I agree. God could have had parrots spread the gospel to every creature, but instead he gave us a responsibility. We are not mechanical megaphones that just give the gospel in a monotone so as not to add any inflection or passion with which to falsely manipulate a lost sinner.

We are the redeemed and we must communicate the gospel message with passion and with wisdom, even contouring our presentation (to a point) to accommodate a more effective method against the backdrop of culture, education, and religious environment.

The ornaments can be rearranged, but the tree itself must never be hiddened or changed. What Chris P. is advocating is a self righteous system generally called “Calvinism” which suggests that God directs which soul will be saved, and yet these doctrinal seers never miss a chance to suggest who is and who is not saved.

Why does it irk them when sinners believe they are saved and are not? If God has chosen them He will save them, and if not let them have some false joy and security. And when they scream about a watered down gospel that is man centered, what damage does that do to God’s desire and plan? Nothing if Calvin was correct.

But if Calvin was not correct, then the self righteousness and caustic way that some Calvinists project will one day in eternity be revealed as a stumblingblock to many who MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVED.

The one thing I will say about beach evangelism and the more “in your face” methodologies is this. Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. It seems to me that all of these methods have been used for the last 40 years or so and from my perspective the fruit of such things hasn’t matched the energy and financial input given to them. So perhaps I’m just cynical, but I don’t see it as the best way to communicate to 21st century Americans.

I also don’t know what Peter Rollins has to do with any of this.

Methodology without love is not the Gospel.

Here is an example

It is sad when the “sinner” shows more love for others than the pastor.

Note the logic from the pastor… where have you all heard this sort of logic before?

This pastor’s method is not of love… not of God… and is spreading a gospel of hate and fear through judgmentalism and condemnation…

And this is what I hear the ODM’s doing… maybe a milder form of it… but deep down it is all the same hate based gospel.

If discernment is not tempered by love for others it is not godly discernment… it is just judgmentalism and condemnation.

In 1985 I pastored a Southern Baptist church. We held a “Conga Day”. I derssed up in a gorilla suit and we advertised “gonga the mighty gorrilla; he is fierce but he loves children. Free hot dogs for all children”.

A church that had averaged 80 in Sunday School had a Sunday School attendence of 386 that day. During the next year we were able to visit all the families that had sent their children on our busses and I baptized scores of them.

Jesus gave out fish sandwiches.

God can work his Grace into the best of presentations as well as the worst of presentations. I’m proof of the latter.

Every single gospel presentation is flawed and incomplete – hence, the ministry of the Spirit.

Halftime

Notre Dame 28
Nevada 0

(God is still on the throne!)

Boring for the emergents and infidels!!

I wonder at this comment:

it also makes it sound like the current rejection of the Gospel is qualitatively different than rejection of the Gospel in any other time…which just isn’t the case.

The past century or so has seen such an exponential increase in our empirical understanding of the universe we live in, and if we look at the demographics, we see that those nations with the most education, the highest life expectancies, the greatest role in scientific advancements, are becoming less and less religious every year. In fact, Western Europe has been referred to as the world’s first “post-Christian” society. So it would seem to follow that “rejection of the gospel,” as you put it, would be happening, more and more, as a result of people examining the evidence (or lack thereof) and rejecting Christianity (or any other faith) on that basis. Likewise, the areas experiencing the greatest growth in religiosity are those with the least access to education, economic stability, etc. (Exhibit A: the fact that bishops in Africa are suddenly a powerful bloc in the frickin’ Church of England!) Sure, there have always been atheists/agnostics, but not to the degree there are today. Even among many who claim a religious affiliation, there are groups/individuals cropping up who may align themselves with the ethics of that particular faith, while rejecting the supernatural aspects, a la Thomas Jefferson. Also notable is that it’s becoming extremely common for young adults to abandon the faith in which they were raised, once they get out on their own. (And I would hesitate to blame “liberal perfessers” on this, as opposition to higher education and the powers of critical thinking makes one look….well…ignorant.)

So I would suggest that, among those in the greatest need of hope (or medicine, or microfinance loans, etc.) the successes of evangelizing probably haven’t changed and probably won’t. But I would think that as the developed world becomes more connected, the face of religion and its role in peoples’ lives is changing indeed.

Isn’t part of cummication being consistent? Then why does Ingrid refer to President Obama as a murderer because he is pro-choice, yet she links to an article by Charles Krauthammer who she claims is “brilliant”.

Mr. Krauthammer has always been pro-choice. I guess hatred for Obama makes strange bedfellows.

