Derbyshire reviews Spencer: The seeds of defeat in the war on terror are sown by Christianity
posted at 1:29 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I haven’t read the book so I’ll reserve comment, but how often does Robert Spencer get attacked from the right? Mmm, that’s red:
[V]ery uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear?
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization. Fair enough, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note a striking example of Derb’s point on our own site within the past 24 hours.
I like this passage, too:
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Spencer has promised PJM he’ll respond. In the meantime, anyone read the book yet and care to reply?
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 7 8 9 »
That one’s a no brainer, just substitute Sharia laws with Blue laws and what’s your answer ?
elgeneralisimo on August 21, 2007 at 4:46 PM
OT:
AP, if you want this topic to get a 1000 comments, don’t let it slide down the page.
And, I saw what you said in the latest Elvira thread so I know that you’re not totally buying KP’s idea of loving one’s neighbor. :-)
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM
And this is no different than William Wallace saying, “They can take our lives, but they can never take our FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!”
That type of loyalty was never Ceasar’s to command, and without people like that being true to themselves, other Christians would have continued to be persecuted.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Well, that settles it then! We can all pack up and go home.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
God is not the Father of all. Christians are adopted as sons by Faith. A person does not automatically become a son of God. We are created by God, that’s one thing, but to be a son of God you’ve got to be adopted.
BNCurtis on August 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
No doubt. And there are Christian martyrs today in places like China. The root of the Church is watered with the blood of martyrs, etc. But these are individuals making choices about their lives. No one becomes a Christian with the intent to allow themselve to be killed. All Christians would rather not be killed. They would rather live to worship Christ. More importantly, while I may allow myself to be martyred for the Faith, I cannot allow my defenseless children to be martyred (or forced to convert to a pagan faith). Countless Christians through the ages have fought fiecely to defend the defenseless among them.
Being unafraid to face personal death is a Christian tradition but that is not the same thing as willing your own death, much less the death of your culture and faith.
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Isn’t that one of the main arguments we give here? Allah, are you playing devil’s advocate or what?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
I’ve finally actually read Derb’s review. It’s interesting and well-written and does raise some questions I’ve wrestled with myself, such as the role of Christian thinking in national self-defense. Leaders like Rick Warren, that Euro “Allah” bishop and well, most of them actually, don’t really inspire much confidence. Franklin Graham has been pretty strong though, and never fell into the “blame America’s moral collapse” routine that Falwell leaped into on 9-11.
There are some holes in Derb’s thinking here and there. For one, Hitchens spends much of his time arguing with his fellow secularists about the nature of the jihadi threat, because they constantly supplant the “Christianist” threat for the jihadist one, while making apologies for the latter as a manifestation of rage against unjust US foreign policy. Hitch has in fact broken with his former allies at The Nation over this dispute. So while I’d take Hitch over the bishop, I’d still take most Christians over any multi-culti secularist liberal who can’t seem to distinguish between religions that don’t teach or believe the same things. Hitch is an exceptional secularist, not the norm. If he were the norm, The Nation would be a hawkish publication and the Democrats would have butched up against the jihad by now.
Another hole in Derb’s view is the timing of mass Third World immigration to the West. That happened as the West was rejecting Christianity along with national sovereignty, and as even many mainline Christian sects were rejecting much of their faith’s own teachings and replacing them with secular humanism. To now blame that immigration on Christianity seems a stretch to me.
Japan’s not having an iota of Christianity is historically interesting. It’s true, but it’s largely the result of a Shinto/Buddhist holocaust against Christians in the 16th and 17th centuries. Today’s Japan is much more Christian in character if not belief than most people realize, thanks to 60 years of constant contact with the US. It’s true that Japan doesn’t allow non-Japanese to become citizens, but that hasn’t stopped quite a lot of foreign immigration to the major cities. They come from all over, including trading partners like Iran. They’re just not interested in becoming Japanese citizens. Like many of the migrants in the US, they’re primarily interested in jobs, piling up some money, and returning to their home countries at some point. And al Qaeda does have cells in Japan, fwiw. Japan is more secure in some respects than we are, less in others. It’s in a bad neighborhood and, with enemies like China and North Korea not too far away, has to be careful. But it’s not as hermetically sealed off as Derb seems to think it is.
Bryan on August 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM
You fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the admonition.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I should think it conflicts with that whole “do unto others” thing. But, then, I’m a child of Satan.
