why the christian right is wrong
936088
This is one of the most inspiring books to correct the misconception of a "Christian" administration vs the true philosophy of Jesus. In simple, English Dr Meyers describes the immoralities of this government and what we should do as real Christians to change our society/church. The weakness of the opposition party is also recognized and we are called upon as individuals to work diligently to change all phases of life to what the Saviour taught.
4946754
The author observes that many people do not see their spiritual values as being connected to political issues. Thus they do not vocalize their values during political discussions. This allows the Religious Right to receive most of the attention. Thus, the views of the Religious Right are overrepresented as the views of the religious communities.

Edgar observes the Bible mentions peace or poverty over 2,000 times, homosexuality twice, and makes no mention of abortion. He wonders how the Religious Right then places emphasis when speaking on behalf of the religious community that homosexuality and abortion are their main concerns.

Edgar, a minister who admits that church can be boring, believes God speaks to everyone in a manner that can be heard. He believes that "if we listen, we can hear the divine in the words of people like Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or William Sloane Coffin." He states that America is divided into "two churches", one that brings faith through love, and the other from the Religious Right that brings faith through fear. While Jesus taught people to love their neighbors, he fears that some politicians have co-opted the Religious Right movement for their own political goals which are not the goals of love that Jesus taught.

Edgar sees global warming as fulfillment of Revelation in how the world can be destroyed. He is proud that he wrote the Community Right to Know Law regarding informing people of toxic chemicals stored in the neighborhoods when Edgar was a member of Congress.

Edgar objects to those who used the name of Jesus to support the war in Iraq. He states Jesus would reject a preemptive, and not defensive, war where many innocent civilians are killed. He also sadly notes no Western country ever admitted that genocide was happening while it was happening. Edgar argues that Jesus, as well as other religions, all teach that "there is nothing more realistic than hope."
4932634
Norman L. Geisler (b. 1932) is a Christian apologist (his Ph. D. in philosophy was from Jesuit Loyola University, so he is well-trained in scholastic philosophy, as well as evangelical).  Paul Feinberg is a professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Other reviews have ably summarized the contents of this book; here are some representative quotations, to give you a feel for the book:

"Unfortunately, some Christians have taken this verse (Col 2:8) to be an injunction against the study of philosophy.  This is incorrect for several reasons.  First, the verse is not a prohibition against philosophy as such, but against FALSE philosophy, for Paul adds, 'and [beware of] vain deceit, after the tradition of men.'  In fact, Paul is warning against a specific false philosophy, a kind of incipient gnosticism which had infiltrated the church at Colosse....  Finally, one cannot really 'beware' of false philosophy unless he is first aware of it.  A Christian must recognize error before he can counter it, just as a doctor must study disease before he can knowledgeably treat it."

"(T)he mind-body dependence of our present existence proves nothing about the conditions of a future existence.  To conclude anything we would have to observe that future life.  It could be that the conditions of that existence are quite different from those of this present life."

"'If God canNOT make a stone that He canNOT lift, then He is not omnipotent.' If we were to put this into logical notation, however, the statement would read: 'Any stone which God can make, He can lift.'  Worded this way, the statement does not present any limitation to God's power."

"But once the atheist admits there is an eternal, uncaused something which is more than all the finite parts of the universe and is the cause upon which they are dependent, then he has acknowledged what the theist has argued for all along, namely, God."

"(A)ll the theist needs to do is show some POSSIBLE explanation for evil to defeat the non-theist's claim.  Theists are not obligated to show IN FACT that this is the case."

"Further, perhaps DISBELIEF in God is an illusion.  It would be nice if there were no God to whom we must give account some day, but the very fact that many free-living persons WISH it that way makes their belief (that there is no God) suspect."

This book is an excellent, well-argued presentation of the philosophy of religion  HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
829721
Back in 1992 I attended a lecture entitled "Nietzsche as Christian Philosopher." I was curious, and so went and heard a brilliant talk about the deep understanding Nietzsche had of the  Christianity of his day, and why he found it necessary to reject it. The lecturer did not try to make Nietzsche into a Christian, of course, for Nietzsche was not one.  Still, he pointed out that Nietzsche's critique grew out of his view, in part, of Christianity as a religion with a "slave mentality," one utterly lacking in a will-to-power. Apparently, Nietzsche had been reading Paul.

Westphal has also been reading Paul, and Augustine, and Luther, and Kierkegaard, in addition to the three founders of the "school of suspicion" as Ricoeur calls them: Frued, Marx, and Nietzsche.  Westphal has brought back from his travels with these men a powerful and critical message for the church today; and when criticized, the church should pay close attention to the criticism.  All three of these philosophers raise valid and very important concerns about not only the praxis of Christianity, but Christianity qua Christianity, as belief system and structure.

