It may sound kind of funny but it is true. There are atheists who try and convince people that there is no God. That sounds just like an evangelist to me. It is interesting that there are those who feel the need to convince others that there is no such thing as God. Philip Pullman, the pioneer of the new film "The Golden Compass" is just one example of an avid "atheist evangelist." The purpose behind his books and now the film is to "kill God in the minds of children." Why would he feel the need to do so when there is no such thing as God?
You may as well call atheism an evangelistic religion. I can't even imagine expending so much time and energy on writing books on a topic I find absurd. He finds it absurd that people believe in God and yet he feels the need to fabricate a way to kill God. Many atheists complain that Christians try to force their beliefs on others, but some atheists also attempt to make people believe that there is no God.
Yes, I try to obey the Bible when it says to "go out into all the world and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ." No, I cannot ever force someone to believe because it is only the power of the Holy Spirit who can save, but I desire to tell others of the greatest love story ever told because of what it has meant in my own life. Atheists appear to be doing just the opposite, which you would think would be unnecessary because if there was no God, no one could possibly believe because no one would ever have been changed and affected by something that is non-existent.
It is because there IS a God that some atheists need to try and convince people of His non-existence. If He was not real, there would be no need to convince people at all.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Pullman is an authour of FICTION books. I mean c'mon your attacking him b/c he's popular right now...his books have been out for years...what was he then? There are those who I would agree are trying to convince people there is no god. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens all come to mine. But even those gentlemen are trying to convince audiences of the illogical properties of god and how there is no evidence for existence...most specifically say I don't care if your atheist or not I just want you to know the facts.
Pullman writes fiction, not based on fact or research, simply things created in his mind. His motives are to tell a good story...b/c that is the goal of all authors.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Pullman is a very good writer. But in everything I have read about Pullman's series that begins with the Golden Compass it is well documented that his motivations went beyond telling a good story and that he was deliberating writing to offset pro-Christianity works like Narnia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305487,00.html
Fiction is a very good vehicle for both propaganda and evangelism.
And the producers of the movie are specifically on record as to their goals and their intent to ratchet up the intensity and the explicitness of the anti-Christian message in sequels to this movie.
The blogger makes an excellent point and he provides an excellent example to prove his point.
Here is what Snopes says on this topic:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp
Here is a link to the first chapter of a book by Richard Dawkins who is probably the archtype of the evangelical athiest:
http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,1
That pretty much proves the blogger's point.
Being more or less an athiest myself, I am not bothered by this stuff much. But even though I lack faith, I do recognize that almost everyting good about American (and most of the world) was created by Christians. I doubt that God exists but Christian beliefs are mostly a force for good. I see no point in attacking Christians or Christianity. It seems like the Progressive thing to do is live and let live
Yeah, sure you are, you are the most "athi" person I know ...
Next time learn how to spell it
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle ... your friendly athEIst.
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Wow....all I have to say about this comment is thank you!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
I would be careful when you say that the goal of all authors is to tell a good story. I think that perhaps many authors would disagree with you on that statement because many are out there to do so much more than that. In fact, I think that many authors would say that they had failed if all they accomplished was to tell a good story. Likewise, when I read a book, I hope to gain more from the content than simply a good story. I want to walk away, knowing that I have learned something and becoming a better person because of the book I have read. But then....perhaps that is what a good story does? =)
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
But then....perhaps that is what a good story does?
I would agree...that is what a good story does and is what I meant when i stated it earlier.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Ok, then I totally agree with you.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
God and his believers constantly have an effect on the world that I would characterize as negative. Just as "Godless heathens" or "Atheist evangelists" or whoever have a negative effect in your mind.
Don't think that you can shame atheists into silence by comparing us to evangelical scum, especially in this forum, since a blog is all about SPEAKING OUT. If I see a blog about something I care about, I will respond. That's the point.
As far as Pullman goes: Atheists don't bitch about the Chronicles of Narnia, a clearly Christian novel. Most of us acknowledge it as a good story. The Golden Compass is the same, a good story that needn't be read as atheist fodder. The Magesterium can just as easily be read as a corrupt theocracy that has strayed from God's ideas and that corruption has killed God. It may not be big "C" Church friendly, or theocrat friendly, but it doesn't have to be anti-God.
