Posted by Helen on: 11.12.2008 /
The American Humanist Association is putting ads on buses in Washington D.C. which say
Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.
(h/t Hemant)
In case you don’t recognize it, “be good for goodness’ sake” is a quote from the Christmas song Santa Claus is coming to town.
According to a Fox News article
The humanists’ entry into the marketplace of ideas did not impress AFA president Tim Wildmon.
“It’s a stupid ad,” he said. “How do we define ‘good’ if we don’t believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what’s good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what’s good, it’s going to be a crazy world.”
Tim’s comment seems to be based on the belief that the Bible clearly defines goodness. Which hasn’t been my experience.
I like the ad – it’s promoting goodness and I think ‘for goodness’ sake’ (as well as being a pun) is a good reason to be good. I like it better than the recent bus ad campaign in London “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” I find the assertion about God in the UK ad more irritating than the question in the US ad. And the US ad is seasonal and lighthearted.
Regarding the US ad, I wouldn’t say it has to be an either/or, that either you believe in God or you’re good for goodness’ sake. But then, this is probably a response to the either/or of many Christians that either you believe in God or you can’t be good.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
1I like the ad. Very real and playful- sure to piss off all the non good people
Comment by: Eliza
2I like it, too, for the reasons Helen & Jim mentioned. Much more positive than the UK bus ads. (Full disclosure: I donated to this ad campaign from a link at Hemant’s site. Happy to support it!!)
Comment by: benjamin ady
3Here’s to pissing off the non-good people.
Tom Wildmon of the American family association said of the ad “It’s a stupid ad”.
*Something* is certainly stupid. Check out this video from the launch of the AFA’s boycott of Mcdonald’s this last September over Mcdonald’s membership in the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Here’s a couple quotes. Priceless.
I can so totally see Jesus out there promoting boycotts like this. Can’t you? Cause Jesus was all about the family. totally. The one dad, one mom, right wing republican, anti-gay, anti-nudity, anti-sex education, anti condom, family. Hallelujah.
Comment by: Eliza
4Oh, jeez. I must have read the wrong Bible!
Comment by: no offense
5Okay, funny ad, but admittedly, we have a long, rich, history (across all cultures) of philosophers and thinkers who root goodness in transcendence.
This is a real intellectual problem for an atheist. Kind of the flip side of the problem usually thrown at theists, ‘if God is good, why is the world so bad’ becomes, ‘if the world has no outside reference point, how can either badness or goodness exist?’
Comment by: joe
6Oh dear, is our thinking so shallow that we cannot comprehend how someone could define ‘good’ outside of the bible?
But then, being good ‘for goodness sake’ doesn’t make much sense. I always thought its usage in the song just meant be good, because it is a good thing to do. Maybe it means more than that…
Comment by: Helen
7Benjamin wrote:
That’s the impression I get from some Christians, but it doesn’t fit my picture of Jesus (if he exists).
Eliza wrote:
It’s hard not to come to that conclusion when Christians disagree so much about what Jesus cares about.
I don’t see why you need an outside reference point to define goodness and badness.
Humans, whether they believe in supernatural being(s) or not, tend to define goodness and badness based on how they treat each other. There’s a large measure of agreement between humans on what is good and bad. I’m not saying there’s 100% agreement but there isn’t between people who believe in God either. In fact I don’t see how bringing God into the mix particularly helps, because God has been used to justify all kinds of atrocities towards other human beings.
Comment by: Helen
8Joe wrote:
I thought it was a joke because ‘for goodness’ sake!’ is an expression.
Literally yes I think it means be good because being good is a good thing to do.
But now I think about it, this use of goodness, etymologically, is probably a euphemistic softening of ‘for God’s sake’ by people who didn’t want to take God’s name in vain.
I’m surprised no Christians have brought this up yet :)
Comment by: Jason Horton
9“Good” and “God” are unrelated, Helen, except in a curious coincidence of modern pronunciation.
“Good” comes from the proto-Germanic root “gothaz” and hypothetically from the Indo-European “ghedh-” meaning “to unite, be associated, suitable”.
“God” comes from the proto-Germanic root “guthan” and hypothetically from the Indo-European “ghut-” meaning “that which is invoked”. Curiously the root for “God” also relates originally the the Greek “Gaia” (poured earth) and may have come from funeral rights.
