Christians arrested at Michigan festival
The 15th annual Arab International Festival is being held this weekend in Dearborn, Mich., where one of the largest Arab-American populations in the United States resides. On Friday four Christian men were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly trying to convert Muslims attending festival events. According to a source I contacted at the festival today, at least two of those arrested have been released. One is a recent convert from Islam who caused controversy at last year’s festival by getting into arguments with Muslims and filming them.
According to this report, “The group was criticized by the city and residents for aggressively putting video cameras in the faces of people at a festival that draws thousands of families.” Another report called it “intense but respectful dialogue” and said the police were catering to the city’s large Muslim population.
Christians increasingly have been drawn to the festival as a way to understand Arab culture, interact with Muslims, and hopefully introduce gospel teaching to those interested. I’ve heard from several groups and individuals who have attended the festival this week to hand out literature and converse with Muslims.
It’s important to remember that many of the Muslims who live in Dearborn are first- or second-generation immigrants who escaped tyranny and terrorism themselves in the Arab world, yet often are treated as terror suspects and ostracized in other ways here in the United States. They need to hear the gospel—in terms that are winning and respectful of their own culture. I’m looking forward to the release later this summer of a book by Rosemary Sookhdeo called Breaking Through the Barriers: Leading Muslims to Christ. I just finished reading a galley proof, and it is full of good counsel from someone who has spent decades living alongside Muslims in neighborhoods of East London and elsewhere. She provides everything from a sound approach in giving out the gospel, to the practical advice—such as why it’s more acceptable to give food as a gift than flowers.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top142 Comments to “Christians arrested at Michigan festival”
They need to hear the gospel—in terms that are winning and respectful of their own culture. I’m looking forward to the release later this summer of a book by Rosemary Sookhdeo called Breaking Through the Barriers: Leading Muslims to Christ. I just finished reading a galley proof, and it is full of good counsel from someone who has spent decades living alongside Muslims in neighborhoods of East London and elsewhere. She provides everything from a sound approach in giving out the gospel, to the practical advice—such as why it’s more acceptable to give food as a gift than flowers.
Does she reccommend the 109th Psalm? (See today’s earlier thread) I’m sure it will relax them.
I am, though, curious. When Mindy suggests they “need” to hear “the gospel”, does she mean the entire bible? Just the NT?
Just the 4 gospels?
Report comment to moderator
And I can only imagine how a couple of “Arabs”, dressed in Muslim dress, and pushing cameras in folks’ faces would be treated at a “Christian” festival.
Or, for that matter, American Muslims handing out Koran’s or simply praying.
Report comment to moderator
2. It is my experience that they would be treated kindly. Sticking a camera in someone’s face would get them John 3:16 to take home with them. The Koran’s would be turned down or thrown away later. If they wanted to talk we would talk. Do you know of an incident where something otherwise happened?
Report comment to moderator
I don not understand the Lefts constant defense of Islam. They are ten times worse at everything you say you hate about Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells: The vast majority of Muslims, like the vast majority of Christians do not generally think ill of the other’s religion.
Until they actually read their own “holy books” and take the horrible parts to heart…
Can you cite me any portions of the bible that specifically encourage tolerance of other faiths?
Here is one verse from the Koran:
109:1 Say: O disbelievers!
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship;
109:3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109:4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion
Apparently there are other similar ones.
For an interesting comparison of the good parts of each of these books, you can go here:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-has-more-good-stuff-bible-or.html
Report comment to moderator
Hi, Arcadia.
I can cite several portions of the Bible that specifically encourage tolerance of other faiths (unless you are looking for the exact word ‘tolerance’ and not just phrases that mean the same thing).
Here are two:
“Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” (1st Peter 2:17)
“…always be prepared to make your defense to anyone who asks an accounting for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect…” (1st Peter 3:15-16)
There are others.
Report comment to moderator
(continued response to Arcadia)
“Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone.” (Colossians 4:5-6)
By the way, I notice that you did not clearly answer Kbells’s question: you made a generality about religious people being intolerant instead of mentioning a specific incident.
A student of mine lovingly gave me a copy of the Koran as she knew I was a Christian. I said “Thank you” and kept it. Do you call that action of mine ‘tolerance’?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, what randy said.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia seems to allow considerable truth-value in other religions. But if she/he thinks there is salvation in anyone other than Christ, she should state so plainly.
Report comment to moderator
Randy, Kbells: Neither of the biblical passages makes any reference to tolerance of another faith, they are pretty generic “be good” imprecations. At least the verse of the Koran calls specifically for religious tolerance.
I actually was fairly suprised to find that verse in the Koran; Religious Creation 101 generally calls for complete intolerance, because all others must be wrong. I suspect you know Rule/
Commandment 1 as well as I do, not to mention the jealous part.
As for Christian religious tolerance, not too long ago some folks wanted to start a church in NYC–a whole bunch of Christians (and Jews) raised heck because we know that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11. The Muslim church idea was a non-starter.
Don’t get me wrong, Muslim fanatics can be worse than Christian fanatics; I am only pointing out that the “Source” for Islam provides a counter-argument, while the “Source” for Christianity does not.
Report comment to moderator
Robert: There is no “salvation”. There is only us and just for now. We had better make the most of it, without resort to sorcery witchcraft, magic and jealous imaginary gods.
Report comment to moderator
Those god’s self-appointed expositors and authors are all too fond of making us hate and kill each other.
We’re good enough at that without all that encouragement.
Report comment to moderator
10. All Southerners are not responsible for the 16th street church bombing but don’t you think a confederate museum across the street would be tacky.
Report comment to moderator
So, Arcadia: Since you are an atheist or perhaps agnostic, why would you think you could profitably engage people in this forum on matters most of us think are spiritual but which you consider merely political and social? Seems like a waste of time all around.
Report comment to moderator
Qur’an:9:5
“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take
them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Ouch, that doesn’t seem so tolerant to me. So, which verse do they live by?
Report comment to moderator
Folks, you *will not* get legitimate discussion out of Arcadia. Keep trying and you’ll see…or she’ll act nicey to spite me, in which case, we all win!
Report comment to moderator
Robert. Sadly, this is not a religious blog. It is, above all else, political in nature.
Were it purely religious, I wouldn’t be here. But once those who believe such matters seek to use politics to force everybody to act as if their fables are true, then those beliefs and their purported foundations become of interest to me and to a lot of other people. They become challengable.
Don’t you think that’s fair?
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: Waiting for, perhaps you to come up with evidence biblical acceptance, specifically of other faiths. Surely there is something to counter Jesus statement that he has come to tear even families asunder over differences in faith?
I suspect you won’t find it. After all, for many many centuries Christians of all kinds fought terrible bloody wars with other Christians (and also with other non-Christian faiths) and taxed their brains mightily to find ever more vicious and cruel tortures and execution methods for “heretics”.
Yet now they come to us, telling us that the power to exercise one version or another of the Christian faith should be given the awesome powers of our government.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia writes,
I suspect you won’t find it.
INTERPRETATION:
I’ve made up my mind it’s not there so there’s no point in my looking into it; besides, I’d ridicule whatever response you provided–at least those parts I didn’t ignore.
Report comment to moderator
Um… of course you won’t find “evidence” of Biblical “acceptance” of other faiths…? Why are you looking for it?
The Bible’s not going to “accept” other faiths, see, because either they’re wrong, it’s wrong, or they’re all wrong. There’s no “they’re both right” answer here. Something is either true or it’s not, see, and Christianity is based on being true. (obviously) Therefore, if it’s true, conflicting claims are false.
So, Biblical “acceptance” of other faiths would be totally stupid, and if it existed, I suspect it would be rightly called out as stupid.
What you need to look for is Biblical admonitions and attitudes about respecting others, loving others, dealing with sinners, etc.
Report comment to moderator
When Arcadia asks about the Gospel it seems like she should be told what the gospel is. For her not to know after being on a christian blog for as long as she has been here seems quite strange.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, she knows, Monty — as much as any atheist/agnostic can.
It must be enormously frustrating to come to this blog and read comments by people who view the world through the lens of Christianity. Not to mention all the anger Arcadia seems to be holding onto for whatever reason.
This is offensive: “But once those who believe such matters seek to use politics to force everybody to act as if their fables are true,”
All we do is vote, Arcadia, and we are entitled to do that in the country — for the time being.
Report comment to moderator
And for those who want pure politics, Arcadia, here you go:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/19/jewish-muslim-tensions-rise-uc-irvine-suspension-muslim-group/?test=latestnews
This has nothing to do with Christians.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible means what it says and says what it means. The scriptures are understood completely when read in light of historical and context of the writings.
