Jul 16,2009, 10:53AM
If you believe in God, should you believe in Santa Claus too?
Well I must say, I had a great time reading the comments, critiques and insults that came in after my last post with its modest attempt to define "atheism". In particular, many self-described atheists took umbrage to my claim that atheism is denial of the proposition that God exists. (Apparently my smarmy attitude was also ripe for verbal assault.)
One of my most spirited opponents drew comparisons between belief in God and unicorns as he/she asked: "do you believe in unicorns? Can you disprove the existence of unicorns?" The idea, presumably, is that belief in unicorns and God are equivalent. Thus, if belief in unicorns is irrational then so is belief in God (bad news for the theist). And if disbelief in unicorns is the rational position for the average person on the street then so is disbelief in God (good news for the atheist).
This is an important comparison to consider, but in doing so I am going to switch from unicorns to Santa Claus since the latter (being a concrete individual rather than a type of thing) is a closer parallel to God. So the question: is belief in Santa Claus like belief in God?
First, let's begin to address the question in the manner of Thomas Aquinas, by giving our opponent as fair a shake as possible:
So here we go. Picture yourself a manager at Walmart interviewing a potential employee to work in the warehouse. "Alfred" seems to be a well-adjusted intelligent twenty-five year old who has solid work experience and references, Thus you are inclined to hire him. Then you notice his Rolex watch and you offer a compliment. "Nice watch Alfred."
"Thanks," he replies, "Santa gave it to me." You pause, wait for the punchline, and then slowly, with growing trepidation, you realize that he is deathly serious.
You swallow nervously as Alfred watches you intently. "Santa?" you ask in a futile attempt to sound nonchalant. A bead of sweat rolls down your brow.
"Yes," Alfred replies. "I was very good last year. Santa loves me, and he watches everything we do. So you can trust me Mr. Manager."
Okay, would you hire Alfred even after he confessed belief in Santa Claus? At the very least wouldn't you be at least be less inclined to hire him in light of that belief? You might concede Alfred's point that believing Santa is watching over him will make him more likely to be honest and hard working. But would that potential positive byproduct of his belief be sufficient to allay your concerns?
With that in mind, let's replay the last exchange:
"Nice watch Alfred."
"Thanks. The Lord provided it as an answer to prayer."
Many people would view the invocation of God as much less threatening or epistemologically questionable than invocation of Santa Claus. Indeed, many would be positively encouraged to hear the invocation of God. But if it appears irrational to ascribe the acquisition of the watch to Santa Claus, why is it not equally irrational to ascribe it to God? In short, what makes the Christian any more rational than Alfred?
If you believe in God, should you believe in Santa Claus too?
Well I must say, I had a great time reading the comments, critiques and insults that came in after my last post with its modest attempt to define "atheism". In particular, many self-described atheists took umbrage to my claim that atheism is denial of the proposition that God exists. (Apparently my smarmy attitude was also ripe for verbal assault.)
Facebook
Yahoo Buz
My space
Digg
LIKEDIN
MIXX
Stumble It!
Del.icio.us
NewsVine
Email
Print
ShareMost recent comments
1.July 17,2009, 2:12PM
"If I believe the man is not guilty then it follows that I believe the man is innocent. Certainly a juror could refuse to convict because he does not know whether a man is guilty or not (i.e. the state has failed to make its case) but that's another issue."
Precisely. Caffeine was referring to the LATTER sort of issue, and once again you created a straw-man argument by answering as if he had been referring to the FORMER sort of issue.
Precisely. Caffeine was referring to the LATTER sort of issue, and once again you created a straw-man argument by answering as if he had been referring to the FORMER sort of issue.
--Ethan
2.July 17,2009, 12:31PM
Ethan,
If I believe the man is not guilty then it follows that I believe the man is innocent. Certainly a juror could refuse to convict because he does not know whether a man is guilty or not (i.e. the state has failed to make its case) but that's another issue.
If I believe the man is not guilty then it follows that I believe the man is innocent. Certainly a juror could refuse to convict because he does not know whether a man is guilty or not (i.e. the state has failed to make its case) but that's another issue.
--RD Rauser
3.July 17,2009, 12:24PM
"If I affirm (that is I believe) the proposition "this man is not guilty" (meaning this man is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged) then I surely do affirm the proposition "this man is innocent" (meaning this man is innocent of the crime with which he has been charged)."
