A proportion of bible-believing Christians reject "naturalism" - our collective knowledge, gained from human endeavour and experience, in favour of biblical correctness and absolute truth. It seems to me that three big bones of contention always crop up regarding the rejection of naturalism:

(i) the biblical age of the world,

(ii) the biblical creation story, and

(iii) the flood story.

(i) The biblical age of the Earth is a fascinating diversion in historical analysis. It was so fascinating that it became a catalyst to the biblical textual criticism movement of the 18 Century and beyond, where origins, authorships, translations, meanings and interpretations from the "good book" were assessed using structured documentary analysis techniques.

In 1654, James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armargh in Ireland, deduced that the creation of Earth happened at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23 in 4004 BC, from the chronology of the bible and the known history of ancient civilisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Others had also come to roughly similar date ranges, including Isaac Newton, Bede and Scaliger, based on similar methods of relating the different authorships, epochs and events to biblical events. Ussher's chronology was widely adopted, since it was used for annotations and cross-references in "mass produced" and widely distributed King James versions of the bible from the early 1700's, then kept in them up to the mid-twentieth century and more recently retained in the Scofield Reference bible. These bibles have a 4004 BC date annotation next to Genesis 1.1.

(Isaac Newton is often touted as an example of a keen religious adherent, but he did become quite a heretic – refusing to take holy orders, or the holy sacrament on his death-bed. He wrote an unpublished criticism of the trinity and predicted the end of the world to come no earlier than 2060!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture )

Back then, while new discoveries and understandings about he nature of "weight" were being made, strict Christian beliefs were prevalent with those in society. Owning a belief like that now will conflict directly with evidence from the world around us gained since those times. From reading the King James influenced versions of the bible, it is easy to see how creationism has been engrained into some bible believing Christians, despite the common acknowledgement that human rational scientific progress has given us greater and more reliable evidence for reflection than the bible has ever done – especially in terms of anthropology, geology, cosmology and archaeology.

(ii) There are two separate creation stories in Genesis. Most Christians say that either or both stories are allegorical, or that they don't explain our origins but provide a mysterious place-holder for them instead. Princeton Professor William Henry Green wrote in 1890 "the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world." Both could easily be generalised to impart the power of a creator, but some other bible-believing Christians prefer to choose the literal interpretation of Genesis 1.1 in favour of the Genesis 2.4b version, despite their odd ordering of events and seeming contradictions.

(iii) The global flood story is supported by some weak creationist evidence that falls apart under any realistic scrutiny. It seems odd to me that any rational evidence would be presented here at all by creationist adherents, since miracles would be possible for them- including all the extra water – and the cover-up afterwards. The evidence against a biblical global flood ranges from other centres of civilisation indicating otherwise, to overwhelming contrary geological evidence and rational deduction on the logistics and biological diversity.

These three arguments are enough to convince some that the wealth of knowledge and discovery through human endeavour and enquiry does not compare with the benefits of believing in a life of punishment, self-hate, evangelism and self-imposed "recovery from sin" on Earth instead. Perhaps, if those people lived the lives of their pre-Ussheren ancestors, or early Church leaders and martyrs, they would realise that their own certainty of knowledge is framed in one particular 21st century understanding of their faith.

Finally, absolute, inerrant, biblical truth is a concept that is easily challenged with our rational, forward-thinking mindset - and with the benefit of hindsight into our collective human imaginings. For example, the very nature of the Christian church, beliefs, ceremonies and of the religion practised within it has changed greatly since its own inception. The deductive evidence presented by Ussher in understanding the bible in the 17century led to scholars and historians starting to question other aspects of the bible, like the origins of the Old Testament Torah, or the authorship and duplications in the New Testament.

Despite this, suggestions are made that proclaim "knowledge being relative" is an absolute statement in itself, and therefore a contradiction. But simply put, saying someone does know THAT they don't know about something is NOT saying that they actually do know WHAT they don't know! (Sorry for the shouting – that's me keeping it simple!) It is impossible to know what you do not know – which is a direct contradiction and probably the cause of the confusion for those suggesting such nonsense. The Objectivist's or Relativist's "not knowing" is about viewing human understanding as a result of enquiry into the extent of available discovery, rather than making an absolute statement one way or the other.