However, I am sure that liberals who hate the Savior and what He offers often take great joy in the murder of the followers of the Savior in Muslim countries.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, tolerance is not agreeing that everyone is right. It is agreeing that others have a right to be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
One wonders if they take great joy in the arrest of Christians in Michigan.
Report comment to moderator
These Christians also went to court and had to appeal to have the right to distribute leaflets, though they were restricted to the perimeter and outer boundaries of the festival. Guess the police who arrested them have a problem with court orders.
Report comment to moderator
This topic is about Christians being arrested for sharing their faith with others.
Arcadia is here as always giving us theology lessons through twisted doctrine and ridiculous accusations. Today Arcadia uses intolerance to chastise Christians for being intolerant. I love reasonable and honest atheists who wish to engage in debate. But incessant monologue of senseless rhetoric is unanswerable.
The point here is that Christians are being harassed, whether on blogs or in the media or now by State and local governments. They aren’t allowed to speak freely in public buildings. Their songs must be neutered during Federal Holidays (holy-days). They aren’t allowed to say anything political from the pulpit. But mosques are free to preach the overthrow of America without hindrance. (See the award winning documentary Jihad in America).
What were these Christians arrested for? For expressing their First Amendment rights. That simply cannot be tolerated in America.
Report comment to moderator
Still waiting…
As for my hanging around here, I think it is rather less invasive and better mannered than the behavior of the Christians whom some here are defending, or for that matter the defenders’.
Lots of ad hominems and global assertions, nothing in the way of substance.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia (1): When Mindy suggests they “need” to hear “the gospel”, does she mean the entire bible? Just the NT?
Just the 4 gospels?
Frank: Before I reply, can I ask a stupid Q: Are you a man or a woman? (Just to help me “picture” you a bit, I guess.) Your screen name’s “-ia” ending “sounds” feminine, but I realize that that’s probably not a reliable guide, since “Arcadia” is both a region of Greece and a university in Philadelphia. (Thank you, Google … I thought Arcadia was in Spain … must have been thinking “Andalusia” … rabbit trail … )
Anyhoo … the Gospel:
The dictionary says this about the word “gospel”:
I would summarize the Gospel — the Good News — as follows:
The entire Bible — Genesis through Revelation — testifies of this story in great detail. The Gospels are written accounts of the life, death burial, resurrection and ascension of the Savior. And the NT explains in greater detail how Christ’s coming is the final fulfillment of God’s promise of a Savior which is found throughout the OT.
So to answer your Q: The gospel can be shared in brief and believed immediately. The details … well, they are either learned by believers as they grow in the Christian faith, or they are discussed and debated — whether among believers, or between believers and unbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I’ll try to address your Q at (5) re. tolerance after church …
Report comment to moderator
I admire honest people who are willing to engage in honest debate, a give and take for the purpose of moving toward truth. I’ll defend an atheist or liberal who speaks truth against a Christian who does not every time.
But there are people whom the Bible calls scoffers, who know the truth, but remain willing ignorant because it is convenient to their cause, which is usually to attack Christians whenever possible.
We have explained the holes in Arcadia’s theology thousands of times over the years, yet she has been unwilling to engage in dialog on any point. The response is always the continuous repeating of the same hateful twisted fabrications which no Christian on earth espouses. This does not matter. Christians deserve to be attacked and that is that.
Anyone notice that Arcadia is not defending the First Amendment or freedom of speech or religion? Why? Maybe it is because throwing Christians in jail is just what they deserve. Too bad there aren’t any lions in arenas any more.
Her argument here is that Muslims are tolerant while Christians are not. Um, well, does anyone notice that she doesn’t choose to lurk about on Muslim blogs to hurl insults at their religion. Perhaps then she might learn the meaning of tolerance.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if they would arrest you if you just walked through the Festival eating ham sandwiches ?
.
And what would they do if you offered people bites of your ham sandwich?
.
What if you gave away free ham sandwiches?
Report comment to moderator
And of course what would happen if you took one of the free korans (the muslims proselytizing?) tore out one of the pages, rolled the page up and used it for a tooth pick?
.
Or used it to smoke tobacco? Or corn husks?
.Or used it to make paper airplanes?
Report comment to moderator
Or if you walked through with a large coin , flipping it into the air…. one side reading “SUNNI” and the other side saying “SHIA”….. while muttering ,”Which shall I be today?”
Report comment to moderator
“Koran” translates as “Recitation”‘ or “Muttering”. And I have found it interesting that when Muhammed was called upon to recite he often forgot passages…. (Which makes it all the more remarkable since Muhammed wrote the thing himself!)
Don’t expect the Koran to be anything remarkable. It is a badly written comic book designed to ‘prove’ that Muhammed was the biggest and best ‘prophet’.
And if a person says , he did not do it for personal gain, hide your guffaws and simply say , “Aisha”.
Report comment to moderator
Do any of 33,34, or 35 and see how tolerant Islam is.
Report comment to moderator
Or read what they did at the school.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s something I’ve wanted to say, and I’ll probably repeat it next time we have a creation/evolution debate on here. Several times in those discussions, some unbeliever says something like, “Well, if there does end up being a God, then why did he make a world that looks so much like it evolved? Was he trying to trick us, so that he can laugh that we didn’t believe in him? That hardly seems fair, and if he really is real, I’ll tell him that.”
That response has always seemed too weird to be answered, but I decided I need to make some sort of attempt at it. Honestly, this is one of those questions that seems like a no-brainer one to me, but it shows what different places we come from. So here’s my answer.
First of all, the world really doesn’t look accidental. It looks purposeful. It looks like it was designed by an artist with a love of design, color, humor, and surprises. It was designed to function well, with an amazing variety of things that have to be “just right” to work well. (Water’s properties, to name just one example.) Anyone who can watch a squirrel leap from limb to limb of a tree and think they can tell God, “You tricked me. It all looked accidental” is speaking from bias. It doesn’t look accidental. Modern bias says it’s accidental, and many people prefer to believe that. But it doesn’t look that way.
Now, a person can honestly say, “The world looks old, and I thought it was,” and for the sake of argument, maybe it is—that certainly doesn’t disprove creation or prove evolution, so that is no argument at all. But to say the presence of fossils that people interpret to prove evolution, or the presence of old rocks that people interpret to assume evolution, etc. therefore proves there is no God, or no creation, is quite simply preposterous. You interpreted the data to leave God out—that isn’t His fault! You can pretend I don’t exist, too, and your pretense is not a very good argument when you meet me. It’s your own game, not anything I did.
And finally, anyone who thinks he can stand in front of God and say, “Yeah, I knew about the Bible, and I did see the things You made, and I did know about Jesus and all, but hey, those rocks looked pretty old and so I decided none of it was true,” had better have a pretty good lawyer. Because all of these things testify to the truth of Christianity, not just creation.
Basically, people are saying, “God, You were responsible to give the kind of evidence that would prove You exist, even to people who didn’t want to believe in You, and because You didn’t do that, I’m deciding right now that it wasn’t enough. Full proof or it’s Your fault if I don’t believe.” And God doesn’t operate that way. Evidence is all around us. And the Bible is very, very strong evidence. If you need absolute proof, you probably aren’t going to get it. But then, people go to jail for much, much less evidence, because very few things in life have absolute proof. We can always refuse to believe our eyes or eyewitness testimony. But if we do, we can’t blame the witnesses. Anyone who refuses to believe in God’s existence can’t blame God. And you certainly can’t make the decision now that you refuse even to investigate the evidence, and that’s OK because you already have your excuse of what you’ll tell God if He turns out to be real. He has already presented the evidence; if you refuse to look at it, you and not He will be the one on trial. You’d sure better be right. Isn’t it worth at least a little thought and time to look at the evidence, just in case? And those of you who hang out around Christians everyday (including time on this blog) and have seen the evidence multiple times, do you really think you’ll get a pass because you were a skeptic?
Report comment to moderator
Not a bad time to drop in, it seems.
Good points, Cheryl D.
A few things:
First, I recommend the book, Understanding the Times, by David Noebel, as well as Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcey.
The former book compares the secular humanist, cosmic humanist, Marxist/Leninist, and Christian worldviews and shows how only the Christian worldview has all the answers for life, especially when it comes to the question of morals.
