An atheist, lesbian and playboy are just some of the non-Christians who agreed to participate in Bible studies and Christian mentoring as part of a new television series airing in the United Kingdom this month.
"Make Me a Christian" follows the three-week journey of 13 non-Christians who also include a witch, a Christian-turned-Muslim, an unmarried couple with a child on the way, and a family of six, who volunteered to give up their normal lives and attempt to live like Christians. Throughout the program, they will get to grips with Christianity through a number of Bible studies and mentoring from an ecumenical team of church leaders.
The Rev. George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party, and his team of mentors think Britain is in a state of moral decline and aim to show that a return to a more Christian way of life would stop the rot, according to Channel Four.
Other mentors on the show include Church of England Curate the Rev. Joanna Jepson, Catholic Fr. John Flynn, and Kensington Temple's Pastor Wale Babatunde.
The series documents the changes that occur within each of the participants as their perspective of Christianity and the meaning of life are challenged by the lessons that emerge from the Bible studies. By the series’ end, some participants even make a commitment to pursue Christianity further.
“Viewers will be deeply moved by the participants’ personal journeys. I believe that a major nationwide evangelism initiative could be launched on the back of this series," Hargreaves commented.
"Make Me A Christian" series will be broadcast on Channel Four over the next three Sundays this month, starting Aug. 10.
Comments
agent, as I looked at this article and saw your posts I realized there was no need to go back to the Mohler post where we last posted each other. One of my favorite albums is Aqualung by Jethro Tull, the reason I like it is because the album challenges church people to really consider their relationship with God. The songs appear to suggest that many are doing the same thing with God that in a way you are doing. You make God appear to be a creation of man and that He is responsible to man as opposed to man being His creation and we are responsible to God. My role as a follower or child of God is to simply trust and obey Him. I don't and can't explain God because if I could then I would be God. Now you will probably once again equate this belief to that of believing in leprechauns and such but there is no similarity whatsoever for one reason alone. God sent His one and only Son Jesus Christ to this earth to pay a price that only the perfect Son of God could pay for the sins of the world and He did when He died on the Cross and shed every drop of His blood for the forgiveness of all sins past, present, and future. As a result anyone who will repent of their sins and turn to God by putting their complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone can become a child of God. And that act of God to allow His Son to pay that price and the fact the Christ voluntarily died for our sins and was bodily raised from the dead is the very reason we can totally trust and obey God when we become a child of God.
* and to cause doubt and confusion.*
Naa, I just think there are better explanations for natural things than simply positing an intellectual shrug of the shoulders like *god did it that way*. I wanted to point out that evolution is not simply about *only the strong survive* as you put it. This is a gross misunderstanding of the processes and attempts to oversimplify it by defining it in terms that most would object to outright. By you doing so you can convince others that will ignore or reject it, but as I noted it is not so simplified. In fact as one reads more about collaboration between species it turns out many survive simply b/c they are moral and act in an altruistic nature. Now why might that be, why would animals, who allegedly have no souls bother to be moral at all? I will cite examples of studies with animals in which they act morally in experiments, but again why should animals be moral or ethical? They are moral for the same reasons we are moral, for the good of the community. Even Darwin pointed this out and still to this day people act as if it is all about only the strong.
*I guess the acronym thing bothered me too.*
Sorry, sheesh. Same Stuff Different Day, it does not have to be profane, its meaning is the same. My point was the same barbaric things that occurred in the past of other cultures, regardless if they believed in god(s) or not, they still occurred. The only difference was that the other such cultures never penned it in their holly books that such barbarous acts were some how legit.
* did you ever look them up?*
Sure did, it is interesting, but I am not convinced by a single study,(and that goes both ways) something of this nature really needs to be more thoroughly tested and analyzed, I mean I could equally cite another study that showed no efficacy for prayer, so I think it is rational to have more studies, analyze them and then try to determine the validity. Simply pointing at one and ignoring all others is not logical.
mathetes,
You must realize that orange is so logically and carnally minded, that the things of the Spirit are beyone his comprehension. I would liken him to a Vulcan from Star Trek. To him, the Bible is to viewed logically and analytically. But he doesn't realize that it is a spiritual book. It's not a manual, such as one that you'd find on how to effectively run a production line or something. But that is the way he treats it. And that's all he'll get from it.
agent,
I apologize, but I'm getting tired of your games. You do not come here for the truth, or to learn more about God. It seems to only come here to argue, to rile Christians, and to cause doubt and confusion.
