Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:40:06 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Now, in this context, which one of these is potentially more
> > "dangerous"?
> > 
> > a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow.
> > an
> >    atheist), or
> > 
> > b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
> >    which happens to be the "wrong" god?

> Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular 
> belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be an 
> atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks.  Both are 
> heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't 
> exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that mindset.

But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.

An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is abhorrent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message