How to talk about religion without driving someone away

This is partly inspired by a thread where someone was trying to make the case for some theological truths, but using a method that almost no one else on the thread accepted as a valid argument. Also by my wife who does not come from a church background, and to whom I often have to translate "Godspeak" into something that makes sense to her.

She is clearly on board with faith, but until we met had only very bad encounters with organized religion, and recoils at some of the things I say, mostly over the language I use. For example last night we were talking about how appealing the message of faith can be to people, and I said something along the lines of, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about how we can come together in spite of our differences..." and did not get any further when I saw the look on her face. That particular phrase made her wince, and as she said, made her think of the guys who stand on the street corner and yell at people.

She is not much different from many of our friends who see religion as something perpetuated by narrow minded people who cannot think their way out of a paper bag.

Given that almost every single denomination is now losing members (even the Southern Baptists, apparently), the Church needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Clearly the Church is not doing a good job of communicating to a large segment of the population. The naysayers would say that the message itself is the problem. I think it is the packaging.

How can the Church and Christians better convey the Gospel?

You're right, the language we use is a real make-or-break situation for many. I wasn't brought up in church but I've been a Christian 20 years now so I think if I'm honest I've adopted a lot of God-speak. I find I have 2 different ways of speaking, with Christians and with non-Christians/those I'm not sure about.

A couple of weeks ago I got chatting to someone new at church who I'd initially assumed was a Christian and I really noticed how my use of language changed once I realised he wasn't and that he didn't understand what I'd just said. I think when we first started speaking I must have been pretty impenetrable to him.

My old youth group used to have a slot called "ineffably sublime" for phrases we didn't understand. The name came from a hymn we occasionally sung at church which no-one understood. I think it's ok if you're already working with a group who are interested, who want to understand, like our youth group was, but reaching out to those who aren't already linked to church it's so important to watch your language.

I think actions speak louder than words, and that the Gospel is most powerfully conveyed by living it.

That said words do matter, and tone, so humility may be key, when a lot of religious argument seems to convey pride and arrogance. I think another thing that might work is moving from language that is not resonating. I recently have been reading a little about process theology and while it can seem very academic, I think it may offer a more accessible way to talk about God. Many people today have a picture of God as a supernatural being sitting outside the world selectively intervening in the world, and simply don't believe it. Process theology imagines God more as the soul in the body of the world, the energy present in each atom and molecule, creating the occasions and opportunities for choices and changes.

I had an Inter-Varsity staff worker who referred to "greasy Christian words." By that he meant words we use all the time, but do not always know what they mean. Like grace.

I am doubly handicapped here, in that I have been in the church since youth and I read Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics for devotional reading.

I hear you, Arctic. There are real differences between the secular and the religious. But there are also differences in vocabulary that alienate and confuse for no particular reason.

For example, I think it's clear the word "sin" is a trigger. There's value to the term, of course, but, when talking to people whose only exposure to the word has been "the guys who stand on the street corner and yell at people" you're better off talking about harm, hurt, hatred, responsibility and guilt. Those aren't easy words either, but they haven't been ghettoized.

In the case of "grace," you're better off with "love." "Grace" is shop talk. "Love" is not.

>3 quartzite: that sounds like pantheism. Is there a difference?

It is true that we as Christians have our own language, what I call churchese, and words such as grace and sin have become part of that language, even though I am not sure that sin has always been looked at as a church word. Repentance, baptism, and Holy Spirit are also words that can get strange looks, along with many others. All of that being said, I think that if we change the message we are no longer proclaiming the gospel. Changing the packaging is very important and I believe should be done, as long as we don't change the contents of the package.

A decade or so ago when I was doing a lot of spiritual direction and counselling, I often found myself dealing with people who could perhaps best be described as "post-Christians". Brought up as Christians, they had imbibed a lot of the Christian story but had ultimately rejected it. Yet they were still seeking something (otherwise they wouldn't have been talking to the likes of me). A good spiritual director helps a client to interpret their spiritual journey using language which is meaningful to the client. If church-speak turns them off, so be it.

I think the apophatic tradition is helpful here. If we recognise that no words, symbols, images, descriptions, language or grammar that we use (including the very word "God") can adequately describe the God who is greater than our imagination, then we are not betraying anything by ditching the words and images which are definitely unhelpful to a particular person, and assisting her to find the words and images which are meaningful to her. She may well eventually come back to a place where some of the Christian narrative becomes meaningful again, probably at a deeper level than before; or she may not. Either way trying to force it is counter-productive.