There are two colossal hinderances to the gospel and idols of religious people:

* Nationalism

* Moralism

Many adherents to those constructs are murderers according to Jesus.

Answer not a …oh, never mind.

Notre Dame 35
Nevada 0

Can you not read the signs of the times?

Neil – Hatred cannot discern hatred, it usually finds much common ground.

Neil, I’d be interested in seeing it. But it would be interesting to know exactly when the essay was written, since he died 45 years ago, and knowledge is more accessible now, because of these here interwebs, than it ever has been. He didn’t live to see us exploring the vast universe with high powered telescopes, which, while awe-inspiring, also for many people serves to take the mystical aspect out of “the heavens,” to cite just one example.

What we’re probably going to see is that Christianity will lose more and more members in the United States, among the middle and upper classes. It’s already happening. We’re just a couple of decades behind Europe in following this trend. Likewise, areas of the world that do not have access, again, to education or economic mobility, will continue to intensify in religiosity, whether Christian, Muslim, or something else. It’s interesting to note that, though the state of Israel was established as a Jewish state, it’s moreso culturally. There are religious Israelis, obviously, but only 65% of Israeli Jews believe in God, and almost half of Israeli Jews consider themselves completely secular. Why? Israel is an extremely wealthy, cosmopolitan nation. This is part of the reason it’s so annoying to see politicians in Israel acting like their settlement activity is their birthright. At least half of Israeli citizens are decidedly against the settlement activity and want to make peace with Palestinians.

Only 52% of EU citizens believe in God. 47% of French citizens are agnostic. In fact, there’s a Gallup poll chart on Wikipedia that shows just how many Europeans consider religion to be an important part of their lives. 71% of UK citizens said no. 83% of Swedes said no. The only place it’s growing is Eastern Europe, which, again, isn’t prosperous like Western Europe.

So…like I said, I’m interested in seeing what C.S. Lewis had to say, but my instinct says that when he wrote it, he would never have imagined how much the world would/could change in the 45 years after his death.

Evan – I am pretty sure many American evangelical churches are full of professing Christians and practicing atheists who are committed to a set of moral tenants yet not committed to Christ.

In my opinion, the Europeans are just more honest.

Without “religious beliefs” there is no philosophical basis for moral standards or beliefs. All moral and ethical mores are derived from environmental realities.

Who said stealing is wrong? If there is no moral absolute derived from the Creator than the “do not steal” commandment came from a rich guy who desired to protect his stuff.

The shortcomings and errors of religions still do not address the foundational basis for morality. Causing others harm in some tribes is considered courage, and eating your enemies has been applauded. In American culture one is considered blessed when his bank accounts are overflowing, even when children around the world are starving and in need of medical attention.

Without a written revelation, taken by faith to be sure, there is no moral reference with which to use as a template. Even your accurate ascertion that societies ruled by religious leaders have fallen quite short of compassionate including bloodshed and cruelty. However with what empirical and absolute measuring stick are you suggesting that bloodshed and cruelty are wrong? In fact, from where, except experience and opinion, do you derive the principle “wrong”?

In short, all “wrongs and rights” are subjective opinions without any absolute directive resource. But you are completely correct if you are ascerting that man has misused religion, specifically Christianity, and has paraded some bastardized verisons that are mostly self aggrandizing and self righteous projections of the worst inherent elements of our fallen nature. Just do a short tour of the blog universe and you will find all the evidence you will need.

You may begin with a verbal spittoon named crosstalk which is all talk and no cross. Isn’t that false advertising??

Although I believe that each man has a free will and can open his heart to the gospel, only the Holy Spirit can guide a sinner to Christ and regenearte his soul. Religion is a deadly counterfeit.

Not true. You mention Hitler and Stalin. Both atheists for all intents and purposes.
The 20th century was the most murderous since creation.
Hitler – atheist (11 million murdered)
Stalin – atheist (arguably 20 million murdered)
Mao – atheist (50-70 million murdered)

The answer to this is a little bit more complex.

Far too often Christians fight against not “atheism” specifically, but a caricature of “atheism” instead, that doesn’t exist. Further they assume that “atheism” is a religious faith just like any other. This is false. Yet further, they assume that “atheism” was what motivated leaders like Hitler and Stalin.

