After subscribing to a free copy of the weekly arch-conservative rag, Human Events, I decided not to actually pay for the thing (if I read "no amnesty" one more time I’m gonna send a letter bomb). But the one good thing that came from that subscription was the fact that they put me on the mailing list for the Conservative Book Club. Each month, they send me an invite to join them, with a fat envelope pushing the latest books, and many of the books look good. They cover the following topics:
- Who Really Cares – Conservatives are much more generous and compassionate than liberals
- Western Lit – How Universities have gutted the traditional western civ. courses and replaced them with feminist, Marxist, and racist agendas
- Can a Catholic be a Democrat? – Not anymore.
- Liberal Lies – A fact book to dismantle common liberal canards
- The Constitution Explained – by more than 100 conservative scholars
- Moslems – a collection of essays from as early as 1908, showing that western scholars have long recognized Islam as an enemy of western peace and freedom
- The evil next door – What the press does’t tell you about non-Christian religions
Here’s some excerpts to discuss.
Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide – Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters
"When President Bush coined the term "compassionate conservatism,"
many conservatives were understandably miffed. It seemed to concede to
liberals that traditional conservatives are indeed a greedy, selfish
bunch – unlike liberals, with their "commitment" to the poor and
disadvantaged. Now comes an amazing new book that buries that old
canard forever. In Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide – Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,
Arthur C. Brooks uses hard data to prove that, when it comes to
charitable giving, conservatives, “especially religious conservatives" are far more generous than liberals, who seem to believe that compassion begins and ends with voting for government handouts."
The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature
The study of literature is essential to preserving Western culture and transmitting it to future generations. Yet today’s English departments have come under the control of people who teach anything but the English and American literary classics. Even when the subject is Shakespeare or Faulkner, the professor’s own politics — Marxism, feminism, or some similar radical agenda — will be the real content of the course.
What PC English professors don’t want you to learn from:
- Beowulf: Heroes deserve our respect and gratitude. If we don’t admire them, there’s something wrong with us
- Medieval English literature: The wisdom of the past beats the latest expert opinion, hands down
- Milton: Our intellectual freedoms are Christian, not anti-Christian, in origin
- The Romantic poets: Intelligent radicals become conservatives when they grow up — make that, if they grow up
- Wordsworth and Coleridge: The difference between entertainment that degrades and entertainment that refreshes and ennobles
- Evelyn Waugh: Without religion, human beings are disgustingly selfish
and shallow — and in abandoning Christianity, our culture will shrivel
and die
The Democratic Party of the 1930s and ‘40s was in many ways the
natural home of American Catholics. Patriotic and the self-proclaimed
champion of the common man, it appealed strongly to millions of
working-class, first- and second-generation Catholic immigrants who had
proudly embraced their new home in America. But it also stood for the
Christian morals that Catholics shared with their Protestant neighbors
– as well as a respect for the rights of property, and a staunch
opposition to communism and socialism, that the popes had enunciated in
their social encyclicals. But all that changed in the 1960’s, with the
rise of a new kind of Democrat: wealthy, secular, ideological. So
complete this transformation has been that we no longer speak of a
natural alliance between Catholics and the Democratic Party. Now, David
Carlin, a cradle Catholic and former Democratic politician —
here asks whether today it’s even possible to be both a faithful
Catholic and a Democratic true believer.
Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies
It happens to all of us: we’re debating some liberal friend or
colleague when he makes an unsupported claim we’re just positive is
false, but we don’t have the hard facts to prove it. Or we’re
confronted with slick arguments for, say, legalizing gay
marriage, but aren’t quite ready with the strongest
counter-arguments. Now there’s help. In Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,
Boston talk-radio host Gregg Jackson provides tightly argued, fully
documented responses to no fewer than 241 of the most common claims
made by the Left on all the most important political, social, and
cultural issues of our day.Among the 241 claims soundly refuted in Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies:
- Legalized abortion reduces child abuse
- Prayer in schools is unconstitutional
- To stimulate a slow economy, we should increase government spending
- The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual’s right to own a gun – only the right of states to maintain militias
- America needs a government-run health-care system like Canada’s to keep costs down and solve the problem of the uninsured
- The death penalty doesn’t deter violent crime
- Sex education in public schools reduces the number of unplanned pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases
- Global warming is real, and results from human activity
- Our planet is grossly overpopulated
- The 9-11 attacks occurred because of U.S. support for Israel
- America’s wealth is responsible for breeding the global poverty which creates terrorism
- Banning ‘gay marriage’ is akin to banning interracial marriage
- Children raised by homosexuals are as well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexuals
- Affirmative action ‘levels the playing field’ and gives disadvantaged minorities a fair chance to compete
- Tax cuts cause budget deficits
- Higher marginal tax rates for the rich are only fair – progressive taxation levels the playing field
- The American colonists stole America from the Native Americans and the Mexicans
- Western civilization is not superior to any other culture – all cultures are basically equal
- Conservatives oppose welfare because they don’t care about the poor
- The Founding Fathers were slave-owning hypocrites who only gave lip service to liberty and equality
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution brings together more than
100 of the nation’s best conservative legal scholars to provide the
first ever clause-by-clause examination of the complete Constitution,
revealing its real meaning according to the original intent of the Framers.Discover the real meaning of the Constitution:
- The "general Welfare" clause: to liberals, the charter for
the Welfare State. How its original intent was to limit federal spending- Why the Constitution plainly forbids dual citizenship —
though millions of American citizens today are also active citizens of
other countries (some hostile to ours)- The "Necessary and Proper" clause: why it was meant to
authorize Congress to enact laws plainly adapted for executing only
Congress’s enumerated powers — not (as liberals think) any law
Congress considers "reasonable"- How the Framers limited federal court involvement to
matters between states, not within them — meaning that federal courts
had no right to overturn state laws- The Establishment Clause: How the Supreme Court in recent years has put the First
Amendment’s "No Establishment of Religion" and "Free Exercise of
Religion" clauses in mutual tension — and why it was not so for the
Framers- Why most of the Founders did not believe that government
should be "untainted" by religion — and, to the contrary, believed it
was a necessary support of good government
* What exactly did the Framers mean — and, no less important, not mean
— by "Freedom of Speech"? How the Court has taken it far afield of
their original intent- The "Incorporation Doctrine": How this novel (post-1940s)
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has been used by the Courts
to make most provisions of the Bill of Rights limit the power of the
states in the same way they limit the federal government- The Eighth Amendment’s primary purpose in forbidding
"cruel and unusual punishment" — nothing at all to do with forbidding
capital punishment- The Ninth Amendment: originally designed to prevent the
expansion of federal power seemingly implied by the listing of
prohibitions within the Bill of Rights — yet more often today cited to
create new rights (such as abortion) to be enforced on state
legislatures
Moslems: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Politics
Belloc’s essay on Moslems, together with five important and meaty
Catholic Encyclopedia articles by scholar Gabriel Oussani in 1908,
comprise this valuable new book. Major themes:
- What Mohammed actually taught. Why it’s heresy
- What’s in the Koran? A healthy sampling
- How close the Moslems came — as recently as three centuries ago — to dominating Europe by force
- Mohammed’s background, lineage, wives, offspring, disciples
- Islam and women
- Why the Moslem military threat was so real … then collapsed
- Why it’s a mistake to think Moslems can’t adapt to, and use, technology
- The real origins and astonishingly rapid development of Islam
- Why it remains a potent religious force to this day
- Where Christians and Moslems can agree doctrinally
- Islam’s corrosive effect on culture and its own people
- Paradoxically, why it enjoyed a period of high culture and intellectual achievement
- All about the Crusades (and why do Christian leaders apologize for them?)
- Christianity in Arabia: once dominant, then dominated by Moslems (not a pleasant fate, then or now)
The Religions Next Door: What We Need To Know About Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, And Islam—and What Reporters Are Missing
Marvin Olasky tells the truth about about non-Christian religions —
and the danger of believing that all religions hold different
variations of the same tenets.The heart of Olasky’s book is his
straightforward treatment of the four major non-Christian religions —
for each of which he provides a concise yet thorough account of its
history, beliefs, rituals, and key figures, plus a glossary of terms.
"It is neither wise nor compassionate to remain uninformed . . . when
one culture may be threatening another, to settle for the most
superficial coverage of that culture’s belief, or to assume that both
cultures have essentially the same understanding of who God is," Olasky
warns.A tiny sampling of Marvin Olasky’s insights:
- How many reporters and editors at leading publications attend
religious services weekly? Five in ten? Four in ten? Three? (Keep
going, you’ll get there)- How syncretism — the attempt to merge religions under the
assumption that they are all basically the same — creates an illusion
of similarity that can be dangerous, especially when it applies to
reporting on religions with militant aspects- How the favorable treatment Islam has gotten from the press and in schools has fostered its growth in America
- The profound differences between God and "Allah," and between the "paradise" of Islam and the Heaven of Christianity
- Why Islam has no concept of "inalienable rights," but accords a subservient status to Jews and Christians, known as dhimmis
- How Hindu belief underlies India’s caste system — and why
the subservient status of 240 million "untouchables" may lead to the
greatest civil-rights conflict of the 21st century- How Hindu scripture and theology contribute to the epidemic of "sex-selection" abortions of females in India
- Why Buddhism is a religion of doubt — not only in the existence of God, but of reality itself
- Why Buddhism is especially appealing to those who have lived as hedonists — such as 60’s rebels and Hollywood stars
- The Hebrew Scriptures: how archaeological research is vindicating the accuracy of the Old Testament
- How Judaism changed after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.
- How Hitler’s anti-Semitism arose not from Christianity but from racial theories stemming from the Enlightenment and Darwinism
- Why journalists never write about the way Christianity has survived and thrived
- Why the lack of religious belief among most journalists does not leave them neutral toward religion, as they like to think
Well, there you have it. I’ve added some of these to my Amazon wishlist (now at 288 items).
The level of discourse you enumerate above (especially about Buddhism) reminds me of the movie, "A Fish Called Wanda," when Jamie Lee Curtis' character informs Kevin Kline's that "The philosophy of Buddhism is NOT 'every man for himself'!"
Why pay any attention to what dedicated christianists have to say about other religious beliefs, or about anything at all?
I am not sure how good that book is, and I have a soft spot for Buddhism. But I would like to see what the author is talking about.
And Marvin Olasky (wikipedia entry) is one of the more influential and erudite Christian world view thinkers.
His many titles include:
– Renewing American Compassion: How Compassion for the Needy Can Turn Ordinary Citizens into Heroes (1996)
– Whirled Views: Tracking Today's Culture Storms (1997, with Joel Belz)
– The American Leadership Tradition: Moral Vision from Washington to Clinton (1999)
– Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America (2000, introduction by George W. Bush)
– The American Leadership Tradition: The Inevitable Impact of a Leader's Faith on a Nation's Destiny (2000)
# The Religions Next Door: What We Need To Know About Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, And Islam – and What Reporters Are Missing (2004)
– Scimitar's Edge (2006)
– The Politics of Disaster: Katrina, Big Government, and A New Strategy for Future Crises (2006)
I would suggest Christians view this slide show before reading any of those books.
The delusion of Christianity
I have this to say:
1. This anti-faith polemic has little to do with the books above.
2. The attack on Mormonism is missing one thing – while Christians would agree that the Book of Mormon is ridiculous, Mormons also somewhat follow the Bible. So many Mormons are not just deluded by the ridiculous stories of Joseph Smith – there also have SOME truth from the Christian scriptures.
3. The Muslim
4. The problem with his "magical" comparison is that Christianity is NOT exactly the same as the others. He also makes other mistakes:
a. Christianity is overwhelmingly confirmed by archeology and external historical documents
b. There are good arguments for its internal consistency, which I believe that the other scriptures may not contain.
c. This anti-faith polemic calls anyone who is not a pure rationalist as deluded. It assumes that faith and reason are antithetical.
d. Even if you doubt the miraculous in the scriptures, you would do well to obey the teaching of Jesus – there is more wisdom there than in the best of Carl Sagan's fairy tales (we are star stuff).
Sigh. I guess I have to do more to combat the attacks of fundamentalist secularists and atheists.
Seeker,
You could only do more if you'd be willing to tolerate the fact that there are others in the world who do not think, believe, live as you do. The problem with all of those Christian books is that they are inherently isolating to Christians: "We're better and righter than everybody else, and here is a bunch of research to prove it. Please ignore the fact that I started doing this research planning to prove conclusions that I long ago arrived at."
It's the same problem as with Christian scientists. They're intending to make the science fit the religion, and not the other way around. It is for that reason that their conclusions can never be trusted.
Why you are incapable of living and let live in almost all human situations – except where there is threat to the well-being of a third party – is absolutely beyond me.
1. This anti-faith polemic has little to do with the books above.
Only people in the Christian bubble would read those.
4. The problem with his "magical" comparison is that Christianity is NOT exactly the same as the others.
How is Christian magic different from Muslim magic? That's the point.
Even if you doubt the miraculous in the scriptures, you would do well to obey the teaching of Jesus.
Pascal's wager is a logical fallacy.
Sigh. I guess I have to do more to combat the attacks of fundamentalist secularists and atheists.
It's just what atheists believe. A "fundamentalist" atheist, like an atheist, also believes in no God. I guess from your view, the only difference between a "fundamentalist atheist" and a "atheist" is that the "fundamentalist atheist" will tell you your deluded while the "atheist" will keep quiet. So, there is no ideological difference.
