 |
|
|
|
 Seeing the wrath of God in natural disasters was once commonplace.
August 28th, 2011
04:56 PM ET
My Take: God no longer in the whirlwind
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN As I am riding out Hurricane Irene on Cape Cod, I cannot help thinking about how differently New Englanders in colonial times interpreted these natural disasters. While we speak of the eye of the hurricane, they were ever mindful of the eye of a God who was watching over them, and sending storms their way as punishment for their collective sins. A fierce debate among academics about secularization theory–the view that societies will become less religious as they modernize–seems to have been won by the skeptics. Yes, secularization of a sort is happening, but only in certain places (western Europe, most notably). And it seems to be reversible (see the United States today vs. the United States in the 1970s). So simple versions of secularization theory seem just plain wrong. However, one place where American society, at least, plainly seems to be growing less religious is in the realm of natural disasters. When the Great Colonial Hurricane raced up the east coast and lashed New England in August 1635, its 130 mph winds and 21-foot storm surge were almost universally viewed in supernatural rather than natural terms—as a judgment of God on the unfaithful. We still have Puritans among us today, of course. Pat Robertson is notorious for turning natural disasters such as the Haiti earthquake and Hurricane Katrina into supernatural communications—God’s curse on Haiti or New Orleans for bad religion or widespread abortions. And on the radio a couple days ago I heard a talk show host suggest that the one-two punch of the recent earthquake and hurricane were two thumbs down from God on the leadership of Barack Obama. Still, American society as a whole no longer interprets natural disasters as signs of some coming apocalypse or evidence of some past misdeeds. And those that do (Robertson, for example) we generally regard as cranks and outliers—relics of a bygone age. Some say science and religion are engaged in a battle for the soul of America. I don’t buy that. I know there are bitter divisions over evolution and creationism, for example. But there are all sorts of spiritual arenas where science is mum, and vice versa. Science and religion run on parallel tracks far more often than those tracks intersect. Hurricanes and earthquakes are one arena, however, where the language of science has almost entirely routed the language of theology. Psalms 107:25-33 reads: “For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof. . . . He turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground." Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans—including the overwhelming majority of American Christians—believe that when God has something to say He speaks in less dramatic ways, including the still small voices in our hearts and the slightly louder voices of the preachers in our pulpits. When it comes to earthquakes and hurricanes, however, our authorities are geologists and meteorologists. Most of us interpret these events not through the rumblings of the biblical prophet Jeremiah or the poetry of the Book of Revelation but through the scientific truths of air pressure and tectonic plates. As a result of this sort of secularization, we are much better at predicting the course of hurricanes. The Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 arrived as a surprise and took many lives with it, including, according to the report of the Massachusetts governor John Winthrop, those of eight Native Americans taken by the storm surge while “flying from their wigwams.” So we are better prepared, thank science. Our stories are far less dramatic, however. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God. But their God no longer acts out his fury as in Bible days. Our storms have not yet been tamed. But our God has. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero. soundoff (2,530 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next »
« Previous entryMy Faithlessness: The atheist way through AA
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.
Why the weather and not the other questions? The same method that has helped us understand that hurricanes are not god's wrath has helped us understand that the universe was not created in seven days and that all life on earth was not created, but evolved from a common ancestor.
people with religious tendencies have been brushing aside scientific facts for thousands of years. I don't expect the action to cease any time soon.
Sadly, those of us choosing to live without the delusion of religion are still far outnumbered by those delusional people.
Matt Collister There is no birth record for the black race so what did the black man evolve from?... I may be white but even I know that there is a GOD. One day in bible terms represents a thousand years so don't just know how to quote but understand before you speak.
Matt – the word evolution confuses two things – one a fact and one a fabrication. Microevolution or change within a species is a scientific fact that can be falsified and experimentally tested. That microevolution leads to morphological change is a theory that can not be experimentally tested ... this macroeveolution can also be just as strongly explained with common design verses common descent
"There is no birth record for the black race so what did the black man evolve from?... I may be white but even I know that there is a GOD. One day in bible terms represents a thousand years so don't just know how to quote but understand before you speak."
So you mean Adam and Eve were black! Hallelujah! !
What causes a hurricane and what events transpired to cause–biologically-speaking–the human species to evolve to its present form is a completely different question from how we as a people experience a hurricane and how we as a people interact with the wonders of the universe and the awe that it strikes within us.
