|
Author
|
Topic: Who Made God?
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6382 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 4.3
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
I sincerely hope that you take to heart my advice to you in Message 983 and format your messages so that they are readable instead of the jumbled mess that they are now.
... Nature's God, as He is called in our Declaration of Independence by the Founding Fathers, who had no doubt whatsoever of His existence. False equivalence in which you assume every reference to a deity refers specifically to your own god. Indeed, the first question that comes to me when someone starts talking about "God" is " Which one?" (out of an estimated 288,000 gods that have we have created) to which that person most often would say, "The Christian God, of course", which raises the next question of which one out of the estimated 45,000 different versions (about 200 different versions in the USA alone, though not counting the multitude of personal versions each individual believer has created). Indeed, if you stood before a crowd of thousands and said "God", then it would mean thousands of different things to that crowd, each member of which would falsely assume you were talking about his own individual god. In this case, a deistic narrative about Providence, etc, was common at the time as well as natural theology , both of which included ideas of a Creator who had set the universe in motion and then stood back to let it run on its own -- that view in lieu of a personal god such as yours. The two may not be conflated. For example, Thomas Paine is considered to have influenced the Declaration of Independence, so his discussion of "Nature's God" should be pertinent; from The Age of Reason:
Thomas Paine:
As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism- a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade. The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse, and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in theology. That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology. As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition.
So it is foolish to conflate "Nature's God" as the same as your "worship of a man". And before you dismiss Paine as an "atheist":
Age of Reason, Part One:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I kind of see that as a dig against Trinitarianism; Thomas Jefferson was himself influenced by a Unitarian teacher and was no friend of Trinitarianism.
pseudo-probability nonsense in the Signature Block Whatever are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with anything? Seriously! This is nothing more than the standard brain-dead stupid creationist probability argument based entirely on false assumptions, INCLUDING USING THE WRONG PROBABILITY MODELS. Indeed, the cherry on the top of this shit sundae is that your math model not only does not even remotely describe evolution or abiogenesis, but rather it describes your own creation ex nihilo model. You're doing nothing but project the problems with your own position. And while wasting your time with such nonsense, you are also diverting attention from the real issues; eg:
- What do you think evolution is? Nothing creationists say about "evolution" makes any sense since it has nothing to do with evolution. This indicates that you have no clue what evolution is and that your "evolution" is something completely different.
- How do you think evolution works? How do you think that anything works? Again, nothing you say makes any sense, which exposes you as being clueless.
- Why are you so single-mindedly opposed to "evolution"? You seem to think that there's some kind of conflict between evolution and Creation when there is no conflict -- well, that is a conflict between reality and your silly contrary-to-reality creationist claims which makes your creationism anti-Creation (since your creationist god depends on the Creation not being as it actually is).
- Even if you could disprove "evolution", what would that accomplish? Creationists seem to believe that disproving "evolution" (whatever they mean by that word) would "prove God". Not even close! Why would you believe such an extremely stupid thing?
- What the hell are you talking about? This question terrifies creationists.
I hope that you are up to discussing your creationism. Unfortunately, you appear to be a typical creationist who has no clue what he's talking about, especially about his own creationist claims and creationism. A typical creationist who can do no more than regurgitate the bullshit lies he's been feeding on and is incapable of thinking, let alone discussing.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 878 by Phat, posted 09-12-2025 10:48 AM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13184 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002
|
Re: So What About Jesus?
RenaissanceMan writes in Message 870: From the many books I have read, I selected the most important citations I could find to share with others for the purpose of teaching. Here at EvC Forum members are encouraged to make arguments in their own words and provide links, quotes and excerpts as supporting references. This is from the Forum Guidelines:
- Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
- Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
Message 873 of 899 (923569)
08-31-2025 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 750 by dwise1
08-16-2019 2:52 AM
|
|
Re: Be careful what you teach.
I have been thinking about what you said in Message 7. At first, I was fired up that you promoted Forrest Valkai, him being more vocally proactive than Erica. She at least seems neutral on the idea of God, yet is similar to you in that she rejects Biblical Creationism. I reject it too, yet defend belief and am thus intrinsically militant against atheism. One morning I was preparing to respond to you but instead read a guy named Bruce, a former Passtor and now atheist/humanist.