Fiction isn't preaching. It's presenting ideas through story. You can get out of it what you want. Don't suppress ideas, respond to them. When Christians run about suppressing ideas, or trying to convince people to leave them alone without responding to the ideas it makes them look like censors and xenophobes unwilling to accept anything even close to threatening.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
If you don't think that atheists don't complain about the Chronicles of Narnia, you really need to check out the comment submitted by jackbenimble in response to this journal. Pullman seems to believe that the C.S. Lewis books are "the most poisonous books he has ever read." But I am glad that you think it is a good story because it is! But it is so much more than that; it is a representation of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice He made for His children.
C.S. Lewis was not afraid to admit his intentions for the books; why would Pullman suddenly feel the need to deny his clearly stated original intentions for his novels? It is because he is attempting to deceive many young audience members into believing that the books are purely for entertainment when it is clear that they were written with a much more sinister intent.
I never said that I was attempting to shame atheists into silence; I was merely posing some questions as to why many atheists have such a passion for attempting to prove God wrong. I would appreciate it if you would not call evangelists scum; that is not very nice.
I would agree that Pullman's books don't HAVE to be anti-god, but that is what his own personal intention was as the author.
Fiction may not be true, but in the past fiction has had a much more widespread effect than simply telling a good story. Hitler was great at using fiction as propaganda and look at the effect that his fiction children's books had. His propaganda culminated with the death of over 6 million people!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
You know who else used fictional propaganda? The Early Christians when trying to convert the Pagan Romans.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I will say it once: If a movie or book has the power to shake your faith in X, then you didn't have much faith in X to start with.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I couldn't agree with you more Nick. You hit it right on the spot.
---
Respectfully,
Adam
A-Team Member
You will only have to say that once because I never said that these books would ever shake my faith in God. My faith is genuine and a gift of God that cannot fail. No book is going to take that faith away from me. However, I do believe that there are many things out there that are deceiving and can cause people to stumble; the Bible made it pretty clear that this would happen. The Bible speaks of false prophets and those who would try to turn people away from God; seems to me that the Bible hit it right on the nail!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
If the faith is worth having, no argument, debate, book, prophet, etc will be able to shake the foundations. The fact that the Catholic Church thinks that this movie is dangerous is a joke.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
It would never be able to shake the foundation of a true believer in Christ, but it may cause many people to stumble in their faith. As I said before, books can have a very powerful effect on people...and this should be the goal of every author. That is where the danger comes in.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
So it is wrong to expose people to different trains of thought, right? I mean, if you don't believe in Christ, you must be wrong so you should just accept that and boycott books/movies like The Golden Compass.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
On the contrary, I think it is important to know what is out there and the different ideas of theology so you know better how to defend your own. My own personal concern is that the movie is geared towards young audiences who may find the theology of the movie to be confusing and contradicting. I believe Pullman's goal is to hook younger audiences with the movie in order to get them to read the books, and this is where they may discover the confusion. I just cannot trust his character of integrity when he makes all types of contradictory claims on the purpose for his books.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
I find this whole discussion highly amusing since the Chronicles of Narnia series is built the same way. They made a movie that didn't have much about the religious aspect, so the kids would read it and they'd be confused and find the book and movie contradicting. So your whole basis for the argument makes me smile at the amusement it gives to me.
Authors typically have no control over how their novels are made into movies. So it's probably not Pullman's objective by any means.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
He had a bigger hand in producing the movie than you may think, especially since the director of the movie wanted very much to be involved in the making of the film since he is a huge supporter of Pullman's atheistic views. I found an article about it, but I can't remember where it was. If I find it again, I will send you the link. But needless to say, it is a huge collaboration that is based on spreading atheistic views to young audiences.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
No it's not. In the Time Magazine article the director specifically said that in no way was he making the movie/s with the undertones that the book had. The director had them make the church into an evil government and the "God" you so adimitly(sp) keep believing they kill, into nothing more but authority like the book. Hell, Nicole Kidman is Catholic and said she'd never do a movie that attackec her religious views, so no the movie is for fun, not based on spreading atheistic views.
"The director of “The Golden Compass” has told fans that they can expect the movie’s sequels to contain more anti-religious themes which are not as evident in the first film.