That is, it is not a mutually-exclusive proposition to say that something like fractal mathematics (aka chaos mathematics) can be used as a model to both explain a hurricane that just happened as well as help us to predict the path of future hurricanes (plus or minus quite a bit, actually), and then also to say that it is understandable that someone who lost everything to that hurricane rails against the injustice of it all, and simultaneously yells at God for the injustice and praises God like Job did, "the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away." The former simply does not have anything meaningful to do with the latter–we're talking about two different things.
There is the world-as-it-works-independently-of-our-observations on the one hand, and then there is the world-as-we-experience-it. These are two very different things and they require two very different kinds of explanations. The two different explanations are not competing for explanatory power whatsoever.
Gman – You are ignorant. All evolution is "microevolution", but 100s of millions of years of micro can get pretty macro.
We don't need any of those repug religious freaks as POTUS either!
Your POTUS is a christian – you did know that Obama believes in Jesus as God?
Not to be using ad hominem tactics, but this guy's picture is creepy.
I find this article to be totally inane. Just because a lot of people think something isn't true doesn't automatically mean it isn't.
And just because a lot of people something is true, that doesn't mean that it is. Given that believers have been trying to prove the existance of their tribal supernatural beings for thousands of years, and that there is no objective factual proof of same, the probability of there being any god(s) is virtually zero.
When are all the "feel-good" hippies going to stop and just admit that science is absolutely 100% in direct conflict with religion. Where is the invisible reconciliatory middle ground they speak of? Can a doctrine based on "faith" eve compete with a doctrine based on evidence? Let me say this: there IS a conflict between science and religion. They are completely at odds. And there WILL be a winner and a loser at the end. I can assure you it won't the people who believe in talking snakes.
Tom, a few questions for you since science has a more plausible explanation:
1. How did a ribosome or cylia manifest itself from natural selection?
2. How did the universe come into being out of nothing and thereby violate man's laws of physics? or do things materially just appear all the time – perhaps while I am at work a horse will appear in my living room?
3. Why is there so much historical evidence of Jesus – including the resurrection and yet respected scientists like Dawkins claim that he never lived?
Actually, Tom, with science there is not much you can "assure" anyone about. Virtually everything is based on probabilities.
Do people still believe the world is flat? No ... why not? Did you know that if you refuted this belief at one time in history, people were tortured or murdered. We still have this same situation today with people thinking in religious rubbish, but the religious arguments are fading one after another.
Religion is a world view, science is not. Science is a method to discern realities of the world about us and it can help discern which world view is more likely correct, but the scientific method itself doesn't favor any given world view.
The atheistic world view is materialism, ie, the notion that there is nothing beyond the physical, material world we see.
19th Century science did indeed seem to favor a materialistic world view. But 20th century science has strongly tilted in the other direction of religion and there being a spiritual reality beyond the physical universe.
energybeing – that is actually a myth – people coming out of educated areas of the world knew the earth was round – the diameter was even calculated (wrongly) back in Aristotle's time... it is a myth set forth by the first biography of columbus – I know that I only learned this about 5 years ago
1. How did a ribosome or cylia manifest itself from natural selection?
2. How did the universe come into being out of nothing and thereby violate man's laws of physics? or do things materially just appear all the time – perhaps while I am at work a horse will appear in my living room?
3. Why is there so much historical evidence of Jesus – including the resurrection and yet respected scientists like Dawkins claim that he never lived?
@gman :
1. through the slow process of evolution. taking millions and even billions of years for a random "upgrade" to survive over another less evolved but similar structure / being / lifeform.
2. no one knows. the willingness to leave open-mindedness on the table and leave that gap in knowledge is fine with me. Your insistence to fill it with something, anything just to get rid of the gap is the problem.
3. historical evidence? Find me some, do you have a hat he wore or something? All you have are stories told from people who were told stories from people who were told stories from people who were told stories..... Regardless of whether the man Jesus of Nazareth existed it is up to YOU to have faith that he was a demi-god. The burden of proof isn't on me. There isn't a single shred of "historical evidence" of a resurrection.
most of the religious creationism beliefs exist simply because man-kind, by default, doesn't accept the fact that they will never have an explanation for something. and since no living human being will ever truly understand the "beginning" of time (beginning is in quotes because even time is relative) then the easiest thing to do is speculate.
but i mean, the wind is just god's breath, right? and the rain, his tears?
