I am posting a comment here I made on another blog.

     The blog is "Comfort Food; Ray Comfort's blog". I am copy-posting my comment here because I expect him to delete it. Anyone interested in the context should check the thread A Blogger's Confession.

"Ray Comfort:

     " No, I haven't been using a name at all. I have been using a noun. It is the same noun used to describe mythical beings in other religions. You have apparently deleted my posts because I will not embrace your lie. If you serve a father of lies, leave the posts deleted. All will understand. If you do not, restore the posts.

"Henwli:

     "You are quite correct. I refuse to capitalize a common noun and thus embrace a lie. But I was willing to compromise. Ray knows I was not using anyone's name, nor a substitute for anyone's name. I explained this in another post; but he deleted it in a dishonest manner."

     The fact is that when the word "god" is used as a noun, it is not a name at all. It is a noun that has been used to describe many fictional beings. (At any rate, I have no reason to believe they are not fictional.) No one ever complains about the use of lower-case unless it is a reference to his god. Seriously, does anyone see a problem with the claim that Mars was a Roman god?

Interesting webpage

     I found an interesting webpage called Being Logical about God. I don't find it very logical, of course; but it is interesting. The writer seems to be trying to show why there must be a god. In my opinion, he fails.
     It is clear to my reading that his intended audience is fellow christians. One of the things he claims is that "if there is no God, then there is no such thing as evil." Non-believers, like myself, will not agree with this. We apply human standards and still have a concept of good and evil. These are very much human perceptions.
     The rest of the claims on the page appear to follow from the assumptions that the writer makes. Unfortunately, he cannot convince anyone who does not already agree with those assumptions. In short, he can only convince other christians.
     The example may be a bit extreme; but it does highlight a problem when christians and non-christians try to debate whether the religion is true. Each side makes its own assumptions and people end up talking past one another.

Know Your Christian.

     It's time for a round of "Know Your Christian" -- a game where I give a word and some possible definitions and you try to determine which definition best fits the way the word is used by christians. Today's word is "humble."

HUMBLE:

A> thinking little of oneself

B> being able to dance

C> afraid of the dark

D> actively seeking praise and recognition from fellow christians while paying lip service to definition A

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

The correct answer is D. This answer was determined by visiting christian sites, in which the christians claim to be humble. It is quite common to watch them give one another praise. Strange that they do this if they think the others only care about the praise of their god. Thanks for playing everyone!

Do christians believe what they say?

     This is actually a serious question. I wonder if christians already see themselves as condemned but think their torment will be lessened if they help bring more victims. It would explain why they seem so desperate to make new believers and why many of them will ignore anyone they see as a "lost cause."
     The main christian claim is even problematic if taken at face value. If you look at it closely, you find that it is saying that if you turn yourself over to Jesus you will be transformed into a "new creature" that has eternal life. I don't want a "new creature" to take over my body. And what happens to the old me?
     I don't see how the claims of christianity can withstand the light of day. Yet christians claim eveeryone else is "in darkness."