Why are many Christian preachers so intent on conversion? Rather than living lives that would transmit Christian charity, compassion and love through action, they favour enumerating rules of entry to heaven, then constantly reminding everyone else that they're breaking them and not getting in. Some conversionsts justify their judgemental existence by forming meaning from passages in the bible that say deeds to please Christ are not enough, but that always speaking God's word is praise-worthy.Christian unions here actively encourage conversion attempts from their members, so they can spread the "good word" to the general gaming public.

For serious religious conversionists everywhere, the desire for others to see things the same way as they do runs far hotter than for most other believers. Not allowing or broadcasting the views of an evangelist can often be seen as an insult to what they "know" is true and an affront to the proposed divinely guided world they inhabit. Debate is entirely besides the point for other converters, since constantly getting their message out there, regardless of any contrary debate, may eventually have a scatter-gun effect of drawing the odd few people towards it. The avoidance and separation from questioning may additionally serve to shield their views and re-enforce those blinkered beliefs being scattered.

So how do people actually come to Christian faith (aside from being bought up on it)? What is the best way to target the largest numbers with innate religious tendencies? How can religions best "tout" for a punter to change their world-view and join a particular faith club? Like most things in Christianity, there is quite a division in methodology behind the best way of evangelising faith. Some threads here caught my interest since they represented views from "modernist" ("traditional", "evangelical", or "fundamentalist") and "post-modernist ("relevancy" or "emergent") Christianity.

Relevance:

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27068512&union_id=15346

(BTW, I don't think the T-shirt is of a "boom-box", but some "double-decks"! Would that make a difference?)

Absolute Truth:

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27082596&union_id=15346

The threads are interesting to me since they present the views of the conservative and the liberal Christian conversion worker, and the issues between the two faith groups. They also indicate the feelings underpinning these conversations between the two knowledgeable theists involved.

One difference between the views is the presentation of Christianity as a dogma to the "convert-ables" they seek: To me, the traditional movement aim to spread the unabridged versions of the "traditional" bible (pretextual criticism movement), devalue scientific discovery, reject human endeavour and naturalism in favour of divine truth, state an absolute position of biblical correctness and are keen to outline the many biblical human sins, as often as possible.

Emergent movements take more account of human involvement in the story of religion, and reference the relativist, objectivist scientific framework, as if acknowledging the self-supporting rational evidence that created our tremendous wealth of human advancement. Emergents still believe the bible is the ultimate source of knowledge, but that we may not know how to understand it, since our view is limited.

The emergent movement has several splits that variously find the bible more allegorical, less factual or more nebulous and use various different emphases of scripture. Emergent movements try to embrace the culture and make the religion relevant to it, rather than reject it as traditionalists do. Greater personal tolerance to social sins, dressing and living as the people you were trying to save and making Christianity seem relevant to naturalism are all aspects of the Relevance Movement.

It does seem obvious to me that the traditionalist movement is out of step with society (any – except theirs) by their own desire, so will have trouble attracting people from a culture that they reject. I also don't understand how these "modernists" can ignore the textual criticism applied to the bible and not use the purest manuscripts in ensuring they do have the unequivocal word of God - directly word-translated from Greek and Aramaic, rather than the versions they do use with their various emphases and inferences.

I also don't really understand why evangelists/fundamentalists don't live in the actual conception of traditional protestant Christianity, rather than the rather comfortable, wealthy, conservative politically motivated modern culture that has shifted the emphasis of their faith, as fundamentalism itself evolves. The desire to rubbish scientific advancement seems futile and hypocritical in the face of such demonstrable achievement from the rationalist scientific method.

The Emergent movement is not much better in my estimation - it does often seem to dilute the faith. The various divisions of tolerance within the emergent movement cause more factionalism within Christianity, as a single message turns into unclear conflicting messages on various aspects of tolerance and the people preaching it.

