ATHEISTS REJECT COUNTRY'S TURN TOWARD PRAYER

CHAMPAIGN, Illinois, Sep 27, 01 (CWNews.com) - The US' largest atheist group has rejected the public expressions of piety in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, especially those by politicians, according to the student newspaper at the University of Illinois.

Ron Barrier of American Atheists told the Daily Illini that nationally televised prayer services, presidential references to God, and calls to prayer leave atheists feeling forgotten as US citizens. "Nonbelievers were touched by the tragedy just as much as believers were," Barrier said. "All we're doing is asking for a little sensitivity. Just because one does not have religious beliefs does not make one less of a citizen."

"People who want to pray are free to do so, but we don't because we don't understand what they are doing," Barrier said. "It is humans who will clear this debris up, rescue other humans and rebuild the section of New York City. There will be no divine interference involved. People may find comfort in it, but we fail to see what purpose prayer serves."

Shane Taylor, director of the university's Christian Campus Fellowship, proffered an explanation. "It's such a core Christian idea that God wants a relationship with us," Taylor said. "It's like a relationship with anyone else. We're going to communicate with God over matters of the world, and we're hoping the president and other leaders are asking God for wisdom. We've been told we'll receive guidance and answers from God, and that is why we still pray."

As for the claim that President George W. Bush is promoting religion, Taylor said: "Our president is a Christian. His faith is a part of who he is. It's hard to ask the president not to have his faith be a part of how he responds to the attacks."

Clearly, I do not share your worship of Calvin,

Nobody worships Calvin. Nobody gesticulates before an Icon/Idol of Calvin; Nobody prays to Calvin. Such worship of dead saints is practiced by a different "christian" denomination... Not by Calvinists.

and I refuse to believe that God did not provide a correct interpretation of scripture for the first one and a half millenia of Christianity, for such is not only illogical but intellectually untenable for any Christian.

Christianity has always had a correct understanding of Scripture.

However, this Right Doctrine was generally held, not by Rome (especially after the heretical Canon 13 and Concluding Acts of the Council of Orange), by those non-comformist sects persecuted by Rome:

"If the truth of religion were judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel punishment than these people.... Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers" (Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent, Apud Opera, 112-113)

Also, the catechism presented by Morland and dated by him as being "written in their own language several hundreds of years before either Calvin or Luther" contains this statement which appears to teach Calvinism before Calvin:

By the Holy Catholic Church is meant all the elect of God, from the beginning of the world to the end, by the grace of God through the merit of Christ, gathered together by the Holy Spirit, and fore-ordained to eternal life; the number and names of whom are known to Him alone who has elected them; and in this Church remains none who is reprobate.

The historian Jones cites these authorities who believed that the Waldenses were Calvinists:

Lindanus, a Catholic bishop of the see of Ghent, who wrote in defence of the tenets of the Church of Rome, about 1550, terms Calvin "the inheritor of the doctrine of the Waldenses."

Mezeray, the celebrated historiographer of France, in his Abridgement of Chronology, speaking of the Waldenses, says, "They held nearly the same opinions as those who are now called Calvinists."

Gualtier, a Jesuitical monk, in his chronological tables, drew up a catalogue consisting of seven and twenty particulars, in which he shows that the principles of the Waldenses, and those of the Calvinists coincided with each other...

Aeneas Sylvius (afterwards Pope Pius II) declares the doctrine taught by Calvin to be the same as that of the Waldenses...

Orchard also cites the historian Mezeray: "However various their names, they may be," says Mezeray, "reduced to two, that is, the Albigenses (a term now about introduced), and the Vaudois, and these two held almost the same opinions as those we call Calvinists."

THE WALDENSES WERE INDEPENDENT BAPTISTS An Examination of the Doctrines of this Medieval Sect By Thomas Williamson

So you see, you've simply looked to the wrong "church" for your history of Doctrinal Rectitude. Throughout the correctly-named "Dark Ages", Right Doctrine was held by the Church whose congregants were being burned at the stake... not the Roman "church" which was doing the burning.

Calvinists are often horrified when they hear of Catholics talking about resisting grace or cooperating with God.

No, we aren't.

We simply insist that people's theology on these questions be Biblical.

