven the existence of morality. He only needs to show that there *can be* some evil without a god, not that he knows what it is.

@Tinkbell13

"Evil is pretty easy, isnt it? How about Nazi Germany, George W Bush, Benny Hinn?"

How about people who make disgusting moral equivalencies? Like you?

jay said...

when we are looking at good religion and bad religion we should put christianity and islam in one side .and hinduism and and budism and jainism and sikism on the otherside. now we should ask questions like which religion use force to convert . answer is this this and that etc