The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
Offline caposkia wrote:So you have research to back up your claim that it was never intended to be a history?
that's not what i asked.
Cap is just my chewtoy and I am quite sure outside this subject he is a very nice guy. I don't want to drowned anyone. I just wish humans would get off their Santa for adults.
I don't want to drowned him, just all sky daddy delusions.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
How many ways can you say, "if there is a god, the only thing you can call him is a prick".
Fortunately for humanity no such critter exists. Unfortunately for humanity, we only evolved to get to the point of reproduction, we did not evolve to always default to testing the claims we utter.
The fact that absurd claims have always been spewed, and are spewed today and will continue to be spewed, is testimony enough that their is nothing divine or caring about evolution or the universe. Humans have irrational beliefs. Cap merely thinks he is special which he is not.
There is nothing planned or perfect about evolution or the universe. They are mere processes as the result of a what, that has absolutely no concern or capability of being concerned about human existence. It is merely a projection of human's wishful thinking.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Gist simply if you're talking specifically about Jesus would mean he was who he claimed to be. I can't say for sure if everything claimed actually happened about him, but then again, i can't say any of it didn't happen and as a believer in God it's hard for me to say there's any reason to doubt it. Sure, some of it seems kind of far fetched, but that's the idea. In order for Jesus to prove who he was to others, he'd have to do some stuff that is beyond rationale and what normal people are capable of.
The references you gave only indicate possible sources for information, which are apparently highly debated... you can only speculate that the information had been edited and modified due to the fact that there is an unknown source that we have no access to. In other words, we'd have to look at both sources if in fact they did use them and compare differences and see how it was modified. If it was so modified from Mark then that book couldn't be a part of the Gospels because it just wouldn't fit and it would be hurtful toward the belief... but it's there. The idea that Matthew is understood to be an eye-witness (likely) makes it very difficult to support the idea of the gospel writers... or at least Matthew using mark and Q as a source.
you keep using this and referencing to Jesus being baptized and then the church covering it up. The churches tried to cover up a lot that was written in the Bible, but what is written is written. most churches today as far as I'm aware don't deny his baptism. It is written that he himself wanted it. Though just because he was baptized just as everyone else was doesn't mean he was sinful before. Why else get baptized then? A baptism is an outward expression of something that has already happened within.