for you Christians to ponder

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:20 pm

well, folks, these ongoing religious/theological/philosophical threads have been great fun to read, and surely a nice break from the tedium of a Presidential Election year(the 'silly season', in other words). Here's something that sprung to me out of a discussion on NPR this afternoon. The question I put to all of you who are Christians of one pursuasion or another, but which could easily be re-framed for those adherants of any religion: If, somehow, it could be conclusively proven that God did not exist, would you still view Christianity as viable and valuable? Elaborate away, and thanks in advance.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:32 pm

Slick, specifically asking this of Christians (who believe a priori that God exists) is awkward at best. The most you'll get is varying answers about science/faith relations.

You might want to re-frame the question more broadly: "Do you think the existence of God can be proven/disproven conclusively? Hypothetically, if it were proven/disproven, how would you respond?"

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:00 pm

if you are asking, are the principles set forth for living your life in the Bible Viable, even without a God behind them. the answer is yes.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:38 pm

callmeslick wrote:If, somehow, it could be conclusively proven that God did not exist, would you still view Christianity as viable and valuable? Elaborate away, and thanks in advance.

It's actually kind of a funny question to ask someone who is a Christian as the Bible defines a Christian, because Biblical Christianity only works by God's direct work in someone's life. Therefore if God, who has changed my life and works in me to transform me into the image of his Son (to be more like Jesus), "from glory to glory", as the scripture says, is conclusively proven not to exist, having experienced His influence in my life I would have to question this conclusive proof. (I've tried to explain before that it is not a blind faith) So your question cannot be answered as stated, by virtue of an invalid assumption about Christianity. That's not to say I won't give you an answer, but first I'll give Paul's answer (actually regarding the validity Christianity, not the existence of God, but I think it applies):

1 Corinthians 15 wrote:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

My answer is that if there were no God, then Christianity is most certainly not viable (as an aside you and anyone you may have spoken with regarding Christianity probably don't actually understand it, so you won't understand the realizations (wrong word) leading up to this answer--in short Christianity is humanity becoming in character like God, through faith in Christ and the work of God's spirit changing their fallen nature, with their debt of sin demanding judgment having been paid by the sacrifice of a sinless "savior"--the same Jesus--the "Christ", who must be God made flesh). However, even without any knowledge of God, the moral principles found in the scriptures would have to be recognized as being accurate, if in some cases unattainable.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:24 am

callmeslick wrote:well, folks, these ongoing religious/theological/philosophical threads have been great fun to read, and surely a nice break from the tedium of a Presidential Election year(the 'silly season', in other words). Here's something that sprung to me out of a discussion on NPR this afternoon. The question I put to all of you who are Muslims of one pursuasion or another, but which could easily be re-framed for those adherants of any religion: If, somehow, it could be conclusively proven that Allah did not exist, would you still view Islam as viable and valuable? Elaborate away, and thanks in advance.

Re-phrased the question. Once again we see a ball-less liberal organization making a subtle dig at Christians while steering clear of the Muslim minefield.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:45 am

All Christians set your mind on the prize. A glorified body that can change from matter to energy to matter to energy. No longer hedged in and confined to this world, but one that can explore all of God's creation.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:37 am

Foil wrote:Slick, specifically asking this of Christians (who believe a priori that God exists) is awkward at best. The most you'll get is varying answers about science/faith relations.

You might want to re-frame the question more broadly: "Do you think the existence of God can be proven/disproven conclusively? Hypothetically, if it were proven/disproven, how would you respond?"

sorry, but you are missing the whole intent. First off, let me state clearly that I have utterly no intent to defame or inflame. In fact, it would be my contention that, of all religions, Christianity holds the potential for a positive response. You see, what I'm getting at are that the whole of the teachings of Jesus Christ can be taken, without the existence of God, as spiritually enriching, in terms of core values. Where this was first discussed was around the life of Thomas Jefferson. He famously carved up the New Testament to create the 'Jefferson Bible', which is essentially stripped of any supernatural references. He felt that the teachings of Christ were a life-guide to a life tolerant of others, kind, forgiving, etc.
As for the question about the existence of God being proveable, I cannot fathom how, as an agnostic and a student of Science. I leave that for another to ask, I am merely trying to get folks to think of the subtext of ther religion beyond the deistic part.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:39 am

CUDA wrote:if you are asking, are the principles set forth for living your life in the Bible Viable, even without a God behind them. the answer is yes.

