I’ve yet to meet anyone who takes the bible as inerrant and easy to interpret. Maybe because I don’t live in the US. That said, it’s still a good strategy to take some of the less easily dismissed passages in the bible and let the “believers” respond. Deuteronomy for instance is quite clearly NOT metaphorical and full of abhorrent and ridiculous commands. Even if we take the standard Christian objection that Jesus more or less canceled those commands, are we then to assume that killing disobedient children (for example) was the right and just thing to do for the Jews who lived before Jesus came around? I also wonder how the more orthodox Jews handle Deuteronomy.
With regards to the disobedient child (ben sorer umoreh) bit: rabbinic literature says that the child must have acquired the personality of a cold blooded killer, meaning he would certainly kill in the future. Based on the Talmud, rabbis maintain that there never was such a person and the Torah is speaking hypothetically (even though that doesn’t solve the problem of how even theoretically we would know that this guy was going to kill in the future). One Talmudic rabbi disputed this and said that he sat on the grave of one ben sorer umoreh. As always, there are different rabbinic interpretations; Rabbi Yehuda Henkin maintains that all of the rabbis agree that there is such a thing as a ben sorer umoreh in real life and the dissenting Talmudic rabbi had seen the grave of one who had been killed by God, but a rabbinic court has never pronounced that one should be killed.
Maybe. You’d be surprised at what you don’t know about our lunatic fringes (and we have more than one type of loony).
Some people take the bible literally but a whole bunch don’t. The Catholic Church for example are pretty open to evolution etc. For me it is not about inconvinience but it is about the balance of science and religion. The earth revolves around the sun etc are all provable facts.
It depends on your outlook, god is not a person supernatural or not. It is again a word used to describe what is the universe. We are all interconnected and come from the same stuff, the interconnectivity of the universe is this god that people talk about.
That’s right, it is mans’ attempt to explain the universe but also to place upon us what they determined were the morals that will lead us to god.
John Shelby Sprong is probably the man that I think sums it up best.
I think most people sitting in the pews each week would consider Spong to be an atheist. I know I do.
But if you are a person who identifies with his views, that says good things about you. I’d probably like you if we met in person.
Project much? “God” may be a word that you use to describe the universe, but I doubt very much that your opinion is the majority one.
By the way, the word I use to describe the universe is “universe”.
If Novak’s book is an “excellent response”, I can’t imagine how a terrible one would read. (Well, that’s not quite true, having a read one or two a long time ago.) Sure, some of his original thoughts (as they concern a Christian worldview) are interesting, make sense, and are worth discussing and learning from. But his direct responses to atheism are lacking, at best.
Granted, I’m only just over 50 pages in, but thus far it’s a compendium of ad hominem, ad populum, and strawmen. But the worst is his inconsistent application of his own standards – things about which he’s explicitly critical of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris seemingly do not apply to his own (i.e., Christian) beliefs.
Now, my assessment may be proved wrong on further reading (and I will finish the book), or I may simply be ignorant (and there’s an awful lot about which I’m ignorant). But as of now, I’d say the book, as a response to (or to establish a dialogue with) atheists misses its target.
It sounds like you’ve been watching Oprah, who preaches that the Universe “has plans for” each of us. On the rare instances when I watch her show, this always reminds me why I don’t watch it more.
No I cannot stand Oprah and her “gift, secret etc” crap she spouts on about.
No plans, just a bunch of stuff that happens, it is my considered opinion though that we get out of life what we put into it.
The idea that the universe is god is IMO wrong, it is the connectivity of the universe that is god. Therefore all is god and god is all.
Spong as an athiest is an interesting idea, blasphemer maybe but he still believes in a god.
Create a New God.
Dont we have enough? The other ones didnt work either.
There’s always the Klingon solution…
The gods proved to be more trouble than they were worth. So we killed them.
And that’s what genuine “militant atheism” is like!
Theist: “How do you know there’s no God?”
Militant atheist: “Because I’ve got his head in a bucket. Wanna see?”
So we’re back to the god of the bucket. Regular Original or Extra Crispy? 
“I’m sorry, it only comes in Extra Crispy. And, um, somewhat radioactive. In a lead bucket.”