The story of Easter

 Posted by on March 25, 2016  Add comments
Mar 252016
 

In the beginning there was one God, who was three gods. God was his own son and his own father, and the two of them had a relative called the Holy Ghost, who was also God, but who didn’t say much. He was the bass player.

The three of them created pets they called people and they spent millennia torturing them, smiting them, drowning them and making them fight wars with each other, but then God’s conscience began to prick him so he said to himself (in the form of his son) You’ll have to go and get murdered by this crowd. I’m going to sacrifice my only son to save them.

How does that work? God the Son replied reasonably enough. I’m you. You’re me. We’re both that guy over there with the bum-fiddle. And anyway, how can I be your son? I have no mother, we have no bodies. And how can it be a sacrifice? You’re all-powerful. We’re all-powerful. We can’t lose. And even if I do get killed, how exactly does it save that crowd of lunatics?

The Holy Ghost said nothing but stood in the shadows running through his minor scales on a nice upright bass.

Just do it, said God the Father.

Or what? said God the Son.

Or else, replied God the Father with a menacing nod. Or else. Get down there, possess a human and get him killed. Get yourself a mother and get back up here, pronto.

Oh Jesus, all right, said God the Son. Anything for a quiet life.

Dum dum dum, said God the Holy Ghost.

And so they impregnated an Arab child and when the baby was born God the Son possessed it and it grew into a man who went around causing enough trouble to get himself killed by the Romans.

Good Friday

When God the Son was sure nobody was looking, he reactivated the shell of the human he had possessed for the previous 33 years and transported it back to outer space.

______________________
Previous Good Friday posts

Battlestar Catholactica

Christian Science and the Zombie Jesus

Saint Bock’s Gospel

Jesus Forgets the Safe Word

Holy iPhone Apps

_______________________

 

Well? said God the Father. How did you get on?

They murdered him, said God the Son. Horribly. How did that save mankind? I don’t like what we did to that poor guy.

Shut up, said God the Father.

Dum-dum de-dum dum dum, murmured God the Holy Ghost.

And that is the Story of Easter.

  40 Responses to “The story of Easter”

Comments (40)
  1.  

    His knack of turning water into wine would be a godsend today of all days.

  2.  

    Mr. Bock, Sir,
    As an orthodox Roman Catholic I am apprehensive of participating in this kind of conversation as I remember someone saying that it only fuels such dreadful blasphemies, and I can see the point.
    However, to avail of the opportunity there is one question that I would like to ask you.

    Why do you have such a bitter feud going with the God in whom you do not believe? Reading some of your other terrible writings against God, I cannot see this as the random work of a joker who just likes to cause offence to religious people but rather somebody who is actually challenging The Almighty in whom you do very much believe.

    It is a fair question, Mr.Bock.

  3.  

    I don’t think you can tell people what they believe Ebenezer.. but wasn’t the primordial christian challenge ‘why have you forsaken me?’ Was that a dreadful blasphemy in your opinion?

  4.  

    Dear Mr Ms Miss?? Ebenezer Joan,
    What is the difference between God and ‘The Almighty’, apart from the latter inspiring visions of a UFC fighter in spandex.
    Fair question.

  5.  

    Bock,

    I am glad you haven’t gone away.

    If one “demythologizes” the story of Jesus of Nazareth, taking away the supernatural elements, one is left with an historical figure whose existence is referred to by such writers as Josephus and who died because he threatened the religious establishment. “You don’t need any of this stuff,” he told people, and the people whose wealth, political power and social standing depended on all that stuff did not like what they heard and killed him. Religious leaders have killed countless people since that First Century Palestinian.

  6.  

    Artemis,

    I am not telling anyone what they believe. It is abundantly apparent to me,after reading many other writings on this site along with the composition above,, that Mr.Bock believes in the existence of God as earnestly as any Christian, Jew or Islamic or even the devil himself for that matter.

    My question is that as he professes to be an atheist, why is he so bitterly antagonistic to the God whom he holds to be non-existent?

    Proving or rejecting God on the basis of scientific evidence,for or against is not valid because
    if you could do that, you would be God —- and you are not!

    .

  7.  

    The renegade Jew also invented football.

    And on below link you can hear Jesus laying down the greatest backbeat – note the shuffle – in the history of Rock N’ Roll on Rosanna, which was originally released as Hosanna by the Hebrew quartet The People’s Front of Judea – or was that the Judean People’s Front? – until the Romans banned it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ-gfb6nUus

    Incensed Roman historian Tacitus wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt … on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.”