@gman: Let's forget for a moment about evolution, natural selection etc. and so on. Just explain me why in order to "create" the universe you are "creating" much much much more complex "being" such as god than the universe itself....Then how can you explain the existence of such "intelligent thing" then at the first place?
@KM – you need to read more – that is the bottom line. In addition to the early dating of all of the gospels and the letters – which were all individuals and not 1 book we have the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Taticus. We have no early period writings indicating that Jesus was not what he said to be – his refutation could have easily taken place in the 50's. You should really read more and try to be more open minded instead of taking what you "heard" from other atheists as fact.
@rs – the universe needs, yes it demands, something transcendent (look it up) because scientific evidence proves that it was created. Now, we also know that time was created at the big bang and that time is relative (unless you want to refute a mountain of accepted science). The creator had no beginning – there was no time – the creator transcends the creation and therefore transcends time
@KM – there was no billions of years of evolution for the first cell. Time is not the hero here. As soon as water appeared on the earth, the first primordial cell also appeared – we have fossils that prove this. Also, how does billions of years explain the cambrian explosion – you know the one event where 35-40 of all body plans of life suddendly appear in the geological record?
No, Tom, they are not at all in conflict (except of course with some people who can't read scripture and don't understand hermeneutics at all).
You can go all the way back to St. Augustine and find where the Church has understood the apparent "conflict" between science and religion was not a conflict at all but rather a misunderstanding of theology.
Of course, so many clueless "atheists" for some reason allow the clueless "Christians" to define the terms and thus make an apparent conflict out of nothing at all.
Go ahead and read the Book of Genesis from beginning to end, and try to forget that there is a creation/evolution debate. If you do so with any competence whatsoever, you will find that at the end of the book, the LAST think that would cross your mind is, "hmmm.... I wonder how this compares to the fossil record?" There's a reason for this:
THE BOOK OF GENESIS WAS NOT WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WHO WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
For this reason, scripture does not at all compete with evolutionary theories (e.g. natural selection) when it comes to explaining the fossil record. Anyone who says otherwise has not read scripture with any competence whatsoever.
1. Not an atheist. I wouldn't be so arrogant. I'm agnostic.
2. I've read everything you probably consider scripture and have become well-educated on the myths of christianity.
3. I'm fine living life without your approval.
@KM – I wish you the best – maybe you are here for a reason? I know that when I was an atheist I never gave the time of day to practices like this. There are great extra-biblical references to Jesus. Also, consider this, even if we did not have the bible, the early church – we are talking 1st century here – quoted scripture so much that you could actually put together the gospel and the writings of Paul just based on the quotations.
> 1. Not an atheist. I wouldn't be so arrogant. I'm agnostic.
Perhaps you should look up what agnostic is. That way you don't look like a tool when you adopt a position that you obviously don't understand.
I'm an agnostic atheist. They're not mutually exclusive. 😛
@gman: You still do not explain why you need this extra complex thing such as god. There is no scientific proof it was created. There is an idea of the big bang, which does not state that it comes from nothing. It just was in somewhat different form. So, I don't understand how you can claim that super-complex god always existed, and then rather simple (compare to the idea of god) universe couldn't always exist (of course, "always existed" means that it did not come from nothing)
"> 1. Not an atheist. I wouldn't be so arrogant. I'm agnostic.
Perhaps you should look up what agnostic is. That way you don't look like a tool when you adopt a position that you obviously don't understand.
I'm an agnostic atheist. They're not mutually exclusive. 😛 "
They are mutually exclusive. agnostic means lack of knowledge. athiest means no god. You can't believe that having a lack of knowledge is okay (agnostic) AND fully believe that you know there is no god (athiesm).
Yet you name call and dare to lecture me? You are the one that needs a dictionary pal.
@Km
I was sort of board until you said you're not an atheist because you can't be so arrogant.....OUCH! How exactly is it arrogant to be an atheist, I'm talking true atheism, not your preconceived notion. True atheism, you see, is the belief that god doesn't exactly. No atheist worth his salt is 100% sure that god does not exsist and if you find an atheist who does believe that then they don't really understand what they are saying. By the way, you can also be Atheist and agnostic, they aren't mutally exclusive. For instance, I'm fairly certain that god (in the bible, brahma, zeus, odin, etc....) probably doesn't exist, however the agnostic point of view is that there could be a higher power, their might not be. See the difference?
