I guess, since you assumed my faith to be "tenuous," I wanted to show you how very wrong you are.

No Dutch I don't assume your faith to be tenuous at all and I apologise if that's the impression I gave. I meant that I think you are only a "Christian" in a tenuous sense, although I get this from my interpretation of what you are saying. Your descriptions of the bible as allegorical and the events having happened in heaven not on earth are reminiscent of the early Christian Gnostic sects that were around the roman empire a hundred years or so after the alleged birth of Jesus. After Constantine these sects were considered heretics and the main stream Roman Church has fought against that interpretation ever since. So (if my assumptions about your beliefs are correct) you are not a Christian in any mainstream sense. Interestingly Gnosticism was not confined to early Christians. At the same time and prior to the emergence of the Jesus story you would fing Gnostics following Mithras or Dionysus or several other "god/man" cults, all of which were supposedly ways to truth with the Gnostics understanding that the personalities involved were mythical.

...as far as I can see The Bible, is the only book that comes under their "freethinking" scrutiny.

You aren't looking very hard then. There are atheist writers that tackle other religions and their holy books, and it even happens on this very blog.

The only weapon an atheist has is to attack the various religous institutions and the people who occupy them - their behavior has given them much material to this effect.

That's also incorrect. There's a pretty large amount of literature devoted to debunking the idea of the gods that have been put forth, and showing the contradictory nature of those gods. (I.E. the Xian god is supposedly perfect, yet must have desired to create us for some reason. Since this god has unfulfilled desires, therefore god is not perfect.) Further, as already pointed out, we do not have to disprove your god. You have to prove your god to us as you are making the positive claim.

The Theory of Evolution is no problem for me either, although why do they say "theory?"

Because it is just as much a "theory" as gravity. "Theory" in this context means a well supported set of hypotheses that have been continually tested and have continually not been falsified. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. We know that evolution happens as a fact, but there are still questions as to how it happens and happened which is the theory part. But, your estimation of what a "theory" is is well off.

We will reintroduce the virgin birth of Christ because I am wondering whether or not atheism is virgin territory for the birth of Christ.

Perhaps you will include the evidence that suggests that the "virgin" part of Mary's description could very well be a mistranslation of "young woman"?

some things I know:
(snipped for brevity)

How do you "know" those things?

2) What we call earth(universe) is really the grave(hell, pit, sheol) This means we are the walking dead. This means Christ died in man, and He will ressurect in man. As The Bible says -
Mar 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
It is clear in The Bible that "clouds" equal people.
Funny thing is when our pastor goes to visit a mother and her newborn at the hospital, he says, "welcome to hell kid."

I have spent a lot of time on this blogg - after stumbling in here more by accident, but I have enjoyed the reading. I will bring up the subject of atheists at our next Bible study, and tell them how respectfully everybody treats each other - more so than Christian Bloggs. We will reintroduce the virgin birth of Christ because I am wondering whether or not atheism is virgin territory for the birth of Christ. Atheists have no belief in a deity so they don't have any garbage regarding a faith they never had. I am looking forward to this.

If I get sent by Jesus, I will write a book about this powerfull Christian faith.
The proceeds will all be given away, not to the church, but to the poor.

good day, Dutch

So, they are liars? funny how their "God" says that it hates liars. What of hiding this supposed "light" under a bushel, also a no-no?

There are many scientists that believe in intelligent design, and intelligent design implies God. It's just easier for them to use ID, as it sounds less religous.

Actually not that many. The scientific credentials of those that do endorse I.D rarely stand up to close scrutiny.

Atheists take the point of view that all of this could have happened on it's own. No God or intelligent design. However, nobody can disprove God's existence.

It's been pointed out too many times to mention that Atheists do not bear the burden of proof here. God is a flying teapot as Bertrand Russell implies and it is for those who claim to see the invisible to prove their claim.

I wonder if in their search for a "unified field" theory, more and more scientists will ask what force inititiated the "Big Bang." Why weren't the quarks and leptons quite happy in their current state?

I'm sure they will, however the rational answer won't be "God" as that explains nothing. In fact the question becomes even more difficult because then you have to explain how such a phenomenally complex entity got to be there in the first place.

and finally

4.5 billion years later, we have our present universe, a universe that is aware of itself.

Dutch, if you mean this literally, rather than in the sense that evolution has produced on earth a species (us)that is self aware then we get into some interesting theological debate.
Your theology seems more abstract and deist rather than theist and you are a Christian in only a fairly tenuous sense I suspect. I could admit of the possibility (although I see no evidence) that the universe could have some large scale organisation that in some sense over immense timescales mean that it is self aware or could become so. I have heard the suggestion that the universe may consiously re-create or reproduce itself (big bang[s])in an infinate loop of births and deaths. My contention is so what? That doesn't mean that a self aware universe is any more aware of life on earth (or elswhere) than I am of the bacteria that live in my gut. It has no impact on my perception of reality or my morality and over the timescales that we as a species are likely to survive it is irrelevant.

Do not look totally at Christianity, if you look over your shoulder, those gathering clouds are another much more imminent threat. Then again, perhaps we musn't criticize the Quran lest we be killed. You may however wipe your but with pages from the Bible, flush The Bible down the toilet, pee on a cross, and it wouldn't bother me a bit. Pass the pork please.

By the way, I wouldn't be a bit surprised of intelligent life on other planets.

Good day, Dutch

Of course the Bible is going to come under "freethinking" scrutiny. That is because we live in a predominantly Christian country. In just about every motel or hotel room in America you will find a Bible in the drawer of the night table, and not the Quran. We criticize what we are familiar with.

Try reading "The God Particle," by Leon Lederman. I highly recommend it. You see order in our universe, so do I, but the subatomic world is fascinating. Before the "Big Bang" there were subatomic particles)quarks, leptons and such) and time did not exist. These particles are being studied at Fermilab and at Cern Switzerland These particles occupied a very small area(1 square inch of the Sun weighs 2 thousand pounds) anyway, the Big Bang happens, and 4.5 billion years later, we have our present universe, a universe that is aware of itself. First we have the subatomic particles, then the Big Bang, particles get togethor and form protons, nuetrons, electrons which get togethor to make atoms which get togethor to make molecules which get togethor to make chemicals which get togethor to make life. Life evolves to apeman, apeman develops speech which turns apeman into a thinking homo sapiens. All this without at least intelligent design...

There are many scientists that believe in intelligent design, and intelligent design implies God. It's just easier for them to use ID, as it sounds less religous.
Atheists take the point of view that all of this could have happened on it's own. No God or intelligent design. However, nobody can disprove God's existence. The only weapon an atheist has is to attack the various religous institutions and the people who occupy them - their behavior has given them much material to this effect. Another favorite weapon is to disprove the religous writings, especially The Bible, or as far as I can see The Bible, is the only book that comes under their "freethinking" scrutiny.

I wonder if in their search for a "unified field" theory, more and more scientists will ask what force inititiated the "Big Bang." Why weren't the quarks and leptons quite happy in their current state? We have learned to unleash the power of the atom, but the power of the subatomic world is far greater than that of the atom.

take care, Dutch

JMHO, Dutch

... ;)

;)

Apparently, that makes it funny. Or...or possibly sexually suggestive. One of those.