Jesus Among Secular Gods

I am currently reading this book. Ravi Zacharias writes some of it and Vince Vitale the rest.(4 chapters each, I believe)Allow me to review it Chapter by Chapter as I read.
Chapter One-Altars Against God-
The issue of the New Atheists and the stereotypical "angry atheist" is mentioned, with a fair acknowledgment that many opponents in the pulpit are also angry and judgemental. Notable quotes:

quote:

---

A questioner at a gathering in Washington, DC, once asked Richard Dawkins how one should respond to a person who believed in God. Mock them, he actually replied. Ridicule them.
In an interview in The Independent with Maya Oppenheim (May 23, 2016), he said, I’m all for offending people’s religion. It should be offended at every opportunity.1

​

Zacharias, Ravi (2017-01-02T22:58:59). Jesus Among Secular Gods . FaithWords. Kindle Edition.

---

It reminds me of the behavior of some at this forum. *cough* jar...*cough* But to be fair, jar makes a case for ridiculing Biblical Christianity and Apologetics rather than Jesus or God....though he has mentioned that Jesus was far from perfect(supported by selected scripture) and that God was often portrayed as learning on the job. The apologetic argument in Chapter One essentially says that the new Atheism routinely ridicules the ideas of modern believers.

quote:

---

He (Dawkins) derides the attributes of God by making a caricature of Him but justifies the same attributes in himself without caricature. I would rather trust the judgments of a good and gracious person than one who spends his time and energy in mocking people and their sacred beliefs.

---

jar may well argue that he is simply pointing out what the book says and that he has no agenda. I would argue that the overall agenda...from New Atheists and Logic Reason and Reality focused Jewish Christians is to reclaim religion as an intellectual, rather than spiritual pursuit. ringo asks again and again what these guys think of genesis 3 (that being the acid test of their sincerity) but how did we ever come to agree on what is honest versus what is dishonest? To the authors credit, they say this:

quote:

---

Need I add, not all atheists have the same disposition. In fact, many find the hostility of the new atheists an embarrassment. I have met many a cordial conversationalist who is atheistic in his or her belief, and we’ve had the best of conversations. Many have remarked that they have been able to take only so much of Dawkins and his followers and then stopped even reading them. Whatever worldview we espouse, dialogue and debate should take place with civility and courteous listening. But our times make that ideal so elusive. ourselves. In his book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, Robert Morey points out the seven leaps atheists have to explain: How Everything ultimately came from Nothing Order came from Chaos Harmony came from Discord Life came from Nonlife Reason came from Irrationality Personality came from Non-personality Morality came from Amorality3 But more than that needs to be asserted. The questions in life are not just in the sciences. They are not just of mathematical or empirical measurement.

​

Zacharias, Ravi (2017-01-02T22:58:59). Jesus Among Secular Gods. FaithWords. Kindle Edition.

---

I especially liked the idea that not everything can be measured scientifically nor defined rationally according to strict logic. Belief should be respected, and philosophy can have power to change the world we live in. The issue in this book is what the various philosophies out there are and in what way they differ from the message that Jesus preached. More Later.

It's funny how believers think it's fine to ridicule other beliefs - e.g. Mormonism, the Easter Bunny - but not their own. It isn't the acid test. It's just the first test. It's like spelling your own name correctly at the top of the exam paper.And you never answer the question. Where's your confidence in their honesty?

Hi Phat. Just a couple of thoughts. I think that virtually all Christians consider themselves to be Biblical. I know that I certainly do. However, I am quite sure that Faith would say that I'm not. It is a question of how we are to understand the Bible and what does God have to say to us in our reading of it. I've said this before, but one of the lines that we use in one our prayers in church is: "so complex so simple, so clear so mysterious". Christianity is so simple. Live by the Golden Rule and God will be with you and nudging you toward that. When we want to get into the theology of Christianity it becomes considerably more complex and mysterious. (A lot like QM. ) If we are going to live by the Golden Rule we can certainly argue for what it is that we believe, but nobody likes to have their beliefs mocked. From my POV it is a case of mocking people of faith when there they compare their faith with belief in, take your pick, Santa Claus, Easter bunny or the tooth fairy.On the other hand, calling atheists godless heathens about to be damned to hell is hardly respectful. I'm curious about what the answer is that you think ringo is looking for.

