Figuring Out Religion

[Pointedstick]

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

[Fred]

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

The "take up his cross and follow after Me" part must have elicited an interesting response from the audience, as in "what in the heck is he talking about"? Kind of like Marty McFly when he makes references to future events in "Back to the Future".

He either said that or somebody writing later is putting words in his mouth based on the known Christian narrative. Take your pick.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

imagine how it might sound saying the same thing but if the speaker used the word enlightenment in place of the word me ..

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than enlightenment is not worthy of enlightenment ; and he who loves son or daughter more than enlightenment is not worthy of enlightenment . And he who does not take his cross and follow after enlightenment is not worthy of enlightenment . He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for enlightenment sake will find it.

what a mind bender if the man fulfilling prophecy who was born enlightened and in touch with his relationship with god and the universe, used the word "Me" as a way of expressing "direct knowledge of god - a state of being available to all " it kinda gives it a whole different feel

just a speculative interpretation you may now return to your fire and brimstone understanding of scripture

after thought -- it works as a pretty authentic sounding zen koan if you replace the word Me with the word zen

[MachineGhost]

MG, I don't claim anything of the sort that you describe in your first or second paragraphs in the quoted post above.

But isn't that the inference?  Kowtow before your "God" or be damned to <insert reason #4283 here>?  Why else would anyone bother to follow such a sadistic prophet if he allegedly said such assholish things?  Fear makes people do strange things, but sweep the world in a massive change that we now recognize as enlightened liberal values?  I'm skeptical.

[Mountaineer]

Yesterday's White Horse Inn episode might be of interest if you have questions about first century Christianity, mythology connections, etc. that are frequently discussed on this forum by the "not-yet-believers"  :

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/entry ... -the-bible

Just be sure to recall that apologetics (defense of the faith) will never convert you, only hearing the good news that Jesus died FOR YOU will do that. His body, given FOR YOU.  His blood, shed for the forgiveness of YOUR sins.  Go to where Jesus has promised to be FOR YOU - in the Word, in the baptismal water, in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.  Speech over.  Have a great week. 

... M

[Jack Jones]

after thought -- it works as a pretty authentic sounding zen koan if you replace the word Me with the word zen 

I prefer your first version. This came to mind (emphasis added):

CASE 8. DAITSU CHISHO BUDDHA

A monk asked Seijo, "Daitsu Chisho Buddha did zazen (meditated) for ten kalpas in a Meditation Hall, could not realize the highest truth, and so could not become fully emancipated. Why was this?" Seijo said, "Your question is a very appropriate one!" The monk asked again, "Why did he not attain Buddhahood by doing zazen in the Meditation Hall?" Seijo replied, "Because he did not."

Mumon's Comment:
You may know the Old Indian, but you are not allowed to have an understanding of Him. If an ordinary man attains enlightenment, he is a sage. When the sage is concerned about an understanding, he is only an ordinary man.

Rather than putting the body to rest, let the heart rest.
When the mind is realized, then one need not worry about the body.
If the mind and the body have completely become one,
This is the perfect life of sage, and praise is utterly meaningless.

[sigger]

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

My favorite passage, which to me speaks out against dogma - as Jesus is cited doing so many times in the gospels.

[Mountaineer]

They certainly do. I lived with one such person for two years, and it was a heartbreaking, exhausting experience. The deck is so cruelly stacked against them, and you want to help, but you really can't; the hurt is bigger than you. I must also note that the worst abusers were Christians. Some physically abusive, others emotionally so. Another common story at that school was that of the gay child disowned by their parents after being forced to undergo traumatic Christian "gay conversion" therapy or similar things. By contrast, I have never known any atheist or Unitarian parents to inflict the same kind of abuse on their children. To be sure, I've known plenty of bad parents of those flavors, but their problems were always more towards neglect or failing to provide a financially or emotionally stable household--never the outright physical and emotional abuse that some Christian parents seem capable of inflicting on their children.

My Lutheran tradition is very nonjudgmental, just proclaims the Word faithfully and administers the Sacraments rightly with a view that Scripture interprets Scripture in context as I've discussed before.