@gman
You think that modern classical physics applied during the big bang? Sorry charlie, we already know that laws of nature are thrown out in cosmic explosions, black holes and can theorize that just because we now have the law of the conservation of energy doesn't mean that it applied 14 billion years ago.
To all my fellow atheists/agnostics/freethinkers/humanists, etc. Has anyone ever heard that being the rationalist minority in such a religious country is like being the only sober person in a room full of drunks?
I'll answer to help the discussion along.
> Tom, a few questions for you since science has a more plausible explanation:
It's not about what is more plausable. This is where you are wrong in your thinking. It's about what is proven and shown to be true, not what is more likely. It's moronic to adopt an idea from two possibilities with no evidence because "one is more likely". The only true answer is "I do not know."
1. How did a ribosome or cylia manifest itself from natural selection?
I do not know. Perhaps there is an answer, perhaps there is not. But I have yet to see anything that does not have a naturalistic explanation. Therefore, it's not unlikely that this one has one as well. Perhaps the theory of evolution will fail on this question, but we won't know until we have the answer.
2. How did the universe come into being out of nothing and thereby violate man's laws of physics? or do things materially just appear all the time – perhaps while I am at work a horse will appear in my living room?
You clearly don't understand what people say about the big bang. Maybe you should do some research so you don't spout silly arguments like this.
3. Why is there so much historical evidence of Jesus – including the resurrection and yet respected scientists like Dawkins claim that he never lived?
There is evidence for Jesus, I'd admit, but the only evidence we have is text based. Text is insufficient to support supernatural claims. Just like how people saying "I've been abducted by a UFO" is insufficent to establish the existence of aliens.
But even if there was 100% proof of Jesus rising from the dead, that doesn't mean his teachings are true. It doesn't even mean there's a God. I mean, Lazurus was raised and he wasn't the son of God. So were others. So it seems like coming back from the dead was a rather common event back then.
The reality is that you buy into fairy tales and nonsense because you can't stand the thought of actually dying. You have blocked your mind from even considering you're wrong.
The bible is demonstratably wrong. You'd know this if you were intellectually honest and considered the facts. I'll help you out. The flood of Noah as described in the bible did not occur. We know this by fossil records. If all animals were alive and all animals except a few died, there would be a layer where we find bunnies and dinosaurs and ancient fish and modern plants.
News flash. We don't.
> They are mutually exclusive. agnostic means lack of knowledge. athiest means no god.
You're wrong. And the source you list is wrong. The etymology of the word is to reject theism, which is belief in a God. Welcome to english comprehension 101.
> You can't believe that having a lack of knowledge is okay (agnostic) AND fully believe that you know there is no god (athiesm).
Even with your wrong definition you can. You will have a lack of knowledge of something that doesn't exist.
> Yet you name call and dare to lecture me? You are the one that needs a dictionary pal.
You probably googled http://www.dictionary.com. That's not correct. If you had a clue you'd know that. 🙂
@Tom: The problem is not that they are drunk. The problem is that they are ALWAYS drunk. 🙂
@ laughing – dude you need to learn how to spell. Board? Try bored. Also learn the proper use of their, they're, and there 🙂
Whoops!
Guess my entire point was invalidated. DAMN YOU GRAMMAR!
This is one reason I would never vote for any of them repug religious freaks!
No doubt Mr Prothero worships a tame god. Fortunately (though not so for him) his god is one of his imagination and bears no resemblance to the one true God of heaven and earth, the God and Father of the LORD Jesus Christ, who is the Lamb that was slain and yet lives and who will come in judgment on this generation of neutered religionists.
Your name or your post is ironic.
You may think so KM due to your bias against true science. That is, science which recognizes the foundational truth of the existence of God and his revelation to man through the written word and the living Word.
According to the bible timeline, storms and “predation” started after Noah. Between Adam and Noah we had an extension of the paradise settings, which were a stable climate and a predation free nature system. The Noah “event” was to change this into a self-sustain system that didn’t required “maintenance” , which would had give away God existence to easy, not to mention that humanity could not continue to evolved in a system where animals didn’t have instinctive fear of men.
