The death of God, true worlds, and Christian hope

On April 8, 1966, Time Magazine’s cover read, “Is God Dead?” which created quite a stir, but this meme was made famous long before by atheist philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. I have included a short video clip about this that I will borrow from to explain what he meant by saying this and to make my own point.

Nietzsche announces the death of God in a famous aphorism in his book, The Gay Science called “The Madman.” 

“In this passage he tells the tale of a madman who runs around yelling, “I seek God!” I seek God!” Even though people ignore him and go on with their business, he doesn’t stop. He yells, “God is dead! God remains dead” And we have killed him! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers…There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Despite the madman’s warning, the people on the street paid little attention to him. When he noticed the indifference of those around him, he threw his lantern on the ground so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men.”

However, this attitude of Nietzsche’s did not come naturally but was an attitude that he came to adopt after years of struggle, pain, and suffering of living in what he believed to be a godless world. It was a world with no transcendent purpose and, thus, no meaning in which mankind had no special place in the scheme of things. In other words, this worldview led him to experience the agony of Nihilism.” (from video clip)

Perhaps Nietzsche was a prophet. Certainly this tale sounds eerily familiar. But I want to ask, what ‘god’ was Nietzsche referring to? To answer this, we need to first see that he saw two worldview options: Nihilism and the True World views.

Nihilism simply means that life has no meaning or purpose. It is what it is, nothing more.

The True World views usually posit that there is a transcendent world waiting beyond this life where there is total bliss (heaven, nirvana, utopia, etc.).

Nietzsche observed that all true world views appear to have this in common: the domain of higher value (true world);  the domain of lower value (this earthly existence); and the goal is to overcome this earthly existence and enter into this true world. Nietzsche called this an “Ascetic Ideal” and considered it an absurd fantasy.

But we must also understand that Nietzsche was no dogmatist. He understood that he may be wrong; that there very well could be a True World; he just thought it was better for mankind to believe otherwise.

In his last work, Ecce Homo (shortly before he went insane), Nietzsche conveyed this idea. He wrote: “The concept ‘beyond,’ ‘true world,’ were invented in order to devalue the only world there is—in order to retain no goal, no reason, no task for our earthly reality!”

In other words, he thought that belief in a better life awaiting the future of an individual would motivate them to them escape the responsibility and burden of having to make the most of this life.  Therefore, for more than any other reason. Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God because he felt that a world composed of individuals who did not believe in true world theories would be a much better world. But, as Victor Frankl pointed out, Nihilism provides no hopeful alternative:

“For too long we have been dreaming a dream from which we are now waking up: the dream that if we just improve the socioeconomic situation of people, everything will be okay, people will become happy. The truth is that as the struggle for survival has subsided, the question has emerged: survival for what? Ever more people today have the means to live, but no meaning to live for.” (Victor Frankl)

Here’s the video clip. The whole clip is worth watching if you’re interested in this topic because it covers the subject much better than I can here.

And here’s why I bring this up. If Nietzsche’s ‘God’ was according to Greek mythology or Gnosticism, I would agree with him. But the God of Christianity is no such God. Neither is the Christian worldview.

The after-life is only one part of the Christian worldview. It also emphasizes that what we do in this life matters. It’s the presence of the indwelling God that makes us better human beings in this life.

14 For it is Christ’s love that fuels our passion and motivates us, because we are absolutely convinced that he has given his life for all of us. This means all died with him, 15 so that those who live should no longer live self-absorbed lives but lives that are poured out for him—the one who died for us and now lives again. (2 Cor.5:14-15 TPT *)

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves, that treating “the least of these” is how we treat Him (Matt.25:40, 45). In fact, most of His parables talk about being held accountable to how we treated one another in this life. Indeed, the whole Bible is filled with admonitions to take care of the marginalized, the widow, and orphans. But God doesn’t leave us with commands we cannot follow. He empowers us by His grace to love with His other-centered love, even though this is a life-long cooperative process with Him, for God’s kingdom is within us (Luke 17:21).

Furthermore, the God of the Bible says that this world, and everything in it, is very good (Gen.1:28), and He gave humankind responsibility for the care of this world (Gen.1:26-28; Psalm 115:16).  The God of Christianity is not about letting the world go to hell in a handbasket while we escape into eternal bliss; it’s about redemption and restoration—both for humankind and all of creation (Rom.8:19-25; Rev.21:1-5).