hooray! You get it.....I was hoping for more specifics, but you see the question I am trying to frame.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:44 am

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:well, folks, these ongoing religious/theological/philosophical threads have been great fun to read, and surely a nice break from the tedium of a Presidential Election year(the 'silly season', in other words). Here's something that sprung to me out of a discussion on NPR this afternoon. The question I put to all of you who are Muslims of one pursuasion or another, but which could easily be re-framed for those adherants of any religion: If, somehow, it could be conclusively proven that Allah did not exist, would you still view Islam as viable and valuable? Elaborate away, and thanks in advance.
Re-phrased the question. Once again we see a ball-less liberal organization making a subtle dig at Christians while steering clear of the Muslim minefield.

I knew there had to be at least one conserva-loon out there who would try to make this political. Now, go back and read my original question, and my elaborations to Foil and see what an ass you just made of yourownself, in the quoted part above.....

really, try and read for comprehension. I wrote, in common English, the following:

"The question I put to all of you who are Christians of one pursuasion or another, but which could easily be re-framed for those adherants of any religion:"

Now, read that slowly, then, read your response, and tell me(and us all) what the feck you are babbling about?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:15 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:if you are asking, are the principles set forth for living your life in the Bible Viable, even without a God behind them. the answer is yes.

hooray! You get it.....I was hoping for more specifics, but you see the question I am trying to frame.

specific in what way? do you want me to get specific in teachings?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:19 pm

I disagree with Cuda. It would not.

Why? because good comes from God. If God did not exist that leaves us with cosmic randomness. There is no good or bad. All things are "just" are. There is no purpose as the only defining factor in existence is the universe and as a lifeless collection stuff that will either someday implode and re-explode or separate to the point of fatal entropy ... it doesn't care. Then our own search for purpose and definitions of right and wrong become gods in our lives like the little stone idols that other civilizations have made in the past. We will make something else to give ourselves purpose. It would be vanity. pure and simple.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians explains this very thing. Sarge already posted:

1 Corinthians 15 wrote: wrote: 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

So, to sum up, if God did not exist, then nothing that Christ did or taught would be valid. This has been understood for over a millennium and has been something the opposition has been trying to establish from the beginning.

is that enough detail? If not, can you give more direction to what you are wondering?

(sorry, I didn't mean for this to be quite that long.

)

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:30 pm

Just for perspective:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

There are 4 laws in this world.
The law of Physics
The law given to Moses
The law of grace by Jesus, a continuation and fulfillment of Moses' law
The law of conscience.

If there was no God, why bother?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:38 pm

Duper wrote:disagree with Cuda. It would not.

Why? because good comes from God.

No disagreement. I just was attempting to not get into a theological debate.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:42 pm

I'm getting to feel the same way, I'm ready to just wash each others feet

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:08 pm

callmeslick wrote:I knew there had to be at least one conserva-loon out there who would try to make this political. Now, go back and read my original question, and my elaborations to Foil and see what an ass you just made of yourownself, in the quoted part above.....

really, try and read for comprehension. I wrote, in common English, the following:

"The question I put to all of you who are Christians of one pursuasion or another, but which could easily be re-framed for those adherants of any religion:"

Now, read that slowly, then, read your response, and tell me(and us all) what the feck you are babbling about?

Too bad you are so self defensive or you might of understood my reply was directed at NPR and not you. A short apology would be acceptable.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:31 pm

woodchip wrote:Once again we see a ball-less liberal organization making a subtle dig at Christians while steering clear of the Muslim minefield.

Yes, you had to make a blanket political derogatory comment about those Godless liberals and any organization you think may be run by said suppose-ed liberals. How quaint and ignorant.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:48 pm

woodchip wrote:Too bad you are so self defensive or you might of understood my reply was directed at NPR and not you. A short apology would be acceptable.

sorry, but that is really, if possible, lamer than I thought. The NPR reference was merely to a piece, run locally, in which the life of Jefferson was discussed. In that piece, his creation of a personal version of the New Testament came up and I got to thinking about the rest. In fact, I've heard this thesis debated before in academic settings, with similar ranges of responses to those which we've started to flesh out above. Sadly, you added nothing to the matter beyond rigid ideological focus. Thanks a bunch.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:17 am

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:Too bad you are so self defensive or you might of understood my reply was directed at NPR and not you. A short apology would be acceptable.
sorry, but that is really, if possible, lamer than I thought. The NPR reference was merely to a piece, run locally, in which the life of Jefferson was discussed. In that piece, his creation of a personal version of the New Testament came up and I got to thinking about the rest. In fact, I've heard this thesis debated before in academic settings, with similar ranges of responses to those which we've started to flesh out above. Sadly, you added nothing to the matter beyond rigid ideological focus. Thanks a bunch.