Not if you're on a jury. It's quite possible to think that a person is guilty, but not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and return a verdict of "not guilty." That doesn't mean you think the defendant is innocent. That was Caffeine's point.
Not if you're on a jury. It's quite possible to think that a person is guilty, but not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and return a verdict of "not guilty." That doesn't mean you think the defendant is innocent. That was Caffeine's point.
--Ethan
4.July 17,2009, 10:37AM
Caffeine,
If I affirm (that is I believe) the proposition "this man is not guilty" (meaning this man is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged) then I surely do affirm the proposition "this man is innocent" (meaning this man is innocent of the crime with which he has been charged). That's as uncontroversial as saying if I believe "Toby is the tallest guy in the room" then I also ought to believe that "Toby is taller than any other guy in the room".
On the coin toss, I disagree. In this case I lack evidence to affirm your claim while also lacking evidence to affirm the contrary. So true to form I should remain agnostic. (However, if you repeatedly refuse to corroborate your claimed result, I may begin to suspect, and eventually come to believe, that you are in fact lying. At that point I might have sufficient evidence to believe the contrary.) But I do agree that I shouldn't give you the money.
If I affirm (that is I believe) the proposition "this man is not guilty" (meaning this man is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged) then I surely do affirm the proposition "this man is innocent" (meaning this man is innocent of the crime with which he has been charged). That's as uncontroversial as saying if I believe "Toby is the tallest guy in the room" then I also ought to believe that "Toby is taller than any other guy in the room".
On the coin toss, I disagree. In this case I lack evidence to affirm your claim while also lacking evidence to affirm the contrary. So true to form I should remain agnostic. (However, if you repeatedly refuse to corroborate your claimed result, I may begin to suspect, and eventually come to believe, that you are in fact lying. At that point I might have sufficient evidence to believe the contrary.) But I do agree that I shouldn't give you the money.
--RD Rauser
5.July 17,2009, 5:13AM
I disagree Randall. When you make the proposition "God exists" you are putting forth a claim. I can judge that claim, examine the evidence that you present for that claim and accept or reject it. If I reject the claim, it could mean that I have accepted the opposing proposition "God does not exist" or it could mean I find your evidence lacking, but in my rejection of your factual proposition I am not necessarily making an opposing factual proposition.
It is a little confusing because if I do affirm an opposing factual proposition I must necessarily reject your proposition. (If I make claim that "gods do not exist" I necessarily reject the claim that "a god exists") but this is not so in reverse.
Consider this example. We ask Discerning here to flip a coin, keeping the results from both of us. Neither of us have seen the coin or spoken to Discerning. I make the claim "the coin came up heads" and either offer no reason for this claim or claim that leprechauns told me. Then I claim, that because my claim is true, you lose a bet we had and owe me $50. In this case you are perfectly warranted to reject my claim that "the coin came up heads" even if you have yourself no position yet on what the actual coin toss result was and you certainly shouldn't give me the money.
Similarly, in the courtroom example, if I deny the proposition "that man is guilty" then I surely ought to affirm the proposition "that man is not guilty", this is true. However I do not need to affirm the proposition "this man is innocent" It may be that based on a preponderance of the evidence, his guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no true dichotomy in the status of my belief of the man's guilt because I cannot claim absolute knowledge.
It is a little confusing because if I do affirm an opposing factual proposition I must necessarily reject your proposition. (If I make claim that "gods do not exist" I necessarily reject the claim that "a god exists") but this is not so in reverse.
Consider this example. We ask Discerning here to flip a coin, keeping the results from both of us. Neither of us have seen the coin or spoken to Discerning. I make the claim "the coin came up heads" and either offer no reason for this claim or claim that leprechauns told me. Then I claim, that because my claim is true, you lose a bet we had and owe me $50. In this case you are perfectly warranted to reject my claim that "the coin came up heads" even if you have yourself no position yet on what the actual coin toss result was and you certainly shouldn't give me the money.
Similarly, in the courtroom example, if I deny the proposition "that man is guilty" then I surely ought to affirm the proposition "that man is not guilty", this is true. However I do not need to affirm the proposition "this man is innocent" It may be that based on a preponderance of the evidence, his guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no true dichotomy in the status of my belief of the man's guilt because I cannot claim absolute knowledge.
