Hi blog readers. I hope you all had a great weekend. I am just too wiped out from a busy weekend to blog right now, but I wanted to put up a link to a discussion between Rick Warren and Sam Harris.
The God Debate
It's kind of long, but I thought it was interesting. If you're into that sort of thing.
Happy Monday!
The History Channel has an interesting (and short) online video about the history of Saint Patrick.
The other day, Andrew Sullivan had a post about Giuliani's bid for President.
Giuliani is running as a secular, modern conservative to run what has become a religious, theological party. His fate is going to be a fascinating insight into what American conservatism can now mean. And the Christianists are not going to put up with secular, inclusive, reality-based conservatism.
In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I planned to write a post about the difference between Dr. King's strategy for helping blacks and the current strategy employed by the party that really cares about blacks, the Democrats.
Fortunately for me, some posts just write themselves or, in this case, somebody writes them for me.
Here is an excellent column from Harry R. Jackson, Jr., which can be found here. This is better than I could have written. Give credit where credit is due. Go to the site, click on the ads, etc. For those of you who won't go to the link, you should really read this, so here it is.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: Conservative or Liberal?
By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Monday, January 15, 2007Both conservative and liberals quote Dr. King on this national holiday. Similar to the recent religious question – “What would Jesus do?” Many would-be social reformers attend to answer the question – “What would Martin do?”
Everything from legalizing gay marriage to withdrawal from Iraq have been couched in the terms: “Martin would have been for this!” The truth is that we can only take his speeches and writings and infer how he would have navigated the murky waters of the third millennium.
Therefore, before we start making pontifical statements about the nature of King’s direction, let’s review the history of which we are sure.
The first mass meeting of the Montgomery Improvement Association on December 5, 1955, attracted several thousand attendees. The newly elected president, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was bold enough to describe the dilemma of black bus passengers and Rosa Park’s heroic act of civil disobedience committed just four days before.
Aware that discussing these issues candidly could ignite bitter, violent outbursts, King appealed to the faith of the African-American community. He encouraged his listeners to believe in the power of biblical justice. King’s sermon went one step further than most of that day by encouraging them to act on their belief in divine justice and use the American tradition of legal protest.
During the next 30 days, King received 30 to 40 threatening letters or phone calls each day. King wrote in “Stride Towards Freedom” that one night he received an ominous phone call just as he was about to doze off to sleep. The caller promised that before seven days passed, King would be sorry that he ever came to Montgomery, Alabama.
By his own admission, King was afraid and offered a desperate prayer from his kitchen table. He felt as though he could hear an inner voice saying, stand up for righteousness, stand up for truth; and God will be at your side forever.
Although King’s uncertainty disappeared, three days later his house was fire bombed. Steadied by his “kitchen prayer,” he boldly preached to the crowd that gathered outside of his badly damaged house. He sent them away with his own firebombs of love and faith instead a call to arms, riot or violent retaliation.
We celebrate Dr. King’s birthday not just because his courage and resolve advanced civil justice for blacks. His life was also a gift to all Americans. Today, his dream is a living legacy, which is still changing the nation.
There is no question that Dr. King was a great man. Yet he may not have been as unique as many would attempt to paint him. In all due respect to Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young, and countless other civil rights luminaries, the black church was their spiritual mother. Each one of these leaders took their cues from the historic charter and mission that the Black church had set for itself.
Many excellent black churches commissioned their leaders to the dual role of biblical interpreter and social reformer. Just like the Old Testament prophets, black preachers have charged with the task of bringing a sense of divine justice to the social ills of their generation.
One strategic contribution was the church’s involvement in creating the first major black financial institutions: banks and life insurance companies. Black churches not only provided people with spiritual comfort and hope but also established an economic support system that served to lift their people.
The church emerged as a credible bridge to future financial power for financially cautious former slaves and their descendents. The church refused to wait for a government welfare agency or secular non-profit organizations to lead the way.
The black church remained vigilant through the years. Time and time again, she has risen up important leaders who were wedded to the unique needs of both their people and the American culture. For example, overcoming the devastation of the Great Depression was no easy task for anyone in America. Thankfully, new heroes arose in the black community to meet the challenge in the 1930s.
Some black churches held classes in the fundamentals of job seeking and household economics for people. In addition to public training, behind the scenes pastors negotiated access to jobs in hospitals, stores and schools. These jobs had been closed to blacks prior to that time.