We should separate Hitler into his own group, since Hitler’s movement decidedly built upon the longstanding persecution of Jews at the hands of Christianity. Anti-semitism is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a direct product of Christianity and Islam (more importantly, Christianity, in this instance). You have to remember that throughout Europe, for CENTURIES, Jews were accused of blood libel, host desecration, etc. (This is of course, in terms of its pure stupidity, probably the most embarrassing thing in human history.) What more or less happened is that movements like those of Stalin and Hitler, though non-religious in nature, were the INHERITORS of centuries of explicitly religious anti-Semitism.

The other problem with trying to pin the reigns of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., on “atheism” is this. Christians misunderstand the battle between atheists and Christians. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. Nothing! It has everything to do with making moral and ethical decisions (and political, and so on) based on REASON, rather than on the dictates of religion. The fact that those leaders were not believers is merely a characteristic they shared, but it doesn’t imply causality, whereas the causality between religion and explicitly religious bloodshed is obvious. (I would also argue that three exceptions to a rule over the course of human history does not a pattern make.)

Now, what DID motivate Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Strangely enough, it was just a different sort of religion. Totalitarian regimes require a certain kind of loyalty…a *religious* loyalty. They may not deal with the supernatural, but it’s religion, just the same. And these kinds of movements are *decidedly* opposed to reason, which makes them the natural enemy of the atheist, as well:

Sam Harris:

“At the heart of every totalitarian enterprise, one sees outlandish dogmas, poorly arranged, but working ineluctably like gears in some ludicrous instrument of death. Nazism evolved out of a variety of economic and political factors, of course, but it was held together by a belief in the racial purity and superiority. . . . While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominately secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, religious Germans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretic and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful.”

I could go on, but you get the idea. It’s worth mentioning that the church was complicit in many of the actions carried out by the Third Reich.

Harris again, on Stalin and Mao:

“Consider the millions of people who were killed by Stalin and Mao: although these tyrants paid lip service to rationality, communism was little more than a political religion At the heart of its apparatus of repression and terror lurked a rigid ideology, to which generations of men and women were sacrificed. Even though their beliefs did no reach beyond this world, they were both cultic and irrational.”

So, as we see, it’s at best sloppy to try to score a point against the faithless by asserting that “Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were atheists,” and at worst, it’s fundamentally dishonest, and a really awful straw man argument as well. In order to believe such, one must be in fundamental denial about who atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers really are.

The shortcomings and errors of religions still do not address the foundational basis for morality. Causing others harm in some tribes is considered courage, and eating your enemies has been applauded. In American culture one is considered blessed when his bank accounts are overflowing, even when children around the world are starving and in need of medical attention.
Without a written revelation, taken by faith to be sure, there is no moral reference with which to use as a template.

No, but I addressed that before. If a person doesn’t have a sense that cruelty is wrong without consulting a Bible, they have PROBLEMS. Perhaps, though, the greatest retort to the idea of morality coming from religion is that our conception of morality and ethics are still EVOLVING, and many of the old ideas and punishments to be found in religious books are now overlooked as needlessly cruel and, indeed, immoral.

This isn’t an argument for relativism, by the way. Relativism doesn’t work, and most atheists and agnostics are NOT relativists, despite the caricature the church paints of nonbelievers. Atheists and agnostics tend to view morality as something very human, and advocate an ethical framework that, at its most basic form, makes decisions based on the happiness or suffering one’s actions would bring to other sentient beings. And again, we advocate using REASON to arrive at such decisions, rather than using religious texts as crutches (especially when those religious texts are chock full of precepts that we, societally, have thrown out precisely because our morality and understanding of the world has evolved beyond them).

” If a person doesn’t have a sense that cruelty is wrong without consulting a Bible, they have PROBLEMS.”

According to whom? That is just your opinion, and in fact how do you subjectively define “cruelty”? Overeating while others starve? Spending inordinate amounts of money on entertainment while children suffer? Piling up money in retirement accounts while that money could help untold millions?

That is cruelty, however without a moral absolute it is , again, opinion.

I don’t believe in atheists.

Well, I’ll say this much…at least they were able to hold Nevada to a cool -0- unlike the losers from Columbus who managed to give up a cool 27 to Navy and win by a whole 4 points.

At least Ohio State makes it interesting…but we have to redefine interesting to make it fit the definition of ‘mind-boggling,’ ‘infarction inducing,’ or ‘waste of my time on Saturdays.’

ugh….

you and i may have “faith”, but we still practice a religion…

you go to church, you have practices associated with that grouping of people…

the continued engagement with those practices is your practice of “religion”.

it’s not a dirty word, it’s just a description of reality.

To quote Rick:

Here is a fine example of human idolatry.

