Ezra 7; Ezra 8; Luke 20

Scripture that spoke to me:
Luke 20:37-38
“But now, as to whether the dead will be raised—even Moses proved this when he wrote about the burning bush. Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, he referred to the Lord as ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ So he is the God of the living, not the dead, for they are all alive to him.”

Observation:
Jesus gives this explanation of how they can "know" that resurrection and life in heaven is real. God is the God of the living!

Application:
There will always be skeptics- people who want "proof" in Jesus. People who won't believe anything they can't see. But the wind blows, and we can't see that. Time passes, and we can't see that (we can only measure it). There is so much that cannot be proven but yet we know it is there. That is what faith is- the belief in what you cannot see or hear.

Prayer:
Lord, I have faith in You. Help me know how to pass that along to others. Amen.

This past week has been very, very difficult for me. The old adage "when it rains, it pours" is very true. Some of my more religious friends, when comforting me in my woes, suggested that God was trying me and I was being tested. From their point of view, they were being very good friends and I could see that. I am very grateful to you all for caring about me. But the invocation of God got me to thinking many things. Epicurius' famous quote was one of them:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

But more importantly, I was wondering how this all happened and who to blame. I do believe in karma, which is to say I believe in cause and effect. Newtonian physics applied very broadly. It all lead back to this uncomfortable fact: me. I made this mess for myself by not trusting my own judgement. I took on responsibilities that I knew I shouldn't have, but really wanted to. I also was (independent from the first) too scared to tell someone how I felt about her. I knew I really should have told her, I was just scared.  So these responsibilities that I shouldn't have taken on stressed me out to no end and caused me to be distant to her. The responsibilities eventually broke me, and I had to drop them. Also, she left me for good during the two weeks that had me particularly sour and stressed from my added responsibility.

Cause and effect - no magic, voodoo or deities. Just bad choices that I knew were bad choices, but went ahead with them anyway because I didn't have the courage to trust myself. So the lesson is this: We are in control, but we've just got to trust ourselves more and really evaluate ourselves more carefully. And instead of throwing up my hands to an unseen power that I can't influence, I'm taking charge and learning from my mistakes. I'm growing! It sure hurts though. It truly did almost make me want to give in and bow to some magic force just so I wouldn't have to reconcile my own misgivings. It would be much easier.

"And I'm aching / and I'm aching...."

Mr Monkey is an extremely complex individual, his profile (and his Blog entries) suggests he harbors several interesting, but disturbing characteristics. Not only is Mr Monkey an Atheist, his psychological profile indicates he also harbors deep racist, sexist and homophobic feelings. Let's look at these individually;

Racism; Mr Monkey appears to be a closet racist, in all of his attacks he has made allegations relating to alcohol, sex, womanizing, corruption and other 'quirks' his targets are alleged to have. I notice, however, he has never made a single allegation relating to any councilor of an ethnic minority! This interesting fact indicates that although Mr Monkey probably harbors racist tendencies he is unlikely to vent them in his Blog for fear of serious retribution when he is finally 'outed'. His fear of discovery prevents any racist attacks, his references to Cllr Ahmed Khan (Solely political) substantiate this. Mr Monkey will not risk (because he doesn't take risks) a full frontal racist attack on anyone.

Sexism; Mr Monkey's character is one of the archetypal 'male chauvinist', he not only dislikes women in positions of power, he fears them, hence his attacks on female Councilors and in particular Irene Lucas (when in attention seeking mode he will love being seen with her, keep an eye out for that). He despises the fact that a woman can 'command' him to do anything at work (especially if he has a female manager) and will have several well practiced 'excuses' he can trot out verbatim usually in the form of other more pressing duties, i.e. meetings with senior members of staff or out of the Borough (and which are not in his electronic diary, usually due to his convenient 'forgetfulness') and to which he will conveniently have to go. If that fails he will try to pass the responsibility on to someone else or as a last resort (because more people than he realises are now on to his behavioral pattern) he will delay doing what is asked of him untill the last possible minute. Mr Monkey will generally 'look down' upon his female colleagues, especially if they are on a 'lower scale' than him (PO or less) or especially if they are in an ethnic minority. These tendencies probably come from his childhood memories of the bullying he and his Father probably suffered at his mothers hands, and which he has long harbored feelings of frustration from, but can now release them via his Blog.