Each generation has had several black leaders arise from the black church to innovatively guide its constituents. In light of this history, we return to the question – “What would Dr. King do today?”
King would most likely be a social conservative. He would attempt to protect families and the dignity of both working class people in the U.S. He would not ask big government’s permission to confront the Goliaths of poverty, crime, drug abuse and teen pregnancy that stalk urban America. King would rally local church leaders and begin to solve tangible problems through volunteerism.
Dr. King knew that the greatest obstacle to social advancement in both the black and the white communities is a lack of vision, courage and determination. In this regard King was like former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall who explained his enormous success in challenging the racially biased application of laws during the civil rights movement like this: “I did what I could with what I had.” Like Dr. King, that’s the best any of us can do.
Harry R. Jackson Jr. is founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition as well as author of The Warriors Heart: Rules of Engagement for the Spiritual War Zone.
I had a few more closing thoughts about this series of posts after I went to bed last night. The impetus for this series was that I wanted to start a "debate" with JD Ryan, but I also wanted to bring up the common claims made by atheist bloggers and other writers that I find faulty.
I am not expecting to convince anyone to believe in God based on my own personal "coincidences" and seemingly flaky brain chemistry. I wasn't trying to. That would be like expecting a toddler, who has just learned the alphabet, to teach others to read. Someday she will be able to, but not today.
I related some of my personal experiences because that is how I write. When I used to write a column for the local paper, my regular readers knew many details about my life. I met one woman once, who felt like she practically knew me, as I am sure many of my regular blog readers feel. That's just who I am and how I write.
The one thing I learned is that atheists and Christians (probably other theists, too) speak two different languages. There is a lot of preaching to the choirs, but not a lot of communication across groups. I admit the title could have been less confrontational, but the point is still valid: there are many assumptions made by atheists about theists that are not true. To restate these again and again only detracts from the strength of one's case.
When I read something written by an atheist and I come across any of the things I discussed in this series, I am inclined to dismiss the rest of the piece out of hand. Maybe I should have titled this series, "How Atheists Can Make Better Arguments," but why would I want to help them do that? ; )
To re-cap for people just coming upon this:
Part one:
- Introduction to the series
- the only reason people are Christians is because their parents were.
Part two:
- that religion relies on a "blind faith" and a lack of questioning and skepticism.
- that religion discourages people to think for themselves.
Part three:
- "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- religious people are living for the afterlife.
Part four:
- that getting rid of religion will get rid of the crazies.
- Christians only do good for the selfish reason of scoring points with God.
- the notion that science disproves God.
- whether or not God is necessary for morality.
- people only believe in God because they are ignorant.
For all of you who are not into the religion debates, I am sorry for going back into fundie mode, but I need to address a few more points in this discussion I am having with J.D.Ryan of Five Before Chaos. Also, check out part one, part two, and part three.
I am going to try and wrap this series up with a few straggling points that haven't been addressed.
Today, I was reading a post that was given the Rudest Atheist Post of 2006 honor by five before chaos. It was mostly a rant against all of the bad, murderous things that fanatical religious belief leads to. It brought me to realize another thing that atheists say that is untrue or otherwise irritating. Atheists seem to think that getting rid of religion will get rid of the crazies.
Understand this. There will always be crazy people and they will latch onto whatever they can to justify their craziness, but that does not make religion at its core nothing more than a vehicle for creating crazies. Take away religion and you can always find some other thing that will drive the crazies. History is full of examples. Can you say, "communism"?
Heck, I know some atheists who would gladly kill all religious adherents if the law was on their side to carry such an action out.
There are also a lot of good things that people do in the name of religion. Would the same people who condemn the whole concept of religion for the times it is used as a justification for bad things also praise religion for the times it is used as a justification for good things? No. Of course not.
In fact, Christians are criticized for doing good because they are really just doing good to score points with God, which is selfish, unlike atheists, who do good because they are good. This is another untrue thing that atheists say, or at least, don't get.
Here's how it works. (Of course, this is my version and there are so many different belief systems all calling themselves Christian that it is very confusing.)
For starters, I really don't like people. Seriously. They are rude, obnoxious, self-centered, loud, smelly, and take up too much space. I like my space. I don't like people.
But God likes people. Actually, God loves people. Even people like J.D. Ryan. He loves us all. Even the Muslims. Even the New Agers. (No seriously.) Even the Red Sox fans. (I'm kidding. I don't even watch baseball.) God loves people. Why? I don't know. He just does.
