Rejoice on this day!

[Muddy]

Ask Betsy this question? (I've tried and she refused to answer). Is she willing to imagine for a moment that she might be wrong? I certainly am.

She has no reason to question her beliefs! She sounds very devout and she wants to share what she has found that gives her comfort and joy. What a nice thing to do on her part.

[scorpio]

She has no reason to question her beliefs!

But yet she derides those who don't "see it her way."

She sounds very devout and she wants to share what she has found that gives her comfort and joy. What a nice thing to do on her part.

You have to go back and read some of her posts in this topic area. I have no problem with people wanting to believe what they want to believe. But it has to work both ways. She MUST respect those individuals who disagree with her if she wants the same. It's that easy. She can share her joy over this holiday, but it would help to leave out the editorializing.

[betsy]

Because, Muddy, Betsy tends to prostletize with her posts. And I find that offensive on a public forum. Everyones entitled to believe what they wish, just don't make it a continual mantra.

Yes, this is a public forum, and I'm entitled to my opinion. I think I have the same right and privilege like anyone else who come to this site - regardless of my faith - to freely express what I believe and what I don't believe in.

I thought, gee Atheists are freely expressing their views, their arguments, their thoughts.

Wow, Atheists are freely dishing their scorn and insults and derision to Christ....which as a Christian I should find deeply offensive (but of course silly me, I should realize that for a lot of people in society today, Christians can be freely insulted), but I digress for this is not really about me.

I am on the right board, "Religion," discussing and presenting my arguments, defense and views. I am right now in the topic of "REJOICE ON THIS DAY!" A topic that I created, btw. I'm sure. I double-checked to make sure...so there can be no mistake about it. I am, indeed on the right place.

Are you?

The title alone speaks for itself! It's going to be about Christ! And my name as the author is prominently displayed. Everyone is warned the topic was from me! And you know me! Didn't you say I tend to "proselytize?"

So no false advertising there! You can't say you were duped into coming here.

Anyway, who isn't proselytizing? You are proselytizing...everytime you post something that you think...and hope....will change my mind about my belief.

Isn't your opinion against my belief a way to persuade me to abandon mine? To join your "religion" of Atheism? To be a believer of non-God?

But yet she derides those who don't "see it her way."

You have to go back and read some of her posts in this topic area. I have no problem with people wanting to believe what they want to believe. But it has to work both ways. She MUST respect those individuals who disagree with her if she wants the same. It's that easy. She can share her joy over this holiday, but it would help to leave out the editorializing.

You see derision where you want to see it. You fully lay that accusation on my doorstep...wifully ignoring the derision that comes from others. Oh, most especially when I "don't see it their way."

Editorializing? Actually, it is you who wants to play "editor!"

If you have a re-butt, then re-butt. Post your articles and source to re-butt mine. I hope you're not suggesting I must post my arguments/defense...and also post my opponents' arguments refuting mine?

What, I'll argue with myself? So you can accuse me of monopolizing the discussion?

Hah! I'll not fall for that! You're trying to trick me!

What has to work both ways? You came to my topic! You read my posts. You don't like them. You don't agree with them. You find me offensive. You don't find anything joyful in my joy because the very source of this joy is that One that you say don't exist.

What's stopping you from leaving? Leave! It's just a click away. No need to get up and walk. Your finger will do the walking. It's that easy! It's the right thing to do!

Actually by your reaction and reasonings, I don't think this is really about me. More like, this is about you.

Perhaps you need some soul-searching.

Now I want to get back on topic. If you want to continue your fit, start your own!

Edited April 20, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

LEE STROBEL

Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national television programs, including ABC’s 20/20, Fox News, and CNN.

After a nearly two-year investigation of the evidence for Jesus, Lee received Christ as his forgiver and leader in 1981. He joined the staff of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, IL, in 1987, and later became a teaching pastor there

Described by the Washington Post as “one of the evangelical community’s most popular apologists,” Lee shared the prestigious Charles “Kip” Jordon Christian Book of the Year award in 2005 for a curriculum he co-authored about the movie The Passion of the Christ. He also has won awards for his books The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, and Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary.

http://leestrobel.com/LS_bio.htm

The problem with apologists like Strobel, Alvin Plantinga, Ravi Zecharias and William Lane Craig, is that these guys are claiming they can prove their religion by using logic and reason -- something that Christian doctrine itself says cannot be done! The whole point to faith is that it is needed where knowledge is lacking. Having religious faith is believing a claim is true without having adequate evidence to prove it. If knowledge is complete, there is no need for faith, since the outcome is already assured. The Apostle Paul wasn't interested in using reason to prove his beliefs to the Greeks:

1 Corinthians

1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

So, why are Christian apologists trying to prove Christianity? If it is possible to do so, there is no space for faith to operate. An airtight rational argument would render faith redundant or unnecessary. If Strobel or some other apologist succeeds, he rationally proves that his religion is true, but one of the truths of Christianity is that Christianity cannot rationally be proven to be true. How does he succeed to rationally prove a religion that is not supposed to be proven rationally.