Homophobia; This is by far the most pronounced (disturbing) characteristic of Mr Monkey's profile. He harbors great hatred and fear of homosexuals, and will wherever possible avoid any contact with them (unless there is some gain in it for him, either money or power). These tendencies probably come from an homosexual contact he has had some time in his past. Maybe Mr Monkey has 'experimented'  'as many people do with homosexuality at an early age or has been abused as a child. Either way this would result in his obvious hatred of homosexuality and the acts thereof. It would not surprise me if Mr  Monkey was abused at school by his peers or perhaps a teacher or priest? He probably attended an all male school or boarding school of one type or another where homosexualityis common. As a result he may have feelings he is possibly fighting to contain / resist on a daily basis,  and although he is married, he is likely to 'stray' from time to time, which he fiearcely tries to cover by his evident homophobia, which will be clearly visible.

Are you working with someone who has these traits? have you been the victim of sexism, racism, or homophobia, if so you will have discovered several more clues to Mr Monkey's identity.

Bush Proposed Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Supervision In 2003

Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:21 pm Posted by Steven in Economy

http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-supervision-in-2003-1141

A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 coming by these lobbyists.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

PS: Do you know who Jamie S. Gorelick is and what she did "for" our country? I recommend you google her name -

Jamie S. Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and a chief policy adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton, is rumored to be a possible attorney general in an Obama administration. She was vice chairman of Fannie Mae and sat on its board of directors.But for 10 long years he's been on the House FinancialServices Committee - the committee in charge of oversight of financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You can't imagine how frustrating it is for me, as a longtime commenter and reader of Ray Comfort's blog, to find that where before there were a ridiculous amount of rules, there are now, effectively, none. Rules one can abide with, but leaving comment moderation up to subjectivity of a unknown third party is the ultimate detractor to commenting. Even Ray's own subjective commenting was better than this. At least we knew him and could anticipate to some extent how our comments would be received, now that is up to you, --who we don't in the least bit know, who may as well be the devil of our comments. You might be an angel as well. But that's the problem, you see, we don't know where you stand or what your rules are. So we're left to assume the worst.

Ray's blog has always been about toeing the line. Now the line is undefined and the readers are left standing here wondering where to stand. We have no idea what to do. Do we want to comment? Yes, of course, but we must ask ourselves,"Is it even worth it to bother commenting? Will my comment be allowed through moderation? What does it take to be banned? If I am banned, will I even be notified?"

I for one, have not commented on Ray's blog since the change in comment moderating. And I'll admit that, having not commented, I don't have any first hand experience with the new moderators. However, I've heard enough from other people to be well established in my doubts. I hope you'll forgive me for assuming the worst.

As a blogger myself I'll give you a little advice, commentors are to be respected. You as moderators should not be looking only for their respect to you, but should take into consideration how you can return that favor. Having people comment on Ray's blog should be held as a privelege among you. Don't take me for an egoistic fool for saying this, please, but you are graced our presence and especially by our comments. Considering that, I only ask you to hold us in enough esteem to tell us what the new rules are.

Thank you sincerely,
Jonathan Brennecke
from the blog Pesharim

Before we start with the Shahada(Testification of faith), we must define Tawhid.  Tawhid comes from the root word Wahada, which means 'to ascribe unity' to something. Meaning he made something one. So the word Tawhid islamically means unify Allah in his lordship, his names and attributes, and his rights to be worshiped. These are the three types of Tawhid. These are mentioned in the Qur'an. The first four verses of the Qur'an testify to these.

"All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds."

• The Unification of Allah's lordship.

"The Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.

Sovereign of the Day of Recompense."

• The Names and Attributes of Allah.

"It is You we worship and You alone we ask for help."

• His rights to be worshiped.

So all three forms of Tawhid are mentioned in these verses. Tawhid Rububiyah(of his lordship), there is only one lord, one creator, one sustainer, Allah. Tawhid Asma wa Sifa't(his names and attributes), his names and attributes are perfect. And Tawhid Uluhiyah(his rights to be worshiped), Allah is the only one worthy of worship.

Perhaps one's anti-Christian attitude offends me? How about that? But no, that's not allowed. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and beliefs--but not if you're Christian. It's just too "narrow minded" to be allowed. Can we say DOUBLE STANDARD?

