It seems more likely to me that more people would become unaffiliated with religion than would become very liberal Christians.

I see both happening. Some of my post-conservative peers are moving into more liberal churches (there’s been a large influx of post-evangelicals into the Episcopal church lately for instance), while others choose to remain in their evangelical churches and work for change from within. On the other hand, I know many who are leaving institutionalized forms of church and starting or joining their own smaller intentional communities, house churches, or finding other similar ways of connecting with like-minded people outside of the walls of the church. Statistician George Barna estimates that there may actually be between 5-20 million post-church Christians out there currently who nevertheless find other ways to live out their faith apart from institutionalized religion.

This is an insult to Christian writers like Paul, who did try to make their religion ‘logical’.

It shows a lack of understanding of religion, which I find a little insulting.

‘When babies go to heaven, is someone going to have to change their diapers? ‘

This is a good question.

Paul was faced with these sorts of problems when faced with Christian converts who scoffed at the idea of corpses rising, and wanted to know what sort of body people would come back with.

So what body would a resurrected baby have?

Christian theolgians tell us that Paul’s answer to such questions would be like saying that the diaper would be filled with the Holy Spirit.

A senseless answer.

But that is what Christian theologians are reduced to, when trying to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

Clearly Paul was saying that people became spirits, not that their baby (or old person’s) body was filled with the Holy Spirit.

So Paul’s view of the resurrection *did* have some logic to it. It didn’t matter what body a baby had now, because it would have a new body come the resurrection (and wouldn’t even need to eat, let alone have its diapers changed)

It is only later (and modern) Christian writers, who insisted on the Gospels view of resurrection as a corpse rising from the grave, who then had to ride roughshod over problems like what happens to babies and old people, and people with one leg etc…

Really? You think Mike Clawson or Erik would be better people without Christianity?

Would they be better people? Doubtful. Would society be better off if more Christians acted/thought the way they did? Yep, I think so.

It seems more likely to me that more people would become unaffiliated with religion than would become very liberal Christians.

but the more “nones” we have in this country, the better off we all are.

Really? You think Mike Clawson or Erik would be better people without Christianity?