So much of Dr. Ali's work seems to establish that all beliefs have consequences, and Islam has many that are totally incompatible with Western Democracy and religious and civil toleration. Many Muslims leaders have affirmed that they do not want our belief systems, but welcome the affluence and the safety we provide.
[The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood was shocked and appalled on a boat trip to the U.S., that men and women were dancing together! And this was just a small taste of what he later came to rail against in what he perceived as Western degradation].
In two of his last interviews, one with Philip Adams, the creator of Australian multiculturalism, Prof. Jerzy Zubrzycki admitted that when he was designing this policy, it never occurred to him that immigrants would be from anything other than 'Judeo Christian cultures'. He also repeated that sentence to me! Beliefs have consequences.
So where does anti- Semitism start? So far very few writers and broadcasters, let alone academics, have addressed this question. Now that Dr Ali is a Christian she will certainly have to deal with it.
In 1997,Pope John Paul II, in a preface to the landmark publication entitled "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah," expressed hope that the historic declaration of repentance by the Vatican about Catholic shortcomings in dealing with the Holocaust "will indeed help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices.". Then, two of the most important Jewish figures in the world were quoted in the Washington Post thus:-
Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem:- "Unfortunately, it does not unequivocally take responsibility for the teachings of the church that created the atmosphere that ultimately led to the Holocaust, and to the participation of numerous believing' persons in that crime." Further;
Robert S. Rifkind, president of the American Jewish Committee, called the document a "step in the right direction for the future of Catholic-Jewish relations." However, he added, "it only begins to address many issues and questions concerning the role of the Catholic Church in the evolution of antisemitism throughout the ages and its culmination in the {Holocaust}. It tells the truth, but not the whole truth." Both Christians and then later, Muslims, may be said to be the originators of anti- Semitism. And this too came from beliefs that have terrible consequences. We still have to reckon with these truths. And so far, the very silent Christian leaders have not said much at all. Now that she is a Christian believer, I hope that she will address the theology where anti- Semitism began.
So, the primary reasons for her conversion to Christianity are, the ‘threats’ from China, Russia, Islam and woke-ism. What exactly are the threats from China? Has China invaded another country recently? Does China have the world dotted with military bases? Does it engage in drone strikes (extra-judicial killings) of those who it regards as enemies - in other people’s countries? Is it the largest manufacturer and retailer of weapons in the world? Does it have ‘client states’ through which it spreads its political and economic interests? Do Chinese corporations allied with China’s military might seek to control the entire globe. Compare with the US. And Mr Putin? In what way is he a threat to the entire world? And Islam? And ‘being woke?
It is one thing to assert that these states and cultural movements are ‘a threat’, but it would be nice to know, in what way are they a threat and how will this threat manifest and in what way will these threats lead to the destruction of the West; and does she think that the persistence of the US in invading countries it does not like - Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam - in supporting terrorist organisations and death squads, and brutal dictators with a history of murdering their own people, has had any role in the apparent disaffection much of the world has with the West? Or not.
But a word on Woke-ism - whatever that term might actually mean! A ‘catch-all for people who do not like the way society is changing. Sadly, or happily, society changes. She ought to have lived through the 1960s and early 1970s. She would have found my parents saying exactly the same thing.
That this lady is brave is beyond question. That she has suffered terribly is also beyond question. That she has fought for 'human rights', tolerance, to have her voice heard, shows us how courageous she is. But is she a Christian? In her essay there is no mention of why she now commits to a belief in Christ as her personal saviour, the concept of the Trinity, the fact of Christ dying so all people can be forgiven of original and worldly sin and attain eternal life by following him. Does she believe in God? The authenticity of the Bible as God's inerrant word? The afterlife of paradise or hell? Who knows. She does not argue for these things.
Or is she now one of those 'Christians', who jump on a bandwagon because it feels good.
"Look you really don't have to read the Bible or follow God or believe in Hell to be a Christian, you just have to be a good person." Well actually, yes, you do. Being a Christian involves a number of basic beliefs you need to adhere to.
You are right to wonder on the basis of this essay alone.
After all Wikipedia states that,
"Estimates from 2021 suggest that of the entire U.S. population (332 million) about 63% is Christian (210 million)"
or, has there been a US president that hasn't been a "Christian?"
