This article explains why Trump continues to have support from misguided conservative Christians. Trump has zero belief in Christianity, and merely mouths Christian platitudes for the votes they bring. His high-profile Christian supporters should know better, but as their moral compass is already broken, it’s not surprising that they’re spinning in circles.
Except for the expectation that it’s men that should lead families, church and nation, I like the backhanded finish:
Christian right people used to be some of our culture’s leading advocates for a restoration of sound character in America. Character counts, they said. We need to fight all those forces that corrode our culture and cheapen human life, they said. We need men of strong, Christ-like character to lead our families, churches, and nation, they said.
This article is funny because it’s true.
This article highlights what’s wrong with atheists who are too militant. You’re never going to convince someone of their incorrectness by throwing it in their face. Plus, it’s just rude to begin a conversation with the intention of attacking someone for their beliefs. So just don’t.
However, I do think there should be a correction about her usage of “militant atheism” meaning “an atheism whose adherents force their beliefs on others”. Militant Atheism doesn’t mean forcing atheism on others, although some atheists, like the cousin in the article, who are militant may do this. Rather, militant atheism sees religion as a negative force. It might seem like a fine distinction, but it’s important to understand the difference between the reason why a person is in your face, and the criticisms that person is making.
This article is… different. Martin Kentish seems to be another selective science denier who can’t see the irony that science is only wrong when it’s conflicting with his worldview. He’s surrounded by science that works, but when it comes to scrutinizing biblical claims, science stops working. By the way, I’m not saying that right here and now all science is correct, but that it’s curious how it always isn’t when Kentish needs it to be wrong.
Also, he fails to criticize his worldview very much at all.
Dogs, cats and humans share similar characteristics. They all have eyes, a brain, ears, femurs, backbones etc. To a naturalist, this is evidence of common descent. To a Biblical creationist, this is evidence of a common designer.
See, if there’s common descent, we’d expect similar characteristics. But if there’s a common designer, especially one of the unlimited ability that Kentish’s god has, then there’s no reason to expect that designer to design exactly like common descent would. Yet, instead of us living in a world where our pets are 3-legged flying blind ears, we live in a world where they are cats and dogs. It bears thinking about.
Because there’s an adaption of The Most Reluctant Convert, which is about the life and struggles with faith of that most famous of Christian apologists C. S. Lewis, here’s a link to a review.
And one on about the existence of aliens as an argument against god. I’m not sure where Lewis was going with this one, but what the hell.
Although a little out of date, this article is worth looking at for the way it merges positiveness with a lack of inquisitiveness.
While the decision to stop defending one’s religion against criticisms can be applauded up to some point, I wonder where that point is when one of the purposes of a religion is to evangelize. But even if answering criticisms of one’s religion is becoming tiresome, answers to those criticisms shouldn’t be ignored in their power to question faith.
This article by Hancen Sale is pretty hopeful in its depiction of god. Obviously, he’s searching for a god who is good, god who has our best interests at heart even though we live in a world where it’s so easy to find horror and evil.
Hancen himself admits his version of god is a weak theology, but I’m not sure he realizes how weak it is. He finishes:
God is what affirms that we have been thrown into the world which is already running and we spend our whole lives trying to keep up, only to be told there is no finish line. Perhaps there may be some finish line, — even so, it is far enough away to evade sight — so it is in our best interest to stop, take a look around and embrace the ambiguity that surrounds us.
That ambiguity is God — the essence that there is more and even though we cannot see it coming, it must be there.
If a god is not an interventionist god, then the god is no god at all. And once that god intervenes, then we may judge the fitness of its actions. Of course, there are those who say that a god’s actions are beyond reproach, but then we may as well say that there is no good or evil, only that which we have been divinely instructed to do. If you’re a theist, then before you disagree with my last sentence, check your scripture for times when your god has commanded us to do what we would otherwise define as evil. Even though I only need one example to be correct, I’m pretty sure that there a more than a few in whichever holy book it is you follow.
So I would ask Sale to likewise check his scripture to see how much his god has intervened in earthly affairs. He should come up with a reason for why a god which was once so active now gets relegated to the status of an amorphous ambiguity.