God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. (John 3:17 MSG *)

The Christian hope is not ultimately about leaving earth and going to heaven; it’s about heaven coming to earth. And He started this revolution by giving us His Spirit, which Paul called a down payment on the redemption of our body (Rom.8:23). This is the whole point of the Christian doctrine of the bodily resurrection. Here’s N.T. Wright to explain the classic Christian hope:

So, while the Greek and Roman gods, or the ‘god of the gaps’ may be dead, that would only be because they never existed in the first place. This argument has no bearing on the God of Christianity, and I’m hopeful we’re all finally waking up to this reality.

* Emphasis added.
Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 38 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics, Heaven on earth, Theology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to The death of God, true worlds, and Christian hope

  1. tildeb says:

    It’s amazing to me that you continue to use quote mining as a major source when anyone who has actually read the source material know just how wrong are these ‘takes’ are on what the author is actually saying!

    A common error made by younger students when reading a source is to confuse what an author believes with what a character says. Just because a character says something does not mean this is what the author believes. This Nietzsche quote is typical and widely misused for just this purpose: to misrepresent what Nietzsche actually thinks. Why does the character claim ‘we’ have killed God? That’s the important part to understand if one wishes to understand what Nietzsche is trying to explain. He spends this entire book – several,, in fact – arguing against this religious belief that we have access to some objective meaning that will then bring meaning to our lives… especially when supposedly delivered through supernatural belief!

    But the same misrepresentation by quote mining comes with the same fundamental problem, that pulling quotes out of seminal works – a tactic to give the appearance of some Big Brained person backing up a preexisting belief imported by the current author – demonstrates what the current author who uses this tactic refuses to grasp: the use of the quote demonstrates the current author’s lack of understanding of the seminal work because he or she gets the author’s central point exactly backwards!

    And this obvious… unless the person using this tactic has some confidence that his or her audience is, well, ignorant (for lack of a better term) and won’t catch the gross misrepresentation being so liberally applied in pursuit of painting a false picture to serve the needs of the belief that is being sold.

    In the case of Frankl – a big fan of Nietzsche, by the way – his central thesis is about how all of us can and must make meaning in our response to what we encounter in life if we wish to empower hope and, as a byproduct, end up living a deeply meaningful life moment by moment. In this context he speaks about nihilism for people like you, like people who presume some greater meaning awaits us to discover (in your case through religious belief and living piously)! He explains that seeking meaning from life is an approach that at best addresses only symptoms of hopelessness (and only temporarily) as demonstrated by his accounting of his time spent surviving in the concentration camps watching so many succumb to hopelessness and then die so quickly. His entire point is that assuming some central meaning of life exists independent of people but that can be ‘found’ (or, in the case of concentration camps, taken away) is a surefire way to become hopeless when life present us with a hopeless situation. Frankl’s work combats this approach you are advocating by introducing logotherapy: how to answer the question life presents us about what meaning we bring to living it.

    You do yourself, and become a very poor advocate for your religious chauvinism, a huge disservice by continuing to use tactics that misrepresent and distort. Quote mining is one of the most obvious and deceitful but quote mining people and then suggesting they are the ones saying what you think they’re saying when they’re not is really quite dishonest.

    • tildeb says:

      In other words, both Nietzsche and Frankl’s are all about making meaning. That’s why they are important works that teach wisdom.

    • John Branyan says:

      So, we can’t trust Mel but we can trust Tildeb. Thanks for thinking about us, Dear Leader. Do you have a Patreon account where I can make a donation?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks for your condescending remarks, Tildeb. So, I’m an ignorant child, an advocate of “religious chauvinism” (whatever that is). Got it. But I am puzzled by your comments. What do you think I meant by bringing up these things that Nietzsche said? And exactly how have I misrepresented him here? You said:

      Why does the character claim ‘we’ have killed God? That’s the important part to understand if one wishes to understand what Nietzsche is trying to explain. He spends this entire book – several,, in fact – arguing against this religious belief that we have access to some objective meaning that will then bring meaning to our lives… especially when supposedly delivered through supernatural belief!

      Exactly! You seem to be saying (in a different way) what I was saying that Nietzsche meant. And, btw, a large part of that text was pulled directly from a philosophical site that I mentioned.

      I think maybe you should also understand what I meant by what I said before you go and fire off your condescending comments.