I wonder if I can get back child support.
Tanya on August 21, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Hot.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 4:55 PM
And you know this because? I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing every Christian to view Christianity as you do.
You do realize there are many different sects of Christianity, right? And that they all tell people (of faith) what is true and what to do, right? Lashing back at people with “no faith” or “little faith” is irrelevant.
Are you kidding me?
Isn’t that what Jesus advocated in his Sermon on the Mount in The Bible?
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Dude, I know exactly what you are talking about here. Without digressing into my auto-biography, I agree with your point here.
My purpose is not to defend modern day American Christianity.
But I do think a Bible-believing Christian today, by incorporating the Biblical motif of “Two Kingdoms” (as explained in earlier posts) solves the practical problem you have raised.
By the way, I like reading Nietzsche. I do think that often modern day, unbiblical versions of American Christianity do indeed “enshrine weakness and effminacy as virtue.” But Biblical Christianity tackles Nietzsche’s challenge head on. As a Christian, I still retain my “will to power”. I just give it over to the ultimate “Ubermensch”, Jesus Christ, (Nietzsche’s overman) and follow Him because He Himself has conquered death and risen from the grave. To me, Biblical Christianity, unlike its modern, popular, pathetically weak, gross American versions, represents strength, not weakness.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Name them. Show me a poll. Something, anything otherwise you come off as a anti-religion truther.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Nor would it be any different, under an Islamist government, than taking the third option offered by refusing to convert to Islam or submit to dhimmi status.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Um… Yes, you can. You can choose your father. One becomes a son of God by Faith in Christ, otherwise he is a son of Satan. To be clear, you are NOT a son of God because you “believe in God” or you are a “good person.” Even the demons believe in God. It’s an issue of rigteousness here… and of accepting the substitionary atoning sacrifice of Christ by which one is adopted into the family of God. Unfortunately, I’m not very good at explaining this off the cuff…
BNCurtis on August 21, 2007 at 5:05 PM
…although I will stand corrected by PRCalDude, should he see my previous post: God chooses you.
BNCurtis on August 21, 2007 at 5:07 PM
The whole Satan thing would at the very least imply he’s a dead beat dad.
And yes, the Bible says “do unto,” not “feel bad about others’ problems.”
But we’ve been through this one before, several times. I’m not “hot” on this issue, but I don’t recall Allah having a problem with Michelle’s Vent about “one death to celebrate.”
If the two of you can square that one, then you’re simply being disingenuous with me. If you can’t, then maybe Michelle can explain it better than anyone here.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 5:08 PM
After reading every single reply in this thread I can come to one glaring conclusion: the Christians have no coherent point. Everything is up to interpretation with one sect claiming “X is right” and another claiming “Y is right.” ‘What does love they neighbor really mean?’ Ask 10 different Christians and get 10 different answers. You can’t debate with a group of people when that group of people don’t even agree with each other.
What I’d like to know (not from the Christians in general as I’ve already established, but form the individuals who hold a certain belief they claim to be Christian) is what’s your point? I’ve seen that more or less every Christian agrees that Christianity isn’t to blame (with the exception of one or two individuals) or that Christians are morally superior people (who’d a thunk Christians would claim themselves to be morally superior?), but the real topic of this conversation always boils down to the interpretation of The Bible. You guys are never going to agree, you’re going to continue to call people who don’t follow your sect as “children of Satan,” and you’re going to keep making excuses, not for Christianity, but for your defined version of Christianity.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM
I see where you’re coming from ColtsFan, and I think there are some Churches that America can rely on for strong support against our enemies, and that don’t adopt the liberal veiw of weakness as strength (Ted Hagee’s comes to mind) but don’t you think they get marginalized in the greater Christian tradition?
How do you get the word out about a stronger, dare I say more militant Christianity, without alienating Christians not to mention the rest of us! You’ve got an uphill battle my friend, I wish you luck
Rob Taylor on August 21, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 1:39 PM
No, it stands for Agent Provocateur…
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
And I learned why atheists are held in such low esteem.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
HARK, THE VOICE OF SATAN.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Does anyone here, Christian or not, think Nonfactor ever felt Christians had a coherent point BEFORE reading the comments here?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Why? That just seems inflammatory. I think you missed the point: anyone born of man would be one of Satan’s children because of the sin of our federal head. It is only the imputed righteousness of Christ that brings us into the fold.
