Video: Pelosi’s daughter covers creationism
posted at 12:37 pm on January 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I went looking on YouTube for clips from “Friends of God” to peg to NRO’s review, but the pickings were slim. We’ll have to make do with this, which is useful insofar as its subject lies on the cultural fault line and useless insofar as it implies not only that Christianity = creationism but that all Christians approach the subject with the comic illogic exhibited by Buddy Davis.
It’s not as derisive or nasty as it could have been, but Pelosi’s obviously presenting it as a type of freak show. Rewarding as entertainment, not so much as documentary.
The movie re-airs today at 1:30 and 10 p.m. and at various times over the next month. Exit question for our Christian readers: Agree or disagree with the following paragraph from the NRO article?
The biggest lesson of the film is that normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. When Pelosi shows thousands of people singing “I am a friend of God,” a club of skateboarders “skating for Christ,” or even an impassioned sermon, those familiar with evangelicalism see nothing odd. However, your average New Yorker or San Franciscan, or even your suburban neighbor who has never walked through the door of a church, sees something very strange indeed. Turning a hobby, such as skating or cruising cars, into an outlet for proselytizing may come across as artificial, even manipulative. The fervor of emotional worship, multiplied by thousands of worshippers, can leave those without that experience scratching their head. “There’s something very strange about these people,” says Pelosi to Haggard about the enthusiastic worshippers, “They’re so happy.” Happy, perhaps, but disconcerting nonetheless — or all the more — to many liberals. In an interview with the gay magazine The Advocate, she says, “A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the megachurches come back talking about how scary they are.” To those who have never been a part of evangelicalism, the lingo, the constant referrals to the Bible, the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their biblically imposed limits, religious passion, even the pure power of thousands of people at a rally, can be terrifying. Evangelicals would do well to understand this, not to conform to the broader culture, but to speak a language those outside the church can understand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
AP the fact that most Republicans are Christian does not mean it does not represent your beliefs (beliefs and atheists do not belong in the same sentence). What do you want the party to represent that it does not now? What values and ideals would you want us Christians to discard that would make you feel more comfortable? Keep in mind the very broad spectrum of Christian beliefs.
right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Because if there’s one thing honora and her ilk would know about, it’s litmus tests.
As for folks embracing fictitious persecutions…I believe the Hollywood Elite far surpasses the bible-thumper crowd.
The Ugly American on January 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I gather that AP and others think “creationism” is silly. I suggest you spend a little time reading up, but don’t stress the the “creationism” language. It’s just an unneccessary replacement word for evolution… it’s not some fringe weirdo group of “creationists”. It’s just true Christians who believe that the Bible IS God’s word, and the literal truth. Though there’s really nothing wrong with the word, the label it brings is obnoxious. Any TRUE Christian is a “creationist”, otherwise they are compromising and not accepting the authority of the Bible, and saying it’s subject to interpretation.
That said, while the Australian guy with the beard is Ken Ham, President of arguably the world’s biggest “creationist” organization, Answers in Genesis, you have to realize the obvious… this was a lesson for small children. Instead of actually dealing with real adult science, Pelosi decided to go to a meeting for helping get kids off on the right foot before they’re bombarded with vicious attacks on their faith when they start school. Anyone who pays attention to this area knows that evolutionists won’t debate the science with the other side because they are afraid, yet the “science community” is so viciously insistant that their view MUST be taught.
Even if evolution were true (which is ridiculous) it offers nothing to “science”… so why is it constantly a requirement, when real science could simply be taught. Real tested observable science, not a fairytale written aroudn it (that has to be rewritten constantly, as evolutionary assumptions constantly get destroyed).
I’m too lazy to repeate my points that I made in a thread at this other blog about findings by evolutionists constantly contradicting evolution, yet because of the blind faith of the assumed evolution “science” community, they somehow still manage to mention the E word, where it doesn’t belong and was not observed. It’s shameful, but happens CONSTANTLY. Again, check out some of my last posts in this thread (so I don’t have to repeat the whole thing. Bonus* I actually only entered that conversation originally because liberal blogs all over the internet were running around with this lie, based entirely on a LYING press release by some special interest group, stating that Bush administratoin officials were stopping Grand Canyon guides from talking about estimated ages of the canyon, etc. etc.
