~*~*~*~*~
Freedom of speech. It's something I hold near and dear, never forgetting its importance, but not always liking the message it brings.
The American Humanist Association, as part of a coalition of eight atheist organizations, purchased a month-long campaign that puts their posters in a dozen busy subway stations throughout Manhattan.
The ads are simple. A single question written over the image of a blue sky speckled with white clouds: "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?"
The campaign, funded by an anonymous donor, coincided (do you suppose that was a miracle?) with the Tuesday release of Harvard University's Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein's book, Good Without God: What a Billion Non-Religious People Do Believe.
My first reaction to the ad campaign, and the concept, was very negative. Then I watched Epstein's promotional video:
As a Christian who has traveled the atheist/agnostic road more than once in my life, the concept of pursuing good in the world without relying on or seeking guidance from God is ... well ... interesting. I know an awful lot of people who don't seek or rely on God, yet they do good. They volunteer. They have compassion (there's that word again). They sometimes sacrifice their own lives for the good of others.
I also know some people who claim to follow Jesus but do little more than serve themselves. They lack compassion. They are more about appearance than action. They use God as an excuse to do nothing. I'd say this is fairly good evidence that people can be good without God and not so good with God.
Epstein claims his book, and message, are intended to create dialog across the atheist/believer divide. I must admit, I'd rather see people be good without God than bad with or without God, but that is also why I think his argument shouldn't be against God, but rather against people.
In fact, it's that concept - that my problem with religion wasn't an issue with God, but an issue with people - that brought me back to a belief in God. But that stance - one against people rather than against God - would be far less controversial and probably wouldn't sell many books now, would it?
Tell me what you think. Is Epstein's message a good one (pun intended) or one that is a threat to the concept of God? How do you feel about evangelizing, whether that be evangelizing against God or for God? Is being "good" good enough?
~*~*~*~*~
Freedom of speech. It's something I hold near and dear, never forgetting its importance, but not always liking the message it brings.The American Humanist Association, as part of a coalition of eight atheist organizations, purchased a month-long campaign that puts their posters in a dozen busy subway stations throughout Manhattan.
The ads are simple. A single question written over the image of a blue sky speckled with white clouds: "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?"
The campaign, funded by an anonymous donor, coincided (do you suppose that was a miracle?) with the Tuesday release of Harvard University's Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein's book, Good Without God: What a Billion Non-Religious People Do Believe.
My first reaction to the ad campaign, and the concept, was very negative. Then I watched Epstein's promotional video:
As a Christian who has traveled the atheist/agnostic road more than once in my life, the concept of pursuing good in the world without relying on or seeking guidance from God is ... well ... interesting. I know an awful lot of people who don't seek or rely on God, yet they do good. They volunteer. They have compassion (there's that word again). They sometimes sacrifice their own lives for the good of others.
I also know some people who claim to follow Jesus but do little more than serve themselves. They lack compassion. They are more about appearance than action. They use God as an excuse to do nothing. I'd say this is fairly good evidence that people can be good without God and not so good with God.
Epstein claims his book, and message, are intended to create dialog across the atheist/believer divide. I must admit, I'd rather see people be good without God than bad with or without God, but that is also why I think his argument shouldn't be against God, but rather against people.
In fact, it's that concept - that my problem with religion wasn't an issue with God, but an issue with people - that brought me back to a belief in God. But that stance - one against people rather than against God - would be far less controversial and probably wouldn't sell many books now, would it?
Tell me what you think. Is Epstein's message a good one (pun intended) or one that is a threat to the concept of God? How do you feel about evangelizing, whether that be evangelizing against God or for God? Is being "good" good enough?
~*~*~*~*~