Both books point out some of the errors and contradictions of evolution, but perhaps more importantly, they show
Although I’m not positive, I believe if you are going to try witnessing to someone who considers himself/herself to be an intellectual (or at least someone who thinks logically), using the books, Understanding the Times should either convince them of the error of their worldview or have them just end the conversation or another “I’m not going to talk about it anymore” kind of route. Those will will listen to the Truth will, and those who won’t, won’t, even if you’ve told them many times.
Don’t cast pearls before swine.
It’s slightly more difficult to talk about evolution with those Christians who say God used evolution to create the world, but if you explain that evolution was thought up as a theory so God would not be in the picture at all, as well as some other problems with it.
Report comment to moderator
#1 Arcadia. “Does she recommend the 109th Psalm? (See today’s earlier thread) I’m sure it will relax them.”
I will answer your assertion on the Whirled Views thread #17 about the evil Psalm 109 and your Col Ingersoll link, since you’ve co-opted this thread.
I suppose it is worth mentioning that the guy writes an entire dissertation on heresy, but can’t spell the word correctly. But let’s overlook that. I am interested in this link since it provides some insight into the mind of Arcadia.
Col Ingersoll’s thesis is so over-the-top that it is hard to take him seriously, but I read the whole thing carefully and respectfully. To summarize, his fundamental point is that the Bible is not merely false, it is the worst evil foisted on the history of the world. Sounds like Arcadia.
What is fascinating about Col Ingersoll’s rant is how many Christians would agree with his basic premise. Since Christianity is about truth, Christians of today would distance themselves from the untruths supported by the church in history.
Your problem Arcadia is that you set up straw men which no Christian today would agree with. You knock them down and pat yourself on the back, but it has nothing to do with what Christians think.
Psalm 109 us a plea of David for justice. God did not grant it. Are you opposing this position? Are you saying that the unjust should never be subject to justice? Should the wicked prosper? Unfortunately, that is precisely why David is complaining, because the wicked prosper. Do you support the prosperity of the wicked?
Report comment to moderator
#41 To clarify, Christians would agree with the atheists that the church was wrong to call Galileo and others heretics for speaking the truth, since Christianity is about truth. Even today churches define the in-crowd as those who are willing to adopt the man-made traditions of that church. There is nothing wrong with that necessarily until those who don’t keep the tradition are called outsiders or truthtellers heretics. Muslims would call them infidels and act accordingly.
Christians and atheists who both seek the truth will find that they have a lot in common, at least about the truths of this life. On the parts where they disagree they can converge on their common goal depending on how much they love the truth.
The problem comes about when an atheist becomes a scoffer or a religious person becomes self-righteous or dogmatic. Neither are looking for the truth. People who throw Christians in jail for speeking freely aren’t either.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
Thanks for attempting to answer the objection that if God designed life on Earth, he sure made it look like it evolved.
Unfortunately I find your argument falls rather flat. You did little more than label the two sides of the debate as either obvious or preposterous.
I’m not in the mood to provide yet another long list of overlapping and mutually supportive evidence for evolution. Let’s just say I’m sold. Evolution means there was no Adam and Eve, no original sin, and no need for salvation. Evolution exposes the Bible as a fairytale.
Now according to conventional Christian wisdom, because I’ve willfully rejected the story of the bible and its path to salvation, I will as you’ve alluded to, suffer an eternity of torture. The thing is, I can’t choose to believe otherwise. At this point I could no more believe in the truth of the Bible than I could believe the Sun goes around the Earth, or that Santa is real. If God made the world then he made it knowing that good people would be tortured because of the nature of his design. Even if I fervently believed the existence of such a God there is absolutely no way I would worship him any more than I could support any leader that uses torture as an instrument of control.
Report comment to moderator
One useful tidbit – nearly 60% of the Detroit Middle Eastern population are already Christians – of Maronite Catholic and Orthodox persuasion – largely of Syrian, Lebanese and Chaldean origin.
The Dearborn branch of the U Of Michigan did a detailed study a few years ago that can be found here:
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/July19_04/img/040719_daas.pdf
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia says: “After all, for many many centuries Christians of all kinds fought terrible bloody wars with other Christians (and also with other non-Christian faiths) and taxed their brains mightily to find ever more vicious and cruel tortures and execution methods for “heretics”.”
Question; is it accurate to identify these particular individuals as “Christians” who disobey the commands of Christ and ignore the will of God? Or are they just impostors that call themselves Christians or the result of historical revisionists misclassifying them as Christians? I would classify these particuluar folks as some sect of humanist, lawbreakers, just carrying out the evil of their hearts.
Matthew 7:21-23 (HCSB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but [only] the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’
23 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller, could it be that people are not totured forever?
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller, could it be that people are not tortured forever?
Absolutely! I don’t believe for a second that there is a God torturing anybody, especially for so vain a reason as refusing to worship him.
Report comment to moderator
Well, that’s not what I meant. I meant that the Christian doctrane could work without the concept of eternal torture.
Report comment to moderator
What’s more, even if you accept the idea of eternal torture, God doesn’t torture people simply because they don’t believe in Him. It’s more complicated then that.
Report comment to moderator
esther 4.14 06.21.10 AT 11:18 AM
What’s more, even if you accept the idea of eternal torture, God doesn’t torture people simply because they don’t believe in Him. It’s more complicated then that.
–
They are torture, because man has every chance to serve God, but reject Him and chose to serve sin.
Report comment to moderator
Question; is it accurate to identify these particular individuals as “Christians” who disobey the commands of Christ and ignore the will of God? Or are they just impostors that call themselves Christians or the result of historical revisionists misclassifying them as Christians? I would classify these particular folks as some sect of humanist, lawbreakers, just carrying out the evil of their hearts.
Perhaps future generations of “Christians” will look back on early 21st century America Evangelicals, and claim that they too are lawbreakers carrying out the evil in their hearts for their widespread support of preemptive war, torture, and capital punishment. If someone says there a Christian, prays to the Christian God, and believes belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation, then they’re Christian. Its may be justifiable to say that those who did horrible things despite, or because of, their Christianity are bad Christians, but foisting them off on the secular humanists is a bit of a stretch.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. it is a waste of time to engage TruthTeller.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl as you told me in the past there are just some people that we should just avoid engaging in dabte an TruthTeller is one of those people.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller, many of the “heretics” tortured were actualy Protestent Christians. If we say that the Inqusiters were the true Christians, why were they killing and capturing other, even more devout, Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, Cheryl d hasn’t been on this thread all day. You DO realize those types of statemets make it look like you’re only giving up because you’re beaten- right?
Report comment to moderator
esther 4.14 06.21.10 AT 12:02 PM
Pastor Roy, Cheryl d hasn’t been on this thread all day. You DO realize those types of statemets make it look like you’re only giving up because you’re beaten- right?
—
Not at all, there comes a point where words do not work an only pray works. An God’s Word support the idea of no longer engaging someone who has rejected the Word.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I realize that; it’s just the idea of telling someone who’s not even here that Truthteller isn’t worth arguing with seems… well, odd.
Report comment to moderator
esther 4.14 06.21.10 AT 12:19 PM
Pastor Roy, I realize that; it’s just the idea of telling someone who’s not even here that Truthteller isn’t worth arguing with seems… well, odd.
–
Not at all, you do not know if Cheryl d is online an just read the sites. Or when she will be online..
Report comment to moderator
Two books for you to read Arcadia: Son of Hamas and Because They Hate. Then get back to me about tolerance in Islam.
Maybe if you actually read real books instead of what MoveOn.org (who by the way just scored a multi-million dollar contract to find ways to promote Islam in America) writes you would be slightly better informed.
Until then, keep the hate alive buddy, keep it alive because the only one you hurt by your defense of things not defensible is yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Esther, Cheryl: I was raised in a born-again Christian household, and I think it’s safe to say that, no, Christianity doesn’t work without the concept of a young earth and eternal torture for unbelievers. Born-agains believe the Bible to be true and factual, meaning exactly what it says. This is why I’m not a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
I am a born-again Christian and I have no interest in young earth theory or eternal torture. I think these things are theories people have come up with because they don’t have the facts, and the facts aren’t there because God hasn’t revealed them. Creation is too complex for any idiot human to fully understand, but we have in our arrogance a little piece of the puzzle and thing we know it all. Purgatory is man made. I don’t think we have sufficient knowledge of the afterlife to know what goes on there. It is my humble opinion that once one goes into the lake of fire at the end, it means obliteration and permanent separation from God, as if the person never existed. But I do believe in justice, and however God defines it will be fine with me. So, yes, Christianity works unless you begin to make excuses for your sin.
