"The vague and tenuous hope that God is too kind to punish the ungodly has become a deadly opiate for the consciences of millions." -- A. W. Tozer
Get your Tim Geithner TAX CHEAT! stamps!
9 Comments
Leave a comment
The comment login system is acting strange. If you get an error message saying you aren't logged in when you are, just reload the comment page and try again. I'm trying to track this bug down, but it's not easy.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -- George Bernard Shaw, Preface to Androcles and the Lion
Many fundamentalist Christians have come to believe that they are the godly and that anyone that disagrees with them is the ungodly. God, however, is not so discriminating.
The problem with Shaw's argument (in Mark's quote) is that a drunk is not "happier" than a sober man in the same way that a believer is "happier" than a non-believer. People who drink to excess often do so because being blotto is easier than dealing with their crappy lives. Drinking doesn't make them happy. Believers who find true joy in their belief, however, are a different story. That's not to say that belief is the only place one can find joy-- just that we shouldn't negate the joy of believers simply because other feelings are also called "happiness" by some.
Mark: Who said anything about being happy? Read Hebrews 11 and you'll see that God never promises to make us happy, not in this life anyway. Anyone who comes to Christ to have a happy and easy life is likely to be disappointed. Anyone who relies on their happiness as a barometer of truth is deluded.
JT: All I believe is what the Bible says.
WH: Happiness is incidental. Nonbelievers can be just as happy as believers, right until they stand before God to be judged.
MW: I have no interest in what the Bible says about anything. Remember who you're talking to here. I'm an atheist.
If you're going to try to prove some point to me by making Bible references, you're wasting your time.
Mark,
With that attitude, it could just as easily be said that you are wasting Michael's time.
If you don't want to hear about the Bible, why would you read this blog?
Mark: The point is that my reference demonstrates that Shaw doesn't know the first thing about Christian theology, and neither will you if you won't even read up on what we believe. Don't be so willfully ignorant, it's unbecoming.
JT: "With that attitude, it could just as easily be said that you are wasting Michael's time.
If you don't want to hear about the Bible, why would you read this blog? "
I read this blog because of the opposing arguments it presents. Nothing would be more boring to me than to read stuff from people with whom I agree 100%.
MW: Nothing that you've said is anything I didn't already understand about what Christians believe. It's all the same stuff I've heard before from many more people than just those who post here.
It's rather funny to hear you talk about "willful ignorance". No amount of belief makes something a fact. If it could be proven.. right now.. that the Bible is nothing more than an old book of fictitious twists on real events, many of those who believe in the Bible would refuse to acknowledge it.
If, on the other hand, it were proven that there is a God... as outlined in the Bible... then I'd have no difficulty believing it. In that respect, I'm agnostic. There may, in fact, be a God.. who created everything.. but I'm far less convinced, though, that it's a God who has such a vested interest in our lives and what we do with them.
Mark: Then you purposefully posted a quote from Shaw that you knew was irrelevant. That's fine, I just didn't expect it from you.