An Interview With Guy P. Harrison
The following interview was conducted by "The Promethean" which is the email newsletter of Prometheus Books. Enjoy.
Family Secrets: Is Your Heavenly Father A Psychopath?
In the powerful movie Music Box, Jessica Lange plays Anne,
a lawyer defending her Hungarian-American father against charges of being a war
criminal who tortured Jews in the Holocaust.
Anne finds these charges to be unthinkable, given that she knows her
father to be a loving man. Tensions rise as the prosecuting lawyer claims that the
caring father she knows is a carefully-constructed persona which hides the true
nature of his past. Anne manages to secure
evidence which results in the dismissal of the charges against her father, but
the prosecutor urges her to stop living in a fantasy world, and to dig deeper
into her father’s past, to find the truth.
Anne finds herself facing a difficult choice: pursue the truth at great personal cost, or settle
for the easy answers and safe world of what she has always thought to be true
The movie serves as a powerful illustration of the mental
trauma which Christians face when they are first confronted with rumors of
unsavory secrets in their family history.
Could the loving Heavenly Father which they have known actually be a
brutal and heartless psychopath? Do
they dare stir the dust of doubt by digging around in the ancient archives of
Yahweh, reading what was written about him in old diaries and tattered
documents?Photo of John W. Loftus
 |
| John W. Loftus |
I just thought I'd put this picture of myself out there. It isn't a high quality one, but it should be good enough for the web. People who want to review my books or work in general (or trash them) will be able to find it online with a search. I'm wearing a new hat I just got. Yes, I like hats, black ones mostly.
You are looking into the eyes of a guy who is single-mindedly focused on destroying the Christian faith.
The Inputs of Science Are Better Ones
The inputs of cold hard scientific evidence are better ones. Let's say some scientific experiment proved we don't have free will. Then can you hear a Christian say we have no reason to trust the results, since if so, then we don't have free will, which is considered a pre-requisite to knowing the truth? Why shouldn't we trust the results even if we don't have free will? Again, the inputs of science are better ones. Period. If believers still disagree we just need to show them the results. And if the results are as I suggested, then they must accept them if they want to be intellectually honest, despite the fact that coming to that conclusion was determined by those results.
But look what has happened in the comments right here when it came to the problem of suffering and a good God. A typical (yet respectful) Christian showed up. He sidetracked the issue to talk about free will. It's not enough to say the video is powerful. He needs to explain why God does nothing discernible to alleviate the massive amount of suffering in the world. I tire of this. I really really do. When presenting what appears to be a slam dunk case against faith they will always, always, always divert the discussion. This is absolutely pathetic. This is what Christians must ALWAYS do rather than be honest with the empirical evidence. Skirt it. Typical. Delusional. Sick in the head. There is a virus inside them, a mind virus. It will not let them entertain the simple facts of experience. But this is illustrative of what I see so often, that if I had a dollar for every time it happened I could possibly be rich. Christian do you now see why I say you are deluded? Why you have a mind virus. It has attached itself to you and controls your thoughts so you don't even know it's there. You need our help.
But look what has happened in the comments right here when it came to the problem of suffering and a good God. A typical (yet respectful) Christian showed up. He sidetracked the issue to talk about free will. It's not enough to say the video is powerful. He needs to explain why God does nothing discernible to alleviate the massive amount of suffering in the world. I tire of this. I really really do. When presenting what appears to be a slam dunk case against faith they will always, always, always divert the discussion. This is absolutely pathetic. This is what Christians must ALWAYS do rather than be honest with the empirical evidence. Skirt it. Typical. Delusional. Sick in the head. There is a virus inside them, a mind virus. It will not let them entertain the simple facts of experience. But this is illustrative of what I see so often, that if I had a dollar for every time it happened I could possibly be rich. Christian do you now see why I say you are deluded? Why you have a mind virus. It has attached itself to you and controls your thoughts so you don't even know it's there. You need our help.