Gaia being female and history being what it is there may be reason to believe that the word “God” was changed to masculine gender post Christianity. An idea I find slightly amusing possibly because of the preponderance of other religions that have a female creator birthing the universe or a female deity responsible for creating and sustaining life. The Judeo-Christian God is represented as male. Men aren’t well known in primitive society for creating life, traditionally the obvious source of reproduction is in women. A female creator\life giver makes sense from observation of human and animal pregnancy and birth.
Anyway I’ve become distracted. The advert is good but I’m reminded of Bill Murray singing in Ghostbusters. Now I can see another layer of meaning. I ain’t afraid of no (holy) ghost.
Comment by: Helen
10Jason thanks for the info on good and God. I thought they were related – I didn’t realize they come from different origins.
I’m still going to suspect ‘for goodness’ sake’ is a polite version of ‘for God’s sake’ unless proven otherwise – but feel free to set me straight if you can find anything about that.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
11You’re right Helen – it is a version of “For God’s sake,” which makes its use by the American Humanist Association very funny! (source: Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms © Cambridge University Press 2003)
Comment by: Eliza
12Another good/God situation: “Good-bye” (shortened form of “God be with ye”).
Is there “good” and “bad” outside of the actions of living things (esp. humans)??? Examples, please!!
Is an earthquake “good” or “bad”?
Is a drought or a flood “good” or “bad”?
Is a genetic mutation “good” or “bad”?
If you think any of these is good or bad: Who decides? Do we base our judgment on the outcomes we care most about, & ignore the rest, the big picture??
Comment by: Bob
13It’s a meaningless phrase but clearly meant to antagonize more than promote goodness. If it were well intended the message would be to “be good regardless of what you believe for the benefit of yourself and others.” Not as catchy but also not sniping at those who believe in God or goodness for God’s sake.
If you believe in God, you may also believe everything good comes from him (“every good and perfect thing comes from you) so there is a standard of goodness external to human definition. If you don’t it’s determined by cultural and societal norms in combination with our own sense of justice. When people justify themselves by saying “I’m a good person” it’s completely relative to these factors and the persons interpretation of what goodness is.
Unfortunately a lot of people think the point of faith is to “be good” so they can go to heaven — which pretty much misses the entire point. People that don’t believe also observe that standard and think they have to equivocate by justifying themselves as “good people” apart from God. Our goodness is as a characteristic or state is largely irrelevant. As an atheist or believer it’s what we do for the benefit of others that has any lasting meaning.
Maybe the author intended to make this point but I don’t think so — unfortunately I think they trivialized by trying to get cute. It could have been a beneficial message for everyone if it was put in a more constructive way.
Comment by: no offense
14That is because you don’t live in an ivory tower.
I have never heard someone propose a rational account of morality that does not posit a transcendent reality.
If you know of any credible thinkers out there doing so I would love to read them.
Comment by: Eliza
15no offense, if you’re up for a whole book, I’d recommend this one: Sense and Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier.
Here is a more readily available essay, also a reasonable argument for morality without transcendent basis, by a different author. And here are the 217 responses in a discussion at Dawkins’ website on the same question.
This problem was posed by Plato around 400 BC as the dilemma of Euthyphro, phrased for monotheists as: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”
Comment by: Jason Horton
16Well I’m going to get all fussy on the etymology of “goodness sake” for which I apologise in advance. “Sake” comes from the proto-Indo European base *sag- meaning “to investigate”. So we act for the sake of something, that could be God or goodness, the meanings are independent. However I am happy to concede that the early use of “sake” to indeed appear in the phrase “for God’s sake” c1300 but then lots of god related phrases abounded from the time. God’s tooth, God’s bodkin, were common. It seems that God’s XXXXX was common for lots of stuff. Maybe God’s name was used in vane a lot.
Comment by: joe
17OK, leaving aside the derivation (which I concede has an ancient origin and the phrase has probably something to do with ‘for God’s sake’ (maybe, maybe not)), I’m still struggling to understand how you can define ‘goodness’ if you can’t define ‘good’ – or maybe you can, please explain.
Also, I’m not sure saying ‘God is good’ is a very good explanation.
