Why Do Christians Pray After a Disaster?

Yesterday, as the devastating tornado ripped a path of destruction through Moore, Oklahoma, I watched the storm play out through the Facebook status updates of a friend who lived in the area. This friend is a Christian, and her response is similar to that of many believers in the face of such an event. Earlier in the day she posted:

“Praying the storms won’t hit.”

Then, as it became evident that this prayer was unanswered,

“Hang on, my friends.”

Followed by a Bible verse:

"Give all your worries and cares to God, for He cares about you. 1 Peter 5:7”

Next status:

“We are in a safe shelter. Praying for all those in the path in the storm. Jesus, protect us!”

Then:

“Lord, we beg your mercies upon us. Praying for the two schools that were hit. Please keep the children & teachers safe.”

Another Review of "God or Godless"

Is this the best that Christians can say? This review is mind-boggling, but somewhat positive. Enjoy. There is way too much ignorance here to bother responding.

Question for Discussion, What Evidence is There for Christianity?

Have at it in the comments below.

A Thought that Keeps Reoccurring to Me as I Study the Bible and Theology

After forty-four years of studying the Bible and Judeo-Christian theology, I am totally convinced (as I visit our local mall and other public places) that 98% of the people I pass could not only have done a better job, but would have been far more compassionate to humanity than either of the Biblical deities (God and Jesus)!

Check Out the SINergy Link Today

Check out the awesome resource that is SINergy - the home of all the media associated with the various members and contributors to the Skeptic Ink Network (SIN). You can see great interviews, debates and lectures among other things. Whether it be video, radio or written media, there is a plethora of great resources and it will hopefully continue to grow. LINK.

A Comparison of Doctrinal Beliefs of the Five Remaining Book of Mormon Sects

In 1844 the thirty-eight year old founder and revelator of the Latter Day Saints, Joseph Smith, Jr. (along with his brother Hyrum) were murdered at the Hancock County jail in Carthage, Illinois by an angry mob in retaliation for Joseph Smith having ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper edited by a former Church member for revealing to the outside world Smith's secret doctrines of polygamy and polytheism as well as for exposing Smith’s ambition to use politics to advance his theocratic agenda.

I Have This Quote Engraved on a Plaque in My Study

WE MUST DEVELOP UTTER HONESTY ABOUT THE TRUTH, WE MUST DEEPEN OUR CARE FOR EACH OTHER, AND WE MUST LEARN TO RESPECT THE PLANET THAT IS OUR HOME. NOTHING ELSE MUCH MATTERS.

ROBERT W. FUNK 1926 – 2005 (FOUNDER OF THE WESTAR INSTITUTE AND ITS JESUS SEMINAR)

Amazing Bible Verses: The Secret to Long Life!

Okay fellow atheists, can we just admit when we are wrong? I mean, all along we’ve been claiming that the Bible is not a scientific book - that it's the product of superstitious ancient men, not an all-knowing God, and yet here is clear proof that we have been mistaken! In light of this discovery, I have no choice but to relinquish my unbelief.

In this short passage, quietly tucked away in Deuteronomy, is the very key to what so many scientific researchers are pursuing; the secret to extending the human life span.

A Shoddy Literary Creation in the Gospel of Matthew Exposes a Jesus of Faith Who Never Was

Jesus is presented in the anonymous work known as the "Gospel of Matthew" (18: 15 – 18) instructing his disciples on how to reprove a sinful fellow believer:

Original Sin - answering Thomas L. McDonald

I was recently sent a link to Thomas L. McDonald's piece "The Origin of Man, Original Sin, and Why It’s All Your Fault" on his Patheos blog. There is much to talk about in this attempt to reconcile Catholic doctrine with science. My opinion is that he fails in multiple ways to do justice to any such reconciliation. That said, there are some interesting and 'original' attempts.

I will look to expose some of the issues found in the essay in this post.

Gimme a Sign!

Humans are pattern-seeking creatures.  Religious people have found divine communications in the strangest places – from an appearance of the Virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich, to the likeness of Jesus on a tortilla.

Popular evangelical pastor Louis Giglio has wowed audiences with a sermon based on the ‘revelation’ that in scientific drawings, the protein molecule Laminin is shaped like a cross.  Of course, the actual electron microscopic image of Laminin hardly looks like a cross – more like a deformed swastika, but that did not quell his audience’s enthusiastic cheers and clapping.

