's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

US--The Next Great Awakening?(29 posts)

US--The Next Great Awakening?ColnagoFE
Aug 15, 2003 6:37 AM
Are we really in the midst of a fundementalist revolution? Is Science taking a backseat to faith? Are the "hanging chads" of Florida really god's will? Interesting article:
thank you, Bin Laden nmDougSloan
Aug 15, 2003 6:42 AM
As an atheist in the U.S.A., I keep a low profileContinental
Aug 15, 2003 7:38 AM
And this survey shows why. 60% of the population believes that I can't be moral because I don't believe in God. For me, atheism is motivation for morality. I believe that there is no forgiveness from a God. It is completely within my power to be either the highest life form on earth or the lowest life form on earth. Every immoral, unethical, inconsiderate act degrades me. Every moral, ethical, considerate act uplifts me.

I'm extremely uneasy about voting for Republicans along with the religious right. I don't understand the connection between the religious right and pro-business, pro-defense policies that I support. I wish that all the Jesus freaks would move over to Old Ed's party and become far left liberal socialist pacifist commies.
Nah, we already got enough weirdos in our base. YouOldEdScott
Aug 15, 2003 9:50 AM
keep 'em. They'll be the ruination of your party yet!
As an atheist in the U.S.A., I keep a low profileTri_Rich
Aug 15, 2003 10:00 AM
I am going to steal this from a more eloquent person than I;

"The sheer number of people running for governor in the California recal election(200?!!) got me thinking.

Can you imagine Jesus running for President in the 2004 election?

How would He fare? My guess is that He wouldn't win. In fact, I don't think He would get more than a small percentage of the vote.

Here are some of the reasons why:

He would be branded as a left-wing, ultra –liberal on all the cable-TV and commercial radio talk shows, influencing tens of millions of voters to question his ability to make the hard, no-guts/no-glory decisions concerning the security of our nation and keeping the lifestyle Americans have grown accustomed to intact, yet his presumed stand against the legitimacy and legality of gay marriages, and abortion would be strongly supported by the right.

His views on sharing wealth with all people-including "the meek, the tired, the hungry, the sick and the poor"- would be considered by right-wing, conservative Bush boys as too open handed to lazy, uneducated people and labeled as just another example of welfare gone wild. Rush Limbaugh would have a field day.

The wealthiest people of our nation-a small minority controlling the majority of our economic resources-would consider Him a hostile candidate intent on upsetting their private monopolies, their long-term investments and their vast riches. We can't have someone like that sitting in the Oval Office, can we?

What about His positions concerning peace on Earth and the brotherhood of man? Are you kidding? During the current climate of war, revenge, homeland security and pre-emptive strikes, Jesus would be crucified as an unpatriotic sissy who is detached from the reality of the dangerous and hostile world that we live in, and as unwilling to play along with the corporate mentality this country has adopted. Major decisions based on Christlike, spiritual integrity seem to have no place in the way we want our country run.

Simply, in today's political atmosphere Jesus would in all likelihood be viewed by the majority of the voting public and the mainstream media as a candidate with an unrealistic platform. He wouldn't stand a chance. Even our country's rather large Christian voting bloc would not embrace his goals and vision for the future, especially if it meant a dent in their financial portfolios-and neither would I.

Let's imagine, though, a debate between Jesus, and King George Bush:

"That crap-uh-or that stuff about the unification-ality of the world, to me is a bunch of,, uh, hogwash that doesn't cut the mustard when you're dealing with the axis of evil. The only way to win this darned thingy is to do what our real saviour, John Wayne, would do. Go out there with both barrels loaded and kick some you-know-what."the King would say.

All you Democrats out there, don't laugh. Jesus could be your only hope in the upcoming election year."
re: US--The Next Great Awakening?Tri_Rich
Aug 15, 2003 8:19 AM
Do these stats and the increase in political conservatism mean that America is becoming less "intellectually complex"?
depends on how you look at itColnagoFE
Aug 15, 2003 8:34 AM
I think most people are glad to get their political information from soundbites. They subscribe to their favorite cult of personality and then don't feel the need to think for themselves. Same with religion for the most part.
Aug 15, 2003 8:48 AM
Although I was actually using the term in the way it was defined in an earlier thread along the lines of "seeing things in black and white", I think you are right.

I was raised in the Episcople church and certainly feel that it has lost members because it is demanding of it followers. The church serves more of a guideing role on a religious journey than as a source of "ultimate truth".
Aug 15, 2003 8:58 AM
Welcome to the great dumbing-down of America. School curriculums are a joke, people get there news from MTV, and think that the most important thing going on is what Ben and J.Lo had for dinner last night.

Case in point: I worked with a guy that is 3 yrs out of U. of Maryland. He has a degree in communications and yet, reads and writes on about a ninth grade level. It's sad, really. And this is the trend for many, not all, in the school systems. I went to a prep school in CT - No, I'm not rich, but my family did believe in giving me the best education possible. It's shocking to compare educational experiences with friends who have been pushed through public schools. All of this is leading to the current trend of people in the U.S. relying more and more on the opinions and thoughts of others in the media to formulate their own views.
How many errors in this denunciation of public education?cory
Aug 15, 2003 11:35 AM
I'm reluctant to post this because I know it will be taken personally, and I only mean it to point out the danger of kneejerk condemnation of almost anything. But I count two misspellings, one pluralization mistake, two or three comma faults (one is debatable), an incorrect pronoun and some structural things that are, if not technically incorrect, at least awkward.
My 17-year-old daughter, a student in public schools in a state ranked in the bottom five nationally, spotted all but one of them.
Let me lay some basics out for y'alllotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 9:01 AM
There seems to be so much misunderstanding about Christians and the Bible that I can't fathom why it can be so hard, but here goes.

PBS and other "intellectual" type (which is not intended as a complimentary term) outlets tend to go for Bible information where they find people who agree with them and their position.

Meaning, they go to places like Harvard Divinity for BIble experts.

These BIble experts don't really believe anything in the BIble as factual unless they intellectually deem it so. Meaning, it's all up for grabs depending on what's racy.

For example, the Bible plainly states many things. Like Jesus was born in Bethlehem, BUT these Einsteins say "well, I, I mean we, don't beleive that. We think it would more likely had been Galilee because it was more socieo-economically powerful and of importance......"

Bottom line, a guy throwing that specific out really has no credibility about trusting the BIble or God in any way, yet that is the source of most PBS expert testimonies on the Bible (Harvard Divinity).

Christians believing the Bible when it states Mary had a virgin birth, believe it as such, not needing some Harvard Divinity guy to give them faith in it.

Christians are supposed to believe, why harp on them when they do. Only "intellectual types" (not a compliment) find any humor in that, when it's logical to every one else.
Let me lay some basics out for y'allTri_Rich
Aug 15, 2003 9:10 AM
Some of are christians; however being a christian and being able to think critically and independently are not mutually exclusive.

Jesus frequently spoke in parables; stories which were not factually accurate but which helped the listener understand the message he was teaching. Why should we not believe that parts of the bible are not similarly intended.

Bear in mind also the fact that the bible as literally written contains factually inconsistencies even about the life of Jesus (one of the gospels does not tell the same history as the other three).

"If logic is a gift from god are we not sinning by wasting that gift."
not to mention the problems of translation (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 15, 2003 9:28 AM
not to mention the problems of translation (nm)BikeViking
Aug 15, 2003 9:46 AM
Or the muddling of humanity when it came to selecting what did/did not "make the cut" into the Bible.

Gospel of Thomas anyone?
Thomas is great. And there are others. nmOldEdScott
Aug 15, 2003 9:54 AM
Jesus was a historical figure.czardonic
Aug 15, 2003 9:45 AM
Those "einsteins" on PBS aren't trying to represent themselves as authorities on "trusting the Bible or God". They are representing themselves as historians who are interested in the actual history of Christianity, and how it relates to the narrative account found in the Bible.
Lay out the real basicsContinental
Aug 15, 2003 10:24 AM
People who believe that the Bible is literal truth also must believe in literal Hell, an eternal existence in a lake of fire, for most of the population of the earth. "He that believeth not shall be damned." "Many are called but few are chosen." "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." If I remember right, the new testament has more verses about hell then about heaven.

So Lotterypick, do you believe that all atheists, Jews, Hindus, Budhists, Muslims, Catholics, and Liberal Christians must either convert to your form of Christianity or burn forever in Hell? Or are you picking and choosing which Bible stories to believe?

Do you believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and loving God who created humans and says in his Bible that most of them will go to Hell?
Nice Questionlotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 10:44 AM
You are right that God is loving and wishes all people to be saved, however not all will. Now let me answer your question.

Hell is a real place, but not one created by God for hate but love.

There are many people in this world who want nothing to do with God. in fact, if they never were around God they would be very happy (they think).

So God in His love created a place where he is not. That place is called Hell. It's just a place, however that place is not a good place.

God's protection isn't there. There is no real love, but tons of lust, no joy, no peace, no gentleness, no kindness, etc.

The Bible says it's not nice. That's a good warning, but as in all heaven and hell like things. It's accurate description can't be put on paper to do it justice.

Heaven will be great and wonderful, Hell will be hell and that's a forever choice.

As for who goes, I guess that's for each person to answer. God will ask them if they will accept the reality of the situation (meaning, He's God and you are not). Some will submit, embrace it and have a great time forever and some will say no way and live for eternity with that.

The Bible does say that every person gets a chance, I believe that it's true, therefore I hope for all to make the right choice. It's really not my business what eveyone else does or choses, only what I do and chose.
Hell has all the good bands though!ColnagoFE
Aug 15, 2003 10:50 AM
I'd hate to have to listen to Pat Boone all day long.
That's a hard onelotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 11:04 AM
I've gotten rid of all my secular music and it was hard as they all have memories attached of fun, but....