      • tildeb says:

        No, you’re not an ignorant child, Mel. I’m saying younger students unschooled and/or undisciplined in critical thinking often make the same mistake you do: they assume an author’s character has dialogue or thoughts or feelings that are a reflection of what the author says, thinks, or feels. Although sometimes there can be truth to this, it’s an element of narratives to be aware that this may not be the case. That lack of skepticism and absence of any open inquiry you demonstrate is very common. But it’s a fundamental reading comprehension error that younger students need to correct in order to improve their reading comprehension of difficult texts. Nietzsche’s body of work is difficult text… as IB22 demonstrates in her poor critical assessment of what Nietzsche means in her comment.

        I’m also saying those who can be fooled into thinking your quotes back up your religious beliefs are doing so because they do not know any better. They are unaware or unschooled or ill-informed of the source material itself and this is why you think you can get away with this. But you can’t get away with this deceptive tactic when your audience is aware and schooled or informed of the source material. IB22, for example, is unschooled although not ignorant of Nietzsche story because she puts the emphasis on the wrong element (the ‘kill’ rather than the ‘we’) and yet assumes her follow-up question (which reveals a problem in her understanding of what the passage means and in her mind becomes an example of why she believes it is the author who is speaking gibberish when it’s an obvious signpost that it is this particular reader who has not interpreted it well) is scholarly when in fact it’s ill-informed and the error has gone unnoticed. Well, it’s not the author’s fault IB22 doesn’t comprehend well: it demonstrates both the thinking error she makes and her refusal to make necessary corrections. Nietzsche does not speak gibberish. And his works demonstrate the depth of inquiry he has undertaken to understand human psychology and belief. She believes what she believes and, like you, has ossified her thinking into assuming her beliefs are correct and therefore permanently fixed as such. That’s how remaining ill-informed works to effect.

        And the chauvinism in this context means patriotic to one’s own kind, so I mean you are patriotic to your religious beliefs (as well as those who support you in maintaining these beliefs) and will not question them in an honest and open and skeptical way. That’s how you so badly misread and misunderstand the very quotes you have selected. Your beliefs are solidified and made rigid through your own approach and you will demand that these quotes mean what you think they mean when they are diametrically opposed to what the author says they mean! You take these quotes and present them to say what they do not mean and will not be corrected on your erroneous assumption. That’s the intentional misrepresentation I’m talking about and the chauvinism in action.

        You can take exception to my tone but that does not have any impact or merit on my criticism of your tactics and approach. You can fool some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool those of us who have read these sources directly and have comprehended what they actually mean so that the authors’ works can be cohesively understood in their entirety to reflect a coherent philosophy. That’s so far above your pay grade you seem oblivious to just how silly your tactics are.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’m also saying those who can be fooled into thinking your quotes back up your religious beliefs are doing so because they do not know any better.

          So, you think I’m using Nietzsche to back up my religious beliefs? LOL! Not quite. I know full well what Nietzsche meant by the death of God. He felt he refuted the religious or metaphysical worldviews on psychological grounds. He looked into the mind of the believer and thought he understood why they held such beliefs. Faith in “true worlds” espoused fulfilled deep-seated psychological needs. He felt that such theories were invented by individuals in need of solaces to protect them from the harsh realities of this life. While this may be superficially true, it’s not true in any significant theological sense. Also, as I said in the post, he thought these “ascetic ideals” of religious thought were absurd fantasies, so I certainly wasn’t using him to back up any religious claims. Quite the opposite! But, to his credit, he was not dogmatic and was open to being wrong.

          You can take exception to my tone but that does not have any impact or merit on my criticism of your tactics and approach.

          I don’t take exception to your disagreement but I do take exception to your arrogant and dogmatic tone. You consistently treat people who disagree with you like they are ignorant children (even though you may not use those exact words). And you haven’t demonstrated to me that you even understand what my approach was here. Certainly, not by your comments! So, your criticism of my “tactics” rings rather hollow. It’s pretty much what you always say.

          And, yes, of course, this is “above my paygrade.” It’s probably above yours, too. But I DO understand the Christian worldview at a much deeper level, and I can compare what I hear being said about it, which was why I brought Nietzsche up in the first place. But, as far as Nietzsche and philosophy is concerned, that’s why I reference and quote people who do understand these things at a deep level. And I also have a brain, so I can opine why I disagree with the general arguments. Of course, you are free to express your opinion and disagree with me, too.

        • tildeb says:

          Your final sentence sounds like you’re confusing Nietzsche with Marx!

