"there is nothing more polarizing than a situation that demands a reaction" anonymous
On April 1st we began promoting our "no more Christians" teaching series that begins on Easter Sunday. We expected to get some negative responses. It did not take long to realize that the response would be far more than imagined.
We were contacted by the police department to remove our signs within two hours of putting up the first one. My inbox was flooded with emails. People noticed them. In fact our local paper is publishing an article to expose the truth about this series. You can read it at http://www.crestviewbulletin.com.
I could write about many things, but what amazed me most was one of the forums on yahoo about the commercial. It started with one person questioning why there was attack on Christianity which brings freedom to so many people. Then began a series of exchanges between Christians and non-Christians debating whether or not Christianity should or should not be attacked, whether or not Christianity is a good thing. The Christians just defended themselves and showed pity for themselves and as one of our church attenders (Angela Duckworth) stated could not see past thinking this was a sign of the end times or an attack on their religion.
No one tried to communicate the message of Love through Jesus Christ.
no one.
This is the problem.
Christianity in America is on the decline, it is undeniable. Magazines, Newspapers, etc and writing articles about this like crazy. There is an incredible opportunity for dialogue.
Christians:
God doesn't need us to defend him. The world doesn't need us to argue with them. They need us to live out the radical faith that gives evidence to our Savior who gave his life as a ransom for many.
"You can't get on to the darkness for be dark, but you can do something about the light not being bright enough" - Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis
22 comments:
Great post!
I love the statement you made: "God doesn't need us to defend him." He truly needs us to be transparent and authentic. Olive Garden is my mission field and people there truly want to see a difference. Words mean nothing! Great post.
I love you... but in a completely different way than the way I love Angela Duckworth
Well said and good write up in the CV bulletin!
We ARE to give a defense for the hope that we have in Christ. 1Peter 3:15 says, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." You say on your site, "We also plan to respectfully compare Christianity with these other belief systems so that people can make their own decision as to what to believe." I would humbly suggest to you brother that giving a defense for Christ is important, but giving other religions a place next to Christianity for the purpose of "letting others decide" is dangerous. Our message as Christians should be to boldly proclaim the truth of Christianity, and in doing so, it will exclude any possibility for "other religions."
In Christ,
Micah
I am all for showing the love of Christ to as many people as possible. There is another reason why people do not want to be Christians. It is because we are no different from the world in our look, our dress, our culture, and our music. The Bible says in II Corinthians 6:17, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." People need to be able to pull themselves up from the drugs, booze, and rock 'n roll culture into something refreshingly different; not something that looks and feels just like what they are coming out of. In an effort to take people where they are at, we have not given them anything to rise up to anything. And beware, my friend, that you do not diminish the cause of Christ by giving the impression that it's OK to be Muslim or atheist. The Bible teaches us to go out and compel them, not to let them make up their mind. If people need the Lord then we ought to be shouting it from the housetops, not offering facts about both sides and then letting them make a decision. I believe your ideas are noble, but unfortunately foolish.
Hi y'all!
I am a loving husband (20 year anniversary this December!), a father of three wonderful children (ages 14, 12 and 8), a secular humanist, an 18 year law enforcement veteran (specializing in violent crime, forensic video and hostage negotiation), a community service volunteer, socio-political activist...and an atheist.
My view is that the Christian mythos is equal to *all* of the other cultural myths and legends.
Each and all of the current religious traditions are psychological memes emerging within the human mind to "fill the gaps" in knowledge that in turn create a need for authoritative specialists to “read the tea leaves" and tell the flock what their deity desires.
Most often these divine desires are simply a reflection of the desires of the human rabbi, priest, preacher, imam, sage and shaman. Most often they conflict with each other and evolve over time.
There is no empirical evidence for the existence of *any* of the God(s)ess(es) as claimed by assorted religious adherents.