Nietzsche is indeed a Christian philosopher insofar as he shows us the will-to-power implicit in belief.  He is correct that  the Christ-idea of Christianity is antithetical to a will-to-power or a triumphalistic worldview, and that it would never and could never produce der bermensch (that, in part, is why he hated it so). When Christianity weds itself to power, any power at all, it needs to read Nietzsche.  It also needs to read Freud, badly, if it hopes to confront its wish-fulfillments in this-worldly "Kingdom of God"-speech, and its death-wishes in indulging apocalyptic orgies (note to Tim LaHaye: read more Freud). Christianity should also read Freud if it wants to really get an insight into Paul's "what I want to do, I do not, and what I do not want to do, I do," as well as a lot of Luther. Finally, a good re-reading of Marx (Marx has never really been given a good try, not since Lenin got him first and ruined him) might just show us why, after all, we not only cannot simply render unto Caesar, but why we constantly confuse Caesar and God. Great book by an important thinker.
2907243
In this book, Alvin Plantinga attempts to safegaurd theism from the problem of evil by explaining why he believes God and evil are compatible, although his attempts fail.  While claiming that God is not responsible for evil, Plantinga presents an analogy where two mountain climbers are stranded, and a rescuer can save only one climber (pg 20).  Plantinga's analogy fails to apply to an omnipotent being, however, for the rescuer, a non-omnipotent being, is limited by external forces.  When considering this flaw, Plantinga states, "Perhaps so, but this is not the point" (pg 21).  What is the point then?  To present a flawed analogy, recognize the flaw yourself, and then divert the reader's attention elsewhere without addressing the core objection?
Reconciling freedom and evil, Plantinga asserts that moral good requires the ability to choose between good and evil (pg 30).  Plantinga considers compatibalism but insists that it does not offer true freedom (pg 31).  Plantinga's account fails to consider the role of moral knowledge in compatibalism.  Plantinga, and other admirers of him, tend to define freedom exclusively in terms of action, although freedom also extends to choice.  Compatibalism asserts that God could have created men where they always choose to do good freely, perhaps by instilling men with a stronger understanding of morals and the consequences of evil action.  The example of Adam eating the forbidden apple illustrates this point.  Genesis states that Adam was deceived by Satan into believing that the apple would make him like God.  At that moment, God could have appeared before Adam and told him that if he eats of the apple, he in fact will not become like him but will suffer and have to leave paradise, although he is free to do as he pleases.  Would this extention of moral knowledge have violated Adam's freedom? Absolutely not, for Adam merely would have gained knowledge to act upon.  Adam probably would have rejected the apple freely, had God allowed him to know its true consequences and that Satan was deceiving him.  Some persons might say that this extension of knowledge is coercive and manipulates Adam's choice by promising punishment.  The coersion objection, however, contradicts most religious traditions; in Christianity, God places conditions upon man's free actions by asserting that if men freely choose to sin, then they shall suffer eternal damnation.  That's like a waiter informing a customer that the evening's special leads to abdominal cramps and then telling him that he's free to order the special.
The greatest weakness of Plantinga's book is in stating that demons with free will cause natural evil (pg 58).  Explaining natural evil is detrimental to theism, for such explanations raise harmful questions.  Why would a just God allow demons to harm humans who are not responsible for the demons' decisions and actions?  Some theists assert that at times, God intervenes and prevents natural evil (aka performs miralces), although this claim also is detrimental.  Why would God intervene to save some persons from natural evil but not other persons?  If God has the ability to intervene and prevent natural evil, then isn't he responsible for not doing so?  Some theists claim that natural evil needs no explanation, which is true in some cases but not in others.  Some natural evil warrants explanation, for God could have created humans with a stronger immune system or without vestigal organs that cause infections and death.  It appears that neither Plantinga nor his omniscient God thought of these possible preventions of natural evil that warrant explanation.
210257
See the 1st editorial review, which claims this country was "birthed and sustained through a Christian worldview". First of all, this was never set up to be a Christian nation. The founding fathers were deists, and they made sure that the constitution provided for the separation of church and state. And, the review mentions the "Christian worldview". If that means spreading Christianity throughout the entire world, that's certainly not what this country was set up to do. Yet, many Christians think it's okay for the US to invade other countries because we're supposedly on the side of Christ.

Also, read some of the customers' reviews to see how confused some of these people are. You'll see some of the most confused logic, like that the belief in evolutionary science and the belief in non-violence are somehow contradictory.