          You’re trying to inappropriately use Nietzsche to associate non belief with nihilism. This is exactly backwards because this is not what Nietzsche was saying. He was saying THE OPPOSITE: belief in God because it’s empty of meaning except by what we ourselves import to for reasons of weakness and insecurity has no meaning we can extract from it. Therefore, those who live and waste their lives believing the meaning for it comes through believing in some God have nothing once they realize God is not real (ie we have killed God)! This is true nihilism. It is living a lie using the rationale that living a lie to be weak and pathetic is the only way for it to have meaning. Nietzsche disagrees: we create out own meaning and become strong because we can choose to speak will to power, meaning that which is true. (“The concept of guilt and punishment {imposed by Christianity}, the entire ‘moral world order’, was invented in opposition to science.”)

          You then switch to Frankl to tell us why the nihilism you attribute to non belief is not hopeful, as if this demonstrates why Nietzsche killing of God is its cause.

          It is deeply dishonest because it gets both authors here wrong: both are arguing that how we respond to life’s situations is what can produce meaning. You seem oblivious to these central messages from the authors you quote because understanding their theses has nothing to do with cherry picking and then misrepresenting them to appear to back up your religious beliefs.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You’re trying to inappropriately use Nietzsche to associate non belief with nihilism.

          We certainly can associate existential meaninglessness with nihilism, using Nietzsche’s own definitions.
          One of Nietzsche’s most famous passages,

          “What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The aim is lacking; “why?” finds no answer.

          Nietzsche outlined his view of nihilism in his book, Will To Power.

          “Nihilism, the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability.”

          What I was using Nietzsche for in this post was only to show that he believed that mankind invented the True World View as a psychological way to find meaning and purpose in suffering and death in this life. The “death of God,” then, is when we lose faith in a True World view which begins the slide toward nihilism.

          This is exactly backwards because this is not what Nietzsche was saying. He was saying THE OPPOSITE: belief in God because it’s empty of meaning except by what we ourselves import to for reasons of weakness and insecurity has no meaning we can extract from it.

          Of course. I don’t disagree that he said those things. But I disagree with him that belief in God is without meaning or that it was simply an invention of man to find purpose in suffering. Belief in God would only be without meaning if God does not exist. But if He does exist then Nietzsche would be wrong. And even he knew that it was very possible he could be wrong because our knowledge is limited. And, as I said in the post, the Christian worldview is not just an existential escape or to give meaning to why we should endure pain and suffering in this world. That is a superficial understanding of it.

        • Nan says:

          Belief in God would only be without meaning if God does not exist.

          BINGO! 😄

        • “…which reveals a problem in her understanding of what the passage means and in her mind becomes an example of why she believes it is the author who is speaking gibberish…”

          What rubbish is this, Tildeb? I happen to adore Nietzsche. I think he was the most brilliant man and he never spoke anything close to gibberish.

  2. Well said, Mel. I tend to do everything backwards so my faith really was born at the feet of Nietzsche. I laugh when people accuse you of “quote mining.” I grew up within atheism, I didn’t have access to the bible, I had Nietzsche and Bertrand Russel. So Nietzsche’s madman saying “God is dead! God remains dead” And we have killed him! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers…” had a profound impact on me. That is the very essence of our faith, the philosophical question we must all ask ourselves. We killed God, why would we do that? Something wrong with us, wouldn’t you say? So why would an all powerful God even let us do that to Him, voluntarily lay down His very life for us? And so unlike Nietzsche, I began to understand grace, at least on an intellectual and philosophical level.

    Laughing, but here I am some four decades later, still calling myself a madwoman. And alas, the people on the street still won’t listen to me…

    • Mel Wild says:

      I tend to do everything backwards so my faith really was born at the feet of Nietzsche.

      Actually, I’ve heard about philosophy majors who were brought up on the New Atheism of Dawkins and his ilk, discovering Nietzsche in their studies, which was a bridge to them finding God! LOL! At least Nietzsche was brilliant and consistent and he raised the right questions, unlike the horrendous philosophical tripe we get from the modern dogma of the anti-theists. He was kind of like the Solomon of atheism, “all is meaningless!” Except he came to the opposite conclusions.

      Laughing, but here I am some four decades later, still calling myself a madwoman. And alas, the people on the street still won’t listen to me…

      That’s good! 🙂 I see you shouting from the streets, “God is alive! Yeah, we killed Him but He didn’t stay dead! Wake up, people!” 🙂

  3. ndifrisco says:

    “The Christian hope is not ultimately about leaving earth and going to heaven; it’s about heaven coming to earth.”

    I think this is vitally important. Too many non-Christians (and plenty of Christians) put too much emphasis on “after”, and it turns what should be about life into a religion of death. Sinners die, Jesus died, we die… and then later it’s better. But Jesus came back. Sinners were redeemed. We’re given NEW life.