That being said, anthropology proves storms and predation existed before “paradise” was set up about 6000 years ago so a self sustain nature setup obviously existed long before the so called “paradise with Adam and Eve”. According to the bible, a storm free and predation free nature system should return after the earth gets back to a paradise status (this required an “event” again, called armageddon)
Someday we WILL ALL find out that God has always and still does send storms , earthquakes, etc. to wake people up.Also WE ALL WILL STAND BEFORE HIM SOMEDAY AND CONFESS OUR SINS. and you can be sure there is a heaven and a hell, we will spend forever in one of those two places.
I know RIGHT!? And Harry Potter and Gandolf the Wizard will be there and we can all take rides on the Unicorns. It'll be a BLAST
What a load of crap. If god wants to wake people up just make a miracle. Alll it takes is one but it has never happened.
LOL well thank god your theories are always wrong, Carol. What exactly is god trying to "wake people up" to? That they aren't christian enough? What a dumb statement.
Carol, I'll see you in the rapture capsule with the unicorns. Don't forget to wear your nose ring -the big steel one that I padlocked the chain onto when we were practising for the uplifting.
Just remember to close your mouth this time when the Big Flush starts pulling you down. That way, you won't get those brown bits in your mouth like you did during the practise swirlies.
Unicorns poop skittles! It's a MIRACLE!!!
How can we be sure of such things? Because it was written by bronze age sheep buggerers, then edited and translated? Because someone posts it on a blog?
@Laughing : "You'll find atheists and christians at all education levels, ages and jobs so just because you've stated your background doesn't mean you can't be delusional."
I disagree. Study after study, survey after survey, and poll after poll show one trend. The MORE education you have the LESS religious you are.
I agree with you 100%
However there are still believers in the most educated of circles and atheists in the poorest, most uneducated parts of the country. Now if you look at the numbers, they obviously skew towards believers falling heavily in the uneducated arena and atheists in science and the more educated areas of societies, but Ralph here proves that you can have a college degree, work in finance and still believe with conviction that jesus entered his heart and gave him peace and still consider that in no way delusional.
Well, people can have book smarts without having healthy levels of 'suspension of disbelief' ... there are those who know a lot of facts but then through their indoctrination as children were brainwashed into the Christian or any other supernatural belief system. What helps is reading through a few Atheist web sites at how the Bible is refuted. You will NEVER get this by going to church, why? Because through church and religion, the lies are pushed onto people. There is NEVER an open or healthy discussion in church of the stories being valid or based in reality. If a church or priest can sell you on the belief, they then can start to control you. People are waking up to this.
Energy you must have went to a crazy church when you were younger.
There is no god. It's a fabricated myth invented by delusion, primitive, backward people. Articles like this will cease to be written as more and more realize this.
Doubtful...didn't you see the portion that says an overwhelming majority believe in a deity or god of some type? Read a book, you'll see the same thing. Just because YOU don't believe doesn't mean 90% of the rest of the world doesn't either.
Having said that, I don't believe earthquakes and hurricanes are the wrath of God, either......if God is unhappy with us, I'm thinking there are more subtle ways he uses. I won't even address the idiotic thought of natural disasters showing God's contempt for Obama lol
@ SQR... just because 90% of the people in the world believe something doesn't make it true. If 90% of the world believed in unicorns would that make them real?
So if the majority believes it, it must be true? There's a reason not just anyone wins Nobel Prizes. Get your head out of your ass. There is no giant, white, bearded, invisible dude in the sky who made us from clay.
To SQR: It ain't 90% any more, or haven't you been reading the polls?
@SQR: Just because the majority believe something, that doesn't make them right. Hundreds of years ago, the majority of humans believed the earth was the center of the universe. That didn't make them right, either. There is absolutely no proof or even a shred of tangible evidence to support the existence of any of the gods from any of the hundreds of thousands of religions that humanity has ever invented, therefore they do not exist. (You have to proof that something exists to know that it does, as you cannot prove that something does not exist.)
Tom, the pyramids of Egypt were also fabricated by people. We all know this, and yet this knowledge does not cause these fabrications to disappear, or to crumble.
Human fabrications often have tremendous staying power. Knowledge is no match for them. This is true for physical fabrications such as the pyramids, and it is equally true for cultural fabrications such as God.
Peter qouted the prophet Joel on the day of pentecost – In the last days your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams, and I will pour out my spirit on my menservants and my maidservants........for all you unbelievers, God showed me a vision in 2000, I would be preaching the gospel in schools. In 2008 "He" gave me a dream I would meet 3 men in Austin our capital that would make this happen. All you unbelievers need to invite Christ into your hearts and let Him save you! These are the last days!!!!