BNCurtis on August 21, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Yes, you’ve repeated this several times throughout the thread. Some idiot here thinks you’re a child of Satan.
And this matters why? Do atheists even believe in Satan?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Dude, did you just call Nonfactor “Satan?”
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 5:16 PM
You are the second poster in this thread that has implied that the Christians that participated in the Crusades somehow SAVED Christianity in Europe. Though Pope Urban started them (the Crusades) in like 1096 A.D., and the Crusaders held on in Jeruselem for roughly 100 years, I should remind you that they (the Christians) LOST (big time). Ultimately, Richard the Lion-hearted lost as well and the Christians were even driven out of the coastal cities in Palestine. Saladin had finally unified the Muslims in the middle-east (through assasination and other tried-n’-true Muslims tactics), and he and his followers were well positioned and poised to take-over Europe. By rights, all of us with European/caucasion heritage SHOULD be Muslim and we SHOULD be speaking Arabic right about now. The battle cited by Hilter (in 732 A.D.) was only the initial skirmish between Muslims and Christians. It seems to me that neither of these is sufficient to explain why Christianity survived.
So why did Charles Martel prevail in 732 A.D.? Why didn’t Europe succumb after the failure of the Crusades at the end of the 12th century? Why didn’t ALL of Europe fall to the Muslims the way that Constantinople did in the 1453? Why didn’t Vienna fall to the Muslims after the city fell under siege (on more than one occasion)?
It seems to me that God has MANY tools at his disposal. I, for one, am going to argue that the sudden “appearance” of Ghengis Khan and the Mongol hordes (much to the Muslims’ dismay) in the middle of the 13th century was NOT simply happy coincidence (for the Christians). Call me superstitious, if you like, but I think that God is going to do whatever is necessary to make certain that His word is preserved. Just look at similar episodes in the Old Testament — God does not hesitate to USE pagan cultures/societies to fulfill/further His own agenda.
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM
People who don’t have the slightest clue about the subject that they are ranting about do not gain creditability by exposing their ignorance on the subject of their rant. Just thought you should know that.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 5:16 PM
And atheists do not share the same problem???? Have you ever been to a “Free Thought Conference”? Those atheist-friendly conferences that skeptics go to where there are a wide diversity of competing and conflicting opinions within the broader umbrella of atheism?
You know, those allegedly ***presupposition-less***, supposedly “Free Thinkers”, who are so “free” to let their minds wander presuppositionally-less across the entire universe and that somehow, someway, leads them to embrace version XYZ of atheism, while another allegedly ***presupposition-less***, supposedly “Free Thinker” allows his mind to wander presuppositionally-LESS across the entire universe and arrives at a different, competing and conflicting version of atheism?
Nonfactor, do you really think that atheists do not have the same conceptual problems here as do regular folks who try to do decent work in philosophy?
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 5:20 PM
So, like, what’s wrong with thriving on dissonance? I’m kinda’ fond of it, myself. Judging by AllahPundit’s propensity to toss red-meat out there, I’m guessing that he sorta’ likes it too.
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I could care less whether someone who would refer to me as a “child of Satan” holds me in high esteem.
Brother?
Simply because you say I don’t have a clue about the subject does not mean I do. Similar to how people were stating that people who don’t believe in God don’t really understand what the religious are talking about. And dorian, you still haven’t made a point.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM
We are one with the daemon.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Well atheism isn’t a religion no matter how many Christians tell you so. To place them into a group like a religion is a straw man.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
(1) Nope. Wrong there. Not “constantly beg”, but repent (turn from) sin. BIIIIG difference. It’s not about groveling before God, but about being changed for the better.
(2) And no sensible person would tell her to writhe and rot in her hatred either. Learning to forgive is a godly virtue, and does wonders for the soul. Notice I didn’t say forget, one should remain watchful.
(3) Hmmm… Why not love them and hate what they do and hate what they stand for? And then shouldn’t we allow the State to protect us from their evil? Isn’t that what armies are for?
It seems to me I’m in a better position as a Christian even if I am wrong. You seem assured that you are NOT wrong. I find that curious.
BNCurtis on August 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
There needs to be a tension (which would probably be my answer to just about everything). If a murderer is put to death by law, then it isn’t wrong to be glad to see justice done. Likewise, if bin Laden is killed, I can be happy and relieved. (And here is where Calvinism comes in, dun dun DUN!). However, I do so in the knowledge that I am no better than either, and also deserve no better, neither in life nor death.