Report comment to moderator
I know for a fact you’re not a ‘true’ Christian if you don’t believe those things. The concept of hell as a real place is central to the gospel. If there’s no hell, what are you trying to save people from?
Report comment to moderator
Matthew 8:10-13 (New King James Version)
10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour.
Report comment to moderator
Matthew 13:40-43 (New King James Version)
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Report comment to moderator
Matthew 13:49-51 (New King James Version)
49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
51 Jesus said to them, “Have you understood all these things?”
They said to Him, “Yes, Lord.”
Report comment to moderator
Nothing personal, NJL, but I’ve spent my whole life studying Christianity. I bet the ‘realest’ (read: most brainwashed) Christians here, Pastor Roy and Joel Mark, would agree with what I’m saying.
Report comment to moderator
Matthew 22:12-14 (New King James Version)
12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Report comment to moderator
bob dylan doesnt believe you — are you saying I am brainwashed?
Report comment to moderator
Esther 4.14
“Well, that’s not what I meant. I meant that the Christian doctrine could work without the concept of eternal torture.”
All carrot and no stick? I don’t know. I do know plenty of Christians who don’t believe the bible is literally the word of God, but instead believe it’s an allegory that guides them in their search for meaning and purpose (Episcopalians mostly). They worship the same God as the “real Christians” of WMB, but they appreciate the mystery inherent in faith. I find that these less doctrinal Christians are much more likely to understand and appreciate the factual basis of my arguments, and instead of arguing the facts, they are much more likely to appeal to faith alone.
“God doesn’t torture people simply because they don’t believe in Him. It’s more complicated then that.”
There are almost as many opinions on this point as there are Christians. There are certainly Christians who believe that the most despicable people can earn a ticket to heaven with a sincere death-bed conversion. Hitler may be in heaven while Gandhi burns in hell.
Report comment to moderator
.Hell is real, an yes, it will be a place of tormented It was made not for man but for the devil and the other fallen angels. Man choices to go there by their rejection of God, His Son, His Holy Spirit and His Word.
How old is the earth as old as Genesis says.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller…
I do believe the Bible to be clear on eternal damnation, the torture you cite being the continuous and inescapable exposure to flames that exist in darkness. The reason? Those who have read or heard and have disbelieved (you?) have chosen eternal separation from God instead of eternal life with Him. It stands to reason, anyone who believes the warning that his house is on fire will hurry to escape. Only a fool would choose judgment/justice in favor of grace. The belief or disbelief in the choice is itself a choice you make. It would be wrong for Christians to minimize the consequences of disbelief in God’s salvation.
BTW, “brain” washing by the Word of God is more than cathartic; it’s truly cleansing. I highly recommend it, as one who formerly had a very dirty “brain.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes, there is a hell that Christ mentioned. He wouldn’t have told the story of Lazarus and the rich man if there were not. But what was the rich man’s torment? It was the knowledge that he’d been stupid in life which is why he wanted his family to know so they wouldn’t end up in the same place. Is that a torment that God puts on a person or is it justice and the natural consequence of being stupid with respect to God.
What I don’t know is all the particulars of the afterlife. The Bible doesn’t give us a blow by blow answer to all those questions, just the basics so you know to make your decision (i.e., like the parable above). If you saw everything about hell, you’d make your decision pretty fast, wouldn’t you? Where’s the faith in that? And I don’t think justice and judgment are the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
And how old are you Bob? What does “you whole life” mean?
I don’t think you have sufficient information regarding the age of the earth. It’s a question of faith. Either you believe God created or you don’t. I do. What I don’t need is to come up with a theory of how and/or when he did it, and that’s all young earth theory is. It’s beyond my comprehension as a human.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer THE RICH MAN also asked for water because of the heat.
Report comment to moderator
NJL:
Here is how the rich man described his torment: “Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”
I do believe justice and judgment are the same for those who choose justice instead of grace. God will not judge unjustly. For those who choose to folllow Jesus, judgment becomes grace.
Report comment to moderator
#60
“Christianity doesn’t work without the concept of a young earth and eternal torture for unbelievers.”
And atheism doesn’t work without abiogenesis.
Report comment to moderator
NJL-61
I like much of your post. I don’t agree that the Bible is silent on eternal punishment. But I can understand the argument.
To Truth Teller, Bob Dylan, Arcadia and any other that would redicule God; and to those Christians here that are uneasy with the doctrine of eternal punishment: you remind me of the verse “will the pot say to the potter, ‘why have you make me thus?’” God is sovereign. And at the end of our lives, we will sound like spoiled, ill-reasoned brats for disagreeing with His express will and revelation. I shudder to imagine people screaming in hell, denied even the comfort of thinking that since they are more compasionate than God that they chose not to believe in Him. I don’t believe even one soul in hell will be allowed that comfort. No. After bowing the the knee to Jesus and acknowledging that He was always right, they will forever know that the ONLY REASON THAT THEY ARE IN HELL IS BECUASE THEY CHOSE TO BE THERE.
And here’s a personal revelation: I didn’t choose to believe in Jesus because I wanted to avoid hell. I chose to believe in Him becuase His Holy Spirit revealed to me the love of the Father. With tears in my eyes, I said “yes”. I wasn’t looking to avoid hell. I was looking to be with Jesus. The name above all names. Blessed be the Lover of my soul.
Report comment to moderator
Causing one man to suffer torture for eternity is an infinitely greater cruelty than all the crimes of man combined. The fact that a person could earn this fate for simply believing the evidence of his eyes in a world designed to deceive him makes the Christian God the God of infinite cruelty.
Report comment to moderator
Try to remember that, Truthteller, if, God forbid, you find yourself on the wrong side of eternity.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller’s argument:
God paid the price for me to go to Heaven, to Paradise, where there is no more pain nor sorrow. Eternal happiness. But I refuse to believe that because I think He’s mean.
That just doesn’t make sense.
Report comment to moderator
Sins must be paid for. Wrongs must be atoned for.
Cite to me one example of this not being the case.
Report comment to moderator
Brother Dan, I don’t know that it’s silent per se — the lake of fire doesn’t sound too good to me, I don’t really want to go there, and yes, the rich man wanted water. But we’re not told all that much. I do think we are told what we need to know in order to make our decision regarding Christ.
Maybe because I worked for a judge, I see judgment and justice differently. Would I prefer to have grace applied to me? You bet! We would all be condemned based on our actions and that’s judgment that is pure and true, but that’s not my definition of justice. Perhaps I don’t think of justice as part of eternity and think of it more as a thing that occurs while we’re living. That might not make sense.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think the world was designed to deceive anyone. Everything we need to believe in God is here. (All it takes is a flower, if you ask me.) Truthteller CHOOSES to define the planet as a place of deception, but it’s out there in the open for all to see. What is hidden? Just because Truthteller can’t choose God over his/her lack of knowledge of how things work doesn’t make that God’s fault. That’s a choice of faith.
Report comment to moderator
A skeptics mantra in hell: “Look at me! I chose hell becuase I refused to believe in a God that would send me here! How smart am I?”
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller, I do believe the Bible to be literaly true. I don’t really know what-all happens after I die. I am uncomfortable with the idea of eternal torture and I really don’t see the Scriptures saying that’s the only option. It seems quite feasible that you could just burn up disapear. Far be it from me to conterdict someone if I haven’t even made up my own mind, I just thought you should know that’s not the only option.
Report comment to moderator
NJL…
I love you in the Lord, and look forward to worshipping Him with you and all here that call on His name.
I, like you, would rather focus on where we are going than on what we are avoiding. I respect your insight on this matter. You gave me something to think about.
Yours, because I’m His…Dan
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Brother Dan. I don’t think God makes it hard for us. We make it hard. Become like a little child, that’s what Jesus said to do.
Esther4.14, we were always told “in my Father’s house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you.” I don’t know how God decides who goes in one mansion or the other, though I’m reasonably certain I can figure out how I won’t end up in any mansion at all. But I’d really like to be in the place Jesus prepares. I think that one’s special.
Report comment to moderator
Luke 16:20-31 (New King James Version)
20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
Report comment to moderator
I am uncomfortable with the idea of eternal torture and I really don’t see the Scriptures saying that’s the only option
—esther 4.14
There are only two option one for the CHristian and one for the non – Christian. That is it…
No one gets to heaven with out going through Christ…. You do not have Christ you go to the other option, hell and yes it will be a eternal tormented.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t Christ also saying that you have when you need “in your lifetime?” This is the place where we make our decision, and we have what we need to be able to do that. The rich man had it because he heard knew the words of Moses and the Prophets. We have it because we know the Gospel. We have what we need.