For anyone intersted in following the issue, I have to recommend this site (thought never rely on a single post to make your decision on what you think, it’s a massive blog that’s been around for years)
http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm
(If you bookmark, bookmark THAT SPECIFIC URL, as it always redirects to the URL of the current month… if you bookmark the landing page, you’ll be stuck on January 07.)
Anyway, Father Darwin’s fairytale was mistakenly and unknowingly falsified by some of the Church of Evolution’s own Parishioners. As always, blind faith in evolution prevents them from seeing what their findings actually say, but here’s one of my favs for what it’s worth:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200612.htm#20061214a
RightWinged on January 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Nice strawman. Now put down the matches, please.
I was specifically talking about secular fanatics who, no matter how much you try to communicate with them, aren’t listening to a word you’re saying. They already have their minds made up, so there’s precious little point in talking to them. Unless you really have an abundance of time that you don’t have any good use for.
I’m more than happy to discuss my beliefs at length with anybody who has questions and is genuinely interested in the answer. Please note: “Genuine interest” does NOT mean “somebody who will automatically agree with me afterwards.”
The likes of Pelosi’s spawn, however? Not so much.
And yes, honora, that was meant to be insulting. She portrays my kind as circus freaks, I return the favor. If that’s unfair, bite me.
Misha I on January 30, 2007 at 3:37 PM
I am not depicting you as a leftist. Period.
I’m saying if you’re so fed up with religious influence on the party, why don’t we start talking about some of the issues on which you see religion as having too much influence? I think it makes a stronger party to have religious voices as well as non-, but maybe that’s just me. And most of the evangelicals I know are Democrats. And most of my church, including the leadership, are leftist, which isn’t a fair general picture since I live in Oregon.
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Oh leave Allah alone.
He’s just trying to free his inner vagina.
The Ugly American on January 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Good God, is this even true? I doubt it. And if it’s true I submit that most Republican *politicians* can’t afford to be shiny-eyed and that a big batch of those Republican Christians are more like me than Evangelicals. We’re hampered here by a lack of actual facts and a surplus of heated rhetoric.
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM
The insistence upon certainty in belief turns me off as well. And I consider myself an evangelical. I have a set of beliefs, and my beliefs are, in my opinion, rooted in good reasons. I cannot prove them with certainty, but I can evaluate the reasons which undergird them, and judge them, either retaining or replacing them.
Bushnell asserted that certainty does not lie within the capacity of human language. I tend to agree.
nailinmyeye on January 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And your complaint is?
Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Allah, I like you. We all like you. No one thinks you’re a lefty. I just think you hold Christians in contempt, which gets under my skin, given that I don’t hold you in the same regard.
You snark at us (and you do constantly), we snark back. If I didn’t already think you were playing up the martyr bit to prove a point about whining Christians, I’d say you needed a drink.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 3:43 PM
We are agreed. I posted essentially the same comment on the previous A. Pelosi thread. All of this is nothing more than a Michael Moore hatchet job — and it’s not a very good one, at that.
Don’t kid yourself Mr. AllahP. You are NOT disqualified by your atheism. You are every bit as religious as the fundamentalist Christians that frequent this site. Not to decide, is to decide. Not to worship, is to worship. You just worship at a different alter than the rest of us. Whether it is Ilana Donna or blogging or politics or whatever — everyone has SOMETHING that they put first in their lives (above all else). There is an inherit, innate rank ordering of things in the universe that can not be denied.
Brilliant honora — but your only sixty or more years late with this observation. Mahatma Ghandi said very nearly these same words. Funny thing is though, I have a LOT more respect for Ghandi than I do for you honora. Ghandi helped to shape a nation. What have you done that’s noteworthy, other than serve as HotAir’s troll extraordinaire?
CyberCipher on January 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Jesus called the religious leaders of His day a “brood of vipers.”
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Oh it is certainly not unfair. It is however, profoundly un-Christian.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I believe that is the truest thing that has been said in this thread.
Concerning the NRO article, I agree to a certain extent about Christian lingo and culture. I think that the evangelical community can get caught up in “Christianese” when we have a pithy code word for every spiritual experience. When I went on mission trips to Trinidad & Tobago and New Zealand, one of the main things we were taught was to not use “churchy” words that non-Christians have never heard of. At the same time, the church is truly its own kind of culture. It isn’t entirely fair to expect the church to make sure each and every word is understanded by all non-Christians. After all, in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul differentiated between the spiritually immature (”infants”) and the spiritually mature. He had to feed milk to the infants in Christ rather than solid food.
tiekitwist on January 30, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Jesus=Esthier=Misha hmmmm verrry interesting.
Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 3:47 PM
CyberCipher, unless you’ve got stats on how many practicing Christians actually do put God first in their lives, and a direct mandate from above as to what that translates to in terms of political positions and activities, do you think it’s productive to make implications about Allah’s personal priorities?
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:47 PM
None. Well, except for the fact that I’m more of a “do unto others BEFORE they do unto you” sort of guy.
I just found it a little bit amusing that honora got all worked up about an “insult” to the spawn of Stretcher Lugosi, right after said spawn got done taking a huge dump all over Christianity.
Predictable, but amusing nonetheless.
Misha I on January 30, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I’ll take your advice on the nature of Christianity seriously the moment you make sure to read BOTH books. They’re both there for a reason, you know.
Oh, and actually understanding what they’re saying would be nice too.
Misha I on January 30, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Why is it that non-Christians, especially those that purport to deeply resent Christianity, are always the resident expert on what it means to be Christian?
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Not exactly.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 3:50 PM
there is atleast 1 subliminal message in this film, near the end after showing the politics at play there is a billboard sign with a saying on it in black and white, can’t remember the saying but if you look closely inside the “O” there is a little ABU GHRAIB figure to make the inside of the “O”…..
I’ve been looking for a screenshot, if I have to I’ll play it again and take a picture of the screen, I have a 125″ front projection system so you would be able to see it well.
jp on January 30, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I guess the basic question here, Allah, is just this: I’m pretty sure a conservative party made up only of Christians would find itself marginalized in a hurry. Do you think a party of nonChristian conservatives would fare better?
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM
We finally agree on something: that Ghandi is worthy of much more respect than me, and that he accomplished much more as well. Alert the media. Interesting you are a fan of a pacifist though.
I must say your ex cathedra style provides some much needed levity to this thread. Bravo.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Funny thing is this whole debate is based on religionist wanna-bes trying to justify why they should have to study theology in order to mock theology.
As an “evangelical”, I also find Megachurches scary.
People fear what they don’t understand, all my atheist liberal friends say so. So put your money where your mouth is and try to learn what is going on, rather than just mock and ridicule what you refuse to try and understand.
Evangelicals are not the ones who misunderstand. Evangelicals are not the ones “conforming” to the broader culture of Politicaly Correct Secular Humanism. Mabye it isn’t Evangelicals that need to learn to speak Secular Humanism, but Humanists that need to get off their lazy butts and learn Evangelical speak. Maybe then they wouldn’t be so quick to mock and ridicule that which they readily admit they don’t understand.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Bingo. You complete me, Allah.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Why is that right wing, especially those that purport to deeply resent Democrats, are always the resident expert on what it means to be Democrat?
In other words, I am a Christian.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Haha. Me too.
Anwyn on January 30, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Something just occurred to me - a little slow, maybe. Isn’t this:
exactly what evangelicals are trying to do by adapting their faith to popular cultural practices (skateboarding, etc…)?
nailinmyeye on January 30, 2007 at 3:57 PM
I’m a Christ-follower.
/bad callback of the Mac-PC commercials
Matticus Finch on January 30, 2007 at 3:58 PM
According to you. But again, it’s not as though Jesus lived His life without insulting anyone.
It was never His intent to make everyone happy-go-lucky. He came to divide mothers and sons… (paraphrased scripture).
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM
I truly believe that non-Christian liberals resent the happiness and moral fortitude that Christians display.
They’re haters.
natesnake on January 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
If I may add:
Whatever one places their faith in is their higher power, the thing that they worship. And that, by definition, is their religion.
It is quite hypocritical of Ms. Pelosi and her ilk to claim an authoritative stance on religion in any manner when based on what they readily admit are misunderstandings, therefore and misrepresetions (or lies).
I just wish Atheists could stop lying to themselves that they are not religious. They may represent a religion of one person, but it’s still religion based on whatever they place their faith in.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Liberals, atheist, etc. have a Materalist mindset/worldview, if you study the history of philosophy you will see why. They beleive anything that is supernatural in nature is impossible and ridiculous which makes explaining Christianity to them and being able to speak so they can understand all the more difficult. The key is to break their materialist worldview.
jp on January 30, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Welcome to the club, AP. The GOP doesn’t represent my interests either, despite its attempts to pander to me and insult my intelligence. I see nothing in Jesus’ teachings to support what passes for policy these days.
