> Wes sort of beat me to the punch on this one, but I agree with him. There seems to be a tendency among the non-religious politically-correct crowd (and I do not mean to lump BG in with these scallywags) to sort of give religious beliefs a pass from logical examination. In my opinion, this cheapens religion because it makes the assumption that religion is inherently untrue (or at least incapable of being discussed logically). In reality, if a religious belief is true, then it is as true as anything else. In other words, if the belief "God exists" is true, then we should be able to talk about it in the same sense that we'd say, "this rock exists."

THANK YOU. I'm with you 100% on that. The stuff I believe is utterly contingent on the God of the Bible actually existing, actually having come in human form in the person of Jesus, and actually having done the other things recorded about God in Scripture. If God didn't actually reveal himself in those ways then my beliefs are misguided and wrong, and it wouldn't be disrespectful for anyone else to point that out.

Over the last year or so I've reflected frequently on the idea that if I weren't a Christian I'd most likely be an atheist. I'm not much interested in religion for its own sake. I'd rather know the truth and deal with it however I could, or should.

Iss "that's why Stephen is Supreme Dictator for Life" achar