As Akin himself notes, the Thomists (and even moreso the "Thomist-Augustinians" or "Augustinians") get at least a measure of their doctrine correct on these matters -- that is, they are in large agreement with Calvinists:

Of course, a Calvinist can say (as a Thomistic Catholic would say) that both cooperations in the giving and the embracing of the eternal call are themselves produced (not just enabled) by God's grace, and this is perfectly fine. A Calvinist and a Catholic alike can say that our cooperation is produced by God's operation. No problem at all.

Which, if Akin were honest (he's not), would impel him to admit that his earlier characterization of Calvinists as "horrified when they hear of Catholics talking about resisting grace or cooperating with God" was a bald-faced lie. Not that he's going to admit that, of course.

Bzzzt. Really wrong answer. Neither Mark, nor Luke, nor John, nor any other book in the New Testament mentions a guard being at the supposed tomb -- except Matthew's gospel. And have you ever read Matthew's account? According to the only guard narrative, the guard was placed at the tomb the day after Jesus' death.

Matthew's account is the longest and most detailed of the four Gospels, true enough.

But of course, no one supposes that the Guard was set to watch over an empty tomb. For one to suppose that the Pharisees would petition to place a watch after the Body had been stolen, would be laughable. The Pharisees would have had no reason to set a guard over an empty tomb (besides, weren't you just claiming that the Body was eaten by birds? Tsk, tsk).

Besides the blatant anti-Judaic thrust of Matthew,

No such "anti-Judaic thrust"; The Gospel of Matthew was written by a Jew.

don't you think it's incredibly silly that the priests could buy off the guards afterwards, telling the guards to just say Jesus' resurrection happened while they were asleep on watch, and thus falsely implicating themselves in a capital offense?

No. The Pharisees were not charged with Roman discipline; apparently, whatever story (perhaps even portions of the truth, i.e., the earthquake, etc.?) these soldiers had told their centurion had been accepted as mitigating their offense, and they had not been convicted of Dereliction.

Having already escaped the sentence of death for Dereliction, I don't suppose that they were, at that point, above making a little money on the side.

You ought to try something: attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts with each other (and don't forgets 1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Okay. A Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

The development of the resurrection myth is incredibly fascinating. But to claim it's fact is pure fantasy.

The fool hath said in his heart, "there is no God".

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. -- F. F. Bruce Manchester University

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . -- E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University

I takes a lot of faith to say "There IS NO God." But at least they believe in something (er...uhm...is that nothing?)

Which 'God' does it take faith to say that about, or are you referring to just any god amongst the thousands conceived in every human religion that believes in such an entity? Keep in mind that as atheists (note the spelling it is *not* athIEst) do not believe in any gods, and as such the statement "There IS NO God" without qualifiers as to which 'God' is somewhat silly (and yes, I do believe atheists who make such statements without qualifiers to the God to which they are referring are speaking nonsense). Would you say that it takes faith to say "There IS NO Zeus" or "There IS NO Vsnu"? Would it take more or less faith than "There IS NO God"?

Personally I don't care for American Atheists. They seem bent on presenting atheists as some kind of collective 'organization' with like-minded beliefs and ideals when really the only commonality amongst atheists is the abscense of theism. I don't care for 'official' calls for prayer from government offices (mind you that's offices and *not* officials) because it can carry the implication that citizens should be believers. Also, I think that some people of faith might be offended by the notion that the government needs to call them to piety as though they can't think to acknowledge their god on their own. I do think that calls for prayer from private organizations (especially, oh, religious institutions) are their own business. AA is often too whiny for my liking.

"All we're doing is asking for a little sensitivity. Just because one does not have religious beliefs does not make one less of a citizen."

True, but it does make one less of a person.

To deny our "eternal DNA" is to place one in the same realm as that of beasts. While we share a physical origin with the beasts of the field, humans are unique as to their creation as eternal beings.

A root word for "man" is "anthropos," which basically means "to look upward." Man instinctively knows that we are destined for a life after the physical. The question is whether one will be reunited with his Creator or not.

I believe that they are frustrated people, especially when they understand that their denial of a Supreme Being is vastly outweighed by the billions of people on earth who hold to such a belief and sense of eternity. If humans share such absolutes as physical and emotional hunger, then why is it so hard that we share a spiritual hunger as well? Are athiests the only ones, out of the billions on earth, that are right? I think not.