I'll take a wild guess that in all the debates you reference, Islam and Muslims were never mentioned. Lets face it, using Christians as the back drop is easy and safe.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:18 pm

actually, and hardly surprisingly, you are wrong again, Woodchip. I have witnessed a fascinating panel discussion about most all of the major religions, in light of which can stand alone on it's own set of values outside of divine(supernatural, whatever one uses to describe it)necessity. In fact, as I commented earlier, one of the key reasons I framed it here to Christians(aside from the obvious fact that several heavy posters here profess sincere Christian faith) was that I feel that Christianity fares better than most when viewed in such a light. The actual acts and messages from Jesus Christ were pretty simple, and most can be seen as a guidepost to a good life as a decent member of a larger society.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:34 pm

Matthew 7:12 wrote:"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:42 pm

The "actual acts and messages" of Jesus include casting out demons, healing the sick, the "kingdom of God", shaking off the dust of your feet as a testimony against cities that won't hear the gospel, being hated ("woe to you when all men speak well of you"), being persecuted, fleeing to the next city, and tarrying until you are endued with power from on high (the Holy Spirit, which is promised to all who believe). The most consistent act and message of Jesus, of course, was... to do the will of the Father--God. He was also an example in spending the necessary time and attention to find out what that will was. Where did these things come into the panel discussion and your own assessment of the life and message of Jesus, callmeslick? Or were you all guilty of calling only upon a shallow view of Jesus to attain this goal? These things I have inexhaustibly enumerated cannot truly be separated out from among the simpler concepts you deal with--they were the life of Jesus! If you think I'm just being offended at the idea of unbelievers touting the benefits of Christianity apart from God, please re-read the gospels with what I'm written in mind. You're deceiving yourselves.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:29 pm

Thorne, I have no fault to find with your assessment, but understand, it is YOUR assessment, and others can view the same reality differently. I suppose that could explain the wide variance in people who call themselves Christian, or the variants of Judaism, Islam
and most other 'major' religions. I understand your reluctance to separate the messages of Christ toward social interaction and treatment of one's fellow man from the divine. I was simply curious as to how various people viewed it, because, as the Jeffersonian example shows, some men DO feel that the message can be separated from the supernatural or divine.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:47 pm

callmeslick wrote:well, folks, these ongoing religious/theological/philosophical threads have been great fun to read, and surely a nice break from the tedium of a Presidential Election year(the 'silly season', in other words). Here's something that sprung to me out of a discussion on NPR this afternoon. The question I put to all of you who are Christians of one pursuasion or another, but which could easily be re-framed for those adherants of any religion: If, somehow, it could be conclusively proven that God did not exist, would you still view Christianity as viable and valuable? Elaborate away, and thanks in advance.

The theological side:

You're asking us to throw out a good majority of what the Bible is really about (actually, just about everything). My first reaction is: "If God didn't exist, then literally nothing would exist." Okay, I'll suspend that one. My second reaction: "Without God's influence, we would have literally fought our way into extinction." Alright, I'll play along on that one, too.

So, my version if rephrasing: "If you got to where we are, here and now, and proved that God didn't exist, what would your opinion of the Bible (and its teachings) be?"

Playing along:

First, for my evaluation of the Bible: let's assume that the historical content is accurate, and that the meanings, etc. are the falsified parts: People must have gotten a lot smarter in a pretty short amount of time. I get it that technology has broadened people's horizons and all.... but if the Bible's stuff about God and greater meaning and such was really just a bunch of crap, I'd think that more people would have caught on and discarded the Bible a lot earlier than now. If you consider the fact that the Bible's teachings demand a really significant re-orientation of people's lives, in a personally damaging way, I'd especially expect it to be the case. In summary: if there wasn't sort sort of supernatural force behind it, the manipulative aspect of the Bible wouldn't have stuck, and I'd have expect the Biblical ideas to have died off by now. (Note: I'd say the same is true for the religions that I consider false - only instead of it being a Godly supernatural force, I'd say that a demonic super natural force is maintaining it.) I'd see it as a tool for my manipulation... use it to control others and to get what I want... discard anything that isn't convenient or effective to that end.