Do they serve Shirley Temples at the wet bar?
Kid from Brooklyn on January 30, 2007 at 4:03 PM
I still don’t know where I got the San Fran Connection but I did find a rather tenuous link to California.
From this story
Gwillie on January 30, 2007 at 4:03 PM
A note to the Christians on this forum:
When I watch a “documentary” like the Pelosi one I cringe. Many Christians only have a superficial knowledge of the Bible including those “speakers”. Pelosi seems to delight in finding poor representatives of the Christian faith. However, you don’t have to park your intellect to believe in the Bible.
The Bible is an incredible book which took about 1600 years to complete. The first two chapters of Genesis include a river, the Tree of Life, and an abundance or raw precious materials. The last two chapters in the book of Revelation also show an enlarged river, Tree of Life and precious materials which have been built up into something. The one thing you don’t in those chapters is sin - that’s in the other chapters.
I consider myself to be an evangelical, fundamental Bible believing Christian who believes the earth is many millions or even billions of years old. Those speakers in the video miss the verse in Isaiah 45:18 that says God did not create the earth to be a “waste.” The same Hebrew word for waste is used in Genesis 1:2 where it says the earth became “waste” and desolate.
So, something obviously happened between verse one of Genesis chapter one and verse 2. Genesis 1:1 occurred billions of years ago. Genesis 1:2 is more recent. What happened? - the Satanic rebellion which resulted in God’s judgement of flooding and darkness on the earth. You can put dinosaurs, pre-Adamaic homonoids, etc in between verse one and two.
If Pelosi’s daughter was intellectually honest she probably could find the answers she is seeking versus simply smearing the Christian faith because of a few. To me the only solution to Islamic fanaticism is the good news of the Christian faith.
Did you ever notice is does not say after the second day that God saw that it was good while on the sixth day God said it was very good? Ever wonder why?
Texas Mike on January 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Because if I were to follow your logic, you wouldn’t have a problem with Christians drinking, running crank and raping horses, because that would define what a Christian was. Selling out your country for narrow political and personal interests is what defines the Democrat party because that’s precisely what they’ve done for the past 40 years.
spmat on January 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM
I wish Pelosi had visisted Ann Coulter’s church, or the one she’s reported to have been a member of in New York, its a famous PCA reformed presbyterian Christian church. Or for that matter Coral Gables in Florida and James Kennedy’s church…
jp on January 30, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Bryan on January 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Well done.
Having trouble with the ‘looking at oneself’ yourself bit lately AP?
Being insulting to others is not something from which you have abstained.
Then you post a question about Christianity and become lonely when only two of you are atheist/agnostic?
What were you hoping for? More adversity?
What has happened to you in the last couple of months? Seriously. It’s been almost a year, and although I’ve never met you, we readers do get to ‘know you’…or at least I thought.
Am I out of bounds here? I hope not.
Maybe some Christians really care, even when we’re not bowling.
shooter on January 30, 2007 at 4:05 PM
As a not particularly religious fella, I don’t much have a dog in this fight - but I do have the same reaction every time I see this kind of thing. And it’s simple:
If Pelosi - or just about any liberal, for that matter - traveled to ANY other country and studied ANY other culture or religion, they would absolutely INSIST that it be treated with respect, dignity, even reverence. Go watch a liberal documentary on Native Americans, or indigenous tribes of South America, or the hill people of Vietnam … or even about radical Islam … and it’s always the same tone. Unquestioning respect - an insistence on multi-culturalism - and a condemnation of anyone that dares question that culture, that even seems to be less than deferential.
They reserve this tone for one country and one culture: American Christians.
Curious, no? I think if you could understand it, you could understand liberals. Is it self-loathing? Narcissism? Do they get an ego boost from pretending to understand foreign cultures? All of the above?
Color me crazy, but it would seem people like Pelosi have two choices, if they want to be taken seriously: either treat the American Christian evangelical culture with the same respect you’d show Australian aborigines … or start being a little more critical of other cultures.
Nevermind. Where’s my drink?
Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 4:07 PM
You make a good point, Allapundit.
The current GOP doesn’t represent my interest as much as I’d like either. Doesn’t make me any less of a ‘Fundy’. Doesn’t make you any less of whatever label you choose to identify as.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:10 PM
I see Christian conservatives as moralist and atheist conservatives as realists. Issues are attractive to both entities because they overlap.
