I've never needed an excuse before:I'dusethatwinkingsmileyherebutitlookslikeastrokevictim:
I believe his exact meaning was something along the line of 'everyone has to follow a religion exactly the same or else they're not following the same religion'. It's not that important, though.Not being privy to the incident I can't really comment other than to say while the statement was IMO incorrect as you don't have to be without sin, you simply need to accept Jesus as your savior to be a Christian, I'm sure someone will argue that point but it's my raising, I don't see pointing out the breaking of the commandments as controversial if the discussion was was about religious.
I think it's funny, myself. Bit like God not having to prove he/she/it is there, and either way that'd mean people didn't have to believe, and you have to have faith to be let into heaven.I can see how the "get out clauses" and the "God does not have to prove himself" would be infuriating to anyone opposing the solidity of faith.
I can imagine how it might have sort of shut down any pesky church-goers who might have raised the issue, back in the day.
'You don't like it? FINE. Burn in hell.'
Bookmarks