There is more wisdom there than in the best of Carl Sagan's fairy tales (we are star stuff).
Seeker, come now. You have a biology degree and you don't agree with Carl Sagan that both stars and humans are made of atoms, i.e. "star stuff"? So, atoms are a fairy tale. Interesting.
Please ignore the fact that I started doing this research planning to prove conclusions that I long ago arrived at.
Actually, the author of the Who Cares study expected to find the opposite results, and had to redouble his efforts to be sure about what he had found.
While Olaskey's book may seem isolating, the others are not, imo. The radical leftward drift of the Democratic party is undisputable, and is no longer faith friendly, nor is it friendly to the ideas of Catholicism, hence the book on Catholics and the Democrat party.
The book on Muslims may seem isolating to you, but that's because you fail to distinguish between the evil ideology of Islam and all other religions – you have abandoned discernment by throwing out all religions – so you couldn't be depended on to help decide how to deal with Islam, because you condemn all religion equally, and end up justifying Islam by bunching it in with other faith systems. Discerning readers will read books like this and realize that Islam has been a curse on mankind since its inception.
As a Christian, I may find the revealed truths of other faiths as unbelievable, but that doesn't mean I can't affirm what truths they do contain. But despite the lack of intellectual acumen on the left regarding faiths, all faiths are not equal. Some are truly wicked (Islam), while others are not (Buddhism).
And your Christian bubble argument is silly. That's like saying reading any polemic or apologetic work is for people in that bubble. The real question is, can you refute the actual CONTENT of such works.
I am not surprised that you won't read these books, and they are from the conservative side of the spectrum. But my experience is that people on both sides lie about facts, and the "liberal lies" book above appeals to me because I find that my liberal opponents often misrepresent history, and abuse logic.
I know that conservatives do the same, but all the more reason to read the leftward books criticizing conservatives. If I were like you, I wouldn't read those books, but I am not.
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and I plan to read Sam Harris' books. Also, I have read and rejected books by Ann Coulter.
Your whole argument seems to boil down to "I don't believe in miracles, and anyone who does is a boob."
Why you are incapable of living and let live in almost all human situations – except where there is threat to the well-being of a third party – is absolutely beyond me.
It's beyond you because it isn't so.
Anti-abortion? Protecting the child
Pro-chastity? Protecting teens from making the mistakes that come with promiscuity
Anti-gay-marriage? Protecting children and the structure of society.
Pro gun-control? Protecting victims
Seeker,
Your positions on abortion and chastity are pro-fetus and anti-child. Pro-fetus because you have invested heavily in protecting fetuses. Anti-child because you're sentencing those children predisposed to not listening to chastity to talk to a lifetime of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, all because YOU couldn't stomach a conversation about what having responsible sex looks like.
Your position on gay marriage was ago proven to be total nonsense, because you can't point to any research that actually proves any of what you claim. (You can point to faked research by researchers who hate gays, but that isn't the same thing.)
And your position on gun control is interesting. However, doesn't that fall within my framework? I suggest dealing with situations where individuals get hurt, or are potentially hurt. Drinking isn't bad. Drinking and driving IS bad. Doesn't it work the same way with gun control?
Seeker,
Stop being an idiot. I hate Islam. I find its existence to be appalling, and a genuine threat to the freedom of individuals everywhere. Just like Christianity is a genuine threat to the freedoms of individuals everywhere.
I am not delusional. My sister, she is. If you'd met us….I think you could tell.
I may be deluded. But I don't think so. I saw a big difference in his comparisons of the three religions he chose.
Jesus existed and all the places he visited and taught in. We have archaeological excavation, we have historical documentation: We have evidence that the Biblical places, people, and governments, etc were real. Not a fairy tale…
And some of the people (I would wager most, actually) who stand outside our bubble are NOT sane or intelligent.
And prayer is very effective in healing your mind. I think that has been proven…
And we send people in to battle because we know they'll go to heaven?????
My irrationality hurts people? Who?
And how does religion harm us as a species?
In reality the planet will be destroyed. And science has proven that as well. Actually it has been proven this earth will end exactly as it says in 2 Peter 3, which was written back in the day before this scientific knowledge was known.
So why is it irrational then??
Sam, you continue to ignore seeker's ABC method. He does support education of contraceptives after abstinence is stressed as the best solution (works every time it's tried).
And please don't go the Rosie route and claim Christianity is a threat to freedoms like Islam. Seems to me that nations with predominant Christian cultures have a ton more freedoms than those who are Muslim. We can disagree over issues where you believe many Christians want to curb freedom, but it is beyond silly to think that Christians are a danger to freedom on any level close to fundamental Muslims.
Aaron,
How many times do I have to explain this? Christians represent a far more likely threat to my freedoms within American borders. Muslims aren't being elected in record numbers, nor are Muslims having any affect on legislation written in Charleston, or in Washington. The Religious Right aggressively wishes to restrict my freedoms, hence, Christianity poses a far bigger threat to my personal freedoms. I don't see how this is difficult for you to understand.
IF Muslims in the United State wielded the same sort of political power as Christians do, then I'd fear the Muslims more. But they don't.
Thus, internationally, Muslims pose a threat to my freedoms, but nationally, they have little to no effect on my freedoms. Christians do. This isn't complicated.
And prayer is very effective in healing your mind. I think that has been proven…
Didn't somebody release a study proving this to be untrue? Of course, that person was hoping to discover that it was untrue, and proceeded to do so. Just as Christian authors hope to find that <whatever else> is worse than Christianity, and wouldn't you believe it, they discover that every single time.
So meditatively thinking on what you have done, what you would like to do, and grateful feelings are not effective in keeping a person sane?
I'd like to see the study that proves prayer is not good for people.
Have you seen the movie American Sweethearts where John Kusac plays a movie star who is very depressed and has a new theory from his psychiatrist to help him, which is to be "grateful" for everything. I thought that was interesting commentary.
People who are grateful for things tend to take care of them better, that is for sure.
Jesus existed and all the places he visited and taught in. We have archaeological excavation, we have historical documentation: We have evidence that the Biblical places, people, and governments, etc were real. Not a fairy tale…
Mormons and Muslims say the exact same thing about Joseph Smith and Mohamed as you do about Jesus. They also have historical and archaeological documentation for their existence. They were real people yet you don't believe their story either. Why is that?
And some of the people (I would wager most, actually) who stand outside our bubble are NOT sane or intelligent.
Why are most people who stand outside the Christian bubble insane or stupid?
And prayer is very effective in healing your mind. I think that has been proven…
Translation: prayer comforts. What the video actually said is, there is no scientific evidence that it works.
And we send people in to battle because we know they'll go to heaven?????
Not because. We send people into battle who think they will go to heaven if they die.
My irrationality hurts people? Who?
Think about it. You know the answer to your own question already.
And how does religion harm us as a species?
Remember the short story "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson? Fanatical belief in superstition is not healthy. It's alright for children to believe in Santa but if an adult believes in Santa I would say they are delusional and unhealthy. So would you.
In reality the planet will be destroyed. And science has proven that as well.
Do you mean when the sun enters the red giant stage after exhausting its supply of hydrogen? That won't happen for another 23 million years. I know this from astronomy.
Actually it has been proven this earth will end exactly as it says in 2 Peter 3, which was written back in the day before this scientific knowledge was known.
Lawanda, the bible is only about 2,000 years old. That's nothing. Do you realize what year it is in China? It is Year 4703 by the Chinese calendar. That's just for a continuous civilization. There are far older civilizations that predate China's that have died out.
Cineaste, actually the Mormon’s don’t have the archaeological evidence. That’s why you find many of them leave after they look at outside evidence. The claims in the book of Mormon do not mesh with history or archaeology. The same cannot be said for Christianity.
As far as the Bible’s age, the NT is about 2,000, while the OT is much older particularly the Torah.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the original post, but that never has stopped us before. ;)
Pro-fetus because you have invested heavily in protecting fetuses. Anti-child because you're sentencing those children predisposed to not listening to chastity to talk to a lifetime of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, all because YOU couldn't stomach a conversation about what having responsible sex looks like.
Pro-fetus is pro-child – just because you would rather kill a child (which you conveniently rename fetus to dehumanize it) rather than let it live a hard life doesn't make you pro-child. My life has been hard, but I'm glad my mother didn't see me as an unwanted "fetus."
Your logic is astoundingly cruel and horrific, justifying the killing of innocent children. Why not just make "infants" and "toddlers" nonhuman too? Ridiculous.
Thus, internationally, Muslims pose a threat to my freedoms, but nationally, they have little to no effect on my freedoms. Christians do. This isn't complicated.
Um, and what freedoms are they trying to take away? Your right to own a gun? To buy porno? To kill an unborn child?
I would wager to say that you are at little risk from conservatives. And while you admit that Islam is a threat overseas, you don't see it as a greater threat because it is not at your back door? Will you wait until then to do something? Your comparisons to Christianity are silly because Islam is several orders of magnitude more cruel, hateful, and murderous. This is my exact point – liberals refuse to make valid comparisons and analyses of religion because they are against all religions.