Take Family Values for instance. The Christian sees this more as a moral issue (mother, father, & children holding together a family). The atheist sees this more as an economic issue (less single parents utilizing public assistance and reduction in crime rates).
I’m sure there are several other examples left out there.
natesnake on January 30, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Well all that put the thread count WAY up today. Well done Allah!
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 4:13 PM
the moral code that Atheist/agnostics operate on is based from the bible and God, even though they are clueless of it. An aetheist has no right/wrong starting point to claim things like the holocoust and what Hitler did as being “bad” though they do it anyway. If you beleive in Darwin and “Survival of the fittest” you can’t make a “hiter=evil” statement…
jp on January 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Don’t you see by making a statement like this, you are guilty of the same “arrogance and certainty” you accuse Christians of. You are saying that you KNOW that Christians can not know the truth and that it is a FACT that we have no way of knowing the truth until we die. What are you basing your certainty that the truth can not be known?
Certainty or sincerity of belief does not equal truth. HOWEVER, it does not make something wrong, either.
jman on January 30, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Agree.
I especially agree with that part. The bible specifically says that people who are out side of the body of believers, who do not understand what Christians believe and why will think they’re nutz.
Is it any surprise that Liberals who cling very tightly to views that are diametrically opposed to Christianity are not only against Christians in large numbers, but affraid of something they have no clue about? It’s not surprising to me in the least.
One last thing:
Any Christian who fails to understand this misses Paul’s methodology of spreading the Gospel as presented in the new testament.
Doesn’t anyone understand the quote “when in Rome”? Do as the Romans do except where it violates the law of God. If you don’t know what I’m talking about you’ve not read the NT. I’m not being arrogant here. I’m simply saying this is a fundamental principle of evangelical philosophy on how God wants His people to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Paul says it over and over through out his letters. He involves himself in personal relationships with groups of people in order to be able to share what God has shown him. They accept it or they don’t, but he Loves them regardless and continues to share with as many people as possible.
If you are going to get personal with people … big shock here… you have to find something in common with them and focus on it in order to build a bond of friendship. Therefore you share actions, ideas, and principles that are common ground and in a sense move as close to them as you can without violating the laws of God in order to share your experiences with them.
And the Christian experience is Faith.
so that’s what we share.
Anyone who wants to take issue with that as a Christian should go pick up their bible and dust off the parts of the NT that they’ve skipped over. Quit taking things out of context, and understand the life of Paul.
One Angry Christian on January 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Best comment in the thread.
Atheism, in theory, is never the problem. If an atheist shrugs and says “I dunno” when the topic of God comes up, there can’t be a problem.
But in the real world, atheists tend far too often to have ABSOLUTE FAITH in the existence of nothing, and to be as fundamentalist in the defense of that faith as any religious zealot.
Atheism is just another way of saying that you and only you know the grand truths.
Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I don’t have absolute faith that God doesn’t exist. I don’t know and don’t care. I think it’s unlikely in the extreme, but how can anyone “know” or not? Call me an agnostic if it you feel it’s more appropriate.
Allahpundit on January 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM
It depends on one’s perception of reality.
But it is Christians view themselves as realists, while viewing aetheists (either conservative or liberal) as utopian ideologues.
Yet, whichever view one holds, both consider themselves moral.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Maybe he left us a manual :)
jman on January 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM
“realist” conservatives would oppose abortion for economic reasons?
blogRot on January 30, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Keep in mind that I painted that statement with a very broad brush. I consider myself to be both a moralist and a realist, hence the reason I feel solid (usually) voting for conservative values.
UTOPIA!
natesnake on January 30, 2007 at 4:30 PM
If you place your Faith in Christ, then you are a Christian. If you place your faith in something else, then you’re something else.
What do you hold most dear? What do you place the most faith in? You may feel that you are agnostic, or atheist, but you do place faith and trust in something.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:30 PM
When it’s funded by tax-payer dollars, the answer is yes.
natesnake on January 30, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I don’t think the evangelicals should change their message as a reaction to others finding it fear inducing, but they should keep in mind that a one size fits all mentality isn’t as likely to help in spreading the message as one that is individually crafted for the circumstance.
Defense Guy on January 30, 2007 at 4:32 PM
And you present a solid argument for why you do so.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:32 PM
But isn’t that the whole point of the skate parks?
It sounds like Christians are strange if we try to reach out and scary when we don’t.