The Battler When he battled liberal churches and preachers, they loved him. When he battled Democrats, they loved him. And then he became too liberal for them. When he battled Fundamentalists, they loved him. When he battled those who preached cheap grace, they loved him. And then he became too liberal for them. When he battled the institutional church, they loved him. When he battled mega-churches and TV preachers, they loved him. And then he became too liberal for them. One day he realized that he had spent his entire life battling, and to what end? No one stood by him. The great battler stood alone. Along the way, he had changed. And when he changed, they walked away. He learned a hard lesson. They never really did love him. They loved his smart writing. They loved his stand for truth. They loved his personality. They loved everything about him except what mattered. When he needed them the most, they were nowhere to be found. He made them “uncomfortable,” they said, He had changed. He wasn’t what or who he used to be. What happened to him, they asked? Perhaps the real question is this: what happened to them? He often feels like a one-night stand. Used. He still fights the battle. But now the battle is within. He battles the demons of the past, He battles the reality of the present. And he battles fear of tomorrow. He is forced to forge new relationships. Why does he feel closest to people whom he has never met? He used to laugh at the very notion of internet friends, yet where would he be today without them? They read what he writes and offer their opinion. They agree, they disagree, but they let him be who he is. They require no fidelity or obedience. What’s a battling old preacher to do? The fires still burns. Passion still stirs in his being. But the old battles provide no fight. So he looks for new battles to fight. Maybe he will fight for those scarred and damaged by the gods. Maybe he will fight for those who cannot or fearfully will not fight for themselves. Maybe he will fight for those whose lives have been ruined by People of the Way. Maybe he will fight for a better world for his children and grandchildren. There are still battles to fight. Choose who and what you will fight for. And forget those who only loved you for the battles you fought. Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008, he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist. Reading much of what he wrote on his blog, Bruce Gerencser , I am slowly pondering the logic that atheists use, especially when they were once believers. I don't plan on deconverting anytime soon, but it helps for me to see things the way that some atheists see them.
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 750 by dwise1, posted 08-16-2019 2:52 AM | | dwise1 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 874 by nwr, posted 08-31-2025 4:27 PM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6542 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 874 of 899 (923570)
08-31-2025 4:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 873 by Phat
08-31-2025 3:36 PM
|
|
Re: Be careful what you teach.
I do follow Bruce Gerencser's blog. I'll give you my perspective. I was raised as a Christian. I spent considerable time reading the Bible. There was a lot that I liked about the ideas of Jesus. What I could not help noticing, was the hypocrisy in the Church. Politically I tend toward liberal (but not to the extremes of progressives). I'm liberal, because that's what Jesus taught. His "love your neighbor" ideas seemed to fit well with liberalism, but not with conservatism. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative. I look at the social conservatives. Jesus said that we should welcome the stranger. The social conservatives say "deport, deport, deport." Jesus said that we should heal the sick. The social conservatives say "cut medicaid." Jesus said we should feed the hungry. The social conservatives say "cut SNAP". Jesus was concerned about "the least of these". The social conservatives care only about themselves. Objectively, the social conservatives are anti-Christian. Yet they claim to be Christian. That's the hypocrisy that I was seeing. That was when I left the church. I had thought of that as being an unchurched Christian. Maybe I still am. But I want nothing to do with the hypocrisy that I see in the church. On the God question, I'm agnostic. I don't think it is knowable whether there is a god. But, after leaving the church, it became increasingly clear that the stories about God are all made up by humans. In that sense, man created God. And theology seems to just be creative fiction. "Heaven" as described in Genesis is really just the sky. The Christian ideas about heaven and hell seem to all made up. But somehow the biblical literalists are not at all literalist about how they understand "heaven". I also follow John Pavlovitz's blog (or substack). Pavlovitz is a former pastor, and still a Christian. He seems to understand Christianity the way that I do. His opinion about the social conservatives is similar to mine.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 873 by Phat, posted 08-31-2025 3:36 PM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 875 of 899 (923577)