The quote from Harris concerning Christians and Jews in Germany is not well thought out nor is it reasonably written. At best it is hyperbole, and at worst just wrong. If it is too easy for christians to blame atheists for all the ill in the world, it is equally too easy for atheists to blame christians for atheism, genocide, etc.

So, Jerry, are you suggesting that Christians throughout Europe in the centuries before the rise of the Third Reich weren’t anti-Semitic as a matter of practice? Surely you’re not suggesting that.

So, Jerry, are you suggesting that Christians throughout Europe in the centuries before the rise of the Third Reich weren’t anti-Semitic as a matter of practice? Surely you’re not suggesting that.

No, I’m suggesting that it’s too easy to make generalizations about the Christians throughout Europe before the third Reich just as it is too easy to make generalizations about atheists after the third reich.

But Rick is right. It proves very little. All of us are atheistic at some level or another but that doesn’t mean that all of us are responsible for the third reich or the atrocities of the third reich. it surely doesn’t mean that the illiterate peasant out of power bears the same guilt as the priest or president in power.

Harris makes statements about what he knows of those ‘christians’ who were in power during those days–the ones about whom the history is written. he is not making statements about the christian peasants who were not in power–the ones who never wrote books, killed people, or anything else.

All i’m saying is that playing the juvenile game of pointing fingers, as Harris and his kind are fond of doing, as ADM’s and their kind are fond of doing, is meaningless. Assigning blame is only a way of redirecting our attention to someone else so that we can avoid the uncomfortable feeling of being blamed ourselves. assigning blame does nothing to solve problems.

jerry

Close your eyes and imagine the closest twenty homes in your neighborhood. Now imagine that 16 out of the twenty families were lying on their front lawn starving, and that there were several dead children among them.

That is a picture of many parts of the world, but because of their distance from us, they are not our neighbors. But in truth, Jesus removed that defense.

My point is we are all profoundly inconsistent to the teachings and the example of the man called Jesus.

We’re also not including Pol Pot here. But Evan, as a rational person, you don’t think in any way that the greatest atrocities of the 20th century happened at the hands of atheists? There are others as well.

You may have a point about the 20th century, but what about the other 19 of the common era? I mean, really.

When you remove any semblance of a higher power, don’t be surprised when all hell brakes lose.

That’s funny, because, again, Western Europe has collectively abandoned god-belief as a society, yet they have the lowest murder rates in the world, the lowest abortion rates in the world, the highest life expectancies in the world…

I could go on.

Will respond to your other points later.

Not to diminish the hatred of Jews here, but Nazism went much further than anti-semitism. Again, see my point above. Not only Jews were exterminated.

That’s very true. Gypsies, gays…really any group that didn’t fit the parameters of the pure, Aryan race. But it’s absolutely foolish to assert that deep anti-Semitism wasn’t the primary motivating factor of the Holocaust.

It would seem Mr. Harris is simply trying to distance himself (an atheist) from other atheists.

No, I don’t think so. Because from my experience with atheists, I would want LESS distance from them. And considering the fact that Harris is one of the four men dubbed as the four horsemen of the new Atheism (Dennett, Hawkins, Hitchens being the other three), I would highly doubt that he’s trying to create distance between him and other atheists.

Perhaps your understanding of how much good has been contributed to the world by atheists and other nonbelievers has been clouded by dogma. To help you out, here’s a small list of other influential figures who had no use for god-belief:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Douglas Adams
Kingsley Amis
Isaac Asimov
Dave Barry
George Eliot
E. M. Forster
Seamus Haney
W. Somerset Maugham
Ian McEwan
Arthur Miller
George Orwell
Camille Paglia
Ayn Rand
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Robert Louis Stevenson
Kurt Vonnegut
Woody Allen
Sarah Bernhardt
Noel Coward
Marlene Dietrich
Kathy Griffin
Katharine Hepburn
John Huston
Nigella Lawson
Bruce Lee
Helen Mirren
Brad Pitt
Andy Rooney
Simone de Beauvoir
Albert Camus
John Stuart Mill
Carl Sagan
Alan Turing
Richard Branson
Mark Zuckerberg (If you use Facebook, thank the atheist!)
Charlie Chaplin
Eddie Izzard
Thor Heyerdahl
Lance Armstrong
Berkeley Breathed
Damien Hirst
Mark Rothko
Bela Bartok
Bjork
Hector Berlioz
Vic Chesnutt
Brian Eno
Dmitri Shostakovich
Caetano Veloso

Need I go on? This is hardly a group that could be described as “hell breaking loose.” And again, there is really no proof that the leaders’ you mentioned were motivated by their lack of belief in god/s.