Often, people seek the desire to know from a faith. If the knowledge delivered by that faith is itself uncertain, it may repel truth seekers from staying with it. Our culture increasingly but unwittingly does contradict the written word and context of the bible, which makes it all the more difficult to relate to it, unless the bible is made more relevant to modern people - by changing it (again). Since the bible is the basis for Christian belief, that would further compromise biblical inerrency.

I don't think either of these tactics work too well, since there is no one overriding culture. Instead, there's a cultural melting pot, in a century where more and more people are easily able to communicate their different ideas, like never before, from anywhere in the world. The emergent Christian movement may well delay the decline of Christianity in society, as it tries to relate modernity to allegory. But it is fighting with our new realisations of the many other faiths, creeds and cultures in our globe too. Modernity has discovered that witness testimony is far less reliable than objective evidence, in making rational decisions about what sort of things we should be devoting our lives to.

Recent events here have led to a Christian union leader being banned and another suspension for some expressed views in a thread. I did manage to see the OP, but not the deleted posts causing the ban. The whole thread has now gone.I fully support free speech and the right to believe (and I certainly did not have anything to do with the moderation), so I can understand why some of them are extremely angry! (Really annoyed!)

BUT:

The events concern a thread created around the topic of the sinfulness of love between men. I fully support peoples' right to express their love however they want and understand that for some 10% or so of the male population its not some "choice" or partiality, but a perfectly normal way of living in society. I also think that some religious people may feel threatened by the thought of this, perhaps because they themselves have innate unresolved sexual feelings. Its more likely that the pink liberal culture clashes with perceived religious views of sexual abstinence though.

There are some people who concede their sexual desires, but choose to abstain from them with faith. These people still identify themselves with the same sexuality as those that "do it", since they still have the innate urges that they acknowledge they must control because of their chosen religion. But even thinking about not doing something because its a sin is still a sin of desire for some.

Conversely, many Christians themselves accept same-sex relationships in their faiths and clergymen who (as paid to do so by the Church) openly express their Christian views and are even allowed to marry each other. Regardless of what enlightened views I or the "C of E" have, the law in the country this site comes from (and UK where I live) makes it an offence to to use inflammatory or insulting comments about people on the grounds of sexual discrimination.

For a group of Christian people who use this site mainly to try and convert other people to their brand of faith, I'd have thought this insulting technique to be counter-productive. For starters, they're alienating 10% of their intended male converts, plus the majority of friends and supporters like me. Secondly, starting out on an attack is hardly a way to influence people over to a belief. Putting a sexual preference in the same context as "rape" and "murder" seems both inflammatory and distorted. Finally, legal values and site rules should take precedence on perceived religious values. We get our moral outlook from our cultural interactions informing our legal framework, so we should really know when our faith-bound morality conflicts with legal obligations - i.e. when to shut up in public.

What consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own surroundings should be up to them - not me or anyone else. It's not exactly as if people go waving it about. But religion does tend to get stuffed down our collective throats whether we like it or not, because some Christians feel the need to outline the rules of their faith - in admonishing a select few others for their sexuality.

I joined this site as a rational responder to religious threads here, since I thought some balance was required in religiously influencing impressionable young people on a gaming site. I think there is less religious venom spat here than there used to be (unless there is an interim lull or cease-fire this autumn), so maybe things have been tightened up with the new posting regs. It is still a shame that people get banned, since the decreased amount of Christians willing to debate does obviously impact on the intensity of atheist response here. Ultimately though, it probably is all in the best interests of this site.

I don't know the full extent of the banned user's crimes, since I can't recall debating with them. In some sense I'd have liked the offending thread stay and no permanent moderations made. But I'd also have liked the opportunity to respond to it. However, the way that union works is with invited members only (for purity of thought) and they moderate any views that conflict with their own so would hypothetically deny me my own right of free speech in response. (Check out the Athsiem union for democracy and equality at work!) But as far as freedom of speech is concerned, human legal rights and site rules will certainly take priority over the sustainability of argument, "levels of sin" committed, and sheer offensiveness of some religious doctrine.