They also have historical and archaeological documentation for their existence. They were real people yet you don't believe their story either. Why is that?
1. because Mormon claims can be refuted by history and archaeology, while Christian claims are almost universally confirmed
2. because no one is arguing about whether or not jesus, mohamed, or joseph smith were real people. It's their lifestyles, teachings, and claims that we examine. And Jesus by far outpaces the murderous Mohamed and the pedophile Smith.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the original post, but that never has stopped us before. ;)
I think that Cin got us off track by saying that these books are isolationists and only for those in the "christian bubble." I argued that not all religions are the same, and that these books portend to be factual, and should be read by all who are engaged in these arguments, pro or con.
Cineaste, actually the Mormon's don't have the archaeological evidence.
They have archaeological evidence of Joseph Smith in America. The story he told is a different matter. Same deal with Jesus and Mohamed. You can give me creationist "evidence" for Noah's flood but it is rejected by everyone outside the Christian bubble as delusional.
As far as the Bible's age, the NT is about 2,000, while the OT is much older particularly the Torah.
6,000 years old is the max for creationists right? Every civilization that predates 6000 years is delusion in the creationist view. Well, China is pushing close to envelope already and there are older civilizations in China that predate the current one. Heck, even Iraq's civilizations predate 6,000 years. The Egyptian civilization is so old that they were advanced enough to build the Pyramids 5,000 years ago.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the original post, but that never has stopped us before. ;)
Because, only people in the Christian bubble would read those (books Seeker posted). Seeker indicated this in the post title. So, I entered the thread like, "see this before you read these books." I was hoping it might give conservative Christians a wider viewpoint. At the very least, it would help them understand what other people outside the Christian bubble think.
Do you mean when the sun enters the red giant stage after exhausting its supply of hydrogen? That won't happen for another 23 million years. I know this from astronomy.
Reread the passage, it talks about how timeless God is, and that nobody knows exactly when it will happen. But that it will happen. And just exactly how scientists say it will in so many million years.
I think that is pretty cool coming from an ancient fisherman, myself.
They have archaeological evidence of Joseph Smith in America
According to the Smithsonian Institute of Washington, D.C., USA, the following items (which, according to The Book of Mormon, existed in the Americas between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.) have absolutely no evidence for existing in the America's during the time in question:
Silk – Alma 4:6, Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29
Horses – Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9, 3 Nephi 3: 1, Nephi 18:25
Steel – Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15,16, 1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18
Iron – 2 Nephi 5:15, 20:34, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 11:8
Coins – Alma 11:5-19
Donkeys – 1 Nephi 18:25, Mosiah 5:14, 12:5
Cattle, Cow, and Oxen – Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22, 6: 1 Nephi 18:25
Pigs – 3 Nephi 7:8
Grain and Wheat – Mosiah 9:9; Helaman 11:17
Contrast that with the NT. There has been no archaeological findings which have disproven the accounts put forth in the Gospels or Acts (the narrative books). In fact in areas where academic scholarship and the NT have been at odds, discoveries have been made which support the NT's description and not academia's.
Just by looking at the last 16 chapters of Acts, we find that 84 facts mentioned by Luke have been proven correct by archaeology – from correct terminology of cities, ports, weather patterns, rulers, etc. I can give you the list if you would like. (There's also 59 such facts in John. 140 details if you combine John, Luke and half of Acts. Also, 30 characters independently confirmed by non-Christian sources.) I'll put the Bible up against any other book from antiquity.
Again, there is no confirmation of anything Joseph Smith wrote down, while everything that has been found has supported the New Testament's recording of events.
6,000 years old is the max for creationists right?
Actually 6,000 is the low end for the young earth creationist. Most YEC's give a time frame of 6 to 10,000 years.
Then you have to look at those who believe in creation but a much older earth. They range from close to the YEC position to the millions of years put forth by evolutionists.
Your comments about the Christian bubble (of which I agree there can be one) seem to indicate that you are in a type of bubble yourself where you don't really know what Christians or creationists believe except for in the form of stereotypes.
I'm glad you (and Sam and others) are here to offer a different point of view than the Christian one. I have no problem with that at all. If Christianity is truth then it can withstand questions and disagreements from those on the outside (and inside). So, continue to challenge away.
My observation was not about when the end is; nor about "the signs of the coming of the end of the world".
But the fact that an ancient fisherman knew the elements would melt with fervent heat and blow up when the earth's time was over. And that it would happen in God's own time. Which is just as likely to be millions of years as it is to be thousands.
I think that is fairly interesting. That observation from Peter was written just under 2000 years ago. When the information about how the planets/stars blow up was not common knowledge derived from mathematical equations; as it is now.
And I give about as much credence to the Koran quotes telling when the end is coming as I do to the Bible quotes trying to do the same.
I think there is no evidence for the Story Joseph Smith tells, however.
I'd say not. Look at all those things Aaron posted about in his post.
You know, even if you don't think it is true religion-wise, the Bible has HUGE staying power as a literary work. It is and has been since it was written, the most beloved book of massive numbers of people.
It has no equal as far as that goes.
And it has been most helpful in archaeological work, too.
Bible has HUGE staying power as a literary work.
I agree with you here.
Sorry, I was not up on the evolutionist latest dogma. It's been a long day. My point was that creationist belief ranges from 6,000 to whatever the current prevailing theory is about the age of the Earth.
See, here's the big difference between Mormonism and Smith compared to Christianity and NT writers: Smith was given a gold tablet that told of all these things happening in the past. He was not an eyewitness to them and the historical errors that he got wrong cast a negative light on everything he says.
That is different from the NT (and OT) where everything that has been discovered through archaeological has supported the Bible, not cast doubt on it. No, you can't test through archaeology a virgin birth or other miracles, but you can test whether a writer is presenting an accurate picture of what he is writing about. The overwhelming case supports the NT with no discovery calling into question any NT passage, while the overwhelming case opposes Mormon doctrine with discoveries constantly calling Book of Mormon passages into question.
My point is that from all we can tell the NT were trustworthy, while Joseph Smith is not. That is not a bias from any side. That is a logical look at the evidence.
You (and most other skeptics) have a problem with miracles. That is a seperate issue, one that I would like to address, but just becuase you don't believe miracles does not mean that the NT writers must be liars because they believe in them. How difficult is it to find physical evidence for common occurances thousands of years ago? Now multiply that on a huge scale, when you are talking about a miracle that is by definition an abnormality from the natural state of being.
Everyone, to some extent, lives within their own bubble. The more you deny that, the more it become evident that you are locked inside it. Atheists are the same as Christians in this fact. Evidence can be presented, but worldviews often prevent individuals from seeing the truth. This is the case for everyone.
Aaron,
Could you re-write the Bible based upon what has been found historically? Or has what has been dug up been made to fit accounts in the Bible?
Sorry, I was not up on the evolutionist latest dogma.
First, what an ignorant thing to say. Second, you confused Geology with Biology. Aaron, a 5th grader would know the difference and it's appalling you don't.
The overwhelming case supports the NT with no discovery calling into question any NT passage, while the overwhelming case opposes Mormon doctrine with discoveries constantly calling Book of Mormon passages into question.
This is a religious contention. There is nothing to differentiate the validity of one religion's God from another. Allah is not the true God why? because the Bible says so? Jehovah is not God why? because the Koran says so. It's circular reasoning epitomized.
Everyone, to some extent, lives within their own bubble.
Atheists, Agnostics, free thinkers live outside religious bubbles. If you think there is a scientific bubble of delusion you must prove, with evidence, science itself is a delusion. The fact that we have gone to the moon makes your case a tough one.
There are three levels of information that we are trying to validate.
1. Historical existence of the various prophets
2. Historical accuracy of what the prophets or their disciples wrote
3. Miracles
While all three prophets can be validated on point one, Smith fails on #2, while Christianity shines.
On the last point, you are right, these can not be proven. But that doesn't make them equally unbelievable.
While all three prophets can be validated on point one, Smith fails on #2 (Historical accuracy of what the prophets or their disciples wrote), while Christianity shines.
So why aren't dinosaurs like T-Rex mentioned in the bible by the prophets, disciples, etc? They supposedly lived alongside early humans right? Yet they are not mentioned along with the "bats who are birds" and the "cud (crap) chewing rabbits." Can't you see that the explanations that you are about to give me to these questions are simply your rationalizations? Can't you see that a delusional Mormon would answer the same way?
There are explanations, but you may not find them enough. All cultures have traditions of dragons, and they independently seem to confirm similar features. What is that about?
Most theologians feel as though many dinosaur species did not survive the flood – remember that Noah took one pair of each *kind*, and the way most creationists defined kind could mean that the few large lizards that we have today are all that have descended from one kind Noah brought along.
Also, some postulate that, just as the age of the patriarchs was much longer before the flood, so it is with all life – since many lizards continue to grow throughout their lifetime, if they too had 8x today's lifespans, they might have been much larger.
The bible does make some mentions, such as the leviathan, as well as mention of other somewhat fantastical creatures such as very large men (giants).
