John 20:29 – Is your faith blind?

Posted: April 8, 2013 in Uncategorized

Do you know how old Abram was when God first came to him and spoke with him?  75!  75 years old, right there around the same age as some of you.  75 years old when God came and spoke with him, telling him to leave his family behind, to pack up his belongings and to start walking towards an unknown location which God himself “would show to Abram.”

How many of you would so easily follow in Abram’s footsteps if God came and asked the same of you?  Pack your belongings, leave your house and family, and start driving.  Don’t worry; I’ll show you the way!  I’ll tell you when you get where I want you to go. Yeah, I don’t think I would be able to do that, either.

And that’s not to mention the fact that God continued his conversation with Abram: You will be a great nation.  I will bless you; I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.  All nations of the earth will be blessed through you.  And not one word of Abram doubting; instead he took God at his word, trusting God’s promises.

Now, maybe it doesn’t seem that far-fetched to see Abram trusting such wonderful promises – but don’t you think that over time some doubts would have creeped into Abram’s mind? As days became weeks and weeks became months and months became years and years?

Sure, there were moments of weakness – attempting to bring about the fulfillment of these promises through his wife’s maidservant, trying to pass his wife off as his sister (twice!) – but at the end, what does the book of Genesis say but how the first lesson today ends: Abram believed the LORD.

Have you ever found yourself wishing, hoping, even praying for a faith like Abraham’s – a blind faith which trusts, sight unseen?  I remember being a kid, not much older than some of you, praying for just that: Lord, give me a stronger faith like that of Moses, or Abraham, or David.  So do you want a blind faith?  Or – is your faith blind already?

It’s a show-me generation we live in, isn’t it?  Things like gentleman’s agreements don’t exist anymore.  You can’t buy a car on a handshake.  Even contracts don’t always stand for what they once did.  Over and over again – especially in the world of sports – organizations, coaches, even athletes worm and weasel their ways out of the signed dotted line.

Show me, we say.  Prove it.  I won’t believe it until I see it.  Got a whopper on the line?  A monster buck that you shot?  Better have a picture to prove it, or the skeptics will come out of the woodwork.  And broken promise after stretched truths just add to the skepticism and lack of trust.

King Solomon once wrote There’s nothing new under the sun, and I guess that applies to this situation, too – doesn’t it?  Because for every Abraham…there’s a Thomas.

Next to the betrayer, Judas, perhaps no disciple is known more for something negative than Thomas.  Doubting Thomas, we call him – and maybe for good reason; Thomas’ statement isn’t far from our minds when we hear his name.  Unless I see the nail marks…and put my finger…and my hand…I will not believe it.

We’re quick to give Thomas’ looks of shame, aren’t we?  Thomas, Thomas.  You should have known better.  Your closest friends just told you they saw him, why didn’t you believe?  But don’t we forget that the disciples themselves scoffed at first when the women told them the tomb was empty?  Don’t we forget the doubts in the minds of Peter and John as they ran to the tomb, or the two on the road to Emmaus?

They weren’t all that different from Thomas, were they?  Sure, it wasn’t until after Thomas got to rub his thumb over that gaping hole in his wrist or stick his hand into the spear-hole in Jesus’ side or look upon the face of his beloved Teacher with his own two eyes…only then did Thomas believe.  But the rest of them?  Their doubts lingered, too, until tangible proof was presented…only when Jesus was standing there in the middle of them that first Easter evening did they believe.

Because you have seen me, you have believed, Jesus said to Thomas – and really to all who were gathered with Thomas.  Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

Who have not seen and yet have believed.  Jesus is advocating blind faith – right?  Believe what you haven’t seen, what you have no evidence of, without the “show me” aspect.

Blind faith?  Let’s consider the evidence.   Just look at the things which we hold dear – the central truths of our Christian faith.  Who among us was there when God said, let there be…and it was?  Or, raise your hand if you were there when Jesus was conceived by Holy Spirit.  Better yet, as the hymn says Were you there when they crucified the Lord?  Have you seen the empty tomb, or the folded cloths…touched the scarred wounds?

No – none of us were there.  None of us heard him cry at his birth or cry out at his death.  We didn’t see the empty tomb.  Yet here we are – worshipping a man we have neither seen nor heard.  Here we are, celebrating the life, death and resurrection by which our eternal salvation was secured.