I love God. He rocks. Even more so than geeky husbands. I love God more than anything. Even blogging.
I want to use my life to do God's work, to be His hands and feet, as we say. God wants to show people that He loves them, ergo, I must show people that God loves them. Except, I don't tell people that God loves them because that tends to freak people out. I just do things to help them even if I don't want to.
Is that selfish? Not really. I don't need to help people to get to Heaven, or whatever. I am saved through faith in Jesus Christ alone. I just want to serve God because, well, because I have a deep, burning passion for Him. He is awesome.
It's kind of like if I knew my husband wanted me to do something and I really didn't feel like it. I would do it anyway because I love him. Not for a selfish reason or because I would expect something in return. Just because I love him and I like to do things to make him happy. He's the same way with me. That's part of the reason I love my husband. He's a great guy.
I feel the same way about God. He's a great God. I love Him. I want to do things for Him. He wants me to love people.
That's it. Jesus said that all of the other commandments hang on these two: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and Love your neighbor as yourself. (Darn. I said I wasn't going to quote the Bible. Well, that was a paraphrase.)
To change gears, since I got kind of out of hand with the Bible quoting and all, I want to address two final points.
First, the notion that science disproves God. This is a funny one because some science lovers say that the two are separate (as to not cause the religious folk to come after science), but then the anti-god-ers come along and say that they are not separate (and use science as a weapon against faith). I have heard atheists from both perspectives, so I don't want to lump them all together (unless the ones that say God and science are separate are lying).
In his post "Science Must Destroy Religion," outspoken atheist Sam Harris says that, "The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science."
The only conflict there is between science and religion is the conflict between religious people who fear science and scientific people who fear religion, or rather, people who fear religion and view science as the means of destroying it.
I am a "religious" person (meaning I live my life according to a faith, though I don't really care for that word because it implies a legalistic adherence to ritual and tradition that is not really necessary for a relationship with God), but I am not afraid of science. I homeschool my kids, but I do not keep them from secular science materials (and even history materials contain an evolutionary perspective). In fact, I took this book out of the library for my kids just yesterday. The first chapter is entitled, "Man or ape?" and explains how humans evolved.
Do I believe that? No. I believe God made man as man.
Does that mean that I find no value in science? No. Science is very valuable for understanding our world and it leads to discoveries that make our lives better. It is, however, based on things that can be seen and measured, which God cannot be, so it excludes this very influential piece of the puzzle. Science makes assumptions about the past based on what is known or true now. As with any logic-based discipline, if any of the premises are faulty, the conclusions are flawed. Just the same, it is important to learn and understand science. To try to infuse it with religion would not work. So, it has to be "godless."
That doesn't mean that one cannot use one's own capacity for reasoning to look at the science and identify the assumptions that would not hold if God was in the equation. This process is the responsibility of parents and the religious community though, not the schools.
The bottom line is that science cannot destroy God and believers need not fear that it will. God is bigger than that. More importantly, they need not try to destroy, or weaken, science education in the process.
The last thing I want to touch on is the question of whether or not God is necessary for morality. I do not doubt that an atheist can be a "good" person. I was an atheist for most of my life and I was a good person. I never stole, or lied, or cheated, or killed anyone. I worked hard and was more or less responsible. I did not need a code of ethics from a divine being to be a good citizen. Even though, as I said, I don't so much like people, I was not mean or rude to them and was even helpful of my own free will on occasion.
People can know right from wrong with out religion for the most part, but when right and wrong are subjective, it is easy to reason ourselves into dark waters.
We can justify stealing when a poor man steals food for his children. We can justify lying when a woman lies to her abusive boyfriend to keep him from hurting her. We can justify killing an otherwise healthy and viable fetus when it would be inconvenient to the mother for it to be born.
People can justify just about anything. People even use their religion to justify bad things that are clearly condemned by their religion. People are good at making excuses, whether they are religious or not.
Moral relativism is dangerous because there is no standard by which to judge things. Even though humans will continue to miss the mark when it comes to God's plan for us, it serves as a baseline for evaluating our own behavior.
I don't use my value system to judge other people. That is actually condemned by the Bible. I use it as my guide to make my own life easier.
I once heard this great teaching series on a Christian radio program that I listen to online called, "Living on the Edge." They did a series on the Ten Commandments and how they are a guide to living a life of minimal suffering here on earth; kind of like God's instruction book for a good life.