Mainly because if you are the creator of the universe, what you say goes. So if you say ‘I am Good’ then you’ve used yourself as the measure of goodness. Which is OK, but how do we know you are actually ‘good’? Maybe you’re just playing with us as pawns like the Classical gods. Maybe in fact you are subject to the usual foibles like any other person and are as capable of making mistakes as we are. Maybe you’ve just told us that you are ‘good’ just to keep us quiet, as an adult might tell a child ‘because I say so’ because they are too young to understand the full consequences of their actions.
But if that is the case, we Deists are left with a bit of a problem. If there is a cynical, vindictive God, there is no meaning in the universe, no way to be sure whether you are pleasing him. If our definition of goodness is only enclosed by our understanding of the diety, it is as useless as being ‘good for goodness sake’.
My starting point in this discussion is that I want there to be meaning in the Universe. If there is no meaning, my existence beyond reproducing is as pointless as an amoeba. The only explanation that makes any sense (to me) is of a begin Deity, someone who represents ‘goodness’ and would be assessed as being ‘good’ if there were an external measure.
Sorry, that came out a bit more wordy than I intended.
Comment by: Jason Horton
18Joe said:
What you or I want the universe to give us is irrelevant as to what we get from it. Why does it need to provide any sort of meaning for us? If there is no external, deity caused meaning to the universe then where does that leave you? It leaves you to create your own meaning in life, to improve your own existence and the existence of your fellow life forms (which indirectly benefits you). In short it allows you to be good by allowing you to assign meaning to your life and the lives of others.
You don’t need an external source for that. I’d go so far as to suggest that it gets in the way sometimes.
We are “good” when we help others, when we build communities, when we display compassion and honest acceptance. We are “good” when we regard others’ thoughts and emotions and treat them as equals and “bad” when we disregard and discriminate against others. Do we really need a deity to point that out to us?
Comment by: joe
19Jason – obviously ethics are a lot more complicated than treating others as equals, though that is a good start. And yes, I think we probably did need a deity to point it out as I don’t think we would have come to that conclusion on our own.
You’re right in the sense that the universe does not to prove an objective meaning – but I’m not saying that it does. I’m saying that I need it to have meaning.
If there is no objective purpose, I might as well do what is best for me and live in the moment. I can’t really see why you would bother with helping others if you truly believed the purpose of your existence was to reproduce.
Comment by: benjdm
20Does the universe have meaning to you? Are you in the universe? Then it has meaning.
If this is insufficient, the addition of a super-being doesn’t help, because this being’s existence would also be meaningless.
There can’t possibly be an objective purpose. Purpose is something that a thinking subject assigns, making it inherently subjective. That doesn’t change even if the thinking subject is a God.
This would mean that ‘the purpose of your existence’ is similarly assigned by a thinking subject – you. Only if you decide that it should be merely ‘to reproduce’ is it so.
Comment by: Helen
21Joe wrote:
I respect what you’re saying. I don’t know if the universe has ‘meaning’ per se. What I do know is, I have some effect on the lives of some other people. To me that gives my life some sort of meaning because my choices have consequences that affect other people. That’s what I know about and that’s what I can work with. I don’t know if there’s ‘ultimate’ meaning beyond that.
Humans seem to largely agree that such things as helping others/being kind rather than hurting them/being mean is good. Humans largely agreeing on a working definition of good is the closest I anticipate getting to a definition of good.
I liked what you said about “God is good” not being a good explanation. In my experience people who aren’t Christians often recognize this more readily than people who are. The phrase ‘be good for goodness’ sake’ taken literally in part strikes me as a plea that people do what’s right because they believe it’s right, not because they are blindly following a Deity who told them to do it. But then, to Christians it’s not an either/or, if following God is the same as doing good. If following someone is guaranteed to be good then even if you’re blindly following you’ll still be doing the right thing.
Comment by: Bob
22Just to clarify, when I said the author, I meant of the ad campaign, not of the original post.
Helen I think Christians can do the right thing because it’s pleasing to God and the right thing to do. One doesn’t preclude the other. Conversely we don’t do bad things specifically because they’re displeasing to God. We do them because we want to do them, right or wrong. Being a Christian isn’t an auto pilot on obedience process. You try to do what God would want you to, but you don’t always succeed and that’s alright.
I’d like to think I don’t blindly follow anything. Being a christian involves as much active analysis as any other belief system. The lens may differ but it’s still a process.