I've been attempting to give you the reasons why I believe, to help you break through the barriers to belief that you have erected around you. I have pointed you to scientific studies on prayer that show its efficacy; did you ever look them up? If so, you never mentioned it.
I guess the acronym thing bothered me too. CP does not allow such language, so you abbreviate it. Why? I was always told profanity was proof of a limited mind.
So I'm through for now. God will never fit into your understanding of logic, and He does not have to. When you are ready to accept Him on His terms, He will be there. He desires a relationship with you, but He will not force Himself on you. God demonstrated His love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I hope you will understand that and turn to Him.
* Do you have any evidence slaves were abused by the Jews? *
Look in the OT at the laws regarding beating your slaves, and how if they die within 3 days of after being beaten it’s not a crime, but within 3 days it is. You do not have such rules written in such a book unless such acts were ongoing all the time, this is obvious. Also, in the end of the Deut. I think, you will find prices for slaves based on their age and sex, something you also do not have written in a book unless it was something which was ongoing.
I don not need evidence, for you are overlooking the obvious. Being a slave is by its very definition, inhumane, indigent, and repugnant and an abuse of human ethics! It is abusive in its very principle! This is why, although not all slaves were abused by their masters in the south of the US (your area), it was mutually understood that the principal of slavery itself was an abuse of human rights and dignity and something that AUGHT to be abolished for the betterment of humanity. Somehow the jews and their omnipotent being could not see this, but it is something liberal democracies have in the past 200 years.
My original point was that both the bible, and origins of species and surely many other texts could be wrongly read, interpolated and perverted to suit the needs of corrupt people. This I am sure you can agree with. If one ignores altruism and other factors or cooperation among species, then sure they could infer it to be *only the strong survive*. The key difference though, the bible and other such religious books are supposed to be, by their very nature, objects of ethical teaching and higher morality, whereas darwin’s origins is not, it is a science book and therefore should not be used to tell us was aught to be from what is in all instances.
* In the Bible it says God is does not show partiality, so by what logic should He warn me?*
I guess according to the bible god did not help the Jews with overcoming the midianites then? I could have sworn he helped out in vanquishing them, and others? Well, if god cannot help you in avoiding such an obvious dilemma, exactly what good is it to rely on him in the after math? That would be like having a father who is never around and negligent to his kids and then when one of them is hit by a car b/c he was negligently not watching them, then the father comes later to say *ooops* If the father of the kid was really doing his job he would have taken measures to ensure to AVOID the accident in the first place, but nooo, that would be asking too much here! By your logic the father is not at fault at all for the kids death. Horrid.
*what is SSDD?*
Google it.
* it contains instructions on how one's servants must be treated *
So what, that just proves my point. It is not emphatically objecting to having slaves, that is BIG distinction and something of principle. It only refers to how to treat them when you have one, and not that having one is unethical or inhumane. This would be like the US having slaves in the past and saying it is ok to have them, so long as you treat them according to X,Y and Z laws. I think when we review some of the rules for how to treat a slave according to the OT they do not help it much either as it infers abuse of a slave is ok, so long as they do not die within the 3 day period of said abuse. Cool, laws for beating your slave!
* Not trying to rationalize it, *
Sure you are, in fact you attempt at doing it again by somehow inferring the principle act of slavery is (somehow?) not a form of abuse in itself, or that it is not inhuman at all. Either the act of slavery is wrong, or it isnâ??t, you are attempting to just rationalize it away like how you rationalize the blood thirsty acts of barbarism, but their barbaric acts are no different then any other ancient peoples who sacked other lands.