Chris Weitz said the decisions that went into making the movie, which is based on the first novel of Phillip Pullman’s trilogy His Dark Materials, were all directed toward building a foundation for the sequels.
"The whole point, to me, of ensuring that 'The Golden Compass' is a financial success is so that we have a solid foundation on which to deliver a faithful, more literal adaptation of the second and third books," he said last Wednesday on his MTV Movies blog.
The movie, slated for a Dec. 7 release, has drawn fire from both the novel’s fans and critics alike for the intentional removal of anti-religious themes."
Read this, put two and two together, and then tell me that the director does not have an agenda in promoting anti-religious themes. As far as Nicole Kidman goes, a large sum of money (we are talking millions here) would make anyone tempted to accept an offer, even if it does go against her religious views (although I was under the impression that she was involved in the Church of Scientology, which is a whole different story...I could be wrong about that but I had always thought that this is the church she was involved in).
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
When he said:
"a faithful, more literal"
And how does this prove that Pullman had any control over how the DIRECTOR chose to represent his films?
JKR only had control in the sense that she could say 'don't leave this out' or 'that's not what this meant', because the movies were made before the series was finished, and she wanted to be sure that important things weren't left out for the 5th, 6th and 7th books.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
That bastard! Who does he think he is intentionaly removing anti-religious themes?!
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Perhaps the first film may be more innocent than the ones to come....I think that you won't be disappointed when Pullman is deliberatly trying to pull in the audience with his first film in order to present more anti-religious themes in the coming films. So, hang in there....you will get your anti-religious themes in time.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
Pullman... does... not... control... the... movies. It is not HIS film, it is a movie based on his BOOK.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
But he still worked with the director on the film, correct? And I am quite certain that he gave his input for how he wanted his book to be presented in film....am I off-base with that statement? If I were the author of a book and someone wanted to make it into a film, I would certainly want to give my input for the way I think the movie would be best presented, wouldn't you? I am sure that Pullman worked hand in hand with the director to produce the film.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
Certainly, but most of the time, it doesn't happen. Have you read the Princess Diaries? Have you seen the movie? Meg Cabot didn't have any input on the movies, beyond the check that they gave her for the rights to the film. She got another check for the second movie, and that's it. No royalties from the films... nothing.
As I mentioned previously, JKR only got a little bit of input... she didn't get to choose the actors to portray her characters, she didn't write the screenplay... she just gave a few hints about things that were important in the end to the plot as a whole, like not leaving Kreacher completely out of the 5th film because he is rather important in the 7th book.
Pullman is not the director. He may have been able to offer suggestions, but I highly doubt he was there for every day of screening, the editing, etc, and probably didn't have much influence over the screenplay either. In the end, it's the director who makes those choices.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Ok, fair enough. But the books should be the bigger concern because from what I hear, the books are the ones that contain much more of the anti-religious themes that were watered down in the film. But I do know that Pullman intends for the movie to be a gateway for wanting people to read the books, and he plans on hooking young audiences into it. Also, it should be taken into account that the movies that are in the making are also going to contain a much more anti-religious theme, but the director can hook his audiences with the first.film.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
I am reading this, and I believe Time Magazine over the shitty MTV blog. No you are also wrong about Kidman, you really need to read the Time Magazine article...do you really think I pull this stuff out my ass?
No, on the contrary I think that you make several very good points and are a well-researched blogger. But you really cannot deny direct quotes that were shared by the author and director themselves, either. If they have such a wide array of answers, this makes me really question their integrity and their character.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
I'm not denying them...i think you're taking them out of context. Still read the Time Magazine article, it's good plus it shows that Kidman wouldn't do the movie if it was anti-catholic.
I will read the Time Magazine article; I try to read several different commentaries to get the best picture of what is going on. Is there a chance that you could send me the link to the article? If so, I would not have to track it down.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
I actually read while sitting in the dentist's office, so I don't know if it is on the internet yet.