    The Nazarene lives.

  8.  

    I’d say Bock’s writings are more antagonistic to the belief in a god, than of god himself. Correct me if I’m wrong there Mr. Bock, sir.. much obliged.

    I don’t think the almighty would be antagonised either.. he wouldn’t be all that almighty if he was..:)

    It’s an age old question anyway – RE “created pets they called people and they spent millennia torturing them, smiting them, drowning them and making them fight wars with each other,” i.e. if there is a god why is there so much suffering?

  9.  

    Artemis,

    The age old question of the Problem of Evil that you posit has been banded about since the beginning of time. Of course, it always and invariably comes down to the notion of free will. Since we all have a say so in the horrors that are visited upon us, through our own individual decisions, gawd is absolved of any complicity and the blame falls squarely on the tormented’s own ill-conceived choices. But how can a baby be held responsible for the “evil” that befalls him? Well, the concept of karma has that one covered. All the bad shite comes from the karmic debt you carry with you from previous lives. Hopefully this makes it all as clear as mud and answers your age old question.

  10.  

    Happy you are back, Bock!

    Being an atheist & feminist I was thinking that poor old Mariam (or Mary) might nowadays join the hashtag #regrettingmotherhood (it’s all the rage right now).

    After all she was impregnated by an unknown entity, married off to a widower because of that, burdened with a troublesome son who some simpletons declared as son of god and who was eventually executed by the Romans.

    And did it anything good to her? She was supposed to be immaculate, meaning, not having sex or any sort of fun – Irish mammy anyone?
    As I said #regrettingmotherhood.

    I’m not going into theological discussions here. I’m just saying: Did anyone ever think of Mary?

  11.  

    Bock you are that Fool spoken about in Scripture!

  12.  

    Emmanuel,

    Your argument is entirely circular.

    You claim authority on the basis of a source that you claim as authoritative, but those who reject that source will simply sweep away any suggestion that it has authority. Unless you can prove that your source is objectively verifiable it remains an opinion, among many opinions.

  13.  

    What about the ‘Immaculate Conception,’ Bock and the mother of God on earth, the holy virgin Mary? What happened to her and God’s sperm less father, the carpenter Joseph, when the Jesus God took that spaceship to go back to the other God and the Holy Ghost up in heaven?

  14.  

    Can we please light some candles for the burnt witches and the millions of others who were murdered by the ‘Holy’ Catholic Church over the centuries. For the thousands of Natives who were murdered and tortured in the Catholic boarding schools in the US and Canada, (and the Protestant ones) after the job of massacring them was completed.

    After all, they were only savages with no soul and no religion. And the children that they tortured, and raped in their concentration camps or Gulags.And the women that they incarcerated as slaves in their laundries. After all, they were fallen women. So much blood, rivers of it. Amen.

  15.  

    Christianity guilty as charged. Great article by Andre Vltchek, writer and artist:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/21/christianity-guilty-as-charged/

  16.  

    The Immaculate Conception doctrine is widely misunderstood. It has nothing to do with the conception of Jesus.

  17.  

    Bock, I was just as they say, trying to take the ‘piss,’ out of the ‘immaculate conception,’ thingy. It’s all insane anyway as your great article has pointed out.

  18.  

    Of course. I’m just trying to point out that the idea of the immaculate conception is even more insane than people think.

  19.  

    I hereby declare that I am God, now please prove me to be wrong or to be right depending upon your perspective, oh and I did say “prove”, not assume…

  20.  

    Bock so good to have you back.

  21.  

    youngest son remarked to his sister last Friday “ Good Friday ?? Not if your name is Jesus “

    very funny Bock – look how interested people are – still are – in BTR .

  22.  

    Rev.Ian,Sir, (I presume Rev.)

    Emmanuel’s very judgemental comment is not entirely “circular”. Now, it is true that people here, apart from myself and possibly yourself, do not regard Scripture as the inspired written word of God so therefore it cannot be presented to THEM as an authority. However, the address was made to Mr.Bock and Mr.Bock’s blasphemy has intruded onto Scriptural ground so therefore Emanuel is within reason to reply from the same Scripture. Mr. Bock can take it or leave it.

    This is the dilemma that the evangelist in in I suppose, the appeal is ultimately to Faith.

    To Emmanuel I say, “If they will not listen to the prophets (i.e. The Gospel), then neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”. (Luke 16).

  23.  