09-03-2025 9:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 240 by dwise1
01-07-2018 1:07 PM
|
|
Re: Gaps Are Inevitable
dwise1 writes: Theological questions would indeed very much involve beliefs. Philosophical questions would involve more logic (ie, structured thought and reasoning), though beliefs would also be involved, especially in selecting one's premises and axioms. Theology also involves logic, so there is a lot of cross-over between theology and philosophy. Actually, if one were truly a creationist, one would have no need whatsoever of invoking "goddidit", because that would be a given in everything. There would be no reason whatsoever to try to counter naturalistic explanations of anything, even the origin of life through natural processes, if one were to take the creationist view that God was still involved since God had created those natural processes. The faux creationist view that we encounter so much, that something arising from natural processes denies God, just doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that most creationists never think for themselves either philosophically or theologically. I define myself as a Cosmological Creationist because I believe that God initiated Creation and wanted humanity to have a purpose. Some people have decided that their definition of purpose and human progress need not involve God or a god at all. Free will was, in my opinion, a part of God's desire. In thinking that way, I must allow for the belief that God is not going to persecute atheists. My question to you is why you insist that all "gods" were created and leave no room for the possibility of a God a priori. You can (and have) presented a logical case for why God is not needed, but you have no explanation for why God is not wanted nor even possible. I concur that the concept of God, though illogical, warrants discussion. (Oh, how I would like to present this same question to Forrest Valkai!) Challenging atheists is good for my soul. Perhaps some of them feel the same way about schooling me!  I will say that many of your posts are thoughtful and challenging to me, without being insulting or belittling, as is the habit of some around here!
dwise1 writes: I still maintain that there is no actual conflict between science and religion, except for the conflict that religion may create. There is no contradiction between natural processes and a supernatural Creator. There is no conflict between evolution and Creation, except when they are maldefined in order to create a conflict. What I find missing from the creation/evolution discourse is close examination of what creationists actually think and why. Their persistent adversarial approach (in which they keep trying to proselytize at you or pull stupid sophistry tricks) keeps that from happening. I prefer to think of our discourse more as philosophical.
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 240 by dwise1, posted 01-07-2018 1:07 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 876 of 899 (923578)
09-03-2025 9:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 375 by dwise1
02-26-2019 1:48 AM
|
|
Re: The apologists defense of the literalist faith
dwise1 writes: Uh, sorry, but which particular gods are you talking about there? Humans have created so many different gods that I doubt we could ever possibly enumerate them. I will admit that belief is often unreasonable. If we throw out all of the human dogma and focus simply on God as a possibility, why not include Jesus as Gods character? As I said before, Nobody that I know who is a believer would ever want God to be (mere) folklore.
Of course not, because as believers, they have a vested interest in it all being real. So then basically, wishful thinking, but wishful thinking that they are heavily invested in. Star Trek is wishful thinking. Star Wars is wishful thinking. Unfortunately for some, so is Armageddon! 
dwise1 writes: May I share with you one particular "aha!" moment I had with a creationist on a Yahoo Groups forum? He did the usual uninformed creationist thing of repeating false creationist claims, so when he resorted to the "sodium levels in the oceans" claim, I educated him about "residence times," which completely destroyed his claim. My follow-up question for him was why every single creationist claim was so unconvincing, to which he replied that the only reason I found them so unconvincing was that I was not yet convinced myself. Whoa! That revealed to me that truth has absolutely nothing to do with creationism (despite their purported worship of a god who is Truth Incarnate), but rather sounding convincing is their only touchstone. Please review my nascent page at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/cs_vs_sci.html, where I work with those ideas -- it has not yet been finalized. You wrote this 6 years ago...is your page finished yet?  J/K...these discussions likely will NEVER be finished. I DID visit your page again, however.