Peter Boghossian is Taking the World By Storm
...and creating one as well. Here are some links to the conversation and/or debate from Religion News Source, from Jerry Coyne who uses his definition of faith in his article for Slate titled, "No Faith in Science," from The Thinking Christian, and from his interview for the Secular World Outpost. Finally he shared the stage with Richard Dawkins:
With religion people were usually never argued into it in the first place, so they usually cannot be argued out of it.
Once religious people can admit this fact, then and only then do they have the potential for questioning what seems so obvious to them. But studies show they won't even admit this against the overwhelming evidence of psychological studies. Here then is an excerpt from The Outsider Test for Faith(OTF):
The Massively Incompetent Christian Revelation
A good friend sent me an ad he's placing in magazines and newspapers with this as a title. It's really good. See what you think:
Ever Wonder Why Religious Ignorance Breeds Dogmatic Belief?
 |
| Join Us! |
My sixty plus years dealing with Christianity will let me provide
a real Christian Truth:
Belief and missionary commitment are inversely proportional
to one’s Biblical and Christian objective educational level, but directly proportional to one’s subjective indoctrination level.
Belief in God: What’s the Harm? (Rush Limbaugh Edition)
.
On the subject of human-caused global warming, Rush (who has millions of listeners) has said:
"If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming. You must be agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can't create. It’s always been one of the reasons for my anti man-made global warming stance."
The purpose of this blog post is not to generate arguments over global warming. I merely offer the Limbaugh quote as an example of how a religious belief can drive irresponsible and dangerous attitudes which could have far-reaching implications for the planet.
Dan Barker is Writing a New Book On Life, Meaning, Purpose and Morality
It's tentatively titled: Life Driven Purpose: How An Atheist Finds Meaning (Foreword by Daniel Dennett). He's not offering reasons to reject faith but he does recommend some works that do, in these words: "A wealth of positive and negative criticism of faith can be found in the writings of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, Vic Stenger, Sam Harris, John Loftus, and many other capable writers." Wow, that's a nice list of people to be mentioned in the same sentence with. I'm humbled and very grateful. Thanks so very much Dan!
I was also honored that he asked for a blurb based on a draft of his book. Keep your eyes pealed for this one. I don't have an idea when it will be published. Here's my blurb:
I was also honored that he asked for a blurb based on a draft of his book. Keep your eyes pealed for this one. I don't have an idea when it will be published. Here's my blurb:
"Dan says he's certainly not pretending to be a Deacon of Atheism or Bishop of Freethought, but he is. In this book Deacon Dan (aka Bishop Barker) uses good scholarship in offering convincing answers to some of the most important reasons why believers keep on believing despite the lack of sufficient evidence. Writing with the wit and story-telling of a preacher, this series of "sermons" will definitely reach the masses. I heartily endorse it. May it produce a revival, one of reason, logic and science." -- John W. Loftus, author of Why I Became An Atheist, The Outsider Test for Faith, and co-author of God or Godless?
Jesus Blames God (not Satan) for Human Suffering
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9: 1 -3)
Here’s my commentary on these three verses in a nutshell:
Here’s my commentary on these three verses in a nutshell:
Believing in Christianity is Irrational!
Let's try this again folks. The evidence for Christianity is historical evidence from the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past. That's it. Private subjective experiences do not count, since all believers claim to have them. Miracle claims in today's world do not count either, since the evidence for them doesn't even convince believers in the same faith tradition, much less other faith traditions. Just think Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, and Oral Roberts, or the many claims coming from Asia and the Southern Hemisphere which only convinces Pentecostals and Charismatics. The evidence does not convince many or even most evangelicals, much less moderates, even less so liberals. The evidence for them certainty doesn't convince people outside one's own faith tradition. Protestants don't accept the Catholic miracle claims at Lourdes, France, at the hands of the Virgin Mary, while Christians don't accept the Hindu claims of being healed in the Ganges river. Philosophical apologetics isn't evidence at all. This is merely argumentation that should be based on solid objective evidence or discarded as special pleading, as I have argued in some detail right here. For a Christian to say, "okay, but these kinds of things are still evidence for me," is quite plainly irrational. There is no such thing as privately convincing evidence. Evidence, if it's to be considered as such, is objective evidence, public evidence, evidence that can convince other rational people.