    Mr.Bock, Sir,

    I patiently await your reply to my question in comment no.6.

    In my travels around your very interesting site, I notice that you have quite a profound knowledge of the Bible so do you recognise the inscription following:

    MANE, MANE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

    For those who don’t recognise it this is the famous writing on the wall which appeared at the height of a blasphemous party to announce to the leader of the blasphemy orgy that God had finally done with him.

    Mr.Bock I do not want to sound judgemental but it is hard to avoid it and at the same time be perfectly frank.
    God warns us in His Sacred Word that: “My Spirit will not always strive with man”. If you persist in throwing the gauntlet down to God and hurling one abuse after another in His face, He will finally give up with you and remove His merciful hand for so long protecting you, and this is hell — the final irrevocable loss of God. The rest is free fall.

    I do not know how much longer God will spare you but I can tell you as a certainty that unless you stop first, one of these blasphemies that you publish to the possible ruin of souls will be your last.

    Unless you turn away from your pernicious course and if indeed it is God who moves me to write this to you then you place yourself in very great danger and I have done my duty in warning you so.

    Do not worry about what others have to say. Others will laugh you into hell but they will not cry you out.

    “Perhaps it is for a time such as this that I have been sent”.

  24.  

    Ebenezer Joan,

    I know many who would not regard your tradition as Christian and would apply the words you use to yourself. I know some who would use the term “blasphemous fable” of the Mass. I know some who would ask that you would be separate and come out from among those with whom you worship.

    Each of us has our own sources of authority and to try to argue our case on the basis of an authority not recognized by others is futile.

  25.  

    Rev. Ian, Sir,

    I have known many of that disposition myself.

    Otherwise, like the Baptist off old, I am just a voice crying in the wilderness.

    Jehanne.

  26.  

    If you have known many of that disposition, you will know that one person’s truth is another person’s heresy and that, unless one is living in the Sixteenth Century, one cannot insist that one’s chosen version of the truth is binding upon every other person.

    And the Baptist denounced corruption and cronyism in high places, not people who didn’t conform to his ideas.

  27.  

    “unless one is living in the Sixteenth Century,”
    Sir, Mr Ian, for Ebeneezer has said onto thee, I said IN FULL: “I myself have a medieval religious approach but I do not think that I am living in the Middle Ages

    He knows what century he’s living in, but he likes all the medieval shenanigans.

    There’s places for people like you Ebeneezer – http://www.medievaltimes.com/about-the-show/index.html :)
    hang onto your helmet, your knight awaits you.

  28.  

    Rev.Ian, Sir,

    You seem to be implying that truth is a subjective entity and not objective. What you are saying seems to remind me somewhat of Pontius Pilate’s question:”What is truth?” Pilate was one of these people who had a very philosophical notion of truth in that he thought that it could be interpreted all sorts of different ways to mean various things to various people hence one person’s truth is another person’s heresy. I might point out here that this kind of thing has infested the Church throughout its history and has been its ultimate scandal.

    As I said before,it is the evangelist’s dilemma: He/she is declaring themselves to be right solely by recourse to The Sacred written Word of God, (and in my personal case also the authority of Our Holy Mother the Church), and for this we run risk of being isolated as bigots and fanatics who cannot demonstrate tangible evidence.
    Here,I have to recognise that the last line of appeal is essentially to Faith.
    The Christian’s office is to bear light but only God can give sight.

    I am not into evangelism in any dedicated sense as I prefer to be more careful of the more fundamental elements of prayer and example although I often fear that my “example” might be very off-putting.
    Our Protestant counterparts are far better there with direct evangelism.
    However, when I see appalling examples of public blasphemy such as what we witness here,
    I do have to raise my voice against it as I do feel the need to stand up and be counted as a resistance against an encroaching and very evil sub-culture. Throwing muck at bishops, priests, pastors or the Pope is one thing, (some of them might even deserve it), but lay off God. Hurling muck at God is a no-go activity it is ABSOLUTELY OUT OF BOUNDS.

    Now, this brings the old question: Is God dangerous?
    Yes, God can be very dangerous to those who demonstrate a love for sin and who insist upon offering deliberate offence. Our Blessed Lord, told us that all sin and blasphemy are forgiven men except for the sin against the Spirit of God and this sin is interpreted as the sin of the deliberate and final rejection of God’ salvation.
    However, God is also very merciful, not just more merciful than you imagine, but more merciful than you can imagine.