[betsy]

So, why are Christian apologists trying to prove Christianity?

These were Atheists who tried to dis-prove Christianity....only to find themselves converted and believing of the faith they initially sought to dis-prove.

Not only did they end up embracing the faith. But they did more than a lot of Christians who've always believed had done (that includes me).

Who knows what compelled them to want to actively prove Christianity, for I haven't read any of their books. Perhaps it is self-atonement.... trying to undo what they've preached...said...and done... when they were Atheists,

atoning for their acts and words that helped sway, influence or convince people away from God.

Edited April 20, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

I've never even heard of this before. The first time I came across the word "apologists" I confused it with apologizing for what professed Christians had done in the past using the name of Christ. I was dead wrong.

Just to clarify what Christian Apologists are:

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.

[1] Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defence of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

Casual research on the few names listed above had openend up more information about other Atheists who embraced Christianity. Some are quite interesting.

[betsy]

William J. Murray

William J. Murray is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative organization, in Washington, D.C. He has been active on issues related to aiding Christians in Islamic and Communist nations.

William is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair,[1] an American atheist activist who came to national attention in Baltimore, Maryland, when she filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of the United States, saying that compulsory prayer and reading of the Bible in schools was unconstitutional.

Murray converted to Christianity in 1980. His mother reportedly stated, upon learning of his conversion, "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...he is beyond human forgiveness."

[2] He felt similarly negative toward her - some have compared My Life Without God to Mommie Dearest,[3] (written by Christina Crawford about her mother Joan Crawford), as he made allegations such as: "She was just evil…She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance."[4]

William J. Murray is the author of several Christian and conservative books including Let Us Pray and The Church Is Not For Perfect People. His most recent book is The Pledge: One Nation Under God, for which the foreword, "A Washington, DC insider", was written by Congressman Todd Akin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murray_(author)

Edited April 20, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Bernard Nathanson

Bernard Nathanson (born July 31, 1926, in New York) is an American medical doctor and pro-life activist from New York. Nathanson graduated in 1949 from McGill University Facility of Medicine in Montreal.[1] He has been licensed to practice in New York state since 1952.[1] He became board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology in 1960.[1]

Nathanson says in his autobiography that his grandfather committed suicide when Nathanson's father was a child. (Hand of God, p.6). Nathanson's sister committed suicide at the age of 49 (Hand of God, p.6).

As a younger man, he had been strongly pro-choice, and he states that he performed an abortion on a woman who had become pregnant by him.[1] He later gained national attention by then becoming one of the founding members of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. Their efforts essentially succeeded with the Roe v Wade decision. He was also for a time the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), New York's largest abortion clinic. Nathanson has written that he was responsible for more than 75,000 abortions throughout his pro-choice career.

The development of ultrasound, however, in the 1970s led him to reconsider his views on abortion. He is now a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement. In 1984, he made the documentary The Silent Scream, which showed an abortion from the perspective of ultrasound. His second documentary Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions.

He has written the books Aborting America and The Hand of God. Although he grew up Jewish, he described himself as a "Jewish Atheist"[2] and later converted to Catholicism in 1996 through the efforts of Fr. C. John McCloskey. Before that conversion, he had been divorced three times.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

Edited April 20, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

A.N Wilson

British A.N Wilson, author of the 1990 atheistic book called, “Jesus: A Life“, which denied the divinity of Jesus and the miraculous aspects of his birth, life and death, has now recanted his previous views as an atheist and got back to the fold.

“Why did I, along with so many others, become so dismissive of Christianity?

Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe (I was born in 1950), I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti.

To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious. With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy, like having spots or wearing specs.

This playground attitude accounts for much of the attitude towards Christianity that you pick up, say, from the alternative comedians, and the casual light blasphemy of jokes on TV or radio.

It also lends weight to the fervour of the anti-God fanatics, such as the writer Christopher Hitchens and the geneticist Richard Dawkins, who think all the evil in the world is actually caused by religion.

