Militant Atheism Alive and Well in the "Bible Belt"

[quantumfaith]

Just watched O'Reilly and David Silverman, president of American Atheists was featured in a segment defending that all religions are scams. Furthermore he defined "scam" as a purposeful and intentional misleading of the people.

This is why, we believers must address a solid and well rounded education for our students prior to being subjected to such militancy that is all to prevalent in the hallowed halls of our college campuses.

http://atheists.org/events/Southeast_RAM

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

I caught a bit as I was channel surfing off some insomnia...

What caught my hear was the statement that the majority of people attending Christian Churches are in fact Atheists!

That is quite a statement...

Two things are worrisome about it...

One is that he might be right, based on the impotency of the Christian Church...

Two, is that we have not adequately lived our faith in public...

 

[quantumfaith]

I caught a bit as I was channel surfing off some insomnia...

What caught my hear was the statement that the majority of people attending Christian Churches are in fact Atheists!

That is quite a statement...

Two things are worrisome about it...

One is that he might be right, based on the impotency of the Christian Church...

Two, is that we have not adequately lived our faith in public...

3. The community of believers is not "producing" balanced, analytical and "reasoned" thinkers and scholars to combat the intellectual assaults upon theism in the cultural and educational domains.

We, as believers, should desire first of all to know and study God (theology) but we should also seek to know and understand all domains of knowledge such as philosophy, science etc. We should thorough and complete in our knowledge of God so that we can effectively communicate reasons to believe and have faith in our majestic God.

 

[preacher4truth]

Unreal.

First, it's not about studying and knowing God through theology. It's about whether you know Him or not, period.

God doesn't need our intellect and minds to confound the wise. That's utter nonsense. Paul rejected that idea. Here we have an entire slough of (supposed) intellectuals displaying their vast knowledge on many subjects and quite proud of being heady and allegedly highly intellectual. One would assume this would be the method needed since proponents thereof consider themselves to be of this order. Your entire premise makes pretense that within the power of mens knowledge we will get it done. Bologna.

I can't believe people come up with this nonsense, leaning upon their own knowledge as if God is waiting upon us to get an education so He can do something. Ridiculous.

Now, what do the Scriptures say we need to confound the wise?

The Gospel is the power of God. Romans 1:16.

See also 1 Corinthians 1, and 2. And Acts. Zechariah 4:6.

I'd say we should crack open our Bibles and see what God has to say about this instead of coming up with our own ideas to what is needed and as to what will get it done.

Wouldn't you? Or is that a "no no" again?

Unbelievable. I'll lean upon God and His Spirit.

 

[rbell]

I did a series months ago (I used the title from a series I saw on another site--loved the title--and did my own Bible study with it) called "practical atheist."

I doubt we really have that many atheists in the church...but there's no doubt that too many of us epitomize the verse, "Having a form of Godliness...but denying the power thereof."

 

[quantumfaith]

I did a series months ago (I used the title from a series I saw on another site--loved the title--and did my own Bible study with it) called "practical atheist."

I doubt we really have that many atheists in the church...but there's no doubt that too many of us epitomize the verse, "Having a form of Godliness...but denying the power thereof."

RBell,

I wasnt referring to churches being populated by atheists, rather the larger culture war having a front in the intellectual realm. Perhaps I missed your point.

 

[quantumfaith]

Unreal.

First, it's not about studying and knowing God through theology. It's about whether you know Him or not, period.

God doesn't need our intellect and minds to confound the wise. That's utter nonsense. Paul rejected that idea. Here we have an entire slough of (supposed) intellectuals displaying their vast knowledge on many subjects and quite proud of being heady and allegedly highly intellectual. One would assume this would be the method needed since proponents thereof consider themselves to be of this order. Your entire premise makes pretense that within the power of mens knowledge we will get it done. Bologna.

I can't believe people come up with this nonsense, leaning upon their own knowledge as if God is waiting upon us to get an education so He can do something. Ridiculous.

Now, what do the Scriptures say we need to confound the wise?

The Gospel is the power of God. Romans 1:16.

See also 1 Corinthians 1, and 2. And Acts. Zechariah 4:6.

I'd say we should crack open our Bibles and see what God has to say about this instead of coming up with our own ideas to what is needed and as to what will get it done.

Wouldn't you? Or is that a "no no" again?

Unbelievable. I'll lean upon God and His Spirit.

Here are my objections and in the interest of civility, it is all I will say.

"Unreal"
"I cant believe people come up with this nonsense"
"Wouldnt you, or is that a no no?"
"Unbelievable"

 

[preacher4truth]

Here are my objections and in the interest of civility, it is all I will say.

"Unreal"
"I cant believe people come up with this nonsense"
"Wouldnt you, or is that a no no?"
"Unbelievable"

Cool. Absolutely not a thing wrong with my above expressions. I just happen to disagree with you.

Now I'll refer to you dogging my steps on here.

And (what you've said and implied toward me):

Arrogant
Wrong
Immaturity
That's only your opinion
Condescending
Accusatory
False teaching
"Who are you to expose that I didn't read my Bible and answered wrongly?"
PM's


Above is the difference of you name calling, and mine are merely expressions. :wavey:


I knew you couldn't address the issue I addressed. I say we crack open our Bibles before we go running to trust our intellect. I'd say that would be quite arrogant for one to do so without consulting the Word. That too, is all that I will say.

 

[glfredrick]

I HIGHLY commend Nancy Pearcey's work to those who wish to further investigate this issue.

Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivityhttp://www.amazon.com/dp/1433502208/?tag=baptis04-20

Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaninghttp://www.amazon.com/dp/1433669277/?tag=baptis04-20

Pearcy is the real deal, radically saved by grace, she details in Total Truth her journey to Christ while examining virtually every aspect of the intersection of Christianity and the world around us. I've not read Saving Leonardo (yet), but it is getting high praise in reviews, and if only on par with Total Truth, it will earn an honored spot on my "keeper" bookshelf.

Both of these books answer the radical IFB "hate everything and everyone" stance.

 

[glfredrick]

Unreal.

First, it's not about studying and knowing God through theology. It's about whether you know Him or not, period.

God doesn't need our intellect and minds to confound the wise. That's utter nonsense. Paul rejected that idea. Here we have an entire slough of (supposed) intellectuals displaying their vast knowledge on many subjects and quite proud of being heady and allegedly highly intellectual. One would assume this would be the method needed since proponents thereof consider themselves to be of this order. Your entire premise makes pretense that within the power of mens knowledge we will get it done. Bologna.

I can't believe people come up with this nonsense, leaning upon their own knowledge as if God is waiting upon us to get an education so He can do something. Ridiculous.

Now, what do the Scriptures say we need to confound the wise?

The Gospel is the power of God. Romans 1:16.

See also 1 Corinthians 1, and 2. And Acts. Zechariah 4:6.

I'd say we should crack open our Bibles and see what God has to say about this instead of coming up with our own ideas to what is needed and as to what will get it done.

Wouldn't you? Or is that a "no no" again?

Unbelievable. I'll lean upon God and His Spirit.

Without taking you to task, let me humbly say that you are wrong. Paul was conversant with the current philosophy of his day, and used it in his evangelistic approach at Mars Hill. Indeed, he "tongue in cheek" took on people who espoused "wisdom" with his "simple" speech, and brought out a VERY learned and high level discourse. So much so, that we STILL lean on Paul today. We must remember that before he became the Apostle Paul, missionary to the Gentiles, he was Saul, a leader among Jewish professional keepers of the Law (in other words, a lawyer) of his day.

Note that it was Paul's reasoned presentation of the Gospel -- the first in all of history do do, he could not lean on the words of any other before him, save what he learned from Christ -- that informs all we do now, almost 2000 years later. He didn't just cut and paste -- he had to write the original documents that fueled the fire of the church forever after!

Making Paul out to be a simpleton who knew nothing is the thing that is unbelievable.

 

[glfredrick]

I did a series months ago (I used the title from a series I saw on another site--loved the title--and did my own Bible study with it) called "practical atheist."

I doubt we really have that many atheists in the church...but there's no doubt that too many of us epitomize the verse, "Having a form of Godliness...but denying the power thereof."

I''m of a mind that we have a lot of "religious" folk in our churches, but not atheists. Those religious people may in fact be "practical atheists" because they have not been truly born again from above by the power of God. I say "practical atheists" because there is NO amount of pure religion that will cause us to have a true relationship with God, that requiring a salvation experience that fulfills all the biblical issues surrounding salvation. Though they have the right book, the right God, and know the right words, none of that is salvific. It is only the power and work of God that secures true salvation, and hence, true saving faith in Christ to make one other than a false worshiper.

 

[glfredrick]

Cool. Absolutely not a thing wrong with my above expressions. I just happen to disagree with you.

Now I'll refer to you dogging my steps on here.

And (what you've said and implied toward me):

Arrogant
Wrong
Immaturity
That's only your opinion
Condescending
Accusatory
False teaching
"Who are you to expose that I didn't read my Bible and answered wrongly?"
PM's


Above is the difference of you name calling, and mine are merely expressions. :wavey:


I knew you couldn't address the issue I addressed. I say we crack open our Bibles before we go running to trust our intellect. I'd say that would be quite arrogant for one to do so without consulting the Word. That too, is all that I will say.

It would help if you argued the points with other substantive points instead of tossing around loaded weasel words to incite but another battle.

 

[preacher4truth]

Without taking you to task, let me humbly say that you are wrong. Paul was conversant with the current philosophy of his day, and used it in his evangelistic approach at Mars Hill. Indeed, he "tongue in cheek" took on people who espoused "wisdom" with his "simple" speech, and brought out a VERY learned and high level discourse. So much so, that we STILL lean on Paul today. We must remember that before he became the Apostle Paul, missionary to the Gentiles, he was Saul, a leader among Jewish professional keepers of the Law (in other words, a lawyer) of his day.

Note that it was Paul's reasoned presentation of the Gospel -- the first in all of history do do, he could not lean on the words of any other before him, save what he learned from Christ -- that informs all we do now, almost 2000 years later. He didn't just cut and paste -- he had to write the original documents that fueled the fire of the church forever after!

Making Paul out to be a simpleton who knew nothing is the thing that is unbelievable.

Um, no, I'm not wrong. Your assessment is completely in error and your accusation toward me (that I called/implied Paul was a simpleton) unfounded and uneccessary.

So, I humbly suggest that you are simply wrong. :wavey:

Do you think I wasn't aware of this concerning Paul? Did I make Paul out to be a simpleton? Uh, no. You came up with that all on your lonesome by assuming and not thoroughly reading what I said.

I fully realize all of this about Paul. Yep. He was very up on culture and philosophies and as a member of the Sanhedrin, very learned. You're missing the point entirely and going knee jerk.

He didn't lean upon his wisdom or knowledge (note the passages I gave). Believing our knowledge and abilities will affect ones salvation is nonsensical.

Gods Gospel is power unto salvation. Paul would acknowlege culture, but that never saved a person, so he got to what does save, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also. Paul was not the first to give a reasoned Gospel message. Peter was. That message was totally of God and of His Spirit, and filled with reasoning from the Scriptures. Paul alluded to some well known knowlege on Mars Hill, for they all would argue all of these things publicly, so it was out in the air and known facts that he reasoned. I'm certain if you've ever studied Acts you would find this what I say to be true.

I apologize you feel I called the apostle a simpleton. It's purely unfounded and all of that came from you not me.

 

[preacher4truth]

It would help if you argued the points with other substantive points instead of tossing around loaded weasel words to incite but another battle.

Maybe you should do the same and leave out your accusations and false statements and laying things to my charge I've never said.

You should try it.

What you quoted me to saying was a reaction, to uh, the same thing done toward me you accuse me of, and that you are now engaging in.

Now go back and take a look at the my original post to this. Those are my points. I don't expect many today to agree with them. Today we lean on self, not God. It's trendy.

So, let's either stick to that, or just not argue at all.

 

[preachinjesus]

Just watched O'Reilly and David Silverman, president of American Atheists was featured in a segment defending that all religions are scams. Furthermore he defined "scam" as a purposeful and intentional misleading of the people.

This shouldn't be surprising imho. Silverman and several of his ilk are nothing more than rhetorical tough guys who crumble at the site of a robust, informed challenge.

He's exactly what his organization needs, a loud, soundbyte driven leader who offers polemical statements with no grounds. Our culture, as uninformed as most people are, just eat that stuff up.

You can't have a conversation with the guy, or even a reasonable debate, because his rhetoric is of such a pitch that he disregards valid points and presses on with his preconceived points.

This is why, we believers must address a solid and well rounded education for our students prior to being subjected to such militancy that is all to prevalent in the hallowed halls of our college campuses.

Perhaps the greatest failure of evangelicalism, which will be noted hundreds of years from now, is that in a time of tremendous resources we produced some of the weakest believers.

I totally agree with this statement.

The new atheism is a great threat to the Church as they have moved beyond simple critique and are now offering a rebuke with growing militancy. Christianity is the most complete, intellectually robust belief system that exists because it is of God.

To suggest that God doesn't need us to grow intellectually is foolish. We need a generation of humble, informed believers in an assortment of vocations. They can be the hands and feet of Christ, going into areas where professional ministers can't and minister to people both physically and intellectually. Too many people reject Christianity on the grounds of argumentation that is both poor and simply wrong. To be able to hear, respond, and answer different individuals' legitimate doubts is a great ministry of the Church and something we need to be doing.

 

[billwald]

> Paul. . . . as a member of the Sanhedrin

sidebar: is there extra-biblical evidence that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin?

 

[walkbyfaith]

Without taking you to task, let me humbly say that you are wrong. Paul was conversant with the current philosophy of his day, and used it in his evangelistic approach at Mars Hill. Indeed, he "tongue in cheek" took on people who espoused "wisdom" with his "simple" speech, and brought out a VERY learned and high level discourse. So much so, that we STILL lean on Paul today. We must remember that before he became the Apostle Paul, missionary to the Gentiles, he was Saul, a leader among Jewish professional keepers of the Law (in other words, a lawyer) of his day.

Note that it was Paul's reasoned presentation of the Gospel -- the first in all of history do do, he could not lean on the words of any other before him, save what he learned from Christ -- that informs all we do now, almost 2000 years later. He didn't just cut and paste -- he had to write the original documents that fueled the fire of the church forever after!

Making Paul out to be a simpleton who knew nothing is the thing that is unbelievable.

Where did anyone call Paul a simpleton? Seems to me you are looking for an argument.

 

[quantumfaith]

This shouldn't be surprising imho. Silverman and several of his ilk are nothing more than rhetorical tough guys who crumble at the site of a robust, informed challenge.

He's exactly what his organization needs, a loud, soundbyte driven leader who offers polemical statements with no grounds. Our culture, as uninformed as most people are, just eat that stuff up.

You can't have a conversation with the guy, or even a reasonable debate, because his rhetoric is of such a pitch that he disregards valid points and presses on with his preconceived points.



Perhaps the greatest failure of evangelicalism, which will be noted hundreds of years from now, is that in a time of tremendous resources we produced some of the weakest believers.

I totally agree with this statement.

The new atheism is a great threat to the Church as they have moved beyond simple critique and are now offering a rebuke with growing militancy. Christianity is the most complete, intellectually robust belief system that exists because it is of God.

To suggest that God doesn't need us to grow intellectually is foolish. We need a generation of humble, informed believers in an assortment of vocations. They can be the hands and feet of Christ, going into areas where professional ministers can't and minister to people both physically and intellectually. Too many people reject Christianity on the grounds of argumentation that is both poor and simply wrong. To be able to hear, respond, and answer different individuals' legitimate doubts is a great ministry of the Church and something we need to be doing.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[RAdam]

Paul was an extremely well educated fellow. But, when he preached the gospel, he refused to use the words which man's wisdom teacheth, the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God, or excellency of speach or of wisdom. In fact, Paul told them that he determined not to know anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with education. In fact, becoming highly knowledgable about many things going on around us is vey useful and proper. But, when it comes to preaching the word of God, we don't need those things. We need the Spirit of God and the gospel. We also need to remember this: the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. Preaching Christ crucified is going to either be foolishness or a stumblingblock to many people.

 

[quantumfaith]

No one is suggesting that we abandon in any way the pursuit of holiness and growing in our personal relationships with God. The point I am attempting to make is that in the broader culture, christians have in many ways relegated intellectual pursuits to others, who then in turn "profess purely naturalistic" wisdom to assault and marginalize christianity in the broader culture.

We need, in our individual churches, to emphasize first of all doctrinal and fundamental knowledge and defense of our faith. Secondly, we should do everything we can to encourage and support young people entering college to be well grounded in the faith but to also extend that experience to the intellectual domain in general. By and large, college campuses are controlled and heavily influenced by professors and administrators who have little to no respect for theism, much less christianity.

We need to produce scholars and thinkers salted and illuminated by their faith in Christ.