At least one Christian club or group can be found on most public college and university campuses today.
One prominent Christian campus ministry, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, has staff working on 580 U.S. college campuses alone. InterVarsity President Alec Hill calls the college campus "the strategic point where you can impact the world by connecting with students, because of who the students will become."
It seems now that militant atheists are catching on. Atheists can now be found nearby Christians on college campuses "evangelizing" new adherents.
This new generation of atheists - typically more aggressive and outspoken than their predecessors - includes bestselling authors Richard Dawkins and also ex-Christians.
Just over the weekend, John Loftus, a former Church of Christ preacher, took his crusade to debunk evangelical Christianity to Indiana State University, where he promoted his new book, Why I Became an Atheist.
Loftus, who once taught apologetics to students at Christian universities, on Saturday appealed to the crowd to see Christianity as a false system.
He said that Christians should realize their faith is just one of many, and he cited evidence based on geography, history, philosophy and scripture to make his case that the existence of a Christian God is impossible, the Indiana Daily Student reported.
"I want them to get away from relying on inspired texts," said Loftus, according to the paper, "and come up with their own conclusions adopted by themselves based on their own reasons and evidence."
Loftus runs a Web site called "Debunking Christianity" which has a stated purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity. On the blog, Loftus profiles himself as majoring under William Lane Craig, a well-known apologist, and holding a Th.M. degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
During his address at ISU, Loftus documented that his crisis of faith started after a failed love affair led to him be outcast from his Christian community, according to the student newspaper. He said that during the next 14 years he shed his faith and eventually adopted atheism.
Loftus' story contrasts with that of Lee Strobel, a former atheist who accepted Christ and is now a popular Christian apologist.
Strobel has encouraged Christians and pastors to arm themselves against attacks on Christianity, which were in part fueled by an increase in best-selling atheist books.
A best-selling author himself, Strobel just released "The Case for Christ" DVD, which answers two of the biggest objections to Christianity: “Why is Jesus the only way to God?” and “How could a loving God exist if there is evil and suffering in the world?”
In his latest work, Strobel interviews scholars, theologians, and ministry leaders who provide intellectual arguments to questions skeptics might ask.
"The questions can be brutally difficult and the answers are not quick - they're not easy," says Strobel in the DVD.
"But if we come to God in faith, I believe he gives us legitimate reasons for hope that carry us through the most difficult circumstances for our lives."
RSS
For those who prefer watching rather than reading, "The Case For Christ", The Case For A Creator", and "The Case For Faith" are all available on DVD.
"but only after the Church finally let them do so"
That's the distinction. Christianity is about the relationship between each person and God through Jesus Christ. "The Church" didn't always represent the interests of that relationship.
Thank you very much and have a nice day, Steve.
God bless you and your family.
' you will find many (I dare say most) medical breakthroughs were done by Christian's trying to understand God's creation'
I know, but only after the Church finally let them do so, hundreds of years went by where no such major science discoveries were really applied.
Prior to this is was sacreligious and unholly to examine a dead human. Besides, those earlier western scientists were all Christian, it's not like there was anyone else of another religion to do the discovery and to be anything but Christian in those days wasn't exactly a favorable way to go about ones life, they were often set ablaze. It would be like having a gun pointed to your head and then asking what religion you were, no much of a choice really.
"The Case for Christ"
is a book every non-Christian who is sure of what he believes should read (as well as the Christians). The works of Francis Scheafer are also quite logical in reasoning.
"You talk like knowledge it a bad thing, well I guess in your eyes it could be as you will end of with less people bothering to pray to god(s) to cure some disease any modern technoloy has the cure."
Actually, you will find many (I dare say most) medical breakthroughs were done by Christian's trying to understand God's creation and what sin did to it. Many of the breakthroughs were based on "how do we get this back to the way God created it to be".
So, not only is your statement subjective but it removes the motivation behind so many of mans great medical breakthroughs.
"If atheists believe that man will save himself(continue living), through the power of his own spirit, then he has made himself the god to hope in"
Everything dies, and atheists do not belive in an after life, so their goals aren't to 'continue living' in this hyptotheical that you mention. If anything is going to save us from a mile wide asteroid or super volcanoes it will be ourselves and with the help of science, technology, it’s about the only way to avoid or recover from such a disaster.