In science, assessing causality is everything. Otherwise you’re just lying with statistics.

Er, correction: When naming the four horsemen of the new atheism, I inadvertently referred to a “Hawkins.” That was a brain fart/typo. As I’m quite sure you all know, the esteemed author’s last name is Dawkins.

Chris P.,

On a purely artistic level I think you’ve got a lot of talent in your band. The lead guitar is pretty incredible.

Can I make a few suggestions (as some who does a fair amount with sound and recording, can’t play anything really well but recording is kinda my thing)

The mix is a little rough in spots which indicates that you over laid tracks which in turn has created some timing issues with the blend. The vocals come in hot is some spots particularly on the the title track. The harmonies aren’t real tight and the lead vocalist goes flat on more than one occasion. Not sure who he is but I would consider voice lessons or maybe subbing him out for someone who’s tighter.

Lyrically pretty good for what you’re going for.

Okay back to the thread.

No one is saved by their own works and they are not saved by another’s efforts either.
Contextualize all you want. That is not what saves a man.

Of course no one is saved by anyone’s efforts directly, and no one is claiming that. All the “heavy lifting”, as it were, has been done by Christ on the cross. However, we are still told to tell others about the gift that is available to them. How will they know unless they are told? Sure, I suppose God could have made it so the Gospel required no human component, but He did not. The Church His chosen instrument to deliver the Gospel. The Holy Spirit prepares people for the Gospel in advance.

As far as contextualization goes, all human speech or communication is a contextualization. There have been both good and bad attempts at contextualizing the Gospel, but to say that all contextualization is wrong is simply absurd. I would actually say the lack of proper contextualization is a bigger problem.

You may have a point about the 20th century, but what about the other 19 of the common era? I mean, really.

BTT, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Religion is not true faith. In many ways it is more harmful than unbelief, as it can be used to justify actions on a deeper level (a man’s heart).

But there is no denying that atheism had a significant role in enabling the greatest mass murderers in human history. If you want to find a single common link between them it is simply atheism.

Don’t forget that atheism took on new validity after Darwin’s theories became more-or-less mainstream.

This does not justify the murderous popes of the dark ages either. It’s simply a valid observation.

No, I don’t think so. Because from my experience with atheists, I would want LESS distance from them.

I didn’t mean distancing himself from contemporary atheists, but from other atheists who were responsible for the worst atrocities mankind has observed. It would be natural to distinguish between his atheism and theirs lest people try to lump them together. But really, there’s no difference – they’re just at different points on the same continuum.

Firstly, in science, “theory” means “fact.” I know it’s confusing.
There is no question as to whether evolution is real. There is no debate. It simply is. To deny it is to deny the spherical nature of the earth. Period.

Not true. Science identifies a fact as a “law” as in the “law of thermodynamics” or the “law of gravity”. That’s because it is proven.

A theory is just that – a theory. Evolution is not real.

Your statement would be accurate if you said:

To deny creation is to deny the spherical nature of the earth. Period.

I have a hard time figuring out how “natural selection” could become “ethical doctrine,” since it simply means that those characteristics that enable an organism to survive are therefore perpetuated in the gene pool, while those that are detrimental tend to disappear.

Hitler viewed himself as “aiding” natural selection by eliminating gays, cripples, retarded people – you name it. Survival of the fittest – wean out the weak.

But reality shows us that nothing is black and white, so to try to make ethical decisions based on the black and white framework of most religious texts is a daunting task indeed.

Maybe that’s why true Christianity does not rely on a set of laws or “do’s and don’ts”. You are basically arguing my point (see 40 & 42). Religion is a mess indeed. But there is freedom in Christ.

Neither am I a 6-day Creation adherent… just for the record.

Phil – my point is that BTT has drawn the conclusion that evolution is a fact, yet is is not a scientific “law”, it is a theory. He can say he believes it and will die on that hill, but it is still a theory.

I believe that God created. Maybe not as simplistically as Genesis 1 & 2 tells us, but he created nevertheless.

atheistic evolution leads to a dead end

Of course.

I think in arguing against the mechanism of evolution without providing real answers in the way of alternatives, Christians are not really helping their case any.

Here’s an apparently good movie that takes a reasonable effort to present both sides of the debate:

http://www.collisionmovie.com

Phil – my point is that BTT has drawn the conclusion that evolution is a fact, yet is is not a scientific “law”, it is a theory. He can say he believes it and will die on that hill, but it is still a theory.