But the dogma itself is judgmental, regardless of whether you think you or your congregation is nice or mean. You and your fellow congregants can be the nicest people here in the left kingdom, but you still think that my fate in the right kingdom is eternal torture at the hands of a baleful deity who is cosmically displeased with my very nature and existence. I get that your proselytizing is done out of compassion, because you want me to avoid that fate, but your religion allows for that fate in the first place, and buried deep, I suspect that there is something emotionally appealing about its dogma that makes you not only want to stick with it but feel positive being enveloped by its tenets. All these links I've been reading (and I have been reading them) describe very bluntly how we all deserve to be abused and murdered and eternally tortured because we're so flawed, so sinful, so offensive to God, our very creator--and all through no fault of our own! This is such a repulsive message to me that I cannot possibly believe it to be true. It must be different for you and others who believe it. Deep down inside, there must be something in you that feels that you and other people need to be judged, measured, and punished; that you deserve it, even; and that you are in need of a third party to rescue you from yourself. If you did not feel this way, I cannot imagine how you could continue to be content with your very judgmental and fundamentalist brand of Christianity that, as MediumTex so eloquently puts it, has you and everyone else standing on the trapdoor to hell. You would have to rebel against it once its nature became apparent to you and you would have to give up your faith, as so many others have. The very core of Christianity is judgmentalism. There is no way out of it.

Resurrecting this old post because, well, I belong to a Unitarian Universalist Church.

Our church participates in a local organization that provides temporary housing and meals for homeless families with children.  Once per month, we have volunteers staff the shelter (which rotates among churches that have appropriate facilities, like rooms with beds, etc., which our UU church does not have), which means shopping for and cooking a meal, and staying over night.  I have volunteered a few times myself, as has my wife.

Anyway, I recently learned that one local church (large, non-denominational Evangelical) decided to stop participating in this organization.  Basically, they issued an ultimatum: either kick the UU Church out of the organization, or we (the big church) are leaving.  My understanding is that Big Church's threat was rooted in the fact that our UU church is openly friendly to LGBT people.

The organization decided not to yield to the blackmail (which, I must admit, surprised me on some level), so the Big Church no longer helps out.

Which kind of sucks, IMO.  This is the exact sort of dogmatic judgementalism that PS talks about above and that I don't understand.

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

... M

[Fred]

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

... M

I thought you belonged to the LCMS.....

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/13/ ... uri-synod/

The Missouri Synod’s constitution prohibits members from taking part in worship services that blend the beliefs and practices of Lutherans with those of other faiths and Christian denominations.

[sigger]

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

... M

I thought you belonged to the LCMS.....

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/13/ ... uri-synod/

The Missouri Synod’s constitution prohibits members from taking part in worship services that blend the beliefs and practices of Lutherans with those of other faiths and Christian denominations.

The coupling of institutional religion with fear of change/challenge go back to at least the crucifixion, no doubt plenty of examples before then as well.

[Xan]

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

[Fred]

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

That service at Sandy Hook didn't sound like a worship service either but I did see that the president of the LCMS apologized for reprimanding the pastor who took part.

I believe that this pastor has subsequently been ex-communicated however.

[Mountaineer]

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

That service at Sandy Hook didn't sound like a worship service either but I did see that the president of the LCMS apologized for reprimanding the pastor who took part.

I believe that this pastor has subsequently been ex-communicated however.

Looks to me like Pastor Morris is still at Christ the King in Newtown as of November 8, 2015. You can click the YouTube link to see his sermon.

http://www.ctklutherannewtown.org/pastors-portal.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDHMmn_ ... eranChurch

Pastor Morris Apology:  http://wmltblog.org/2013/02/letter-from ... ewtown-ct/

President Harrison Apology:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... ntroversy/

Read the last two links.  Good reminders that we are all sinners, all can repent, and all can forgive.  Church is for sinners and hypocrites and misfits - if church were for perfect people, the pews and pulpits would be empty.

... M

[Mountaineer]

Resurrecting this old post because, well, I belong to a Unitarian Universalist Church.

Our church participates in a local organization that provides temporary housing and meals for homeless families with children.  Once per month, we have volunteers staff the shelter (which rotates among churches that have appropriate facilities, like rooms with beds, etc., which our UU church does not have), which means shopping for and cooking a meal, and staying over night.  I have volunteered a few times myself, as has my wife.

Anyway, I recently learned that one local church (large, non-denominational Evangelical) decided to stop participating in this organization.  Basically, they issued an ultimatum: either kick the UU Church out of the organization, or we (the big church) are leaving.  My understanding is that Big Church's threat was rooted in the fact that our UU church is openly friendly to LGBT people.