I believe the message has always been and will continue to be the problem. Preaching about Jesus Christ is seen as foolish, and Christians (especially those who actually believe the Bible!) are considered nut jobs.

I believed that myself, once. Was I wrong!

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18

The word of God, especially when spoken with compassion, is powerful, and will reach people for Christ.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16

I am not ashamed to speak of my Lord.

>1 Arctic-Stranger: where someone was trying to make the case for some theological truths, but using a method that almost no one else on the thread accepted as a valid argument

It's worth noting, if you're thinking of the extended "What you might not know about religion" discussion, that there was one instance where a personal story of conversion was offered, and received immediate and sincere responses from many people thanking the poster for his openness and honesty.

I don't even think it's really about the language of religion or the language in the Bible--the Bible is a book, and it's not like this community doesn't love to discuss books.

What no one likes, though, is being told what to think. I sometimes think its about approaching people with trust (which might be a synonym for "humility" in this context, I'm not sure). You have to trust that those you are reaching out to have made their own decisions about their own lives with the best of intentions and "in good faith."

A lot of evangelical language does not come across as "trusting" so much as demanding, restrictive, and even judgmental. It makes people defensive almost before the conversation gets started.

^6 Pantheism is the foundation and then from there it moves into to thinking about how that works, hence process.

A lot of evangelical language does not come across as "trusting" so much as demanding, restrictive, and even judgmental. It makes people defensive almost before the conversation gets started.

I suppose I don't object to "demanding." A lot of social and ethical causes are equally demanding. People still become vegans, after all. (Give up meat, dairy, eggs and even honey? I'd rather be a devotee of Cybele.) For my part I think there's no way of getting around demanding, but a Christian must make it clear that its demands will always be a upward climb and that the hill starts where you are now. But, well, to love your neighbor as yourself, or to treat everyone as valuable--pretty demanding stuff, and not something the Christian can run away from. We are called to be saints, not a little nicer. We may fail to be either. We are lucky God is merciful.

For the rest, yes--restrictive, judgmental. To that I'd add narrow, anti-intellectual, facile and whatever the adjectival form of "being a know-it-all" is.

>12 timspalding:: "whatever the adjectival form of "being a know-it-all" is."

For what you're trying to get at, I usually go for something like "ignorantly arrogant" or "arrogantly ignorant".

ETA: I realize in hindsight that this comment represents a complete and utter FAIL in regards to the OP.

For what it is worth, I think there is a difference between the demands that come with a commitment, and demanding that someone accept what you say. It was the latter I was thinking of.

#12: a Christian must make it clear that its demands will always be a upward climb and that the hill starts where you are now. But, well, to love your neighbor as yourself, or to treat everyone as valuable--pretty demanding stuff, and not something the Christian can run away from. We are called to be saints, not a little nicer. We may fail to be either. We are lucky God is merciful.

I'm just repeating that, because it is beautifully written, and so very, very apt. ( I've also led other hikers (literally, on mountains) and you can't always lead or bring another hiker to summit. They must do it for themselves, and I've often been amazed at folks who stop just shy of peak - because of weather, or fatigue, or both - and no matter how enthusiastic or encouraging or supporting I try to be - it is their decision. I think the same is true of faith. )

Good point @enevada.

Thanks E.

When I was younger, direct evangelical outreach seemed more appealing, more necessary, and I rather dismissed what I took as "Live your life as a good Christian and hope people notice." While I have more respect for the latter, I'm still skeptical of hands-off approaches. As some of you know, I help the RCIA director here with some of her classes, and when we some drifts away (or worse) her reaction is often that it's in the hands of the Holy Spirit, while my reaction is "We screwed up; now let's figure out how!" But it's both critical and extremely difficult to avoid missteps in evangelization.

For what it is worth, I think there is a difference between the demands that come with a commitment, and demanding that someone accept what you say. It was the latter I was thinking of.

No, I agree. My only caveat would be that most "normal" people don't really argue things at all--they don't reason through things, they don't make explicit decisions or change their mind based on the quality of arguments, etc. Unreason and stupid reasons are why most people believe most things. While I dislike preachers who just tell you to believe what they believe, I'm not sure it's worse than other common modes of convincing today, like whether something is sexy, or whether a reality star believes it. Bad evangelism isn't to be compared with rational argument between intellectuals, but with other, equally debased modes of persuasion.

I think actions speak louder than words, and that the Gospel is most powerfully conveyed by living it.

Kind of no point in continuing the discussion after that one, no?