    I will not retract anything I said to Mr.Bock because if he keeps going as he is, then he is going to go to that place where there is no God and once there he will have plenty of “time” to think it over and he will only have himself to blame for his plight. He can take it or leave it.
    May God enlighten him. I pray for him and also his recently deceased aunt.

    Jehanne.

  29.  

    This is the best laugh I’ve had in over a month – thanks.

  30.  

    Ebenezer Joan,

    Your statement is your opinion, as is any religious statement. If religious truth were objective, one could point to verifiable facts, no such facts exist, nor does the New Testament envisage faith as anything other than subjective, a matter of individual decision. The letter to the Hebrews says,”faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

    The scandal through the centuries has been that the church has had the arrogance to presume it could impose its subjective views on entire populations.

  31.  

    Rev.Ian, Sir,

    I agree that my religious faith is entirely a subjective matter and I cannot demonstrate any tangible evidence to convince others. I am one of those of whom Our Lord spoke following Thomas’s unbelief: “… blessed are those who have not seen but have believed”.
    It is our place to bear light but we must recognise that it is only God who can give sight.
    True it is that without Faith it is impossible to please Him and that salvation comes essentially upon God’s terms and nobody else’s.

    His ways are not ours.

    No amount of objective evidence will convince those who will not be convinced. The Bible, as an objective testimonial record of all? Of course not. Outsiders to Christianity reject it out of hand, many people of higher education using their qualifications to discredit the Sacred Record. Even within the Christian context how many different and diverse denominations have sprung up? Every heretic I could name is running around the place with a Bible under his arm and indeed,even the devil himself can quote Scripture.

    I could as a Catholic start pointing to other evidences of what I consider to be objective but I know it would be pointless. Besides, St.John of the Cross,(1542 – 1591), a Spanish mystic,voiced a very practical warning once about looking to sources other than Faith when he cautions that the more that these things appeal to the external and corporeal senses the less likely that they are to be of God.

    My original reason for coming here at all was simply to warn Mr.Bock that by issuing public blasphemy as directly against God as he is able he is placing himself in very great danger. Now, as he has trespassed onto Scriptural ground that is my outward justification for challenging him.. On another of his past Good Friday blasphemies he complains that the religious bigots are not turning up to protest so I trust that with me arriving here on the scene he will not be disappointed this year!

    Now please note, I STRESS, I hate sounding judgemental and I really have no stomach for hellfire and damnation but he must stop or he will come into the judgement of eternal loss. When I don’t know; he may live this life to be a hundred so he can take it or leave it. I have no scientific proof of anything and even if I had, would it be accepted? Of course not.

    So for me, though He toss me into the gutter destitute and bring me to the very rim of disillusionment and despair, yet will I be loyal.

    Jehanne.

  32.  

    Ebenezer Joan, faith is just that: faith. That is believing in something because you don’t know any better. Or just blind trust (I trust my dentist, hence I have faith in her – but she is no goddess).
    If your faith gives you solace, comfort or a meaning of (your) life, that’s fine.

    But please stop sermonising or even threatening people with the wrath of a god they don’t believe in anyway. It get’s tired.

    How can an imagined god or one of the many in this world destroy the life of human beings? That is a task humans do themselves, they don’t need any god for their favourite pastime. Only as an excuse.
    Or, as Sartre said: Hell is other people.

    Your scripture or bible is just an edited account of storytellers with the mindset of a time long ago. They could as well have used Grimm’s Fairy Tales to explain the known world and bring some mores into it.

    People make up stories to explain things they can’t otherwise explain, in the case of religion because they are too lazy to think for themselves. And of course they want a following of lazy-brains who believe everything they are told. Just to confirm their own delusion.

    Experience taught me and most people, I guess, that “destiny” or “god’s will” is of your own making. There is no god involved. There simply is no god unless you choose to believe in one.
    I understand that believing in some superpower makes life of some people easier and absolves them from responsibility. I pity them.

    I know it’s pointless to argue with someone with your conviction. But maybe you are fed up with your religion and are looking for enlightenment. Why else would you passionately read the Bock-Blog and post and post and post?

    There are people here reaching out for you, showing you the light of true understanding. You only have to follow to avoid the darkness of stifled awareness and to embrace the light of thinking for yourself, instead of descending into the cold darkness of following just orders of some made-up grim entity.

    Go on, have a cup of enlightenment!

    Or maybe you are just a troll.

  33.  