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed, Jesus said.  Was he talking about us?  You bet.  But, blind faith?  I’m not so sure…

Yes, we believe without seeing his wounds.  We believe without seeing his empty tomb or hearing his voice.  These eyes have not seen him and these ears have not heard him.  Yet we call him Lord, Savior, Friend, Brother. But faith without evidence?  On the contrary – the evidence is overwhelming!

Consider this: why did the Holy Spirit have the Apostle John include this story of Doubting Thomas?  Perhaps – without trying to delve into the depths of the mind of God – this account was recorded for  your benefit and mine.  Imagine the doubts that would creep into our minds if we did not have this account.

Was this really Jesus?  The nail marks and spear hole prove it!  Had Jesus actually risen from the dead, or was this just his spirit – as some would claim?  As we see, through Scripture, Thomas touching those scarred wounds of our Savior…any doubt dissipates.

Is our faith without evidence?  Absolutely not!  We have overwhelming evidence right here in Scripture…right here, in God’s Word.  As Peter wrote: we have the word of the prophets made more certain

Have we seen our Savior alive?  Maybe not with these two eyes – but the eyes of faith lay hold of the evidence in Holy Scripture.  Have we heard our Savior speak?  Maybe not with these ears – but the ears of faith hear our Savior say, I am the way, and the truth and the life…I am the resurrection and the life.

No, my friends – our faith is not blind!  The Word of our God recorded on these pages of Scripture for the benefit of the generations following our Savior’s saving work.  Yes, God made sure that the account of our Savior’s life, death and resurrection were recorded in Scripture so that our faith did not have to be blind!  Blind faith?  Absolutely not.

So why is it that we doubt?  Why do we live as though we are unsure of our faith, unsure of whether our Savior lives?

Isn’t that exactly what we’re saying about our faith when we live in ways which contradict our God’s Word…that we’re not sure about our faith, or at least we have our doubts and are more willing to take what we see with these eyes and hear with these ears than what our Savior tells us in his Word?

My dear brothers and sisters in the faith, there really isn’t any difference between us and the Apostles in that Upper Room.  Yes, we too can say, We have seen the Lord in Scripture!  And what we have seen there leads us to cry out with Thomas, My Lord and my God!

Is your faith blind?  Some may say that it is, and in some way they may be right.  But entirely blind? Absolutely not, my friends!  We have all the evidence we’ll ever need, right here.  We have seen our risen Savior, in Scripture.

And yes, we’re like Abraham.  Abraham couldn’t see any reason to trust God’s promises other than the fact that they were God’s promises.  There may not be anything that we can lay hold of as reason for us to trust God’s promise of salvation and forgiveness and life everlasting – but we have God’s Word, his promises recorded there.

No, our faith is not blind.  Yes, we are blessed: through the eyes of faith we have seen our risen Savior.  And yes, one day, we will see him with these physical eyes, too!  Amen.

  1. A Cousin says:

    I live in a world that requires us to “document the truth” in tragedy settings. Horrendous evidence that exists in this world. How great to be reminded that the evidence I need for my soul’s salvation has already been gathered for me and was seen by those that speak of it in my Bible. I know it, I understand it, but wonder if I’d cry out like Thomas did. Overwhelming is not a word I often use but its an emotion I felt reading this. Thank you for your blog entry.

  2. Diane Kennedy says:

    Proof is definitely required with our young people today. It is difficult to explain “blind faith” and you’ve done it wonderfully. I will definitely share with a special nephew. Thanks.

  3. Josh says:

    Thank you for this article!

    It seems like there are two points you are trying to make here, pastor.

    1) Blind faith is actually a good thing we should strive for, because it says so in the bible.
    2) Even thought the bible says blind faith is good, faith doesn’t need to be blind because all the “evidence” we need is provided.

    Here are the problems I see with the first point:

    1) If blind faith is OK, it is not just WELS blind faith that is ok, or even Christianity’s blind faith that is ok. Their are those with blind faith in every religion, so you must consider all of their blind faith a good thing as well. The members of the various religions could turn to the evidence outside of their own holy books to determine which one (if any) is actually the truth, but most folks do not take the time to do this, and articles like the one above further discourage them from doing so. They go on believing blindly, and are then told this is a good thing in the teachings of their given religion. All religions use doubt as a “faith-strengthening” device in this way. And blind faith is not harmless – it results in denial of science, fear of the world, fear of death, fear of hell, denial of others equal rights, unnecessary disappointment in or ostracism of family members or others who think differently, violence, etc. These are the effects that the world feels from the blind faith of those in the various religions. Blind faith is not a good thing. Besides, we are interested in Truth here, right? So we must turn to the actual evidence we have available. ALL of it.