>18 Jesse_wiedinmyer: No, Jesse. I think there is a need for more discussion on this issue. First, a little background: I am a presbyterian elder, at various times a ruling elder and clerk of session. I have taught Christian history, theology and Presbyterian tradition and beliefs for over 50 years. I am now quite tired. I suffer from an incurable disease which has been debilitating and left me unable to enjoy the company of my church family. My wife has been institutionalized for over 5 years suffering from dementia of the Alzheimer's type. My children are a blessing to me but can visit only sporadically. I recite this tale of woe not to elicit sympathy, but to point out that neither my wife nor I can "live out" the Gospel any longer. What is left is what God praised Job for doing and that is to yell at God. People that I come in contact with confuse this with rejecting God. I prefer to think that I am stating the last vestige of my humanity and rejecting the justice of God.
I would be particularly interested in the response this may engender from Tim. Arctic, John, SBL, and you . Jesse. In the meantime, I will continue to do my best as the wandering troubador of LT.

> 1

Ye Olde Tyme Religion is the new Age of the Dinosaurs, in that:

1. It has lasted for a LONG time.

2. But everything, good are bad, eventually comes to an end and is replaced by something else, either better or worse.

3. The big, bulky lumbering dinosaurs will be the first to go.

4. The smaller, more nimble and agile dinosaurs will be the last to go, but go they will.

5. The Age of the Mammal is upon us.

(This is all metaphor, A-S. Get it?)

>19 WMGOATGRUFF: Thanks, Bill, for sharing. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your wife. I think you probably are still living out the Gospel, even if you are too modest to see it, but in a different way from your younger days when you did so in a more public and explicit way.

It reminds me a little of an elderly nun I know who spent a lifetime working for justice and peace in various parts of the world but for whom age and infirmity have now begun to clip her wings, so she has embarked on a new ministry of prayer rather than direct action. Our relationship with God and our response to God changes. Your relationship with God remains, as you say. If that relationship with God is one of shouting at God, fine.

PS: I have to apologise, but we ate goat for Christmas lunch yesterday. A very nice, tasty, tender, young Masai goat...

For what it is worth, here are my guidelines for talking about any subject without driving someone away:

--Talk to me, not at me.
--Assume the best, not the worst.
--Don't imagine that because you know more, the person you are talking to has nothing to teach you
--Explaining why a thing is important to you is more useful than saying why it should be important to them.

Some things I try for, but often fail at:

--Judge not.
--Remember you may be wrong.
--Remember they may be right.

And a final one that is not so hard to remember:

--Remember we are all human.

>21 John5918: Thanks for that. It is a comfort. Hmmm! Goat for Christmas. Chacun a son goat ...er gout.

It seems appropriate that a friend of mine from grad school (her PhD was in medieval philosophy) wrote the following for this Christmas:

Reflections on the Book of Job for Christmas:

The Book of Job appears more appropriate to Advent than to Christmas. And yet, it is my place of comfort in long term trials, and so, I carry it into this Christmas season. When it feels like hope is deferred yet again, making the heart sick, and places of former comfort like song remind me of a voice that has been taken away, the book of Job and God’s presence in the Eucharist have become places of solace that cannot be taken away.

This Christmas season I now realize that the very fact of the Eucharist, the very fact of Incarnation, means that I have one hope that has not been deferred. That is a major, and precious, difference between me and Job. Job longed to have a go-between. He longed to see God face-to-face. He thought he would have to wait until he died but was suddenly surprised by Wisdom speaking face-to-face with him in a whirlwind. The hope that sustains me is something different. It is not merely some past historical event that affects me through natural chains of cause and effect. Nor is it merely in some far off hope of an afterlife, resurrection, and second return. Without doubt, I have hope in things past and things to come, but meanwhile, I have a hope present, which has not been deferred. No one can take it from me. It is in Wisdom’s presence here and now, in the Eucharist and in the Church, in the Body of Christ.

Love has come and Love will come, but Love is also here. Christmas may make me feel disheartening global issues more acutely as I am brought face to face with an entire family for whom death and sickness appear more real than new life. I may worry about the world––its lack of literacy, the destruction of marriage by divorce, my students who cannot speak to someone without long preambles about how someone is related to them, the decline in literacy, the underemployment of an entire generation, the affect of this underemployment upon that generation’s ability to get married and have children in the proper order, the fact that my own instability makes it hard for me to do anything about my own family’s decline, much less the world’s decline. Did I mention the literacy rate among a people who are supposed to be a people of the Word? Did I mention the way this state of affairs makes it hard for the church at large to even celebrate Christmas without resorting to nostalgia much less express its true meaning to the rest of the world? If I hear another vapid explanation of the true meaning...