I guess, therefore that the bible is the number one WMD of the mind out there. Just because something contradicts your faith does not give you an excuse to stop people, or even to discourage them, from coming in contact with those things.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
If you tell me what WMD stands for, then perhaps I can answer your question...I'm afraid I don't know what that stands for.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Oh, ok thanks. If you want to consider the basic moral code for the very foundation of this country a WMD, then sure perhaps the Bible would be so. But personally, the Bible has been the foundation that has kept me from becoming a destructive person. Without God and His Word, the world would be in a much bigger state of destruction than with it.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
MMM (that's you), I find it amazing that you feel that everyone should be exposed to all sorts of theological thought processes but you feel that children (who won't notice the religious connotations) shouldn't be exposed to the same ideas as adults. Do you know what the age of Confermation for a Catholic is? 16, last I heard. That means that CHILDREN, MINORS, are commiting to their faith for life. If a 16 year old is to make an informed decision, s/he should be exposed to ALL religions, at least as best as one can.
Now, I've yet to see the movie or read the books, but as I hear it, 90% of the anti-Catholic agenda WAS REMOVED from the movie. What? They edited out the Anti-Catholic agenda? Fuck yeah. Why? Because enough of the fucking nation is Catholic that it would be squandering money to not remove the Anti-Catholic references. Have you seen the movie? Have you read the book?
Also, the Bible is not the basic moral code for the foundation of this country. While, yes, parallels can be drawn, the Founders were largely deist in faith and felt God didn't really care one way or another.
I'm glad that the bible has helped you...but really...what can the bible do for you that the Tao Te Ching can't do for me?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
90%, if only it were so small a number, the movie might have been better. Still, it's cool. I like the bear. He's awesome.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"the Founders were largely deist in faith and felt God didn't really care one way or another."
deist?
God didn't really care?
I just wonder if there is any reason you think this.
They believed in God but felt that he was more of a "create and go" type figure. Effectively, God puts it all into motion and just watches it play out.
And there is documented evidence with numerous references to their religious stances. There was a reason for the "freedom of religion" amendment. Not all of them were, but the big names (the ones we typically refer to when we say "Founders") we're not Christian.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
1)Children pick up on more than you think. I for one knew from the time that I was very little that C.S. Lewis's Aslan was a representation of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice that He made for us.
2)Perhaps in the Catholic Church, the age of confirmation is 16 but I am not involved in the Catholic Church. I think that whatever age you are able to determine for yourself what you believe is the age that you can make a personal statement of faith....whether that is 6, 16, 26, or 62. Also, I believe that a genuine faith is based on the initiation of the Holy Spirit and then that person's acceptance of Jesus Christ into their heart, so that doesn't have to happen at age 16.
3) Yes, I do think that it is important to know what doctrines and theologies are out there, even as a young child. But I also think that it is important to protect children from confusion and deception. There needs to be a balance, and parents are responsible for teaching their children about Jesus Christ just as they are responsible for teaching them how to tie their shoes and to eat all their veggies.
4)90 percent of nation may consider themselves to be involved in Catholic Church, but I am not a part of that 90 percent.
5)I plan on reading the books, but I have read several commentaries about it from all different kinds of sources (both Christian and secular).
6)The Founders of our nation may have been deists, but it still doesn't take away from the strong emphasis that the Bible had on the founding of the United States.
7)I don't know....what can the Tao Te Ching do for you?
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
You misread:
"90% of the anti-Catholic agenda WAS REMOVED from the movie."
The movie/book is based on the premise that the Church, associated with the mega giant Catholic Church, is corrupted (which should come as no surprise). To remove over 90% of the anti-Catholic agenda removes almost all of the anti-religiousness of the movie.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
ahhhh....a light bulb moment for me. Thanks!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
The same thing the bible does for you. It teaches you how to be a better person. If you choose to read is as you did, then you might think that Lao Tzu wants to be god and well, he doesn't. You might also imagine that the "Mother of Ten Thousand Things" was a representation of a deity, which she isn't.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
The bible is not the basic moral foundation of this country. The basic underlying morality of humans is expressed in many principles of the bible.
What I consider dangerous about most holy books is the damning of curiosity, the authoritarian power system, the warping of underlying human morality, the exclusion, the superiority complex and how effective they are at ddeply ingraining dogma in many people. That is why I consider the bible dangerous.