--Caffeine
6.July 16,2009, 10:33PM
Ethan,
Thanks for your comments. My focus here is broader than Homoousia316's unicorn comments, though it touches on them, and I will address my own epistemic attitude toward unicorns, keebler elves, the Great Pumpkin and centaurs in a subsequent post. Keep prodding me if I don't (as I'm sure you will).
Thanks for your comments. My focus here is broader than Homoousia316's unicorn comments, though it touches on them, and I will address my own epistemic attitude toward unicorns, keebler elves, the Great Pumpkin and centaurs in a subsequent post. Keep prodding me if I don't (as I'm sure you will).
--RD Rauser
7.July 16,2009, 10:28PM
Thanks Santa!
Discerning:
You raise the alarm on "some pretty sarcastic and hard hearted responses...." Always a good thing to keep an eye on. I know I can get a bit snotty -- no let me change that to "cheeky" -- at times. At the same time, I enjoy a little rough housing in the blog, so long as nobody gets hurt feelings.
Caffeine,
I blushed to see you read things I write that closely. Impressive. Technically you are correct: affirming the proposition "God does not exist" is not the same as denying the proposition "God exists". Nonetheless, affirmation of the former logically entails denial of the latter so if you affirm the former you most surely should deny the latter. (As for your analogy, I beg to differ: if you deny the proposition "that man is guilty" then you surely ought to affirm the proposition "that man is not guilty".)
Discerning:
You raise the alarm on "some pretty sarcastic and hard hearted responses...." Always a good thing to keep an eye on. I know I can get a bit snotty -- no let me change that to "cheeky" -- at times. At the same time, I enjoy a little rough housing in the blog, so long as nobody gets hurt feelings.
Caffeine,
I blushed to see you read things I write that closely. Impressive. Technically you are correct: affirming the proposition "God does not exist" is not the same as denying the proposition "God exists". Nonetheless, affirmation of the former logically entails denial of the latter so if you affirm the former you most surely should deny the latter. (As for your analogy, I beg to differ: if you deny the proposition "that man is guilty" then you surely ought to affirm the proposition "that man is not guilty".)
--RD Rauser
8.July 16,2009, 5:49PM
Dear Randal:
Since you referred to me, please note that my legal name is Santa Claus. I'm a Christian Monk, as St. Nicholas was many centuries ago, and full-time volunteer advocate for the 2 million children in the U.S. annually who are abused, neglected, exploited, abandoned, homeless, and institutionalized through no fault of their own. I believe Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ, rather than the crass, commercial, secular spectacle it has become in many places, and that the greatest gift we can give is love, not presents.
Blessings to all, Santa Claus
TheSantaClausFoundation dot org
Since you referred to me, please note that my legal name is Santa Claus. I'm a Christian Monk, as St. Nicholas was many centuries ago, and full-time volunteer advocate for the 2 million children in the U.S. annually who are abused, neglected, exploited, abandoned, homeless, and institutionalized through no fault of their own. I believe Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ, rather than the crass, commercial, secular spectacle it has become in many places, and that the greatest gift we can give is love, not presents.
Blessings to all, Santa Claus
TheSantaClausFoundation dot org
--Santa Claus
9.July 16,2009, 4:34PM
Discerning,
While the phrase is Christian in origin, its applications and the overall concept is not. While your dibs are honored in this discussion, I hope you'll forgive me while I retain the right to use it in other conversations.
I don't mind the use of swine, the pig is a marvelous (and tasty) animal.
However I do consider the particular mentality as ill-conducive to a discussion, for no other reason than that almost invariably every participant makes the distinction between pearl caster and swine in the same subjective fashion, with himself as the former and the rest as the latter. If made an issue is effectively shuts down discussion on a bad note.
However, since I will refrain from using this phrase here, I'll adopt another quote with similar qualities:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" By Christopher Hitchens will do nicely.
While the phrase is Christian in origin, its applications and the overall concept is not. While your dibs are honored in this discussion, I hope you'll forgive me while I retain the right to use it in other conversations.
I don't mind the use of swine, the pig is a marvelous (and tasty) animal.
However I do consider the particular mentality as ill-conducive to a discussion, for no other reason than that almost invariably every participant makes the distinction between pearl caster and swine in the same subjective fashion, with himself as the former and the rest as the latter. If made an issue is effectively shuts down discussion on a bad note.