And yet, and yet, Christ is present here with us. Not just in our hearts. Not just in our memory. Not just in our words. Not just in history and its chain of cause and effect. Not just in our hope for the future.Not even just in spirit. This is the blessed difference between Job and those who suffer at Christmas time. We have a go-between. We have the token of his bodily presence here and now, and we have a better since of our hope that is to come. Love is incarnate. Love is here. Peace has come. And when I receive his Body, even as I am his body, the world is as it should be.

Postscript:
Just to clarify for the larger audience, "eucharist" means simply thanksgiving in Greek, and fun fact, John Wyclif believed in real presence, even when he challenged transubstantiation as a philosophical interpretation of how it occurred. Of the major Reformers, only Zwingli believed the Lord's Supper was purely symbolic. Luther believed both Christ's body and the bread was present, and Calvin believed in spiritual presence. What struck me phenomenologically a few years ago was the way old people, Baptists from birth, began to crave the Lord's supper. Its significance has only become apparent to me experientially in the past few years. There are times when this is the only thing that satisfies.

> 24

The book of Job is one of the sickest and most morally putrid books in the bible.

Yet your genius medievalist friend thinks it oh so wonderful.

Well - as I've pointed out before it takes all kinds to make up a world.

>25 JGL53:: Lesley-Anne is one of the kindest and gentlest souls I know. Your harsh judgment of her says far more about you than it does of her.

> 26

If your medieval friend can find high value moral teachings in the book of Job then there is something seriously wrong with her.

That would be a fact. Because.....

In Job we have an innocent human being trying his best to do his best but shit on by god/satan and used as a pawn in a game or contest between the two giant A-holes - apparently.

I am not sure whether treating a human being as a pawn is equal to or worse than enslaving a human being, i.e., treating him like he was a domestic animal.

The treating of Job's first wife and children is worst than treating them as pawns. It is treating them as garbage that can just be thrown away without a second thought.

In Job god makes the point that morality comes strictly from a source of authoritarian power, i.e., god does what he wants when he wants and defines morality as he wishes, on a whim if seems sometimes, because he is GOD - omnipotent. E.g., if he were to deem rape of a child morally correct or even required then that is that.

I call bullshit.

The book of job presents god as a asshole. Just read it. I invite everyone to read it and then come back to this thread and tell us your reaction.

So, nat - are you willing to admit your god is an asshole? If not, then why not? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and has feathers like a duck, then............

The bible in many places demeans rather than lifts up humanity with inducements to live the moral life.

If your friend is too braindead to understand the simple facts of a moral vs. immoral attitude toward human life, then I feel sorry for her. She needs to leave the medieval behind and come into the light.

(I would like to think if a monotheistic god actually exists then he or she or it is not a flaming asshole.)

>27 JGL53:: You could at least try reading the whole of the post that I shared about Job, as it explains quite clearly how the Christian perspective tries to redeem the problems posed in the ancient book.

I am indeed quite aware of the way in which God appears as basically a bully and abusive boyfriend in Job, as those are two of the several analogies I use when I teach the book to college freshmen, in an attempt to get them to see the inherent problems posed by the "might makes right" approach. (Surprised that I'm willing to 'fess up to that?)

You seem to think that religious believers are too doltish to notice these problems. How it is that you remain so stupidly ignorant of the fact that we regularly wrestle with their deep and problematic complexities is something to be wondered at.

(I would like to think that if a monotheistic god exists, then any human attempt to understand him or her would necessarily have to grapple with the difficult and evident problem of evil, rather than trying to sweep it under the rug, as you seem to think we should.)

> 28

Not knowing nat one would suppose the post above is some sort of parody of the real world but nat isn't kidding. If I cared this is where I would cry.

Reread the book, nat - you missed the whole point and are merely projecting your own weird analysis, turning the whole lesson plan on its head.

The obvious point of Job is to teach the following syllogism as divine truth:

1. God is ALL powerful

2. God is THE source of all of morality. The 10 commandments plus the teachings of jesus don't just set the tone for morality, they ARE morality.

3. Thus, moral thinking and rules are all based in God's ABSOLUTE power. He just SAYS what is or is not moral behavior or belief in all contexts and THAT IS THAT.