    • Mel Wild says:

      The problem is that a lot of our Western view of Christianity has Greek and Gnostic influence, where the physical realm is bad and the spiritual realm is good. This is why so many (mostly evangelicals) want to leave earth (rapture, heaven). This actually comes from Greek Platonic thought, not the Bible. Plato believed at death the soul was finally liberated from “the prison house” of the body and returned to the perfect spiritual world (Forms). But both Hebrew and Christian thought does not separate heaven and earth. We are citizens of Heaven now while we live on the earth (Phil.3:20). Of course, this is only a foretaste of greater things and we only see in part now, but as I said in the post, God’s plan has always been to redeem both humankind and all creation.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Mel Wild, thank you ever so for you post.Much thanks again.

  5. Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

    Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Messiah,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:23-24)

    Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1) and (vv. 7-21 not quoted)

    In other words, don’t believe everything you read. Gain your OWN knowledge of the origins and progression of Christianity/Christology that evolved over 400+ years!

    Thanks. Everyone have a good week and weekend.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Yes, and especially beware of people who don’t believe in the Bible (or the spiritual world) when they quote the Bible to you.

      • With that vague and strange logic one could conclude that NO ONE should quote God, even with the best intentions! Hahahaha.

        You missed the point, or you are deliberately side-stepping it. 😖

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! Right. There’s nothing vague about your intentions. I didn’t miss the actual point.

          When you say things like….

          “Gain your OWN knowledge of the origins and progression of Christianity/Christology that evolved over 400+ years!”

          You are citing Scripture as a pretext to cast doubts on Scripture. Furthermore, you do your “drive by” comments, not to engage in the subject, but to promote your own anti-Biblical agenda. Yeah, we’re on to you here. Have a good week.

        • There’s nothing vague about your intentions.

          Of course there’s nothing vague about MY intentions. You’re stating the obvious. I am open about being a Freethinking Humanist and NOT a Christian. I happily state that for many, many compelling reasons. And I am certainly not alone! But you are trying to avoid and divert the content and meaning of what “God” states.

          I didn’t miss the actual point.

          I beg to differ and uequivocally say you DID miss the actual point, and here it is: you are attacking the messenger instead of the content. And what’s more disappointing, it is the content of YOUR God/Christ! Why aren’t you addressing the content instead of the quoter, the messenger. Did I misquote? No. For whatever weird reason you are not addressing the content and accurate verbatim passages of your God. Yes, you did and you still are missing the point.

          The rest of your reply is irrelevant and your personal opinion of me, also irrelevant; you are simply crying wolf.

          You have a good week as well Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha. Good-bye.

        • Wow. This… just because I quoted Scripture. That’s very Christ-like. 😞

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, because you clearly quoted those verses you don’t believe in as a pretext. The devil quoted Scripture to Jesus, too. Anyone with any discernment at all recognizes what you’re doing. Sorry, your sanctimonious indignation doesn’t work here.

        • Again, what you are failing to recognize Mel and not explaining or dodging is HOW do ordinary people (non-Xians included), or ordinary Christians, determine who can quote Scripture and who can’t and what exactly is that standard, that litmus test? This is a logical concern because YOU are implying I cannot quote Scripture that is widely available to the world and anyone who wants to read them. Not to mention you are erroneously dismissing my background, experience, and years in seminary… that included years of hermenuetics. I bet you are going to try and dismiss that too. 🤭

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, that’s not my point at all. Anybody can quote Scripture. What you don’t seem to get is the irony of you using Scripture you don’t believe in as your authority to cast doubt on it. Of course, I’m just being “obtuse.”

        • You state first…

          Anybody can quote Scripture.

          Then in the very next sentence write…

          …you using Scripture you don’t believe in as your authority to cast doubt on it.

          Mel, you seem to have forgotten the “power” of your own God. Do you not remember that your God used a donkey to speak (Numbers 22:28)? Not only are you doubting your God’s ability to speak in ANY fashion He chooses, including those YOUR blinded mind and ears won’t accept, but you are undermining your God’s omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, as well as the supposed potency of Scriptures truth. Do you seriously not understand that????

        • Nan says:

          Mel, what you don’t seem to understand is simply because a person doesn’t believe in and follow the words of the bible doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to discuss its contents. In fact, it’s a common practice in learning situations to quote from, discuss, and debate controversial books.

          As for “casting doubt,” why shouldn’t a non-believer do so? If you or any believer has full confidence in its words, then you should be able to fully defend and affirm its contents. And by doing so, you may actually win someone over to “your side.” You never know what your god has in mind.