Well a law and a theory are not necessarily the same thing, the theory of evolution has been proven again and again in practical science, especially when you get down to the molecular level. It’s a theory in the same way other scientific theories are – it enable us to draw conclusions about practical problems and test them in various ways.

I just think that on whole Christians are way too reactionary when it comes to evolution by always asserting that evolution equals atheism. Certainly, there are some people who will point to it as something that led them away from faith, but that can be said about all sorts of things. There are people who have been told that God has planned all things that happened on earth and have had horrible things happen to them, so this ends up destroying their belief in God. I just think evolution is an easy bogeyman, and it’s something that people can use as a litmus test.

I believe the debate over the 24 hour creation day is a hinderance to the gospel.

“cathy-licks”, and homersexurals.

Baalericans.

Any gospel projection of self righteousness, or moral elitism, or judgmentalism, makes His blood run cold. Literally.

Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009

Evolution seeks to undermine the big questions that seem to haunt all of mankind:
- Why am I here? – for no real reason
- Where do I come from? – apes
- Where am I going? – nowhere

Don’t you see that this thinking is as far from God as can be – though very subtle.

I actually don’t see that necessarily as the case. The way I see it is that’s it’s possible to see evolution as just another process that God has set forth in the world, sort of like weather patterns or the water cycle. These processes possess qualities where they are random and ordered at the same time.

I just think that at some point any student studying science will come to the point where he realizes that something cannot come from nothing, and that there cannot be an infinite regression of uncaused occurrences. The way I see it the question evolution addresses is not really the why, but the how, and as far as the how is concerned, it seems that there is some leeway in the Biblical narrative as to the actual mechanisms involved in creation.

Can God make a mountain so large He cannot move it?

Could God still create humanity and redeem it through Christ using evolution?

* There will be a quiz in essay form.

Phil, in #85 you are arguing for a Christian form of evolution. However, that is not the theory of evolution as initially proposed. Undirected processes, natural selection, survival of the fittest.

You can Christianize it all you like, but I am simply saying that the theory of evolution really seeks to eliminate God.

However Hitler was influenced by the hateful anti-semetic writings of Marting Luther.

Undoubtedly, he was anti-semitic. I am not arguing he wasn’t at all.

And religious sects were responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, Darfur, Bosnia, Bangladesh, and many more millions of deaths around the world.

In the bottom part of #84, I acknowledge that Religion is not innocent. Religion is potentially just as much a vehicle for destruction as atheism. That said, religion (like in Ireland’s past) is just a veneer. Really, in Sudan it is not religious, but African vs Arab. The Crusades simply a political maneuver of the RCC who manipulated their adherents over centuries. It’s awful. I agree.

In my experience, hate-filled Christians are much more damaging to the faith than hate-filled college professors or evolutionists.

Agreed. They are both playing for the same team without knowing it.

Let us be very clear, uncomfortably clear, about who is misrepresenting the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. When you listen to Pastor Steve Anderson suggest a divine desire to see Barak Obama die, including citing an Old Testament verse, you can see a connection of hatred when you read other blogs that contain murderous words but are not as honest as Anderson.

And is it any wonder when the followers of Calvin believe God hates certain sinners? That, my friends, is the pinnacle of heresy and every bit as Biblically errant as Peter Rollins.

“Charles Darwin’s thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith.”

And I do not deny that, but I do not think we can always say that correlation equals causation or that will always be the effect. It was not Darwin’s aim to destroy faith when he wrote the book. Unfortunately, it seems his life took some tragic turns that weakened his faith.

There are plenty of scientists who have the opposite experience though. One person that comes to mind right way is Francis Collins, who is the head of the Human Genome Project. He is a huge defender of evolution, and he is an outspoken Evangelical Christian. In his book, The Language of God, he describes how he came to faith while he was a grad student, and how his faith and scientific studies compliment, not compete with, each other.

Regarding the compatibility of evolution with Christianity, I just saw this article today from Relevant Magazine.

This paragraph sounds suspiciously like something I wrote earlier (I feel so violated…)

A belief in God does not necessitate that a person accept the position that the earth is just six thousand years old. The historical, theistic argument is simply that we believe God is the why behind what is here, whenever and however it got here. Scientists may ultimately tell us how and when everything happened in ways not articulated in the biblical text, but science will never be able to tell us why. Why is the stuff of belief. Understanding this helps us be open to the research and questioning of science, while recognizing such questioning is not an enemy to faith.

