Duckman,
I've no need to repeat what Kennas and Julia have said in response to your post, they are spot on.
But for the record:
I am not an atheist. I am not even an agnostic either. I like the Tao Te Ching in a philosophical sense, but I'm not a Taoist. My "belief" metamorphoses as I go along, according to what I experience and what I learn.
I have no problem with Christianity or Christians and will even go along to church if I am visiting with people who go (never under my own steam though).
I have friends from Atheism, Gnosticism, Agnosticism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Taoism and I respect them all for their beliefs because they are very mature about them. We can all have discussions about the individual beliefs and philosophies and even debate about the "holes" in each others beliefs (sometimes hotly) without taking insult.
Why? Because there is an implicit trust that none of us will try to #### with others minds by using fear or guilt, that would be a breach of trust. Nobody ever says "You must be a (fill in religion here) otherwise your soul is doomed. Nobody thinks the other is going to hell. That would mean the end of friendships.
That is what has happened in this thread. There was a breach of that "implicit trust" by the attempt to use fear. Dave123 is not here to share Bible quotes, he is here to proselytize, and that is why people have become offended.
If I've offended other Christians, I apologize, that was not my intention. There are many cool Christians on this board who I would hate to ever offend.
your comment was quite bizarre Wayne. For someone that is usually so logical and knowledgable with their arguments I can't believe that it slipped out.
For those following Christian religions, "going to Church" remains a central part of their "Faith". It is front and centre of all mainsteam Christian beliefs.
Think of what Church is and what Bible passage(s) infers Church-going (without getting into arguments of authenticity):
1/ Matthew 18:20 - For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
2/ Generally, the Book of Acts.
These two infer two radically different scenarios.
In 1/, any group of two or more who meet for the purpose of support, prayer, teaching etc is a church. It can be in "a church", or it can be under a thorn tree on the Serengeti Plain. It wouldn't matter. This is why groups like the Quakers have no "church".
In 2/ however, and entirely different scenario evolves post crucifixion. What is described in Acts is a socialist commune... from each his ability and to each their need. No "private" wealth was allowed as Ananias and Sapphira discovered in Acts 5.
Under this model every church is now most certainly apostate... and I need not go into lengthy prognostications there, just read Acts.
As this post is getting lengthy, I'll leave you to decipher of the implications of each.