If you really, honestly think that you would be a destructive person without god in your life, that's your opinion. I don't think it would be true. Let's just imagine, for the sake of argument, that DB or Percivale or someone said something that convinced you that god didn't exist. I doubt that's going to happen, but whatever. Do you really think that you would start doing drugs and sleeping around and killing people?
Personally, my desire to live my life to the fullest stops me from doing drugs and sleeping around and a host of other harmful activities. And my respect for human life prevents me from harming others. I don't need god for that.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
AMEN to that!
...No pun intended.
T.k.
1)One way or another, the Bible has been used as a major source for our moral code in the United States. After all, what came first? The foundation of the United States or the cannonization of Scripture?
2) The Bible is not just any old holy book. It is old, it is holy...but it is so much more than that.
3)You are right. There is nothing anyone can say that would take my faith away from me. By God's grace, I have been saved and there is no turning back for me.... =)
4)I should have worded the whole "me being a destructive person without God" differently, I think. I wouldn't do anything like drugs or sleeping around because I just know that these are not healthy lifestyle choices. However, when I do mess up I would not be forgiven because I would not have the grace of God in my life. I would have to shoulder the guilt of my sin forever, and I cannot imagine such a burden since I sin every day in one way or another.
5)I am so glad that you live life to the fullest by choosing not to do these things because many people would say that by doing these things, you are living life to the fullest....I see a lot of wisdom in your choice to abstain from drugs and sleeping around! I have a lot of respect for you... =)
6)You mentioned that you wanted to live life to the fullest....Perhaps your lack of belief in God is preventing you from doing just that because I believe in a God who wants you to live your life to the fullest by giving you a hope and a future!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
1- No, it wasn't. The founders specifically made sure NOT to include the warped morality of the bible in their government.
2- Yes, that's about it. That just about wraps up the bible. Any old holy book.
3- Well, if you're happy....
4- Well, if you can't imagine what it's like to take responsibility for your mistakes, I'll explain it. It's fine. You work through them and then they are fine. There's no burden of sin because there's no such thing, in my mind. There's probably a lot less guilt, actually.
5- I don't need your respect!!! GRRR! No, just kidding. I think it's always good to agree on something.
6- I would disagree. I think that a belief in any sort of good afterlife projects your goals to that and distracts you from this life because you are too worried about the next. I don't believe in an afterlife. That is why it is important to me to live a good life.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"You may as well call atheism an evangelistic religion."
Nope. Here are the reasons.
1) It isn't a religion.
2) Not all atheists try to tell people what they believe.
3) Even those that do try to spread what they believe to the world are not the same as evangelists. Vocal atheists, the ones you are talking about, for the most part are very different from evangelists. They talk about the illogic problems with a belief in god, provide alternate ideas, show the problems of religion and explain misconceptions circling atheism. Evangelists tend to rely on fear, bible verses and rabble rousing techniques.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
1) The word religion is so overused and misused. When I say it is a religion, it is a belief that you hold solidly to. You hold solidly to the belief that their is no God. Therefore, it is in a sense a religion.
2)Not all Christians try to tell people what they believe because maybe they are afraid of being made fun or or persecuted. The Bible says to "never be ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ" though, so every believer in Christ should desire to share with others of the greatest love story ever told. For those who do try to show others that there is no evidence for God, what is their motivation?
3)So, these vocal atheists are essentially doing evangelism in reverse? Again, what is the goal of these vocal atheists? If there is no God, what is the purpose in trying to convince people?
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
1) By that definition of the word, a die hared republican or democrat is religious and their religion is their party.
2) So, you think that every Christian should spread the word of Christ. Why shouldn't an atheist talk about what (s)he believes.
3) That is a very silly argument. If there is no evolution, why try to convince people that it isn't real? That could be thrown at a good deal of Christian activists. Or how about, If their is no Zeus...? People always try to spread what they hold to be the truth. Just because what they hold to be the truth contradicts what you hold to be the truth doesn't mean that they shouldn't spread it.
Should I not tell people not to try to sit because the chair isn't there?
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
1)Correct.
2)Point well taken; I was simply wondering what the motivation for vocal atheists is and why they feel it is so important to share their lack of belief in a god.
3)Ok, point well taken. I would certainly want to know that there is no chair present if I am preparing to sit down. =)
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
1) Well, if you want to call Republicanism or Democratism a religion, be my guest, but most people don't and applying the term to things like that is misleading in conversation.