* Logically? Why?*
b/c according to the bible and on numerous occasions, believers in Yahweh, were saved or avoided near danger or destruction, so why should things only work in the past and not now in the present or in the future? Logically they should, but they don’t appear to, evident by the fact that not a single person was given any real advanced noticed from the guy upstairs in regards to leaving NO by a certain date. So god can help the jews out of Egypt with their issues with the king, but can not give a warning for a major hurricane? And if he can’t offer such a lifeboat, what the heck good is it? Giving thanks for not helping to avoid a disaster is illogical and this is exactly what you are doing. Oh but you will give thanks you are alive, but really the guy upstairs should have done a better job in warning people to begin with. But you wont or can not fault him for that, no, no, no.
*Life is more than possessions + avoidance of pain*
I think you make a valid point, though the question still remains why no one was given advanced warning ahead of time that this major hurricane was coming. Heck, even meteorologists will give some indication of coming storm, so it is not like we are asking for a lot, and considering this god is supposed to be omnipresent, he could have logically given a 2-3 warning at least ahead of time. Such a revelation of an exact date, time, and size and other details of a hurricane would be quite impressive, and yet we do not find this at all, and I think we both know why!
* Evidence shows people do hear from God, so both alternatives are false. I could give you examples as could many believers on this forum. *
Fine provide examples of people supposedly hearing from him for something that they can not directly influence and it is well ahead of time, say 3 years or so. People who are delusional also hear voices in their heads, but it does not make them real either. If the voice they hear really is god, it should have some actual value and ability to verify itself in our world, it can not be ambiguous, it must be detailed so it can be analyzed and critiqued and possibly refuted. IE a discussion with him and all the details related to Katrina would suffice, yet we do not hear of such things. Gee, I wonder why?
agent,
Re: prayer + how God answers, please read Bily Graham's reply at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080811/does-prayer-really-change-things.htm. I pray his explanation helps you understand.
agent, Re: OT -
"according to the OT they will be slaves (oh yea for them, and imagine how fun for the female slaves and what they would likely be used for!). This is not very holly, it is pathetic and gross for it to be in a holly book."
Again, you really should read the OT before you criticize it: it contains instructions on how one's servants must be treated. Do you have any evidence slaves were abused by the Jews? If so, I'd like to see it.
"SSDD here folks, except that with this one instance, they excuse it, for it is righteous simply b/c it is written in a book."
Not just any book - the Word of God. I think I (+ others) have explained what sets it apart from all others. And what is SSDD?
"Exactly my point, barbaric and you are trying to rationalize it, as if it makes logical sense then or now. Horrid."
Not trying to rationalize it, just explain it, hoping you can grasp it. Re: your logic - see below.
agent,
You said: "This seems to imply a preferential treatment of certain believers, ergo those who espouse said faith then should be logically spared from such disasters or at the very least warned ahead of time"
Logically? Why? Your answer shows what you think the best outcome would be: avoidance of suffering by a warning. But notice several of the reasons for suffering are good outcomes in + of themselves. Life is more than possessions + avoidance of pain.
"now why might this be unless they can not actually listen to him in the first place? Or better yet, the whole thing is illusionary."
Evidence shows people do hear from God, so both alternatives are false. I could give you examples as could many believers on this forum.
Why did you say "better yet"? Woud that fit your view better?
"Perhaps god did not send you a message in time to warn you to move from the coming hurricane, (and why would he not?), after all you are one his followers, so should he not have preferential treatment of you above others? Logically we would expect so, but this again did not appear so."
In the Bible it says God is does not show partiality, so by what logic should He warn me? God said through Isaiah, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways." Do you expect to completely comprehend an omnipotent omniscient Supreme Being? Or that He should do what an unbeliever thinks is right?
*three outcomes of a holy war were possible. If the besieged city surrendered, the occupants' lives were spared,*
Right, if they submit (like Islam) they will not be killed, but according to the OT they will be slaves (oh yea for them, and imagine how fun for the female slaves and what they would likely be used for!). This is not very holly, it is pathetic and gross for it to be in a holly book.