It is amazing how much pain we cause ourselves when we violate God's laws. Some theologians even believe that Hell is actually the state we create for ourselves when we reject God, as opposed to the dated idea of an actual place where pain and suffering is imposed. We don't need a tormentor to suffer in a hell of our own creation.
Non-religious codes of morality are based on not hurting other people, but the amount of harm we cause ourselves is far greater. All of the "sins" I needed to confess when I accepted Jesus were things that were harmful to only myself and fully accepted by our secular society.
So, yeah, one can be an ethical person without God, but I have learned that God's way is really better.
Okay, I sound like I am evangelizing again, so I will wrap this up.
On a final note, the thing that atheists say that is the most untrue is that people only believe in God because they are ignorant. This is note true at all. If there is something that you think I do not know, or haven't thought about, that would make me reexamine my beliefs, please let me know. God has not called me to a life of ignorance.
Be sure to read part one and part two.
When I was first seeking God, I read a lot of stuff by atheists. I think I was trying to convince myself that He did not exist. I am not the type that likes to be told what to do. At that point in my life, I had no one telling me what to do. I was a stay-at-home mom, so I was the only boss. The idea of there being someone bigger than me was not so appealing.
The fall back line was always the same, though usually not credited, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I read this the other day on Five Before Chaos, referring to a Sam Harris piece, who credits the line to historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71).
This is often thought to be a clever way to put an end to the discussion, but it is really flawed at its heart.
There is a much bigger difference between me and an atheist than there is between me an someone with different religious beliefs.
If you read the first two posts in this series, I have not yet gotten to why I believe in the God of the Bible. I have only established that I have had very real experiences with a supernatural, seemingly all-knowing being. That right there puts me in the same boat as most other religious adherents, but not with those who profess that there is no god at all.
If I strip away all of the differences between religions that have a god, or even gods, I am still left with the basic belief in a supernatural being, which an atheist does not have.
The claim is: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Let me understand, then.
Why do I dismiss all other possible gods? That's a good question. Actually, I never really dismissed all other possible gods. I never believed in a god before. It was through Christianity that God reached out to me.
I guess the next question would be why do I believe, solely based on my supernatural encounters, that the Bible is true?
I believe it because it works. I believe it because every time I test it, it works.
Does that disprove all other gods? No. At a minimum, to me anyway, it proves what I call the "Joan of Arcadia" theory.
In the show, "Joan of Arcadia," Joan was surprised when God shows up at her friend Grace's bat mitzvah. God explained that the different religions are necessary for reaching different people.
If that was true, we are all worshiping the same god, but in different ways because that is how God connects with us individually.
I don't think that is the case, but I am not really concerned with convincing other people with differently held religious convictions that they are worshiping the wrong god. That is between them and God.
The reason I choose to believe in Christianity can be best explained by tackling another thing atheists say; Religious people are living for the afterlife.
That is in no way true. Eternity starts the minute you accept Jesus Christ, not when you die. Jesus came to earth to redeem us from our sin - our separation from God. Once that bond is restored, one can begin to live with God right then. It does not take death to restore that bond.
The reason I believe in the gospel is because I have experienced transformation from the inside out. Maybe I needed forgiveness. Maybe that is how I needed God to connect with me, but I didn't just feel magically forgiven because I accepted Jesus. In fact, I didn't feel any different at all. After praying repeatedly, and almost giving up on feeling any substantial change in me, I just felt this warm feeling that I cannot really describe and I was forever changed.
It took my husband even longer to feel any real change. I don't want to share his testimony without his permission, but this man who I have loved for eight years is not the same person he was even a year ago. He is a totally new creation in Christ.
He wasn't a louse or a drug addict or anything. He was just a regular guy with regular pains deep inside that we all carry, but he is now healed and he is a better person for it. He is experiencing the freedom that comes from Jesus Christ.
I don't care where the Bible came from, who wrote it, when it was written, if there are any truths contained in any other religions, if Jews get to heaven, or Muslims for that matter, both of whom believe in the same God, but reject his Son.
All I know is that the Bible works. The words in it inspire and guide my life into places I never dreamed. The teachings that others derive from it work in my life. And, most importantly, I am enjoying the benefits of a life with God by my side.
Does that tell me why an atheist dismisses all possibility of the existence of God? No. It really doesn't. That is why I find that line so utterly annoying.
