its not a factually inaccurate statement. it does contain a fantastic story with no supporting evidence. context is important, and if you read my posts in this thread, in order, youll see that the context i described is consistent with the record.

gay rights isnt what motivates me to discredit the bible - to be honest, i dont think theres much of anything to discredit in the first place, as long as its kept in its place. my disbelief in the bible is really irrelevant to my main concern which is the legislation of religion. siding with faith over science, and essentially doing away with it (e.g., creationism in classrooms).


your examples of betterment (aside from the gay converts) are touching, but such things occur for people with no faith. inclusively, people of faith can commit reprehensible acts rivaling those of nonbelievers. those points arent conclusive for me.

"My point here is that I was also a man who searched long and hard to find an intellectual excuse for my moral life."

an intellectual excuse for your moral life? im not sure what you mean exactly. are you saying you couldnt rationalize being a good person without religion? im not sure if youre implying that im searching for some meaning in that sense, but im not. im able to appreciate and understand life just fine without religion. i used to be a christian, and i have given the bible a serious look - several, actually. oddly enough, the more i learned, the less it made sense. and here we are.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

The video won’t show for me, but all I had to read was this…



“The Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding. Educating students according to a classical liberal arts curriculum, and training them with apprenticeship methodology, the College provides academically excellent baccalaureate level higher education with a biblical world view.”


That’s almost funny. I musta missed the part where Christ said for His followers to lead a nation… to shape culture with fidelity to some spirit of some country’s founding…

Another example of how utterly ridiculous…

Aw, nevermind.

JMS: it is not a factually inaccurate statement. it does contain a fantastic story with no supporting evidence.
USG: Do you need to get your hands on a video tape of Moses parting the red see or taste the whale bile on the sleeve of Jonah’s tunic? What is your standard of evidence? What do you mean by “no supporting evidence”?
JMS: context is important, and if you read my posts in this thread, in order, youll see that the context i described is consistent with the record.
USG: Context is King. But I have no idea what you just said.
JMS: …gay rights isn’t what motivates me to discredit the bible - to be honest, I don’t think there is much of anything to discredit in the first place, as long as it’s kept in its place.
USG: I don’t think the greatest book ever written allows you to just shrug your shoulders and walk away. If you received a notice from the town board of health that radon is collecting in the basements of houses in your area, you would be a fool to ignore it, just because you despise the guy who authored the letter.
JMS: …my disbelief in the bible is really irrelevant to my main concern which is the legislation of religion.
USG: You may be surprised to know that legislating religion is as equally reprehensible to Christians as it is to you. I would never vote for a candidate to wanted going to Church to be a law. As a matter of fact, most, nay, all of the real Christians I know despise religion in all its forms.
JMS: siding with faith over science, and essentially doing away with it (e.g., creationism in classrooms).
USG: I don’t think true Christians want to put faith over science. I think most Christians have faith in Science. Because they are utterly convinced that God is the creator of Science. He set up the rules. My problem is, that most secular humanists can’t stomach that God thought of the flagellum first, that he invented the genome, that he shaped the inner ear, that he is the power behind gravity and nuclear fusion. They want to be the first to discover a vaccine, not merely be the vessel by which it is introduced.
JMS: …your examples of betterment (aside from the gay converts) are touching.
USG: Let me be clinical for a moment. For me, a man who finds deliverance from a behavior that increased his likelihood of dying before age 50 is bad? A man who finds deliverance from the impulse to insert one of the most vulnerable parts of his body (vulnerable to infections of all kinds) into the most bacteria filled, filthy part of another man’s body is wrong? A woman who finds deliverance from entering into sexual relationships with other women, having things inserted into her that were never meant to be, risking all kinds of health issues, that’s bad? The Bible flawlessly admonishes against these behaviors. Why is that bad? What is wrong with the message that “he that finds a wife, finds a good thing and obtains favor from God”. Traditional families are the bedrock of a healthy society. 98/100 trained sociologist who ever wrote a book on the subject agree. How can you argue against that?
JMS: …but such things occur for people with no faith.
USG: I agree. People find moments of deliverance from all kinds of things, completely outside of seeking God. But in science, the presence of another causal factor is not, in and of itself, a proof to dismiss the other. The empirical fact that “faith based” rehabilitation of convicts demonstrates an exponentially higher likelihood of zero recidivism is a more powerful argument than your statement.
JMS: …inclusively, people of faith can commit reprehensible acts rivaling those of nonbelievers.
USG: As I stated in a previous post. Just because you call yourself a Christian, does not automatically qualify you as a “person of faith”. The tired old argument that the priest who molested 36 boys from his parish over a period of 20 years, is somehow an argument that people of faith are capable of great crimes is patently absurd. It would be like saying, some oranges can taste like tomatoes. The very nature of a “person of faith” is not to commit crimes. Show me a man who harms children, criminally and routinely, and I will show you there is no faith in that man.
JMS: …those points aren’t conclusive for me.
USG: What would be conclusive? If I took you to the white house, sat you down at the iron fence, knelt and prayed, and the whole building lifted from its foundation and was set down and balanced on top of the Washington Monument, would that be conclusive? Or would you require God himself to appear before you and beg you to come back to him? Would you need to see someone raised from the dead?
JMS: an intellectual excuse for your moral life? im not sure what you mean exactly. are you saying you couldn’t rationalize being a good person without religion?
USG: That’s an interesting question. I was knee deep in religion, and religion actually gave me my intellectual excuses for my moral life. It wasn’t until I actually began a “relationship” with Jesus Christ, that my moral life turned around. On the outside I was white as snow, but inside I knew I was as corrupt as anyone who wore their sins on their shirt sleeve. It wasn’t until I understood the worth of my life apart from God, that I fell down on my knees and pleaded with him to come into my life. Its like the difference between having an aquaintence and having a close friend.
JMS: ..im not sure if youre implying that im searching for some meaning in that sense, but im not. im able to appreciate and understand life just fine without religion.
USG: That’s actually a good place to be in. I find religion empty and void, even vain.
JMS: …i used to be a christian, and i have given the bible a serious look - several, actually.
USG: Pardon my bluntness. But the Bible says that actually becoming a Christian is a literal transformation. (2 Cor. 5:7) Anyone who says they “used to be a Christian” is actually saying, “I was a religious individual at one time in my life, but I quit.” The statement that you used to be a Christian, from a Biblical perspective, is like saying "I used to be a bear, but now I am a man."
JMS: …oddly enough, the more i learned, the less it made sense. and here we are.
USG: I liken this last sentence to this: (please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds familiar to me, so I am going to take a stab)
A man walks into an electronics store desiring to buy all that he needs to build himself a two way short wave radio. He imagines all the fun he and his son will have, talking to one another without having to pay for phone bills. He asks the clerk, “What do I need to buy in order to build a shortwave radio?” The clerk, drawing on his vast experience as an electrical engineer, fills the man’s shopping cart with all he needs. The man returns to his house, and begins to build his radio.
When he finishes building it, he turns it on, only to discover that it doesn’t work. No matter what he reads, who he talks to, he can’t figure out what’s wrong with it. Disappointed, he abandons his plan.
My guess is that the religion of Christianity didn’t “work” for you. So rather than doing a deep dive into the problem, you discovered that it couldn’t hold your interest and you moved on. Is it the fault of the radio that it didn’t work? No. It wasn’t built right. Is it the fault of the store keeper? Nope. He sold you all the parts you needed. Is it the fault of the parts maker? Nope, they all work fine. The mistake the man made, was having too much pride to see it through. His failure to go to someone who has successfully built a radio, and ask for help in diagnosing the problem, ended his dream of being a ham radio operator. What a needless ending…
The fact that you wind up with more questions than answers, and therefore you quit isn’t an indictment on God or the Bible. It is a shame to you, sir, with all due respect. The most important questions a man can answer for himself are, “Who am I?” and “What am I here to do?” If there is no life, beyond death, then who cares? What does it really matter. Because the dust will settle, the worms will have their fill, the grass will cover me over, and soon my memory will be a broken stone in a field of dreams long gone.
What happens to a man on earth, and what happens to him after he dies is not something for only intellectuals to ponder. It is a real issue that each man must reconcile to, if he is a man at all. Face to face, with God you will be without excuse. The fact you are not “finding” only means you are making a willful choice not to look, in spite of the evidence (and there is a ton of it).
I appreciate this dialog, please forgive me if I have offended in any way.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