However, since I will refrain from using this phrase here, I'll adopt another quote with similar qualities:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" By Christopher Hitchens will do nicely.
--Caffeine
10.July 16,2009, 4:10PM
Caffeine,
Touche, however, seeing as the saying is directed at those who follow Jesus, one could make some rational deduction on who is who... in the broad sense. You'll note I said it might apply in "some" instances. ( Thus I am hopefully not offending those engaging in respectful and thoughtful debate... although possibly offending those who are getting petty and prickly... H316 comes to mind here)
That being said, i don't think this scripture was given to insult, rather, it was a word picture that says something along the lines of not to waste one's time, energy, and God given perspective on someone else whose heart is already hardened.
I've noted some pretty sarcastic and hard hearted responses in the last few blogs that seem to serve nothing more than bringing discussions into the muck of sarcasm and self congratulating witticisms.
But, to not let myself off too lightly, the scripture is defining the pearls as something that is cast by the believer, and the swine ( a poor choice of name perhaps ) as those rejecting.
Perhaps there should be something in the atheist handbook/bible/belief systems, that could say the same thing
eg: stop wasting your time debating those narrow minded, emotionally driven, deluded Christians... but until such time as there is, you can't call dibs on Matthew 7:6 :)
Touche, however, seeing as the saying is directed at those who follow Jesus, one could make some rational deduction on who is who... in the broad sense. You'll note I said it might apply in "some" instances. ( Thus I am hopefully not offending those engaging in respectful and thoughtful debate... although possibly offending those who are getting petty and prickly... H316 comes to mind here)
That being said, i don't think this scripture was given to insult, rather, it was a word picture that says something along the lines of not to waste one's time, energy, and God given perspective on someone else whose heart is already hardened.
I've noted some pretty sarcastic and hard hearted responses in the last few blogs that seem to serve nothing more than bringing discussions into the muck of sarcasm and self congratulating witticisms.
But, to not let myself off too lightly, the scripture is defining the pearls as something that is cast by the believer, and the swine ( a poor choice of name perhaps ) as those rejecting.
Perhaps there should be something in the atheist handbook/bible/belief systems, that could say the same thing
eg: stop wasting your time debating those narrow minded, emotionally driven, deluded Christians... but until such time as there is, you can't call dibs on Matthew 7:6 :)
--Discerning?
11.July 16,2009, 3:42PM
"Matthew 7:6 seems to apply in some instances here don't you think?"
Aaaaah, Discerning... But this raises the question, who among us cast the pearls, and who are the swine?
Aaaaah, Discerning... But this raises the question, who among us cast the pearls, and who are the swine?
--Caffeine
12.July 16,2009, 2:57PM
RD,
Based on some of the comments in the last two posts and the seemingly wasteful time bantering over definitions.... you and I have had this conversation before:
Matthew 7:6 seems to apply in some instances here don't you think?
Based on some of the comments in the last two posts and the seemingly wasteful time bantering over definitions.... you and I have had this conversation before:
Matthew 7:6 seems to apply in some instances here don't you think?
--Discerning?
13.July 16,2009, 2:18PM
Randall, I am starting to doubt my reading comprehension when I read your blog. You state in this posting:
"In particular, many self-described atheists took umbrage to my claim that atheism is denial of the proposition that God exists."
You never made that claim! I quote from your previous posting:
"Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) "there is no God"."
These are not equivalent positions, any more than the denying that a man is guilty is the same as affirming he is innocent.
"In particular, many self-described atheists took umbrage to my claim that atheism is denial of the proposition that God exists."
You never made that claim! I quote from your previous posting:
"Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) "there is no God"."
These are not equivalent positions, any more than the denying that a man is guilty is the same as affirming he is innocent.
--Caffeine
14.July 16,2009, 1:28PM
"But contemporary atheist literature is replete with comparisons between God and many "a fictional character that no halfway-intelligent adult ever believed in" including the flying spaghetti monster (my personal favorite), the Easter Bunny, and yes, Santa Claus."
Sure. But the existence of bad arguments for a proposition aren't an argument for the opposite proposition; bad arguments should be discarded as bad arguments.
"Since I am here engaging with a common analogy in the atheist literature, your failure to recognize this point suggests that you have not read Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, or any of the other atheists that milk these analogies for all their worth (and then some)."