The organization decided not to yield to the blackmail (which, I must admit, surprised me on some level), so the Big Church no longer helps out.

Which kind of sucks, IMO.  This is the exact sort of dogmatic judgementalism that PS talks about above and that I don't understand.

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

I would expect that the members of Big Church believe that their actions are consistent with God's will.  I don't know how one could argue with their position, as it is a matter of faith, isn't it?

And, FWIW, I had not been aware of the case of the LCMS minister who had to apologize for participating in the Sandy Hook service back in 2013.

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

True, but these two cases don't seem very dissimilar to me.  However, I am not familiar enough with either religion's dogma to understand how their respective stances are justified.  I'm simply interpreting through my own admittedly imperfect human lens.

Tenn,

If you wish to pursue, I would be glad to answer questions you may have about the LCMS worldview.  I can also give some perspective about the modern "Evangelical" worldview as I was part of that for quite a while.  On a second topic,

This is a quick summary of what I know about Unitarianism.  I would like to know more if you care to share. 
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... ITARIANISM

This is a quick summary of what I know about Universalism.  I would also like to know more if you care to share. 
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... IVERSALISM

It would be great if you could share what drew you to the Unitarian Universalist church.  I really do not know a lot about it.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

You're overthinking it.  Evangelicals are the neo-tent revival fruitcakes. 

[Fred]

You're overthinking it.  Evangelicals are the neo-tent revival fruitcakes. 

Wrong. The term "Evangelical" basically stands for protestant Christians who believe in the "born again" experience and includes mainline denominations like Baptists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans (even Mountaineer's Missouri Synod), and Pentecostal denominations like the Assembly of God.

[MachineGhost]

Wrong. The term "Evangelical" basically stands for protestant Christians who believe in the "born again" experience and includes mainline denominations like Baptists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans (even Mountaineer's Missouri Synod), and Pentecostal denominations like the Assembly of God.

You dare argue with me, sir?  You can't handle the truth!

[Pointedstick]

Is that your TSA employee friend, MG?

[Xan]

You're overthinking it.  Evangelicals are the neo-tent revival fruitcakes. 

Wrong. The term "Evangelical" basically stands for protestant Christians who believe in the "born again" experience and includes mainline denominations like Baptists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans (even Mountaineer's Missouri Synod), and Pentecostal denominations like the Assembly of God.

I think it's something of an overloaded term.  Literally, an evangelical is one who has been sent out to spread the gospel, so for example we call St Luke (writer of about 1/3 of the New Testament) "St Luke the Evangelist".

As a means of differentiating some Christians from others, the first Lutherans called themselves "Evangelical Catholics".  ("Lutheran" being a derogatory name that stuck.)  That is, they were Catholics who emphasized the Gospel, which had become de-emphasized.  They were both big-C and small-c Catholics, since this was before they were excommunicated by the Pope.

Today, "Evangelical" typically means something along the lines of "not Catholic", and usually also means what Fred describes: somebody who emphasizes the "born-again experience".  I would say that this does NOT describe Lutherans (at least, not the ones infected by charismatic-ism).  We remain little-c catholic, and believe that "born again" refers to Baptism, ideally in infancy.  This is in stark contrast to most "Evangelicals" who are credo-Baptizers and do the neo-tent revival "fruitcaking" that MG refers to.

[Mountaineer]

You're overthinking it.  Evangelicals are the neo-tent revival fruitcakes. 

Wrong. The term "Evangelical" basically stands for protestant Christians who believe in the "born again" experience and includes mainline denominations like Baptists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans (even Mountaineer's Missouri Synod), and Pentecostal denominations like the Assembly of God.

I think it's something of an overloaded term.  Literally, an evangelical is one who has been sent out to spread the gospel, so for example we call St Luke (writer of about 1/3 of the New Testament) "St Luke the Evangelist".

As a means of differentiating some Christians from others, the first Lutherans called themselves "Evangelical Catholics".  ("Lutheran" being a derogatory name that stuck.)  That is, they were Catholics who emphasized the Gospel, which had become de-emphasized.  They were both big-C and small-c Catholics, since this was before they were excommunicated by the Pope.