Through the process of elimination then, the evidence for Christianity is historical evidence from the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past, and that's it. Period. I don't see how any sane informed person can disagree. Really. This evidence is supposed to be good enough to convince rational outsiders that God sent his incarnate son to this planet, via a virgin, to atone for our sins, who subsequently was raised from the dead and will eventually reward believers and condemn nonbelievers. I have looked at this supposed evidence and it doesn't produce a scintilla of a reason to accept it. So let me take a different, surprising tact, to help believers see why this is the case.
Through the process of elimination then, the evidence for Christianity is historical evidence from the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past, and that's it. Period. I don't see how any sane informed person can disagree. Really. This evidence is supposed to be good enough to convince rational outsiders that God sent his incarnate son to this planet, via a virgin, to atone for our sins, who subsequently was raised from the dead and will eventually reward believers and condemn nonbelievers. I have looked at this supposed evidence and it doesn't produce a scintilla of a reason to accept it. So let me take a different, surprising tact, to help believers see why this is the case.
Christian Excuses for God's Inactivity, Redux
News Headine: Tornadoes Kill 6, Injure Dozens, Destroy Hundreds of Homes in Midwest. I live in an area affected by this and was a bit worried, having to drive at the time it hit. If God was aiming at me then he missed yet again. Whew! Close call, that one. :-) Anyway, once again here are the top 10 Christian responses to this kind of tragedy, and my decisive rebuttals.
Am I a Poor Philosopher?
Randal Rauser seems to think so in agreement with a recent Christian review of our co-written book, God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions. (Not entirely sure).
Rauser is also taken to task and he responds, right here. But given one of the charges against him, is he also a poor philosopher? You see, Rauser is accused of begging the question. In fact, he's even accused of not knowing what that means. I for one think Rauser does know what that means, but I'd have to agree with the reviewer that he does beg the question. Actually, to be more precise, he is special pleading his case. Don't all Christian apologists do that?
Rauser is also taken to task and he responds, right here. But given one of the charges against him, is he also a poor philosopher? You see, Rauser is accused of begging the question. In fact, he's even accused of not knowing what that means. I for one think Rauser does know what that means, but I'd have to agree with the reviewer that he does beg the question. Actually, to be more precise, he is special pleading his case. Don't all Christian apologists do that?"50 Great Myths About Atheism" is a Great Book!
I have found that even among the very best Christian apologists there is a woeful, and perhaps even culpable ignorance about atheism. As I previously said, this is remedied by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk's excellent book, 50 Great Myths About Atheism.
In what follows I want to write a brief review of it while making a few observations. I will probably write more about it from time to time, especially when one of these myths is brought up in our discussions here.
In what follows I want to write a brief review of it while making a few observations. I will probably write more about it from time to time, especially when one of these myths is brought up in our discussions here.How Do We Know We're Not Brains in a Vat?
In the comments here a Christian said, "you cannot use the scientific method to show you are most likely not a brain in a vat WITHOUT begging the question." Luiz Fernando Zadra responded nicely as follows:
The Definitive Answer to Who Has a Closed Mind
Ed Babinski On Evangelical Conversions
The point is that VAST numbers of people don't convert but are simply enculturated into a belief system. The point is that even among those who DO convert, vast numbers convert at an immature age, and/or due to "silly" irrational desires, fears, prejudices, preconceptions. The point is that we know where the conversions fall, statistically speaking, which tells us that the continuance of Evangelical Christianity depends heavily on adolescents who "accept Christ" before they reach the age of 18. And adolescents do not know much about the Bible, history, science, psychology or religion; they are far from having peaked in their acquisition of worldly wisdom; and they are not known for their emotional maturity. Therefore, we have reason to doubt that such "decisions for Christ" are well informed. Yet Evangelical Christianity relies heavily on such decisions in order to continue at all.
Boghossian is Very Serious; He's a Crusader, a Radical, and I Like It!
I have written a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.