dwise1 writes: ,from DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION HOME PAGE our theology may well require you to hold young-earth creationist (YEC) beliefs (eg, biblical literalism, young earth, Noah's Flood). That is not my concern and I take no issue with those religious beliefs on my site, though you do have my condolences. The problems they will cause you is something that you will need to work out for yourself and I sincerely wish you the best of luck with it. Again, I profess NOT to be a Biblical Creationist, though I lean towards Biblical Literalism in the matter of Jesus existing and how He came to be with us. Earlier, I mentioned that I was preparing to challenge the ideas of Forrest Valkai simply for claiming atheism. As a human, he is much more optimistic than most Christians, even the better ones (though a bit youthfully smug) and I only challenge atheists as a sport. It actually challenges me and that young man would likely mop the floor with me intellectually! I am curious about you because I actually enjoy your writing and attention to detail and personalized anecdotes.
dwise1 writes: Rather, where I do get involved is when you claim that the real world must be different than it actually is and that you have scientific evidence to support those claims. And again, the reason for my involvement is not because of your religious beliefs, but rather because of the great mischief you wish to cause by promoting false claims. That great mischief includes inappropriate and unethical proselytizing... Everyone around here knows me (or my online persona, anyway), so there really isn't a whole lot of proselytizing possible at EvC. Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky  Edited by Phat, . Edited by Phat, : edited out my own stupidity
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 375 by dwise1, posted 02-26-2019 1:48 AM | | dwise1 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 877 by Phat, posted 09-06-2025 10:43 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 877 of 899 (923582)
09-06-2025 10:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 876 by Phat
09-03-2025 9:57 PM
|
|
Darante LaMar,Forrest Valkai,and Jesus as Legend
From Message 8 One thing I do want to mention is how much I miss ringo. His replies to me were priceless.
dwise1 writes: What the New Testament and associated works (eg, church fathers, theologians, preachers, street proselytizers) described is a legend, not an actual person or demi-god. While the story of Jesus could be a mythos, believers go with Lord. In a sense we could agree that humanity made the character of the Christian God out to be a Legend. (In no small part due to the development of the church.)
dwise1 writes: The entire question of whether an actual person, Jesus, actually lived is completely meaningless. The Legend is the important thing and the Legend exists whether the actual person existed or not. And whether such a person did anything that's attributed to the Legend. I disagree that it is meaningless. What I *will agree* with is that Christian thinking can be a liability for the future of our species if the result turns out to be a self fulfilling prophecy of a fiery Armageddon and last days war. (taken from the response to jar in Message 866 )
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 876 by Phat, posted 09-03-2025 9:57 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 878 of 899 (923627)
09-12-2025 10:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 871 by dwise1
09-15-2024 2:30 PM
|
|
Bruce Gerencser defines why he hates Jesus
I now return to this topic. In his blog, The Life And Times Of Bruce Gerencser, the onetime believer turned atheist/humanist has a post titled Why I Hate Jesus It ties in with what you said in Message 871 (replying to RenaissanceMan)
dwise1 writes: Indeed, the first question that comes to me when someone starts talking about "God" is "Which one?" (out of an estimated 288,000 gods that have we have created) to which that person most often would say, "The Christian God, of course", which raises the next question of which one out of the estimated 45,000 different versions (about 200 different versions in the USA alone, though not counting the multitude of personal versions each individual believer has created). Indeed, if you stood before a crowd of thousands and said "God", then it would mean thousands of different things to that crowd, each member of which would falsely assume you were talking about his own individual god. In light of the flare-up and responses regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, apparently, all of his followers believe in him, and by extension, his god. It's also fascinating to me as I observe atheists quoting scripture to correct me or any other believer, including the apparent public actions of Kirk. In defense of Kirk, many believers noted that Kirk was articulate in his knowledge of the Constitution and that he was representing his faith as well as his extremist patriotism. Just as I was curious about why so many Democrats despised Charlie Kirk, I was reminded of what Bruce Gerencser wrote about Jesus.