Today, "Evangelical" typically means something along the lines of "not Catholic", and usually also means what Fred describes: somebody who emphasizes the "born-again experience".  I would say that this does NOT describe Lutherans (at least, not the ones infected by charismatic-ism).  We remain little-c catholic, and believe that "born again" refers to Baptism, ideally in infancy.  This is in stark contrast to most "Evangelicals" who are credo-Baptizers and do the neo-tent revival "fruitcaking" that MG refers to.

We Lutherans are born again in our Baptism as Xan eloquently says, and it is only God who objectively does the work; it is not a human subjective decision that is based on a feeling.  Think of it as a baby metaphor - that baby makes no decision to be born, the birthing process all happens external to and regardless of the baby's decision or feeling.  We Lutherans are very thankful for the gifts God freely gives (mercy, forgiveness of our sins, the Holy Spirit who makes Jesus known to us, etc.) and thus want to evangelize (tell others of the good news, the Gospel) just like one would be thankful and want to tell others if someone gave him a new Ferrari or a lifetime of vacations to a favorite location. 

... M

[Fred]

Desert pointed out that my previous post reviewing the book "The Rise of Christianity, A Sociologist Reconsiders History" was deleted before he could respond to it. Don't know what happened but fortunately I saved a copy. 

The most interesting tidbits to me...

1.) The modern day rise of Mormonism makes for a good statistical comparison to that of Christianity. The vast majority of converts are the result of what the author calls "secondary conversions", meaning that the person converts because a member of his household or someone
he knows converts. The author believes that the same was true of Christianity and the common belief in a miraculous spread of the new religion isn't supported by the evidence.

2.) The author asserts that the Jewish Diaspora played a much larger part in the spread of Christianity than it is given credit for, and that the early rift between Jews and Christians as it appears in the New Testament is overstated and occurred much later.

3.) There were two epidemics within a century in the Roman empire during the rise of Christianity, one believed to possibly have been smallpox, wiping out a quarter to a third of the population. The Christian sense of community and care for the sick not only resulted in a superior survival rate but impressed the pagan community whose gods had no help to offer.

4.) The role of women. The Roman empire suffered from an extreme shortage of women due to female infanticide and death by abortion. The fact that these practices were prohibited by Christians coupled with the fact that women tend to convert to new religions in greater numbers than men meant that women began to outnumber men in the Christian community and thus Christian women began to marry pagan men, resulting in secondary conversions to Christianity (and there is evidence of this in the New Testament writings of both Peter and Paul).

The author's final conclusion....

Christianity did not grow because of miracle working in the marketplaces (although there may have been much of that going on), or because Constantine said it should, or even because the martyrs gave it credibility. It grew because Christians constituted an intense community, able to generate the "invicible obstinacy" that so offended the younger Pliny but yielded immense religious rewards. And the primary means of its growth was through the united and motivated efforts of the growing number of Christian believers, who invited their friends, relatives, and neighbors to share the "good news".

[MachineGhost]

Is that your TSA employee friend, MG?

It is the friend of my friend, not my own friend.  Does that make him my enemy?

[Mountaineer]

http://104.244.124.69/~alpbadmin/Forum/ ... ic.php?t=3

While an LCMS communications team was in Germany in mid-November, France fell victim to a multi-strike terror attack launched by ISIS. As the world mourns and heads of state coordinate full-scale military operations, these terrorist acts further complicate an already difficult question regarding the church’s role of mercy toward Middle Eastern refugees.

Yet, in the shadow of these events, the bright light of the Gospel shines in the darkness as our LCMS partner-church body, the Selbständige Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche (SELK), cares for the stranger in their midst.

With more than a million Middle Eastern asylum-seekers flooding into Europe, a new mission field is growing exponentially for the SELK, a church body that has been actively receiving refugees and catechizing them for decades.

In light of the already strained capacity and infrastructure of Germany to handle this influx, the LCMS is coming alongside its German partner church and her congregations as they bear mercy to the refugees literally knocking at their doors. Synod President Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison has authorized $100,000 from donated mercy funds through the Office of International Mission (OIM) to support SELK congregations in providing food, shelter, transportation, language instruction and the proclamation of the Gospel to people once considered impossible to reach. For good reason, the Church continues to confess that “nothing will be impossible with God” (Luke 1:37).