    Dear Artemis,

    I have been looking at your question back at comment number 8 in which you pose that very good age old query: “If there is a god, why is there so much suffering?”The person following you “Irish Lugh” (9) gives a sensible answer that I will not contest but I thought that I might offer a simpler alternative, so take your pick.

    One of the most fundamental understandings of the world in which we live and that you need to grasp, in my opinion, is that the world is essentially EVIL in its basic nature. There is a popular notion that the world is good at heart, but this I believe to be an error and I think that you should accept this. Now, the difference to see here is very important and it is, that in spite of this basic evil nature there is plenty of good IN the world and we are endowed with the ability to to do good in an evil world. The prince of this world is the devil, not God, as some people imagine. I think that Christ made this clear in His discourse at The Last Supper.

    Now, I want to avoid any suggestion of superstition here regarding the devil.
    I do not know if the devil is a personal or an impersonal entity. It is NOT important. But what I do know is that there is a principal of evil abroad in this world that touches the life of every man,woman and child on the planet and it is this power against which we constantly struggle.

    Little children suffer most horribly, good people meet with misfortune, rascals and criminals of the worst order prosper into great old age.
    Suffering, injustice, pestilence, abomination of every description and so on and on are the NATURAL attributes of this world.

    I do hope that I offered you an answer to consider to a very profound question.

    Best wishes, Jehanne.

  34.  

    For what it’s worth, Ebenezer Joan, your comments seem a mixture of Catharism and other medieval heresies for which your church would have excommunicated you, or even burned you at the stake.

    As we live in post-modern times, we have to accept that you are entitled to your views as are others who do not use what they believe to threaten you with judgement and hellfire.

  35.  

    Yes Ebenezer, Gaia can be a cruel mistress.
    I don’t think the world is evil at all … but where there’s life, there’s suffering/death. It goes with the territory I suppose.

    There’s an awful lot of suffering people inflict on others all right.. I suppose it stems from a lack of tolerance for others’, judgement of others, intolerance of others’ views/beliefs – judge not lest ye be judged n all that.

    Whatever someone believes has sweet fuck all to do with their character… I think you need to grasp this Ebenezer. :)

  36.  

    Rev.Ian, Sir,
    I detest the whole conversation of hellfire and damnation seeing that I was in such imminent danger of that situation myself before my conversion and I can feel the sickening sense of its memory whenever I feel the need to draw attention to it. I bitterly protest that I am threatening anyone with it and as I said earlier I have no stomach for it.
    I am only trying to issue a warning that deliberate calculated blasphemy and insult to God and coaxing other souls on the wide road to perdition as we see here is inviting very great danger upon oneself. God does warn us that His Spirit will not always strive with us so how long His patience will hold for I don’t know.

    I am not a member of one of these small elite minded churches such as WBC in America who can talk about this kind of thing with apparent relish and believe that everybody but themselves will go to the fires of damnation.

    God is very very merciful, far more so than you can imagine but He is also righteous.

    My comments seem to indicate that I am an admix of medieval heresy you say? Could you please point out to me my heresy.

    Burnt at the stake? It often occurred to me that had I lived then, could it have happened?
    So long as I keep my integrity before God that is all that matters. My only fear about being burnt or whatever is that my integrity before God would fail.

  37.  

    This is entirely circular. You continue to repeat your opinions and assume them to be binding upon everyone else.

    As for heresy, look up Catharism

  38.  

    I understand that E. J. is a kind of born again Christian – I quote: “before my conversion” – and they are like ex-smokers: they need to be condemning to convince themselves that they did the right thing and to fight the urge to light up (or in this case being enlightened).

    I have a neighbour like that, so I know the discussions if you can call it that. It’s just rehashing the nonsense his converters put into his head. It’s fun though to wind him up, because he can’t reason or put two sentences coherently together.
    By now, however, I feel sorry for him because I coaxed some traumatic incidences in his past out of him. Basically he never learned to think for himself. Didn’t dare because punishment was severe. Hence the need for a punishing god to justify his deep-seated fear.

    I do understand the psychology behind such mindset and usually try to be understanding when I see that a person doesn’t have the mental and/or intellectual capacity to see through such indoctrination. I do understand the need of individuals for simple explanations of a complex world and maybe personal traumatic incidences. And I do understand that the need to be afraid of some supernatural entity is a sign of a deep-seated fear of life. It’s a mental issue, not a religious one.

    But my understanding stops when these people try overzealously to convert the rest of the world and threaten with brimstone and hellfire.That’s when religion or any belief system gets dangerous, as history taught us: Believe in MY god/belief or die.