The article is telling us that we’re viewed as odd. Claiming we’re better served if we change but yet insulting our attempts to change, calling them manipulative.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Seems perfectly sensible to me. And yeah, that’s what I call an agnostic; I’ve heard atheists argue that there is “hard” and “soft” atheism, too, whatever they are.
Nothing wrong with admitting you don’t know. Actually, if every religious person on Earth - and that includes the hardcore atheists - would admit they don’t actually KNOW anything, the world would be better off.
I have my faith. There are things I believe, based on what I see around me.
But I don’t know. I’m sure there are surprises in store.
Besides, I watched South Park. I know who’s going to Hell.
Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Thank you!
There are many more ideas out there than the evolution vs creationism argument. IE I heard an idea that God created the earth from space junk and that the fossils we find are from that junk. In his mind this accounted for the age of fossils verses the biblical record. I couldn’t discount that but I did want to know where the space junk came from. An old planet?
Interesting.
csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 4:36 PM
We have had this discussion before (or else this is a particularly vivid deja vu!). I contend that the uncertainty about the existence of God is a predicate of Christianity–it’s the faith part. If we knew for absolute certain, well I don’t know what it would be, but it wouldn’t be “faith”.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM
This is for your benefit
If you request, I can send you the list of senate bills associated with that quote.
natesnake on January 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Hey, that’s a good one. Next time I meet a whacked out far left atheist, I’m going to use that argument - and tell him to prove me wrong.
Clever.
Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I’m that rarest of creatures, an athiest conservative. I believ that creationism is a weak minded response to perceived threats to religious belief. The problem is that the real threat to religion is not science, or liberals, but the poor light cast by other religions. In fact, as some have pointed out, liberalism might be considered its own religious belief system.
All the Christian posters here lament being “lumped in” by liberals with the evil Islamists, as you should. It’s completely unfair. I believe your religion is wrong - but also that it is clearly prone to “good”, as opposed to the seemlingly inherent evil of radical Islam.
So here’s the challenge, you Christian conservatives - does an athiest like me fit under your tent, or will you cast me out into the purgatory of liberal darkness? Is it really conservative thought that you find correct, or is it only conservative thought with God at the root?
peski on January 30, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I thought it was the Agnostic who shrugs and said “I dunno”? And it’s the athiest who says, “I do not believe so.”
I honestly don’t see many athiests out there. Normally when I talk to an athiest they reveal themselves to be agnostics, just using the athiest word to make themeselves sound stronger. Really I find the problem to be the Anti-Theists, the one who say that they don’t believe in God so no one else has the right to.
Personally I go with the Old Earth Creation theory mentioned earlier in the thread. Fits with the scientific data, fits with my theological data, and I don’t have to make as many logical stretches as the Young Earth Creationist or the Evolutionist. Either way the point that annoys me more is that we focus on something that isn’t that important. The evolutionist should just say, “I haven’t been there, but this is what I think” and the creationist should say, “I haven’t been there but this is what I think the Bible says…” And both should agree that it’s not as important to their overall belief system.
Christianity isn’t about six days, it’s about how God saves man. Science isn’t about billions of years, it’s about how things work, and how we can get them to work for us.
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Good point. And what happens if the core message really is a one size fits all message?
Christ is the Messiah, and fulfillment of the Old Testament Prophecy. Salvation is here, Christ did it for us. Simply repent and be saved.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Old, classic New Yorker cartoon: “The Agnostic’s Dilemna”, guy walking past a church; sign outside: “Important if True”.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Why?
If, as you claim, it is impossible to KNOW anything, then how can you KNOW that you don’t KNOW?
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 4:44 PM
So Noah, Adam, Moses, David and all the other pillars of The Old Testiment are what?
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Well said
jman on January 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Well, how do you know you don’t know that you know that you don’t know? And how come you never see any baby pigeons…..
honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Faith is, by definition, knowing with absolute certainty without the need for special proof.
The reason many do not believe in God is because God doesn’t manifest in the specific way they demand. Point is that God doesn’t take orders from us, God manifests according to God’s own will.
Whoever strives for faith in a God that takes orders from them, effectively places themselves above God. Effectively placing Faith in themselves over God. And if you do that, then what’s the point?
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Only Moses out of that list actually saw God, and he saw his back. How did they know they weren’t delusional? Hearing voices? They had more reasons to believe yes, but they still had faith that they were speaking to Yahweh.