And notice how they like to label Harris as an atheist (instead of agnostic). If you read the book or listen to Harris's speech (which btw you'll find on YouTube, search "Sam Harris SALT"), you'll know Harris does not claim to have proof that God does not exist. It's not Harris's responsibility to prove that God does not exist. That's not what his book is about. His book is about the very real problem of ignorant people in this country taking on blind faith that there's an all-knowing, all-powerful God guiding our destiny, and using that to justify wars, and the rejection of science (like stem cell research and evolution), and the dumbing down of America to rally support for a President who has broken every virtue written down in the bible, and produce this kind of fascist state that we're living in today, where our rights that our Founding Fathers established have been stripped away one by one, and our constitution has been run through the White House paper shredder.
3068871
I discovered this edition of the "Bloody Tenent" through the Althouse portal. (Thank you!)  Although I taught Political Science in college, I took time in American Government classes to discuss this book and the English Reformation Wars, a subject not normally taught in those classes.  The argument Althouse was making on her blog is one I discussed:  Roger Williams thought that the greater danger of an established church was to the soul of Christianity,  not as much to the government itself.  Williams argued that the religious wars that had begun in the 1500's had corrupted the Christian religion.  These wars  were mostly about what religious beliefs would be legal, who would have the authority to decide that, and who would benefit  and be subsidized in the form of mandatory tithes to an established church.  These wars, Williams argued, would not have been condoned by Jesus Christ, the prince of peace.

Williams believed and preached the importance of individual religious conscience. This led to his banishment from Massachusetts Colony, which Williams had come to see as a Puritan tyranny.  Williams eventually made a land deal with the Narragansett Indian tribe for a tract of land to form a colony which eventually became the state of Rhode Island.  He was eventually granted the Rhode Island Royal Colonial Charter guaranteeing freedom of religion.  He also wrote this booklet, "The Bloody Tenent" in 1644.

When the issue was raised in the drafting of the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, Jefferson and Madison were persuaded that an establishment of one religion would corrupt the government.  Williams would have agreed, but the greater danger of an established church, he would have argued, was to the church itself.  He would have cited the reign of terror under the Puritans during the Cromwell era  and the ultimate downfall of the Puritans in England.

All of that said, the Kindle coding at the beginning of this book is a mess and should be fixed if possible.
1361852
I received The Global War On Christians from Waterbrook/Multnomah Publishers for free to review.  John L. Allen, Jr. wrote on a prevalent issue that is happening around the world, that many do not know is going on.  It is interesting to me that there are those who are persecuting Christians when, true Christians. only want to help others, and assist others who are hurting.  True Christians just what to show the love of Christ to those who need it.  There are those, for some reason, do not want certain people helped or assisted, apparently.  Even in America there is beginning a persecution of Christians and a lessening of our freedoms.  I pray that it want continue or get any worse in the years to come.
  Mr. Allen mentions briefly about the persecutions of Christians on Christians, which is even worse.  It is o.k. to disagree, but to turn violate against those who you disagree with is wrong.  But Jesus did warn us, that all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
  Mr. Allen writes from a Catholic background and writes mostly about persecutions against Catholics.  But he doesnt mention that Catholics in the past have been the ones doing the persecutions. Instead of being those who are persecuted.  Especially during the Dark Ages against the Anabaptist and others, as well as doing their long history, they have been the ones doing the persecuting.  No matter though, whoever is doing the persecuting is wrong, no matter who it is they are persecuting or the reason they think it is right to persecute them.  There is no justifiable reason to persecute anyone.  Just preach, teach, and live the truth and the truth will set you free.
2624067
Though Anthony has made great inroads into employing Hebrew thought in biblical interpretation and I can personally thank him for this as he greatly helped me at the beginning of my journey, his theology in respect of the Torah, salvation and covenants is still very much mainstream Christian theology.

Covenants are valid as long as both parties are alive, and since neither God nor the Jewish people ceased to exist, their covenant could not be replaced by another. However, they broke their covenant *relationship* with God when they sinned and this covenant relationship had to be *renewed*. Jesus stated that he didn't come to call the righteous, but the lost to repentance. Those Jews that heard the call, returned to God and carefully observed His Torah (instructions for righteous living) renewed their covenant relationship with Him. The Torah is perfect and good, according to apostle Paul, and what is perfect and good cannot be replaced with a "better" one, for nothing can be better than what is already *perfect*. According to Paul "by the Torah is the knowledge of sin", so what do you need to do *not to sin*? Don't you obey God's Torah (instructions for righteous living)? Do you not sin when you live contrary to its requirements?