To read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this last one I want to highlight how much of a crusader he is, a radical, and how much I like it. He is dead serious. We know this from his radical remedies for the present faith virus pandemic.
To read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this last one I want to highlight how much of a crusader he is, a radical, and how much I like it. He is dead serious. We know this from his radical remedies for the present faith virus pandemic.Dr. Peter Boghossian Seeks to Revolutionize Our Academic Institutions
I'm writing a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating AtheistsTo read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this one I want to highlight how that he intends to revolutionize academic institutions, a big yet noble goal.
To read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this one I want to highlight how that he intends to revolutionize academic institutions, a big yet noble goal.Quote of the Day, by Luiz Fernando Zadra
I don't accept your claim that knowledge flows from "unproven presuppositions", but that's irrelevant....The problem is, no knowledge flows from your presupposition that god is the immaterial, timeless, spaceless and personal creator of everything. All your arguments must assume one of several of these things to support themselves.
If you must presuppose something to achieve a conclusion later, and your conclusion (god is the immaterial, timeless blah blah…) is hidden in your initial presupposition, then you never achieved any further conclusion at all. No knowledge was ever produced according to your own epistemic standards. In this case, you are basically lying to yourself: you are pretending to know things you don't know. And pretending to know things you don't know is a guaranteed, certified method to keep yourself deluded about reality.
Washington Post Story: "5 Churchy Phrases That are Scaring Off Millennials"
The first line? "The statistics are in. The millennials are leaving the church, and nobody seems quite sure what to do about it." ;-) The five churchy phrases? 1) "The Bible clearly says…” 2) “God will never give you more than you can handle.” 3) "Love on" (e.g. “As youth group leaders, we’re just here to love on those kids"). 4) Black and white quantifiers of faith, such as “Believer, Unbeliever, Backsliding.” 5) “God is in control...has a plan...works in mysterious ways.” Take a look.
The Core Brilliant Argument in Boghossian's Book
I'm writing a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating AtheistsTo see them click on the tag below this post. In this one I want to highlight his core brilliant argument.
To see them click on the tag below this post. In this one I want to highlight his core brilliant argument. Boghossian's Book Will Change Our Nomenclature
I'm writing a few posts about Peter Boghossian's new brilliant book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.In a previous post I mentioned the first thing I had noticed, that Richard Dawkins has had a change of mind! The second thing I noticed about Boghossian's book is that it will change our nomenclature, and this is one of the best things about his bestselling book, although there are many of them.
In a previous post I mentioned the first thing I had noticed, that Richard Dawkins has had a change of mind! The second thing I noticed about Boghossian's book is that it will change our nomenclature, and this is one of the best things about his bestselling book, although there are many of them.When It Comes to God’s Protection, Christians Are No Better Off than Atheists
"Think of a church, and you envision a place
that's holy, peaceful.
 |
| Church Security Officer |
But church security expert Carl Chinn says churches and other
ministries were the scenes of 135 deadly force incidents in 2012, a 36 percent
increase from 2011. Crimes like domestic violence and robberies. Seventy-five
people were killed in those incidents."
Watch the News Video: Protecting The Flock: Church Security
Poll: A Majority of Americans Approve of God's Job Performance
This is not a joke, but it should be given Typhoon Haiyan.
The Free Will Excuse
When Christians are asked why their all-powerful, loving god does not intervene when people are carrying out acts of horrendous cruelty and violence, they have an answer. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have an emergency exit. This mental escape hatch allows them to stop wrestling with the implications of a god who stands idly by and allows psychopaths to carry out their cruelties, unopposed.
Long ago, Epicurus pointed out that a god’s inaction in the face evil calls into question its power and goodness:
The Top 10 Christian Responses to Typhoon Haiyan
Here is a recent CNN news report about the devastation. I hurt for the victims don't you? Why doesn't God? From my experience the following are the top 10 Christian responses (i.e., excuses) to it in descending order:
Guy Harrison Just Keeps Spitting Books Out
Harrison's prolific writings are very good. I highly recommend them. He has a new book out called "Think: Why You Should Question Everything," which looks excellent as well. I don't have an opinion on his first book, "Race and Reality," since I haven't read it. His others are important and needed. Check them out.