Ken Ham: Intolerant Atheists Viciously Attack Christian School

“Today, we bring your attention to another attack on Christian education. A Christian K–12 school in South Carolina, with dedicated and highly qualified Christian teachers, has come under vicious attack by atheists. Why? Because one of its instructors, a fourth-grade teacher, tested her children about biblical creation, science, and dinosaurs (using AiG resources), and she has become (in) famous on many atheist websites and blogs.” “Knowing The Truth” with Pastor Kevin Boling 

I think you’ll find this eighteen minute interview with Creationist Ken Ham informative as to what Evangelical Christianity really fears.

David Marshall’s Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Émile Durkheim and Australian Aborigines

Émile Durkheim

In his recent debate with Richard Carrier, David Marshall made the following claims (Debate video):

“Not only is Christianity reasonable in that it makes practical sense to believe it, and that Christians have always reasoned to and for their faith. There are also good reasons to believe -- good evidences -- that Christianity is true. Let me give three, briefly. (1) Miracles. (2) Anthropology, a God that transcends particular cultures. (3) New Testament criticism -- the person of Jesus” (apx. 10:18-10:32 on YouTube video).

For his anthropological evidence, Marshall principally cites the claims of Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), the putative father of modern sociology, on the religion of Australian aborigines. 

Having received my undergraduate degree in anthropology, and having undertaken a year of graduate work in anthropology, at the University of Arizona, I was curious to see what Marshall’s powerful “anthropological” argument would be.

Not surprisingly, I found that Marshall blatantly misrepresented Durkheim.  In addition, his discussion of Durkheim shows that he is poorly read in the anthropological debates surrounding the nature of the religion of Australian aborigines.

In particular, I will show that:

A. Durkheim did not claim that all cultures believe in a Supreme being.

B. Durkheim did not even claim that all Australian cultures believed in a Supreme Being.

C. Durkheim’s interpretations were challenged from the beginning, and are now widely rejected.

D. Christianization or misinterpretation of native terminology remains a viable explanation for the reports quoted by Durkheim that show any belief in a “Supreme God.”

E. Multiple cultures, or even all cultures, having similar concepts of God does not demonstrate the perception of some transcendent reality.

Another Christian Review of "God or Godless"

I will admit that John does do a great job. A lot of his points ultimately go back to the problem of evil...when John talks of how the Biblical God commanded genocide and does not care much about women or slaves, he makes good points. The honest Christian ought to admit this is a huge difficulty. If there really were a good God, wouldn’t God command people not to have slaves? Wouldn’t God command people in patriarchal societies to treat women much better? What good is a God who can’t command the heights of morality? Randal does admit that this is a difficulty and presents as decent an answer as can be expected. Such challenges as John brings up ought to cause any Christian to pause....[But] even were John to convince me with his arguments, I would not join him in atheism. Perhaps I would move to a more liberal Christian perspective, or at most become some sort of Deist. In the same way, if I were already an atheist, Randal might not convince me to become a Christian, but his arguments go far in showing the shortcomings of a godless world and might lead me to think there is something out there. In other words, my (certainly not unbiased) verdict would be that this book is convincing in pointing to a God while offering enough flaws in the Bible to stop short of it being the Biblical God. Link

Peter Boghossian On "A Manual for Creating Atheists"

Dr. Randal Rauser and I Will Debate in June

Randal and I will be squaring off for three days of discussion/debates in June. I'm flying to Edmonton, Canada, for these public events:

June 3: Calgary (@ Renfrew Baptist Church)
June 4: Red Deer (@ Unity Baptist Church)
June 5: Edmonton (@ Taylor Seminary)

There will be an audio available afterward. I'll be a lion in the Christian's den. :-)

My Interview On The Malcontent's Gambit

Enjoy. I really liked Alan's closing examples and arguments!

Silly Sayings of Jesus: God Decides, Sparrows Die.

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.  Matthew 10:29-31 (NIV)

Nice try Jesus*. I suppose you meant this little ‘gem’ to be comforting, but I have to say it fails badly.  This is just the sort of ridiculous, crappy platitudes that many of your followers spout whenever bad things happen.

Amazing Bible Verses: Hands Off, Ladies!

I suppose we should not be surprised that women fare badly in a religion in which penises play a prominent role.

Anyone who has taken a stroll through the Bible soon encounters the fact that Yahweh is creepily interested in men’s junk. For starters, he required penile surgical alteration as a condition of male membership to the Jewish faith:

I’m Right and You’re Wrong: Christians Converting Christians to “True Christianity”

“What we need is a religion that is not only right where we are right, but right where we are wrong.” G.K. Chesterton

In Christianity one thing is for sure, belief in the saving power of Jesus IS NOT the real dogma in Christianity any more than a football is the real dogma in the game of Football! Theological reality proves it’s which sect or denominational team you are a member of and pulling for.