Also, Allah, I know you take a lot of heat from some Christian readers here, and I know you can get defensive about it (see: this thread), but for the record I respect your opnions more than any other blogger on the net. Then again, Goldstein and Ace are a close second and third, so take that for what its worth. ;)
CorinthianJest on August 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I never defined atheism as a religion. That is a separate thread.
I did respectfully ask these questions though,
______
And atheists do not share the same problem???? Have you ever been to a “Free Thought Conference”? Those atheist-friendly conferences that skeptics go to where there are a wide diversity of competing and conflicting opinions within the broader umbrella of atheism?
Nonfactor, do you really think that atheists do not have the same conceptual problems here as do regular folks who try to do decent work in philosophy?
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Ouch!
Just kidding. ;-)
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Yep. There’s tension between the two kingdoms for the believer.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Nonfactor, how about this little tidbit?:
Many Christians believe that the denominationalism and the many fractured sects of Christianity that exist today were foretold (prophesized) by Jesus and His disciples when they spoke/wrote of “the wolf coming in to scatter the sheep.”
So you see, everything is EXACTLY AS IT WAS FORETOLD. God KNEW that the Christians would all hold different views and that they would all be squabbling with one another.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Ask ten different republicans what conservative means and they all have the same answer. Ask 10 liberals what progressive means, ask you what you meant yesterday and you would have a different meaning today.
The basic tenents of the bible are adhered to and understood by all Christians. Because you don’t understand them, means you have not taken the time to study them. You just sit back and point your finger.
Here is a quote for people like you who sit on the sideline and point fingers.
Non-religious so you should embrace that, and recognize youself as on the sidelines.
As the Christians before me have built the hospitals you and your family rely upon, as we feed the poor and the hungry, as you point to them and call them useless, as we embrace the motherless and the fatherless, as you point and say “it is not worth my time”, when disaster strikes, the Christians are first to respond, as you sit by and say how foolish we are to love mankind. The schools that teach your children, and should have taught you, are born from the church…and the church with honor buries our brave souls who have defended your right to sit on the sidelines and call us foolish for cherishing, and honoring with acts and deeds all.
Yes, when you draw ill, go to the hospital that the atheists have built, and see what care you receive.
right2bright on August 21, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM
No your posts on the subject do that quite incontrovertibly.
Logic still isnt your strong point.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 5:38 PM
As a Christian, I am to be subject to the governing authorities (Romans 13). I am to be a “good and faithful steward” of the blessings given to me by God (Luke 12:42). I am to provide for and protect “my own”, especially my own “household” (1 Timothy 5:8). I am to take up the “sword” when necessary (Luke 22:36). I am to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3). I am to “abhor what is evil and cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). I am not to be “overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).
In none of these commands is there even a hint of being a pacifist or a doormat. Like anything else, details matter. Any broad brush generalization about what it means to live as a follower of Christ will be inaccurate. AP may be “bugged” by perceived Christian inconsistency. Derbyshire may see the seeds of destruction in his simplistic view of Christianity, but the ultimate benchmark is not perception, or cherry-picked tenets, but the “whole counsel of God”.
aqvik on August 21, 2007 at 5:40 PM
You atheists are so amusing. You fool yourselves into believing that you have no religious beliefs when in fact your entire world-view is premeated with metaphysical entities and articles of faith.
AllahPundit - on occasion you post stories of female genital mutilation or Iran hanging homosexuals or stoning adulterers. Your posts, and the comments by other “atheists” imply outrage. Some even state it clearly, as if it were self-evident that these acts are wrong. But, from an atheists point of view, how is it wrong for Iran to hang homosexuals? That is a legal act, accepted in their culture. By what criteria do atheists consider certain legal and culturally accepted acts wrong? The Iranian homosexuals or adulterers knew the punishment for the crimes before they violated the law of the land. Their civil rights have not been violated in their own context. So why exactly is it wrong for Iran or Saudi Arabia to stone or hang criminals as defined in their countries?
And don’t give me any Human Rights crap. Human Rights don’t exist, can neither be observed or proven. Human Rights are articles of faith as much as the Resurrection.
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Heh.
Who would you rather see riding to your aid, Hitchens, or one of the thousands of Christians with multiple combat tours under their belts?
I’m a peaceful Christian, and I haven’t done sh*t to enable defeat.