Report comment to moderator
This problem in Michigan has already spread to Afghanistan. Christians are converting Muslims:
From World 3 July. P. 14
In Kabul, angry protestors demanded the expulsion of foreigners who try to convert Muslims. And in parliament Abdul Sattar Khawasl, … called for Muslim converts to Christianity to be executed. “Those Afghans who appeared in this video film should be executed in public”. Other lawmakers affirmed that the killing of an “apostate” in Afghanistan is not a crime.
Michigan should learn how to deal with those evil Christians
Report comment to moderator
88 & 90 NJLawyer, that’s exactly how I feel.
Report comment to moderator
Let Arcadia, Bob Dylan and Truthteller go to a Muslim country and try their arguments.
Report comment to moderator
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
—-
The key words torments in Hades.
24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’
—-
What was the torment “I am tormented in this flame”
26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
—-
The rich man was seprated from Abraham. He could see Abraham and Lazarus but was not able to go to Abraham side.
Report comment to moderator
29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
—-
This is the key The rich man did not want his family to come to where he was. He wanted them to escape the flames. But it was not up to him. Jesus was clear If they do not believe Moses and the Prophets, they would not believe what Christ has to say.
Report comment to moderator
Now think about this those who are in the tormented of the flames, look up and see us worship and eating with Christ. An they remeber all the times they had a chance to repent but found a reason not to repent of their sins.
what do you think that would be like for them?
Report comment to moderator
“30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent”
The rich man knew his mistake and it was the fact he did not repent of his sins. No matter how good he had it.. His never got right with God.
The danager is people look for a reason not to repent. they look for a reason to reject God’s Word.
This is what happen to the rich man.
Report comment to moderator
Evaluation gives people a reason to reject Genesis Chapter 1 and 2. In which deals with God creating the world and the fall of man. If you reject Genesis Chapter 1 and 2, then you must reject the idea Christ died for the sins of the world. The reason if Genesis Chapter 1 and 2 did not happen then Adam and Eve, did not fall from grace.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry folks it should read
“Evolution” gives people a reason to reject Genesis Chapter 1 and 2. In which deals with God creating the world and the fall of man. If you reject Genesis Chapter 1 and 2, then you must reject the idea Christ died for the sins of the world. The reason if Genesis Chapter 1 and 2 did not happen ,then Adam and Eve did not fall from grace.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I’m HOPING you mean “evolution” and not “evaluation”. Otherwise, you’ll start to sound like Truthteller.
Report comment to moderator
esther 4.14 06.21.10 AT 5:42 PM
Pastor Roy, I’m HOPING you mean “evolution” and not “evaluation”. Otherwise, you’ll start to sound like Truthteller
—-
see 99
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Pastor Roy, we cross-posted and I didn’t see 99.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, we’ve had whole long debates before on the subject of hell. And as this was a debate amongst Christians, Scriptural authority had a central role for everyone. You can’t just walk along and say “Well, because when I was a kid, my parents taught me that the Bible clearly teaches eternal torture, I can safely say that that’s the only way of thinking about it.” (This is the vibe I get from Bob, anyway.)
Report comment to moderator
I also didn’t see 101 until after I posted 102. I think I’m becoming the queen of cross-posting here.
Report comment to moderator
xion: What is fascinating about Col Ingersoll’s rant is how many Christians would agree with his basic premise. Since Christianity is about truth, Christians of today would distance themselves from the untruths supported by the church in history.
Your problem Arcadia is that you set up straw men which no Christian today would agree with. You knock them down and pat yourself on the back, but it has nothing to do with what Christians think.
Psalm 109 us a plea of David for justice. God did not grant it. Are you opposing this position? Are you saying that the unjust should never be subject to justice? Should the wicked prosper? Unfortunately, that is precisely why David is complaining, because the wicked prosper. Do you support the prosperity of the wicked?
Interesting. Given the history, which Ingersoll delineates pretty well, why should I think that today’s Christians or tomorrow’s won’t behave in the same way as previous Christians? These were all people relying upon the same book as their ultimate authority for all that is right. And even you must agree that within that book there is ample justification for all of those horrors.
It is a matter of interpretation and because all are seeking to know the “mind” of an “unknowable” invisible entity, nobody can ever be proved wrong and all past interpretations are likely to emerge at any time.
Most recently Christian ministry-backed genocidal campaigns have been waged in Rwanda and in the Balkans. The mess in the Middle East is largely a religious conflict.
There are plenty of Christians in the world today, more than willing to take up arms, kill women and children and behave more or less as their and your forebears did.
And there are others in this country, as seen most recently in Guyana, Waco, and even Oklahoma City, happy to carry out what they un-disprovably believe is your gods will.
One last point here. You write by this church. This ignores the point that there have always been many Christian “churches” and an awful lot of past and some present violence is committed by one “Christian Church” against another.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia-your last post listing the atrocities committed in the name of Christ is pointless.
How many more atrocities are committed in the name of your “non-religion”? What does that prove? Just that there are people that do wrong and have come up with reasons to do so.
How’s this: I decide to burn down a forrest in your name, Arcadia. Does that make YOU an evil person? Does that prove that you must not exist, because we all know that if you did, you would be a loving and kind individual?
You see, the actions that an individual does in the name of another neither proves nor disproves the other’s existance nor moral character. HOWEVER, those actions WILL reveal how well that person knows the person that he claims to be acting for.
So, if you want to dredge up all the wrongs committed by Christians and use that as a reason to discount Christ, that’s your problem. I’m sorry for you. I almost wish that you could therefore be bereft of all the benefits in your life that are a direct result of all the good that Christians have done in His name. But I really don’t wish this.
I wish you a loving relationship with my Lord. I can wish nothing better for any.
Report comment to moderator
May I throw this one in? The Church is not a denomination. It is the Body of Christ, and I think that crosses denominations and consists of individuals whatever their denomination. We know them when we meet them. And that Body of Christ doesn’t partake and never has in the “politics” of this world.
Report comment to moderator
“If someone says there [sic] a Christian, prays to the Christian God, and believes belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation, then they’re Christian.”
Eternal life all by human effort; salvation by works…..what a false doctrine!
Brotherdan; Arcadia actually has a religion (one of the sects of humanism) and he is very religious expounding his false beliefs.
NJLAWYER; could you explain? “And that Body of Christ doesn’t partake and never has in the “politics” of this world.” What is your position on sphere sovereignty?
Report comment to moderator
For those who want a good book on Islam, check out Islam and Terrorism, by Mark A. Gabriel. For those who haven’t read it, it’s written by a Middle Eastern native, a professor in Cairo who knew the Koran by heart. After noticing the contradiction between the passages that advocated tolerance and peace and the “kill the infidels” passages, he asked how they were supposed to be reconciled, and which teaching was correct. For just asking the question, he was secretly arrested, thrown into prison and tortured, even though he was
Apparently, there is a teaching that states the later, “kill the unbelievers” parts of the Koran overwrite the older, peaceful parts. This is only logical when you look at it, considering Mohammed advocated peace when his enemies were greater in number than his forces and he had to put on a good front or be annihilated, but after gathering an army, he taught that killing “infidels” was good, since he had the power to back up his teachings.
Also, one reason there are so many Muslims on jihad (including suicide bombers) is because Islam teaches them that entrance into heaven isn’t guaranteed (I don’t remember exactly, but it may be a good vs. bad deeds scale system), unless they die in battle. Isn’t that a good motivation to die in battle?
Arcadia and others who believe in evolution instead of in God, I have a question to ask you:
Do you believe in absolute truth and in absolute right and wrong?
I mean, is there a standard for those things, or is everything all relative to the individual, the situation, etc?
If you hold to the latter position, as I expect you all will (if you don’t, tell me), here are a few more questions:
Are actions such as murders (done by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun, Charles Manson, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, etc., etc.), horrific medical experiments on humans (think Dr. Joseph Mengele and others), and other sensational deeds morally wrong?
You can’t logically say yes without contradicting yourself if you believe that right or wrong just depends on the individual…that we’re just products of random chance, constantly evolving in a fight for survival, then who are you to say anyone is wrong in what they’re doing, since it may be right for them?
On the other hand, if you still say some of the things I mentioned are horrific and evil, I’d like to see your basis for that conclusion.
The main problem with relativism is that it contradicts itself.
For instance, “There is no such thing as absolute truth” is an absolute statement.