The moral conjecturing of humans is not needed nor wanted by god. A human does not question Omnipotence.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

THIS is the message of the book of Job. (That and the fact that you as a mere human do not even have the right to whine and complain about unfairness and such. Your god's message is basically "Quit whining, STFU and bend over and take it like a man, Rush Limbaugh-style.)

So - rape and murder ordered by god cannot be immoral by definition since god is OMNIPOTENT and thus his commandments to humans are by definition arbitrary in the sense they are limited to WHAT GOD DESIRES. Who is OMNIPOTENT. It is not any more complicated than that. A child of three can literally understand this.

THIS is what you believe, nat. THIS is what you preach and teach. THIS is what your medieval buddy apparently believes.

If you don't, then you are living in a dream world of your own creation. I would think that would also piss off your god. (You know he's kind of ornery.)

>28 nathanielcampbell: It's also worth remembering that Job is only one book out of dozens which make up the Christian scripture. Each of those books has its own perspective. They are written by human authors who are indeed grappling with this God that they are in relationship with. The vast majority of Christians (unlike, apparently, quite a few atheists) are not bible literalists so we take the scriptures as a whole and "wrestle with their deep and problematic complexities", as Nathaniel puts it so well. We do this in the light of Christian tradition.

> 30

If your point is that the bible is just a book written by humans then point well taken.

One reads the bible just as one would read any other book and takes what good one can find in it and ignores or speaks out against) whatever evil teachings one discerns in it.

So, good point, jtf. You come through for us occasionally and this is one of those times.

If we would only consider this: Not religion, but Christianity, it begins with Jesus Christ, who many years ago, came to show us the way. In other words, He came to show us the way of doing things right. Seeing as, the human race was lost in sin, doing things only according to His or hers imaginations, which were all wrong; seeing all that, God, sent His Son: Jesus Christ to help the human race out of such darkness, Christ, Himself being the light!

Now, the point is this, Jesus never promises an easy life for anyone. What He had promised is eternal life; He came to save that which was lost. He was not like most of these preachers nowadays; such as those who are just swindling people out of their little blessing. And, slyly, they are doing it by twisting and watering down the word of God, making it ineffective. Hence as people realized that they were being ticked, they are falling away from the churches and back into deeper darkness; which are so very sad!

Method of encouraging people to the Lord is base on Christ’s own method. Let’s look at His way how He does evangelism. Although, He is high in rank, He would stoop low with lowly people, when He is evangelizing them. Not by taking of what little wealth they had, with a promise of any thing from 30 up to a hundred-fold. Instead, He would feed them, heal them, and encourage them out of their bad situations with the word!

Christ’s method was superb, He was the word then and still is, and He knows that it’s the word that does the work. And so, He taught them nothing, but the true word of God.
He taught them to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and then, all things would be added unto them. That’s completely different from saying you come and sow into my pocket and you’ll be blessed later.

Actually, since Jesus went on the cross, no one any longer needed someone else to intercede for him or her. Since then, Jesus is sitting at the right hand God, and He is doing the interceding for everyone. It is written, “There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” In that case, you can speak to the Lord for yourself, in whichever way you can. It maybe just by making signs, it maybe just by being mindful of the Lord. God can read into our hearts souls and minds; our motives for being mindful of Him won’t be missed. Spreading the word, one has to be meek or Christ like!

> 32

But why do you desire "eternal life" so much?

Would that not be the basis of your problem?

>32 cl1914p: A great example of the problem posed by the OP.

>29 JGL53:: Your explanation of the themes of Job is fairly accurate, except that it misses the final step: it poses such a picture of "might makes right" morality as a problem to be wrestled with (if you discount the fairy-tale frame of the opening and closing chapters, and deal instead with the philosophical heart of the piece in between). Job questions such a model, and does so rightly (notice that God chastises his friends for falsely thinking that Job deserved his suffering).

The book does not offer a satisfactory answer to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" -- and that failure to answer the question is the whole point.

Your conviction that Job defends a "might makes right" morality is a complete misreading of the text. Job challenges such a moral system precisely because of its injustice. Job's is a challenge that disputes the morality of divinely-ordered barbarity, rather than confirming it.

When I teach Job in my college classes, I pair it (a month later, after doing Plato) with the Hellenistic Jewish work "Wisdom of Solomon", which adapts concepts from Greek philosophy (particularly the notion of an immortal soul) in order to try to address the inherent problems of theodicy raised (and left unanswered) by Job. The Christian tradition later continued in the direction by adding the Incarnation as the final piece of the puzzle -- for in the God-made-human, the epistemological and ontological divide posed by God's answer to Job out of the whirlwind is bridged.