Nevertheless, it appears she had 2,000 words to say what she wished to communicate at this time.
But, she did say,
"Yet I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realization that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes. I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable—indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life?
Your, "Or is she now one of those 'Christians', who jump on a bandwagon because it feels good." seems to have been plagiarized from some bizarro world rag.
Where is this bandwagon that Christians are jumping on and what possibly leads you to think it feels good? I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that it does feel good in the sense she feels she is following the truth where it lead. But why try and impugn her on this ground? Denigrating any action , because it feels good, is to say nothing. Recall your Pascal's, “All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end."
You put in quotes, "Look you really don't have to read the Bible or follow God or believe in Hell to be a Christian, you just have to be a good person."
But, what are you quoting?
And your, "This smells of political opportunism to me."
Hi, and thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments.
My central thought was that to be a Christian one has to fulfill certain essential requirements. Belief in God, Jesus as some manifestation of the Divine - that is Jesus and God are really one and the same, - the concept of the Incarnation, Christ's death as a means of salvation and so on. You can say 'I am a Christian', but until and unless you commit to these things I say, well, actually you are not. The lady does not mention these things at all. This is an issue with me. You can't be a Christian just for the political use of the movement. That is a bit like the Seinfeld episode where his dentist friend became Jewish just for the jokes. NO. He was not Jewish.
Apologies for the 'bandwagon' comment. I withdraw it. My point was that many people, my parents for example, call themselves Christian and go to Church at Christmas, Easter and weddings and funerals, but could tell you nothing about Christ, God, and so on - but gain a great deal of comfort from it. Comfort is great, good on them, but Christians they are not. They tell me, 'look you just have to be a good person'. No, they are wrong.
So why is she calling herself a Christian? Because she says that atheism has no meaning? Well maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. To stop the hordes of evil doers from taking over the world? That maybe her justification - I think she is wrong on that score, but that's not the point.
My point remains. You just can't say 'I'm a Christian now' without explanation that references theology. You can't become a Christian for the jokes. Or the politics. Or to feel spiritual. Its shallow. Political opportunism? I would hate to think she has descended to this level of blandness so I will wait for clarification from her at some later stage. But people who are applauding her embracing of the faith I think are forgetting themselves what Christianity is really about.
You said, “My central thought was that to be a Christian one has to fulfill certain essential requirements.”
And I agree with you. My point with the quote from the Wikipedia entry was just that like most words in the dictionary, there are multiple meanings and seemingly there are now 210,000,001 Christians now.
It does bug me that there are multiple meanings for words, so you may be in agreement with me, and C.S. Lewis (quote below) that “Christian” being used equivocally is lamentable.
“Far deeper objections may be felt — and have been expressed — against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "may not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us
to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.” (Lewis goes on to say that the word “gentleman” (I can’t help but quote him again, “a gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes.”
It would seem fair to give her some time to become familiar with all that one (Lewis for example) would claim to be the common doctrines of Christianity. No?
You say, “she says that atheism has no meaning? Well maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.”
That is not significantly different than what she said, but let’s quote her. “Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life?”
I think that if anyone were to challenge her, the onus would be on them to demonstrate a “meaning and purpose of life.”
Dawkins and Michael Shermer have both responded to Ayaan. Do you expect that she has gotten an answer to “What is the meaning and purpose of life?” from either. They both addressed the topic on the same stage a dozen years ago. In my opinion it was pitiful. Just giving it a quick scan after many years, here is a link to a particularly weak point with Shermer at the microphone. https://youtu.be/Uaq6ORDx1C4?si=ukSnqq_spGXnDhI_&t=3551
She tried on (for a lot more than an hour) the atheist hat and concluded that all Dawkins and Shermer had to offer in terms of meaning and purpose was spin and obfuscation. Do you know how to get the transcript to show on the YouTube video? I suggest if you wish, open the transcript and search for the instances of the word “meaning”. They equivocate like crazy. Dawkins at time ostensibly declaring that there is no meaning so get over it, and Shermer claiming that we should find “our” meaning in helping others.
I don’t know how you’d answer Ayaan’s question here, but I’d not be surprised that she’d find Shermer to have totally missed the point of “meaning”. Not unlike your rightfully asking what is meant by the word “Christian”.