Second, my evaluation of the interpersonal message in the Bible: The whole "golden rule" part would be valuable, but not practical. Here's how I'd see life: If everything really does end at death, I'd lie, cheat, steal, etc. all that I could to make my life as comfortable as possible. In the long run, why should I care about future generations or the people around me? I'd certainly do some of the whole golden rule stuff, but only insomuch as it would benefit me.... I'd always be looking to make a "profit" out of any act that I did.... do a favor for the neighbor? Sure, if that gives me license to ask for a bigger one. Shoplift? Yes as long as I think my chances of getting caught are low enough... if the chances of repercussions become high enough, them I'd stop because it wouldn't be worth the gamble. To the observer I'd be the model of a nice guy, but in reality I'd always be trying to figure a way to get the upper hand. I'd like to think that I'd be sophisticated enough that people wouldn't catch on, and that I really would climb my way up without people knowing it.

(By the way, in the absence of God, I'd expect everyone to be psychopathic.)

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:50 pm

(By the way, in the absence of God, I'd expect everyone to be psychopathic.)

That seems to fly directly in the face of how most people who don't believe in God rationalize their desire to do good things, though. Strictly from a behavioral/sociology standpoint, there are definite benefits to behaving in a certain manner even without eternal consequences. The Golden Rule holds up in the societal stance even when removed from its religious context: it's in a person's best self-interest to act in a matter that they themselves would prefer to be treated, as it provides a reasonable assurance that said treatment will be in the same vein. There's also the more pragmatic aspect: not wanting to go to jail is a pretty good deterrent from serious crime for most reasonable people.

I guess it's always kind of annoyed me when certain Christians make statements like, "Without faith, people would just act like animals." That simply isn't true, and I'm sure it's bordering on offensive for the majority of atheists and agnostics out there who consider themselves fundamentally good people.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:10 pm

Top Gun wrote:That seems to fly directly in the face of how most people who don't believe in God rationalize their desire to do good things, though. Strictly from a behavioral/sociology standpoint, there are definite benefits to behaving in a certain manner even without eternal consequences. The Golden Rule holds up in the societal stance even when removed from its religious context: it's in a person's best self-interest to act in a matter that they themselves would prefer to be treated, as it provides a reasonable assurance that said treatment will be in the same vein. There's also the more pragmatic aspect: not wanting to go to jail is a pretty good deterrent from serious crime for most reasonable people.

I guess it's always kind of annoyed me when certain Christians make statements like, "Without faith, people would just act like animals." That simply isn't true, and I'm sure it's bordering on offensive for the majority of atheists and agnostics out there who consider themselves fundamentally good people.

I don't buy it. Maybe it's just me... maybe if I was an atheist I wouldn't be one of those who considers himself fundamentally good. From my perspective, the strong overpower the weak. The lazy mooch off of the hard-working. The smart take advantage of the weak. The way I see it, if I applied the golden rule to the tee, I'd wind up penniless & abused. I'll give you that some people get some sort of an emotional payoff from giving (some to the point that it's considered a problem), but there are just as many get a trip out of power, or stealing, or whatever. If you wanted to argue that the differences are an evolutionary thing, I just don't see the "good" people ever making it.... I just don't see the people with the good genes managing to get enough of a majority to overcome the ones with the survival of the fittest ones. That's here and now and in this world as it is, though.

Here's the deeper philosophical belief that drives this statement, however: I think that any tendency to do good in a person is there as a result of God's common grace.... so I think that here and now in this world atheists and agnostics can really be very good people, who don't get some sick satisfaction out of it or anything but are just simply good people. Thing is, (and getting back to why I raise objections about being here and now without God) without God (the author, inventor, and definition of good) I don't think that anyone would have that capacity.