Anyway, on this point, scripture doesn't disagree with paleontology, it merely has less info on the subject that some would like. Remember, Moses begins the OT, and the dinos were probably gone in his time, since is was post-deluvian.
Lawanda you asked… I'd like to see the study that proves prayer is not good for people.
It does does not conclude that prayer is bad, just that it does not work. Here you go Scientific Prayer Study
Actually I happen to disagree with the statement about prayer from Christianity.com. And I dislike the expression "power of prayer". It isnt in the Bible.
I think people have to make things happen on their own. I do think prayer has a place, but I don't think it is supposed to be a wishlist, and I definitely do not think it will bring you a miracle.
I happen to have a different view on prayer. And I believe it is very effective in its purpose. But its purpose is NOT so that people get what they want (healing, fortune, feeling good) in this life.
Prayer is talking to God. Telling him your troubles, not so he can take them away, but so you don't feel so alone. He already said you are gonna have troubles. But with prayer you are unburdening your mind. And let me just say that prayer does NOT unburden your mind unless you study the wisdom in the scriptures, either.
I do not think miracles happen today. In the New Testament times, before people had the written word, they had demons and miracles. More or less physically. Since then, it is more a spiritual fight. And so the good and the bad things are spiritual. We don't have Jesus with us on earth to move mountains if we ask him. We don't pray for the Holy Spirit, we have the Bible. We don't pray for miraculous healing because miracles haven't happened since the apostles died.
But we do pray to God for help. And he answers back in the Bible. If you pray, but don't listen, it isnt going to work. I don't think God is going to help every personal problem you have, but I think his word (in the Bible…) can give you the strength to face anything.
A jug of milk doesn't give you anything back, not to mention any wisdom.
We are not prophets today, we are not healers. We are all just people struggling through this very difficult life. When we pray it is us talking to God…thanking him for what we have and asking him to help us in our struggle to be a better person. And he answers us in his word.
All of this means nothing to you however because you view it as irrational, perhaps.
Maybe you think so, but those in the medical practice seem to see benefits. This is from a health center website:
Spirituality and prayer
The psychological benefits of prayer may help reduce stress and anxiety, promote a more positive outlook, and strengthen the will to live.
Many medical institutions and practitioners believe spirituality and prayer are important elements of healing. In addition, hospitals have chapels and provide ministers, rabbis and voluntary organizations to serve their patients' spiritual needs.
Fair enough. I know when people pray for others it is well intentioned and I don't mind if people pray for me either. I don't pray for people because deep down inside myself I know it does no good. So all I can do is hope for the best. A religious person may ask, where do I direct my hope since I don't believe in a God? Call it an appeal to chance or fate, I don't really believe hoping does any good either yet I still hope regardless. You would be right to call me irrational in that sense as well Lawanda, but I still hope for the best for everyone. If , when I die, I find that there is a God of some sort, I would hope that He would understand why I hope and not pray. It's just the way I am. I can't help but think. Even if He sent me to Hell or Hades, I would be alright with that because then I would know that the people I loved in my life who have died, like my mother, are in Heaven or Nirvana and not oblivion, and I could spend an eternity in Hell easier with that knowledge.
So all I can do is hope for the best.
I think all humans have that hope for the best. Which is why we are drawn to religion. imho. Because death is just scary. Even if you believe in heaven, it is still scary. Because it is the inevitable.
And poverty and sickness and sadness come with life, even a good one. So hope is really all anyone has. Hope for something better. My hope is for heaven to be better, because I don't see it happening in this life. Your hope, I would guess, is for this life to be better. :)
I say I don't see it happening in this life because… I am exactly what I want to be, always have wanted to be: A mommy ;) But … it REALLY makes me sad that my kids will have to die someday. It kind of overshadows the very real happiness I have everyday of my life. So anyhow, my point is just that even when you have a great life, it still has to end. And so it is sorta hopeless.
Aaaaand I'm rambling. Again. So I'll stop it now.
If you believe in the Rapture and that it's coming soon, leave me a message for anyone you know and like who might be left behind or who has died and gone to Hell and I'll be sure they receive it. As an atheist/agnostic Deist it's a service I can provide to all my Christian friends :)
By "you" I didn't mean you specifically Lawanda but "you" who believe the rapture is nigh.
hehe I don't believe in the rapture either! Am I atypical? :-p
Well, I am glad to hear that actually :) The Christians who believe the rapture is nigh are the ones I really worry about.
I worry about them too. But I do tend to be a worrier over people!
Seems to me that promoting hatred and close-mindedness aren't very Christian at all. Why don't we all work on that love-your-neighbor bit?