BadgerHawk on August 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM
All Calvinism sounds like to me (by the definitions here, not by my previous knowledge) is an excuse to be immoral by Biblical standards.
The difference being that Christians are acting in a dogmatic sense about the interpretation of a book. Christians have spiritual leaders that tell them how to interpret a certain thing. Christianity being a religion makes all the difference, especially when you take into consideration the meaning of the word religion and then the different sects of that same religion. A comparison isn’t valid.
Again, the difference being that conservatism isn’t a religion. And that inherent in things like conservatism there is room to be different from others, in Christianity if you are different not only are you wrong, but you’re going to hell. Christians are interpreting a document they think to be holy.
But the entire point of my post was “what is your point?” Is it just to say that Christianity isn’t to blame for some of the problems in the world or what?
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Neither. We’d need somebody a lot better. A whole lot better.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Yeah, and? I reject the idea that it should be a crime.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Wasn’t it you claiming that Christians can never agree on anything?
Doesn’t that completely contradict your idea that we all take our orders from some higher up?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 5:48 PM
In this case, the “do” is celebrating. You’re ok with them celebrating when Christians are killed? Go you. Even I’m not that jaded.
I don’t even understand the rest of your point, if you had one. How would Matthew 7:12 apply to atheists? Nothing there makes us hypocrites.
Tanya on August 21, 2007 at 5:49 PM
*rimshot*
Tanya on August 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Yea baby…Bruce Campbell for Secretary of Defense…
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM
You can’t win these arguments, Allah, because anytime you point out a failure of Christianity, the Christian apologists here do a definitional slight of hand and say that whatever it is isn’t really Christian–just as you see here with your question about God being the father of all.
student on August 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM
What? It’s not our fault we’re misrepresented. Oh wait. Nevermind.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM
What? I’m not OK with them even killing Christians. You’ve gone off somewhere here.
And celebrating something is not doing something to someone else, especially if you’re dead.
Clearly you don’t, as I wasn’t saying that any Bible verse has anything to do with atheists. I was only saying that Michelle, who is a Christian, celebrated the death of a well known terrorist in a Vent.
If you or Allah had a problem with that, I saw no proof of it at the time.
Either you’re inconsistent in who you want to rail against for celebrating the death of an enemy, or you’re lying when you claim to not understand of disagree with Christians celebrating defeat of another.
Does that clear it up?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Okay, prove that God is the Father of all.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Your quoting scripture really made you seem intelligent and logical! Yeah! And if it’s in The Bible it must be true! You’re not making a point, dorian, give it up.
Not even worth it.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I think you just took the bait.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 5:54 PM
It was MAN that turned Christianity into a religion - not God. Jesus did NOT arrive on the scene in order to deliver “yet another religion” to mankind. In fact, Jesus reserved his harshest words for the religious leaders of the day. My personal take on the Bible is that Jesus HATED religion–especially the empty, hypocritical variety.
I suggest that you dig out the philosophy books and read some of Lord Berkeley’s stuff. Maybe then you will understand why atheism is a religion. Until you finally admit just how much that you take “on faith” during your everyday existence, you will NOT understand the arguments that the others are putting forth here in this thread.
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 5:55 PM
A Christian talking about proof? Can you prove to me God exists? Can you prove your version of Christianity is what this supposed God wants? The answers to both are no. To demand proof of someone when you can’t even prove your entire basis for morality not only makes you seem suspect, but makes you look stupid.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Of course. We’re supposed to be perfect. Perfect things must stand the test of twisted logic.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Forgive me. What I meant was show me where it says in the Bible where God is the Father of all.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 5:58 PM
To you, clearly, but to you we all appear stupid.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 5:58 PM
I’m not sure we agree on too much, if I recall past conversations correctly. Aren’t you Roman Catholic?
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Something you were all thinking but didn’t want to ask because you knew you’d be taken to task for it.
You can have faith in something yet realize that is what it is; not proof or evidence or even logical, but simply faith. And you can believe in something without bowing down to it or organizing your life around it.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Not at all. In fact, my knowledge of them is purely historical.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Right, because we’re all afraid of your intellectual prowess.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Ok, I’ll use smaller steps.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” –Matthew 7:12
Still with me?
You’re celebrating this moron’s death. Doing the celebrating. You when they celebrate 9/11 or those poor burned contractors (doing just the same unto us), it’s ok? If not, I’m sensing a conflict in your logic.