"hence, the brightest will be the greater gods, and their followers, will place their hope and ultimately their total devotion/faith in these men to see them through"
I don’t think we or anyone in general worships highly intelligent people, but such people should be given their due respect, admiration and placed among the all time greats of humanity, they are a reflection of what is possible when genius and technology meet for a brief time. Today we already to take advantage of such noble minds in their medicines, surgery, technology and so forth, the alternative is to live in a jungle or like the Amish absent from any knowledge of how to our yourselves via knowledge. You talk like knowledge it a bad thing, well I guess in your eyes it could be as you will end of with less people bothering to pray to god(s) to cure some disease any modern technoloy has the cure.
"No hope in anything..but total desperation."
That's not it, it's just comming to grips with reality instead of endulging in dillusionment that after one dies they live on. It's a nice idea an all in that we could see loved ones in death and that we don't have to fear death as a result, but like santa claus and its story, just b/c it sounds ideal and fanciful doesn't make it any more true. This is bronze age ignorance + fear + wishfull thinking + greed at its best.
"For, to believe that man can succeed through his own work, is ultimately to believe that his works will save him."
Save yourselves from what exactly steiner? To presume one needs to be saved from somthing is to assume an afterlife exists in the first place! If one assumes no afterlife, there is nothing to be saved from in the first place, you just die and that's it.
"Christians knock on doors..."
Converse, please do not confuse Christians with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. They are not Christians and distort God's truth. Christians don't just go out and knock on doors. They are used by God in situations where others need them.
"It's not that I'm against christianity, I'm just against hypocrisy."
Where's the hypocrisy exactly? By being upset about atheists trying to confuse others there is no hypocrisy. Christians are in no way practicing something they don't believe in. Now if a Christian were to play church and evangelize to others but didn't believe in God, that would be hypocrisy.
so jjdiogenes,
I guess you are just a fly on the wall?!..
steiner: Your logic is absolutely horrid, just dreadful. You'll have to explain in more detail how you made some of those leaps.
agentorangex,
I dont believe that you, or for that matter, most atheists have thought through their atheism.
When I point out that atheism is essentially a gospel of death...I mean that it is that exactly. No hope in anything..but total desperation.
Let me explain...
If atheists claim that they have no gods whatsoever, then they place themselves in an interesting predicament.
For, to believe that man can succeed through his own work, is ultimately to believe that his works will save him. Man has placed his hope in his works.
Those who worship their works are idol worshippers. For atheists to say that their hope is in their works is tantamount to saying that they worship what they make...since they believe that what they make will save them.
But atheists dont believe in any idols, so they cannot hope in their own works.
If atheists believe that man will save himself(continue living), through the power of his own spirit, then he has made himself the god to hope in...hence, the brightest will be the greater gods, and their followers, will place their hope and ultimately their total devotion/faith in these men to see them through...
But for atheism to hope in the spirit of these, is to ultimately have these as gods.
Atheism does not accept gods, hence these also will pushed away, since no god is to be believed by atheism.
One who is purely an atheist has no hope at all. To be an atheist is to say that ultimately death and desperation are the only choices that man has...
otherwise, you have to declare yourself to be an idol worshipper. Then, once you have realized and accepted this, we can have a proper discussion of where our belief systems lead us...
So which is it, are you a pure atheist, or are you an idol worshipper...and which idol do you worship?
If by no hope you mean not believig in something which has no evidence for it at all (after life), well, then yes. This is the same sort of wishfully thinking that is dashed away from a child when they realize santa also isn't real.
Really no evidence at all. There are things that mankind has not been able to reproduce since he has lived here. He cannot revive someone after extended periods of time. He cannot produce life from nonliving things, since science says we come from a pool of complex atoms. Man has never really cured any illnesses. Man can never find a cure-all.
aritonang
"In Indonesia, we call Loftus and his kind: looser."
You really need to let our Lord deal with your root of bitterness.
Yours concerned
Steve
Is this article a joke?
Compare Christian evangelism to atheist "evangelism." InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has staff working of 580 people. Christians knock on doors, walk up to ppl on streets, and go on missions preaching. There are Christians who shout on street corners, own TV and radio, and have entire schools and Jesus Camps dedicated to brainwashing...I mean, converting...the young. All of this evangelism because their alleged laudable and all-powerful God is either unwilling or incapable of doing it himself.