I've hit on all of the main irritating and/or untrue things I had in my outline, so in part four, I will discuss whether or not morality can exist outside of religion, at the request of J.D. Ryan.
(If you are just joining this discussion, you can read part one here.)
Another thing that atheists say often is that religion relies on a "blind faith" and a lack of questioning and skepticism.
Ha!
I have to laugh when I read that. Let me repeat, I was raised by my mother to distrust and avoid religion. Anytime I had a question about Christianity, I was given a half-answer and told that was the best she could do because it doesn't make sense to her.
When God spoke to my heart, you can be darn sure He was met with a great deal of skepticism. I thought that God has spoken to me, but I did not believe in God. I wanted to, but I had years of doubt planted in my mind by both my upbringing and my years of studying science.
I did make the effort to earnestly seek God out with an open heart and open mind, but I was full of skepticism and doubts.
Even as I saw God working in my life and had prayers answered, sometimes instantly, I still wrote it off as a possible coincidence.
There comes a point when one can no longer deny the truth and can no longer dismiss the divine as a mere coincidence. Once I committed my life to Jesus, it was for keeps. I know He is there. He has done things in my life that removed all doubt as to His existence. That is why I have faith. It is not a blind faith rooted in ignorance and lack of reason. It is a faith rooted in truth and knowledge, that I stand by even when my emotions betray me.
Whether or not God is real is not based on how I feel on any given day. On those days when I wake up feeling like my life sucks and God does not rush in with His tingly cosmic love to warm and comfort me during my self-centered conniptions, I have to rely on my faith. As I grow as a Christian and God's answers for my life no longer come to me as instantly or as clearly as they did when I was first seeking, I have to rely on my faith. Those times when I think I might have a better or more exciting life if I ignored what God wants me to do and did things my way, I rely on my faith in God's plan. That faith was forged through experience that God's plans really do work out better than my own.
Let me put it another way, we all rely on our faith when our emotions betray us. There are some morning that I wake up and cannot stand to be around my husband. I don't mean that he is some kind of jerk - actually my husband is the best husband any woman could wish for. I mean that I am in such a bad mood that all he has to do is breath the same air I do and I am ready to go off on him. In those moments, I have to rely on my faith that no matter how I feel at that moment, I really love my husband.
Sometimes we go through a period of a couple days where we really don't seem to connect for whatever reason. I rely on my faith in our love during those times, too. Even two people as madly in love as my husband and I are have times when their thoughts and emotions are deceptive. In those times, it is faith that keeps us grounded.
That is what is meant by faith - clinging to something more concrete and steadfast than our emotions.
I don't expect my personal experiences to serve as proof to anyone else that God does exist, but I also find it irritating when my beliefs are dismissed as "blind faith" and I am accused of lacking the intellectual capacity to question what I am told.
That brings me to another thing that atheists say that is untrue or otherwise irritating: that religion discourages people to think for themselves. I totally disagree. I have always been encouraged to prayerfully reflect on whatever I am told or taught even by the pastors in our church.
Men are fallible, but that fact does not take away anything from the existence or character of God. There are plenty of bad teachings out there and I do not doubt that there are religious leaders that don't want to be questioned, but that is not required, or even desired, by God. God does not ask us to put our faith in men, but in Him alone.
My husband and I regularly discuss what is taught at our church. We do not accept that the teachings there will always be correct without question.
I have put a tremendous deal of time and thought into my beliefs, which is why I find it extremely irritating when my beliefs are summarily dismissed as the product of blind faith and an absence of questioning.
That is no more convincing than it would be for me to claim that atheists don't believe in God because they have blind faith in what they were taught, they have not really questioned what other atheists say, or they somehow lack the intellectual capacity to realize that they are wrong. Whether or not I think that is true does not make it a convincing argument.
In part three, I will discuss that famous line that just won't die, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
(As you can tell by the title, I decided to break this down into parts. I have so much to say and not enough time to put it into one cohesive post, so I am going to take this in parts.)
For whatever reason, I read a fair number of things written by atheists. I'm really not sure why.
It might be my ego wanting to make sure that I didn't miss some really good reason to not believe in God that would leave me looking like a fool if I hadn't heard about it.
It might be that I feel strongly that any belief worth having is worth challenging on a regular basis, which would also explain why most of my daily read are liberal blogs.
