Featured Atheists Attack Billy Graham

Then go through the Biblical process and put them out if they don't stop. I think part of the problem is that very few church's practice Biblical disciplining unless it's something the whole church knows about and can't ignore.

:laugh: Preach the Gospel. Many have been to jail for preaching the Gospel. No reason to expect it to stop.

Yes I do. But tenaciously letting go of one sin while leaving millions of others unaccounted for still sends them to hell.

That's why we preach a Gospel of repentance of ALL sin.

Yep. So why try to get them right about one sin when they need to be right about ALL sin?

The purpose of preaching the Gospel is to show the lost that they need a Savior from ALL of their sins, not just one.

Contrary to what Scripture says, we often like to focus on one specific sin for folks outside the church not realizing that it does nothing but alienate them more.

Out of love for Christ, show them that you're concerned about their eternity and not just getting them to stop committing one particular sin.

 

That's a very kind thing for you to say about C4K. Seriously.

 

Personally, I don't like the church much, but I do love the church. I need the church and the church needs me. But there are lots of people who have been wounded by local expressions of the church, including me, and the lost often do not have the spiritual insight to distinguish between Christ and those who claim His name. I'm talking about wounds such as sexual assault/molestation, manipulation, emotional abuse, etc.

On a number of occasions I have apologized to people for the actions of those who claim the name of Jesus (I can do that because I am claiming the same Lord) and it does wonders for opening up communication with those who are angry. They realize that you are taking them seriously and it shows humility about the realities of Christendom. It defuses the anger and begins the healing process.

And yes, in a number of cases, I have seen some of these people reconnect and/or come to faith in Christ.

 

:applause: Beautiful. And that's exactly what we have to do. And I'm telling yall, the very ones that the church speaks most often about always seem to be the ones who have been hurt the most by somebody claiming the name of Christ. And then we heap burning coals on top of that.

Somebody in the Body of Christ has to be willing to say "hey that lesbian is trapped in her sin because she's been wronged by someone and this is how she's coping with it" so let me not focus so much on her one sin but her need to be redeemed from all of her sin. Because that is truly the only way such people find peace and are made whole.

 

There is *some* truth to that, but my main point was that treating them unkindly based on this doesn't help either. I prefer to worry about my actions because I can change those, rather than worrying about others' actions.

 

I don't necessarily disagree. Is it an excuse? No, God will of course still hold them accountable. But it certainly doesn't reflect well on Christians as a whole and can turn them away.

 

To "get them right about ALL sin" you have to get them right about particular sins, yes? The ALL is the sum of the particular sins which we struggle with. If we agree in principle we should repent of "ALL sin" except for the one particular sin that we stubbornly refuse to admit is a sin, then we endanger our souls.

Of course. Some lost however aren't convinced they are sinners, as many reject the concept of sin. The purpose of the Law (per Rom 3:19-20) is to show we are ALL sinners, and this is often done by showing the specific areas where the Law has been transgressed--ie particular sins (whatever they may be). Some will be offended and say you are judgmental regardless.

You have said that repeatedly, and that is perhaps true of some people. However, in all of the churches I've ever been a member of, many different types of specific sins were preached against--not just "ONE specific sin". In fact, the majority of the time was preaching against sins other than that "ONE specific sin" (though of course that was preached against as well)

But sometimes one particular sin needs to be addressed, because if that (WHATEVER IT MAY BE) is being practiced habitually and unrepentantly, this can have eternal ramifications.

 

Some have an agenda because they may have some sort of grudge is what I was essentially saying. Is it right? No. Is it rational? No. Is that the only or even main reason for atheist agendas in general? No, and possibly not.

I like atheists that respect that people have a right to be theists if they want to.
And if they don't? I've run into a few of those. Best to ignore them, and if I do interact with them I try not to mirror their nasty attitude and ignore any ad hominem attacks.

 

True, and I'll do my part and not try to derail this thread any further.

 

That is the case sometimes, but I don't think it's always quite that simple.

 

I guess I am still waiting for your pointillism style brush to define Dawkins/Hitchens to clarify your disagreement with me.

 

I guess you missed my reply. I said that I am not sure of the definition, just know that Geoff styles himself as a 'new atheist' while rejecting the methods of Dawkins et al.

Perhaps he is wrong in how he defines himself, much like I consider myself a fundamentalist and many would reject me as such.

I suppose it is the comment 'no manners or common courtesy' that I disagree with, at least from my own experience.

 

OK, he may not be the new atheist that he thinks that he is if he is mannerly. And I did see your reply but I was hoping for something more specific, such as your definition of new atheism. It is never my desire to paint with a broad brush. Personally, I think that almost every atheist is unique but some of the older ones did allow more for individual freedom of conscience. I worry that young people will endure even more persecution for freedom of religion as the USA suffers under a President Obama who openly attacks Christianity. Worldwide Christianity is suffering a holocaust: http://www.persecutionreport.org/



As for your being a fundamentalist, I have no reason to doubt your classification of your own theology. For the record, I am straight down the line with the SBC, okay? Most of my objections to Fundamentalism are confined to polity. It was my thinking that Fundamentalism considered atheists as fools. (Psalms 14:1 (KJV) <<To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.)

I did find one interesting comment on the Creation website on the new atheism, which I reference here for your pleasure:

http://creation.com/intolerance-of-new-atheists