Sorry, now you're just exposing your invalid reasoning again.
"On to your first point. I am not talking about god as a general noun but as a proper noun referring to the God of Judeo-Christian belief."
But you were supposedly replying to Homoousia316's statements, which were NOT about the existence of just YOUR god, which is why changing 'unicorn' to 'Santa Claus' is a straw man. H316's analogy was that atheists don't believe in gods, just as many people don't believe in unicorns. He wanted to know if you were an 'atheist' regarding unicorns, or just agnostic about them.
"evidence base atheists believe some pretty wacky things (e.g. DNA is a product of chance and necessity)"
Sorry, that's more straw men. The motions of water molecules in boiling water is random, but it wouldn't be accurate to state that boiling water is a product of chance.
Sure. But the existence of bad arguments for a proposition aren't an argument for the opposite proposition; bad arguments should be discarded as bad arguments.
"Since I am here engaging with a common analogy in the atheist literature, your failure to recognize this point suggests that you have not read Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, or any of the other atheists that milk these analogies for all their worth (and then some)."
Sorry, now you're just exposing your invalid reasoning again.
"On to your first point. I am not talking about god as a general noun but as a proper noun referring to the God of Judeo-Christian belief."
But you were supposedly replying to Homoousia316's statements, which were NOT about the existence of just YOUR god, which is why changing 'unicorn' to 'Santa Claus' is a straw man. H316's analogy was that atheists don't believe in gods, just as many people don't believe in unicorns. He wanted to know if you were an 'atheist' regarding unicorns, or just agnostic about them.
"evidence base atheists believe some pretty wacky things (e.g. DNA is a product of chance and necessity)"
Sorry, that's more straw men. The motions of water molecules in boiling water is random, but it wouldn't be accurate to state that boiling water is a product of chance.
--Ethan
15.July 16,2009, 1:11PM
Bujo,
Excellent observations. Rationality is person-relative and depends on one's presuppositions and evidence base. I'll say more about that in a subsequent post. But it is certainly true that from Christian presuppositions and evidence base atheists believe some pretty wacky things (e.g. DNA is a product of chance and necessity) while from atheist presuppositions and evidence base Christians believe some pretty wacky things (e.g. one person can die for the sins of another).
Excellent observations. Rationality is person-relative and depends on one's presuppositions and evidence base. I'll say more about that in a subsequent post. But it is certainly true that from Christian presuppositions and evidence base atheists believe some pretty wacky things (e.g. DNA is a product of chance and necessity) while from atheist presuppositions and evidence base Christians believe some pretty wacky things (e.g. one person can die for the sins of another).
--RD Rauser
16.July 16,2009, 1:09PM
Ethan,
Let's begin with your second complaint that comparing God to Santa Claus is a strawman. I am delighted that you think so, for I surely agree. But contemporary atheist literature is replete with comparisons between God and many "a fictional character that no halfway-intelligent adult ever believed in" including the flying spaghetti monster (my personal favorite), the Easter Bunny, and yes, Santa Claus. Since I am here engaging with a common analogy in the atheist literature, your failure to recognize this point suggests that you have not read Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, or any of the other atheists that milk these analogies for all their worth (and then some).
On to your first point. I am not talking about god as a general noun but as a proper noun referring to the God of Judeo-Christian belief. (The fact that I am blogging for the Christian Post probably should have tipped you off here.) If you are unfamiliar with that concept, I recommend that you read, oh say Swinburne's "The Coherence of Theism" as a way into the discussion. Thus, I am concerned with a token of the type "God", just as Alfred believes in a token of the type "seasonal character" (a type whose other tokens include Frosty the Snowman, the Easter Bunny and Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer, but NOT the tooth fairy or Paul Bunyan).
Let's begin with your second complaint that comparing God to Santa Claus is a strawman. I am delighted that you think so, for I surely agree. But contemporary atheist literature is replete with comparisons between God and many "a fictional character that no halfway-intelligent adult ever believed in" including the flying spaghetti monster (my personal favorite), the Easter Bunny, and yes, Santa Claus. Since I am here engaging with a common analogy in the atheist literature, your failure to recognize this point suggests that you have not read Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, or any of the other atheists that milk these analogies for all their worth (and then some).