    Here are the problems I see with the second point above:

    1) You are using the bible itself as evidence to justify the truth of that same book. This is a circular argument and is logically nonsensical. If that’s the way we determine truth, than all of the holy books are true because they all contain “evidence” proving it! (that is, they all claim to be true). Clearly they can’t all be true. Either only one religion is true, or they are all wrong. So how can we straighten this out? We must turn to actual evidence.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence presented above is hardly extraordinary. In fact, in the fields of science or history the above would not even be considered evidence on its own. We need corroboration! We need to be able to testing, observation, corroboration. When we look at the ideas that have been accepted in the scientific or historical realms (ideas like evolution), we see a massive a body of supporting empirical evidence. It is corroborated across different fields. It has not been falsified by other evidence.

    What’s more is when we start digging through this evidence we see how wrong many of the claims of the holy books are. We start seeing how well documented and corroborated much of ancient history is, and how poorly documented the events in the bible are, especially things like the resurrection. When we start digging, we also find that the hard, observable, testable, and corroborated evidence falsifies many of the main claims of Christianity and other religions.

    So, if we truly do not want our beliefs about reality to be based in blind faith, we must turn to the evidence. When we turn to the evidence we find that we can believe much to be true about the universe without any faith at all, let alone blind faith. We can know some things because they are established to be true by evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe something. It must remain a mystery until evidence is available. Embracing doubt and skepticism is a great thing. It has allowed us to learn about the world, toss aside ancient myths and fables, and gain a more accurate picture of our place in the universe. It has allowed us to admit that while we can know some things (like evolution happened, the world is billions of years old, etc) we don’t know everything (like why we are here, where we go after death, if anywhere). Maybe good evidence will surface one day for these things. Until then, let us admit together that we don’t really know, and that is ok.

    I like this clip of Richard Feynman, pioneer of quantum mechanics, discussing how we know things to be true –

    Also, really like this discussion of how we learn, and how we come to accept things as true –

    • pvoss45 says:


      It’s good to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to read the post and respond.

      Let me first say that I am saddened by your response. It deeply saddens me to watch a fellow MLS alum shift away from the truths we were taught at MLS and before those hallowed halls.

      Secondly, let me also respond by saying this: if it is true (as your comments lead me to believe) that you have drifted away from the faith taught you through Catechism and religion classes at MLS, then your response doesn’t surprise me in the least. The Christian faith, “the message of the cross,” is one which is deemed to be “foolishness to those who are perishing.” One without faith looks at these wondrous truths and scoffs; this saddens me, but doesn’t shock me. Only to those who have been given faith by the Holy Spirit can see the cross of Christ and the empty tomb for what it is, “the power of God.” (cf. Isaiah 6:9,10)

      For that reason, it doesn’t prove to be beneficial to get into a discussion re: evidence vs. lack of evidence. In the end, the point made in my sermon/post above is to one group: those who are already believers. There is benefit to those who are not, but they are not the intended audience. For that group, one must start with the basic truth of sin.

      I would think that you would not deny the fact of “moral value.” But doesn’t “moral value” require something (I’d say someone, but I’ll leave it vague for now for discussion purposes) by which “moral value” comes and to which those who violate a common-held “moral value” must answer? There’s a reason humanity shares common values – murder is wrong, so is stealing, so is infidelity, foul us of language, destroying one’s reputation, etc. There’s a reason those things offend us. They violate the “moral code” written on our hearts; they violate our consciences. In the end, we understand that we must answer for those things we have done wrong – unless of course, one has so watered down their conscience or ignored the warnings it gives.

      The conscience of all people is one of the things which leads them to “seek the Truth,” as you said.

      Which leads to my next point: what is truth? You said if “blind faith” is admirable, then it must not just be WELS blind faith or Christian blind faith, but all blind faiths. Those two statements contradict each other, don’t they? If there’s a higher power (again, I’ll say till I’m blue in the face that it is the one Triune God and none other, but I’ll soften it for discussion purposes), then that’s the source of truth and truth alone. There cannot be a “what’s true for person A doesn’t have to be true for person B” argument. This higher power sets truth, and anything contradictory must be falsehood.