I sure hope so. I'm tired of this human experience. Your fear based rant is laughable. I'm not sold. But I have some great snake oil for you to buy. I'll even make up some stories about it since you clearly believe in imagination. C'mon, I won't even expect you to pray to a corpse or eat it's body and drink it's blood. (gag)
The human brain has the capacity for imagination. You surely can make something you imagine come true if you put enough effort into it.
I just imagined I had a bowl of ice cream. Lo and behold, 5 minutes later I'm eating ice cream.
I've had a vision, too. I've seen the world falling to pieces. I've seen death and destruction. I've seen men and women cower in fear. All in the name of God.
KM, that is true. We can imagine. More importantly we can reason and seem (at least to us) to have free will. Still more strangely, we can prove mathematical theorems even though, as the use of Kurt Godel's Incompleteness theorem by Lucas and Penrose shows, a material brain should not be able to do in a mathematically consistent universe. Hence, it would seem that we are not merely physical, but we have some spiritual part as well, at least as far as our intellect is concerned.
And if we know there is a spiritual aspect to the universe, which we now almost certainly do know, then the concept of a God sure isn't very outlandish is it.
Dan : your post is full of nothing but assumption.
I had a vision from Jesus and he told me that there is no such thing as the supernatural.
You're a nut.
No, it is actually mathematics. If you are unfamiliar with it that isn't my problem. But still exists and undermines your statements.
How does one invite beings in which they do not believe? If these are the last days, what is keeping you here? Do you have talll buildings where you live?
Do Christians believe in Scientology or in Mormonism? Why or why not?
Mormons see themselves as Christians. They pray to Jesus' father and put his name on all their buildings.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Is Christianity better or based in more reality over Scientology or Mormonism? How so? Anyone?
EnergyLunatic : you aren't asking for any valid comparision. Scientology isn't a Christian belief system. Mormonism falls under the blanket of Christianity (even if you think it doesn't as an opposing Christian belief structure it does).
Christianity isn't based on either nor derived from either. Base Christianity far predates either of those beliefs. As far as what is "better" or "based in more reality" it's impossible to judge either. I don't think any of them are "better" than agnosticism or based in more reality.
Neither seem based in reality. Scientology to me is the ultimate expression of self-interest. Christianity has this aspect, too, but not so blatant. It's there, but it's hidden in scripture.
I just read about this in a recent issue of "Duh" magazine.
Michele Bauchman needs to be brought into the modern ages and stop handling those snakes or God will stike her down.
I know atheists don't take this kind of evidence into account, however I must say it. I too was very weary of God or anything else existing beyond myself. I thought I was the end-all be-all and that I had life all figured out. Isn't God some sort of fairy tale that losers belive in anyways? Well I decided to research certain things and upon further examination I found more and more credible evidence for God existing, I started to think that maybe, just maybe, God could exist. I decided one day to give it a shot and invite Jesus into my heart, I mean if nothing's there then I won't feel any different anyways and I'll continue on about my day. To my surprise, I felt a strong sense of peace and burden that was lifted off my shoulders. Not a delusional feeling, but something in my heart had completely changed that I couldn't describe.
People can debate back and forth until the end of time whether God exists, however one cannot deny His existence when they have felt Him touch their hearts. Like I said, atheists probably don't consider this evidence (or empirical evidence atleast), but He commanded my attention and fully made himself known at that very moment.
I wish that everybody could feel what I have felt, and I'm sure many have, however there are also many who refuse to, no matter what evidence is presented. Although they say they would believe if given credible evidence, the truth is that no amount of evidence will make them believe, for they have already decided not to.
I wish peace to all and hope that people will do their own research and be honest with yourself. Btw I'm 25, a college graduate, work in a corporate setting (finance), so trying to call me delusional is a cop out.
Of what evidence do you speak?
2 things
1) Atheisism does not entail that a person believe him/herself to be the "end all, be all" and nothing existing outside of the self" That right there shows that you equate atheism with being completely self-absorbed and arrogant.
2) You keep saying it isn't proof that you had a singular experienece where you had peace of mind for a second because you said "Jesus, come here I want to see if you're real", well you're right, so how does that validate your point then?
Lastly, what research did you do exactly to convince you that there is a god and his name is jesus? I've done my own research (religion minor here) and the more research I did, the more convinced I was that religion is a crock.