Evolution does lead to some scary scenarios:
If only the strongest survive, then the weak need to go, which is what Hitler tried to do by trying to create a “master” Aryan race, what Margaret Sanger tried to do with eugenics, including forced sterilization on handicapped people, and what I suppose many “mad scientists” like Joseph Mengele tried (or are trying…you never know what’s really going on out there) to do…to create superhumans. The last scenario can be seen in various medical conspiracy novels such as Sigmund Brouwer’s Double Helix.
Anyway, if evolution is good for mankind, why shouldn’t we try to “help it along”? OK, I’ve said enough for now; I don’t want to have a five-page post, since I think those are often skimmed over or skipped entirely.
-Maximillian (I am not a girl, in case anyone didn’t know…I’m not sure yet, because many know my under this moniker, but I may change Rio to my real name sometime.)
Report comment to moderator
What is “sphere sovereignty?”
Report comment to moderator
The Body of Christ is the Church, but the Church is not a building. The members transcend denomination. They “get it,” and they see salvation for what it is, i.e., they know human politics is NOT “it.” Does that help?
Report comment to moderator
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention something; thanks RWHawk, for your post .
Many proponents of evolution like to create an argument between “science” and Christianity (”religion”), by equating evolution with science.
It’s unfortunate that science has been redefined by humanists to exclude the supernatural, but that’s how it is: modern “science” must have an entirely naturalistic cause for everything.
True science should be studying the evidence and following where it leads, whether natural or supernatural in origin.
Here’s the important part, like RWHawk mentioned:
Like Christianity, secular humanism is a religion!
Simply put, a religion tells us how we got here, how we should live while we’re here, and what happens to us when we die.
Christianity says that God created us (how we got here), we should live to glorify God, make morally correct choices, and basically, follow the Bible’s teachings (what we do while we’re here), and when we die we’ll either go to heaven or hell, depending on whether or not we believed on Christ for salvation.
On the other hand, secular humanism says the following about the same thing:
1) We got here by evolution, but nobody’s really sure on how the universe and the first living things were created, since evolution, by definition, deals with life after it’s already been created.
2) We can live however we like, and there are no morals.
If I feel like stealing your car and beating you up, if it’s right for me, you shouldn’t have a problem with it.
If there are morals, they just evolved with the mind, to help social progress, or something like that, so morals may evolve out of existence, provided there are absolutes…
3) We die, and that’s it.
Report comment to moderator
#105 Arcadia, Interesting. Given the history, which Ingersoll delineates pretty well, why should I think that today’s Christians or tomorrow’s won’t behave in the same way as previous Christians? These were all people relying upon the same book as their ultimate authority for all that is right. And even you must agree that within that book there is ample justification for all of those horrors.
You and Ingersoll are committing the logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. Just because two things are related does not mean one caused the other. As others have pointed out despots come in all flavors, most of whom in recent history are atheists. So is it the Bible that causes tyranny or do some tyrants use the Bible to oppress? The answer is obvious to anyone interested in the truth.
Power corrupts no matter who you put in charge. Since Jesus preached nothing but kindness even to one’s enemies, it is only profound ignorance that would call him a tyrant or an advocate of tyranny. Please explain how Jesus was a despot.
It is a matter of interpretation and because all are seeking to know the “mind” of an “unknowable” invisible entity, nobody can ever be proved wrong and all past interpretations are likely to emerge at any time.
This is an issue in charismatic circles and I urge the same cautions you do. The rest of us rely on reason and the same sort of faith behind every court case. Evidence is presented to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to believe that all of the wonders of nature were the result of a destructive power be my guest. To me that requires far more faith.
Most recently Christian ministry-backed genocidal campaigns have been waged in Rwanda and in the Balkans. The mess in the Middle East is largely a religious conflict.
In Rwanda, Christians failed to take a stand as they also failed in WWII. Did you take a stand? Go ahead and condemn this sin of omission. Many Christians would agree with you. The Middle East is a religious conflict. Why then do you support the religion of violence and terror which promotes torture, beheading and servitude and spend years of your life excoriating a religion which demands that we love our enemies.
There are plenty of Christians in the world today, more than willing to take up arms, kill women and children and behave more or less as their and your forebears did.
Prove it!
And there are others in this country, as seen most recently in Guyana, Waco, and even Oklahoma City, happy to carry out what they un-disprovably believe is your gods will.
None of these folks were Christian. They were cults, which by definition are contrary to Christianity.
One last point here. You write by this church. This ignores the point that there have always been many Christian “churches” and an awful lot of past and some present violence is committed by one “Christian Church” against another.
Present violence? Like what? Are you fine with mosques plotting the overthrow of America? (Watch the award winning PBS documentary Jihad in America) Do any churches plot the overthrow of America?
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER,
Christians approach life in one of two ways; 1. the secular-sacred split, or 2. by a complete Christian worldview. In essence, the secular-sacred split is based on salvation only and not applying Biblical truths to all aspects of life. The Christian worldview is acknowledging that God talks about every aspect and institution of life and we, as His ambassadors, represent those truths to the world, be it philosophy, science, ethics, sociology, history, politics, law, economics, etc. The secular-sacred split occurred in the 19th century when Christians gave ground to the humanists beginning in the university system.
God has designed the perfect social order and many of us Christians try to conform to His will about that order. One part of it that we have the freedom to engage in within a constitutional repulblic is regarding civil government and conformance to Romans 13:1-7, for instance.
Francis Shaeffer’s influence on Nancy Pearcy about the secular-sacred split is found in ‘Total Truth’. To understand about a complete Christian worldview ‘Understanding the Times’ is one of the best books.
Abraham Kuyper coined the term sphere sovereignty and you can read about it here: http://www.acton.org/publications/mandm/publicat_m_and_m_2002_spring_harinck.php
It has been developed to identify the sovereign spheres of individual, family, church, state, enterprise, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller’s argument:
God paid the price for me to go to Heaven, to Paradise, where there is no more pain nor sorrow. Eternal happiness. But I refuse to believe that because I think He’s mean.
That just doesn’t make sense.
Brother Dan, You’re absolutely right, that makes no sense for a myriad of reasons, but that’s not my argument. I don’t believe in God. What I’m marveling at is how Christians can so fervently worship a God that ensures that millions if not billions of his creations will suffer an eternity of torture due to the inadequacy of God’s revelation and the fact that if he designed the world he designed it in such a way as to make his existence appear totally unnecessary. He’s supposedly omnipotent; he had to know that he was creating a world of pain and suffering, both here and in the hereafter.
I don’t believe, but if I did, I would refuse to worship because of God’s infinite cruelty. The fact that he hands out golden tickets to his biggest supporters hardly mitigates the fact that he willfully tortures everyone else.
It’s no wonder that fundamentalist Christians are so quick to support war and torture, because their God makes any cruelty that we can devise seem minuscule next to his divine cruelty.
My mind reels at the absurdity of your beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
From Breitbart:
“Iranian police have issued warnings to 62,000 women who were “badly veiled” in the Shiite holy province of Qom as part of a clampdown on dress and behaviour, a newspaper said on Monday”.
Is it coming to Michigan?
Report comment to moderator
Here is an explanation of the motives of the New Left and why they align themselves with Islam and other anti-capitalists.
Report comment to moderator
God doesn’t ensure anything. People do, Truthteller.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk, both Understanding the Times and Total Truth are perhaps the two most interesting and useful Christian non-fiction books I’ve read (besides the Bible, naturally).
Good point about the secular/sacred dualist mindset; perhaps I should have mentioned that.
It is slightly disappointing to write a long post and pose questions in it and not to receive any answers. Perhaps that’s an answer in itself: “I don’t have a good answer or logical objection to what you’re saying, so I’ll just try to ignore it, change the subject, or do whatever I can to avoid answering directly.”
Like I said, I think if someone is logical and answers the questions I asked in #109, they will either have to admit that the Christian worldview is the only valid one and embrace it, or they will simply reject it because they’re entrenched in their long-held beliefs and don’t want to change. I don’t see how someone could say, “Yes, Christianity has the answers and humanism doesn’t, but I’m not going to become a Christian.”
If the Holy Spirit hasn’t worked in an individual’s heart, nothing can be done, but you may at least be able to get someone to where they try to change the topic or avoid the question, be illogical, or do something similar. At that point, I think you’ve done pretty much all you can do.
Of course, one’s belief in something isn’t what determines its existence or validity – “I don’t believe in gravity, so if I jump off a skyscraper, I’ll be fine.” Not a good idea.
In that case, ignorance is not exactly bliss, to say the least.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk, Understanding the Times and Total Truth are perhaps the two most interesting and useful Christian non-fiction books I’ve read (besides the Bible, naturally).