But why am I even wasting my time trying to explain this? You show no interest in the way that Jews and Christians have actually wrestled with the problems posed by Job over the last two millennia and more. Rather, you seem quite content to construct a straw-man out of Job that insists that its "might makes right" argument is the end of the line of questioning, rather than the beginning of a deeper grappling with the difficult problems of good and evil.

ETA: Given that I read through the entirety of Job at least once a year, together with a host of academic and scholarly material pertaining to it; and that my most recent journey through its troubling conundra was in October, I find it laughable that you seem to think that I've never read it. If I were disposed to follow your model of making malicious assumptions about other people, I would think that you are the one whose knowledge of Job is derived, not from a careful and repeated grappling with its complexities, but from a handbook of tactics for obnoxious atheists.

>29 JGL53:: Let me put it more succinctly: your claims for how I "must" read Job are so wildly off-base that I can only look at them and shake my head with pity, that you are so benighted to think them accurate.

When you claim that a person "must" think X, even when they carefully explain multiple times that they don't think X, you've quickly fallen into a straw man. That you can't recognize that just shows how ridiculously warped your sense of reality really is...

> 35

"...Your conviction that Job defends a "might makes right" morality is a complete misreading of the text. Job challenges such a moral system precisely because of its injustice..."

LOL. And where does Job's "challenge" get him?

Job is a whiner. He hates being treated like an object by an Omnipotent power. Well, eff him. Job is not to question his divine ass-abuse but rather he is to STFU and take it like a man. That is the message of the book of Job. IOW, quit trying to kid us, nat.

"...the inherent problems of theodicy raised (and left unanswered) by Job."

IOW, reading Job will be a waste of time. Admittedly by you. And yet you waste immense amounts of time yadda-yadda-ing to your students on the subject. Well, thanks for the admission, teach. I guess I'll skip your course.

The last (ETA) paragraph in your post -

This is a perfect combination of a paean to your wonderful self - by yourself - and your theological academic achievements and another ad hominem directed toward an inferior, both morally and intellectually - because you so allege and assert, based on the aforementioned assertion of your scholarly authority on things biblical.

The phrase "piece of work" was invented for geniuses like you.

I bow to your superior ego.

> 36

Just dismissing opposing argument as a straw man - insisting on your right to interpret reality as you see fit and we should just accept that YOUR interpretation is a good as any other - your insistence on a free pass with no critical analysis by others.....

At least Job had something to whine about. He actually was being treated unfairly (in the fairy tale entitled "Job" in a book of fairy tales entitled "the Bible".

#33, Yes JGL53, eternal life is indeed my problem, just in case I may preach others in and then I, myself be missed out! Yet the truth is, it ought to be every human's problem. Since this, I know for sure, every living human has the fear of God upon.... Needless some people try to denied it. I know that they are very much afraid of God may do unto them, and so they should! One other thing that I would like to say is this, it's not a light thing for anyone to disrespect GOD!

#34, IreneF, Please could you explain "OP" thanks!

May you all be blessed!

>39 cl1914p: "OP" stands for "original post" -- meaning the first post in the topic. Which in this case was Arctic talking about how the language of religion can drive people away or actually hinder the ability to communicate with people who don't think as you do.

I'd like to suggest we all have strict limits on the number of times we can use the declarative mood, along with a severe rationing of exclamation points. That might help.

#40, Thanks very much for the explanation of "OP"

> 39

"...eternal life is indeed my problem, just in case I may preach others in and then I, myself be missed out! Yet the truth is, it ought to be every human's problem. Since this, I know for sure..."

You know for sure? Saying that puts you in a bad light. In theory a god knows things for sure. You know nothing for sure. Accept that and you'll reduce the chances of digestion and elimination problems. GI health is very important.

"...every living human has the fear of God upon. Needless some people try to denied it. I know that they are very much afraid of God may do unto them, and so they should!..."

I think respect is supposed to meant by fear here, but I'm picking up that many millions, such as yourself, don't get that.

In any case if the universe is a monarchy then, yes, we should all be fearful - all of the time. What a way to live. I think I'll pass for now. Will get back to you if I reconsider.

'... One other thing that I would like to say is this, it's not a light thing for anyone to disrespect GOD!..."

I would surely believe it would be a bad idea to disrespect an actually existing god. Sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?

Disrespecting the god idea that lives in your head, my friend, is not so much a problem. I think it might be necessary to the good life.