Bruce Gerencser writes: I don’t hate the flesh and blood Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Palestine, nor do I hate the Jesus found in the pages of the Bible. These Jesuses are relics of the past. I’ll leave it to historians to argue and debate whether these Jesuses were real or fiction. Over the centuries, Christians have created many Jesuses in their own image. This is the essence of Christianity, an ever-evolving religion bearing little resemblance to what it was even a century ago. The Jesus I hate is the modern, Western Jesus, the American Jesus, the Jesus who has been a part of my life for almost fifty-eight years. The Jesuses of bygone eras have no power to harm me, but the modern Jesus – the Jesus of the three hundred thousand Christian churches that populate every community in America – he has the power to affect my life, hurt my family, and destroy my country. And I, with a vengeance, hate him.(...)Perhaps there is a Jesus somewhere that I could respect, a Jesus who might merit my devotion. For now, all I see is a Jesus who is worthy of derision, mockery, and hate. Yes, hate. It is this Jesus I hate. When the Jesus who genuinely loves humanity and cares for the least of these shows up, let me know. In the meantime, I hate Jesus. His comments indicate to me that he sees the same Jesus as Legend that you do. Comments? Edited by Phat, : edit
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 871 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2024 2:30 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 879 by nwr, posted 09-15-2025 8:36 PM | | Phat has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6542 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 879 of 899 (923682)
09-15-2025 8:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 878 by Phat
09-12-2025 10:48 AM
|
|
Re: Bruce Gerencser defines why he hates Jesus
Phat writes in Message 878: In his blog, The Life And Times Of Bruce Gerencser, the onetime believer turned atheist/humanist has a post titled Why I Hate Jesus I mostly agree with what you quoted from Bruce Gerencser, although I would not word it the same way. In particular, the religious right are not following the Biblical Jesus. I tend to think of them as anti-Christian or as fake Christians. They seem to have invented a racist Jesus. I recently came across a podcast featuring a discussion between John Pavlovic and John Fugelsang. 'The Christian Left' Conversation With John Fugelsang. John Fugelsang is doing most of the talking in that podcast. My view of Christianity is very similar to his.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 878 by Phat, posted 09-12-2025 10:48 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 880 by Phat, posted 09-16-2025 12:00 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 880 of 899 (923692)
09-16-2025 12:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 879 by nwr
09-15-2025 8:36 PM
|
|
Re: Bruce Gerencser defines why he hates Jesus
I bought John Fugelsang's book on Amazon. I am currently listening to it on Audible. I have to admit that listening to Fugelsang is changing my heart and perhaps my mind as well. I never thought that you would take ringos place, but you are now my new advocate here at EvC. Thanks for being so patient with me.
Separation of Church and Hate Amazon writes: In the spirit of George Carlin and Christopher Hitchens, the son of a former Catholic nun and a Franciscan brother delivers a deeply irreverent and biblically correct takedown of far-right Christian hatred—a book for believers, atheists, agnostics, and anyone who’ll ever have to deal with a Christian nationalist. For more than two centuries, the United States Constitution has given us the right to a society where church and state exist independently. But Christianity has been hijacked by far-right groups and politicians who seek to impose their narrow views on government, often to justify oppressive and unequal policies. The extremists who weaponize the Bible for earthly power aren’t actually on the side of Jesus—and historically they never have been. How do we fight back against those acting—literally—in bad faith? Comedian and broadcaster John Fugelsang finally offers the answers. In this informative, perspective-shifting book, Fugelsang takes readers through common fundamentalist arguments on abortion, immigration, LGBTQ rights, and more—exposing their hypocrisy and inaccuracy through scripture, common sense, and deeply inappropriate humor. It offers practical tips on how to debate your loved one, coworker, or neighbor on the issues that divide us using that Bible they claim to follow. But Fugelsang’s message is about more than just taking down hypocrites. It’s about fighting for the love, mercy, and service that are supposed to make up the heart of Christianity. Told with Fugelsang’s trademark blend of radical honesty, comedy, and deep political and religious knowledge, Separation of Church and Hate is the book every American needs today. It’s a rallying cry for compassion and clarity for anyone of any faith who’s sick of religion being used as a cloaking device for hate The last remaining question that I have about Charlie Kirk is why so many people hate him. I read a good article circulating in the press today (from The Conversation)
Charlie Kirk talked with young people at universities for a reason – he wanted American education to return to traditional valuesquote:
Amy Lieberman, The Conversation’s education editor, spoke with Daniel Ruggles, a scholar of conservative youth activism, to better understand the beliefs about education that influenced Kirk and the connection he tried to make with young people.