As a disclaimer – I do not support Mohler and am not a Baptist. I just found his statement reflective of what I believe.

Where did you get this number?

Religulous.

I would say the number of hardcore atheists in these departments might be 10-20%.

It would be hard to ascertain this number.

Where did you get this number?

Religulous.

Well, if Bill Maher says it, it must be true…

It’s hard to find good data on this, but here’s one article that points to a study where 40% of scientists surveyed said God must have been involved in evolution.

By hardcore atheists, I am meaning the ones who really ridicule Christians in the classroom or whatnot. I’ve found that this doesn’t happen nearly as much as some Christian leaders would lead people to believe. Usually the people who talk about this the most are raising money for Christian colleges.

Also, did you ever think that one reason that people in the scientific fields are more likely to be atheists that the population at large (and I don’t dispute that this is the case) is that many of these people were told in so many words growing up that they had to choose between a belief in God and studying science?

Honestly? I think that the root of evolutionary theory is, in part, to disprove God. Beyond the science there is an attempt to do this in my humble opinion. That is not to say that some of the observations may not be correct (remember though, it is a theory, not a law). That’s my gut instinct on this and what I have read from many supporters who are uneasy letting it rest as a theory.

Rather than encourage Christians to pursue things in the scientific realm we either scare them away from it, or we push them out of the church.

I am sure that this has happened though it is not an experience I’ve had. Medical doctors and the like have found homes in some of the churches I know.

Well, if Bill Maher says it, it must be true…

Yes – I am aware of the absurdity of quoting him as a source.

A practicing gay person can sincerely embrace Christ as Savior and be saved, even if he never comes to the truth about his sin.

Talk about layered goofiness!

No if the person in question is dying of aids or syphillis, or cancer and makes a repentance on the deathbed, trusting in Christ repenting of all his or her known sin, and then dies, having never known about homosexuality being sin, I can see that, maybe.

But there is NO WAY that a born-again person, with an enlightened conscience, a new nature, with the law written on their hearts can not know that homosexuality is sin WITHOUT even opening the Bible. I do not buy it, Rick.

It is one thing to believe a theology when it is printed on a clean piece of paper, it is quite another to believe it when it is imprinted on a dirty sinner.

Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009

Could there possibly be any more hypocritical and supercilious post than THIS?

The “editor” tries to make the case that if Jay Bakker was so concerned about the poor he would not spend money on tattoos. I can hardly find the words to describe such a self serving reach. So Jay’s views on gays are not enough with which to confront and demean, now you must dredge up some ridiculous accusation of financial waste, of which we all are guilty.

Thou that accuses others of stealing – dust thou steal? Thou that acusses tattoos of waste, dust thou eat ice cream?

Sometimes the visceral dislike, as well as the doctrinal self righteousness, is framed in such a post. Like Ingrid’s demeaning comments about Thomas Kinkaid’s paintings, this post must be placed into the same category. Jay Bakker has many issues and some of his teachings are at odds with Scripture, however his tattoos are no more a waste of money than our eating out at restaurant.

I am almost speechless.

To those who see clearly:

Once faith connects with God’s redemptive love through Jesus Christ, what are the parameters of that love? What sin can subjugate God’s love once it is effective in the life of a sinner? And how sinless must a sinner be before God’s redemptive love will respond to his call of faith? And if repentance actually means turning away from sin completely, then no one has ever repented.

If you still sin, why then have you not repented and why is God’s power, which you suggest should be sufficient to other sinners, sufficient to overcome your sin? So your sin is too stubborn and strong to achieve total victory, but the sin of others should be eradicated. Why do you have pride and judgment and levity at other’s expense and are blind to those sins, yet you insist others must see their sin or be in danger of hell fire?

Why do you so limit God’s redemptive grace in the lives of others yet you openly project confidence that His grace covers the sins you faithfully commit each day? Why do you harvest tares? Why do you change “examine yourselves” to “examine everyone else”? Why is your evangelism more yelling than weeping? Why do your videos document to the left hand what the right hand is doing? Throughout the Scriptures the sins of God’s people, collectively and individually, are revealed. Why do your videos only show your righteous side?

Who made you the dispatcher of Christ’s blood?

And in God’s wonderful timing, here is an example to which I was referring.

Machen was a professing Calvinist. In this post he makes these statements:

“But one cause is perfectly plain–the Church of today has been unfaithful to her Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christian persons, not only into her membership, but into her teaching agencies.”