On to your first point. I am not talking about god as a general noun but as a proper noun referring to the God of Judeo-Christian belief. (The fact that I am blogging for the Christian Post probably should have tipped you off here.) If you are unfamiliar with that concept, I recommend that you read, oh say Swinburne's "The Coherence of Theism" as a way into the discussion. Thus, I am concerned with a token of the type "God", just as Alfred believes in a token of the type "seasonal character" (a type whose other tokens include Frosty the Snowman, the Easter Bunny and Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer, but NOT the tooth fairy or Paul Bunyan).
--RD Rauser
17.July 16,2009, 1:01PM
RD,
I'm going to have to agree with Ethan on this one: using Santa as a straw man automatically makes the argument awkward. I see why you want to use it, but it still changes the argument.
However, I think this is a very interesting subject. I think the idea of rationality in religion is somewhat humorous. I consider myself a rational person, but also a believer. While listening to a sermon at church, or reading the Bible, I can't help but laugh at some of the things that we as Christians are supposed to believe actually happened, but we explode with suprise when an unbeliever can't bring himself to have faith.
Religion is based in a world of faith and mystery. Rationality is based in a world of fact and proof. Combining the two is dangerous if you're trying to keep the integrity of both. A proven faith is not only impossible, it would also be kind of unfulfilling.
I'm going to have to agree with Ethan on this one: using Santa as a straw man automatically makes the argument awkward. I see why you want to use it, but it still changes the argument.
However, I think this is a very interesting subject. I think the idea of rationality in religion is somewhat humorous. I consider myself a rational person, but also a believer. While listening to a sermon at church, or reading the Bible, I can't help but laugh at some of the things that we as Christians are supposed to believe actually happened, but we explode with suprise when an unbeliever can't bring himself to have faith.
Religion is based in a world of faith and mystery. Rationality is based in a world of fact and proof. Combining the two is dangerous if you're trying to keep the integrity of both. A proven faith is not only impossible, it would also be kind of unfulfilling.
--Bujo
18.July 16,2009, 12:05PM
"This is an important comparison to consider, but in doing so I am going to switch from unicorns to Santa Claus since the latter (being a concrete individual rather than a type of thing) is a closer parallel to God."
Wrong right out of the gate, for two reasons:
1) "Gods" are types of things just like unicorns; you can't assume YOUR particular god is the only possible one under consideration. Again, your myopia is showing.
2) Santa is a straw man comparison, since he always was considered a fictional character that no halfway-intelligent adult ever believed in, so knocking down belief in such a thing is easy.
Once more, when faced with a question from a commenter, you sidestep it. Changing unicorns into Santa Claus is not the same question.
Wrong right out of the gate, for two reasons:
1) "Gods" are types of things just like unicorns; you can't assume YOUR particular god is the only possible one under consideration. Again, your myopia is showing.
2) Santa is a straw man comparison, since he always was considered a fictional character that no halfway-intelligent adult ever believed in, so knocking down belief in such a thing is easy.
Once more, when faced with a question from a commenter, you sidestep it. Changing unicorns into Santa Claus is not the same question.
--Ethan
About this blog
A blog about books, news and other forms of Christian media matter important to the faith community.
Subscribe
Recent Posts
-
February 04,2010 | Comments
0 -
January 27,2010 | Comments 0
-
January 26,2010 | Comments 0
-
January 26,2010 | Comments 0
-
January 26,2010 | Comments 2
-
January 26,2010 | Comments 0
Contributor
Randal Rauser is associate professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Canada and was granted Taylor's first annual teaching award for Outstanding Service to Students in 2005.
Most Popular
Most Commented
- The intersection of football and faith
- Touchdowns and Slam Dunks for Jesus?
- Don’t just improve your marriage. Transform it!
- A New Look at the legendary insights of Dr. Warren Wiersbe
- The True Purpose of Tongues? - Q & A with Author Glenn Brown
- Song from New CD to be Featured at National Conference and as part of Special Project
- Maine-based Rockers Set to Release New CD in 2010
- EGM Films The Grandfather Featured at Mission Fest Vancouver
Most Popular on CP
Most Commented on CP
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- Film Uncovers Dark Underworld of Modern-Day Slavery
- 'Blasphemy Day' Draws Fire from Event Sponsor's Founder
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Judge Orders Prop. 8 Proponents to Release Private Records
- Prayerful Americans Called to 'Adopt a Liberal'
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
RSS