          I know you think the Professor and others are doing nothing but causing dissent. But if you’re strong in your faith, why not simply shake the dust off your feet and move on?

        • Thank you Nan. Perhaps reading it from many different people Mel can grasp that “God’s General Revelations” and “God’s Special Revelations” are actually available to anyone who genuinely wants to hear what is being said… or in this case read what is being said.

          But if you’re strong in your faith, why not simply shake the dust off your feet and move on?

          Exactly. Where’s the unshakeable “faith” in the power of your Almighty to do things the way HE wants to do them, not what sinful, imperfect, depraved humans want. Great points Nan. ❤

        • John Branyan says:

          BRAVOOOOOOOO!!!
          Goading Mel to ignore comments on his own blog!
          BRAVO and BRAVO!!!

        • Nan, forgot to mention that Mel and any other critical Christians can critique Secular or non-Christian texts, tenets, belief-systems — it’s open season for anything non-Christian 😉 — but when it comes to their own content, Scriptures, doctrines, history, etc, etc, et al… the game rules and playing field and goal posts move. 😄

        • John Branyan says:

          BRAVO, Good Sir! BRAVO!!
          Again (and again)…YOU quoted scripture to support your argument. Now you’re accusing Christians of hypocrisy! You are a master of subterfuge and incoherence.
          BRAAAAVVVVOOOOOO!!! ❤ 😉 😄

        • John Branyan says:

          Nan, what you don’t seem to understand is that Taboo was quoting scripture to support his argument. The same scripture that he dismisses as an irrelevant book of fairy tales.

          Imagine if Mel quoted from The God Delusion in order to support a moral or ethical position. Are you catching on yet? (If you understand, please just ignore me and do not respond.)

        • Mel Wild says:

          You actually get it, JB. Nan totally missed the point like Taboo. It’s beyond me that these guys keep talking about who should be able to quote Scripture or argue against it like that’s the point. And that’s only half of the absurdity going on here. Imagine if I were making my case in a court room and said, “Your honor, I have an expert witness testimony here that you and the jury should listen to so that no one gets duped by the defendent. But I think this expert witness is a fraud. What do you think the judge would do?

        • Nan says:

          LOL!!! No, Mel (and JB) … YOU missed the point. But that’s not unusual, so I’ll just leave it at that.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Right. Talk about obtuse…

        • John Branyan says:

          Have faith that you missed the point, Mel. Nannykins isn’t going to TELL you how you missed it. I’ve read enough of the Nan-ster’s comments summarize her logic for you:

          1. She used to be a devout, fundamentalist.
          2. Donald Trump sucks.
          3. LOL!!
          4. Science.
          5. Therefore, you missed the point.

          Simple as that.

        • Mel Wild says:

          That logic is irrefutable. 😜

        • John Branyan says:

          BRAVO!!!
          An atheist condemning people for not behaving like Christ!
          BRAAAAAVOOOOOO!!

        • tildeb says:

          You tried, PT. I’ll give you that. Makes me laugh out loud reading Mel’s response while shaking my head in amazement at just how obtuse some people really can be.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Obtuse? Were you looking in the mirror?
          Nice try. You poor innocent lambs….

        • John Branyan says:

          Can you at least admit you see the irony in an atheist using scripture to make his point?!! Have you no sense of humor at all?

        • tildeb says:

          Can you not see that not believing in some god is irrelevant to understanding scripture?

        • John Branyan says:

          LOL!
          I guess that’s a “Yes” to the question of losing your sense of humor…

        • @ tildeb,

          The common typical apologist rebuttal to that is an unproveable esoteric, elitist, exclusive, discriminatory posture of an intangible “filled by the Holy Spirit” super-power reading glasses of the 4th-century CE Hellenistic Apotheotic Canonical New Testament. It’s an perpetual “ace in the hole” card they’ll pullout when they can no longer rationally explain WHY God’s Word is suddenly NOT available to all 7.6 billion people on Earth. LOL 😄 It’s a circus show alright. 😉

        • I completely agree tildeb. Are my red horns and forked tail showing or something? Did I growl or speak in a demonic tongue? I am SO scary aren’t I? LOL 😄

    • John Branyan says:

      BRAVO!
      BRAAAAAAVVVO!!
      Please keep reciting scripture to make a case for your anti-Christian worldview!
      BRAVO!

  6. Pingback: Two paths to finding meaning and purpose | In My Father's House

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.