Now that I am listening to John Fugelsang, I can see the division that was caused.
quote:
Charlie Kirk’s education philosophy was founded upon the idea of not being on the left. One of the problems with that approach is that it’s harder to explain your ideas and values in a positive way, instead of just being “anti-left. Conservatives, well before Kirk’s time, have been trying to reclaim education from liberals whom they view as valuing equity and belonging instead of timeless values of order and traditional values in society. This philosophy overall focuses on reclaiming education from liberals. There is a lot of alignment with Kirk’s education philosophy and the Make America Great Again movement, but his approach predates Donald Trump’s rise. It is focused on returning to what conservatives call Western and “traditional” values. This means rolling back the clock to an idealized time when men and women had set gender roles in society and life was more harmonious and wholesome. At its best, this education philosophy can be valuable – teaching what society views as virtuous behavior, ethics and tradition – but it can also prioritize tradition and privilege over justice and equity. This philosophy also has to do with not feeling a need to apologize for one’s identity. A big divide between liberals and conservatives is how they explain disadvantage. Conservatives like Kirk believe they should not have to apologize for their identities, and other people’s identities should not be a reason for special treatment. This philosophy is not so much about making education more effective as much as it is about not being “woke.” De-woking the classroom is usually the overall goal. This involves ridding the classroom of what is known as grievance politics – meaning someone believes they have been marginalized because of their identity, race, gender or sexuality.
I think that conservatives need a countering influence in a largely liberal education system. Charlie Kirk had some big shoes to fill. Again, I disagree with simply quote-mining and then defining a man's character simply for being conservative. Freedom of speech always guarantees controversy, but isn't that what college is for? Students need, if nothing else, a balanced perspective. Divisiveness is unhealthy in a free society.
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 879 by nwr, posted 09-15-2025 8:36 PM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 881 by nwr, posted 09-16-2025 1:17 PM | | Phat has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6542 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 881 of 899 (923694)
09-16-2025 1:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 880 by Phat
09-16-2025 12:00 PM
|
|
Re: Bruce Gerencser defines why he hates Jesus
I'm considering whether to buy it. But I won't get the audio version, as I prefer to read.
I have to admit that listening to Fugelsang is changing my heart and perhaps my mind as well. At least it is giving you food for thought.
The last remaining question that I have about Charlie Kirk is why so many people hate him. I can't answer that. I never hated him. I mostly ignored him. However, if he spent time saying provocative things, maybe he provoked people.
quote:
Conservatives, well before Kirk’s time, have been trying to reclaim education from liberals whom they view as valuing equity and belonging instead of timeless values of order and traditional values in society.
I think you are quoting that from Fugelsang. It is probably correct as an assessment of how conservatives look at it. But they are mistaken. They cannot reclaim education from liberals, because liberals do not own it. It's just that liberals are better at it than conservatives. It's a mistake to see liberals as "valuing equity and belonging". That might describe a small fringe group on the left, but it does not describe most liberals. And liberals are concerned about timeless values. The "timeless values" that the conservatives want are not actually timeless.
quote:
It is focused on returning to what conservatives call Western and “traditional” values. This means rolling back the clock to an idealized time when men and women had set gender roles in society and life was more harmonious and wholesome.
Traditional values are not timeless values. That idealized time never actually existed and never could exist.
quote:
This philosophy also has to do with not feeling a need to apologize for one’s identity. A big divide between liberals and conservatives is how they explain disadvantage. Conservatives like Kirk believe they should not have to apologize for their identities, and other people’s identities should not be a reason for special treatment.
I have never felt a need to apologize for my identity. And I have never worried about explaining disadvantage. People are all different, and we can celebrate the differences. You prefer audio-books. I prefer reading text. That's a difference. That audio-books exist is a special treatment that suits you. Why should I object to that? It seems that liberals recognize that there is value in diversity, and they try to accommodate their teaching to the particular student.
quote:
This philosophy is not so much about making education more effective as much as it is about not being “woke.”