Jesus and Paul reacted against the legalistic approach of the religious leadership of the day that taught that one became righteous by observing the Torah. This was incorrect and produced only self-righteousness.

A criminal doesn't become a good citizen by observing the laws of the country he lives in. There needs to be a change of heart, else he only obeys so much as to avoid getting caught again.

You don't become a *good citizen* by obeying the law. You obey the law *because* you are a good citizen. You don't abrogate the law because people disobey it. The problem is not with the law, but with the heart. This is what Christians don't seem to understand.
31143
Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer's thesis is summed up beautifully in the title. The post-Christian West has benefited long and well from the momentum of its Judeo-Christian past, with its emphasis on moral absolutes, such as justice. But for hundreds of years we have been undermining ourselves with new-fangled ideas like humanism and hedonism, with their own moral absolutes, such as reason and well-being.

Typically, contemporary humanists and hedonists mold their views to Christian ones so they don't seem so scary. But, were the post-Christian West to purge its roots completely, and hand over the reins to humanists or hedonists to remake society as they will, in what direction might they lead us? What would be moral? What would be lawful? HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?!

"We have witnessed the development of a new doctrine which is to deliver the final blow to the already tottering structure of prejudice. It is the idea of the limitless perfectibility of the human species," wrote one French intellectual during the French Revolution, before he was swept up in the Reign of Terror. The manifested bloodlust and lawlessness of France in the 1790s and onward is but one logical conclusion of purging your Judeo-Christian roots.

Another logical conslusion is the breakdown of moral authority, especially when it comes to enforcing law that has no absolute moral basis. If a society is not ultimately held accountable to a single set of moral absolutes, then why not legislate on the basis of a competing set of moral absolutes, such as equality? This moral absolute, equality (of result, of course), so transparently at odds with Biblical justice, is being used presently in the United States to impose tyranny and to arbitrarily change the definition of marriage.
3066517
One cannot be properly educated without reading The Age of Reason. Judaism and Christianity  permeate or society, politics, relationships, jobs, just about everything we do, so we should know what these two religions are based on: the Bible.  And this book correctly critiques the Bible and implies that many people don't know much about the Bible or their religion, if they be Jewish or Christian.
2238922
The Bill of Rights is very incorrect. History is not history when you infuse it with a political agenda. I thought they only did this in Communist nations.
2935994
In Why I am Not a Christian, I think Bertrand Russell writes very logical points about the flaws in Christianity. It's not only Christianity whom he criticizes, he's also criticizing about other religions but this is not in full detail.
He is very good at arguing about how religion can instill fear in us. If you even think about some sentences some religious people might say, there is a degree of fear in them if you think carefully. I also like his arguments about the bible and the flaws in it as well.
Most people who call themselves Christians may not have read the Bible properly and therefore may think Russell is criticizing them and lying, but for those who have read the Bible carefully enough, Russell is making a point. If you might be one of those people, watch out! Check the Bible and check this book! Read carefully!
Overall, I think this is a great book. The arguments are simple but placed on a very logical basis. Recommended to people whether you are Christian or not. Has a lot of points that get you thinking.
1968358
The book bases its argument for belief in rejection of infant baptism in the understanding that the New covenant established by the death of Christ is covenant that consists entirely of saved believers as oppose to the Old Covenant which consists of saved and unsaved, and from there they argue that it is only appropriate for professing believers to receive baptism. While this is an interesting argument and it should be taken into consideration, the book has mainly focused on attacking the Presbyterian tradition which describes the old and new covenant as administrations of the same covenant of grace and but it would be interesting if they addressed the arguments of John Calvin on infant baptism against the assertions of the anabaptists, who takes much stronger stance on the salvation of the children of believers than do most Presbyterians I am familiar with and would therefore be more consistent with the unmixed nature of the new covenant argued by the Reformed Baptists and some paedobaptists like John Owen.
4737854
Obviously the Christian Right isn't a new phenomenon that only recently emerged in the U.S., but unless you happen to either be American or find yourself to be extremely interested in American domestic politics you're quite unlikely to have ever heard of them or their ideas before George W. Bush happened to become president. This man is - to his own open admittance - a so-called born-again Christian, who since he took power has packed the entire White House with fanatical Christians, done several changes or adjustments to the separation of church and state (with countless millions of dollars given to the former), and pushed for a politics that not seldom has been the result of his own super strong Christian beliefs.

However, the politics and religion according to George W. hasn't seen its share of criticism; and not only from secularist points of view. The Christian Right has, after all, a whole lot of representatives and spokesmen (and women) - for instance Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rush Limbaugh - who often deliver rude, degrading, and outright hostile comments about and against dissidents. And the fact that a great many of the ultra conservative American Christians look forward to the country becoming a total theocracy is no secret.