Also being a 25 year old college grad in marketing, I can say that education and age don't really mean much in terms of religous views. You'll find atheists and christians at all education levels, ages and jobs so just because you've stated your background doesn't mean you can't be delusional.
thumb up ralph God dislike gay or lesbian . your government allows them to marry .. he broke God's laws amen alright
you are delusional.. I can invoke that same sense of peace if I imagine that the flying spaghetti monster is my true savior to let into my "heart"
I totally agree. Thanks for this post.
Out of curiosity, what made you pick Christianity over another religion?
You're delusional. That was easy.
norman,
Wake up! Jesus said that NO ONE should divorce except for infidelity. So physical and mental abuse are okay. He also said that anyone divorcing and remarrying commits adultery.
God "hates" has FAR FAR MORE adulterous Christians than there are gays. Why not avoid hypocrisy and pick on them?
You merely had a delusion caused by the three tacos you had for a midnight snack.
Got any real, valid, factual evidence? Of course not; if you did you would have offered it.
BTW – your heart is merely a muscle that pumps blood.
@ancient – A variety of factors, a few of which are:
1) Christianity is the only religion where we do not save ourselves, it is only through God's grace that we are saved. We have all fallen and come short. Looking around it's pretty obvious how we all fall short.
2) There are many prophecies in the Bible which have been fulfilled, many through Jesus, and many others throughout time.
3) Lots of historical validity to Jesus and the things that were written. Many people gained nothing and lost everything pronouncing to their death what they saw with their own eyes. Sorry, but I don't buy that everyone back then was delusional and running around like dumb chickens. Yes they didn't have the science or technology that we have now, but they still had lives that were very similar to ours.
As I said, these are only a few things and this is obviously a very short summary. Hope this atleast peaks your interest. Many good books are written on the subject (and I'm not talking about crazy fundamentalist Christian's proclaiming the earth is 6k years old, or prosperity gospel teachers, they're false imo).
@Rick, try the Bible for one, biggest collection of evidence man has ever known, yet interestingly the most rejected evidence man has ever known.
Laughing you are 25? I pictured you as a cooky old man.
@John
The bible isn't evidence. people have tried to verify it for many, many years and it's been thoroughly invalidated. Evidence also usually requires multiple sources, can you come up with more evidence than just a singular book?
@JW
Only on the inside.....
@laughing – You do realize that the singular book is a collection of multiple people's stories don't you? Yes, some of them were most likely taken from some others, but a large amount are still wholly independent.
Flavius Josephus would be one person who was a historian, not a follower of Jesus, and references his existence. The fact that hostile sources cite Christ, as well as cite other New Testament personages and events, is evidence for both the existence of Christ and the general veracity of the Bible.
So, it is the most rejected evidence ever....what does that tell you?
Thank you ralph for pointing that out
Now lets think about the council of nicea for a second, which brought all these "separate accounts" together into one book, with the singular purpose of promoting their cause. Personally I think a man named Yeshua probably existed around that time and he did some stuff that inevitably led to his death by crucifixtion, it was pretty common during the time. But the messiah myth has been around forever, legends of a messiah during those times spread all over the place, this one specifically took hold. With modern science however you can debunk a lot of claims that were made in the OT and NT easily, which sort of invalidates the bible as a source. Now, if you found anything aside from the bible that proved there was a man who went by Jesus, he did the things he's attributed to doing and he rose from the dead and blah blah blah I'd be more inclined to believe you. If this source was buried, untouched and found today I would see that as solid proof, until then the bible is pretty lousy to use as the foundation to make your case.
Please provide specifics regarding the things that have been debunked, or I will consider your standard comeback from atheism 101 completely unfounded. I'm looking forward to your cherry picking of scripture and taking phrases literally when they're meant to be taken figuratively.
@Ralph
We can go back and forth on cherry picking, but if you'd like I'll try and stick to "facts" stated in the bible. Before I do however I want to know, what do you consider facts vs. metaphor? For instance was Adam and Eve fact? What about Jonah? I want to know because you could easily take the christianity 101 course on "refuting the atheists" statement by saying that everything I present is supposed to be allegory and metaphor and not taken seriously (even though lots of people do), so what exactly do you think is fact in the bible?
Glen Beck said God brought the storm as a blessing to teach us to hoard food. Michele Bachmann said it was to punish Washington for spending too much. Can both be right? I think the truth is a third option. God brought the storm to tell Beck and Bachmann to shut the he!! up.