*Then all occupants and their possessions were utterly destroyed. Known as the ban, this custom was intended to keep Israel free of any heathen influence *
Yes, after all, the whole first commandment would not make too much sense to allow for others to have *other* gods know would it? So, enslave them, and or destroy their god(s). This is about par for the course in such barbaric times though. How are these actions any different then the Gauls, Franks, Visogoths, Vandals, Mongols, Vikings, etc. which also put towns to the end of the sword and utterly destroyed them? SSDD here folks, except that with this one instance, they excuse it, for it is righteous simply b/c it is written in a book.
*God said that those living in Canaan could worship Him alone, leave, or face extermination. *
Again, how is this any different from fundamentalist Muslims, or even the laws as written in the OT? The OT clearly states nonbelievers and other believers of other gods should be put to death, especially if they tempt another person with their god(s). Again, this is par for the course for such barbaric times. Thought the entire OT is quite blood thirsty and chalked full of reasons for putting people to death and for things so trivial, so again, this rule/law is simply a reflection of ignorant, barbaric people who could not.
*God did not allow a double standard, when later His own people, the Jews, began to worship other gods: they were killed or removed from the land and sent into exile.*
Exactly my point, barbaric and you are trying to rationalize it, as if it makes logical sense then or now. Horrid. This is like muslims now trying to rationlize their archaic laws to us in the west.
Mathetes,
*Suffering happens for many different reasons*
Ahhh, indeed it does, but according to the bible certain people of certain faiths were chosen over others in preference to god. Heck, people today still follow this as they declare only people of X faith will have their prayers answered and can directly listen or speak with god, while others of other faiths can not. So the question is, if this is true, if they can really listen to him, why were so many people, especially god fearing people in Orleans, not warned many years ahead of time of such a disaster?
This seems to imply a preferential treatment of certain believers, ergo those who espouse said faith then should be logically spared from such disasters or at the very least warned ahead of time, but strangely we never heard of anything like this from any believers saying that on a particular date a major hurricane would strike and destroy Orleans, now why might this be unless they can not actually listen to him in the first place? Or better yet, the whole thing is illusionary.
Perhaps god did not send you a message in time to warn you to move from the coming hurricane, (and why would he not?), after all you are one his followers, so should he not have preferential treatment of you above others? Logically we would expect so, but this again did not appear so.
*I cannot begin to praise God enough for how He brought good out of bad.*
Strange that you mention this, as logically he should have contacted you or other believers to warn you ahead of time that a hurricane is coming, say in a few years ahead of time, that would at least make sense that he was trying to help you and not simply look the other way. Instead, only after the flooding and your survival does thank come, (again not logical at all) though really it would be more logical to apply this thanks if he had warned you and others to avoid the area by moving by an exact date/time. Besides, if the help does not come in time to prevent or avoid the disaster for you and you still get hit, what good is help in the abstract? Should we not expect an omnipotent being to warn you ahead of time to preserve a believer and not put him in harms way to being with? But again, this we do not see. I mean, what good is the supposed help AFTER the fact, it would be more impressive if say he warned you and others to leave the area years ago and noted the exact details of the hurricane, but again this we do not see, and I think we both know why.
Mathetes,
I apologize for unruly comment, just trying to play a joke, but really I am trying to point out that either texts (the bible, or origins of species, and perhaps many other texts really) when not really understood can be wrongly read, abused, and perverted to suit the needs for terrible things. Also important is science tells us what IS, not is what AUGHT to be, that is generally left up to philosophy and religion to make amends for.
*their Creator.*
This is true, however the creator described I the DOI is not one of biblical reference. Nothing about Jesus, Jehovah, Moses etc. they left it quite ambiguous and therefore made it apparent it was not tied to any biblical rules at all. Like I said, if it really is biblical and not Koranic, Jewish, etc. in origins, try to find the passages about inalienable rights in the bible. You wont find such a thing. And when it does refer to god, it does so only in terms a deist would do calling him - *natures god*.
I cannot establish any policy merely on whether or not it will save the human race from a period of suffering or from extinction. - Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a letter to Philip Toynbee ("The worst you could do would be to usher people sooner and in their millions into a higher form of life to which they're destined anyway.")
So they've turned Christianity into a game show. Interesting. I wonder how they'll do when it comes to the "Final Jeopardy" as they stand before Christ in judgment?