I would imagine that he is on the lookout for someone--anyone--who can read the scripture plainly and without adding to or interpreting it arrive at the same conclusion which he and jar see as obvious. Regarding the question of honesty, I am reading both Dan Barkers and Ravi & Vince Vitales books concurrently. I see no reason to conclude that either side is being dishonest, though Barker says in his book the following:

quote:

---

Someone once objected to my criticisms as attempts to explain away the proofs for a god. I am not trying to explain them away; I am trying to explain them. The success of this rational approach hinges on something that in theory everyone advocates, but in practice is quite elusive: a complete impartiality on both sides. I am willing to change my mind, but I don’t see many believers admitting even the possibility that they might be wrongthat they are the ones with the problem. Believers are usually only concerned with winning me to their views. Impartiality, which is adequate for mundane matters, seems always to cave into loyalty when religious matters are discussed. Since most believers’ religious views are something of an extension (or sometimes a replacement) of their personality, when you question their beliefs you are often perceived as attacking them personallytheir identity within their religious culture and their meaning in life, moral code, honor, intelligence, judgment and everything they are as individuals. (How dare you tell me that my loving grandmother lived her entire life believing a lie!) Most of them have invested a lot of time, energy and money in their faith, and they aren’t apt to back off or lose face. They would rather earn devotion points within their co-believing community than give any credibility to some Lone Ranger atheist. Of course, none of this proves or disproves either position. If it did, that would be ad hominem. Christians may be loyal and dishonest, but they still may be correct. Atheists might be rational and honest, but they might be wrong. The lack of impartiality of most believers merely underlines the difficulty of dialogue with atheists.

---

(Barker, Dan. Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists (p. 93). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.)I will admit that I am impressed and perhaps more curious about Barker's book than I am about Zacharias and Vitale. Both sides make some great arguments and I am beginning to get a glimpse into jars whole recommendation to "throw God away". Not that I ever will... But I think that reading both sides (or many sides) of an issue such as belief, apologetics, and critical thinking and reasoned argumentation can only strengthen my overall understanding.Edited by Thugpreacha, : concurrently rather than concordantly

No. I couldn't care less whether anybody agrees or not. It says what it says. Because you refuse to discuss their arguments.

Hi GDR, GDR I don't know what your definition of a Christian is, maybe you could enlighten me.I will be 80 years old Thursday at 4:30 pm. I became a child of God by being born again August 19, 1949. At no point in that 70 years do I claim to be a Christian according to my definition of a Christian.The word Christian is used 2 times in the Bible. Once by king Agrippa in Acts 26:28 to Paul. The other time by Peter in 1Peter 4:16 about a person suffering as a Christian.The word Christians was used one time in Acts 11:26 by the residents of Antioch calling the disciples Christians because they were living a life like Christ.I am far from living a life like Christ He was perfect and I am imperfect. I have two commandments to keep. First I am to love God above all else with all my mind, spirit, and body. Second I am to love everybody as much as I love myself. Try as I may I can not do either as much as I should. I have a spirit that is perfect as the Holy Spirit has sealed it until the day of redemption. But I still live in the same body I was born with and it has a sin nature. My mind is not as bad as it used to be because I am able to work on it by putting the correct information in it.God Bless,

Because we have two ways of approaching scripture.
One side uses Faith.
The other side uses evidence.
You claim that there is no *evidence* that God is doing anything or involved in any way. We believe that He is. We only have subjective impressions...not any objective evidence. Dan Barker and Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale discuss their respective opinions on this subject in their respective books. I can discuss the arguments in the book of this topic. I will discuss the counter-arguments in the Godless topic.

I’d suggest that we can’t read the scripture plainly. The Bible was written between about 2000 and 2600 years ago. Even with the Gospels we have to understand that Jesus was a 1st century Jew speaking to first century Jews. We have to do our best to understand what is written from that perspective and then we can work and trying to understand what it would mean to us today.
Go back even to Genesis. To try and understand Genesis as if it were a newspaper account of what happened is ludicrous. It is early Jewish mythology and should be understood that way. That does not mean that there isn’t a great deal to be learned through that mythology IMHO.
Here is your Barker quote:

quote:

---

Someone once objected to my criticisms as attempts to explain away the proofs for a god. I am not trying to explain them away; I am trying to explain them. The success of this rational approach hinges on something that in theory everyone advocates, but in practice is quite elusive: a complete impartiality on both sides. I am willing to change my mind, but I don’t see many believers admitting even the possibility that they might be wrongthat they are the ones with the problem. Believers are usually only concerned with winning me to their views. Impartiality, which is adequate for mundane matters, seems always to cave into loyalty when religious matters are discussed. Since most believers’ religious views are something of an extension (or sometimes a replacement) of their personality, when you question their beliefs you are often perceived as attacking them personallytheir identity within their religious culture and their meaning in life, moral code, honor, intelligence, judgment and everything they are as individuals. (How dare you tell me that my loving grandmother lived her entire life believing a lie!) Most of them have invested a lot of time, energy and money in their faith, and they aren’t apt to back off or lose face. They would rather earn devotion points within their co-believing community than give any credibility to some Lone Ranger atheist. Of course, none of this proves or disproves either position. If it did, that would be ad hominem. Christians may be loyal and dishonest, but they still may be correct. Atheists might be rational and honest, but they might be wrong. The lack of impartiality of most believers merely underlines the difficulty of dialogue with atheists.