Thus, if amputation makes a body less a body, then the "self-amputation" of God from ones life makes them less a person.

Subtle differences? John and the Synoptics disagree on which day the resurrection occurred. That's not a subtle difference.

Matthew said, "And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

Matthew claimed that not only Jesus was resurrected, but that many saints were resurrected. And like I said, the development of the resurrection myth is incredibly interesting, so have you studied the textual history of Matthew 27:53? The "after his death" is obviously a later textual change, to bring Matthew's account more into line with the Pauline accounts, which said that Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection. But did you notice what the insertion of "after his death" does to Matthew's text? When Jesus died, many saints were resurrected, but they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus' resurrection? Come on.

In any case, don't you think it's more than a subtle difference that neither Paul nor Mark nor Luke nor John mentioned this resurrection of many saints? If I were on a jury and had four supposed witnesses to an event (say a robbery) and then one of them (and only one) says, "Oh yeah, and there were a lot of dead people who were resurrected, too," I'd have good reason to think he was lying.

The linked page to the harmony you posted isn't a bit impressive. And this might be a fun project for you this weekend: without leaving out a single phrase from any of the five resurrection narratives, arrange them in a harmonious narrative. Start with a blank timeline and start plugging in the different accounts, without having any contradictions. No one's been able to do it yet; you might be the first.

Alas, I must work now.....

I believe athiests are generally confused people who struggle with inward instincts that they attempt to explain away with logic, although logic is confined to the temporal. They are puzzled when they view people who exhibit a faith in an unseen "Being" because their view of "reality" extends no further than their fingertips. I believe that they are frustrated people, especially when they understand that their denial of a Supreme Being is vastly outweighed by the billions of people on earth who hold to such a belief and sense of eternity. If humans share such absolutes as physical and emotional hunger, then why is it so hard that we share a spiritual hunger as well? Are athiests the only ones, out of the billions on earth, that are right? I think not.

I think that you are letting your own beliefs taint your assesment of atheists. I won't presume to speak for all atheists -- I don't know all atheists -- but I can speak from my own experience and from speaking with others.
Many atheists I've met are not puzzled at all about the religious beliefs of other people -- they find religion to be a perfectly understandable human invention. A common hypothesis is that religion got its start when human brains became more sophistacted and the sense of awareness grew and with it came unanswerable questions like why was there rain (and thunder) and where did the animals come from and gods were invented to explain such phenomena. From this early religion came the clerics, people who claimed to speak with the gods (and may well have believed that they were speaking with such) and used their communications with entities so in control of human lives to become leaders, from where religion was born. Religion persisted because people were taught from childhood of the gods and never questioned the validity of such teachings, then went on to teach their own children. Eventually entire societies believed in the god or gods, and everyone knows that if the majority believes something then it has to be right -- hence the seeds for modern religion were planted. Well, western religion. You will find that many eastern religions do not share a similar concept of a 'supreme being' that runs paralell to Yaweh, Allah, Jehovah or God.

(Note that the above is *not* intended to be an assertion of truth or validity of the contents therein. It is simply a very abbreviated and very generalized possible explaination of the origins of religion)

Atheists who have never known deep-rooted theism really can't relate to this 'spiritual' hunger that you refer to, so I don't know how to address it -- I don't know what to look for whithin myself to 'rationalize' away with my atheist 'logic'. I would have to refer you a former 'born-again' Christian who lost faith (and I have met a few) for that matter.

What, because I disdain agnosticism in its modern form, I'm a bigot? A troll? Preaching hatred?

Hardly.

To further define terms, I disdain the type of agnosticism elucidated in this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia (bigoted agnosticism, if you please):

(6) The extreme view that knowledge of God is impossible, even with the aid of revelation, is the latest form of religious Agnosticism. The new theory regards religion and science as two distinct and separate accounts of experience, and seeks to combine an agnostic intellect with a believing heart. It has been aptly called "mental book-keeping by double entry". Ritschl, reviving Kant's separatist distinction of theoretical from practical reason, proclaims that the idea of God contains not so much as a grain of reasoned knowledge; it is merely "an attractive ideal", having moral and religious, but no objective, scientific, value for the believer who accepts it. Harnack locates the essence of Christianity in a filial relation felt towards an unknowable God the Father. Sabatier considers the words God, Father, as symbols which register the feelings of the human heart towards the Great Unknowable of the intellect.

