New attack on Christians

Groups like AiG are a far more effective destroyer of religion than atheists could ever be. They are making it impossible to be both a scientist and a Christian, which in turn makes it difficult (though less so) to be both an engineer and a Christian, or an educated person in general and a Christian. They are busy chasing away reality-oriented, educated, clear-thinking people and ensuring that Christianity will become a laughing stock.

I personally wonder if the same process happened during the rise of Christianity in Roman times. Did you know that the word "Pagan" originally meant "hillbilly?" (The "Paganus" was the rural area.) A pagan was an ignorant hick who didn't accept the new religion and still clung to all that ignorant old nonsense about Saturn and Jupiter and stuff. I wonder if, among the pagans, there were groups like AiG that pushed a strict traditional Roman interpretation of the "old religion" in contrast to any interpretation that could be contaminated by either Greek philosophy or Christianity (which was an evil unpatriotic foreign religion that did not honor the emporer).

I sometimes call fundamentalists like the AiG crowd "pagans." In Rome, I am certain that I would have been a Christian. I am a humanist today. :)

One of the factors that enhanced the role of Christianity in the late Roman Empire was the literacy attained by many christians. Many wanted to learn to read the New Testament and since they were literate, they could become an influential part of the beuracracy in the late 3rd and 4th centuries. Purges of these people during times of repression lead to a greater tolerance since the state couldn't work efficiently without the christian scribes.

Just believe, Tara. Just believe that Ken Ham is out of his freakin' mind.

I will don my theological hat here, speaking as a Friend (that's a Quaker, if you didn't know). Other Christian groups may also share my thoughts here.

The AiG folks are worshiping a book. By taking its every word as the literal truth, they are denying the immediacy of the Holy Spirit and the underlying message of Jesus as teacher and prophet. He urged Jews to give up their slavish devotion to the Law (meaning the pharaisical interpretation of the OT) and give themselves over the loving-kindness of God. If you strip away all the mythological stuff added on to his story after his crucifixion, that's the essence of Jesus' message.

The second Commandment prohibits the worship of idols and graven images. The Friends took that to mean the abandonment of all outward signs of worship (water baptism, communion, etc.), while the Jehovah's Witnesses read it to mean they cannot salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Friends and many other churches see the Bible as just one part of the Truth. (I should add, however, that this issue split the Friends during the 19th century into two distinct groups). The AiG folks, who are largely Pentecostal or Baptist, put the Bible as the foundation of their religion, in essence placing it above God and Jesus -- a graven image as it were.

If you ever get into a religious discussion with such folks, ask them which holds the greatest place in their religion: God, Christ or the written word? The first two are incorruptible. The last has to be filtered through mortals, who are far from incorruptible no matter how devout they pretend to be. Thus, reliance on a literal interpretation of Scripture is a flawed theology. The older churches know this, and gave up literalism centuries ago.

But then again those churches have "fallen into apostasy" (did you know that some of these people do not recognize Catholics as Christians?), so the AiG rejects their moderate, enlightened viewpoints. We won't even discuss Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and all those other non-believers.

I get this a lot as well when I enter debates sometimes with creationists. When they find out I'm also Christian it appears to massively upset them (and I mean upset them), probably because it contradicts everything they have heard in Church (IE all who accept Evolution are atheists, moral-less blah blah etc). Actually, just having that initial contradiction between what they have been told in church and what 'the real world' is sometimes is enough by itself. Other times they just become immensely insulting, implying that I'm not a true Christian and generally just fly off the handle at me (which is entertaining more than anything else to me).

It's really just a variation on the "no true-scotsman" argument, which is coincidentally used by Christians to distance themselves from nuts like Pat Buchanen and Fred Phelps. Even though millions of American Christians continue to support and keep in good financial nick the very nuts they claim don't 'speak for Christianity'. But you know, I'm getting slightly bitter so I should stop now.

From the newsletter:

"...over 10,250 clergy had signed this awful letter!"

Bwaahaha!

The Discovery Institute was so excited when 500 scientists signed their letter about Darwinism...

Speaking of, Douglas over at my blog just decided to prove me right:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/aegeri/114163456112558961/

With this:

"Your entire post has all the hallmarks of someone irritated at, angry with, and perhaps threatened by Creationists, or at least the possibility of God's existence."

Oh yes, I'm certainly worried about the possibility of Gods existence, being Christian and all what wouldn't I have to be afraid of?

People ask me why I'm so bitter and often rather violatile when discussing Creationism. I always wonder if they've read these sorts of conversations when you have a non-creationist Christian arguing with the creationist sort.

keep the faith. may the Lord bless you with His favor and His power. Stand firm for Christ and great will be your reward. He promises you.