    On the religious side it’s not the prerogative of Islamists (not to be confused with ordinary Muslims). It has been a battle cry of fundamentalist Christians since they started to conquer the world. And they haven’t gone away. Au contraire.

    Ebenezer, you should look into your soul/heart/mind (or maybe mental issues) and face your fears and not project them on some Big Daddy everyone else should be afraid of also. It’s your Daddy, not that of other people.

    The meaning of life is to live. And you can’t live and honour life when you are scared to death of life.
    Think about it.

  39.  

    Rev. Ian, Sir,

    I think that you are right. All meaningful conversation has come to a stalemate that will not resolve.,

    Anyway, I have said all that I needed to say to Mr. Bock. At least he is honest, I suppose and at least he is not into any false piety but he does need to repent.
    I hope that he will at least consider what I said. I pray for him.

    Thank you for your reference to Catharism. I can see the similarities to myself that no doubt you see. I think that it is possible, that had I lived then,I might well have been mistaken for one of them but I really could not subscribe to their fundamental doctrines. I would still submit to the Magisterium of Our Holy Mother the Church and it is probable that I would have had to go around wearing a penitential tunic with a yellow cross upon it for a prescribed lenght of time.

    There was one good thing about the Inquisition, however: It ALWAYS gave you the chance to recant and I believe that in cases that could be tried by either the State’s secular courts or the Inquisition, people usually opted for the Inquisition to try their case.

    I think also, (need to check), that this was much of the reason why there was no Inquisition in England. Religious courts were seen as too easy-going and beyond state control. I seem to recall that this was part of the feud between Thomas-A-Beckett and Henry II following a case in which a cleric was imprisoned on bread and water for a week —- FOR MURDER!!

    As for sorting out its own dissidents and heretics the English had State devices such as the Star Chamber and Act of Attainder (to save on all the legal fuss).and the like.

    Inquisition!! How dare you!!

    I love your C of I articles “For the Fainthearted”.

    I hope to get to Carry later.

  40.  

    Dear Carry,

    I really was of two minds about coming back here to this conversation for I think that I have said all that was needed to be said.

    However, the one detail that I have noticed in a way that irresistibly draws me and that I think that I should offer correction on, is your notion of Christian conversion. You obviously think that conversion is just some sort of firm resolution like turning over a new leaf but I will rebuff this idea in the strongest of terms because too many people think this and it couldn’t be further from the truth. I will try hard to make this short and try very hard not to preach down to you.

    To repeat, conversion is NOT just a resolution or turning over a new leaf. Further, it is not a psychological change much as some folk may claim to be able to weigh or assess it.

    It is NOT a natural event; it is a supernatural event. Now lest some people be led astray here, supernatural intervention here does NOT imply anything paranormal; no visions, no voices, no lights in the sky etc.

    Conversion is a very deep SUBJECTIVE awareness of the proximity of sin, of righteousness and of judgement and being subjective does not mean that it is any less real than if it were objective. Make no mistake here it is very real.

    Sin is an unpopular subject that we shy away from and go into episodes of denial about, denying it, making excuses for it, even attempting to justify it but this is the most fundamental step in conversion —- calling a spade a spade and finally confronting our own sin head on and understanding that it has COMPLETE power over us. The power of sin is far too strong for us for it is part of our very being and it is the “instinct” that makes us do evil.

    Now, this is very important to grasp: Without the conviction of sin there is no conversion and when a person becomes convinced of their own sin he/she can never be convinced of their own righteousness.

    The concept of righteousness is probably the biggest single difference between Christianity and any other religious or non-religious belief. We can all do righteous deeds and do good as a natural endowment but the righteousness that we need to negate the sin that abides within us is a supernatural endowment that can only be given by God.
    We will all be confronted by Personified Righteousness one day and that encounter will be to our Salvation or our Damnation and this is Judgement.

    I can well imagine the conversations that you have with your neighbour but I get the impression that you are intellectually superior to him and have tertiary education whereas he has not so there will be a marked conversational gap. Perhaps he never did really “think for himself” as you would assess him and his ability to express himself may be limited but that does not exclude him from genuine conversion.
    I myself am not of tertiary education and indeed I left school without even the secondary school junior certificate but I can think for myself. (I’m a peasant — who reads!!).

    Anyway, I just hope that you reconsider your concept of Christian conversion.

    All best wishes, Jehanne.

Leave a Reply