Comment by: Jason Horton
23People are good for a variety of reasons: they want other people to treat them well; they wish to set an example to others; they wish to gain a reputation for trust; they have learnt that negative (bad) behaviour is punished while good behaviour is rewarded; they have notes how bad behaviour is destructive and so avoid it; maybe other reasons. We are complex social animals after all and are capable of coming up with any number of reasons to be good.
If belief in a god is one more reason for you to do good then it doesn’t hurt. I don’t think it could ever be the sole reason for doing good though, just one of many.
It does beg the question though of how a theist defines what is good. Is a deed good because God makes it so or does God define something as good because it is good already? If the former then the rules are arbitrary and subject to change by a fickle will. If the latter then God is not needed to define good merely to point it out, a step we could take independently.
If that is the case, that God points to good and encourages it then is God some sort of cosmic enforcer for morality? Is the threat of divine punishment enough to impose moral order? Well the evidence doesn’t back that up as theists and atheists are no more likely that the other to do good or bad things.
Comment by: Helen
24Bob wrote:
Yes, I understand what you’re saying.
Jason wrote:
Hmmm…it’s more like, God is the ultimate Good Person. Someone who shows you what goodness is, who can teach you how to be good and enable you to be good. If there is a such a person then you may as well avail yourself of the resources he provides to help you be good.
Comment by: no offense
25Thanks for the links Eliza, (obviously I didn’t read Carrier’s book yet, but I read some reviews and the other links), but I probably wasn’t clear enough.
The links you gave me simply assert, ‘we are moral, and God didn’t do it.’ What I was hoping for was, ‘here is why our assertion that certain actions are (im)moral are not figments of our imagination; here is why it is logical to believe in morality in a materialist world.’
(I won’t even get into the faulty definitions of the word ‘god,’ after all, they were fixated upon a kind of pre-pubescent, King James only, fundamentalist Christianity and/or fundamentalist Islam, and refused to engage with a mature understanding of either of these faiths, or God-forbid a non-Western, or even non-religious tradition! Atheists, it seems, have a hard time reading the Bible without doing some of the same, strange hermeneutical gyrations that the fundamentalists do.)
There are plenty of people who claim to be ‘moral’ and a materialist, or who claim that morality has a biological origin, but I know of no one who has put forth a credible argument for an actual binding ethical system that is not merely a reality in the consciences of certain human beings, but is a reality about the universe. This has been a real dilemma for philosophers for decades.
So what I am interested in is not a materialist account of how people might come to believe that morality exists, but rather a rational defense of why morality is not absurd in a materialist reality.
Dawkins, et al are simply out of their league on these topics; scientists talking philosophy are on par with philosophers wielding scalpels, don’t let either one get too close!
Comment by: benjdm
26Why is a morality that is only a reality in the consciences of human beings absurd? I’ve never seen it as a problem…then again, I’ve never seen how morality could be anything else.
Comment by: Sue Anna Grace
27Being good for goodness sake really has never worked well. That babe in the manger didn’t say be good for goodness sake but be good for love’s sake, love to God, neighbor,even enemy. Love can be messy and imperfect in this world but it creates caring relationships, works tirelessly for justice, charity, and healing the wounds and hurts. It brings beauty from ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, comfort to the grieving, food and shelter to the needy, binding up the wounds of the wounded and setting prisoners and slaves free. Love creates life, and holds it togather in joy and sorrow, in sun and storm, and keeps it forever in the hand of its Creator.
Comment by: no offense
28benjdm,
if it is just a reality in my own conscience, then it has no more validity than any other reality in my own conscience.
If my desire to work for the benefit of others has the same origin, and same significance with respect to reality as my desire to feel pleasure, then how do I choose between the two when they come into conflict? (Perhaps I should direct these questions at you specifically, if you are comfortable with that?) Even more pointedly, what happens when my desire for personal pleasure is immensely stronger than my desire to benefit others?
To put it concretely, if I knew I wouldn’t hurt anyone (no one would ever know, and nothing would ever come of it) I still wouldn’t choose to find sexual gratification outside of my spouse, because it is wrong. Not because I don’t want to (although, thank God, most of the time I don’t), not because I feel like it would go against my conscience, but because it goes against the very fundamental truths about the nature of reality.
I believe it is something that is wrong, irrespective of how I feel about it. If it is only wrong because of how I (or others) feel about it, then what happens in the moment when the feelings change?