As much as I may disagree with these opinions, they have the right to say it. Even though I can feel the hate echoing in every word that is said or written. Even though I think it's narrow minded to be classifying all Christians as immoral, insane, idiots. That's like me saying all people who don't believe in God are completely immoral, evil and mean. I know for a fact that's not the case; I've met plenty of agnostics and athiests who don't show a complete hatred of Christianity; they simply just don't believe it, but at the same time, they listen and argue rationally without resorting to name-calling.

As much as I'd like everyone to have the same love for God as I do, there's NO WAY I would even consider forcing anyone to believe it. It's called free will and we all have it for a reason. NO ONE has the right--Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest--to force anyone to believe their beliefs; NO ONE has the right to persecute and shut down those whose beliefs are different than their own.

I guess I don't understand why we're hated so much...yes, I know there are plenty of Christians who don't even warrant the name; yes there are some who are too close minded. But that's not limited to just Christians; I've seen plenty of other people act the same way--especially some who claim to be for freedom of speech and religion (or lack thereof) but immediately resort to name calling once someone even admits to being a Christian. It's wrong, plain and simple.

It makes me think back to the verse in the Bible,

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. John 15:19

Perhaps that is why I am hated before people even know me.

I think the whole thing is sad really...

Greetings!
It seems you are unaware of something that most thinking people figured out a long time ago.  I'm not quite sure how to say this, but... There is no god.  There never was a god.  Nor will there ever be a god.  I know the reality of it may be hard to bear, but ti's probably time you were informed.
Look at it this way.  Now you have time for all those other things you may have wanted to try over the years!  Play some racquetball! Do some gardening!  Read some books (of the fiction variety!)
Good luck with your Imaginary friend free existence.
Have a great day!

I cannot believe someone would have the audacity to be so bold.  Be that as it may, some people just will not believe in God until Jesus returns.

 Did you know?   

Official Title of Legislation:   Moore voted:  NO
HR 6099: To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

Official Title of Legislation: 
HR 748: To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes. 
He voted not to pass a bill that prohibits the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent or legal guardian.    Moore voted: NO

Official Title of Legislation: 
S 3: A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.
He voted not to adopt a conference report that prohibits any individual from knowingly performing the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted.  Moore voted: NO

Official Title of Legislation:  
H.AMDT.1017 to HR 4781: Amendment sought to strike language from the bill that prohibits using any of the funds it distributes to pay for abortions or the administrative expenses connected to any federal health plan that provides benefits or coverage for abortions.  Moore voted: YES

Official Title of Legislation:   
HR 503: To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.   Moore voted:  YES  You didn't know horses were more important than babies? 

-Appropriates $5 million to carry out the Horse Protection Act  Your tax dollars at work!

Official Title of Legislation: 
H Con Res 393: Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 2009.   Passed in the house anyway, but senate would vote on it at all -  Moore voted:  NO  (2004)

- The resolution would provide $2.4 trillion spending for this year
- The resolution would provide $13.1 trillion for fiscal years 2005 to 2009
- Beginning October 1st, the resolution would provide $819 billion of discretionary spending for this year
- The resolution would provide $402 billion in defense spending
- The resolution would cut taxes by $152.6 billion over five years
- The budget deficit is expected to fall to $377 billion in fiscal year 2005 and be cut in half by fiscal year 2009

Official Title of Legislation: 
HR 4297: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. 
He voted not to adopt a conference report that authorizes and extends $69.96 billion in tax credits and cuts through 2010.   Moore voted:  NO
Highlights

Continues reduced tax rates of 15 percent and 5 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2010 (Sec. 102) 

Repeals the requirements that a veteran must have served before 1977 in order to receive the benefits of qualified veterans' mortgage bond programs in Alaska, Oregon, and Wisconsin (Sec. 203)

Removes the income limitation requirement of which individuals may switch from individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to Roth IRAs beginning 2010 (Sec. 512)

Official Title of Legislation: 
HR 5638: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000 and to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and for other purposes.    Moore voted:  NO
- Increases the amount eligible for exemption in gifts and estates to $5 million as of 2010.