From the outside, Christianity appears to offer a very simple theology in that one only needs faith in Jesus Christ to get him or her to Heaven, but reality proves this raw faith is usually considered worthless (or even damnable) before God. Thus, when the doorbell rings and the unsuspecting person is facing two Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons or Evangelical Christians (with their sect's exclusive Gospel (Good News)) then he or she soon learns that a hard choice must be made apart from simple faith in Jesus.

How Long Does it Take for a Myth to Grow?

I was planning to address in greater this oft-repeated claim about the alleged "two generations" that are needed for a myth or legend to be established. However, Kris Komarnitsky at The Bible and Interpretation website has done a good job explaining why it is flawed. Here is the first paragraph:

"One major topic that impacts on the reliability of the Gospels is the rate at which myth or legend can grow over time and displace the historically accurate accounts of events. Some argue that the Gospels cannot be mostly legend, as many scholars have proposed, because that would require a myth growth rate that is implausibly high given their relatively early composition in relation to the events they claim to recount. For example, New Testament scholar William Lane Craig says, “One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis…is that the time gap between Jesus’ death and the writing of the Gospels is just too short for this to have happened."

You can read the rest at: Myth Growth Rates.

What is Cultural Relativism?

One of the objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is that when applied to morality it leads to cultural relativism, which conjures up unpleasant notions of a world where anything goes. I argue in my book that such an objection is an illegitimate one. You can catch a glimpse of my response from this post. I go on to argue that rejecting the OTF because it leads to cultural relativism (if it does) is like rejecting arguments to the existence of God because they lead us to the unpleasant conclusion that there is no afterlife. One cannot legitimately reject an argument merely because it leads to an unpleasant conclusion. Just bite the bullet. But let's say a consistent application of the OTF leads to cultural relativism anyway. Then I argue we should try to understand what cultural relativism is. Here is a good explanation of it from Renato Rosaldo, who is one of the world's leading cultural anthropologists. See, it's not so bad as supposed.

Randal Rauser On "Facing Evil: Why Christians and Atheists Need Each Other"

This is the title to Rauser's Beliefnet article to be found here. He doesn't understand that our respective problems with regard to evil are not equivalent. For me evil is suffering/harm, especially unnecessary suffering/harm caused by human beings (who are moral agents). I don't need an absolute unchanging standard for identifying suffering/harm. The truth is, neither does he. Like other theists Rauser embraces progressive revelation, that his God continues to reveal moral truths just as he does theological truths. That means the Christian morality of yesterday was true for them, as is the morality of today for him, as will be the morality of tomorrow for others. That's moral relativism, plain and simple. At no time in the past, present, or future can any Christian theist say, "This is God's unchanging objective moral truth." Concerning the moral standard of love (one proposed unchanging standard), it has always been qualified by questions like, "who is my neighbor?" "who is deserving of our love" and "how should we show our love to people?" Those qualifiers have changed throughout the centuries too.

“God or Godless” is Reviewed by Jr. Forasteros

Here are some salient excerpts:

We don’t have many examples of civil, truth-seeking dialog with the Other, especially in the realm of religion. Until now. We can do better than this. A lot better.

Randal Rauser is a Christian who teaches history and theology. John W. Loftus is a former-evangelical minister-turned Atheist apologist. These two men are friends and colleagues who deeply, passionately disagree about fundamental truths. And yet they’ve co-authored a brief, fun, profound book that can and hopefully will serve as the basis for bridges between Atheist and Evangelical communities. In other words, each chapter is short, sweet and packed with rhetorical goodness. Both Randal and John are experts in their field, so their arguments are tight, clear and very accessible (though a few of the later chapters sent me scrambling to Wikipedia to look up one term or another).

God or Godless?gives us a clear model for moving forward in honest, truth-seeking relationships across the religious divide.

What makes the book really good is the quality of the questions both John and Randal bring to the table. Sometimes Randal is the clear winner; other times it’s John. Always, both men have clear, well-thought-out positions and treat each other with kindness and respect (excepting the occasional fun snark).

I’m currently rereading the book with a group of 20-somethings. Some of us are Christian, some are atheist or agnostic. But reading and discussing God or Godless together is helping us to build transformative friendships founded on mutual love and admiration. Plus, it’s a lot of fun. LINK.

Countering Vic Reppert's Divine Hiddenness Arguments

I think there is a counter-argument to Divine Hiddenness arguments. Vic argues God must hide himself. He also argues God knows the appropriate distance to keep so people can still reasonably choose to believe.

Well then, I have argued there isn't a bad "personal" reason to reject the faith of his God. I made this argument in four parts. Read them in reverse chronological order. What then of Vic's claim that God hides himself appropriately so we can still reasonably choose to believe in him? LINK.