There is no empirical evidence that a deity spoke to Moses via a burning bush that didn't burn, that a deity sent himself as his own son so that he could be brutally executed for the crimes of others, that a deity sent messages via the angel Gabriel to Mohammed as new divine directives or that a deity sent the angel Moroni with golden plates with newer divine directives.
I think that morals and ethics are based on practical examples of reciprocity and the common observation that it is beneficial to live and help others when they are in dire circumstances for the greater good of the human family.
No God(s)ess(es) required.
I think that people can believe whatever they want to believe as long as they leave government secular and don’t impose their religious convictions, traditions and rituals via legislative decree.
Thanks for this wonderful opportunity to share views and perhaps come to a better understanding of atheists and atheism.
Y’all take care, be safe and be good!
Steve Schlicht
Brother Pastor, I'm assuming you all did this in a sincere attempt to reach out - but this is a very distasteful, divisive, and incomprehensible way to try to get the Good News out. You are unintentionally confusing everyone, including your fellow believers in the love of Jesus. You are unintentionally causing division. Its not God that needs evaluation here - it is his well meaning but not so thoughtful people. Please, please, please, from one pastor to another - change your campaign to an direct statement about your beliefs and not a "gimmick" that confuses folks.
Hey James,
One important thing has been bothering me after reading your blog and I just had to ask:
Were your signs on private property?
Did you ask the police officer who told you to take down the signs what law you were accused of violating?
Did you remove the signs?
Thanks,
Steve
Dear Steve,
I appreciate you being so open about your beliefs, but have to say that you are sorely mistaken. The Christian belief or "religion" is not a crutch or psychological "filler" if you will, but the very foundation of this world and the reason for our existence.
Your argument that there is "no empirical evidence for God" is totally unfounded, and a poor argument at that. You could not have come to that conclusion without logical, rational thought. Something that there is no empirical evidence either! But you still believe it to be true.
Furthermore, you state that you believe people can believe whatever they choose, "as long as they..." You imply "tolerance" and yet in doing so impose your own beliefs on us!
Can you really believe that we live in a world with no moral or ethical standard beyond that of doing good to just be nice or benefit your neighbors? Without a moral or ethical standard for ALL people, how can we even communicate what we think about right and wrong? What would we base those beliefs on?
I believe a God IS required, and that it was Jesus Christ who created us and the entire world. And I believe that it is Jesus alone who sets the standard for what is right and what is wrong.
Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
Micah
Pastor, I wish you well with this series, even though there seems to be a flurry of negativity, you got the discussion going. I am a Christian and believe first and foremost in living my evangelism. That is our greatest tool to show the depth and real freedom in believing in Jesus.
Hi Micah!
Thank you so much for your post.
You have made lots of interesting assertions that I’d like to address in detail.
All religions are derived as fillers for gaps in knowledge. That is why they deal mostly with “meaning of life and death” issues “beyond” natural human life.
The world existed for many millions of years prior to the Christian mythology and will continue to do so when Christianity (of whatever denomination and interpretation) also joins other “beliefs” that cultures have asserted to try to explain the unknowns that arise in existence.
To dismiss this observation outright is to lack an understanding of cultural research, comparative study and experience.
Do you believe Thor causes thunder?
Do you believe that a rainbow bridge leads to a paradise amongst your ancestors?
Do you believe any of these religious claims?
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/creationmyths/Myth_Creation.htm
Why have you come to reject these claims as accurate depictions of reality in plain view?
I don’t think you still leave the open the possibility for the existence of Zeus or Medusa, do you?
What studious methodology do you use to determine which of these unprovable religious beliefs are not “true” and that your unprovable religious belief is “true”?
Using logical, rational thought does not imply the existence of any of the purported creator God(s)ess(es), Micah, much less the deity of the Christian mythos.
I am a secular humanist so my “tolerance” tolerates beliefs as long as they are not imposed by legislative decree so that each individual can follow their own personal views and traditions as they will.
So, in that way I agree that the best governance is one that is secular and empty of religious dogma and decree so that we, the people, can express ourselves as we see fit.
If you read my post I assert moral and ethical standards so I’m not really sure where that is coming from.
Here is what I stated for your review:
“I think that morals and ethics are based on practical examples of reciprocity and the common observation that it is beneficial to live and help others when they are in dire circumstances for the greater good of the human family.”
Is that a moral and ethical standard you can agree with?
Why/why not?
It is my view that people assert a special conduit to divine “morality” and then use their symbols and claims to attach their own respective desires and cravings to them as a way to establish authority.
How do you explain the tenacity of religious beliefs that conflict with Christianity, yet are stated with as much “authority” as you propose for your own?
This has been done throughout history where for hundreds of years women were subjugated (many still are), other tribes feared and slaughtered and an entire race of people enslaved under the pretext that it was divine will and directive.
Mores and ethics are seen to evolve over time and applied to “new” messages given in private to special mythic heroes. These ever changing myths and legends are a wonderful study in human psychology if one is attuned to history in that context.
I do understand that you may disagree, Micah, and hope you are able to one day find peace in your own heart without fear of the unknown.
Have a wonderful day yourself as well!
Steve
James, Convergence Church wants you and your church to know we are in support for your new campaign. We will be having an Easter breakfast at our church this morning and if by chance we can we will attend this morning to show our support. We are praying for you and your mission. Love, Convergence
Hey James and Mosaic Church Members!
If y'all are still interested in atheists and atheism:
Dave Silverman, National Communications Director for American Atheists will be the guest on this weekend's installment of the Internet radio program "Answers in Atheism."
A veteran of media and public affairs programming, Mr. Silverman will be discussing Atheism, state-church separation, religious fundamentalism and related topics.
You can listen in by visiting http://www.answersinatheism.net at 6:00 PM ET on Sunday, April 19, 2009. You may also call in to the program toll free, 877-814-9287. and communicate through E-mail at theshow@answersinatheism.nhet .
The host is Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists. Along with his wife, Helen, Edwin co-founded CAMP QUEST, a summer camp for non believing children. He is also the author of "Baubles in Blasphemy," now in its second printing through American Atheist Press.
WHO and WHAT: Dave Silverman, National Communications Director for American Atheists on the "Answers in Atheism": Internet radio show.
WHEN: This Sunday, April 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM ET.
WHERE: http://www.answersinatheism.net . Listener feedback at 877-814-9287. Communicate through E-mail at theshow@answersinatheism.nhet .
MORE INFO: http://www.answersinatheism.net
AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.
"There is no empirical evidence that... a deity sent himself as his own son so that he could be brutally executed for the crimes of others," -steve
Steve, but there is!!
Hi Matthew!
Please present your evidence for critical analysis and review.
Also, do you personally believe that there is evidence that the angel Gabriel provided the prophet Mohammed with new divine directives for humanity to obey?
Do you personally believe that there is evidence that the angel Moroni provided Joseph Smith with even newer divine directives etched onto golden plates for humanity to obey?
If not, please provide your methodology that brought you to such denials and show your work.
I am additionally interested in assessing your initial claim purely on philosophical and moral grounds as well:
Do you assert that it is morally acceptable judicial policy to brutally torture and execute an innocent person for *any* crime?
Thanks!
Steve
Absolutely Steve,
Both the Koran and the book of Mormon provide excellent examples to contrast that of the bible. The latter is like a dollar bill in this case and the other texts are the counterfeits, which is most easily determined by comparing them to the bible. This has the potential to become a very long debate though. I also have three kids but they are 3 and younger! So I must state up front my time is limited to probably one post a day. I will try to keep this post as top-level as possible to avoid making it too long.
The most significant difference I would point out between the gospel and these 'sacred texts' is in predictive prophecy. The Lord calls out false religions on this in Isaiah 41:
"Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong [reasons], saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring [them] forth, and shew us what shall happen... Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye [are] gods.."
I would like to point out another stark contrast with the book of Mormon. The resurrection is really the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Joseph's Smith's cornerstone is the golden plate's. There were many witnesses to the ressurection, primarily the disciples. Joseph Smith also produced witnesses to the Golden Plates -- 11 men claimed that they had seen them. Of these eleven, three admitted it was a 'subjective and visionary' experience. Only 3 of the 11 claimed to have actually seen and handled golden plates. Joseph Smith himself slanders 5 of these men because they later abandoned the LDS church.
Now contrast that to the witnesses of the ressurection. How many of them abandoned the church. There is simply no record of that. In fact, tradition has that all of them except John were persecuted unto death. No one can seriously argue that the church pillars, Peter, Paul, James and Jesus brother James, were not persecuted unto death for the beliefs they pronounced. Do you see the contrast here between the witnesses of the resurrection and the golden plates?
I'd rather focus on the above issue than your last question for the time being. I don't understand your question though, how is the person 'innocent' if they are being punished for a 'crime' they committed.
Hi Matthew,
Wow, three kids, three and under!!!
I admire your fortitude and hope that you enjoy every single moment with them. Friendly advice, take loads of pictures and videos. Get them engaged with the wondrous beauty of nature, art, community and critical thinking as soon and as often as possible.
Getting back to the rest of your post, I really only have one simple (yet significant) question for you:
Why is it that Jewish people don't believe in the canonized stories found in the New Testament as edited and voted into existence by the Council of Nicea which was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325CE?
Basically you are taking the position that the stories written by numerous unknown authors depicting alleged witness accounts without any other outside source verifies the accounts within your favored mythology.
Well, that is precisely what Muslims and Mormons do as well. It is also why the Tanakh still holds sway over Judaism and not the New Testament. This is a culture that primarily crafted the Abrahamic monotheistic tradition that spawned offshoots that also claim divine truth.
The psychology and cognitive dissonance is amazing to witness from outside the box!
I find it interesting that so many Christians have been brought up to believe that "The Bible" is one collective book written or "inspired" by an magnificent and incomprehensible deity beyond space and time, while there exists a vast collection of other fables, myths and legends written during the same era depicting the same characters that were plucked from the collective because they did not fit the mold of Roman editors of authority.
Have you read any of the Apocryphal works? I recommend that you do, very enlightening tales.
I am curious, what methodology do you use to cast aspersions on the veracity of one religious text without applying the same to your own?
Thanks for your time and insight, now go take care of those children!
Steve
"I don't understand your question though, how is the person 'innocent' if they are being punished for a 'crime' they committed."
Precisely!!
A bloody and tortuous human sacrifice *of an innocent person* which is allegedly required to redeem and/or forgive the crimes and/or sin *of others* is, in my view, immoral.
In the fable of Jesus it is asserted that the plan from the start was to kill an innocent person so that others can be forgiven/absolved of their own "sins".
How is that a decent moral standard?
Steve
Steve,
Thanks for the encouragement in regards to the little ones. I do try and invest a lot of time in them.
"Why is it that Jewish people don't believe in the canonized stories found in the New Testament " -Steve
They do. Jesus was a Jew. All the disciples were Jews. The early church was founded by Jews. The first place Paul went to in his missions was the synagogues. The early church began out of the center of Judaism -- Jerusalem. In fact, it took a huge paradigm shift for the apostles to agree on including the Gentiles. Many Jews today believe in Jesus as well, such as 'Jews for Jesus' or 'Messianic Judaism'. Another item of note: there are about 2.1 billion Christians today, but only 14 million Jews.
"as edited and voted into existence by the Council of Nicea which was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325CE?"-Steve
How were the New Testament books 'edited' or 'voted into existence' at this Council? The council covered 5 topics, none of them related to canonization!
"Basically you are taking the position that the stories written by numerous unknown authors.." -Steve
Most of the New Testament books have known authors.
"depicting alleged witness accounts" -Steve
absolutely
"without any other outside source"
The New Testament books were comprised by multiple authors. What are you looking for as an 'outside source'?
"Well, that is precisely what Muslims and Mormons do as well."
Not really. The Koran's authority rests on a single man (Muhammed), and so does the book of Mormon (Joseph Smith). Also, you haven't addressed the two stark contrasts I provided, and there are several more areas of significant contrast!
"It is also why the Tanakh still holds sway over Judaism and not the New Testament." -Steve
Well, the NT does hold sway over Messianic Jews.
"while there exists a vast collection of other fables, myths and legends written during the same era depicting the same characters that were plucked from the collective because they did not fit the mold of Roman editors of authority." -Steve
Where do you get this idea? The Muratorian fragment of ~180 AD pretty much laid out our current NT canon. It had nothing to do with 'Roman editors of authority'. It listed the books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.
"I am curious, what methodology do you use to cast aspersions on the veracity of one religious text without applying the same to your own?" -Steve
That's a bit of a twisted question. If you see my previous post I contrasted other religious texts and the bible based on a common methodology, which you didn't really address.
Hi Matthew!
You appear to concede that there are Jews and *an entire ancestral tradition* predating the Christian mythos from that very era that do not believe in the claims of the compiled stories “canonized” by Roman authority in 325CE.
Surely you must recognize that the stories just weren't that compelling for the original adherents of Moses (indoctrination, recruiting and violent crusades notwithstanding).
From my viewpoint (as one who has studied these assorted religious traditions for many years) the question that arises is -are the Jews wrong, or the Christians (Catholics or Protestants), or the Muslims or the Mormons, etc. They all have adherents that believe wholeheartedly in their claims and ideology, but they cannot each be right or true.
One says that errors and different authority figures represents accuracy and truth, others say that direct and pure interpretation of divine directives from a solitary authority figure represents accuracy and truth. Why is one better than the other when each represents the unproven claim that humans are special conduits to divine being(s) beyond space and time who has chosen them to rule earth.
Having had similar discussions with each representative adherent, I have found that they each speak with the same sincerity and without sensing the same methodological critique that they use on other traditions is the very same flaw for their own.
I have even observed discussions directly between a Hindu, a Muslim and a Christian asserting the veracity and truth and emotional bonding for their “faith”.
What it inevitably boils down to is “I like my God(s)ess(es) and my faith and it is best” (aka subjective morality and relative perspective).
It should be obvious that Christianity is as tenuous as Islam is and, further, as Mormonism is in that they merely usurp the claims via representative authority from the earlier religious claims.
The Jewish tradition obviously borrowed heavily from even earlier pagan oral tradition as well.
They are based upon the same psychological tenet that special human conduits receive special private messages and directives from an invisible incomprehensible deity beyond space/time or its angelic jinn representative that favors the in-group.
By default, their claims are unverifiable and, at the same time, they are framed in such a way that they can plausibly be asserted as “unfalsifiable” as well.
This is the element that leaves just enough wiggle room for the standard claim of “faith” to emerge that we observe each respective religious adherent assert that “proves” (or rather cannot disprove) their own belief is the correct one (for them).
It is stark and plain to see that each “faith” is on equal footing when it comes to being mere mythology and not factual history.
The faith recruiting process has been successful for the newer memes as the older religions fall away into obscurity after having their traditions absorbed into the newer, more charismatic generational traditions. These generational traditions which, as can be readily noted, “borrow” rituals and other symbols in order to ease and appease converts.
After diligent study and research within scholarly sources there is simply no way around the fact that history of Christianity “began” in 325CE, Matthew, when the council of Nicaea condemned the theology of Arius and declared that Christ is “I am”, one in the Father.
It is very interesting to note that there are no details of events anywhere else regarding the story of Jesus *until the council of Nicaea*.
I also find it of deep personal interest that there is no real concern or articulation regarding Jesus as a child emerging into manhood or, really significantly, what happened to the mother of Jesus (the virgin Mary) or Joseph.