That would make for interesting wedding vows don’t you think? “I promise to be faithful, as long as I am in the mood.”
;-(
Comment by: Helen
29no offense wrote:
no offense, so I can follow your thinking better here, could you say more about what fundamental truths about the nature of reality you having an affair would go against, and how you know they are fundamental truths?
Comment by: benjdm
30The same way you make all your other choices between conflicting desires?
Then you choose one or the other.
Someone would know – you.
Then you may or may not make different decisions, maybe entailing different consequences.
Nonsense. My wedding vows included forsaking all others, til death do us part, and I’ve never accepted moral realism. You can still make promises, which you then have to either honor or betray.
Comment by: no offense
31That’s rather my point made for me, don’t you think?
I believe human beings were created a certain way. Sexuality is a part of the way we are meant to exist. Sexuality, at the heart of it, is about the total union of two people, with what takes place physically in the sex act mirroring what takes place between those two people at a much deeper level (emotionally, socially, spiritually, intellectually, etc.), if this is true, then for me to engage in sex acts outside of that union is essentially a denial of what sexuality really is.
It is non-sex; like a person who makes money an end in itself, instead of a means to an end, and in so doing looses whatever benefits they might have otherwise gotten from the wealth they have stockpiled. Fundamentally, all evil is parasitic. Good exists, evil is only a corruption of it.
As an aside, if this is true, then we live in a profoundly under-sexed culture.
And so (to benjdm) the question is whether there is a reality behind my own mental states, or not. If not, then my belief that cheating on my wife is wrong is simply another way of saying, ‘I don’t want to cheat on my wife.’ If that ceases to be true, then the only thing preventing me from it is the possible consequences of being caught, weighed against the pleasures of the act.
I don’t ‘know.’ (Although I do believe it to be so.) That isn’t so much the point of what I am saying. What I am saying is this, within a transcendent reality you would have the possibility of a right and a wrong way to act that was rooted in something other than ‘what I happen to feel like doing at any given moment (or even, what a collective group of individuals happen to feel like I should do at any given moment);’ whereas within a materialist reality no one I know of (so far), has posited a logical way of believing that such a possibility exists.
Whether or not we live in a materialist or transcendent reality (and how one would go about telling either way) is a separate question.
Comment by: Helen
32Thanks for your reply, no offense.
When materialists care about good and goodness and encourage those it makes the world a better place. I appreciate that. Do you appreciate it also even if you think it’s absurd from a philosophical point of view for them to care about such things? Are you glad that people who don’t share your belief in God share your beliefs about right and wrong (for example, as best I know many atheists would not try to entice your spouse into an affair because they would not betray your marriage relationship – or their relationship if they’re in one)?
Comment by: no offense
33Of course I am glad when people affirm and obey moral truth! I am fully aware that we are often inconsistent within ourselves:
I am glad that those who deny God’s existence still act as though He exists.
The only time problems arise is when the attempt to provide an individual or corporate morality is undermined by the materialist position. (Which, is unfortunately, often enough the case)
If we have a subjective basis for morality, then we have to admit that infanticide is probably a moral act (seeing as how, historically, most cultures practiced it), the same goes for cultural and ethnocentric bias, and other issues.
Comment by: no offense
34Sorry, that came across as arrogant, whereas I meant it to be playful.
The short answer is, ‘yes.’ I am glad, but, just because our moral systems overlap on some points (on which I am more than willing to partner with those I disagree with on other points), that does not mean that those systems are not in diametrical opposition to each other.
Comment by: benjdm
35Your point seemed to be that this was a problem, somehow, or that this made morality more absurd than it could be otherwise.
Whereas, if ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are fundamental truths about reality, things are still just as absurd. Say we develop some method of determining which is which. We find out ‘torturing little babies is good.’ Can we reject this because babies don’t like pain and we don’t like causing pain? No, because this is a ‘mental state.’ You have reduced morality to an arbitrary set of rules completely divorced from any consideration of the effect on thinking subjects.
OK. We discover such a transcendent reality, and discover [x] is the right way to act. Does our consideration of our mental states – how much this hurts or helps people – enable us to reject or accept [x]? If so, you are right back to my position. If not, then morality is not tied to thinking beings’ health or happiness. Any [x] could be classified as right or wrong regardless of how much harm or help it resulted in.