A mission field comes to you

The Rev. Thomas Seifert, pastor of Paul-Gerhardt Gemeinde (congregation) in Braunschweig, Germany, began his ministry to the refugees in 2012. Seifert said he is happy and amazed for the miracle that is bringing these people from countries closed off to Christianity to Germany, where the Gospel is freely preached.

“It’s such a chance as a missionary — you say ‘oh, what beautiful times’ — they are coming [to Germany] in crowds,” said Seifert. “‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations’ [Matt. 28:19] — it’s easy to do when they are coming to you.”

Seifert’s efforts are part of the SELK’s growing mission work throughout refugee camps, including those in Berlin, Leipzig, Hannover, Düsseldorf and elsewhere in Germany.  .........



Go to link to read more including some statements from the refugees.

... M

[Mountaineer]

There have been many questions in this thread about what heaven and hell will be like.  These two episodes (see links), reaired November 2015, give a perspective on those questions by Dr. Louis Brighton (deceased) Concordia Seminary.  Short version:

Heaven - upon our physical death, our soul will be in heaven and it will be like a wonderful dream - we will not realize our bodies are not yet there, just like in a dream we are not aware that the physical aspects we are "realizing" are not present.  At the Last Day, when Jesus returns to establish the new creation, our body will be resurrected, in perfection, to join with our soul.  We will live in the eternal presence of God.

http://issuesetc.org/2015/11/13/encore- ... on-111315/

Hell - fire is symbolic of eternal separation from God - it will be more like eternal solitary confinement where we will never hear another voice or experience another person - eternal aloneness, eternal punishment, eternally realizing they rejected God.  Compare to a person who has HIV and refuses treatment because they do not believe the provider of the treatment is truthful - they will suffer an agonizing death.  The first death is to be in unbelief, the second death is for those who stay in unbelief and are cast into hell.

http://issuesetc.org/2015/11/13/encore- ... on-111315/

Judgment Day - the Last Day when Jesus returns again.

http://issuesetc.org/2015/11/13/encore- ... on-111315/


Edited to add this from another forum I read.  It is a discussion of atheism and related to the heaven and hell discussions above.  Mr. Someone is a self-professed former Christian (childhood through seminary training) who became an atheist.  RDPreus is a Pastor.

Re: Why does God create atheists?
« Reply #139 on: Today at 09:17:58 AM »

Mr. Someone, you list six reasons why people might deny God’s existence:

1) the injustice of God
2) Christian hypocrites
3) variety of faiths
4) not wanting to be accountable to God
5) silence of God
6) evidence of naturalism

You then proceed to argue that not wanting to be accountable to God is the least likely reason of them all.  You claim this was not a reason for you.  And should one suggest that you are lying your lie would be explained by saying that God had given you over to sinful desires.  But that is not how to explain it.

In Romans 1, the cause of the idolaters’ rejection of God is not God giving them over to anything.  God gives them over to sin in response to their having suppressed the truth in unrighteousness and embraced a lie instead.  This is a great evil.  It is an evil for which the idolater (or atheist, as the case may be) is accountable to God.  Indeed, God’s wrath is revealed against such unbelief.  This is why unbelievers must silence the angry God.

It is not surprising that the most common reason given for adopting atheism is Christian hypocrites.  Diminish God by pointing out the sins of his followers.  Accusing others of sin also works nicely in distracting attention from one’s own sin.  Attacking Christian hypocrites is an effective way of silencing the divine law of which one’s conscience is afraid. 

You and your fellow atheists won’t admit that the reason you deny God is because you don’t want to face his judgment.  That would be an admission of your own sin.  Your sin is what you refuse to admit.  Indeed, your denial of God is part of this refusal.  Once there is no God there is no sin and no judgment.  You won't admit that you deny God because you don’t want to be accountable to him.  But maybe you will admit, that when you consider your own mortality, to cease to exist is preferable to facing the righteous anger of him whom you denied.

posted by RDPreus



... Mountaineer

[Greg]

Good stuff Mountaineer. Thanks for the post.

[MachineGhost]

Such inescapable, airtight logic.

How about the reasons athiests "deny God" is because they're denying what is a figment of the imagination?  The burden of OBJECTIVE proof is not on the atheists but on all 5,000 or so of the different True Believers.

I'd love to say "put up or shut up", but thousands of years of a lack of OBJECTIVE evidence has already proven the case.  What is the definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  Silly me!