Good point about the secular/sacred dualist mindset; perhaps I should have mentioned that.
It is slightly disappointing to write a long post and pose questions in it and not to receive any answers. Perhaps that’s an answer in itself: “I don’t have a good answer or logical objection to what you’re saying, so I’ll just try to ignore it, change the subject, or do whatever I can to avoid answering directly.”
Like I said, I think if someone is logical and answers the questions I asked in #109, they will either have to admit that the Christian worldview is the only valid one and embrace it, or they will simply reject it because they’re entrenched in their long-held beliefs and don’t want to change. I don’t see how someone could say, “Yes, Christianity has the answers and humanism doesn’t, but I’m not going to become a Christian.”
If the Holy Spirit hasn’t worked in an individual’s heart, nothing can be done, but you may at least be able to get someone to where they try to change the topic or avoid the question, be illogical, or do something similar. At that point, I think you’ve done pretty much all you can do.
Of course, one’s belief in something isn’t what determines its existence or validity – “I don’t believe in gravity, so if I jump off a skyscraper, I’ll be fine.” Not a good idea.
In that case, ignorance is not exactly bliss, to say the least.
Report comment to moderator
Oops, sorry about the double post.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Please honestly answer this question: Could you choose to believe in the literal existence of the Easter Bunny if you wanted to?
If I where to threaten you with torture if you don’t believe in the Easter Bunny what would you think of me? Would I earn your praise for showing you the right path, or would I you think I’m trying to coerce you into believing something you consider absurd?
Science has shown the Bible to be wrong. Its cosmology, history, and morality are all deaply flawed. I can’t choose to believe it any more than I can chose to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or that the Moon is made of green cheese.
Report comment to moderator
my friend NJLawyer, it is a waste of time and effort trying to debate a poor soul like TruthTeller. The only answer for such a person is prayer.
We need to pray that God opens his blind eyes to the real true. The God opens his narrow mind, to understad the things of God.
Report comment to moderator
RIO,
Do you know about The Truth Project?
Understanding the Times is my 3rd best reader. Grudem’s Systematic Theology is my 2nd. I lean more in the science arena and have found Signature in the Cell by Meyer, Ultimate Proof by Lisle,and In the Beginning was Information by Gitt to be in my top 10.
We are dealing with those that are either truly interested in a dialog and sharing or those that just come and taunt. It would appear that Truthteller and Arcadia are the taunting variety. Lost in their religious dogma and believing they know it all. Pastor Roy has the proper solution for these two; pray for them that God will remove their blinders.
Don’t you think it is interesting to see how Truthteller sets up a strawman and then explains how absurd his strawman is as in his 115? One thing I have found with their religious worldview is the use of logical fallacies to keep themselves convinced there is no God.
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK,
What straw man in #115? Are you denying that Christians worship a God who tortures people who reject his existence?
I’m trying to have a dialog here, but instead of addressing some of what I see as absurdities in your religion, you instead chose to put your fingers in your ears and go “la la la la“. Perhaps you’re used to people paying your ideas more respect then they deserve, but in my view, that only gives license to the kind of supernatural belief that stifles real learning and progress.
Report comment to moderator
TT,
your strawman is your misrepresentation of the character and nature of God. You’ve invented your own god and then call him absurd. I agree, your god is absurd.
You claim: I’m trying to have a dialog here, but instead of addressing some of what I see as absurdities in your religion, you instead chose to put your fingers in your ears and go “la la la la“. Perhaps you’re used to people paying your ideas more respect then they deserve, but in my view, that only gives license to the kind of supernatural belief that stifles real learning and progress.
This is your concept of dialog?????? It’s more a monolog of the absurd. Logical fallacy of question begging epithet.
Report comment to moderator
Rwhawk,
Help me out here, Are you saying that God doesn’t send people to Hell for refusing to beleive in him? How exactlly do you reconcile a good natured God with one that allows eternal torture for those who choose not to beleive in Him? Do you beleive in the Devil? If the Devil is real, wouldn’t be fair to say he operates at the pleasure of God? I mean, God is omnipotent , No?
See those question marks? those are an invitation to diolog. Questions like those above vex many non-beleivers. You are being given an opertunity to defend your faith.
Report comment to moderator
Hi guys – was just idling around and found this thread – read Truthteller’s initial post and felt at home.
I can’t see the attraction of spending “eternity” praising an omnipotent, omnipresent etc. god who creates a world, puts millions of different creatures on it knowing that the humans are going to tick him off, and then, in a fit of pique, wipes them all out. (bar one human family and 2 {or 7?} of every creature including lemurs and koala bears). Makes it rain (a couple of inches on every square inch of the earth’s surface every minute of every hour of every day for 40 days and 40 nights, then realises that he might have overdone the reaction a tad and puts a knot in his hankie to remind himself not to be so silly again (alright – he set the rainbow in the sky as a reminder).
Pastor Roy is absolutely right of course – either believe every word in the bible or lose the second century idea of original sin and the raison-d’etre for christianity.
The problem with the inerrant bible idea is that, for many of us, the bible is clearly wrong in some places and contradictory in others. The alternative is “pick-and-mix” christianity and then the question is “who does the picking?” and how do they (you?)know what god really meant to be in the bible and which bits are just human invention.
Conclusion – christianity is irrational – a matter of faith. Some people are OK with that, some of us aren’t. Not won’t, not being obtuse or wilful, just using the reasoning powers which we have (via evolution and/or god). As I see it, if the perfect god existed it’d accept that, and if it didn’t accept that then it’s either imperfect (like its creation) or non-existent (which, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is my preferred option).
Report comment to moderator
KWatson, Help me out here, Are you saying that God doesn’t send people to Hell for refusing to beleive in him? How exactlly do you reconcile a good natured God with one that allows eternal torture for those who choose not to beleive in Him? Do you beleive in the Devil? If the Devil is real, wouldn’t be fair to say he operates at the pleasure of God? I mean, God is omnipotent , No?
KWatson, we have explained these things hundreds of times throughout the years. If you actually want to engage in dialog, then you will have to be willing to let go of the ridiculous straw man god that is so often ridiculed here.
I’ll give you a quick answer and a longer answer. The quick answer is that there is a hell because God is good. Now for the longer answer … on theodicy.
To understand why is there a hell you need to understand the nature of God. Even if you don’t believe, you’ll need to be willing to consider the other side of the argument if you want to have a discussion.
When considering the nature of God, you need to take every attribute to the extreme. To say God is just, means justice to the extreme, i.e. no exceptions ever. To say God is good, means absolutely and perfectly good, so extremely good that no evil can come near him, just like darkness can’t come near the sun. To say God is love means absolute and perfect love.
Now how does a perfect God express his love and goodness? He plans a Grand Demonstration (read Jay Adams’ book of the same title). To express extreme love one needs a very high cost. One needs to face extreme adversity for the object of his affection. God allows evil to exist in his creation, just as shadows are allowed by light.
Next you need to understand grace, meaning kindness to those who don’t deserve it. Now take grace to the extreme. The omniscient perfect and good creator and therefore judge of the universe cannot violate his perfect justice.
So how does he show perfect love or grace or mercy without being unjust? There is only one way, for this judge to take on the penalty of the unjust upon himself. Prior to doing so he wills all he has to the unjust and then dies in their place. His justice is intact and he demonstrates the extent of is love and grace.
However, the defendant has a choice (not to diminish predestination and sovereignty – different subject). He can chose to accept the penalty as paid by the just judge or reject it. To spend eternity apart from God is to spend it apart from the good, i.e. with evil. Eternal separation from the good is hell.
God has sufficiently addressed himself to every man about his nature and power, so that all men are without excuse. (Rom 1:20) To say God never made it clear is to deny the truth. If you don’t believe it, travel the world to the remotest points and ask anyone about God. No one will say, “Who?” Everyone has an instantaneous opinion. Everyone knows precisely what you are talking about. And so, ignorance is no excuse.
Report comment to moderator
“How exactly do you reconcile a good natured God with one that allows eternal torture for those who choose not to beleive in Him?”
Actually, I don’t. This is what I meant. I lean more toward annihilation. I think this can be backed up Biblically quite well.
Xion’s post actually made me think of something else: God took the punishment on Himself. He died. He didn’t suffer conscious eternal torment, He died.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk, Thanks for the names of those books.
I don’t remember if I’d heard of the Truth Project previously, but I looked it up a minute ago.
KWatson,
I don’t have the time to debate with you and the others right now, so I’ll leave that to Xion and whoever else decides to.