It might be that I know my boys will eventually face all of the leading criticisms against faith in God, and then some, so I want to be able to prepare them for it. After all, If I can't respond to an atheist's charge against my faith, how can I expect to answer the even tougher questions my children will come up with?
My guess is that all of those reasons play a factor.
At any rate, I think it's time I addressed some of the more common things I read that atheists say that are untrue or otherwise irritating.
I began writing this inclusive of all religions, but I think I should just go ahead and get specific to my own beliefs. I am a Christian. Not just any Christian; one of those conservative evangelical Protestant nut-jobs that believes that God is the Creator and that I have a personal relationship with Jesus. I might as well be up front about it. I promise not to quote from the Bible, but I might throw in a line or two from a Christian rock song, for added lyrical value.
The classic non sequitur that find particularly annoying, mostly for the fact that it is a lazy refusal to engage in a meaningful dialogue, is that the only reason people are Christians is because their parents were. Not only is this completely dismissive of the capacity a person has to question one's parents' beliefs, but it completely ignores that fact that (1) many people raised Christian leave the church and (2) many people who are religious do not have the same beliefs as their parents.
I found this survey that indicated that "In the U.S. about half (48%) of adults who stated they have religious beliefs say they share the same as both of their parents." I didn't have time to dig into the reliability of that number, but I have always heard that, among evangelicals, there is a fairly hight percent who do not have the same beliefs as their parents.
Anecdotally, my husband and I do not share the religious beliefs of our parents and most of the people I know that are Christians do not either, including every person who has played a direct role in my walk, except one.
I was raised to distrust and avoid organized religion. And further, the one thing that has caused the largest rift between my mother and I, who have always been very, very close, is my strong commitment to Jesus. She is noticeably uncomfortable with it. Not that I shove it down her throat or anything, but I cannot talk about what is going on in our lives without it coming up because He plays a huge role in our lives. So, my faith has come at the expense of some very important relationships.
Other than the fact that it is just insulting and untrue in my case, this claim bothers me because my kids will hear it, but it will be applicable to them. They will have been raised going to church, praying to God, praising Jesus, and, yes, memorizing scripture. The Devil will have a foothold with this one when it comes to them, but I think they will be able to see through it. All the more reason why it is important for me to know what kind of crap they will be hearing in the world.
In part two, I will examine the charge that religion requires blind faith.
Lately, I have been reading the blog Five Before Chaos so often that I am going to have to move it up two steps from "Other Blogs that Link Here" to "My Daily Reads" in my blogroll, despite the fact that it is so anti-Christian that it contains a category named "Christofascist."
I have been wanting to do a post about the whole religion/atheism thing, perhaps addressing some of the things I have been reading on blogs like FBC and others, but I just don't know where to start. At times, I can't get two minutes of peace and quiet around here and at others I can't seem to get focused.
So, that's what I am working on. In the meantime, check out this great discussion in the comments thread over at this post on Candleblog.
And if anyone wants to buy/lend me the book "The God Delusion," I'll read it. The library does not have it.
And if anyone wants to start a discussion in the comments, I'm all for it.
For those of you with the Sundance Channel (which unfortunately does not include me), you should most definitely check out this series they are doing on Jay Bakker, called One Punk Under God.
I am so bummed that I will not get to see it. His book, Son of a Preacher Man was one of the first things I read when I became a Christian and profoundly shaped how I approach my faith.
He started this thing called Revolution Church.
To show all people the unconditional love and grace of Jesus without any reservations because of their lifestyle or religious background, past or future. This love has no agenda behind it (I Cor. 13:5). This grace sets no timeline on personal change or standards for spiritual growth (Romans 4:4-5). The idea is to be a part of people’s lives because we truly care for them rather than to fulfill a religious duty; to walk with them through all their struggles as a part of their life, not as a religious outsider.
That's from Revolution. My neighbors (the ones who lent me Jay's book) have one on each of their vehicles.Jay Bakker, the only son of TV evangelists Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, is the subject of this six-part observational documentary series from World of Wonder the producers behind the award winning THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE and director Jeremy Simmons (TRANSGENERATION). Veteran of a troubled adolescence, tattooed and pierced Jay now preaches God's grace and unconditional love to an alternative non-denominational congregation in Atlanta, which meets in a working bar.
In the first episode, Jay recalls his childhood as he revisits the ghostly ruins of Heritage USA, his father's ambitious Christian theme park.