Doesn’t Paul say that Abraham was justified by his FAITH?
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Your private worship (or lack thereof) is your own concern. However, I will stand with you for true conservatism, which is the only way to preserve the freedom to disagree about what we believe in.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 30, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Not to beat that dead horse into fine burger, but realist conservatives promote other things beyond economics. Realists also promote accountability.
natesnake on January 30, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I can’t speak for everyone, and I certainly don’t own the tent (so my ability to accept or cast out is small at best). However, as a political conservative as well as a conservative Christian, this is my feeling:
* Do you believe in the rights of the individual?
* Do you think that government should be kept as small as possible? That perhaps it is the cause of more problems than it ever provides solutions for?
* If I make $100/hr (I wish!) and you make only $8/hr, do you think it is the government’s responsibility or anyone else’s responsibility for that matter to ‘redistribute’ my earnings to you?
* Do you think that America, regardless of some dark spots in it’s past, is worth protecting?
Well….I could go on and on. The point I’m trying to make is that, if your answers tend to fall on the conservative side rather than the liberal side, then you belong in the conservative tent (even if you are a heathen! :) ).
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 4:50 PM
That’s basically my point, honora. If KNOWing isn’t possible, then it’s isn’t possible.
But if you can KNOW, then you can also KNOW what you don’t KNOW.
And I don’t live in a city with pigeons at all.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM
honora,
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I spent 4 years in NY at NYU and only just now (after reading your post, of course) realized that I’ve never seen a baby pigeon. Or a pigeon’s nest for that matter.
I’m extremely creeped out now.
And I thought the pigeons and I were friends.
JadeNYU on January 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I believe most people of faith, including most of the saints and theologians we embrace as Christians, had/have doubts. That’s what makes it hard to maintain belief. Without the struggle, where’s the virtue?
honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:52 PM
The thing ate my link, I’ll try again.
I hope this works, it should answer your question.
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Paul says that every one is justified by faith. Paul also says that everyone is only justified by faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
Yet, people in the Old Testament had faith in the Messiah even though they didn’t yet know he would manifest and Jesus.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Exit question response….
Normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. Hence the many faiths proclaiming the same goal, God, and heaven.
There are liberal pastors who speak to the liberal mind…..those who marry gays etc. A person who is entrenched in liberal beliefs is not going to change those beliefs when a conservative preacher speaks evangelical values in terms the liberal understands.
The Holy Ghost testify’s the truthfulness of the words spoken to the heart of those who hear those words. This is the concept behind speaking in tounges. If the liberal mind was open to the evangelical truth, he could find it in other areas and the HG would testify to it’s truth. This would lead the reformed liberal to seek an evangelical church.
csdeven on January 30, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Very true. Humans struggle. But the virtue doesn’t come from us, it comes from Christ. In this context, Christ is virtue and we place Faith in Christ’s virtue, not our own.
If we strive for virtue in our own pious ways, we will fail. If we strive toward virtue through Faith in Christ, Christ will make us virtuous.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM
In my view of the tent you are welcome. There will be burning crosses on my lawn now….in 4,3,2,….1
Limerick on January 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM
You are my hero. Try this one: how come your toaster has that print that says “one slice here” with an arrow to one of the sides? What’s that all about? How would the toaster know?
honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM
And he used Abraham as the example.
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Adam walked with God in the garden.
And Paul saw Jesus (you know back when he was Saul).
Faith doesn’t have to include blind faith. I have faith in my parents, not blind faith, but tested faith, something God frequently allowed even with Abraham. If you recall, some of what’s going on in the Middle East is his fault afterall. And not only did Abraham lack blind faith when it came to getting his 90-year-old wife pregnant, but he also lacked the faith to trust God when his wife caught the attention of the Pharoah. Remember how he called her his sister?
But yet, God proved Himself time and again. That’s where Abraham’s faith came from.
Peter didn’t have blind faith when he walked out onto the water. He saw Jesus walking on it.
Honestly, I cannot come up with even one character highlighted in the “faith chapter” of Hebrews who trusted God with the blind faith you seem to be referring to. The people who had “faith” saw proof over and over again about how God was not only real but was in ultimate control of their lives.
