I've been meaning to watch this since it was posted, and finally got the time. For most of the video, it was pretty much same thing I've seen/heard/read before: Churchgoing guy figures he can take down any atheist who challenges his faith, they have the answers to all his questions and counter-arguments to all his assertions, and he keeps changing the subject because everything he says to support his own position is almost instantly revealed as spectacularly weak. I suspect that this happens to people like him because they figure they've got God on their side, and then they suddenly find that God isn't actually helping them with this one.

But then, right at the end, something very surprising happened. It sounded as though the hostesses had actually made an impression on him. Somehow, it had gotten through to him that maybe, just maybe, the church and religion he so reveres does in fact have a few cracks in it. Kudos, of course, go to Tracie Harris and to Jen Peeples as well, for their eloquent and intelligent responses.

I really wish I could see what happened next at the caller's end. Maybe he thought about it for a bit and then shrugged it off; maybe it changed his life. Who knows? But even if the impression on him lasted only a few minutes, it was there for that brief moment. I'm going to remember this every time I hear someone say that it's pointless to try and argue religion with a believer, because they "can't be reasoned out of what they didn't reason themselves into" or whatever. Sometimes, a little applied logic and intellect really DOES have an effect!

I think that a lot of these comments are right on the money. One thing that none of them say is something that's almost a cliche, but it also has some truth to it: "The difference between a Cult and a Religion is that in a Cult, the messiah is still alive."

I disagree with those who say that the word "Cult" should be avoided. It does apply in some cases, and it's not just an insulting word to use in place of "Religion". Professor Ted Peters, the first responder in the article, probably said it best: "The key characteristic of a cult is the axis mundi, the shamanic leader at the center of the organization." Friar Albert R. Cutie also referenced this with, "Authentic religion is focused on God and never puts another human being in the position of 'playing God' or as someone who has power over the rest." (The friar has a blind spot, of course, in failing to recognize that Jesus Christ fills that role in his own religion.)

The best way to define a "cult" is that it is about the worship of a PERSON who is considered infallible and godlike. North Korea is a cultish state, in that the current leader is fervently worshiped by the populace. Scientology is also a cult, with the late L. Ron Hubbard filling the necessary role. Christianity could go either way, as Christ is not really considered to be a person but rather an extension of God, but it was certainly cultish in its beginnings even if it's not so now.

The article rather brushes over the fact that people and indeed complex societies were found living around the world who had never heard of Jesus Christ and seemed to be just fine for it. The discovery of the vast and advanced civilization in China was quite a serious blow to the Church. There was no way the people of China could be dismissed as savages* - they were clearly a knowledgeable, literate, technologically advanced, and civilized people. How was it possible that such people could exist without YHWH and Jesus to guide them?

Well, the Church not only got past that little theological problem, they found a way to turn it to their advantage by sending out missionaries to Spread the Word of God. It actually gave them a "greater" purpose. If they could handle that, I tend to think they'll be able to find a way to deal with extraterrestrial beings. Faith is hard to shake.

* In no way do I wish to imply that the native Americans or other aboriginal cultures were "savages". But, since they did have lesser technological development in many ways than did the Europeans or the Chinese, one can see how a short-sighted person could dismiss them as such, and how biased reports of these cultures brought back to Europe would have made others see them that way.

It makes sense to me. Religion wouldn't have grown and prospered if it wasn't useful in some way; that's how evolution works in nature and that's how it works in societies.

The question to me isn't whether religion was ever useful or beneficial; it's whether we have outgrown it.

When my daughter was three years old, we put a stool in front of the bathroom sink so she could learn to brush her teeth. At first, the stool was absolutely vital; she couldn't reach the sink or even see over the counter without it. As time went on, she grew to the point where she was tall enough to not really need it, but it was still helpful. Finally, she grew sufficiently that it actually got in the way, so she kicked it aside.

It's time for humanity to kick aside the stool. If we don't, we're liable to trip over it and break our necks.