wow, so much text...

no supporting evidence, as in no evidence of a god or evidence that jesus was the son of god, etc. im not offended, dont worry. i get what youre saying with your "used to be christian" thing; ill rephrase that, i was taught to have faith in christianity, but then concluded that it was silly to me, personally. if people need religion to be good, thats great, as long as they dont try to force religion on others its not a problem.

"Show me a man who harms children, criminally and routinely, and I will show you there is no faith in that man."

i wasnt trying to talk about extremes like molestation, but okay. dont most people of faith consider themselves sinners to some degree? just because someone does wrong doesnt mean they dont have faith. are you trying to say true christians are perfect by their own standards? i dont think you are. anyway, the same can be said about a secular, rational individual. my point is, change for the better isnt exclusive to people of faith.

anyway, this is way off topic now. the title of the thread is just the title of the video i posted. im wasnt trying to criticize evangelists or all people of faith, etc. it was just about the specific video about this college.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Colleges have every right to educate their students on how to operate within a system to influence outcomes according to the way they think those outcomes should resolve. Christians, communist, fascists, socialists, supply-siders, federalists - they all want their place at the federal table. For certain there is a near monopoly held by secular humanists in our colleges today - and a proportional number of them holding govt. jobs.
If you carefully consider what this college is all about, you will find your civil liberties are still in tact. Paranoid fantasies inspired by videos like this, cause people to react like you did. My whole point is that there is a great deal more substance to this discussion than a few quips designed more to inflame passionate contention rather than honest dialog.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

did you watch the video? its the students and staff talking the whole time. its not like they were misrepresented. and its funny and telling that you put religion in the same group as those others. reminds me of a very wise, old saying...

"one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesnt belong."

this is pretty much the same problem with creationism in science classrooms. its a matter of religion not knowing its place, or rather, its followers not knowing its place.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.