And as for Michelle, she’s not the one defending her behavior as perfectly, flawlessly, a-ok Christian.
Tanya on August 21, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I’m bored with you. Perhaps ColtsFan will expend some energy on you, but I doubt you’d be able to understand him.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Some stupider than others.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Which moron are we talking about? The mortar guy from last night?
All the Christians here prayed for the repose of his soul last night. Didn’t you know that?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I don’t recall it saying father of all, but adoptive father all believers:
ROM 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Some believe that everyone will eventually be adopted, but that’s a minority.
pedestrian on August 21, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Again, it wasn’t done to us. When someone celebrates something, it’s an act for that person. I mean taken to the extreme, you’d have Christians refrain from cheering at sporting events when their team wins, since I guess it could offend the other players.
As an American, I would have liked our government to use that information to see where certain loyalties lie, but no I couldn’t possibly care less about them personally.
Though I am a little surprised that you would equate innocent people with terrorists. I thought that only happened on KOS-type sites.
I don’t recall anyone asking her to do so. Maybe you’d be surprised by her response if you did.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:08 PM
So far, I’m batting 1000 Allah.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 6:08 PM
No, Zarqawi. And according to Tanya, celebrating his death is the exact same as celebrating the deaths of the people who happened to be in the World Trade Center the towers fell.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:11 PM
My collie says:
Prove to me that my collie doesn’t exist. Or for that matter, prove to me that YOU exist. After all, you’re a Nonfactor, aren’t you? Go one step further. Can you prove to yourself that you have ANY tangible or real existence outside of your own subjective experiences?
What do YOU organize your life around? Trolling the blog-sites?
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Oh, I’ll take your word for it. I rather like the idea of nonbelievers being cast out as “children of Satan.” It supports the idea that Christianity is basically cruel.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I agree, but you’re missing the context. Student said that AP couldn’t win the God-as-father-of-all “argument” because of some Christian sleight-of-hand. I asked him(?) show where it says that God is the father of all, but was unclear. That gave Nonfactor the opportunity to go off on another tirade, but it also gave me the opportunity to clarify what I was asking.
I will assume that Student is diligently searching his(?) Bible for an answer to my question.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 6:13 PM
So long as he first apologises for the hundred million dead from communism and fascism, then I think it perfectly reasonable to note that “fellow atheists” have turned over a new leaf. Sort of ballances the good with the bad - we’ve killed alot in the past, but lately we’ve had a more limited genocidal world presence than other groups.
But let’s be fair; If you’re the Chinese government and you want to put an end to scarry religious influences on your people, you can ban religious movements, control the Church and imprison folks WITHOUT resorting to blowing people up, because YOU’RE THE GUYS IN POWER! That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be blowing people up daily to get back into power should they lose it - of course they would.
Personally, were I atheist, I’d forgo the whole “fellow atheists” thing in deference to my own individual and unafilliated choices. One great advantage to atheism is non-affiliation.
shuzilla on August 21, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Shoot, I missed that. My bad.
Tanya on August 21, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I think it supports the idea that men are evil. But the Seed of the Woman/Seed of the Serpent theme hearkens back to Genesis 3:15, right after the fall. It continues right through the New Testament as well. Of course, we (Christians) don’t know who belongs to who, so we are commanded to witness to all.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Yes, that’s fine, but look: my sense has always been that the real killer in Stalinism and Maoism was its collectivism, not its atheism. I’m not trying to make excuses there — atheism is a characteristic of both — but until we have an individualist, libertarian atheist government to compare it to, it’s hard to say what the crucial killer component was.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 6:17 PM
No, I was talking about the mortar guy. And I’m not calling them equal, I’m calling them equally non-Christian.
Maybe our concepts of Yeshua are a smidge different. I can’t see him laughing and cheering uproariously at that video. But you know him better than I do.
Tanya on August 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM
You’re not being novel here, and you certainly aren’t taking a Christian point of view, you’re taking a Solipsist point of view. Are you a Solipsist or a Christian? If you’re a Solipsist (and by looks of your comment here you certainly are) then there is no point discussing anything, seeing as how nothing outside of the self can be proven. And if you’re a Christian (which would go against the questions you just asked me) I’m sure you can at least prove your entire basis for morality exists, and if not at least prove The Bible is true.