But I’m finding these atheists most unusually careful in what they say now that they’re trying to woo Ayaan back. Maybe Shermer more so. In his response he actually says,
Asking rhetorically, “Are there good reasons to believe in God?”, he concedes, “I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments …”
You say, “I would hate to think she has descended to this level of blandness so I will wait for clarification from her at some later stage. But people who are applauding her embracing of the faith I think are forgetting themselves what Christianity is really about.”
Good. I hope that she is a genuine Christian, because I think Christianity true, and I’ll celebrate whenever anyone finds the truth. But I too, with you, will need to await further clarification of what she believes.
Well, to start of on a Seinfeld note, yes the Tim Whatley parallel works very well.
Sorry I can't remember one that works as well to illustrate what I'd have to say on Ayaan but from one Seinfeld aficionado to another, I've used this clip in the past to critique the obvious delusion of the atheist that a believer in a religious point of view transgresses some secular commandment "Thou shall not evangelize". Even Ellan is offended that Puddy doesn't.
More in response in a bit, but I thought/hoped you'd like this.
God's blessings to you for embracing Christianity! Yes it certainly is a bulwark against the threats to Western Civilization, and certainly instills meaning and purpose into our lives, in contrast to the nihilism of atheism. Christianity is also...true! There's abundant evidence of not only the existence of a loving God, but that He's the Christian God! Godspeed to you as you continue to learn about Christianity. The more one learns, the stronger one's faith becomes, nicely positioning oneself to be one with our Father someday.
No Ayaan, the Tribalism of religion will not save us. The ideas of the Enlightenment created the West despite Christianity. Only Philosophy, the Enlightenment ideas and the values of Individualism can save us...
You say, "Only Philosophy, the Enlightenment ideas and the values of Individualism can save us..."
But that is you overlooking the problem. What obligation have we to hold that as "our" philosophy.
Wasn't it Hume who is credited with, "You can't get an ought from an is."
Or as Ayaan's inspiration, even from an atheist/agnostic Tom Holland has noted,
"To believe in human rights requires just as much a leap of faith as believing that the Lord Jesus Christ rose on the third day and ascended into heaven."
That is absurd and IS the problem. 1st: Ought is romanticism and Is is reality. 2nd: individual rights are tangible while christ rising on the 3rd day is fantasy. In other words your entire statement is a fallacy of logic...
What is absurd? Atheist/agnostic Tom Holland's, "To believe in human rights requires just as much a leap of faith as believing that the Lord Jesus Christ rose on the third day and ascended into heaven."
Maybe you'll have to take it up with the atheist's who are suddenly falling over themselves backpedaling the over-the-top propaganda they are suddenly peddling in an attempt to woo Ayaan back. She spent 20 years in that camp and very likely saw that they couldn't substantiate their piffle.
Here is Michael Shermer who over the years has offered some of the most vacuous tripe in the most prestigious of places dumping his twaddle.
Suddenly in his entreaty to Ayaan he answers his rhetorical, "Are there good reasons to believe in God?" with his apparently newfound, "I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments ..."
Surely Ayaan would be tempted to ask why it has taken Shermer so long to reveal this belief of his.
You say, "In other words your entire statement is a fallacy of logic..."
Is that "the unnamed fallacy" or "the fallacy in name only"? :)
What did scientists believe before science became its own religion?
Sir Francis Bacon established the inductive method of experimental science—what we call the scientific method today. He said: "Our Savior himself did first show his power to subdue ignorance by his conference with the priests and doctors of the law before he showed his power to subdue nature by his miracles."
Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. He said, "We must believe that this Lord Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, the Prince predicted by Daniel, and we must worship him as the Messiah."
Max Planck, considered the founder of Quantum mechanics, expressed the view that God is everywhere present. He said, "Farsighted theologians are now working to mine the eternal metal from the teachings of Jesus and to forge it for all time."
Wernher von Braun, a famous 20th-century rocket scientist who helped the U.S. to end WWII, said, "My experiences with science led me to God."
Blaise Pascal, established the foundation for probability theory and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He said, "there is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ."
One, science is an odd religion. It is one where you get kudos for proving things wrong. Unlike any religion I've ever known.