      So that leaves only one faith to be true. It’s interesting to note that all faiths try to satisfy a sense of justice (“I’ve done wrong according to the moral code I’ve been given, therefore those wrongs must be righted.”), but I’d say only one faith REALLY satisfies justice. If sin merits punishment (death), and the only way to avoid punishment is for the penalty to be paid – then things like karma, doing as much good in life as I can, being the best I can be, trying as hard as I can, or whatever the other world-religions (be it Buddhism, Islam, ancestor worship, New Age, etc.) never fully satisfy that sense of justice because they never address the root issue. Sin is still present, and never taken away, even if I try to balance the scales.

      Only one faith satisfies true justice – the Christian faith. Only Christ paid for the sins of all through his death. Only in Christ is my sin paid for and your sins and your parents, friends, etc. Only one faith makes that promise with an empty tomb. Only one faith guarantees that with the resurrection of the one who paid for sin.

      Trust that wonderful promise or don’t. There’s only two groups in life.

      And since you like philosophical arguments, let me conclude my response with one that is food for thought –

      If you’re right (and I’m wrong), and there’s no sense in believing the Christian faith, then in the end when my life ends, nothing will happen to me; no-harm no-foul. You may pity me for wasting my life believing nonsense, but I’m no worse off than I was before.

      But if I’m right (and you’re wrong), and those who reject the Christian faith and the Savior Jesus Christ will spend an eternity in the tormenting death and fires of hell, then when your life ends with death – you will be worse off than before.

      There’s still time. I pray that the Lord brings you back to the flock into which you were baptized.

      • Lindsay says:

        Dear Paul,

        I have been inspired to recall on this public forum a very basic principal that was taught to me, and almost certainly taught to you, as a child. The old adage reads, more or less, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all.”

        I feel like I might understand your intentions, although I do need some clarification. (Let’s also remember, ironically, another old adage about “the road to hell”). I could dive into a worm whole about my participation in the “paving company” here, but I’ll try to stick to the topic at hand. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your intentions here are to warn a beloved fellow man about the possible, or maybe in your mind, “certain” repercussions of his thought paradigm.

        If there is a singular entity that you call God, and that entity is not separate from but inherently synonymous to Love, and you have faith in God/Love, then it seems to me entirely asinine to include in your conversation about the topics of “faith,” and “truth” a threat or warning about “burning for eternity in the tormenting death and fires of hell.” Think about why you would, and also consider this: Do you think God doesn’t have things under control? If so, that’s another worm hole. Please, be patient with me…

        I thought maybe you didn’t realize when you chose those specific words for this particular dialogue that they are, as a matter of fact, hurtful and opposite to “nice.” Imagine you have two small children and one says to the other “I think blue is a nice color.” To which the sibling replies, “Blue is for idiots, and people who like blue should die a horrible death.” Wouldn’t you, trying to be a good parent to your two different children, recite the adage I originally presented? Even if you yourself detested the color blue? I don’t want to lose you with this metaphor, but I do think it’s important to consider since we are, according to the Christian paradigm, “God’s children.” All of us.

        Communication is difficult and made much more difficult with personal attack. (I’m sure you have experienced this before elsewhere in your life). Communication through letter has it’s own challenges. Letter form can allow us to delve more deeply into an idea, but how then do we infuse the message with love (the greatest facilitator of communication) without things like loving gaze and warm embrace to aid us?

        You began this thread of communication, the hands of fate have brought me into it, and now I have a lingering uncertainty of your intention/goal.

        I’ll outline my own intention for this message in order to make it clear. It has to do with communication and I’ll pose it in the form of a question: Is there some other way of attaining your goal besides threatening hellfire?

        Sincerely and with Love,
        Lindsay xoxo

        p.s. I think I realize in a new way why my mom signs all of her messages to me with x’s and o’s.

      • pvoss45 says:


        Thank you for your response.

        I can understand why one might be upset and consider it “a personal attack” to respond the way that I did. However, my intention was as you thought – to bring about a positive response. However, sometimes what is loving may not be what one always wants to hear.

        Let me use an illustration (far-fetched, I suppose, but stick with it): Let’s suppose that you’re having a birthday party thrown for you, cake and all. Everyone brings some part of the food, and there’s the most delicious cake that you’ve ever seen. You can’t wait until the dinner is done so that you might stick your fork into the cake and take the first bite.