---

Firstly Barker does something that I see a lot of posters here doing. They call someone’s belief a lie. Being wrong does not usually mean it’s a lie. To lie requires intentionality.
Secondly when he says that many believers admitting even the possibility that they might be wrong, I’d suggest that you could just as easily substitute atheists for believers in that sentence. I for one know that I could be wrong about God all together. I have a strong belief that there is a good and loving god and I have a strong belief that if I want to understand that god and try to understand what it should mean to my life I look to Jesus. However, it is belief and faith in that belief. It is not the same thing as scientific knowledge or even scientific theory. I don’t recall jar saying that we should throw God away but although he is a Christian his beliefs, as near as I can tell, don’t differ from those of a secular humanist. Yes, you can simply look at the Bible and take away the social message of love of neighbour and that is really important. However, if God really did bodily resurrect Jesus, and give Him dominion, then it brings up other aspects besides the Golden Rule, such as responsibility not just to our neighbour, but to all life and to the planet itself. But, no matter how remote the possibility, I could be wrong. Edited by GDR, : typo

I suppose if someone wants to sincerely call themselves a Christian then who am I to say they aren't. I doubt you'll find any two people that have actually spent time trying to understand their faith that won't disagree on something. Too many Christians IMHO want to tie the definition down to someone who believes in exactly the same doctrine that they do.Also, belief in a specific doctrine is too closely aligned with the idea of what will happen to them in the next life.

Yup, not just say but very strongly believe we would be better if all mankind threw "God" away. Throw away the God(s) and god(s) that man creates; GOD is not the God of Genesis 1 or the God of Genesis 2&3 or the Sunni Allah or the Shiite Allah or Ganesha or Coyote or Raven or Shiva or Ra or any of the other Gods and gods that man has created.We need to stop creating God in Man's image.But I have outlined what my beliefs are several times here; most thoroughly in Belief Statement - jar.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Believing the evidence away is not kosher.

IMHO that phrase "born again" is often badly misused. It seems to be so often used to relate to a specific time that someone gives ascent to some form of Christian doctrine. The term "born again" occurs in 2 books of the Bible. It is used in reply to Nicodemus in John 3 and again in ! Peter 1 where it agrees that they have been born again as their hearts have been changed to hearts that reflect God's love into the world. No where does it say that it is about accepting any particular doctrine.Being born again is about having hearts that over a time gradually move further and further away from having a heart that looks out after number one, to having a heart that loves others sacrificially. It is about having a heart that responds to that still small voice of God regardless of religious belief.
At age 80 here's hoping you've been born again, and again, and again......

Hi jar
I read through many of your posts on that thread but not all 66 of them. The problem is that you post like a theist but then you say what you do in the quote above you are essentially expressing a deistic POV.I agree that all religion is a man made attempt to understand why we are here, from a POV that we are the result of an intelligent agent. From there we attempt to understand the nature of that intelligence and what it should mean to our lives.Before I would agree that we should throw away any particular deity I think we do have to ask what it is that we believe about that deity. If we believe that the deity is the one that we sometimes see in Bible that commits and commands genocide then I'm with you. If however we believe in a deity that commands us to be peace keepers, to be merciful, to love others as we love ourselves etc, then I have to question why would you want to throw that god away. Belief in a deity like that will at the very least give humans a foundational belief in how our lives should be lived that is positive.

Being born again means having a changed perspective on ...just about everything. It's not just the acceptance of a new doctrine or a changed opinion, it's something internal that you know happened to you because you now see things so entirely differently than you did before.

I don't disagree with that but it isn't something that is confined to a specific time or place. It is a response that gradually begins to respond to that still small voice that calls us to do the loving thing even though there is personal cost to it. Ideally over time the response continues to grow until it becomes normal to us. Certainly none of us, least of all me as Paul would say, that do this anywhere near perfectly. Mind you, there are those who devote their whole lives to serving others. Sadly I'm not in that category.However it isn't something that you can pin down to a particular time and place, and it doesn't require the acceptance of a new doctrine at all.