Still, it becomes extra interesting when the criticism is delivered by other Christians, and that's just the case in What's Wrong With the Christian Right. The author, Jan G. Linn, is himself a Christian, but a liberal one, and his look at the Christian faith is fundamentally different from the one the Christian Right promotes. Linn is simply merciless in criticizing his antagonists, but not only that, being the liberal that he is he furthermore isn't afraid to say a harsh word or two about his own faith:

"The Christian Right claims to speak truth. Yet the truth it wants to deny is that Christians have no moral basis for speaking about the judgment of God on anyone. None. At best we might hope that God truly is gracious and forgiving and that the sins of the past we seem determined to perpetuate today will not cause us to be left outside divine mercy, should a day of reckoning actually come. If any group should worry about the Great Day of Judgment, history would suggest it should be Christians." (pg. 82-83)

In fact, the entire book is filled with hardcore criticism about everything the Christian Right stands for:

"Violence is a major issue in America today, but the Christian Right is too busy trying to post the Ten Commandments in courthouses to notice. Kids are killing kids on school grounds, but the Christian Right is too busy making sure they pray every morning in the classroom before the violence begins. Is this being too critical? We don't think so. Parody underscores the absurdity of their positions. They are worried about saving people's souls, but don't seem at all disturbed by the social inequities that nurture violence that kills the body." (pg. 118)

Unfortunately, no representative from the Christian Right really gets a chance to defend this particular belief, but the book is nonetheless an extremely interesting read. Because just as Linn himself points out again and again, not all Christians think and act like the ones from the Christian Right, but since the latter group is the one that most often get its voice heard then naturally most people think that this is the way all Christians see their world. Just like in Islam. Too much of something is never a good think, religious faith included.

Despite being the devoted critic that he is, Linn still makes sure to plea for understanding and co-operation, and reaches out for the fundamentalist in an attempt to make both parties understand each other a little better. For the well-being of American society, let's all keep our atheist fingers crossed for this to indeed happen.
1583636
I've been a Christian for some time. However, there are times I would disown that label as what passes for Christianity in America nowadays is nowhere near what Jesus taught. It's time for a revolution, one that comes from the red letters in our Bibles.
2132756
If we agree with the keeping of the Sabbath or not, or on what level the law of God is important or not; one thing I hope we can all agree on is that it is wrong to do reactive theology rather than a theology that sets out to discover truth. My big problem about this book is not on what Chris White thinks about the Sabbath or Law but rather that his theology is not seeking to be a study of God or truth but rather a proving of what he wants to be Gods truth. In other words, if what he thinks is right is right or not, is hard to say, because from title to execution his intent to look at the issue through the cannon of his own doctrine is well stated and brought to completion by his own admittance.

Pros
Chris correctly and faithfully attacks legalism
Chris correctly stands by the biblical position of Jesus and His atonement being the only means of salvation
Chris correct identifies the larger theological issue of being an issue of the covenants of God
Chris seems sincere and to work from a desire to be faithful

Cons
Chris does not follow good theologically or hermeneutical practices. He talks about context but continually treats the Bible like a 21st century document and is unable to look at the cultural, literary, and historical realities of the text.
Chris proof texts most the book (embraces texts he agrees with and ignores points he does not)
Chris complains his opponents use the Appeal to Authority fallacy, (Ie Constantine) but he himself in trying to repute then makes the exact same Appeal to Authority fallacies (to Church Fathers).
Chris fails to uphold a theology of traditional evangelical academic understanding of the correct usage of the Law (conviction of sin and delivering us to Christ) and incorrectly assumes Sabbatarians think the use of the law is unto salvation and thus most of this book, likely unknowingly to him, is pure straw man fallacy. He is fighting a war that is not real.
While Chris correctly identifies the issue as a Covenant problem he shows lack of depth in his understanding of the Old Covenant when he continually incorrectly breaks with academic understanding insisting the old covenant was one of all works and no faith. The Apostle Paul is as clear as any man could be in Romans 1-3 that Jews and Gentiles were saved the same way but both sides misunderstood Gods teaching.

Lastly, I respect Chris Whites passion and accept this was a labor of love for him but his conclusions are bathed in well meaning half-truths and unsound academics. What he ends up saying (by miss applying Gal 5-6) is that all 9 commandments stand but Sabbath does not simply because the purpose to the whole ministry of Jesus was pretty much to dispel his own commandment. Again, if you agree with the Sabbath or not, an ends justify the means theology guts the gospel you seek to protect.