Richard Dawkins Has Had A Change of Mind!
One of the traits of New Atheists was that in light of the 9/11 murders they expressed a measured anger at religion, especially Dawkins. In February 2002, four years before The God Delusion was released in 2006, Dawkins called atheists to "arms" in a TED talk. Seen here, which as of this date has had 2,131,473 views! (Talk about star power, wow!). His talk was first posted on TED in April of 2007. He made it clear that he wanted a campaign much like the gays used to gain acceptability in American society. His final sentence was, "let's all stop being so damned respectful." This strategy has worked. He's been pretty consistent about it too, even refusing to debate William Lane Craig, for doing so would gain his creationist views more respectability than they deserve. And even though I have produced works that treat Christianity respectfully in order to effectively critique it, so far he has not recommended them. I wished he had done so but it would be recommending works that do what he advised against. Well, there is a small change in the air.
Agnosticism is Religion’s Friend as the Same Logic that Can’t Disprove God, Can’t Disprove Minerals Have Spirits Either
Dan Lambert About Believing Despite the Lack of Arguments
Peter Boghossian: "If the arguments for the existence of God were rebutted, would you still believe?" She: "Yes". Boghossian: "Then you don't believe on the basis of arguments."Really? Let's talk about being disingenuous.
Dan Lambert: "The outrage at this woman's response is so disingenuous. The fact is that we all have certain beliefs that we will never give up, no matter what someone else 'proves.' That's because we all move the goal posts when confronted with a seemingly indisputable fact. Theists do it. Atheists do it. It's human nature. Big deal."
A Description of My New Anthology, "Christianity is Not Great"
For the chapter titles and authors see here. Now for the description:
This anthology focuses on the harms of Christian faith that best explain why atheists argue against it. It contains new substantive essays written by superior authors on many of the most important topics relevant to its theme. In Part 1 the authors begin by showing that faith itself is the problem. It has no method, solves no problems, and gets in the way of the progress of science. With faith as a foundation almost anything can be believed or denied. Almost any horrific deed can be done too.
In Parts 2 through 4 the authors take a good hard look at many of the most important political, institutional, scientific, social and moral harms the Christian faith has generated. The Christian faith has caused and is causing great harm to the rest of us who want to live a peaceful successful life on this planet.
In the final part the authors answer the triple Christian retorts that 1) atheists cannot judge a harmful action without an objective moral standard, that 2) atheists need faith to solve the world’s problems, and that 3) atheists cannot live a good life without faith.
The harms of Christian faith need to be explained, not explained away. This is especially the case if there is a perfectly loving omnipotent omniscient God who invented it. The essays in this book clearly show that such a God-concept is not the author of the Christian faith based in the Bible with its terrible track record in history.
That’s the point of the book. The Christian faith can be empirically tested by the amount of harm it has done and continues to do in our world, given the Christian God-concept. The result is that Christianity fails miserably.
Atheists, Stay Focused On The Goal
I'm concerned that too many atheists are just talking to themselves rather than focusing on the delusions of religious faith. I'm reminded of church all over again. As a former I minister I saw the same phenomena. Christians spend a great deal of time with internal debates that don't address the credibility of their faith before the watching world. Perhaps this is just a reflection on human beings. We belong to communities so we desire to address the concerns of our communities. But never forget that outspoken atheists are outnumbered by believers a thousand to one. As a vocal minority we need to spend much more time addressing the credibility of non-belief before the believing world. Major on the majors and minor on the minors. Keep focused on the goal. It will not do to focus most of our efforts on cleaning house when a massive number of barbarians are at the door. Want the statistics? Then watch Bad News For Atheism? If you agree then please share this far and wide.
Two Unanswerable Dilemmas Concerning God and Morality
God is like a parent who tells his children "Do as I say and not as I do."
God commands us to do good, to be kind, to be merciful, and seek after justice for the disenfranchised, but he doesn't do it. Do as I say and not as I do, is the divine message.