Official Title of Legislation: 
HR 4297: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.   Moore voted:  NO
He voted not to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, student loans, and other projects and retains a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

Official Title of Legislation: 
HR 1338: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.   Moore voted:  Yes

- Authorizes the Secretary of Labor to make grants to governmental agencies, nonprofit groups, and community based organizations for negotiation skills training programs for girls and women (Sec. 5).
- Establishes the Secretary of Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace to be awarded to an employer that has made substantial efforts to eliminate pay disparities between men and women (Sec. 7). 

- Authorizes the appropriation of $15 million to carry out this act, none of which maybe used for congressional earmarks (Sec. 10).     

Official Title of Legislation: 
HR 5351: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.    Moore voted:  YES
-Creates new "clean renewable energy" bonds and designates a $2 billion limit on those bonds, which would be allocated to qualified projects of public power providers and cooperative electric companies (Sec. 104).

-Prevents tax deductions to major integrated oil companies for income resulting from the domestic production of oil and gas (Sec. 301).   

 Official Title of Legislation:                                                                                             HR 3685: To prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   He voted to pass a bill that amends the federal Civil Rights Act to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation.

-Prohibits employers from discriminating against any employee in respect to the conditions and privileges of employment based on the employee's actual or perceived sexual orientations (Sec. 4).  -  (Trial lawyers love this one -  Money in the bank!)   Moore voted:  Yes

I have a few questions, maybe someone can help me understand. Why does Obama have such a questionable past, present and future? Why does he have so many anti America friends and associates? Why so many ties and influences with Socialism and Communism? What about that guy who admits to setting bombs here in America and trying to blow up buildings? Where did Obama announce he was going to run for president?

In my next post i'm going to list the ties that BO has and what they represent. It might shock some of you.

Now if he had just one acquaintance with someone who had a "checkered" past I could see how that can innocently happen. But I am not buying it in this case. If it walks like a duck...

Comments?

I was born in a large city, at age 3 I moved to a rural Indiana town. My family attended a small church of 120 people. In a small town, church is a community. Today's mega-churches don't appeal to me. It is hard to get close to 1000 people. Both types for fellowship have their own benefits and drawbacks. Politics and Church go hand in hand in a small town. It was a big turnoff, or "turn away". At age 18, I rebelled like many people at that age. At 21 I returned to college, a Baptist College. I am a better man for it.

I said some horrible things to my mother. I believed the doctrine being preached across Europe and in many "progressive" parts of the USA. God was not necessary for me. Well, that was until I needed him. At 18, life may have seemed very challenging. It was. In my mid 30's I wish it was that easy once again. I was the smartest person I ever met, and my parents suffered because of it. See, I didn't need God at age 18 like I need him now, or so I thought.

Look across the world and I now understand the generational disconnect. I understand the damage I had done in my own small circle. We are all tested. I failed then, and I fail now, every day. I struggle to think what I could have done if the internet was as prevalent in 1992. I had many causes to fight for, and most of them are still good ones. Why I fought against God, I do not know.

We were, and are told that an enlightened society does not need faith. The people of Europe have embraced socialism and shunned personal accountability. Read any news from the BBC or Der Spiegel, and you will see America slammed because it holds to faith. It hopes to erode the faith of a nation built on faith, by the faithful and replace it with philosophy. At 18 I ate it up, today my stomach is still unsettled. Faith is what you use when philosophy fails you. The United States without faith will fail.

Why am I writing this? I hope that somewhere an 18 year old kid may read this, and think twice about following my path to faith. No, I never became and evil person. The lessons taught at a young age guided me in my decisions, no matter what justification I gave them. I have great parents, but many don't share my luck. They still pick me up when I fall. They hold forgivness in their hearts along with unconditional love. All of this, despite the fact I helped make God a 4 letter word.

This is a joint project with a friend of mine to gain perspective on current events from both a Christian an Agnostic view point.

BUT WAIT! shes also hardcore christian.

wtf?!

this epitomy of goth looking type is hardcore christian. when she was younger, she was a pagan like her parents. then she was like me, until recently, a militant agnostic. but now, she liek quotes scripture, and like...knows all this stuff about her religious history, stuff that most in her religion didnt know EXISTED (mention the council of nicaea to some christians. see how many know wtf it means).

its weird dude. i dont know what to think of this girl. like, first day i walk in, shes over-achieving with a lap top,shes looking up terms in google from class, shes giving great input (while talking much too fast for me to understand what the bloody hell she is saying). its crazy. i dont hate this christian, i LIKE this christian. i hate almost ALL christians, but this girl is smart, shes all non-christian looking and acting. she is exactly what every christian should be (cept the goth part); she inquires, she wonders, she researches, she reads, she learns. its amazing.

if christian america could just do what this girl is doing, i think it would greatly change the way we see things.

seriously, i hate God. but if it is THIS girl's god, i might be interested in learning more. i dont agree with god creating all of mankind. but then, i dont even know if SHE does. she believes in evolution, she believes in logic. And i want all christians out there to do the same. to look at their religion logically and rationally, like this girl has. shes still keeping her faith, while i can actually keep the peace with this girl.

please, christians, catholics, all of you. be like Emerald. learn your history, learn your religion, and learn to use logic.

This is the best site ever. Spore is a crap game. Spore supports evolution, because we all know that evolution describes descent with modification.

Fucking idiots.

US FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS SHALL KILL EVERYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!

I feel sick now.
I feel sick......
And that wasn't that funny.

Now really, I'm an atheist. I'll give you readers a moment to leave or gasp in horror.

Done?
Good.

Spore is not a game based on evolution.
It's a game based on creationism.
In fact, if creationism had a program, Spore would pretty much be it. Given, that there are infinite points given and some cheats are activated.

The man or woman whom runs the blog, should know that. And no, I don't think that site is satire.

I'm not going to judge Spore as a game. I haven't played it yet.
When I do I'll give you faithful (read: people whom have come to this site by accident) readers a review.

Update:
Thanks a to comment I now know I look like a complete ass hat, because the site is satire!
I'll just say that this is an evil rickroll. ABSOLUTELY EVIL!

I should learn to read a bit more...

Jeremiah 37; Jeremiah 38; Jeremiah 39; Psalm 79; 2 John 1

Scripture that spoke to me:
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Observation:
Anyone who does not know Jesus does not have Christ in him. He, therefore, is the opposite of Christ, or the antichrist.

Application:
I have always seen the antichrist as one person- like the king of the athiests, or something like that. To think that there are millions of antichrists running around is, frankly, a little scary. It is our job to "go and make disciples," so we still have a lot of work to do!

Prayer:
Dear Lord, help me know what to say and how to live in order to show You to others. Amen.

This book is a great snappy response to Dawkin's book "The God Delusion". If you have taken the trouble to trawl all the way through that book, then it only makes sense to hear what the other side has to say, unless of course you are a "fundamentalist athiest" (!) who does not want to have their beliefs questioned. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism-Denial/dp/0281059276/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219687482&sr=8-1

The book only attempts to response to a few weaknesses in Dawkin's argument. As the book itself is very much a summary, it is therefore only possible to pick out a couple of points here.

• Dawkin's book has been panned by some respected athiests (p21) and Prospect Magazine.
•  Many scientists, about half (40% on p 20, but this excludes some thiests), do believe in God, famous athiest Stephen Jay Gould recognised that natural sciences, including evolutionary  biology, are consistent with athiestic or conventional religious belief. Dawkins cannot admit this, if a scientist claims to believe in God he simply does not believe them p22
• There are limits to what science can prove or disprove in regards to religion, such as the transcendent (p 17) questions, "is there a purpose within nature/ the universe?"
• Chapter Three- McGrath asks what is the different between a "worldview and a religion", as the dividing line is imprecise. Some worldviews are religious, others are not, Duddism, athiesm, Islam, Marxisn can all be described as worldviews. Worldviews can promote fanaticism, but these could be athiestic, religious worldviews. Dawkin's says "wish fulfillment" is a global d as feature of religion, p 34, McGrath turns this on Dawkin's by pointing out this can also mean, human beings often do not want t go to the trouble of changing beliefs, because this is requires great effort, The God Delusion being a case in point  "Without full evidence that he is doing so, Dawkin's foregrounds evidence that fits in with his own views and discounts or distorts evidence that does not.
• Ch 3 Dawkin's uses pseudo- science and speculation that lack hard evidence p 41 eg the meme is not recognised as anything other than "a decidedly flaky idea" by the rest of the science community, although Dawkin's uses it as if it were established p43
• Ch 4 deals with the question "Is religion evil?". While acknowledging that evils have been done in the name of religion, Dawkin's ignores the fact that Jesus did no violence to anyone and if ppl did really follow him, violence might be a thing of the past. p47 McGrath also dismisses Dawkin's bizarre creedal statements that "there is not the slightest evidence" that athiesm influences people to do bad things. McGrath simply quotes the facts- "the Soviet authorities destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of Churches and Priests during the period from 1918-41 (p48). Dawkins is simply in denial.   

As I said, I have picked a few points out from a book, with 65 pages (plus biblio) that was already a very brief response to Dawkin's book. It is a good response, but some may want a more detailed rebuttal that given by McGrath

This was one of the prayers offered by Sara, one she specially wrote for use at the Food Pantry where her and her volunteers distribute free groceries to upwards of three hundred people once a week. I think the main reason it caught my eye as I read it this time around, was that it is reminded me very much of a prayer Bart Erhman described in his book, God’s Problem. For Bart, the doctrine of a God who feeds people became proof that there is no God because millions of people starve every day. For Sara, the doctrine of a God who feeds people became the knowledge that God was asking for her help, because millions of people starve every day.

I hardly know where to begin with this book, there are so many themes and things written in it that just stop me in my tracks, I can hardly refrain from just blurting out “oh, did you read this part?” and “I LOVE what she said here” and “this quote just blows me away!”

So, actually… I’m gonna just blurt stuff out here:

I LOVE Sara’s doctrine of inclusion that welcomes everyone to the (sacramental) table;
“As I interpreted it, Jesus invited notorious wrongdoes to his table, airily discarding all the religious rules of the day, and fed whoever showed up, by the thousands. In the end, he was murdered for eating with the wrong people.” –pg 92

I am profoundly humbled by her belief that you cannot be Christian by your self,
“I was going to get communion, whether I wanted it or not, with people I didn’t necessarily like… the people God chose for me.” –pg 97 The atheist, the Buddhist, the wealthy liberal church member who doesn’t want the Food Pantry interfering with ‘church’, the schizophrenic, the hopeless drug addict, the homophobic evangelical, the sexual deviant (as she occasionally refers to herself) … all part of God’s flesh, the body that we are a part of.

Her take on the Holy Scriptures is delightful to me; “ ‘The Word of God,’ [Donald] said, ‘is what’s heard by the people of God when the Bible is read.’ That meant the Word was living not because it was magical but because over and over, down the centuries, believers wrestled with texts, adapted them, edited them, interpreted them, swallowed them whole an spat them out. The stories in the Bible were records of human attempts to understand God- attempts that were hopelessly incomplete. But through words and acts, we kept trying.” –pg 172

One of my favorite parts, the one lodged in the back of my mind like a seed, is when Sara takes a vial of rosemary scented oil to the Food Bank and shyly goes around asking the workers there if they wanted a blessing. A special anointing, a ‘blessing of the hands’ that she thought up just for the occasion. Dipping her thumb in the oil, making the sign of the cross upon the palm of whoever said yes, giving a little prayer. As they all go about their work of feeding the poor. The imagery is one I just cannot shake.

I was sometimes uncomfortable with her ‘new convert’ fervor, slipping scriptural phrases into conversations with her atheist partner, self-righteously strong-arming her new church community into the good-works sector using the guilt card (“it’s what Jesus would do if he were here”). And my heart hurt a little bit when she shared the account of the young girl, obviously abused, who wanted baptism; ‘…the water God puts on you to make you safe…’ It was a beautiful, intimate ordinance, as Sara and Lynn (the female minister) washed and anointed this girl (pg 237)… but I found my self thinking, aching; does she think this will protect her? Did they explain well enough to that beaten abused child that the water and the oil won’t keep her from getting hit (or worse)?

I could go on and on… (the politics of food, the ordination of women and homosexuals, the wars within religious communities and between different factions of Christians, same-sex marriage, the spirituality of sharing food and of the dinner table, etc…) but I’ll stop now.

However, I’m hoping you will go on, I’m dying to know what you thought of the book!

What did you think of Sara’s conversion, of her experiences at St Gregory’s, of her radical politics and her unconventional education, of her work with the Food Pantries and her unorthodox gospel?
What parts were memorable, which were uncomfortable?
What similarities do you see between Sara’s beliefs and experience and your own?
Anything else that I am not asking but you want to share, please feel free.