Comment by: Helen
36Thanks for your response, no offense. For what it’s worth, it didn’t come across as arrogant but I appreciate you clarifying it wasn’t intended that way, just in case.
Is that how you perceive them: as in diametrical opposition to each other? What is opposite about nontheism and theism (apart from the obvious opposite belief about gods/God)?
Comment by: joe
37Helen, I’m not going to attempt to answer for anyone else, but I would probably agree there is a diametric opposition (hate the phrase though) between theism and atheism – because the theist believes he will be held accountable for his actions in this life whereas the atheist believes his only accountability can come during this life.
Comment by: Joyce
38Joe–in what way will Christians be held accountable? Don’t they believe their sins are forgiven—past, and future? That being the case, I think that a natural tendency towards compassion is what prevents a spouse from being unfaithful. Compassionate, sensitive, people are capable of imagining the profound, emotional pain that infidelity would create for their partner, so they guard against it. Christians credit God with their “moral” stance. Atheists do not.
Comment by: no offense
39If the solution to the problem is simply for me to decide what is right, based on which impulse is stronger, then there is no basis upon which to condemn one action or endorse another. If that is true, then there is no morality. ie If my desire to kidnap, rape, and torture small children is stronger than my desire to make people feel good, then there is no basis for condemning the actions I pursue. This is the fundamental problem with any system of morality that doesn’t have an outside reference point. It really isn’t a system of morality at all (or if it is, it is a completely self-enclosed system that only holds for me, and is completely untouched by whatever moral systems every other person is operating under).
You are confusing the issue. I have said that moral reasoning must be rooted in an outside reference point (some transcendent reality, for a Westerner, usually God), this does not mean that morality is unconcerned with the effect of actions upon individuals. Quite the opposite.
Morality must be established by an appeal to a transcendent reality in order to be a moral system; however, the substance of that moral system (at least in part) is precisely the impact of actions upon individuals, including their mental states.
This is hardly arbitrary. It is about what is right. If it turns out that something that we like turns out to be wrong, the expected response would be ‘that’s arbitrary,’ but what else would you expect for a system governing behavior? It must, by definition impinge upon our desires? Shouldn’t a system of morality provide leverage against immoral actions?
Comment by: Helen
40no offense, I don’t understand how the outside reference point helps. Isn’t the outside reference point ‘arbitrary’ too? Who is to say that what the outside reference point calls ‘good’ is good? I don’t see how the outside reference point solves anything. In practice many people go along with the outside reference point being good, but they could as easily go along with each other’s definition of good. I don’t see how the outside reference point makes good good just because it’s outside. Am I missing something?
Comment by: Jason Horton
41Why do you think we need an outside agency to compare our own morals against? We evolved as social animals, relying on one another to protect us and to gather food and hunt. We develop rules to help us to function in a social setting so we don’t work against one another. We act in a supportive manner to others because we have either been supported or hope to be supported, we help because help is part of our evolved set of behaviours.
There is no need to place an outside agency in charge of our moral behaviour because we have developed as a species around these moral actions, refining and improving them with each generation. We’ve created rules to help us to function better as societies because codifying and formalizing these rules makes them easier to understand and impart of others.
We decide what is right within our evolved sensibilities and our learned behaviours, there is nothing mystical about it nor does there need to be.
Comment by: benjdm
42I was going to reply, but Helen nailed it.
Comment by: Joyce
43Re: the recent comments that deny the need for an “outside reference” in order to practice moral behavior…
–the Golden Rule, a form of which is seen in every religion, derives from an internal point of reference. While not a perfect code for moral behavior, it comes close….
Comment by: Doreen
44It’s turning into a “bus war” here in Washington, DC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803404.html?hpid=sec-religion
Comment by: Eliza
45Great. Next thing, there’ll be an “atheist” bus line and a “Christian” bus line.
The article you linked, Doreen, starts out funny but then sobers up near the end. This line caught my eye:
Any comments from readers here? Do Christians tend to feel sad & discouraged at this time of year, for reasons other than the ones that bring on those feelings in non-Christians?
Comment by: Helen
46Thanks for the link, Doreen – very interesting!
I reposted Eliza’s questions here:
Christian feelings at this time of year
Please respond to them on the new post.