The vast majority of media pundits and intelligentsia in Britain are unbelievers, many of them quite fervent in their hatred of religion itself.

The Guardian’s fanatical feminist-in-chief, Polly Toynbee, is one of the most dismissive of religion and Christianity in particular. She is president of the British Humanist Association, an associate of the National Secular Society and openly scornful of the millions of Britons who will quietly proclaim their faith in Church tomorrow.

‘Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?’ she asked in a puerile article decrying the wickedness of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia stories, which have bewitched children for more than 50 years. Or, to take another of her utterances: ‘When absolute God-given righteousness beckons, blood flows and women are in chains.’

The sneering Ms Toynbee, like Richard Dawkins, believes in rational explanations for our existence and behaviour. She is deeply committed to the Rationalist Association, but her approach to religion is too fanatical to be described as rational.

Perhaps it goes back to her relationship with her nice old dad, Philip Toynbee, a Thirties public school Marxist who, before he died, made the hesitant journey from unbelief to a questing Christianity.”

http://bluepanjeet.net/2009/04/19/4490/ath...s-christianity/

[BubberMiley]

Why can`t people just let people like Betsy enjoy her thoughts and the sharing of something she finds beatiful.

I think she already answered your question for you. Because she's itching for a debate here, just like everyone else.

[betsy]

You need impartial science and investigation, not more apologists.

In case you haven't realized, there's something very special about these 3 apologists. They all have a few things in common.

1. They were all Atheists.

2. They were not just your run-of-the-mill atheists. They were/are learned atheists. Highly educated. Accomplished in their fields. Published.

3. They were not just passive Atheists. They're "activists." If they were Christians then, they'd be called the most "fundamentalists of all fundamentalists!"

So it's safe to assume that these are not people who would be easily convinced.

4. They did their own investigations...their own probings...looking for conclusive evidence(s) that could and would de-bunk the Bible and the Resurrection.

5. No matter what motive they had for embarking on those quests, had they been successful....they knew that it would mean the end of Christianity.

6. They all found evidence(s) that for them, was enough to make them realize they were wrong.

7. They did not just quietly throw their hands up in the air, give up and move on to other things. They did not just quietly fade away in the hope that no one will notice their errors or failures...

8. They all bravely came out into the open, exposing their "shame" in what some would've tauntly called it their "defeat."

9. These learned men swallowed their pride before God and all.

10. They all converted to Christianity. They embraced the faith...

11. ....and did not stop at that! They actively carried/carries the torch of Christianity. They became "activists" and defenders of Christianity.

Edited April 20, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

I am in awe of these three who embarked on a quest that would've proved that God did not exist.

Theirs is a very different experience....different from Christians who'd always believed....because when they started, they were absolutely non-believers.

I wonder at that very moment how it must've felt when they came to their realization.

That moment when they found God.

[BubberMiley]

Not everything has to be argued.

What are you doing on a political debate site if you don't like debate?

[cybercoma]

Looking for people to join her church, duh.

[Molly]

What was that line about reformed smokers being the most obnoxious anti-smoking zealots?

The same goes for folks who obsess over some ideological thing- religion or politics or what-have-you. The rabid can't just change their minds. Their opinions and conduct start off pegged at one side of the meter, and when it finally gets through to them that such a position is irrational, they snap over to the opposite, equally irrational end of the meter, and remain just as rabid as before.

[betsy]

What was that line about reformed smokers being the most obnoxious anti-smoking zealots?

The same goes for folks who obsess over some ideological thing- religion or politics or what-have-you. The rabid can't just change their minds. Their opinions and conduct start off pegged at one side of the meter, and when it finally gets through to them that such a position is irrational, they snap over to the opposite, equally irrational end of the meter, and remain just as rabid as before.

Molly....Molly....Molly...<shaking head> Molly....Molly...Molly.........oh Molly!

...got to grab kleenex....in tears....my belly....need time out.........

[betsy]

What was that line about reformed smokers being the most obnoxious anti-smoking zealots?

The same goes for folks who obsess over some ideological thing- religion or politics or what-have-you. The rabid can't just change their minds. Their opinions and conduct start off pegged at one side of the meter, and when it finally gets through to them that such a position is irrational, they snap over to the opposite, equally irrational end of the meter, and remain just as rabid as before.

I'm back!

That felt good! Hey, what did they say, laughter is the best medicine! Anyway, back to the discussion...

You've given no indication that you know what you're talking about. If you can't support your arguments with a rational thought-out opinion - and you obviously can't - at least, produce some evidence, even if you just find it in wiki....you know, cut-and-paste.

The people who actively oppose ID are those who are particularly interested in education and or politics (rather than specifically science) , and don't want our system hijacked (and trashed) by religious zealots, trying to replace evidence-based critical thinking with ignorant, fanciful guesses and resolute faith in myth.

Wasn't this you who said this? Or do you have grandchildren?

[Molly]

Your point?

[betsy]

Your point?

The people who actively oppose ID are those who are particularly interested in education and or politics (rather than specifically science) , and don't want our system hijacked (and trashed) by religious zealots, trying to replace evidence-based critical thinking with ignorant, fanciful guesses and resolute faith in myth.

What was that line about reformed smokers being the most obnoxious anti-smoking zealots?

The same goes for folks who obsess over some ideological thing- religion or politics or what-have-you. The rabid can't just change their minds. Their opinions and conduct start off pegged at one side of the meter, and when it finally gets through to them that such a position is irrational, they snap over to the opposite, equally irrational end of the meter, and remain just as rabid as before.

You've given no indication that you know what you're talking about. If you can't support your arguments with a rational thought-out opinion - and you obviously can't - at least, produce some evidence, even if you just find it in wiki....you know, cut-and-paste.

I rest my case.

Edited April 20, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Alister Edgar McGrath

Alister Edgar McGrath (born January 23, 1953) is a Christian theologian, with a DPhil in molecular biophysics, as well as an earned Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford, noted for his work on historical, systematic and scientific theology.

In 2004 McGrath suggested in The Twilight of Atheism that atheism was in decline.

He has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins, calling him "embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology". His book: The Dawkins Delusion? – a response to Dawkins's The God Delusion – was published by SPCK in February 2007, and the two had public debate on the topic, "Does religious belief damage the health of a society, or is it necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society?"[4] McGrath has also debated with Daniel Dennett, at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum (February 2007) in New Orleans.[5]

He was interviewed by Richard Dawkins about his book Dawkins' God and faith in general for the television documentary The Root of All Evil? McGrath's interview was not included in the final cut, but the unedited footage is available online.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath

Dawkins and McGrath Debates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAurSX6WA3U...feature=related

Edited April 20, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Francis S. Collins

Francis S. Collins (born April 14, 1950), M.D., Ph.D., is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland until August 1, 2008.

Tapped to take on the leadership of the HGP, Collins accepted an invitation in 1993 to succeed James Watson and become director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, which became NHGRI in 1997. As director, he oversaw the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium and many other aspects of what he has called "an adventure that beats going to the moon or splitting the atom."

Collins' accomplishments have been recognized by numerous awards and honors, including election to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. On Monday, November 5, 2007, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President George W. Bush. He was also present at the bill signing for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in the Oval Office, in recognition of his work in genetics, and his early papers and commentary on the need for such protections.[6]

Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He became an evangelical Christian after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.[9]

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution which he prefers to term BioLogos.

During a debate with Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favouring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins called this "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain", to which Collins responded "I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.[11]

In reviewing The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister McGrath, Collins says "Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism."[12]

Note:

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with much or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that he is (in some way) the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God created and employed to help life grow and flourish.

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science —that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism.[1] A very similar view is evolutionary creationism.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

Edited April 21, 2009 by betsy

[kimmy]

I'm not exactly sure what a handful of atheists discovering Jesus is supposed to prove, particularly given the multitudes of Christians that have left the church for other religions or no religion at all.

-k

[scorpio]

I'm not exactly sure what a handful of atheists discovering Jesus is supposed to prove, particularly given the multitudes of Christians that have left the church for other religions or no religion at all.

-k

+1

[betsy]

I'm not exactly sure what a handful of atheists discovering Jesus is supposed to prove, particularly given the multitudes of Christians that have left the church for other religions or no religion at all.

-k

Is this about numbers? Score points?

Maybe you missed that part what this is all about? Skipped over it perhaps?

If you've read the whole thread and still can't tell....what can I say?

Edited April 21, 2009 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I'm not exactly sure what a handful of atheists discovering Jesus is supposed to prove, particularly given the multitudes of Christians that have left the church for other religions or no religion at all.

Atheists are just as willing as religious people to unquestionably believe something without evidence. The only rational people in this debate are those who can admit they can't ever really know who's right.

Edited April 21, 2009 by BubberMiley