Two, about Von Braun. A Nazi who developed the V1 and V2 which resulted on the deaths of thousands of civilians and if he had the time would have developed a delivery system to drop nuclear bombs on cities. The US brought him over via 'operation paperclip', and he played a leading role in the US space program. The US has never had a problem befriending monsters if it served their narrow self-interest.
Ever wonder why there are large numbers of people who think the US is the problem in the world today?
If you want a religion that is not burdened by thousands of pages of written lore with contradictions, unenlightened and immoral content, and egregious demands (such as hating queers or not eating shellfish), try Seax Wicca. I don't practice Seax Wicca, but it has some advantages. It was invented by a known person who took responsibility for it, and it is saner than the world religions by far. (What I do is another kind of Wicca and English Heathenism, but I don't claim my religions are better than all the others; they're just mine.)
Hey Ayaan. How does an atheist who wants to convert to Christianity find a church that's neither 1) too irrationally conservative or 2) already ideologically captured by Woke Identitarianism? Asking for a friend...
When you wrote "our civilization" a ray of joy filled me. Like Christianity, Western Civilization is a choice. And someone with your life story, with more paths before you than I can imagine, chose the same path as I did. Wowzers.
Valiant woman. May she continue on her journey, may it be peaceful.
So much of Dr. Ali's work seems to establish that all beliefs have consequences, and Islam has many that are totally incompatible with Western Democracy and religious and civil toleration. Many Muslims leaders have affirmed that they do not want our belief systems, but welcome the affluence and the safety we provide.
[The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood was shocked and appalled on a boat trip to the U.S., that men and women were dancing together! And this was just a small taste of what he later came to rail against in what he perceived as Western degradation].
In two of his last interviews, one with Philip Adams, the creator of Australian multiculturalism, Prof. Jerzy Zubrzycki admitted that when he was designing this policy, it never occurred to him that immigrants would be from anything other than 'Judeo Christian cultures'. He also repeated that sentence to me! Beliefs have consequences.
So where does anti- Semitism start? So far very few writers and broadcasters, let alone academics, have addressed this question. Now that Dr Ali is a Christian she will certainly have to deal with it.
In 1997,Pope John Paul II, in a preface to the landmark publication entitled "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah," expressed hope that the historic declaration of repentance by the Vatican about Catholic shortcomings in dealing with the Holocaust "will indeed help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices.". Then, two of the most important Jewish figures in the world were quoted in the Washington Post thus:-
Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem:- "Unfortunately, it does not unequivocally take responsibility for the teachings of the church that created the atmosphere that ultimately led to the Holocaust, and to the participation of numerous believing' persons in that crime." Further;
Robert S. Rifkind, president of the American Jewish Committee, called the document a "step in the right direction for the future of Catholic-Jewish relations." However, he added, "it only begins to address many issues and questions concerning the role of the Catholic Church in the evolution of antisemitism throughout the ages and its culmination in the {Holocaust}. It tells the truth, but not the whole truth." Both Christians and then later, Muslims, may be said to be the originators of anti- Semitism. And this too came from beliefs that have terrible consequences. We still have to reckon with these truths. And so far, the very silent Christian leaders have not said much at all. Now that she is a Christian believer, I hope that she will address the theology where anti- Semitism began.
Nicholas Partridge
So, the primary reasons for her conversion to Christianity are, the ‘threats’ from China, Russia, Islam and woke-ism. What exactly are the threats from China? Has China invaded another country recently? Does China have the world dotted with military bases? Does it engage in drone strikes (extra-judicial killings) of those who it regards as enemies - in other people’s countries? Is it the largest manufacturer and retailer of weapons in the world? Does it have ‘client states’ through which it spreads its political and economic interests? Do Chinese corporations allied with China’s military might seek to control the entire globe. Compare with the US. And Mr Putin? In what way is he a threat to the entire world? And Islam? And ‘being woke?
It is one thing to assert that these states and cultural movements are ‘a threat’, but it would be nice to know, in what way are they a threat and how will this threat manifest and in what way will these threats lead to the destruction of the West; and does she think that the persistence of the US in invading countries it does not like - Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam - in supporting terrorist organisations and death squads, and brutal dictators with a history of murdering their own people, has had any role in the apparent disaffection much of the world has with the West? Or not.