In terms of modern slang, Jesus was woke. If you reject woke, then you cannot be a follower of Jesus.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 880 by Phat, posted 09-16-2025 12:00 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 882 by Phat, posted 09-18-2025 2:10 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 882 of 899 (923718)
09-18-2025 2:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 881 by nwr
09-16-2025 1:17 PM
|
|
Separation Between Church & Hate
John Fugelsong's book is reaching me. I can't deny that he speaks the truth, even though most Christians I know in the churches would disagree with him. Here is the table of contents:
quote:
Chapter 1: An Inconvenient Radical Jew Chapter 2: Paul, Jesus’s PR Man, Who Is Not Jesus Chapter 3: Master-Race Christians of the Twenty-First Century, and How to Debate Them Chapter 4: Thou Shalt Not Take All of This Too Literally Chapter 5: Thou Shalt Not Hate Feminists Chapter 6: Thou Shalt Not Hate the Gays Chapter 7: Thou Shalt Not Hate People Who Have Abortions Chapter 8: Thou Shalt Not Hate “Illegals” Chapter 9: Thou Shalt Not Hate on Poor People Chapter 10: Thou Shalt Let Go of Thy Sex Hang-Ups Chapter 11: Thou Shalt Not Kill People Who Kill People to Prove Killing People Is Wrong Chapter 12: Thou Shalt Not Hate Gun Control or Worship Warrior Bro-Dude Jesus Chapter 13: Thou Shalt Not Hate Jews, Muslims, or Even Atheists Chapter 14: Thou Shalt Not Be, or Defend, a White Supremacist Chapter 15: The Christians and the Christ Followers
In the spirit of our beloved ringo, Fugelsong uses scripture, common sense, and humor to expose the Christian nationalists for what they are.
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 881 by nwr, posted 09-16-2025 1:17 PM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 883 by nwr, posted 09-18-2025 4:58 PM | | Phat has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6542 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 883 of 899 (923720)
09-18-2025 4:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 882 by Phat
09-18-2025 2:10 PM
|
|
Re: Separation Between Church & Hate
I'm about halfway through reading. I've just finished chapter 7. Fugelsang argues his position quite well. This is how I have always understood Christianity. I formed my ideas based on reading the gospels (and other parts of the Bible). When I reached middle teens in age, I began to notice that many Church members were not even trying to live up to the teachings of Jesus. I saw that as hypocrisy. As a result, the Christian nationalists seem not at all Christian. Because of the hypocrisy, I abandoned Church long ago.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 882 by Phat, posted 09-18-2025 2:10 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 884 by Phat, posted 09-19-2025 11:16 AM | | nwr has replied | | | Message 886 by Phat, posted 09-25-2025 12:24 AM | | nwr has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18866 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 884 of 899 (923727)
09-19-2025 11:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 883 by nwr
09-18-2025 4:58 PM
|
|
Re: Separation Between Church & Hate
nwr writes: Fugelsang argues his position quite well. Yes, he does. I am impressed by his arguments. Jar tried to make me see the light, yet never supported his case through scripture, nor did Ringo. ringo shared a sense of humor with Fugelsang, and I received what ringo said due to his patient rebuttals of my points--delivered with a wry sense of humor. Jar was less respectful...he always implored me to "learn to read" and he never mentioned Jesus...only the "human authors, editors, and redactors". I never got the impression that he was a believer; more of a Socratic framer who purposefully trapped my arguments before they ever had a chance. Ringo was more subtle. He mentioned Jesus enough that I have hope to this day that he ran the race well. Ringo would have approved of Fugelsang. You carry on his tradition well. Now I have to work on myself and change the hateful person I have become.
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--PercyGod alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Critics would of course say that "God" is a product of human imagination...but then again God may well declare that all of creation is a product of His imagination! It is all in the perspective of the observer.~Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 883 by nwr, posted 09-18-2025 4:58 PM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 885 by nwr, posted 09-20-2025 2:35 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6542 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 885 of 899 (923731)
09-20-2025 2:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 884 by Phat
09-19-2025 11:16 AM
|
|
Pavlovitz and Hartmann
Here's another podcast that I think you might appreciate.
'The Christian Left' Conversation With Thom Hartmann It's a conversation between John Pavlovitz and Thom Hartmann.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 884 by Phat, posted 09-19-2025 11:16 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2