God is the ultimate hypocrite. Christians worship a divine hypocrite who is above ethical standards. Yet they maintain God is the standard for ethics. A whole industry of apologists for this hypocritical God has arisen to justify his deeds and his inaction in our world. It doesn't make any sense at all. Christians don't make sense. They call good evil and evil good. Woe to people like that, God hypocritically said (Isaiah 5:20).
What can justify this divine hypocrisy? 1) Creation. He's the creator. We aren't. So he has the right to take our lives because he made us. 2) Omniscience. He has it. We don't. So he knows what is best. Power (or ownership) and Knowledge. This supposedly justifies why he acts differently than he commands us to act. This is why he can do evil and call it good. This is why he can tell us to do as I say and not as I do. Do these twin attempted justifications offer an adequate apology for God? No, no, no.
God commands us to do good, to be kind, to be merciful, and seek after justice for the disenfranchised, but he doesn't do it. Do as I say and not as I do, is the divine message.
God is the ultimate hypocrite. Christians worship a divine hypocrite who is above ethical standards. Yet they maintain God is the standard for ethics. A whole industry of apologists for this hypocritical God has arisen to justify his deeds and his inaction in our world. It doesn't make any sense at all. Christians don't make sense. They call good evil and evil good. Woe to people like that, God hypocritically said (Isaiah 5:20).
What can justify this divine hypocrisy? 1) Creation. He's the creator. We aren't. So he has the right to take our lives because he made us. 2) Omniscience. He has it. We don't. So he knows what is best. Power (or ownership) and Knowledge. This supposedly justifies why he acts differently than he commands us to act. This is why he can do evil and call it good. This is why he can tell us to do as I say and not as I do. Do these twin attempted justifications offer an adequate apology for God? No, no, no.
Pictures of Two of My Bookshelves
Here are pictures of two of my bookshelves. Say that I'm ignorant. Go ahead. Say it. ;-) And yes, I've read most of the books or significant parts within them. Click on a picture to enlarge it.
The Era of Memory Engineering Has Arrived
Yep, that's science baby! It gives rise to the thought that God could easily help people who have suffered and continue to suffer debilitating memories, like a war veteran or a rape victim, who might want the emotional content of a specific, life-destroying memory modified. A merciful God doesn't do this but science will probably be able to sometime soon. Kudos to science! Jeers to God.
Guest Post By David Marshall On His Recent Debate with Phil Zuckerman
I have offered several Christian scholars a guest post here at DC. To see them click here. I do so in the interests of letting them speak for themselves in the spirit of dialogue and debate. There is just something about David Marshall I cannot figure out. He seems so nice and congenial at times and yet so, well, ignorant. Still, he's a human being and I find people interesting, even evangelical pseudo-scholars like him. Given some of the comments concerning his debate performances and his indefatigably ubiquitous presence on atheist websites and blogs, I thought I would offer him a chance to address us. I warned him in advance he may not be treated well here, but he can handle it. If nothing else, look at what he writes as a case in understanding the mind of the believer. It was originally an email presumably sent to several prominent atheists. Try to enjoy. ;-)
Quote of the Day, by Cipher
The following quote is well articulated, even if I don't agree. I have tried to disabuse cipher of the following cynical position to no avail. I consider it a rhetorical exaggeration that makes a very forceful point, and not completely false given the nature of faith. It's meant as an explanation for why most of our best attempts at arguing Christians out of their faith fail miserably. It was said in response to David Marshall's unwillingness to admit he lost his debate with Phil Zuckerman recently, where Marshall wrote, "He didn't win the debate -- he admits he didn't rebut my arguments."
Halloween Special: All About Satan!
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind our Christian friends (and enemies) that the fact that we do not believe in their imaginary god also means we do not believe in - or worship - his fictional arch-enemy.
For those who have never delved into how the Satan character evolves in the biblical writings (and how Christianity borrows from other religions to build its concept of Satan), I am linking to several videos. I would also recommend the book The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots by T. J. Wray and Gregory Moberly. It is a fast read, entertaining, and gives a good popular-level coverage of the topic.