But a word on Woke-ism - whatever that term might actually mean! A ‘catch-all for people who do not like the way society is changing. Sadly, or happily, society changes. She ought to have lived through the 1960s and early 1970s. She would have found my parents saying exactly the same thing.
That this lady is brave is beyond question. That she has suffered terribly is also beyond question. That she has fought for 'human rights', tolerance, to have her voice heard, shows us how courageous she is. But is she a Christian? In her essay there is no mention of why she now commits to a belief in Christ as her personal saviour, the concept of the Trinity, the fact of Christ dying so all people can be forgiven of original and worldly sin and attain eternal life by following him. Does she believe in God? The authenticity of the Bible as God's inerrant word? The afterlife of paradise or hell? Who knows. She does not argue for these things.
Or is she now one of those 'Christians', who jump on a bandwagon because it feels good.
"Look you really don't have to read the Bible or follow God or believe in Hell to be a Christian, you just have to be a good person." Well actually, yes, you do. Being a Christian involves a number of basic beliefs you need to adhere to.
This smells of political opportunism to me.
You say, "But is she a Christian?"
You are right to wonder on the basis of this essay alone.
After all Wikipedia states that,
"Estimates from 2021 suggest that of the entire U.S. population (332 million) about 63% is Christian (210 million)"
or, has there been a US president that hasn't been a "Christian?"
Nevertheless, it appears she had 2,000 words to say what she wished to communicate at this time.
But, she did say,
"Yet I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realization that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes. I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable—indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life?
Your, "Or is she now one of those 'Christians', who jump on a bandwagon because it feels good." seems to have been plagiarized from some bizarro world rag.
Where is this bandwagon that Christians are jumping on and what possibly leads you to think it feels good? I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that it does feel good in the sense she feels she is following the truth where it lead. But why try and impugn her on this ground? Denigrating any action , because it feels good, is to say nothing. Recall your Pascal's, “All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end."
You put in quotes, "Look you really don't have to read the Bible or follow God or believe in Hell to be a Christian, you just have to be a good person."
But, what are you quoting?
And your, "This smells of political opportunism to me."
sound as vapid as the bandwagon.
Hi, and thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments.
My central thought was that to be a Christian one has to fulfill certain essential requirements. Belief in God, Jesus as some manifestation of the Divine - that is Jesus and God are really one and the same, - the concept of the Incarnation, Christ's death as a means of salvation and so on. You can say 'I am a Christian', but until and unless you commit to these things I say, well, actually you are not. The lady does not mention these things at all. This is an issue with me. You can't be a Christian just for the political use of the movement. That is a bit like the Seinfeld episode where his dentist friend became Jewish just for the jokes. NO. He was not Jewish.
Apologies for the 'bandwagon' comment. I withdraw it. My point was that many people, my parents for example, call themselves Christian and go to Church at Christmas, Easter and weddings and funerals, but could tell you nothing about Christ, God, and so on - but gain a great deal of comfort from it. Comfort is great, good on them, but Christians they are not. They tell me, 'look you just have to be a good person'. No, they are wrong.
So why is she calling herself a Christian? Because she says that atheism has no meaning? Well maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. To stop the hordes of evil doers from taking over the world? That maybe her justification - I think she is wrong on that score, but that's not the point.
My point remains. You just can't say 'I'm a Christian now' without explanation that references theology. You can't become a Christian for the jokes. Or the politics. Or to feel spiritual. Its shallow. Political opportunism? I would hate to think she has descended to this level of blandness so I will wait for clarification from her at some later stage. But people who are applauding her embracing of the faith I think are forgetting themselves what Christianity is really about.
And thanks to you for the same.
You said, “My central thought was that to be a Christian one has to fulfill certain essential requirements.”
And I agree with you. My point with the quote from the Wikipedia entry was just that like most words in the dictionary, there are multiple meanings and seemingly there are now 210,000,001 Christians now.
It does bug me that there are multiple meanings for words, so you may be in agreement with me, and C.S. Lewis (quote below) that “Christian” being used equivocally is lamentable.
“Far deeper objections may be felt — and have been expressed — against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "may not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us
to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.” (Lewis goes on to say that the word “gentleman” (I can’t help but quote him again, “a gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes.”