The winds of divine judgment do indeed blow in Washington, but they do not come from natural weather conditions. All the bad air in DC is from our elected representatives. God's judgment in this case is to give us the government we deserve.
Actually Washington could use a good rain storm. Maybe it would wash away a little of the sewage there.
I've got some really awesome snake oil to sell TampaMan. It's only going to cost you a few thousand bucks and it will save your immortal soul from going to a really really hot place. C'mon, buy it now, while supplies last.
You are sooo right!!!! Besides we know it's Mother Nature punishing us for what we have done to the Earth (POLLUTION, etc.) !!!!!!
Scientist are seeing things that were predicted and give it detail so of course people can believe it more but they are only making GOD even more real to believe actually. Elijah Muhammad stated many years ago that the mood was indeed apart of the earth millions of years past and only now the scientist agree which before they denied but won't give credit. "And of His signs is [that] He shows you the lightening [causing] fear and aspiration, and He sends down rain from the sky by which He brings to life the earth after its lifelessness. Indeed in that are signs for a people who use reason. -The Romans Surah 30:24"
Scientist are seeing things that were predicted and give it detail so of course people can believe it more but they are only making GOD even more real to believe actually. Elijah Muhammad stated many years ago that the moon was indeed apart of the earth millions of years past and only now the scientist agree which before they denied but won't give credit. "And of His signs is [that] He shows you the lightening [causing] fear and aspiration, and He sends down rain from the sky by which He brings to life the earth after its lifelessness. Indeed in that are signs for a people who use reason. -The Romans Surah 30:24"
Let me get this right... people actually enjoy praying to a dead corpse nailed to two boards?
Have you heard the news?
Jesus isn't dead. He didn't stay that way. We pray to a living savior.
Educate yourself before you insult people.
Believe in Christ Jesus, repent of your sins or you shall surely burn in Hell.
Let me get this right... the one person who died but then magically came back to life, isn't anywhere to be found. Hmmmm very strange. Can you explain this?
Yeah idiot
We don't pray to a dead corpse! We pray to a zombie, God! the ignorance of some people......
Is Jesus a glowing zombie? I'm just hoping I can understand how someone is brutally murdered, dies then magically pops back to life and floats off. That sounds like movie magic to me from something humans have called "IMAGINATION" So is Jesus hanging out with Harry Potter and the Galdolf the Wizard?
TampaMan: How do expect people to fear retaliation from a being in which they do not believe? Do you fear Bugs Bunny?
I worship the skittle-pooping unicorn. He poops in several colorful fruit flavors, with artificial preservatives. My god is an awesome god! SKITTLES!!!
THE BIBLE contains a template or pattern for determining what IS and what ISN'T a judgment from God. When you start talking about this subject, the best recourse for answers is to scripture.
According to the Bible, God would not execute a judgment until and unless he had sent men to announce WHAT He would do and WHY. Usually the WHY had to do with passive indifference toward Him, immorality and social injustice among other things. Announcements by prophets of God usually preceeded said acts of judgments by years and sometimes by decades. Specific judgments were announced and if the population didn't repent of their misdeeds the divine actions were carried out. Post judgment conditions were usually irreversable. For example, Katrina wasn't a judgment of God because repairs and rebuilding have been going on successfully. When God judged an ancient town such as Sodom or Gomorrah, there was nothing left and nothing ever rebuilt. When the tower fell in Jesus' time and several men were killed, Our Lord was asked if the guys had sinned somehow. Jesus said they hadn't.
Sometimes bad things just happen.
I've got some snake oil for you to buy. You'll just love it. I'll also make up some convenient stories for you to believe in using a parental 'reward or punishment' system with several nifty psychological control factors. You'll soon give your allegiance to my imagination and I will control your choices, behaviors and ideas. You won't have a shred of self-empowerment other than by what my made up stories will allow you to have. C'mon IT'LL BE FUN!!!
"And those that do (Robertson, for example) we generally regard as cranks and outliers—relics of a bygone age."
As we should. My own grandparents expected the end times within their lifetimes..so much so that they willed everything to the one son who was not a christian, since he would be the only one 'left behind'....
lol. that is hilarious.
So cool that all the material wealth was left to the only unbeliever in the family and the true believers were "left out". I hope it was your parents who were the beneficiaries.