Randal Rauser and Myself in Conversation Parts 1-5
When I went up to Canada to debate Rauser in June we recorded five separate discussions, linked below. Enjoy.
Christian, If God is Not Blessing You Then Examine Your Life!
Over the last 40 years while living in the Buckle on the Bible Belt South, I’ve always been fascinated with the excuses preachers give on radio and television explaining why God is not blessing Christians in their “Walk of Faith”.
One thing all explanations have in common; they put 100% of the blame on the believer for God not blessing their life. Remember God’s promises never fail (not because they don't happen), but it’s because the Christian is not doing something right or (and God forbid) there might be hidden sin.
The following are some of the many excuses I’ve heard over the decades as to why God is not blessing a life of faith:
One thing all explanations have in common; they put 100% of the blame on the believer for God not blessing their life. Remember God’s promises never fail (not because they don't happen), but it’s because the Christian is not doing something right or (and God forbid) there might be hidden sin.
The following are some of the many excuses I’ve heard over the decades as to why God is not blessing a life of faith:
The Immorality of Salvation
The Christian concept of salvation is an immoral one. im•mor•alBefore I tell you why, let’s set the scene. Christianity teaches humanity is doomed to go to Hell where the god Yahweh will do Very Bad Things to them, forever. Why is humanity doomed? Well, apparently, Yahweh did a product launch - Humans 1.0 - without doing adequate beta-testing (perhaps he runs Microsoft also). His product didn’t function quite like he wanted it to. A skeptical talking snake proved more persuasive than an all-powerful deity, and so the prototypical couple snacked their way into the bad graces of their Sky Daddy. Rather than acknowledging his own incompetence, the Loving Creator instead cursed humans with painful childbirth, male domination of women, and a difficult life, ending in death. No second chance and no appeal process. One strike, you’re out. It’s all there in Genesis 3, if you need more details.
adjective
1. Violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics
Dictionary.com
Damn That Articulett, She's Good!
A Christian who fancies himself as an intellectual named labreuer is being taken to task by articulett. Here is what she recently wrote, which deserves a post of it's own. I'm glad she's on our side, the correct side!
It's not that I don't believe in invisible things-- music is invisible... so is justice... and atoms and magnetism and electricity... and lots of things were invisible before we had microscopes... but they are all distinguishable from nothing... But beings mean consciousness and consciousness means brains-- it doesn't really mean anything to speak of immaterial consciousness... it would be like "music" without matter (sound can't travel in a vacuum)... just because we can imagine such a thing and want such a thing to exist doesn't make it real. So "god" (like souls) tends to be a nebulous word that people shift to mean what they need it to mean for the time being... they don't give it any real properties so there is not chance to disprove it. It's like Scientology's Thetans... they don't exist outside the belief of Scientologists... the same goes for Xenu. I can't prove this... but I can say that if these things WERE real there should be some evidence that would distinguish them from fantasy. If there is none-- then it makes sense to conclude they're fantasy. No scientist need to concern herself with such "things"-- the same goes for god, demons, and ghosts.
Do Bananas Have Free Will?
I'm told bananas have 50% of the DNA of human beings. So I got to thinking do they have free will? Watch them grow and ask yourself if they ever made one single free will choice. If they don't, then why do you think human beings do? Does adding DNA change anything? What? Let's call THIS "The Banana Argument" against free will. Jerry Coyne eat your heart out. I got this one.
The More Conservative The Church, The Less Likely It's True
I think a solid case can be made for the title of this post. Hopefully some conservative Christians might even be able see this themselves in what follows (but I don't have my hopes up). Consider first the differences between conservative and liberal Christianities:
Liberal Christianity, broadly speaking, is a method of biblical hermeneutics, an undogmatic method of understanding God through the use of scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings. Liberal Christianity does not claim to be a belief structure, and as such is not dependent upon any Church dogma or creedal statements. Unlike conservative varieties of Christianity, it has no unified set of propositional beliefs. The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture while attempting to achieve the Enlightenment ideal of objective point of view, without preconceived notions of the inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma. LINK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)