If you know of one, feel free to explain.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM
This is easily one of the best threads I’ve seen on this site. Allahpundit brings up an issue that I think extends beyond this particular debate:
What we’ve seen over the past few years in American politics is a fraying of the big tents and weakening of the coalitions that have held the two major parties together. On the left, the DLC and the Daily Kos are often at odds. On the right, it’s the libertarians versus the social conservatives. As ideologies become more polarized, our patience with compromise is wearing thin.
That growing impatience often manifests itself as intolerance of anyone who does not agree completely with your view. We’ve seen a lot of that on this site - the argument that ‘you’re not a real conservative if you believe X or don’t believe Y.’
When this argument is used in a political debate, it’s annoying. When it’s used to determine the “truth” of one’s Christianity, it’s infuriating. The nice thing about Christianity is that it’s not a set of ideologies - it’s based in your faith in Christ, not your opinion on a particular topic or issue. Placing litmus tests other than belief in Christ on what constitutes “true faith” perverts the meaning of what faith really is.
Slublog on January 30, 2007 at 4:59 PM
There is a sensor in the toaster that tells when a certain temperature is reached and instead of putting it in both slots, they put it in one and save money. Some of the high end toasters won’t toast well at all if there is not a piece in the specific slot.
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Why should their be any virtue? The whole point of Christianity is to accept that we’re sinners wholely deserving of death but are saved from grace outside of ourselves.
It’s not about being virtuous. It’s about accepting a gift.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I don’t know what brand of Christianity you embrace,if any, but believe me, the Catholic Church is all about the avoidance of sin, i.e. virtue. Grace does not absolve us from the responsibility to try to perfect ourselves.
honora on January 30, 2007 at 5:04 PM
You are just taking all the mystery from life…….
honora on January 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM
While I appreciate your point, I think the term “blind faith” is a misnomer of sorts. Hebrews 11, the passage you cite, does talk about faith being “the conviction of things not seen.” Our souls make us spiritual beings, but our physical bodies have limitations - one of those is the inability to see the spiritual as it exists - we “see darkly” as referenced in I Corinthians 13.
Personally, I think the best example of faith is Job. There was absolutely no earthly reason for him to continue believing in God. Because of that, it could be said his faith was “blind,” but to me it’s the purest example of faith in scripture.
Slublog on January 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM
conservative thought. period. religion just “gels” more with conservatism than liberalism. that’s why I’m conservative, not necessarily republican. I venture to say that most people who comment here would say the same. So, are you included? Absolutely.
pullingmyhairout on January 30, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I forgot about Adam walking with God in the garden… how did I forget that one?
Anyway you are misrepresenting my point. I said nothing about “blind faith”, I was saying that they had faith. They had faith that God would come through for them. Which you don’t seem to disagree with. So why are you arguing with me about “blind faith?”
Keljeck on January 30, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Esthier,
If there is no virtue in the process, why woul anyone accept the gift. If there is no need on my part to develop the understanding it takes to come to a faith and nderstand the faith why would I accept a faith?
If it is a matter of God just giving the grace to the select and not giving the grace to others then there is no motivation for me to accept the gift.
Either way there needs o be some kind of habitus that will allow me to take some responsibility. If there is no chance of the gift being rejected then there is no gift.
DrM2B on January 30, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Let me guess, honora, you grew up Catholic and have since moved on?
Rick on January 30, 2007 at 5:10 PM
However, you touch on the very reason that we have Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. The primary issue that initiated the Reformation is exaclty this debate.
As Paul indicates, Jesus said that Grace absolves us from Sin, and Grace makes us sinless. There is no need to the strive for perfectin on our own merits.
Without Grace, there is no perfection. And no point striving for it of our own power because it’s impossible of our own power.
Lawrence on January 30, 2007 at 5:11 PM
He used several people.
But look at what it described as faith:
“Certain”, kinda like “knowing”.
And here:
But like I just wrote, Abraham didn’t have faith in that. He slept with Hagar, Sarah’s maid. It was only after Abraham was proven wrong in not trusting God that he got some faith.
Or here:
And this was after seeing 9 other miracles performed by God. That’s the faith being discussed here.
And what of their faiths? Samson broke every religious law that had been given him. The last one was the cutting of his hair. It wasn’t until after he was proven wrong that he put his faith in God.
David lost so much faith in God that his entire kingdom almost fell to civil war between two of his sons. Only then was he able to put his faith back in God’s hands.
Faith is important, but I don’t believe the faith being praised is a faith without proof.
And Gideon?
Again, these are men of faith, men who sought proof.
Esthier on January 30, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »