Christians are not the only ones who say Hitler is bad. Most of the entire planet sees Hitler as a villain.

If you meet anyone who says, “I’m so good. I’m so good…” Just keep going because they have a lot to learn about humility. Bragging has less to do with religion than personal character. Belief in God doesn’t grant instant social skills. Those must be learned.

As for learning that is wrong… The Christian deity is more than happy to teach those skills through trials and tribulations that humble people into awareness that they are not the center of the universe. Guaranteed to be a life long lesson. Some people take a long time to get this into their heads.

Christians did not start the Crusades. The Crusades were started by a man called a Pope. Whether or not he is Christian is a matter of opinion. I figure some were in their hearts and some were in name only. What other possible explanation is there?

many Popes did evil things. Like the Borgia Pope who gave permission to the Conquistadors to rape an pillage natives and strip Mexico of her gold. That was an evil acting man. He happened to hold an office in a large church. Evil people are found everywhere. But that doesn’t make all Christians evil. Anymore than driving a car makes you a mechanic.

And the Crusaders who did evil acts chose evil ways. In that time there were also people calling themselves Christians who would never murder in the name of God. Those people did not get very far in the military. They were not soldiers. So you never hear about them.

I’ve been lied to, stabbed in the back, used, practically spat upon by people who claimed to be Christians. I am a Christian. It hurt me deeply.

If someone does that to me or those I love, I stay away from them. Anyone can claim to be a Christian. Doesn’t mean they are. And even if they are, it doesn’t mean they follow Christian ideals.

You can’t compel people to do what is right. They have to commit themselves to it. In the mean time they call themselves Christians and do not perceive the wrong they do. I can’t understand very bad behavior by such individuals. Why they don’t feel a conflict in their souls. When it seems they should.

I have never put money into an offering plate expecting anything in return. I would never accept money for doing anything related to being a Christian. That would be like profiting on something that is supposed to be free. A repugnant thing to God. Other Christians can decide those details for themselves.

I will hope to clarify one thing you mention however:

If God exists, I don’t believe God orders the genocide of entire races of people like the God of the Book of Judges clearly does.

Of course, this rests on the belief of a deity who controls the world and the destinies of all in it. The Christian God determines the lifespans of all the people on earth, whether the Amalekite victim of Israelite invasion or the 102-year-old great-grandmother who passes in her sleep. In this sense, God kills all people (in that he is responsible for ending life) and does so in response to the judgment merited by their sin. So the ban on the Amalekites in 1 Samuel is really no different from all the ninety-five year olds who will die this year (when one considers that in OT revelation, Israel is operating as the incarnated hand of God—insofar as it does as he says) and vastly different from the wars and genocides crafted by Russia, Germany, Cambodia, and the U.S.

Of course, this relies on one believing that God is in control and that God allowing death in the realm he controls is workable (faith again), but I did want to demonstrate that within the system, the logic holds even on something as repugnant as genocide.

The Danes last blog post..20081119.ChurchLies

I’ve yet to see a formal debate that had half the moral character and value of two people hashing things out. Instead, they are either graded matches (which elevate the argument form rather than the content) or they are simply rah-rah matches designed to pump support of constituents. Years back, my whole office went to attend a James White vs. George Bryson debate on Calvinism. Those who went in boosting Calvinism thought White won handily and those who went in on the side of Arminianism though Bryson wiped the floor with his opponent.

The Danes last blog post..20081119.ChurchLies

Deepak Chopra was deeply disappointing, disrespectful and oddly argumentative for someone from his philosophical/spiritual moorings.

Having said all this, the event was pathetically moderated and devolved quickly, as one should expect, into trite analogy, shallow charges and counter-accusations and meaningless demonstrative statements of faith without any substantive peeling back of each claim to put them up to the light of reason.

As any thoughtful and intelligent person should know, it’s futile to argue about statements of faith, which, by their very definition, are either accepted as being true via some combination of subconscious recognition, factual analysis and supernatural revelation. One might as well host a forum featuring a panel who believe the color BLUE is the by far the best color against equally passionate advocates for the position that BLUE represents all manner of evil and ought to be eliminated from the color wheel so as to protect society from its pernicious evil.

The most interesting, unthoughtful, uncaring and unconvincing comments came from the studio audience because they didn’t have the discipline or the careful presentation style of Rev. Driscoll, who’s as good as anyone at managing the stylistic language of appearing exceedingly reasonable while articulating the equivalent of Dr. Gene Ray’s “Time Cube” theory.

We are human beings. We are innately superstitious. We believe all manner of silly things that serve to make us feel better. Other human beings, who innately seek power as a tool of survival and expression of will within a fluid system of control of both large and small areas of the human experience, learn to leverage our superstitions and desire for tribal security for personal gain. Some, of course, sincerely execute the dictates of their faith and become influential for their integrity to their particular belief system. The sincerity and/or success of the adherent, however, is ultimately irrelevant the underlying philosophical questions.

Being sincere, consistent and rational within an irrational system works just fine once an irrational system becomes the dominant structure of society.

Is there a God like the one in the Old Testament? Many believe there is and how would we prove it either way? Personally, if God exists, I don’t believe God orders the genocide of entire races of people like the God of the Book of Judges clearly does or that God would allow an innocent woman to be viscously raped and sodomized by a mob so as to protect an “Angel of the Lord” from that fate. Using the logic of the adherents to scriptural authority, I either have to accept that God is really like that or I have to reject that God — so, I reject that God could possibly be like the petulant homicidal God of those stories.

Then again, I can’t prove it either way, can I?

I was raised a Southern Baptist and I’m not hostile to the good folks who continue in that tradition or any other. I have a type of faith which is less defined than any formal religion and admittedly equally ridiculous to any other superstition, yet, I draw great comfort and inspiration from my faith each day of my life.

I’d have loved to have been on that panel because it would have been quite a lot of fun to participate. I just don’t kid myself that any on any side of the equation is edified or has their minds changed by the experience — we simply become more convinced that our side has all the answers and their side are morons, imbeciles and/or of Satanic agents.

I stand with the late and great mythologist Joseph Campbell and say simply to “follow your bliss!”

I think the major problems with the debate is that it’s topic was far to specific, and half of the participants should have been watching from the audience. Annie has a compelling story, her ministry may be strong, but she didn’t seem intellectually capable at the level of Driscoll and Chopra. And Mr. Pearson (what’s he bishop of again?) repeatedly showed that he has no intellectual curiosity about the things of God. He decided that God wouldn’t do something, so he figured the Bible must be wrong. His account of how the Bible became English (Aramaic > Greek > Latin > German > 16th century King’s English)was enough to make me pause the video and walk away for a while.

This debate should have featured Driscoll and Chopra, and maybe two others who can stand at that level. The topic should have started at the roots of the tree, instead of a largely insignificant branch: Philosophy of religion, or religious worldviews from their two perspectives. Then they would have been able to talk about the big conflicts they have, without avoiding questions. And, though they would have been talking past each other much of the time, the goal would be to establish terms and definitions, so they could talk to each other next time.

Charles Joness last blog post..Ideology is Good

More often than not, debates feature two people talking past each other, ignoring uncomfortable questions to focus on positions of strength, and turning the proceedings into more an exercise in polemics than any sort of a quest for truth. Ignoring the bishop’s left-field answers and the former prostitute’s I-can’t-explain-it-but-it’s-true answers, Driscoll repeatedly answers not what is asked of him, but some other question. His answers sound good enough, but he continually skirts the issues that give people trouble.

Really though, the argument is kind of weird—pitting inerrantists against people who think the Bible’s just a wise book. There’s no real debate there. One group cannot be logically convinced to the side of the other since faith in Scripture is not based, ultimately on observable evidentialist claim but instead on faith alone. If someone strongly believes Scripture is inerrant, then no amount of reason can dent that belief because God’s logic is higher than man’s. Therefore, what would have been possibly interesting would be a debate between inerrantists who disagree on the status of Satan.

But in the end, it would still be a debate and so would just feature people talking past each other and avoiding questions.

The Danes last blog post..20081119.ChurchLies

mikes last blog post..ephesians 2 and the "gift of God"