And now, christians are complaining about a few atheists, calling them "aggressive" and "militant," for writing books and making speeches on college campuses? Loftus makes news? Oh please.
It's not that I'm against christianity, I'm just against hypocrisy.
Well, maybe he put too much faith in a religious system, than in Jesus Himself.
Maybe he didn't read the part where Jesus said we would endure hardships. I don't know.
Either way, I pray for his prodigal return.
During his address at ISU, Loftus documented that his crisis of faith started after a failed love affair led to him be outcast from his Christian community, according to the student newspaper.He said that during the next 14 years he shed his faith and eventually adopted atheism.
In Indonesia, we call Loftus and his kind: looser.
orange,
The Bible (aside from being a spiritual book) is an extremely accurate and reliable historical document. From what I've learned from Josh McDowell, it is as accurate as any other historical document in existence.
For example, for centuries many thought Luke (who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts) was way off in some of his geography, and historical facts. Many terms that he used for certain people and things were thought to be incorrect because they had not been discovered in any other piece of literature. But as time, and archaeology, uncovered many physical finds that proved that Luke was right on in every single one of his disputed texts.
Sources from outside the Bible and Christianity supported the life of Christ. Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Emporer Trajan, Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, even (debatably) Pontius Pilate himself.
"the reality is that if the Jewish leaders wanted to put a stop to this whole issue all they had to do was produce the body"
They did put a stop to it - by killing him remember? But shortly after that they likely thought the jewish spin off, christianity, would have disapeared on its own as it had no leader.
What jewish records demonstrate such a body was left to be gaurded in the first place?
agent, the reality is that if the Jewish leaders wanted to put a stop to this whole issue all they had to do was produce the body, but neither they nor the Romans and even more specifically the Roman guards given the responsibility for guarding the tomb could provide the body. Christianity would have been dead on arrival if anyone had just produced the dead body of Christ, but they didn't because they couldn't, because He has risen, He has risen indeed!!
"agent, then where's the body of Christ?"
I don't know. Where's the body of Jimmy Hoffa? See what I am getting at? Today, if jesus' remains were somehow found, how could we even know they were his in the first place?
agent, then where's the body of Christ?
"If everyone of these people were lying there is no way Christianity would've survived this long"
Oh please, not too long ago the Church had a monoply on scripture as it was in Latin and rarely was it allowed for any individual to take their own copy home and read it themselves. They had to go simply on the cardinal or popes rhetoric of 'it's true, b/c the book says so'. It's kind hard to critique and challenge the views of something when most non-clergy were illitirate and not able to take their own copy home and critique it.
And what makes you say that? look at how many religions man has had over time (over 3000 recorded gods). Why were all these other people so gulliable with these other gods and now you make an exception for your own? Also, look at today, major religions are mutually exclusive all saying they're right while all others are wrong.
"I think you keep forgetting about the hundreds of witnesses of His resurrection after the death on the cross"
No, no, no. The authors of the passages said '100's of people witnessed it', this is not the same as those 100's of people signing a letter of aggreenment or writing their own stories about it. It's still one persons account in which they say 500 others saw it, not the same thing.
Orange,
You keep comparing Christ to Santa Claus. I think you keep forgetting about the hundreds of witnesses of His resurrection after the death on the cross. If everyone of these people were lying there is no way Christianity would've survived this long. Obviously there is truth to Christ's resurrection and gives truth to life after death!
ifeelfine, if you define a militant Christian as a Christian who by the empowering of the Holy Spirit takes a bold stand for their faith and the cause of Christ, then I am indeed a militant Christian and considering we're told to put on the whole Armor of God and that we are involved in spiritual warfare, my sense is that it is God's desire that all Christians are to be Soldiers of the Cross.
steiner,
If by no hope you mean not believig in something which has no evidence for it at all (after life), well, then yes. This is the same sort of wishfully thinking that is dashed away from a child when they realize santa also isn't real.
So you're saying it's better to live life with a view for something which you can't verify and then cling to it so utterly so as to be fearful of having to make choices in life?
and what do they preach...
no hope, desperation, and death...t
hey have been preaching this to for awhile now.