But how can the church repent of that sin unless God grants it to them? (Calvin)

“The rejection of Christianity is due to various causes. But a very potent cause is simple ignorance. In countless cases, Christianity is rejected simply because men have not the slightest notion of what Christianity is…”

They reject because God has not drawn them. (Calvin) Machen openly suggests that more accurate infromation will lead to more salvations.

“At the present time, when the opponents of the gospel are almost in control of our churches, the slightest avoidance of the defense of the gospel is just sheer unfaithfulness to the Lord…”

To whom are these men “defending” the gospel? The eternally saved or the eternally lost, neither of which can alter their eternal plight? (Calvin)

I realize that the correct Calvinistic responses to my observations are these:

“Rick, you do not understand Calvin’s theology”.

and

“Rick, I do all things to God’s glory”.

To which I reply:

“GO IRISH!!!!!”

Pastorboy,
Your second post is totally unconnected to your first. The second is relatively uncontroversial, the first is ridiculous and unBiblical.

I hope someday you can rest in the salvation Christ has given freely rather than working and hoping you’ve been good enough to not screw it up. Its remarkable how very Catholic your theology is.

Rick’s Catholic theology was just blown apart by a freshman named Forcier.

I am absolutely sure I would not agree with almost all of the upcoming conference being sponsored by Doug Pagitt. However, I found this post a little wierd because this woman shares a thought from some guy which is very intriguing. That psot contrasts the cross of Golgotha with the cross of Constantine.

One cross is designed for violence and national conquering while the other is designed for redemption and reconciliation. But about this thought the editor says

“what CRN contributor Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christan Radio calls “the gospel of stick it to the Caesar-man.””

Stick it the Caesar-man? What in the world does that mean? I am very sure I would disagree with much, if not most, of this woman’s theology, however in this post she is right on. Nationalism is like smoking, it is very difficult to stop.

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

On another note, this post
by Mike Ratliff is a study in making theology complex and elaborate.

Please picture a man walking through a cemetary. He is followed by a small group of listeners as he teaches. He points to the corpses and intricately details how they are not alive and how dead they really are. He connects that teaching with how alive he is and how he has made such great progress in his alive walk.

One person in the group asks the teacher if they can go help these dead people but the teacher says only God can help them and most of them God does not want to help. One of the groups says, “But I thought God did not want anyone to perish??”. He was told to be quiet and go study the Greek and that only parts of the Bible can be taken literally.

The teacher goes on to say that one of the ways you can tell they are dead is because they do not hate the residual effects of their deadness. The teacher continues to unpack all the wrong things these dead people do while he juxtaposes his own deep and introspective spiritual life as an example and even a template.

Almost all of his teachings are about true believers vs. false believers, a kind of man centered theology. He contends that he is appalled at his own sin, which reveals the depth of his discipleship. He is quick to mention that even though God is powerful, he cannot stop sinning, only reducing the quantity and the sins he considered vile. But that still allows him a platform to point out the sins of others if they are too awful or if that person doesn’t feel as bad over their sin as does he.

One of the group asks the teacher if he has a savings account, or if he salutes the flag, or if he goes 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. That question did not make it through moderation.

At the end of the session the teacher passed out the syllabus. As the students leafed through the book many were taken aback by its complexity. One remarked how it seemed to him as spiritual calculus. That student’s regenerate status was then questioned.

That class became very beneficial to a few of the students who formed a very small group who were passionate about spiritual necrophelia – the study of dead people. As they gazed over the vastness of the human cemetary they rejoiced in their Great God and his mysterious and infinitesimal selection process. Such wonderous love!

In chapter 2 of their manual they realized that God was very angry at these dead people and they themselves were to imitate their Lord. They should, no, they must, confront every inkling from any corpse suggesting he was alive if that corpse did not meet the requirements for life. And God had called them to assess the spiritual résumé of any corpse that appeared to be walking.

Now the course for teaching the manual was titled, “See what this says – that is what I do”. And just to cover any inconsistencies there was a satellite course titled, “When I don’t do what it says – I do what it says about that so I still do what it says”.

The graduation rate for that course was in direct proprtion to the quality of agreement you have with the teacher’s book notes and study guides. The class was very small, however the teacher assured everyone God desired it to be so. One of the continuing themes of the course that drew raves and created much camaraderie was the “we are not like them” study which provided a comprehensive and graphic treatise on the mistakes of those outside the class. It was at those times that students were encouraged to commend the teacher for his superb command of the manual.

* In full disclosure the bitterness you may sense in my story is because I failed the course.