        Unbeknownst to you, the person who baked the cake baked it with rat poison. Doesn’t matter how much rat poison – could be enough to make you sick or enough to do far worse – but it’s there (it’s not pertinent to know the “why”, its already there). What’s more, one of your friends heard the cake baker talk about the fact that rat poison was included. Would you want your friend to tell you before you take a bite? Or would you rather that they keep silent so that you can enjoy your cake?

        It might be “mean sounding” to tell you that you can’t enjoy that cake, which you’ve been looking forward to all day – but in the end, isn’t it the most loving thing to do? Love isn’t always saying what others want to hear; love is sometimes saying the things that they need to hear – no matter how “mean” it may sound.

        That’s why parents discipline. My daughter doesn’t like it when I tell her that she can’t touch the red-hot stove; she’ll even throw a fit sometimes. But in the end, I’m saving her from a lot of pain by telling her, “no!”

        Telling a person that a particular course of action or belief will result in an eternity of hell may not be the most pleasant statement in the world, but when it comes from a heart that desires to spare one of an eternity of suffering (as my comments were intended), it is actually one of the most loving things that one may say.

        I appreciate your concern for Josh (brother? husband?) – but please understand that I meant it with the most xoxoxo’s that anyone could include.

  4. Keith says:

    Hi Pastor,

    There are three things in particular that I would like to ask about your blog as well as your subsequent response above:

    – First, re: Abraham’s actions: A long-time, devoted member of your congregation comes to you seeking advice. God has visited him and told him to leave his family, and start wandering until the location is revealed. Better yet, this member of the congregation reveals that God himself has commanded him to sacrifice his only begotten son, but he remains confident that he will be stopped by angels just before the act is complete since he has never wavered in his devotion to God.

    What is your advice to this member of the congregation? Are Abraham’s actions really something to be touting or endorsing? Is there a distinction (other than hindsight) that I am missing here?

    I would hope (pray?) that your response would be to call 911 and have the man locked up far away from his innocent child. But again, let me know if there is something I am missing in this situation.

    – My next question is regarding your response to Josh. You seem adamant that Chirstianity is the only way to get to Heaven, and that even strict adherence to other faiths and other equitable efforts cannot achieve what true belief can (entrance to Heaven).

    Is it your position that a serial killer who finds Christian faith on death row has a place in Heaven, and yet someone like Ghandi is damned to Hell? I don’t see how to reconcile your statements otherwise.

    – The final question is in regards to Pascal’s wager, which you also brought up in your last reply.

    First of all: I do not have any intimate knowledge of your personal beliefs other than what you have written above. I apologize if I mischaracterize them in any way, and please correct me if I do.

    Of course, on the face of Pascal’s wager you are correct. You would not personally be worse off if Josh is right.

    But you suggest that Josh should be worried about this prospect. What about the possibility that you are wrong about Islam? Should you be worried about that? You would certainly be much worse off in that scenario. This obviously applies to all religions other than your own, but you get the point.

    Another aspect: perhaps you’d be no worse off after death, but what about your responsibilities during life? For example, if you are convinced that the rapture will happen in your lifetime (some polls say > 50% of Americans believe this) then why would you take any precautions regarding protecting the environment for your kids and grandkids? Or, if many Christians are right about God’s view of homosexuals, why would we want to give them equal rights? It should be obvious that if I was talking to a devout Muslim then the real-world consequences of your beliefs would be multiplied thousand-fold, regardless of whether you are any “worse off” after you are dead.

    Is Pascal’s wager really a win/win for someone in your position?

    • pvoss45 says:


      Thanks for your response. Let me respond in order, although it may be “fuel for the fire.”

      1) Your line of thinking between Abraham and a modern-day “Abraham” doesn’t jive. First, because I don’t believe that God speaks in the way he used to (as Scripture says, in the past God spoke through his prophets, but in these days he has spoken to us through his Son). Secondly, because what is the context? In Abraham’s case with the request to sacrifice Isaac, this request was made following 40+ years of promises which God had kept to Abraham, including giving him a son when he was 100 years old! In fact, one of those promises was that it would be through Isaac that Abraham would become a great nation – not some “other son”. I would have to ask someone sitting in my office if they had consistent promises God had made to them that allow them to be trusting in this situation, and I would find it extremely hard for them to be taken seriously. However, your jab at Scripture and Abraham through this line of thinking is offensive; in the end, that’s a surface area.