There is good Christian music like Third Day, Delirious, PASSION, OC Supertones, etc. that make very good replacements. Lots of kids both CHristian and secular like POD for example.

The difference is lyrics, not musical quality (now).

If you listen to secular lyrics often it's garbage that most wouldn't sign up to but the tunes good, therefore they sing the song.

With Christian music the words are good and true, which shouldn't be confused with mamby pamby easy and nice.

My family likes it, because it's good and real in general Christian terms. Meaning, I can't listen to Sting and his confused whinings of philosophy and spirituality.

Just letting you know the CHristian music, especially Third Day, Jennifer Knapp, Delirious and OC Supertones (Ska) really have made Christian music good in lots of ways.
How 'bout...jesse1
Aug 15, 2003 3:50 PM
..."A Ragamuffin Band", Rich Mullins, Fernando Ortega, Michael Card, "The Call", Greg Long, "Petra". There's some pretty good stuff there. A bit more diverse than Pat Boone.
That doesn't sound like the Hell in the bibleContinental
Aug 15, 2003 11:30 AM
Is Hell a lake of fire, or have you decided that the fire is symbolic? Your entire intrepation of Hell as a place made by God out of love is not in the Bible. Hell is for punishment and God's vengeance. "leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord."

If you can decide that the fire is symbolic, and if your can make up your interpretation of Hell, can't you also decide that creation, Noah's ark, Jonah's whale, Virgin Birth are symbolic and make up an interpretation of these?
That doesn't sound like the Hell in the biblelotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 12:34 PM
Creation, Noah's Ark, Jonah and VB are all historical, whereas Hell is descriptive.

Maybe it does have fire that you live through yet it torments you. I don't know, I'll go with the description in the Bible and still hold the love answer as why it exists.

I do know it's not a good place. God does hate the reasons that people chose to it yet they run to it any way. strange.
God loves me so he made hell for me?Continental
Aug 15, 2003 2:09 PM
So, your God's omniscient. He knew my destiny. Before he created me He knew that my intellect would reject Him. So he sends me to Hell which is an eternally very unpleasant place (or He doesn't preserve me from Hell with his omnipotence). He does this to most people he creates, and clearly states in his Word: "Many are called but few are chosen." Yet He is a God of Love.

I know that in your brainwashed state this is all perfectly logical, and you'll have a response that makes absolute sense to you. I hope someday your intellect can free you from this cruel religious belief.
Deeper and deeperlotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 2:34 PM
Now your getting into parts I can't say about. Meaning, it's a mystery to me. Predestination and all, but you apparently know it.

There are just some places where you just have to say, I don't know and this is one of them for me.

I think in the end everyone gets to make their choice and people who say they have, maybe haven't in the end (can't lose what you didn't really have) and those who think they'll never, may change their mind down the road.

I just have to make my choices every day as do you.

Let's agree to make the best choices we can. Stay soft hearted to others just do our best.

We'll definately fail in perfection, but we can try.

Don't hate me cause I use Michelins, they came with the bike. Trek 5500. I suck but my ride doesn't.

Have fun this weekend.
Deeper and deeperJon Billheimer
Aug 15, 2003 5:46 PM
If one subscribes to anywhere close to a literal interpretation of the Bible, there are a LOT of places you have to say, "I don't know." A lobotomy would help.
No hate. You're sisterlike, remember. Hate would defile me. nmContinental
Aug 15, 2003 6:16 PM
Wouldn't mind it so muchfiltersweep
Aug 15, 2003 9:36 AM
It would be different if these right-wing holy rollers tossed in some New Testement theology... maybe the death penalty wouldn't be quite as supported... maybe our foreign policy would be less hawkish... let's face it- religion has been MANIPULATED to serve political ends. Many fandamentalist "Christian" sects are rather primitive in their theology, and actively practice things like "shunning" member who will not step in line. There is almost a paranoid disdain of "secular humanism," the "homosexual agenda," etc... and a tendency to lump academia into the liberal camps. Home schooling?!

People just want some spiritualism in their lives... I think astrology and psychics are as popular as ever... despite the fact that their values clash with Christianity.

I'm not worried- there WILL be a backlash. I'm guessing the erosion of meaning of almost all American institutions as well as flight to the suburbs has largely contributed to the issue... doesn't mean much else to be middle class and white these days with a stinking economy... might as well blame the liberals for letting the devil in!
re: US--The Next Great Awakening?Duane Gran
Aug 15, 2003 12:42 PM
I would be happy to see more people embrace faith, but I don't think faith means that a person clocks out on their intellect. Reading, by nature is an interpretive exercise. I personally don't come away from reading the Bible with a fundamentalist perspective, but if someone believes in the virgin birth that doesn't preclude him or her from also believing in evolution or other humanist viewpoints.

I think it is healthy to be skeptical about various humanist teachings, but I don't like it when someone treats the Bible as if has the answer to every question. Are we in the midst of a fundamentalist revolution? Maybe. It looks like people are trying hard to find meaning in the world.