(7) Recent Agnosticism is also to a great extent anti-religious, criticizing adversely not only the knowledge we have of God, but the grounds of belief in Him as well. A combination of Agnosticism with Atheism, rather than with sentimental irrational belief, is the course adopted by many. The idea of God is eliminated both from the systematic and personal view which is taken of the world and of life. The attitude of "solemnly suspended judgment" shades off first into indifference towards religion, as an inscrutable affair at best, and next into disbelief. The Agnostic does not always merely abstain from either affirming or denying the existence of God, but crosses over to the old position of theoretic Atheism and, on the plea of insufficient evidence, ceases even to believe that God exists. While, therefore, not to be identified with Atheism, Agnosticism is often found in combination with it. (See ATHEISM.)

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law. It is the systems of partial Agnosticism, therefore, which merit examination. These do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge They are buildings designedly left unfinished.

The linked page to the harmony you posted isn't a bit impressive.

I believe that this portion of you reply was to be directed to Uriel1975 in #123. I also believe that none are so blind as those who refyse to see.

Subtle differences? John and the Synoptics disagree on which day the resurrection occurred. That's not a subtle difference.

Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 all state "the first day of the week". Repeat, ALL OF THEM. A difference so subtle as to be no difference at all.

If I were on a jury and had four supposed witnesses to an event (say a robbery) and then one of them (and only one) says, "Oh yeah, and there were a lot of dead people who were resurrected, too," I'd have good reason to think he was lying.

OK, I think I can plow through this mixed analogy. Let's stick with your four people that saw the robbery. Than the fifth comes in and says "Yeah, I saw the robbery, and I saw the robber and the cops shooting at each other, too"; it would be a great injustice to discount the testimony from the other four who reported diferrent aspects of the same event. I have not exactly gotten used to objective evaluation on this topic from either side of this debate, however. At least you have not used the horribly fallacious argument of the "mistranslated" New Testament, which is factually inaccurate, and also demands that you believe that "errors" in translations all produce the same basic narrative, with only some personal, subtle observations being diferrent.

And this might be a fun project for you this weekend: without leaving out a single phrase from any of the five resurrection narratives, arrange them in a harmonious narrative. Start with a blank timeline and start plugging in the different accounts, without having any contradictions. No one's been able to do it yet; you might be the first.

I did not claim a complete harmony in the eyewitness accounts, if there were, this would support a claim of fabrication. I have been a witness in many court cases, and one thing that will raise the attention of any attorney that can fog a mirror is testimony being TOO identical. It screams of collusion between the parties testifying.

While we are on the subject of challenges, perhaps you can indulge in one of my own. Explain to me possible motives for:

1) A man denying that he even knew a Rabbi six weeks later proclaiming a "blasphemy" about the identity of that Rabbi, face to face with the men that caused the death of that Rabbi for "balsphemy"[Luke 22 54-62 & Acts 4: 1-12];
2) How Saul of Tarsus, by his own admission and confirmed by other accounts, went from being a man who got his jollies from killing christians to the author of most of the new teastament[Acts 8:1-3, 9:1 & 2, Gal. 1:11-24]; and
3) Why the early church fathers would have persisted in the evangelism, even to their deaths, knowing that the resurrection was a lie?

Many have tried to answer these questions in a way that discounts the origin of the Christian faith being based on the historical ocurrence of the Resurrection and is logically coherent; no one's been able to do it yet, you might be the first...

The Libertarian answer? Abolish.

Yep, that sumarizes the LP.

Taxes - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Laws against abortion - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Laws against drugs - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Laws against pornography - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Laws against prostitution - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Zoning Laws - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
National Parks - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
The Coast Guard - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
The FAA - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
The FDA - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Insider Trading Laws - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Zoning Laws - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Building Codes - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Parental Authority - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Immigration Laws - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
The Border Patrol - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
The INS - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.
Public Schools - The Libertarian answer? Abolish.

You really do the LP a service, thank you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.