      2) Yes, it is my position that a Jeffery Dahmer (I’m assuming you know the name) is in heaven while Gandhi is in hell. The forgiveness won by the Savior on the cross is for all, no matter when they come to faith because sin is sin is sin, no matter how grievous it may appear to humanity. In the eyes of a righteous and holy God thoughts of hate carry the same penalty as murder; in fact Jesus makes the same point (“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer”). Scripture tells us that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through” him. Rotten deal? May seem like it, but forgiveness and salvation through Jesus is there for all – and offered as a free gift to all. It’s not God’s fault if they say “no thanks”; the fault there lies with the individual, no matter how many good things that they may have tried to do in life. Scripture again says, “there is a way that seems right to man,” such as balancing the scales of justice with enough good deeds or whatever other way – “but in the end it leads to death.” The only way to heaven is through the Savior, Jesus Christ. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

      3) I used Paschal’s wager in the limited context of a conversation with Josh, in which he (at least appeared to) renounced all religion. As such, Islam/Buddhism/etc didn’t really play into the conversation at that point. I could wager that you, hypothetically, could state that Paschal’s wager is not a “win-win” for me; however, given point #2 above, I’m comfortable with where I stand. My salvation and forgiveness has been won for me, and thank goodness that it has! If it were up to me, even in the least, how would I have any confidence that I have done enough to earn everlasting life? “But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!”

      4) What about this life? First, ask Josh about what he learned during his WELS education, and he’ll let you know that we do not believe in the rapture. This teaching, held unfortunately by a lot of Christians, is a misreading of Revelation, taking symbolic numbers to be a literalistic fact.

      In the end, my belief regarding the rapture doesn’t matter, since I also have my God’s role for me (and all) in this life. He has given this beautiful world to humanity, as he gives all things, for our use – but ultimately the world belongs to God. As such, I am to be a responsible caretaker. I do believe that this earth will perish when God returns again in glory to bring about the judgment of the world, but that is no reason to be irresponsible with this blessing he has given. In fact, I should take care of it because God has given it as a gift – just as I would take care of any gift given to me from my folks, grandparents, etc.

      Whew. Lengthy response. Thanks for reading it all!

  5. Josh says:

    Paul, if you are so confident that you know the secret of the universe, you need to give some evidence outside of the book from which you gather it. I’m sorry, but that is just how the world works. This is obvious to all when discussing religions other than one’s own, but when discussing your own religion you give it a free pass. This is typical of members of any religion.

    The fact that human beings make mistakes does not amount to “the basic truth of sin” that you refer to. It is also not a fact that our flaws demand there be an afterlife and judgement. These are assumptions you are making. And who are you to speak for every human being on earth and claim there is a natural knowledge of a creator god as if this is a clear fact to all? It is understandable why you personally would believe these to be “facts” about reality, given that you have been indoctrinated in this belief system from birth. Everything you say is a rehash of everything I have already heard. You are making no valid attempt to actually communicate with me.

    So I will leave you with this. What could falsify your beliefs? What evidence would you need to be presented with in order to admit that Christianity is more than likely no true? I could give you endless ways in which my beliefs could be falsified, or the type of evidence that would cause me to reconsider whether Christianity (or any religion) is true in reality. Can you do this? I am sincerely interested in your answer to this question and hope you give it thought.

    Can’t wait to hang with Ghandi…Have fun with Dhamer! 🙂

    Peace buddy. And may you learn to seek the truth through rigorous and open minded examination of the evidence, rather than claim to have known it since infancy.


  6. Josh says:

    While I understand that your prayers and Christian “love” may be well intentioned, your responses (or lack thereof) only reinforce my view that you really have no legitimate defense for your beliefs and your threats of hell. I will ask again, What could falsify your beliefs? What evidence would you need to be presented with in order to admit that Christianity is more than likely not true?

    • pvoss45 says:

      I haven’t put anything more up there, because I a convinced that you will accept nothing that I say. In the end, if Scripture isn’t enough for you, nothing will.

      Luke 16:29-31 – “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.”…‘No…but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!” But he said,”If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.”

      I pray that you see the spiritual danger you are in, but if you are not willing to listen to the words of God himself, then I don’t think you’d listen to anything else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s