2) Amiable acceptance of you taking my point well.
3) Same as above. By the way.... There is no chair. It's all just part of THE MATRIX!!!!!!!! :-)
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes your comments just make my whole day brighter.... =)
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
I'll have to bookmark this page for the next time someone tells me I hate all Christians. ror
Glad to be of service.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
See my blog here for a response.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You said:
"It is interesting that there are those who feel the need to convince others that there is no such thing as God."
I say:
It is interesting that there are those who feel the need to convince others that there is such thing as God. It's even more interesting when those people threaten my "eternal" life with torture because I don't believe in a specific God. It's even more interesting that I have to see these idiotic zealots everywhere I go. For crying out loud I found a tract in the freaking public bathroom the other day!! Give it up already.
I stand rock solid in my beliefs and have no need to push them upon others. Why do they have to push theirs upon me?
---
Respectfully,
Adam
A-Team Member
I don't think that the most effective way of telling others about a loving God who came to save them is by telling them of an eternity of separation from God, although the Bible clearly says that this is the reality for those who don't have a personal relationship with Christ.
I have found that it is more effective to share with others how God has personally changed my life. By sharing about God's love and hope for those who believe on Him, people are more open to the gospel.
I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from labeling me as an "idiotic zealot", although sometimes I really do have such a need to share with others merely because I desperately want people to know how Jesus Christ has changed my life! If that appears idiotic, it is only because it is the absolute truth. If it appears zealous, I do apologize. But I am not going to try and force my beliefs on anyone because I am perfectly aware that only the Holy Spirit has the ability to bring about salvation in someone's heart. I am merely a mouthpiece for sharing about the greatest love story ever told, nothing more.
P.S. Everyone needs some reading material when they are in the restroom! lol, just kidding. I have to admit that I laughed when I read about the track you found in the public toilet. But hey, if someone got saved in there....it would make for a pretty interesting and humorous testimony! =)
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
The term "evalngelism" is unquely religious, and in fact christian in origin. Etymologically, the term comes from the Koine Greek term euangelion (transliterated), and later from the Latin evangelium. The context of the word is somewhat less precise in modern times, but the essential meaning of the word refers specifically to the christian practice of proselytizing.
I think that a better question is, "why are you prepetuating a phony quote?" I did a little research, and this appears to be a fraudulent quotation that originated from a series of mass-distrubted e-mails (SNOPES), and which is not accurately attributed to this author. Now, I grant you that your made-up quote isn't that far off the mark of something that Philip Pullman might say, but this does suggest that you're just regurgitating an opinion that you read somewhere on the internet from a source that isn't all that concerned with telling the truth. (LINK).
As to whether or not Philip Pullman is an atheist, here is how he responded to a question about what term would best describe him in a recent interview....
DAVID FROST: "And that makes you an atheist as some people say worryingly, Catholic Herald, or just an agnostic?"
PHILIP PULLMAN: "The question of what term to use is a difficult one, in strict terms I suppose I'm an agnostic because of course the circle of the things I do now is vastly smaller than the things I don't know about out there in the darkness somewhere maybe there is a God. But among all the things I do know in this world I see no evidence of a God whatsoever and everybody who claims to know there is a God seems to use that as an excuse for exercising power over other people and historically as we know from looking at the history in Europe alone that's involved persecution, massacre, slaughter on an industrial scale, it's a shocking prospect."
You may, but your accusation would be completely inaccurate. Atheism is an absense of belief in supernatural forces and agencies. It may be classified as a philosophy, but by defintion it is not a religion. Atheism has no codified "theology," nor is there a "holy text" of atheism that commands its followers to proselytize (or to do anything else, for that matter). Even if you meet an atheist that is particularly outspoken, his (or her) comments cannot be accurately described as "evangelical," though they may be passionate, or even insistent.
Do you find atheism to be absurd? Quid pro quo. If so, why do you feel the need to spend so much time responding to atheistic skepticism? Quid pro quo.
I would say that offering an argument designed to debunk the supernatural fallacies of religion isn't "making" anyone believe anything. All debate is premised on an attempt to convince others of the validity of a held position. Religion is not immune to intellect