"How do you feel about people who refuse to provide non-life-threatening service to someone because of what they believe?"
I guess if it's a persons own business that they are running and then if they choose not to give a taxi ride to a person who is intoxicated then this I don't agree with, but the customer will find the service elsewhere.
prophet & believer: Would you define yourselves as militant Christians?
wbmoore,
Exactly. I think it's fine for believers and non believers to openly protest or discuss in public their beliefs, but the govt. shouldn't have the power to influence either way.
agent,
I think you and I agree on this. If people want to discriminate against someone because of their beliefs, its ok. If the government wants to do so, it is not ok.
How do you feel about people who refuse to provide non-life-threatening service to someone because of what they believe?
aveteran,
I think the website has a bug. Occasionally perfectly innocent posts disappear for believers and unbelievers alike. Send a note to support@christianpost.com (I think that's the right email address, if it does not work, send it to info@christianpost.com and they will forward it).
During his address at ISU, Loftus documented that his crisis of faith started after a failed love affair led to him be outcast from his Christian community, according to the student newspaper. He said that during the next 14 years he shed his faith and eventually adopted atheism.
I guess he didn't think as a teacher of the word he was required to be a doer. He should remember Aaron's sons who offered up unauthorized fire. Did he forget what happened to one of David's son because of his affair? Did he really think God would not have to make him pay for what he did? Yes, God for gives us for the sin, which separates us from Him. But we still have to take responsiblity for what we did wrong. A theif still goes to jail for theiving, but God can forgive the sin.
He shed his faith... I guess like a snake. He took off the cloak of righteousness in favor of nakedness in the world.
He said that Christians should realize their faith is just one of many, and he cited evidence based on geography, history, philosophy and scripture to make his case that the existence of a Christian God is impossible, the Indiana Daily Student reported.
Then he became wise in natural things and used them to explain things beyond them.
Jude 1:10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.
With God all things are possible
Will the person who flagged my post please have the courtesy to share why?
Apparently my complaint about slandering atheists with the "militant" label didn't suit some folks. Of course, none of the anti-atheist hatefest posts have been deleted. Excuse me, your editorial bias is showing.
"so its ok for the government to discriminate against atheists simply because of what they believe "
Well no, it's not okay, nor is it okay for the govt. to discriminate against those who do believe. The key distinction is how the places of work are for the vast majority of people, not at all related to govt, they are not employed by the govt. Also, is the licensing board privately run, or govt run? I also woulnd't mind seeing this backed by some sources, nothing personal, just makes sense to source it.
If the guy wants to practice his own business and while doing so refers to body parts 'made by god' then he has every right to do so, but he can't complain if people leave as a result of this.
Speaking out publically against or for beliefs is fine, but the govt should not be involved on way or the other. They can provide crowd control and enfore the rule of law so riots don't erupt, but they should be indifferent.
agent, so its ok for the government to discriminate against atheists simply because of what they believe (or dont)? I am pretty sure, based on your previous posts, that you would have a problem with this idea. The problem is not people deciding to go elsewhere, but the state board of certification/licensing punishing the believing Christian chiropractor (who is a self-employed small business owner). This discrimination by the government is what many atheists and agnostics claim does not happen. But in fact, does.
"He said that Christians should realize their faith is just one of many, and he cited evidence based on geography, history, philosophy and scripture to make his case that the existence of a Christian God is impossible, the Indiana Daily Student reported. "
How can anyone intellectually dispute that without only seeing Christianity as the sole religion? It is a basic fact that Christianity is one of many, popular of most, but certainly not absolute.
I don't have a problem with "militant" atheists and I feel they should be afforded the same rights as "militant" Christians as I explained in an earlier post. My only question is what's their point? Why would they want to destroy another person's belief system? To me I see this movement as a reaction to the ministries on the campuses such as Intervarsity and Campus Crusade and I see it as being driven by anger and even revenge for what these Christian groups believe and for their challenging the atheists views on there being no God. After all how does it benefit a person who truly believes in God to not believe in God. The ones who come to these sites I find for the most part are very angry and bitter toward those of us who still believe in God. Talk about hate speech these guys could give the KKK a good run for their money. But this should also serve as a challenge to the local church and Christian parents about preparing their young people for battle because now they will not only face the battle against secular humanism in their classrooms, but in their dorms and campus centers as well and they need to be equipped to win the battle through good solid biblical discipleship because not only is their belief system a target, but more importantly they have a great opportunity to be used of God in winning secular humanists to Christ as well.
"InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, has a staff working on 580 U.S. colleges."
People have all heard what the Christians have to say. Please give the atheists a chance to speak.
Christians have 580 people in just one fellowship alone, actively trying to "evangelize," but when a handful of atheists want to speak and share ideas, atheism is suddenly "aggressive" and "militant." Oh, give me a break. Let these college students listen and judge for themselves. Many top scientists, Nobel Prize winners, top professors and writers have turned to atheism. Perhaps there is something to be said.
ShuckCreations
"They mean to harm our way of life, they want to destroy the foundation that makes us happy..."
If everyone thought the way you did, the world would filled with paranoia and misunderstanding. We, today, live in a global village, and we must understand the "way of life" of others and ourselves. There are successful, noble, and happy atheists in the world. They are living proof that the foundation of happiness doesn't come from were you think. Atheists are everywhere these days and most are decent people. We must interact peacefully, but communicate, discuss, and truly probe why we think the way we do and seek the truth, not merely "tolerant" each other.
Atheists most come forward and discuss their ideas. If they are wrong, then theists should point out were they are mistaken, and vice versa. If an atheist/theists are hidden and never challenged, what good is it? How are we to know what is the truth?
orange,
I've had discussions with you before, and I must say I am extremely suprised. You've always come across as intelligent, but your last post reflects otherwise.
As to your comment about being aggressively involved and it's alternative. Um, common sense. The alternative is someone who is an athiest and just lives his life to himself. He doesn't make waves, or start controversy. Their are those types in both camps. I thought someone of your intelligence would have gotten that. Not everyone who is an atheist is out there promoting the their view (in other words "one who is actively involved in a cause").
As to your last part of the message. He is not losing business because atheists don't like what he's teaching and therefore deciding not to go to him. He wouldn't have a problem with that. The problem is that atheists don't like what he's teaching, and feel compelled to make sure that no one (even those who want to hear it) has to listen. As I said, if this particular person/people found what he taught offensive, they are free to choose another chiropractor. They are everywhere. But I guess that type of common sense is above them.
"Merriam Webster Dictionary. Definition #2 of "militant": one who is actively involved in a cause."
If on is not actively involved, then what is the alternative, passively? Such a word has meaning and you belittle the meaning when you associate it with general protests which aren't violent, as opposed to some militant actions like 9-11. Now that, is militant.
"If a man cannot do his job simply because He believes in God, there is something very wrong.
Oh hogwash. prophet is giving an example where a man has a belief in which he involves it with his work by telling other 'god did this, god did that'. If his business sufferes b/c people simply want a a service and not to be preached to, then so be it. If he wants to risk his business then that's his proragative. This is no different that pharmecy techs who think they have a right to deny birth control, or muslims who wont provide taxi service to those who are intoxicated, or complain about their role in a stores checkout b/c they have to handle *gasp* pork! If they don't like that element of the job, then find another job, they aren't beinng forced to work in that role.
orange,
To clarify...when I use the word "militant", I did not mean it in the sense of someone who would do physical harm.
I used it in this sense
Merriam Webster Dictionary. Definition #2 of "militant": one who is actively involved in a cause.
So I'm sorry if I came across as saying that the person/people were actively trying to militarily, or forcefully attack another person. But I was refering to someone who is active in their beliefs and active in promoting them.
I am a militant Christian. I don't make threats. I don't shoot people. I don't abduct and torture people. I am just very active in my faith and the promotion of it.
By the way, as webmoore pointed out, making it nearly impossible for a man to support his family is bordering (if not intruding) into your definition of militant. If a man cannot do his job simply because He believes in God, there is something very wrong.
By preventing someone from making a living, you prevent them from being able to feed their family. By your stated definition, it is militant.
I agree that taking military action is militant. However, so too is being aggressive for a cause. If you don't believe me, look it up. Of course, you're just choosing to be blind to this fact in this instance because it is a Christian being prejudiced against. You are not balanced, but rabidly atheistic, so you can not see truth.