But of course you’re taking things out of context. You don’t want to prove your God exists, it’s why you dodged my question in the first place. You don’t even want me to prove your collie exists. What you want to do is get around the idea that your entire basis for morality might be a nonexistent sham. Of course your free to do that, but don’t talk to me about proof or logic or reason or even morality.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 6:20 PM
I don’t see how such a government can exist. What would individualist, libertarians govern?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:20 PM
That’s for sure. Is this site ever going to get threads? This topic is going to top 1000 posts easy.
pedestrian on August 21, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 6:04 PM
What do you know, you said something that I agree with you about, of course we do still disagree on who the some are…
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 6:21 PM
That’s the idea. :-)
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Yeah, me neither. Sometimes I think atheists’ real problem is that we take religious beliefs seriously.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 6:22 PM
So you didn’t mean “prove” you meant “reference.” I mean, they’re basically the same thing anyway, right? Or at least they would be if The Bible were true. Then we’d be back in “proving” territory, and we know how confused you get there.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 6:23 PM
C’mon now. Knock that off. The sarcasm is dripping/oozing onto to my keyboard ya’ know.
FYI, the 18th chapter of the book of Ezekiel (in the Old Testament - recognized by both Jews and Christians) states that God does NOT take pleasure in the death of ANY man. The passage specifically cites and presumbly applies to BOTH righteous men and wicked men. I’ll go out on a limb here and presume the unfortunate jihadist operating the mortar belonged to the latter category. Christians and Jews do well when they adopt the attitude that God sets forth in this passage.
That said, I’ll admit that I found the video clip amusing. (I’m not perfect, ya’know.) Amusing not so much because the moron blew himself up, but more-so because it bolstered and reaffirmed my belief that humans ALWAYS bring about their own demise (physically and spiritually) when they are left to their own devices. So sue me. Christians like to have a good laugh once in a while too.
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Theodicy is a very interesting topic. Why would God allow his creations to be comdemned? It’s an especially serious question for a Calvinist, such as myself.
I agree with your earlier observations about Christianity and shamnesty, and expressed them at the time. There is a legitmate concern about goverment preserving social peace, but to really pick up Christ’s cross, a Christian has to be very careful how they proceed. The only the for sure is it won’t be an easy or popular position to take.
pedestrian on August 21, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Your snark aside, I never said that. I have no idea what your relationship with God is.
So we’re off then, because I was talking about the dead terrorist. I said earlier (not that I expect you to read every comment) that I’ve yet to see the mortar video.
Also, I don’t think God would laugh at another’s pain, but laughing and celebrating are two different things.
I celebrate when the terrorists lose, every time they lose, because their loss is the world’s gain. I am happy that Zarqawi is dead, but his death didn’t make me laugh.
I don’t wish bad things on other people, but for Zarqawi my only sadness was in the profession he chose, not in the inevitable end he received because of it.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:30 PM
“If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?”
Can’t we have both?
Kevin M on August 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM
What’s the problem here? If you can’t even prove the dog exists, then how do you expect anyone to prove to you that God exists?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:33 PM
With millions of jihadists around the planet that want to kill you for no reason at all, I would think that you SHOULD take it pretty seriously.
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 6:34 PM
awesome.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 6:35 PM
That’s not exactly the problem. I think that some of you expect those of us who are religious–especially Christians–to perfectly adhere to the laws of our religion. (To be fair, some Christians err also by believing that adhering to every single law all the time is what will save them.) But remember, Christ came to Earth because there was no way possible for us to follow the law perfectly. (BTW, as a non-denominational Protestant, I’m not sure if there’s any requirement to pray for the salvation of souls after they die, but I’m open to correction.)
I think that threads like this are fascinating and useful, but what I suggest to you, AllahPundit, is that you remember that Christians are human, therefore imperfect in all endeavors–even at being Christians.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I do remember it. They remind me of it every time I call them on their hypocrisy. “We’re only human.” Do you pray for Osama? “No, we’re only human.” Do you use birth control? “Yes, we’re only human.” The “we’re only human” canard is their get out of jail free card. Any sin you want to commit, any stricture you want to violate, do it and plead humanity. Never fails.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I laughed at that video, but it doesn’t mean I’m happy the guy is dead. I wish he had been making a peaceful, productive living somewhere, not trying to kill people who don’t share his radical view of the world. But he wasn’t. And his death means a few other people don’t die.
Why should the Christians here be praying for his repose anyways? He had his time on earth, he made his own decisions that led him down that path, and now he’s dead.
BadgerHawk on August 21, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »