Why Do People Believe In God (in Their Words)

Oh, my. I am so embarrassed for some people.

I believed in God because I was raised to. My parents took me to church for the first time 12 days after I was born. (Christmas mass.) Once I started actually thinking about it for myself, a process that began in the first grade, I eventually came to the conclusion that I did not, in fact, believe in any god of any kind.

So, I am always very interested in why others believe, although generally it's because they were raised to believe, as well. (I'm talking about base belief, not switching from one religion to another, or switching from one sect to another within the same religion.)

Honestly, these reasons for believing are mind boggling in their lol wut?ness.

Tonight at my Bible study I asked this question to everyone, why do you believe in God? I thought I would ask the same question on RR.

Someone said " Do you believe in you wife? You do because you got to know her, it's the same with Jesus"

I assume by "wife" you mean "actual living person you can actually meet", not "invisible friend", right? You do see a difference between the two, right, because if not, I'm just going to assume there is no wife.

Life and the incredible design and genetic programming within living things is way too complex. There had to be an incredible being who designed and created what we see even though it is a world marred by sin. For atheists to think that random processes, time and chance could create anything is just fairy tale thinking and of course it is passed off as science.

Of course if you can think straight thus far, the next step would be to meet that creator in His revelation, found in the KJV for English speaking people.

Thank you.
Sherlock Holmes

Um, wut? The first paragraph is an appeal to irreducible complexity, not actually proof, but what is the second and why did Mr. Holmes show up?

Because the evidence of his existence is simply too compelling to leave any other answer but a resounding "YES!" Creation has his marks and "signature" all over it, his word, the Bible has been proven time and again as accurate and true...


Not to mention no one can explain the re-emergence of Israel in their own land with their own culture and language after 1400 years, unless He exists.

Irreducible complexity and . . . the Jews? Because no one has ever maintained a culture for that long before, you know, other than the Chinese, or Indians or aborigines on various continents, you know, other than that.

I have been made into a completely new person gradualy over the last 7 years since I acepted Christ. I feel Him so strongly it just feels like I am wrapped in His heart. I cant describe it. So I know Jesus is real. Also when I read His Word I feel so very connected like His Word is alive. I was created for Him and I rest safely now thanks to Him!

So, you didn't believe in God until 7 years after you believed in God? Even allowing for that stunning abuse of logic, I've changed in the last 7 years, too. Has anyone not?

Because He says so in His Word....and it is by faith.

I believe in God because the Bible says so. I believe in the Bible because God says so and round and round in circles we go, we die not of death, we die of vertigo.

Because He lives inside of me and that's how I know He's real.

You know, like tapeworms.

This is the same with me. Since I was very little, as far back as I could remember I always believed there was a God. I don't know how I knew it, I just did. My Grandmother was saved and she would talk to me about God and I guess I just believed everything she said, but I don't remember ever not believing in Him. Hmmm......

Wow, it's almost like I've never really thought about it, hmmmm . . . .

Because I can feel Him. Because His prophesies have come true. Because nature is systemized. Because He rose from the dead and had a lot of witnesses. Because believing in Him is just plain common sense. You just know. Because prayer has changed me. It's one of those things. You just know. I have questioned it because I used to over analyze. One can analyze their own self out of existence. The wake up call for me was literally seeing the flip side of Him. That is those of the under world and I don't believe I'm crazy in that respect. Seeing is believing. And oh ya, you just know.

I just know. And I've seen demons. Ya know.

I completely echo what onceblind said. I believe in anyone I have had a conversation with. Not just a monologue. If God didn't answer back, it would be difficult for me to believe. But, we have had a dialogue. I have spoken to Him and He has spoken back. That's why I believe. I heard His voice stronger than ever on April 14, 2005. I had prayed about two young ladies I was attracted to. I asked God which one He wanted me to have a relationship with--to ultimately be with until death. I asked Him that on April 10. Four days later I received an answer. God had spoken Heather's name to me, and that was it. Two years later, we got married. That's just one example out of many. That's why I believe.

Auditory hallucinations: changing lives since April 14, 2005.

Same for me pretty much, I was raised with a Christian background so there was never really a time in my life when I did not believe in God in some way, but understanding the complexity of our world and how accurately the Bible describes science related matters that were not discovered by the modern sience until recently really made my faith strong. Biblical prophecy as well, one has to have an extremely hardened heart not to acknowledge how amazing it is and that it had to come from outside of our space and time.

Scientific marvels like four legged bugs and bats being birds. Astounding! Not to mention all the biblical prophecy that has not come true and never will.

So . . . people believe just because, because they're parents did, because of circular logic, a lack of understanding of science and because they haven't actually read the Bible. Interesting.

pic link

Not. A. Religion.

You made kitteh double facepalm and headdesk.

Did you know that at one point, 30% of conservatives thought Stephen Colbert was serious about the Colbert Report? Almost 1 in 3 failed to see the obvious satire right in front of them. Hell, at one point, people thought Jonathon Swift was totally serious about eating Irish babies.

So it should come as no surprise that an awful lot of Christians think the Darwin Fish is the same sort of symbol as the Jesus fish.

Yet here I am, simultaneously headdesking and facepalming. (Easier on your head, harder on your hand.)

Despite its anti-religious stance and lack of a theistic belief, Secular Humanism is a religion just as Christianity is one, argued [David Noebel].

. . .

For starters, Christianity has the Christian Ichthys as one of its religious symbols while Secular Humanism has a developing religious symbol: the Darwin Fish. And like Christianity, Secular Humanism has clergy members that perform social ceremonies and preach a faith that is just as dogmatic: theological atheism, naturalism, spontaneous generation, and moral relativism, among other beliefs, Noebel points out in his book.

The Darwin Fish, or evolve fish, is not a religious symbol. It's satire. If you were to ask a group of atheists/secular humanists what the symbol of atheism is, you'd get a blank look. Some of us, online, have adopted such things as the scarlet A, but it's not an agreed upon symbol of all secularists. (Trying to get atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. I once participated in a discussion about whether or not a nonsymbol is as symbolic as a symbol and if it is, is it still a nonsymbol. Don't ask.)

As for clergy members: lol wut? I assume he means people like Hitch, Dawkins and Myers, but clergy? You'd have to stretch the definition of clergy to meaninglessness to consider any of the more famous atheists to be clergy. And dogmatism? See above. Plenty of atheists have little to no opinion on spontaneous generation, we're all (religious or not) morally relative and naturalism? I'm calling that science, and if you post things on the internet, you like it, too.

The author also references in his book the 1943 decision by the Second Circuit to grant conscientious objector status to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his "religious conscience."

"Secular Humanism is a religion. It's just as religious as all the other religions in the world," Noebel asserted to students.

"Now, they deny it to the last drop only because they were caught. They caught themselves on conscientious objectors so they had to declare themselves somewhat of a religion."

So, I looked up the Kauten case, and I can't find the original decision, only commentaries on it, or references to it. According to several references, this case is sealed until 2020, so I don't know where Noebel got this from.

EDIT: (big h/t to [redacted])

Noebel is something of a liar, it seems. [redacted] got me a copy of the Kauten case, in its entirety, and the Court stated outright that Kauten was not a religious man:

We hold that Mr. Hardy's interpretation was well founded. [HN3] In order to avail himself of his privilege a registrant must establish that his objection to participation in war is due to "religious training and belief." It must ex vi termini be a general scruple against "participation in war in any form" and not merely an objection to participation in this particular war. Moreover, the conviction that war is a futile means of righting wrongs or of protecting the state, that it is not worth the sacrifice, that it is waged for base ends, or is otherwise indefensible is not necessarily a ground of opposition based on "religious training and belief." Though the registrant may have been entirely sincere in the ideas he expressed, his objections to reporting for induction were based on philosophical and political considerations applicable to this war rather than on "religious training [*708] and belief." They, therefore, were properly overruled, but not because he lacked membership of any sect or organization whose religious convictions were against war. Such a status was necessary to obtain exemption under the Act of 1917, but the provisions of the present statute are more generous [**10] for they take into account the characteristics of a skeptical generation and make the existence of a conscientious scruple against war in any form, rather than allegiance to a definite religious group or creed, the basis of exemption. We are not convinced by anything in the record that the registrant did not report for induction because of a compelling voice of conscience, which we should regard as a religious impulse, but his declarations and reasoning seem to indicate that he was moved by convictions, however sincere, of quite a different character.

In other words, while Kauten was believed to be sincere, and to hold beliefs that one would normally associate with religion, he was not religious. Atheism is not a religion.

In fact, the Court did define religion in its decision, and secular humanism ain't in it:

It is unnecessary to attempt a definition of religion; the content of the term is found in the history of the human race and is incapable [**11] of compression into a few words. Religious belief arises from a sense of the inadequacy of reason as a means of relating the individual to his fellow-men and to his universe - a sense common to men in the most primitive and in the most highly civilized societies. It accepts the aid of logic but refuses to be limited by it. It is a belief finding expression in a conscience which categorically requires the believer to disregard elementary self-interest and to accept martyrdom in preference to transgressing its tenets. A religious obligation forbade Socrates, even in order to escape condemnation, to entreat his judges to acquit him, because he believed that it was their sworn duty to decide questions without favor to anyone and only according to law. Such an obligation impelled Martin Luther to nail his theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg and, when he was summoned before Emperor Charles and the Diet at Worms, steadfastly to hold his ground and to utter the often quoted words: "I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do other. God help me. Amen." Recognition of this obligation moved [**12] the Greek poet Menander to write almost twenty-four hundred years ago: "Conscience is a God to all mortals"; impelled Socrates to obey the voice of his "Daimon" and led Wordsworth to characterize "Duty" as the "Stern Daughter of the Voice of God."

Mr. Noebel, you are a liar.

END EDIT.

Mathias Kauten sought conscientious objector status to avoid the draft in 1940 not from religious belief, he admitted to being an atheist or agnostic, but because he distrusted the Roosevelt administration and disagreed with the war.

During and since World War II, political objectors have appealed to the courts for c.o. status, The most significant case has been that of Matthias Kauten, an artist of "atheist or at least ...agnostic" persuasion. In addition to challenging Congress' right to pass laws like the draft which infringe upon the "individual qualities of a person," he disliked the Roosevelt administration and viewed the draft as its answer to unemployment. Further, to quote a Department of Justice Report, "he has stated it is not right to act unfriendly to Japan and now to seek to protect ourselves from the consequences of our wrongdoing.... During his travels [he] has witnessed the animosity which exists among the different peoples of Europe and this has strengthened his opposition to war."

The Justice Department supported the local board's decision to deny Kauten c.o, status. "There is no doubt that the Registrant is sincerely opposed to war but this belief emanates from personal philosophical conceptions arising out of his nature and temperament, and which is to some extent political." An Appeals Court in turn supported the local board's decision, both because Kauten's opposition was to one war and not to all wars, and because "his objections ... were based on philosophical and political considerations ... rather than on 'religious training and belief.'" It observed in passing that "in the early days of the draft, many thousands of the American people distrusted our foreign policy. If men holding such views had been ipso facto classed as conscientious objectors, the military effort might have been seriously hampered."

The significance of the Kauten decision is not that the draftee was denied c.o. status, but rather that in doing so a court ruled that "a conscientious objection to participation in any war under any circumstances ... may be the basis of exemption under the [1940] Act." Kauten's humanitarian convictions might have qualified him for exemption because of a broad definition of "religious training and belief." The Kauten court viewed religion as "a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God that is at the present time the equivalent for many persons of what has been thought a religious impulse." Operating under this definition, that court later reached its verdicts about Phillips and Brandon where humanitarian convictions were also at issue, and the Supreme Court drew on the Kauten reasoning in its broadened definition of religion in the Seeger verdict. Kauten's convictions did not exempt him, however, because "Congress intended ... not to give exemption to the great number of persons who might object to a particular war on philosophical or political grounds." A c.o. may thus be one who opposes all wars on humanitarian grounds but not one who objects to a particular war on political grounds.

Here's what Noebel is hanging his hat on:

The Kauten court viewed religion as "a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God that is at the present time the equivalent for many persons of what has been thought a religious impulse."

So, basically the Court didn't know how to qualify an atheist/agnostic for the purposes of conscientious objector status, so they defined religion broadly enough to include conscience. Um, I kinda fail to see how that makes atheism (Kauten did not identify as a secular humanist, though Noebel does seem to use atheism and secular humanism interchangeably) a religion.

Let me put it another way. Current law regarding abortion puts the woman's right to choose above the rights of a fetus inside her body. Does Noebel believe that to be true? I'm going with no. He's cherry-picking what Court decisions mean to him. Roe v. Wade proves nothing, Mathias Kauten proves I am as religious as the Pope.

Sadly, no.

Now I see Noebel's obsession though, and it ain't Jesus, unless Jesus is spelled m-a-m-m-o-n:

Secular Humanism is among the worldviews taught at one of Summit’s Student Worldview Conferences, a two-week program that teaches young evangelical Christians how to defend their faith and Christian worldview against major competing worldviews.

He makes his money this way. Of course secular humanism must be a religion. Otherwise, he can't charge for a two week program on how to defend against it.

Noebel noted that while the worldviews associated with Christianity and Islam have the largest number of adherents, it is Secular Humanism that has caused more Christians to walk away from their faith.

He attributed the trend to the dominance of secular humanist ideas and teachings in public schools, saying secular humanists "run" the public school system from elementary school to graduate schools.

"Out of Secular Humanism, the one big appeal has always been Darwinism," he said. "More Christians have probably stumbled in their faith over Charles Darwin than just about anyone else, more than Karl Marx."

Oh, you mean science! Okay, then. Sure. As the slacktivist has pointed out, a religion based on the denial of basic science is a brittle faith indeed. You need only to learn the lie of one portion of it, i.e., creationism*, for the whole thing to fall apart. That's not Darwin's fault, asshat.

pic link

*Sadly, it's not just creationism. Watch in amazement as one person defends their faith by positing that our eyes create light, clap with delight as another claims the earth is flat and accelerating, or expanding at quite a fantastic rate.

Religion: Video Games for the Stone Age?

Occasionally I remember that cracked.com exists and venture over there for a few hours of reading. Today, I came across an article about video games and Skinnerian psychology. The writer, David Wong, is quite right in his conclusion: video games provide people with the autonomy, complexity and sense of accomplishment that so many of us are missing in our daily lives. This is not an indictment of video games, as a gamer I can tell you this is true. There's nothing terribly fulfilling about being a legal secretary, but when I kill a corpser in Gears of War or level up in Dragon Age, that's accomplishment.

Then it struck me that there are probably other activities that fill the same need for people that don't like video games or don't have access to them. You know, like religion.

Stick with me here. One element of Skinnerian gaming is putting gamers in a virtual Skinner box. Teach them to perform an action for a reward and keep them doing it. Religion involves much the same dynamic. Keep doing the same thing over and over again, i.e., praying five times a day, attending services at certain times, rereading the same book ad nauseum, for a reward, be it heaven or the adulation of your peers.

Another element of gaming is based on the fact that your brain treats virtual rewards- cool! I got the sniper rifle!- as if they are real. Which goes a long way to explaining why the religious will do almost anything for potential rewards in heaven. Their brains treat those virtual rewards the same as if they were being handed actual diamonds.

Random reinforcement is a huge element of gaming, particularly in RPGs. Random reinforcement is the science behind slot machines, and we know how well it works. If you teach an animal to press a lever to get food, and every time it presses the lever it gets food, it stops pressing the lever unless it wants food. Set the lever so that food appears randomly, however, and that animal will do nothing but press the lever. (Think blue-haired ladies at the slot machine.)

How does this relate to religion? Prayer. Some prayers are "answered", some are not. You'd think that would convince people that prayer is a waste of time, but no, it just enforces praying more. Random reinforcement is a powerful force.

Now, the big difference between our Skinner box hamster and a real human is that
we humans can get our pellets elsewhere. If a game really was just nothing but
clicking a box for random rewards, we'd eventually drop it to play some other
game. Humans need a long-term goal to keep us going, and the world of addictive
gaming has got this down to a science.

So does religion. There is no goal greater than heaven, now is there? And there are lots of short term goals along the way, including converting the heathens, raising good religious children, raising money for this, that and the other, the list goes on.

Video games, tv shows, books, blogs, etc. fill a void in our lives. The void of accomplishment or acceptance or love. So do religions. Sure, you're miserably poor and suffering, but you're going to heaven when you die! Everyone at school hates you, but everyone at church loves you! Passing out tracts isn't an annoying waste of time, it's saving souls!

None of this is really a problem until it interferes with your life and/or the lives of those around you. My playing video games obsessively won't impact you, but legislating my religion all over you will. Otherwise, I'd really have no problem with it.

Religious Discrimination

religion, religious, huckabee, commutation, clemency,
The fundys spend every day from the middle of November to Christmas Day itself howling that if you're not screaming "Merry Christmas" at the top of your lungs 18 hours a day, then you're persecuting the hegemony. Mike Huckabee, however, regularly practiced a rather vile form of religious discrimination, with utterly tragic results (not related to the discrimination end of things, but still utterly tragic), and the reaction from everyone is "meh".

I understand that in the wake of mass murder, discrimination seems minor, but this is a big deal.

As you are no doubt well aware by now, Huckabee as governor commuted more sentences than a number of other governors combined. It's not just the commutations themselves that bother me (some people deserve 100 years in prison, clearly), it's how Huckabee, in his secular position, made the decision to commute sentences. He based it primarily on religion. In fact, he jettisoned our legal system to make way for biblical principals of justice (must be New Testament or something)- but only for Christians. I find that just a bit disturbing.

In a 2007 story, the Associated Press noted that Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations in his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas. The acts of clemency benefited the stepson of a staff member, murderers who worked at the governor's mansion, a rock star and inmates who received good words from their pastors.

"It seems to be true at least anecdotally that if a minister is involved, (Huckabee) seems likely to grant clemency," prosecutor Robert Herzfeld said in 2004 after successfully battling the then-governor over the release of a killer.

Also in 2007, Garrick Feldman of the Arkansas Leader raised questions about a convicted killer named Glen Green, who was granted clemency by Huckabee. "Huckabee may not have realized it," he wrote, "but every prisoner knew how to get on the governor's good side. Call it Huckabee's religion test. It's a sure ticket to freedom: Tell him you've found religion."

So, tell him that studying philosophy has shown you the error of your ways and no clemency. Tell him that you're a devout Buddhist (a rather gentle people) and you can rot. Praise Jaysus and you're on your way. "Justice" for the Christians, none for the rest. Lovely.

Religion and politics: discriminitory and dangerous.

Imagine That

bible, religion, justice, poverty, religious, right,

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be shocked by this:

Only 13 percent of Americans surveyed by Harris Interactive on behalf of the American Bible Society was able to correctly credit the Bible as the source of Proverbs 31:8-9, the Contemporary English Version of which states: “You must defend those who are helpless and have no hope. Be fair and give justice to the poor and homeless.”

I do not think this is an example of the sort of ignorance that keeps people from correctly identifying their own country on a map. I think this is a direct result of decades of the Religious Right villifying welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, immigrants (legal and otherwise), blacks, gays, and anyone else not them.

Right now, 45,000,000 of their fellow countrymen lack health insurance and are suffering for it. And the Religious Right lies about death panels and rationing. Bring up the poor and you'll be treated to a tirade about welfare queens. They froth at the mouth when gay rights come up and have equated law-abiding gays with pedophiles in TV ad after TV ad.

All this and they expect us to associate fairness and justice with the same Bible they're beating us over the heads with? Good luck with that.

Experiencing the Divine

seizures, divine, god, christianity, religious, experience,
Note: this could well be a very poorly written and disjointed post. I am trying to capture the experience of the Simple Partial Seizures I have been having all morning in order to make a point. If this makes no sense at all, well, I've got a good excuse. (No worries, SPS's are annoying, but harmless, in my case anyway. I've just never tried to write a blog post in the middle of them.)

A great many believers, and this isn't just limited to Christians, offer up their experience of the divine as proof of the divine. "How do explain how I felt at that moment?" they ask, truly bewildered at the thought that you might want more proof than a feeling.

It misses the point, I think, to dismiss these arguments with a demand for proof. Feelings are powerful, feelings define us as humans, and truly, the only reality we have is the one we personally experience. Your reality is not my reality. In general, our realities are much the same, but in some instances, we may as well be in different dimensions.

I think of this today, because apparently my seizure meds have decided to stop working, or I forgot to take them, and the (doctor recommended) additional (or possibly first) dose I just took hasn't taken effect yet, and I've been seizing on and off all morning.

I don't flop around on the floor or blank out, though, for I have Simple Partial Seizures, in the temporal lobe. I remain conscious, capable of holding a (somewhat peculiar) conversation, or typing, and generally acting about 10 degrees off of normal. I experience deja vu so strong I feel prophetic, or jamais vu that leaves me lost in my own home. I see and hear things that aren't there, or I feel as if every normal thing I see is secretly bizarre, as if the walls are insidiously straight and their lies hold the secrets of the universe.

Why yes, that does sound like a religious experience, doesn't it? My seizures are the reason I do not believe in experiences of the divine, in prophecy, and the like. My response to the claim of any divine experience is simple: I feel like that, too, on occasion. It's a brain disorder, and it's treatable. You can feel just like me, in fact, if you could get someone to jab an electrical wire into the exact right spot in your brain.

Personal experiences are proof of nothing, other than the fact that you experienced something. My advice to anyone faced with this sort of "proof" is empathy. (I know, totally evil, right?) Explain that you understand that they did indeed feel the way they felt, and that it obviously affected them, and that's fine, but then offer up the example of seizures and fever hallucinations. Ask them if they accept without question the uncorroborated testimony of every person who has ever claimed to see an alien. Question whether they would be comfortable with psychic testimony being offered in a court of law- during a death penalty case.

tired. bye.

Spiritual Heritage Week

atheism, atheist, H. Res. 397, H res 397, religion, religious, god, bible, christian,
Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia co-sponsered a resolution in Congress, H. Res. 397, to affirm the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and express support for designation of the first week in May as America's Spiritual Heritage Week for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

The religious in the United States are welcome to celebrate their faith any way they choose, every day of the year. Christian high holy days are already federal holidays. We do not need an act of Congress to further celebrate religion.

Please click here to show your opposition to this latest bit of religious nonsense, this blurring of the line between church and state.

Just in case you're not sure why this might be dangerous, the last Whereas from H. Res. 397:

Whereas the first week in May each year would be an appropriate week to designate as ‘America’s Spiritual Heritage Week’: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--

(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;

(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation’s most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America’s representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;

(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation’s public buildings and educational resources; and

(4) expresses support for designation of a ‘America’s Spiritual Heritage Week’ every year for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

Uh, yeah. Cause atheists have nothing to offer this country, and without the bible we're all doomed. DOOMED, I tell you!

Okay, did you see the title of the blog?

religion, religious, troll, intolerance, jesus, god, bible, prophecy, witness, evangelism, atheism, atheist, stupid,
Dana (of the no profile profile) is really concerned about us, guys. Really deeply concerned about the state of our souls. Really, really, deeply sincerely concerned.



Well, maybe "concerned" isn't quite the word I'm looking for here.



Lovely people, well, now isn't that a nice change? usually, fundys don't think so highly of me.



It's interesting to me that folks who identify themselves as "progressive nope, never identified myself as progressive, tolerant you're being intolerant of my intolerance!, liberal, secular i am, but i never really use that word, rational now it's an insult!, intellectual hey now, that stopped being an insult after obama was elected, lover' no apostrophe s of the creation what? (instead of the creator can't love what i don't believe in)," take so much pleasure in distorting and spinning the words and belief' no freakin' apostrophe s of their counterparts. "distorting and spinning", huh? this was in response to my picking apart of the odd belief that were the rapture to happen, unbelievers actually would be upset at losing their children. just don't like what you see in the mirror, do you?

So much so, that they begin the name calling..."fundy to separate you from perfectly normal religionists, weird it is weird from my point of view, out-of-touch i didn't use that, retarded i definitely didn't use that word, demagogue you have no idea what that means, do you?," and so on. Real "tolerant" guys. again, yes I am intolerant of your intolerance. "tolerance" does not mean "accepts absolutely anything anyone says as true and perfect." Where do you get off anywhere i can, my dear?

The way I see it, the opposing world views have an obvious ocean between them. One can look at that diversity in view point as a table for discussion, oh, you mean like the "discussion" where you tell me i'm wrong and i will burn forever in hell? that one?or...like the folks here...a battle ground. when was the last time you had an atheist stop you on the street to evangelize? Hypocrisy takes the latter position. oh, noes, i'm a hypocrite, too!

How can those who claim the mantle of "tolerance, liberal, accepting" do so, when in reality, they mock and shout down those of a different opinion?on my own blog, mind you. i didn't go to her house and start preaching atheism. Bottom line is this. Two plus two equals four, no matter if any of you say it equals five. i'm an atheist, not an amathist. and your argument isn't that 2 + 2 = 4, your argument is that anything + anything = GOD. Your argument might be that "well, that is my truth, therefore it is just as valid as your truth." no, that would be your argument.

Guess what? You're flat wrong. Truth is truth. It's not relative. Truth is absolute. Christianity is about truth, not tolerance. mind you, the same person who spent paragraphs ranting at me about my lack of tolerance is now going to tell me that christianity and god are intolerant and that's wonderful. yeah. And, it's not the Christian who is intolerant. It's God who is intolerant. it's not me, it's god is exactly the excuse suicide bombers use, btw. God is intolerant of sin, because He is pure and Holy. when you are linking two ideas with "because" they need to be freakin' related in some way. I challenge you to wrap your mind around that concept. the concept that the imaginary skydaddy is so pure that he must necessarily torture people forever and ever and that's justice?

He cannot abide the evil in this world. then he needs to get rid of it. If you have a problem with that, can't wait to see you argue it with Him, when your turn comes to do so, kneeling (and you will) before the throne of the God of this Universe. but not all universes, just this one. It's about God's Word, not the words of His believer's, who are nothing more than broken people, doing their best to come to Christ, in the midst of their brokenness, and to tell the other's about salvation, no matter how feeble that might look to you. this isn't even fun any more, it's pathetisad. please, learn some apologetics. ranting at and threatening people will never lead to a conversion.

And yes, there is division within the church, just as it was prophesied, and folks, it's going to get much worse. so, which church should i choose. to paraphrase the immortal Homer Simpson, if I pick the wrong church, I'm just making god madder and madder. Apostacy has been prophesied and we're seeing it now.The division gives fodder for those of non-belief, as witnessed by this thread. i kinda fail to see how apostacy was the problem inherein in the rapture post. To be on that side, reveling in the dissension, is nothing to throw a party over. can i hand out cookies? In the end, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess...that Jesus Christ is Lord. proof? That goes for believer's and non-believer's alike. stop it with the fucking apostrophes! It has been prophesied, and to date, the Bible has been 100% accurate in each and every one of it's prophetic predictions (some 688), in hair-splitting detail. really? prove that. This fulfillment of prophecy goes from the rise and fall of earthly kingdoms and empires, there will be war in the middle east. it will involve sand. to the tiniest details of the lives of individuals, from shepherds to Kings.

Doubters might talk to University professors in archeology, theology, geology, and so on. ya know, scientists and other such people that know things. don't talk to them! These fulfilled prophecies have been substantiantied by secular folks from every walk of science. link? anything? So, look it up and laugh it up.

And, go ahead with the mocking and ridiculing of the faithful. Just make sure you have an ice cold brewski to wash down the locust, and a naked chick to violate i'm a girl, dude. when those days come because the King of kings, and the Lord of lords is coming, and very soon. um, i get to drink beer and rape people when jesus comes back? Hope you'll be able to look Him in the face, without shame, when that day comes.

Maranatha,

Dana

Derailing for Dummies

dna, derailing, dummies, minority, privileged, homophobia, homosexual, gay, feminism, funny, religious, right,
Not sure how to maintain your Privileged Person(tm) status against all those Marginalized Persons(tm)? Read Derailing for Dummies, your guide to conversational dominance! (DNA, I'm looking at you!)

Taking the Crazy Train to Nutterville

crazy, religion, religious, jesus, miano, lawman, evangelical, evangelism, witness, testimony, god, christian, bible,
This guy lives in California:

Proclaiming the Law and the Gospel is not a right given to Christians by men. It is a command given to Christians by God. If you want to earn and exercise a right, go earn and exercise the right to die for Jesus Christ at the hands of the very people who insist you do not have the right to speak to them about the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

So, when did California start executing Christians for their belief? Yet again we have confirmation that what fundys want more than anything else is a return of the lions.

Can We Say Disingenuous

religion, religious, morality, mormon, lds, homophobia, homosexual, marriage, tradition, traditional, gay, dna, rockwood, angela,

I would like to be upfront with you: when I offer you an argument, it's an argument I believe in. I truly believe it, I truly feel that way, and, when you read my words, you're getting an honest look at the way I think and feel. You're not getting unlimited access to my every thought, but the thoughts I share represent exactly what I really think.



I mention this, because in lurking around the bigotsphere, I came across this gem from our friend, Beetlebabee, aka Angela Rockwood, Director of/for/in the DNA. She not only admits to being disingenuous* at best in her arguments against same sex marriage, she encourages others to follow her down the yellow brick road of hiding one's true intentions.



Comment by beetlebabee on March 8, 2009 at 6:09pm


In order to be effective in the marriage debate arena i.e., making sure homosexuals remain second class citizens, I think it's important to focus on love more than we focus on the sin. is this some new definition of "love" I am unfamiliar with? this, from the woman who has said, repeatedly, that marriage is not about love? pick a side, angie! While rejecting the behavior, Christ never rejected the soul. love the sinner, hate the sin. as if gay were a sin. way to frame the argument, ange. It doesn't do us any good to focus on "those sinners" with our fingers pointed out. it might do you some good to focus on "those sinners" with your fingers pointed inward, however. We've got to do a better job of articulating our position beyond just "That's nasty" or "that's evil". that's right, angie's not above reducing homosexuals to second class citizens because gay sex makes her feel squicky, and apparently she can't stop thinking about it.



There are a whole array of points that are infinitely more persuasive than opining on someone else's level of righteousness. glad you've noticed that, but it is highly disingenuous to go out there and propound on the other arguments, when you're real problem is that the bible, or the book of mormon, told you so. You know what I mean? be as insincere as possible? We're all sinners at some point, but those gays just won't quit! so let's move beyond that and talk about the other arguments that are out there. not the arguments that really represent our viewpoint, the other ones.



When I debate, I never use the word "sodomite" for instance because it's unbelievably rude?, because it pidgeonholes or possibly pigeonholes me immediately as someone who believes in religion as the basis for my argument. no, it outs you as a nasty bigot. who the fuck says "sodomite" anymore, other than Westboro Baptist? and if you're not familiar with Westboro, just type "god hates fags" into a search engine and see what comes up. While that is very true that you're a nasty bigot?, religion is my basis and my rock good for you, leave the rest of us out of it., it's not the only proof out there supporting traditional marriage, religion isn't proof. it's faith. two different things. and the reality is, that hearts and minds close to the truth very quickly if you take religion as your main defense. because the rest of us can tell the difference between truth and religion. of course, we're not mormons.



For me, Religion is my basic foundation. i'm glad for you, now stop trying to legislate it all over the rest of us. Because I believe in the scriptures and, again i'm glad for you, now stop trying to legislate it all over the rest of us. , and the word of God, I know that homosexuality is not the path to happiness. not for you. not for me, either. wtf does that have to do with anything? Because I know that, I know that studies and other proofs will automatically follow. oh, dear. the bible/book of mormon said so, therefore, there MUST be proof out there somewhere. we just need to find it. this is called "confirmation bias" ange. it's not how science works, it's not how logical argumentation works, but thanks for sharing. So, I focus on a broader base, truth. so, religion isn't truth? i'm getting a little confused here. Because everyone is searching for truth. except people who already know it, like you.



People will be much more open to our line of thinking if we come at it from the arena of truth, rather than overt religion well, yeah, but that's still disingenuous.....even though at heart they are the same. at your heart, not at mine.



just my two cents. i added at least another $1.50. i'm generous like that.



*disingenuous, for those unfamiliar with the word and lazy about the clicking, means lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere

Ch-Ch-Ch-Choices

fundamentalism, religion, religious, christian, modesty, muslim, atheism, atheist,

In reading about modesty, I learned something. Well, I learned two things. As is clearly demonstrated above, I am not modest*. I also learned something else. As much as I love having choices**, other people clearly do not.

Choices are scary.

Religion can save you from them.

Not sure what to eat? Religion's got you covered. Not sure what to wear? Oh yeah, religion really has you covered there. Not sure what to movies to watch, what music to listen to, what books to read? Religion has an approved list. Not sure what to do with your time? Religion has an itinerary. Not sure when, or how many, children to have? There's religion for that, too. Sexual desire got you down? Not sure if that particular fantasy makes you a freak? Religion will tell you who, when and how to fuck.

Not sure what to think? Religion has your opinions for you right here.

So tell me, other than the promise of a better tomorrow, what's the difference between fundamentalism and slavery?

*I consider the WonderBra to be the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th century.

** I buy tea three flavors at a time just so every time I make tea, I have a choice as to flavor. Choice is the bestest thing every.

Defining Lust

atheism, atheist, religion, religious, jesus, bible, christian, christianity, muslim, hell, judaism, jewish, orthodox, burqa, modesty, lust
Quasar, over at the SMRT board, has possibly explained a fundy (and I'm speaking of Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundys here) viewpoint that has long confused me- lust.

Fundys make a big deal about sexual attraction, and it's never made sense to me. (Growing up Catholic, you learn a lot about the evils of birth control, but nobody makes a big deal about clothing or lust in general.)

We all know about the burqa and the head scarf, and if you live where I live, you've seen how Orthodox Jewish women dress. Christian fundys aren't generally quite that extreme, but they do make a fuss about modesty.

Quasar's explanation:

Now that I've got you interested with the title... how broad is the definition of lust, and how does this apply to sexually repressed fundies?

For me there are three distinct levels, and I only define the third as 'lust.'

1. The first is simply in passing: I notice a girl, and may not even consiously think about her, but my mind recognises that she has attractive features and I could tell others that she was attractive if they asked.

2. The second is more like 'admiration.' This is simply a platonic admiration of the other persons aesthetics: consiously registering their beauty. An example might be when your eyes fix on someone as they go by. Happens to me a lot.

3. The third is what I call lust, and involves actual sexual attraction. This emotion is extremely rare, and takes a lot to evoke, in me at least.

Now, I'm beginning to think that fundies may have a much broader definition of lust. Consider those who force women to wear head-scarfs to prevent lust from being evoked.It seems to me that they consider even the first definition, simple recognition of attractiveness, to be lust. Something Ray once did (Hi Maragon!) and the general behaviour of fundy christians, leads me to believe that they consider the second definition as lust. Or is it possible that the sexual repression both groups enforce causes them to experience the third definition of lust far more frequently than myself? Or a combination of the two? Chime in! What do you think?

While I find it entirely possible that people who are repressed about sex might end up thinking about it even more (Pink Elephants! I dare you not to think of them!), I think it may well be true that simply noticing a member of the opposite sex, or recognizing their relative attractiveness is what qualifies as lust to fundys.

This is an extremely odd viewpoint because, as another SMRT member noted, one could achieve 1 or 2 with a dog, a horse, a painting or a piece of furniture. Simply acknowledging the beauty in a person is not lust.

To view acknowledging beauty as sin is just mindblowing to me. "God made the world a beautiful place- don't enjoy it or you'll burn forever!" has to be the most depressing theology I've ever heard of.

Now on to 3, real lust. I fail to see what exactly is wrong with lust. For one thing, lust is a desire to act, not an action. For another, we're biologically programmed to lust. Perpetuation of the species and all that. I know, I know, Jesus did say that desire and action are one and the same. Lusting is the same as fucking. Anger is the same as murder.

What a peculiar viewpoint. For one thing, who can control their thoughts? Just writing this is sending me into a really detailed fantasy involving [censored] and it is HOT! What were we . . . oh, yeah, controlling your thoughts. Not possible. I suspect that any religion that puts you in the position of thought sinning is really aiming at a particularly insidious form of control. "You can't control your thoughts, pervert? Better get some Jesus before your burn! Oh, what, Jesus isn't enough to stop you from thinking sinful things? Better start attending church and reading the bible and tithing- otherwise it's the outer darkness for you!"

Thoughts are normal. Noticing another person's beauty is normal. Appreciating another person's beauty is normal. Lustful thoughts are normal. (This fantasy I am having- not so much.) Homosexual thoughts in an otherwise hetero person? Also normal. Getting worked up about it? Not normal, not healthy and not necessary.

We may need a few more bus ads.

Proving God Through Evil

religion, religious, suffering, evil, good, christian, jesus, god, atheism, atheist, atheophobia, asshat
Trying to deal with the existence of evil is a dangerous game for a Christian to play. Some do it quite well. The Slacktivist handles the evil question every so often with delicacy and panache. (Yes, I have quite the crush on Fred, which is a little embarrasing for an atheist.) Most Christians, however, are not Fred. That leads to the following:



Where is God when a little girl gets raped - Part 3



by Rod Holmgren



Nobody except for Ray Comfort hates atheists more than Rod Holmgren. In fact, you'd think atheists burned down Mr. Holmgren's house, with his dog in it, while anally raping his grandmother and pouring sugar into the gas tank of his classic Mustang. Mr. Holmgren is clearly more intelligent than Mr. Comfort, but that's not really saying much.



A fellow traveller in life’s journey, F, once stated, “But since you believe in [God] you must blame him [for] floods, earthquakes and of course rapes. Of course, all these things happen because THERE IS NO GOD.”



actually, all those things happen because they happen. saying they happen because there is no god implies that if there were a god, they wouldn't happen, which is rather silly, but i agree with the point i think F was trying to make.



Another atheist wrote, “for what purpose could God possibly permit so much evil to be in the world?” good question. nobody, not even Fred, really has an answer for that.



First of all, to find the answer to, Where is God?, one does not ask an atheist. indeed, if one wants to know the location of god, it would be rather useless to ask someone that doesn't believe in god, but . . . Atheists are alienated in their relationship with their Creator.



For the last fucking time, we are not in a relationship with the nonexistent skydaddy, alienated or otherwise, any more than Christians are in an alienated relationship with Odin or Thor. Stop it.



Getting an accurate depiction of God from an atheist is like getting an accurate rendering of the justice system from a career criminal.



Actually, a career criminal would be the best source of accurate information possible for how the justice system really works. Who could possibly know better?



Therefore, the following is garnered both from what the Bible tells us about God look, using the bible to prove god to an atheist is both bad form and pointless. yes, i understand that you like your skydaddy book. i prefer the harry potter series. i consider them to be equally valid, in case you didn't pick that up. and suffering as well as from Christians themselves as they describe their journey through tragedy and suffering. anecdotal evidence is not evidence. it's nice and all that the skydaddy makes you feel better, but what does that prove? What we find from those sources i think it should be written "sources" is that:



. God is with believers in their suffering. for future reference, if you're ever with me while i'm being raped, don't stand there, "with me in my suffering". DO SOMETHING! i expect that of any human being, i expect a bit more out of an omnipotent being.



- Whether we sense His presence or not just cause you can't feel it, doesn't mean it's not there is not logic, God is with us as any loving parent is with a child who has just been hurt. god is omnipotent and omniscient. i don't expect a loving parent to necessarily know when their child is being hurt, i do expect an omnipotent and omniscient being to know. and, again, i expect a little more than comfort afterwards. unless you think being a good parent involves watching your child get raped and then stepping in to comfort them afterwards. I happen to know firsthand about years of childhood sexual assault. i'm sorry about that. no one should have to experience such a thing. While I wasn’t a Christian until I was thirty-years-old, I can see clearly how it was God’s tender mercy that sustained me through that and much more as life went on. I don’t expect His presence to end - ever! okay. i don't get the atheophobia, but i do get the extreme need for christianity. this is why i never try to defaith people. some people really need their beliefs.



Mr. Holmgren, you are more than welcome to believe in any god(s) you want. However, please stop attacking atheists. We aren't hurting you. It isn't necessary to attack us. Please take a page from my pagan friends who believe what they believe, even pray for me, but never take a swipe at my lack of belief. (Thanks, guys!)



God is able and does bring good out of the things that satan uses to destroy us.


This argument is the theological version of "every black cloud has a silver lining". while it's nice that you can find good in bad things, it doesn't prove god.


- God is working in us the good that is spoken of in Romans 8:29. That good is the development of Christ-like character. God is able to bring that about in all the things that may happen to us during our lives.. God is with the meek, the humble, the merciful. so why aren't you meek and humble?

- “God opposes the proud, but give grace to the humble.” Therefore atheists should not be surprise or confounded when Christians seem to experience tragedy in a way that is different from pagans or atheists. i have yet to see christians experiencing tragedy in any way differently from atheists and pagans. “We do not grieve as those who have no hope.”. i have hope, Mr. Holmgren. In fact, it is atheism that gives me hope. His presence sustains those who love Him and follow Him.

this goes on for quite some time until we get to this little gem:

First, God used the Nazi Holocaust as a means to reunite the nation of Israel, as was prophesied 3,000 years earlier. God is going to bring to fulfilment His plans for humanity and the gates of hell will not be able to stand against it. Still to come is the destruction of nations that try to remove Israel from the world stage, even as Israel becomes like "a huge stone around the neck of the world." This also was predicted thousands of years ago.

great, merciful yhwh killed 6 million Jews, 2-3 million Soviet POWs, 2 million ethnic Poles, 1.5 million Romani, 250,000 disabled persons, 200,000 Freemasons, 15,000 homosexuals, and 5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses to bring about prophecy. That's good? That's desirable?

Oh, sorry, guys, you got in the way of my prophecy. You understand, I'm sure.

I'm sure the families of those 15 MILLION dead people were just thrilled to be a part of it all.

. . .

Or, as with atheists, it might be physical or emotional safety that we depend upon. who doesn't depend upon physical and emotional safety? as if christians are in the habit of living in burning buildings. In fact, atheists seem personally offended when tragic things happen, even in someone else’s life.

yes, we are capable of empathy, asshat. That's what it's called when you hurt for someone else. you know who doesn't get upset when they hear about a child being raped? a sociopath, that's who. you are condemning us for the sin of empathy. that's really something.

. . .

There are so many benefits to suffering, there are so many obvious answers to the question of “Why would God allow evil in the world?” that it’s surprising that atheists seem dazed, confused and oblivious to any of them. okay, this I gotta see.

For example:. Suffering brings into a relationship with God, those who have been predestined to such a journey.- You never know that God is all you need until God is all that you have.”. oh, dear, we have a calvinist here.

IN WHICH CASE, WHY ARE YOU FUCKING PICKING ON ATHEISTS? EITHER WE'RE PREDESTINED TO BELIEVE OR WE'RE PREDESTINED TO NOT BELIEVE, BUT EITHER WAY IT'S NOT OUR FAULT!

sorry for the shouting, but wading through pages of bullshit to find out that this asshat thinks everything is predetermined by god, including my atheism, and he's still abusing me for my atheism, is really frustrating.

i give up. you're on your own if you want to continue with this bullshit.

Not a Christian Nation

christian, nation, christianity, religious, right, tripoli, treaty, us
The Religious Right is in love with the idea that the US is a "christian nation". Read any sufficiently fundamentalist blog/message board/"news" site, and you'll see that phrase more than once. In fact, you'll also see a great deal about "returning" the US to the "christian principals the country was founded upon".

The arguments are many, but mostly revolve around two ideas: (1) the Founding Fathers were Christians, and (2) many of the Ten Commandments are found in the US Criminal Code.

I could argue the above 2 points until somebody's cow comes home, but I don't need to. I have the US Treaty With Tripoli. Written in 1796, read aloud in its entirety to the Senate in 1797, and personally approved by John Adams, Article 11 clearly states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

So there you have it. We are not, nor were we ever, a "christian nation".

Christian Appreciation Day

persecution, oppression, religion, religious, christian, christianity, asshat, stupid,
I would like to clarify something. If you are the majority, you are not being oppressed or persecuted. If you are a part of the majority, and believe you are being oppressed and persecuted, you don't have any idea what those words mean. I suggest a visit to the Holocaust Museum, for starters.

What set me off is a comment to an equally irrational post:

I don’t want to sound like an elitist, but THIS is why I homeschool!! Obviously, that route is not for everyone, but this is the reason I shudder at the thought of public school. My kindergartner does not need to be subjected to this kind of social garbage. He is not old enough to have to decide who is right, his parents or his teachers/peers. Why can’t they* back off, and just promote a general respect for all human beings, without promoting specific social lifestyles? They want to scream inequality, but can you imagine the outcry if there were a “Christian Appreciation Day” where we celebrated all the famous christians of our nation, and openly taught basic christian principles? That would NEVER fly. Tell me who’s being oppressed, and who’s being celebrated? They might be the minority in numbers, but when it comes to social acceptance, they’re allowed to do just about anything they want.

*"They" is the gays, with their desire for equality. It's outrageous!

Here's a clue for you, asshat. EVERY day in the US is "Christian Appreciation Day". Every damn day. "Basic christian principles"? Go to any public square, any courthouse, and you'll see some kind of christian display. Pull the money out of your pocket- that's got a christian display on it. Your high holy days are national fucking holidays. Any candidate for presidency must- MUST- prove his christian credentials if they hope to get anywhere at all.

We don't have Christian Appreciation Day for the same reason we don't have "White Heterosexual Male Anglo Saxon Protestant Day." Because it would be redundant.

I Am Responsible for Unchurching

church, unchurched, religion, ARIS, survey, religious, christian, christianity, jesus, bible, witness, evangelism, evangelical, god,
or, 1.6% of the population of the US is way more convincing than the rest.

According to the latest American Religious Identification Survey, no religion is the fastest growing religion and Christianity is losing ground. (Unsurprisingly, the religious right is now at Defcon 4.)

From the survey:


86% of American adults identified as Christians in 1990 and 76% in 2008


The "Nones" (no stated religious preference, atheist, or agnostic) continue to grow, though at a much slower pace than in the 1990s, from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008.

Of course, the religious right is now searching desperately for answers. They should probably ask someone like me, who would have answered "Christian" in the 1990s, and a firm "atheist" today. Shoulda, woulda, coulda, I suppose, though the religious right's stabs at explanations have amusement value, at the least.

Tony Beam, in Christianity Under Fire: Why Fewer People Identify With the Faith, comes up with five answers:

1. Since 1990, there has been a significant rise in the number of people who are what I call “aggressive atheists.” Of course, atheists are number one. We're 1.6% of the population, according to the last survey to separate atheists from other "nones", but we're defaithing people in record numbers, cause we're aggressive! In past generations, atheists have been a rather quiet group, preferring to keep their unbelief to themselves. Crusades, witch trials, McCarthy Hearings, yeah, we're just shy. But the last 18 years has seen a sharp rise in the number of aggressive atheists POW! who proclaim their atheism WHAP! with enthusiasm BAM! and have gone on what could be called an “anti-evangelism” or “reverse evangelism” mission with the goal being the destruction of any belief in God. or we just think our voices should be heard, too. or we figured that since you weren't going to stop telling lies about us, we might want to counter that with the truth. first amendment blahblahblah establishment clause blahblahblah separation of church and state This has a chilling effect on believers as they are caught somewhat flat-footed and unprepared to defend their beliefs against the attacks of these aggressive atheists. assuming these "aggressive attacks" are real, why can't they defend their faith? why is their faith so weak that i can break it by the simple expedient of screaming "prove it!"? (not that i ever do. i sound ridiculous when i scream. imagine a 7 year old with a cold throwing a temper tantrum) This leads us to the second reason for decline.

2. The abandonment by the local church of apologetics as a major part of Christian discipline. Many Christians are unwilling or unable to defend their faith because they haven’t been systematically taught the Truth and how to defend it. The concept of absolute Truth has been under assault since mid-19th century German liberalism began to creep into the theological thinking of many Americans. Truth must be defined before it can be defended and most churches spend little or no time teaching people how to do either. Focus on the Families “Truth Project” and other Para-church attempts at promoting apologetics are good but for the most part, they are not translating into the teaching of the local church. i'm not validating the concept of capital "T" truth, but he's probably right. so many christians these days see "god said, it believe it, and that ends it" as a fantastic logical argument. it's bleeding into all argumentation. (See: Beetlebabee promotes a really stupid argument. 500 points to the first person who lists all the assumed answers)

3. The combination of traditional religious teaching with the new age concept of spirituality. The “Oprahization” i had no idea Oprah was the devil to millions of people until very recently. of the church is well under way with millions now tuning in (through TV and the web) and turning on to Oprah Winfrey’s brand of homogenized religion. Being spiritual, as defined by Eckhart Tolle and others means simply believing in a nebulous force that might work well for Star Wars Jedi but in the real world, is nothing but new age nonsense. yeah, they're very angry about this. very angry. score one for the pagans, i guess.

4. The negative portrayal of Christianity in the culture by the media liberal elites!and the proliferation of scandals within the Church. and whose fault would that be?The media loves a good church scandal no, everybody loves a scandal of any kind. it's just especially amusing to see a guy who used to preach homophobia as a virtue get caught snorting meth off the asses of gay prostitutes. good times. and unfortunately, church leaders in America have been more than happy to provide the media with plenty of material. they do seem to specialize, don't they? From pedophiles masquerading as Catholic Priests actually, i really like that. they weren't really priests, they were just pretending. sorry, no. they were pedophiliac priests. to Protestant ministers who can’t keep their wedding vows in bed! or, that's what she said!, people are losing faith in their religious leaders. The media piles on with negative portrayals of organized religion portraying the extremist Fred Phelps as an accurate picture of typical evangelicalism. no, nobody is claiming that fred is normal, but he is good tv. does this guy get what the media is in the business of selling?

5. A lack of emphasis in the Church on evangelism as defined by personal conversion and a reluctance by the Church to embrace new methods of communication for the purpose of evangelism. i was really enjoying that. damn. Many churches have stopped trying to evangelize or, they've moved on to other forms of evangelism, best described as "be nice and set a good example", which is easier on atheists and makes the world a nicer place. they're going to stop that, aren't they? and many of those that are still trying are using methods that were effective in 1955 but fail to connect in the 21st century. see also: Ray Comfort, Tony "the Lawman" Miano, et al. The Emerging Church movement tends to blur the lines between believing and belonging, hmmm? therefore minimizing the need for personal conversion. Many churches that still believe people are lost and need to be saved are still preaching the truth but the message is getting lost in all the cultural background noise. oh, HELL, YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL!!!!!! The Church has to find a way to cut through the static and reach people through the building of relationships. good luck with that.