It is as if the story no longer needed these characters as plot devices just as is found within a fictional work being crafted by editors.
Check into that when you get a chance and you may find an interesting methodology at play within the Roman Catholic authority seeking remedy for assorted oversights such as these.
The authorship of the New Testament is highly questionable and any serious modern religious scholarship recognizes this as a tough fact that needs more apologetic work to reconcile.
What can be observed in chronological order is that all “holy” texts are equally dubious and even the mythology of L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology provides the simple template that renders them all equally fallible to such psychological techniques.
I understand that credulity may prevent a readily available recognition of this nuance.
Have you read any of the apocryphal books, by the way, I am interested in your opinion of them and why they didn’t “make it” into the canonized version?
Thanks again for this wonderful discussion and hope you had a great Earth Day!
Steve
"Surely you must recognize that the stories just weren't that compelling for the original adherents of Moses" -Steve
Steve, your argument hear is completely devoid of substance, and here's why:
1. Jesus' ministry and resurrection was very compelling to the Jews, which is why Christianity was born purely out of Judaism, as I demonstrated in my previous post.
2. It should come as no surprise, however, that not all of the Jews believed on Him. It should be expected, rather, because that's what the Hebrew scriptures prophecy of the Messiah! That he will be a stumbling block to both houses of Israel, the cornerstone that the builders rejected.
3. Lastly, the Jewish authority's rejection of Jesus is right in line with the entire biblical narrative. After all, it was the Jewish high priests who had Jesus crucified!!
"they (Christians/Jews/Muslims/Mormons) cannot each be right or true." -Steve
absolutely
"Why is one better than the other" -Steve
I have given you multiple, stark contrasts between them which you have basically ignored.
"By default, their claims are unverifiable and, at the same time, they are framed in such a way that they can plausibly be asserted as “unfalsifiable” as well." -Steve
Negative. Predictive prophecy, for example, is verifiable and falsifiable.
"After diligent study and research within scholarly sources there is simply no way around the fact that history of Christianity “began” in 325CE, Matthew, when the council of Nicaea condemned the theology of Arius and declared that Christ is “I am”, one in the Father." -Steve
What is your criteria for 'began'? Not even the most liberal, anti-christian biblical scholar can contest the authenticity of Paul's letters to the Roman, Corinthian, Galatian, Philippian and Thessalonian churches. Churches that were all allready established before Paul was beheaded in Rome under Nero in 65 AD.
"It is very interesting to note that there are no details of events anywhere else regarding the story of Jesus *until the council of Nicaea*." -Steve
????????????????????????
"Have you read any of the apocryphal books, by the way, I am interested in your opinion of them and why they didn’t “make it” into the canonized version?" -Steve
I've read a few, and many writings from the early church fathers as well. These writings were not qualified for inclusion in the canon for many reasons. Basically, for inclusion, a book had to meet two criteria:
1. Apostolic authority. It was written either by an apostle or by their close associate (as Mark wrote on Peter's authority, and Luke wrote as a close associate of Paul).
2. Acceptance by the early church. The early church read these letters in their worship services. The muratorian canon of 180 AD gives a list almost identical to our canon of what letters were read in the early church.
(3. Some suggest a third criteria that the book is in line with the Hebrew scriptures and other new testament books, although I would contend this criteria is covered by the first two)
So to answer your question, the apocrypha didn't meet either of these requirements. Though some of them claimed apostolic authority, the claims were rejected by the early church. Further, the books were not widely accepted by the early church or read in their worship services.
"I also find it of deep personal interest that there is no real concern or articulation regarding Jesus as a child emerging into manhood or, really significantly, what happened to the mother of Jesus (the virgin Mary) or Joseph." -Steve
Well, there are biblical accounts of Jesus as a child and I think I remember some extra-biblical accounts of Mary, although I would have to double-check on that. It can be deduced that Joseph died before Jesus did. Why is this such a concern for you?
Post a Comment