There is a difference between saying something you disagree with something and then acting prejudiciously against that person so they can no longer help others and make sufficient money to make a living. THAT is militantly prejudicial against the free exercise of religion.
And as this is a state board of certification, it is also against the constitution.
wbmoore,
Are you serous? Flying planes into building and preaching 'death to america' is quite militant, as is their actions of killing others directly for their god. But but speaking out against the irational nature of religion and faith is in your minds militant? By your logic those who espose doubt and disblelief in santa, bigfoot and other such non credible things are also being militant. But, those individuals are not harming anyone physically, they are not torturing them, nor are they burning them at the stake. Hardly militant.
"Carl Sagan died in delusion and is now living in the reality of hell"
And this can be proved how? Riiight
"Militant is refered to the physical actions and their actions in which others are directly threatended or harmed PHYSICALLY."
Preventing someone who is harming no one from being able to make a living and feed their family because of the prejudice of the board qualifies for your definition of militant.
dongard, you've come to a Christian Post website. It is meant for christians to read about what's happening for or against Christ. Of course it's going to reassure it's readers that there is hope out there. If you want unbiased news go to CBS or ABC...oh wait, nevermind.....
"Now atheists on the other hand want us to come to an understanding that there is no God."
We want you to grasp reality as it really is, not as you'd wishfully hope it is despite no evidence for it. Sure you can fool a nonsencial person into thinking santa is real, so long as you use the same logicalally fallacious tricks religions do.
"They mean to harm our way of life, they want to destroy the foundation that makes us happy...what gives us peace."
If that means destroying the disillusionment in something for which you and no one can yet or possible ever prove (life after death), then yes, that is part of it. But so it letting go of the fantansy of santa as one concludes his exisntance is a fraud as well.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan.
Prophet,
Militant? HAliarious! So when a person protests against something and doesn't use physical force, that is in your eyes militatant huh?
Militant is refered to the physical actions and their actions in which others are directly threatended or harmed PHYSICALLY. Just b/c people are speaking out agains non rational things doesn't make them militant. You're no better that the Scientologists who cry presicution when their beliefs are examined, ridiculed and left to rot.
My chiropractor is shutting his practice down due to religious persecution.
He teaches a class once a week on the human body, and how it works, and the benefits of chiropractic care. He uses phrases like "God created the body for..." or "God designed the body to...." Some militant atheist decided that instead of going to another chiropractor, that he was going to take it up with the board. The liscensing board cannot deny him his liscense since he hasn't done anything unethical. But they made it very clear that they did not approve of his teaching methods, and were going to make his re-liscensing as time consuming, and financially burdomesome as the law will allow. Both of which he cannot afford.
To me, this is an the state mandated movement against the first amendment. Meanwhile, I can find a number of chiropractors that teach about how "evolution designe our body to..." and the board doesn't even give them a second look. And my chiropractor said he wasn't the only Christian being targeted in our area.
The war is on fellas (and ladies). Time to suit up. Time to get on our knees and fight.
"They mean to harm our way of life, they want to destroy the foundation that makes us happy...what gives us peace."
Just how, may I ask, could atheists actually accomplish this? Happiness and peace are something you hold and experience inside, as a result of your perceptions, and how you are feeling about what is happening outside, in the real world.
If exposure to other ideas and other worldviews can make you unhappy or un-peaceful, do you think it's fair to blame the messenger? YOU are responsible for your own feelings and perceptions. How you choose to view the world is your business, and if someone's words cause you to perhaps see things in a different way, that too is a result of your own choice.
I think most Humanists choose to make our views known not to "evangelize," but to demonstrate to those who feel as we do that they are not alone. Many Americans question their own beliefs, and yours too, by the way, but are not aware, in some cases, that there are others who feel the same way they do.
Think about it. If you were, as far as you knew, the only Christian in town, would you not be pleased to learn there were others?