So back to what Ayaan’s might mean by the use of the word. She goes into it a bit further in the following, https://youtu.be/3B6oLMrHQhs?si=4lw8Sk_ZhKAvTvc6&t=946
It would seem fair to give her some time to become familiar with all that one (Lewis for example) would claim to be the common doctrines of Christianity. No?
To risk another Seinfeld example, even George, it was suggested, would need time to become familiar with what Latvian Orthodox was, https://youtu.be/Vb5dOuipR_w?si=QDvEoO-0gk5OlUh3&t=85
You say, “she says that atheism has no meaning? Well maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.”
That is not significantly different than what she said, but let’s quote her. “Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life?”
I think that if anyone were to challenge her, the onus would be on them to demonstrate a “meaning and purpose of life.”
Dawkins and Michael Shermer have both responded to Ayaan. Do you expect that she has gotten an answer to “What is the meaning and purpose of life?” from either. They both addressed the topic on the same stage a dozen years ago. In my opinion it was pitiful. Just giving it a quick scan after many years, here is a link to a particularly weak point with Shermer at the microphone. https://youtu.be/Uaq6ORDx1C4?si=ukSnqq_spGXnDhI_&t=3551
She tried on (for a lot more than an hour) the atheist hat and concluded that all Dawkins and Shermer had to offer in terms of meaning and purpose was spin and obfuscation. Do you know how to get the transcript to show on the YouTube video? I suggest if you wish, open the transcript and search for the instances of the word “meaning”. They equivocate like crazy. Dawkins at time ostensibly declaring that there is no meaning so get over it, and Shermer claiming that we should find “our” meaning in helping others.
I don’t know how you’d answer Ayaan’s question here, but I’d not be surprised that she’d find Shermer to have totally missed the point of “meaning”. Not unlike your rightfully asking what is meant by the word “Christian”.
But I’m finding these atheists most unusually careful in what they say now that they’re trying to woo Ayaan back. Maybe Shermer more so. In his response he actually says,
Asking rhetorically, “Are there good reasons to believe in God?”, he concedes, “I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments …”
You say, “I would hate to think she has descended to this level of blandness so I will wait for clarification from her at some later stage. But people who are applauding her embracing of the faith I think are forgetting themselves what Christianity is really about.”
Good. I hope that she is a genuine Christian, because I think Christianity true, and I’ll celebrate whenever anyone finds the truth. But I too, with you, will need to await further clarification of what she believes.
Regards,
Sam
ps. Sorry to hear about Mumbles
Well, to start of on a Seinfeld note, yes the Tim Whatley parallel works very well.
Sorry I can't remember one that works as well to illustrate what I'd have to say on Ayaan but from one Seinfeld aficionado to another, I've used this clip in the past to critique the obvious delusion of the atheist that a believer in a religious point of view transgresses some secular commandment "Thou shall not evangelize". Even Ellan is offended that Puddy doesn't.
More in response in a bit, but I thought/hoped you'd like this.
https://youtu.be/KYIOgwuvPkg?si=H2PRIua_B1VcOeQf&t=138
So very true! There is hope for all of us when some are brave enough to speak.
God's blessings to you for embracing Christianity! Yes it certainly is a bulwark against the threats to Western Civilization, and certainly instills meaning and purpose into our lives, in contrast to the nihilism of atheism. Christianity is also...true! There's abundant evidence of not only the existence of a loving God, but that He's the Christian God! Godspeed to you as you continue to learn about Christianity. The more one learns, the stronger one's faith becomes, nicely positioning oneself to be one with our Father someday.
No Ayaan, the Tribalism of religion will not save us. The ideas of the Enlightenment created the West despite Christianity. Only Philosophy, the Enlightenment ideas and the values of Individualism can save us...
You say, "Only Philosophy, the Enlightenment ideas and the values of Individualism can save us..."
But that is you overlooking the problem. What obligation have we to hold that as "our" philosophy.
Wasn't it Hume who is credited with, "You can't get an ought from an is."