I guess the bottom line to the hypothetical is this: I just don't think that we ever would have gotten to here and now.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:54 pm

I think TG made some valid points, and sorry, Snoopy, but I'd have to disagree with your bleak assessment. The world is full, chock full, of decent honest people who are athiest, agnostic and in massive numbers, believers in one of those many 'false religions'. Speaking personally, I would view your statements as insulting, but don't, as I view them to be the byproducts of your limited perception(we all have limits, so nothing personal intended there). I figure I have lived the vast bulk of my life as a decent,
considerate, kind member of society, good to my fellow man, good steward of the rest of the planet as a whole. I don't need a promised afterlife, I don't need to know God wishes me to be that way, it just works out well for me. Yes, there always are and will be those who prey upon others. The Biblical rules, in the Old Testament, don't preclude that sort of behavior much of the time. The New Testament is darn near communistic in it's approach to one's role in society, so the Bible provides a range of archetypes which one can be guided by. So do other religious texts and teachings. I would disagree strongly with your assessment that, without God, we would have self-destructed as a species. I see no reason whatsover to buy into that one. Care to elaborate your reasoning?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:32 pm

Repeating myself:

snoopy wrote:Here's the deeper philosophical belief that drives this statement, however: I think that any tendency to do good in a person is there as a result of God's common grace.... so I think that here and now in this world atheists and agnostics can really be very good people, who don't get some sick satisfaction out of it or anything but are just simply good people. Thing is, (and getting back to why I raise objections about being here and now without God) without God (the author, inventor, and definition of good) I don't think that anyone would have that capacity.

Call me delusional or limited in my perception or whatever - but for me, the fact that there is good in this world is proof that God exists.

Again, the problem that exists with the hypothetical is that ultimately I believe that there would be no existence without God, and all existence is influenced by God. Any conjecture that I might come up with about how the world would be without God requires concessions that put me into some imaginary philosophical construct without a foundation. I guess the only backup that I can provide is that link between good and God... getting to the idea of heaven and hell - I associate the thought of God's absence with pure evil, and God's presence with pure good. We all imitating God in being good, know it or acknowledge it or not.

I understand that it's a bit insulting... but I also think it's only so because of our own self-righteous pride. If we are genuinely honest with ourselves, I think that we can all see little glimpses of evil in ourselves. There is a genuine tendency to sink to other's level, and there is genuine vulnerability in being self-sacrificial. I tried to put myself in the category of the "evil" ones because I want to genuinely acknowledge my own tenancy toward being a self-centered, power-hungry jerk.

Take it or leave it... but that's where I'm coming from.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:36 pm

If you wanted to argue that the differences are an evolutionary thing, I just don't see the "good" people ever making it.... I just don't see the people with the good genes managing to get enough of a majority to overcome the ones with the survival of the fittest ones. That's here and now and in this world as it is, though.

The thing you're missing here is that behaving "good" promotes greater survival in and of itself. Going back to pre-societal times, individuals that treated each other well would be able to form stable groups, and those groups would give their children a greater chance at survival than children raised by a single individual. I don't know enough about behavioral science/evolution to state whether or not there's some set of "good genes" at work, or if it's more along the lines of an acquired behavior through being taught (I'd strongly suspect the latter), but either way, being "good" is its own reward in terms of survivability. You could extend that philosophy to the modern day by presupposing that behaving in a beneficial manner increases the chances that other people will behave in such a manner toward you, thus improving your own quality of life.

Honestly, I can't put this philosophy across nearly as well as someone who's actually living it. I seem to remember one or two people once writing up their own opinions about this topic on another forum I frequent; I'll have to dig around and see if I can come up with them.

Edit: And to actually make this a bit more relevant to the intervening posts, I've found there to be a decent amount of value in stepping outside of a strictly-religious view of the world, since it allows for a greater appreciation for where people whose beliefs differ from your own are coming from. One thing that's frustrated me about some Christians I've encountered online (not including you necessarily) is how they'll frame a lot of their arguments in terms of something like, "Well, the Bible says so!" That's all well and good for that person themselves, but if you're talking to someone who doesn't view Scripture a priori as some sort of divine truth...well, your argument isn't really going to get anywhere, is it? You have to take a broader stance when you're dealing with people who have those sorts of fundamental differences from your position.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:25 pm

Top Gun wrote:And to actually make this a bit more relevant to the intervening posts, I've found there to be a decent amount of value in stepping outside of a strictly-religious view of the world, since it allows for a greater appreciation for where people whose beliefs differ from your own are coming from. One thing that's frustrated me about some Christians I've encountered online (not including you necessarily) is how they'll frame a lot of their arguments in terms of something like, "Well, the Bible says so!" That's all well and good for that person themselves, but if you're talking to someone who doesn't view Scripture a priori as some sort of divine truth...well, your argument isn't really going to get anywhere, is it? You have to take a broader stance when you're dealing with people who have those sorts of fundamental differences from your position.

Halleluiah!

for you Christians to ponder

for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder

Re: for you Christians to ponder