By the way, it does no good whatsoever to throw out bible quotes to those who do not recognize it's authority.
christiangrowthnetwork - Actually, those aren't the only two options. And it's not a fact - it's not an either or option. You speak as if there can only be a Christian god. What about all the other gods from all of the other religions?
the title of this article is "Atheists 'Evangelize' on College Campuses." it professes in style to be a report. exactly what value then is there in finishing a news article on atheists with a oh-hum report on "Lee Strobel, a former atheist who accepted Christ and is now a popular Christian apologist." except to make the faithful feel good. that's bias in reporting news people.
even worse is the comment by Pinochos
This quote from David for you so-called self-absorbed, all-knowing atheists
"How great are your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep. A senseless man has no knowledge, nor does a stupid man understand this . . . but You, O Lord are on high forever." -- Psalm 92:5-8
David rightly points out two adjectives that describes the likes of you: senseless and stupid."
if all you can do is throw insults at people that you don't agree with. what does that say about you?
standing right behind Pinochos are people like the taliban.
It sounds like Mr. Loftus faced some disappointments in life that were stronger than his faith in God. It reminds me of the story of Billy Graham and Charles Templeton. Billy Graham as we know went on to preach the gospel to hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) and grew stronger in his faith to this day. Charles Templeton was overcome by doubts and a struggle to understand the evil that existed around him, eventually turned into an atheist.
Bottomline: God either exists or He doesn't.
Whoever is wrong, the Christian or the Atheist, is a fool. If the Christian is wrong he will live his life serving someone who doesn't exist. If the atheist is wrong he will die, be judged and face eternity in hell.
This is not an argument to believe or deny, just a fact.
You choose. But before you do, make sure you read the Bible and ask yourself the question, "Who is Jesus?"
www.christiangrowthnetwork.com
>> Loftus documented that his crisis of faith started after a failed love affair led to him be outcast from his Christian community <<
This, unfortunately seems to be the way a lot of "ex-Christian" atheists abandon their faith and relationship with the Lord. It starts with them feeling abandoned by God (via those of us representing Him). While we could say that their fellowship with Christ was lacking to begin with, if that's where they ended up, it's important to realize just how much responsibility we have as Ambassadors for God to minister with Christ's love to those around us ... in all situations.
I feel bad for this guy. I refuse to find any justification for what he's doing (leading people away from God and potentially playing a role in others' eternal damnation), but I understand how he might feel. I've been there myself.
We should pray for him.
One friend of mine doesn't like to be called an athiest. Regarding whether or not God exists, she says, "I just don't CARE one way or the other."
So, I call her an "apathiest". She thinks it's a pretty clever term.
Flagged as inappropriate. Converse, while I do see where you're coming from understanding is just not going to work here. You see by understanding, or let's say accepting, atheists we are allowing our friends, our brothers, to die. By reaching an understanding we, those who truely believe in Christ, hurt and are saddened when others refuse to live under the Grace of God. It'd be like a family member who refused medical treatment that could save their life...same concept. Now atheists on the other hand want us to come to an understanding that there is no God. They mean to harm our way of life, they want to destroy the foundation that makes us happy...what gives us peace. So who's the real "militant" here? Those wishing to offer peace or those wishing to take it away?
Many people today are growing to accept atheism. Atheists are everywhere: teachers, professors, Nobel Prize winners, government officials, firemen, and your co-worker and neighbor. It is important for believers and non-believers alike to increase dialogue between one another to communicate and reach an understanding.
Let us not forget Christ is obedience. So christian strive to be obedient to God word. Anti-Christ is disobedience. These are the rebellious that work opposition to God commands.
Jude says:
Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.
As a Pastor in Upstate New York we used to get summer missionaries every year. I did my best to get students from a secular college as opposed to a Christian college. Because I knew the students from a secular college were in a large majority of cases far more committed to serving Christ than students at a Christian college where in many cases it's easy and/or cool to be a Christian. The reality is for a Christian student to take a stand for Christ on a secular campus calls them to be a true soldier of the Cross. So I guess in many ways it would be correct to call Christian students who boldy take a stand for their faith on their college campuses "Militant Christians".
This quote from David for you so-called self-absorbed, all-knowing atheists:
"How great are your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep. A senseless man has no knowledge, nor does a stupid man understand this . . . but You, O Lord are on high forever." -- Psalm 92:5-8
David rightly points out two adjectives that describes the likes of you: senseless and stupid.
yes indeed, whats good for the goose....
How come the atheists who publicly proclaim their own views on campuses are described here as "militant atheists," when the Christians are just described as "Christians?"