Or as Ayaan's inspiration, even from an atheist/agnostic Tom Holland has noted,
"To believe in human rights requires just as much a leap of faith as believing that the Lord Jesus Christ rose on the third day and ascended into heaven."
https://youtu.be/mG0VLbP_35I?si=LShViHBNeONgmHOg&t=129
That is absurd and IS the problem. 1st: Ought is romanticism and Is is reality. 2nd: individual rights are tangible while christ rising on the 3rd day is fantasy. In other words your entire statement is a fallacy of logic...
You say, "That is absurd and IS the problem."
What is absurd? Atheist/agnostic Tom Holland's, "To believe in human rights requires just as much a leap of faith as believing that the Lord Jesus Christ rose on the third day and ascended into heaven."
Maybe you'll have to take it up with the atheist's who are suddenly falling over themselves backpedaling the over-the-top propaganda they are suddenly peddling in an attempt to woo Ayaan back. She spent 20 years in that camp and very likely saw that they couldn't substantiate their piffle.
Here is Michael Shermer who over the years has offered some of the most vacuous tripe in the most prestigious of places dumping his twaddle.
Suddenly in his entreaty to Ayaan he answers his rhetorical, "Are there good reasons to believe in God?" with his apparently newfound, "I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments ..."
Surely Ayaan would be tempted to ask why it has taken Shermer so long to reveal this belief of his.
You say, "In other words your entire statement is a fallacy of logic..."
Is that "the unnamed fallacy" or "the fallacy in name only"? :)
What did scientists believe before science became its own religion?
Sir Francis Bacon established the inductive method of experimental science—what we call the scientific method today. He said: "Our Savior himself did first show his power to subdue ignorance by his conference with the priests and doctors of the law before he showed his power to subdue nature by his miracles."
Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. He said, "We must believe that this Lord Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, the Prince predicted by Daniel, and we must worship him as the Messiah."
Max Planck, considered the founder of Quantum mechanics, expressed the view that God is everywhere present. He said, "Farsighted theologians are now working to mine the eternal metal from the teachings of Jesus and to forge it for all time."
Wernher von Braun, a famous 20th-century rocket scientist who helped the U.S. to end WWII, said, "My experiences with science led me to God."
Blaise Pascal, established the foundation for probability theory and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He said, "there is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ."
Two brief points sir.
One, science is an odd religion. It is one where you get kudos for proving things wrong. Unlike any religion I've ever known.
Two, about Von Braun. A Nazi who developed the V1 and V2 which resulted on the deaths of thousands of civilians and if he had the time would have developed a delivery system to drop nuclear bombs on cities. The US brought him over via 'operation paperclip', and he played a leading role in the US space program. The US has never had a problem befriending monsters if it served their narrow self-interest.
Ever wonder why there are large numbers of people who think the US is the problem in the world today?
1) The author never indicates she believes one word of the gospel. She never even uses the words "Jesus" or "Christ".
2) I've never seen a person more in need of reading Albert Camus.
You say, "I've never seen a person more in need of reading Albert Camus."
Was Camus not basically a nihilist? And was that not what she was seeking to avoid? And maybe for just reason. Isn't nihilism unlivable?
https://youtu.be/rKmAUch05t0?si=wm1D9sdRqhwQ4rgS&t=5
Your final journey is to discover the power and forgiveness of Grace.
Grace is at the heart of Christ's teaching and is what redeems us all, whether we realize it or not. Study Grace to truly find peace.
Brilliant
If you want a religion that is not burdened by thousands of pages of written lore with contradictions, unenlightened and immoral content, and egregious demands (such as hating queers or not eating shellfish), try Seax Wicca. I don't practice Seax Wicca, but it has some advantages. It was invented by a known person who took responsibility for it, and it is saner than the world religions by far. (What I do is another kind of Wicca and English Heathenism, but I don't claim my religions are better than all the others; they're just mine.)
Brilliant and brave.
Dios te bendiga.
Hey Ayaan. How does an atheist who wants to convert to Christianity find a church that's neither 1) too irrationally conservative or 2) already ideologically captured by Woke Identitarianism? Asking for a friend...
See Pope Benedict's meditation on this from 1980: "Creation"
When you wrote "our civilization" a ray of joy filled me. Like Christianity, Western Civilization is a choice. And someone with your life story, with more paths before you than I can imagine, chose the same path as I did. Wowzers.