However, before asking a bunch of questions like you did, perhaps you should answer at least a couple of those presented by me, as well as some of the points made by Xion and others.
You don’t have to, of course, but it will make you look a bit better if you respond to the questions and statements already made rather than ignoring them and going on the offensive.
But do whatever you like in regards to this; I’m just saying I think it’s much easier to start firing questions at your opponent and say, “answer up; the clock is ticking!” than it is to first address your opponent’s claims and questions…satisfactorily, that is – merely mentioning them and shrugging them off as not worth further discussion doesn’t count.
Lastly – and this is simply to help you out, not to poke fun at you – the correct spelling of “beleive” is “believe”, as you probably know.
I don’t know which, but it may have been a typo both times.
Either way, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and other internet browsers have built-in spell-check, which can be quite useful sometimes.
Anyone, what’s a contradiction you see in the Bible?
I really don’t want to entertain this, since I believe it’s only an excuse to not listen to what Christians like me have to say, but I’ll do so anyway, if only to witness the results. Plus,
Lastly, (I’m not complaining here; I’m just curious like the many others who have asked the question before)
Why do all these atheists/agnostics/etc. (non-Christians) come onto Christian blog and attack Christians and our beliefs?
Yes, it’s a political blog, and yes, it’s open to everyone for various reasons, including to encourage discussion, but it has Christian writers, editors and other staff, as well as a primarily Christian audience (who want news and other articles from a Christian perspective). I’m positive there are many atheist/secular humanist blogs where everyone points out what they believe is wrong about Christianity. Perhaps it makes non-Christians happy to feel that they are defeating them in debates, since they’re talking directly to Christians instead of to like-minded people?
If you’re one of the non-Christians I’m talking about (TruthTeller, HUGHWILLRIDMEE, KWatson, Arcadia, etc., etc.), perhaps you can answer this question.
I’ve written enough for now and I’m now fairly tired because it’s pretty late. That’s all I have to say for now.
Report comment to moderator
KWATSON;
XION has done an excellent job of answering your questions. Apparently you have a history with RIO of not answering his questions. If you still have questions for me then you need to square away some issues for me:
you ask: Help me out here, Are you saying that God doesn’t send people to Hell for refusing to beleive in him?
Where did I say that?
you ask: How exactly do you reconcile a good natured God with one that allows eternal torture for those who choose not to beleive in Him?
Please define “good natured” and your concept of “eternal torture”
Report comment to moderator
TJSCatlover:
No he didn’t. He returned in glory after three days, according to the story. He didn’t die in any real sense of the word. The “sacrifice” was a few hours of pain, not the end of an individual existence.
Report comment to moderator
Rio:
When all of this is added up, it means that Paul spent less than three years in the desert. It is interesting how God has trained His men. He trained Moses in the desert. He put Abraham in a rather unique place to train him, and Elijah had that same type of experience. It has been God’s method to put His man out on the desert to train him. David was trained outdoors in the caves of the earth while he was running away from King Saul. Remember that he cried out to God that he was hunted like a partridge — it was open season on him all the time. The Lord used the same method with Paul. God sent him into the desert for less than three years. Then he went to Jerusalem, saw Peter, and stayed with him for fifteen days.
Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee.
Two different authors emphasizing different themes. No contradiction. For Luke, Paul’s three year journey by himself (and Jesus) in the desert didn’t add necessary information to the story in Acts. For Paul, his autobiographical sketch in Galatians added information he wanted to tell his audience; such as the three years in the desert between his conversion in Damascus and finally meeting Peter in Jerusalem.
Report comment to moderator
#133 “No he didn’t. He returned in glory after three days, according to the story. He didn’t die in any real sense of the word. The “sacrifice” was a few hours of pain, not the end of an individual existence.”
The man on the cross died. The Roman soldiers proved he was dead. God was manifest in the flesh. His body died. God is a spirit which cannot die. You also are a spirit which cannot die. Your earthen body will die, but you will live on either in one place or another.
The point of the Messiah’s coming as revealed throughout biblical history was to undo the effects of the Fall. The Fall of Man brought death into the world. The Messiah overcame death, both the first (physical) and the second (spiritual) and has made a way for others to follow him. He has saved mankind from the second death, eternity apart from God.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller,
When the Bible describes heaven, it is described as a perfect place. If non perfect people entered it would be spoiled – not perfect anymore. Those who turn to Christ and accept him, agree to be changed by him so that they will be worthy of heaven. But he doesn’t force anyone to be changed. If they were forced to be changed, heaven would become a prison. You make your own choice to not accept his offer, he doesn’t force you out but he is God and makes the rules.
Your idea that anyone should be allowed to enter heaven no matter what makes no sense. Do you let anyone enter your house at any time no matter what or do you put locks on your doors? Without some rules for entry the house would likely be soon trashed and rendered worthless.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk:
The degree to which apologists will twist things to avoid admitting the obvious never fails to astonish me. This is a clear contradiction.
Luke (the putative author of Acts) wants to establish Paul’s credibility as a student of Peter and the other disciples, so he has him leaving Damascus and going to Jerusalem to meet the disciples within days of his conversion. (It also says he spent the time immediately after his conversion experience with “the disciples in Damascus,” but it’s not clear to me if that means some of Jesus’s original disciples or just Damascan Christians.)
Paul wants to convince the Galatians that he received his teachings directly from the risen Christ and not from any other man, so he tell them he spent three years traveling and preaching before going to finally meet those who had known Jesus in life.
There are other discrepancies between Acts’s accounts of Paul and Paul’s own letters.
According to Acts, the disciples were first afraid of Paul and sought to rebuff him, until Barnabas advocated for him and then he spent time with them. According to Galatians, Paul met only Peter — and Paul is emphatic on this point, writing: “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.” (Gal. 1:18-19.) This is not a difference in emphasis. This is Luke explicitly saying Paul met many of the disciples days after his conversion and Paul explicitly saying he met only Peter and that was three years later.
According to Acts 8, before his conversion he was very active in the churches of Judea and Syria as a persecutor of Christians. According to Paul himself in Galatians, he was “unknown by sight in the churches of Judea.”
In 1 Thessalonians, we learn that Timothy traveled to Athens with Paul, but then Paul sent him back to Thessolonica to help build up the church there. In Acts, after founding the church at Thessolonica, Paul sends Timothy and Silas to start a church in Boroea and travels to Athens alone. He doesn’t meet up with them again until after he’s left Athens and is on his way to Corinth.
These may be small and ultimately inconsequential details, but they are real contradictions.
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
OK. So Jesus’s body died and he lived on in heaven. This was the “punishment” for all of the sin of humanity through all time.
This doesn’t really wash, does it? We’re told that our punishment for unredeemed sin will be an eternity in hell, but Jesus took it for us — but Jesus neither truly died nor is spending eternity in hell, so in what sense is he paying our penalty?
I’m not speaking here against the idea of atonement in general, just the analogy to the human judge who pays the penalty instead of the guilty (your post #129). The judge may be in some way saving the condemned from the penalty, but it does not seem to me that it’s truly by the judge paying it himself.
Report comment to moderator
It all depends on your presuppositions about scripture and whether the original text is inerrant or not. That will then guide your interpretation and what you want it to say.
Are you using Ehrman?
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK: It does not take reliance on a scholar, nor does it have anything to do with a presupposition, to read the plain language of the text and understand that “Paul went to Athens alone” in one book and “Timothy accompanied Paul to Athens” in another are mutually exclusive statements.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose this is the issue we will disagree on.
Every interpretation we make is based on our religious worldview which consists of a system of presuppostions. For instance, your presuppostion in this case is there is no other information to consider; that the texts are as complete as possible and have not left out any pertinent information; it’s all black and white. From a Bible-is-inerrant presuppostion there is critical information missing to make an absolute determination that Acts and 1 Thes are talking to the identical situation about Paul’s & Timothy’s travels. There are some very plausible alternatives of peoples movements when studying the efforts needed to start churches, etc
Here is an example of one scholarly piece:
“Likewise, it has been argued that the movements of
Timothy and Silas in 1 Thessalonians do not match those in
Acts. In particular, Acts 18:5 shows them rejoining Paul in
Corinth, whereas 1 Thessalonians 3:1-6 may show Timothy
rejoining Paul in Athens. Several reconstructions of their specific movements can be offered which account for the material
in both books….”
Anyway, this has been interesting and I look forward to discussing other issues with you in the future. For now, the wife and I are preparing to depart on our journey tomorrow morning.
Take Care
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!