What Christians really think about hell and Judgment

[Crandaddy]

So you are talking about Mechanistic-materialism. The so-called scientific revolution?Thomas Hobbs?

That's the general idea, yes.

You are carrying this a little to far. What I'm trying to simply say is this. Science can not prove there is such a thing as a conscience as described in the bible. Science can show how the brain works, to a certain degree, and the chemical reactions that take place to form thought and such but they can not show or prove the description of conscience that is in the bible, which, according to the bible is the prompting of the Holy spirit.

Well, I'll say that science can't show that nature exhibits an axiological order, as Paul indicates in Romans, but this by no means indicates that said order isn't accessible to natural reason at all.

The fact remains, science can not prove there is a God but they also can't prove there isn't a God. All of it remains a mystery. So for one to say that they don't believe in God because science has proved it, or for one to say there isn't evidence of a God according to science so therefore God doesn't exist, is a mute reason. As a Christian I will tell you that science hasn't proved there isn't a God or that there is a God. I believe there is a God based on faith.

I don't think science has very much of interest to say at all regarding the existence/nonexistence of God, and at the same time I emphatically reject fideism. Modern empirical science is not exhaustive of natural human reason.

 

[Freodin]

I call it "Life".

Seeing and experiencing Love, Harmony and Beauty is one of the things that makes us Human Beings. I see Life as bit more than putty made of material, physical or chemical.

But I understand a bit more now. If a person is not opened to the awareness of anything beyond the material, physical or chemical, they are not going to be aware of what might be beyond that. Each of us has our own place in life.

.

Well, that's nice. So you see life as a "bit more than putty". What more do you see? You keep hinting at it, at "more than", at "what might be beyond that".

But what might that be? And why do you think you have understood it?

 

[Freodin]

Nah, brain chemistry is the result of the stimuli. What are the stimuli? Try again.

Nope, my answer was correct in regard to your question, concerning the "biological imperative for the appreciation". That is "brain chemistry"... the way our brain in structured and processes outside stimuli.

But you want to have the "outside stimuli" as well? Ok, light and sound and smell.

So here I "tried again."

Now it's your turn: explain both the non-phyiscal stimuli as well as the non-biological imperative for the appreciation of "beauty"!

TRY AT ALL!

 

[dlamberth]

But what might that be? And why do you think you have understood it?

I didn't say that I understood it. Life is life...how does anyone understand life. Living life is something we experience, but not understand.

.

 

[Freodin]

I didn't say that I understood it. Life is life...how does anyone understand life. Living life is something we experience, but not understand.

.

What you said: "But I understand a bit more now. If a person is not opened to the awareness of anything beyond the material, physical or chemical, they are not going to be aware of what might be beyond that."

So it seems that you claim to be "opened to the awareness". And that some persons (me, for example?) will not be aware of "beyond that".
At least that is something that you claim that you "understood".

So I am asking you to explain that what you understood: what is there "beyond"? Why do you think so?

See, I fear that you fall for that "you are a reductionist" trap. That there is "more", that there is "beyond"... that what I see is "mere".

Yes, life is life. It is something we experience. It is something we do. It is something that makes us humans. I agree with all of that.
But it is not anything "beyond". It is here and now and part and parcel of everything else.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Dualism will always be a dead-end street, based on misconstrued aspects of our perception.
And reductive materialism will never be more than amputated mind-matter-dualism.

The heart of the matter is that there is no such thing as a dichotomy between mind/spirit and matter. There is only energy, or, to be even more precise, it "is" not, it "does".

A stone is only a solid, inert, and static object because of our limited sensory organs. There's quite a lot going on in there: electrons swirling around atomic cores, gravity bending space and time throughout the whole cosmos, forces repelling other forces, energy potentials that could power all of our cities if they were accessible and so on and so forth.
Energy is a process, and everything else along with it. Spirit, mind, matter, energy - it's all one and the same.

Which is why I'm a panpsychic monist.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well gee! why doesn't God grow back the leg of an amputee???

Well no, that's not what my question was about, even though it might have touched upon the theodicy-dilemma on a tangent.

You'd seek to attribute scientific and medical progress (that more often than not clashes with the tenets of ancient middle eastern mythology and medical practices that, for lack of a better word, must be described as "folk magic") to your particular deity.

At the same time, you believe that your particular deity is directly responsible for every word in the Bible, and believe this anthology to be a timeless document constituting a direct line of communication between your god and mankind.

Given that the authors of the Bible very obviously did NOT know a lot of the basic scientific facts that Man has figured out in the meantime, and that you believe your God to be the author of all the books collected therein, the question presents itself as to why these texts would be filled with such primitive misconceptions born of ignorance.
If you insinuate that God is somehow responsible for scientific progress, deliberately nudging people towards new discoveries, then why bother with the Bible in the first place? It may not be intended as a scientific factbook, but as a collection of spiritual texts - yet still, it seems like a collossal waste if
a) more direct lines of communication are available, and
b) the document contains lots of misconstrued conclusions based on the limited knowledge of the ancients.

See, if you've got an omniscient god, and you set out to write "Your Word" (which, actually, I find to be quite a blasphemous and idolatrous label, as the Bible itself never claims that status, and attributes that term exclusively to Jesus) - why bother with laws that tell people how to shave their beards, or what food they've got to eat on a Saturday. Why not use that opportunity to teach them about things that they could not figure out on their own at that time?
THAT would not only improve the lot of everyone who listens, it'd also provide incontrovertible proof of the inspired nature of these Scriptures.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Well no, that's not what my question was about, even though it might have touched upon the theodicy-dilemma on a tangent.

You'd seek to attribute scientific and medical progress (that more often than not clashes with the tenets of ancient middle eastern mythology and medical practices that, for lack of a better word, must be described as "folk magic") to your particular deity.

At the same time, you believe that your particular deity is directly responsible for every word in the Bible, and believe this anthology to be a timeless document constituting a direct line of communication between your god and mankind.

Given that the authors of the Bible very obviously did NOT know a lot of the basic scientific facts that Man has figured out in the meantime, and that you believe your God to be the author of all the books collected therein, the question presents itself as to why these texts would be filled with such primitive misconceptions born of ignorance.
If you insinuate that God is somehow responsible for scientific progress, deliberately nudging people towards new discoveries, then why bother with the Bible in the first place? It may not be intended as a scientific factbook, but as a collection of spiritual texts - yet still, it seems like a collossal waste if
a) more direct lines of communication are available, and
b) the document contains lots of misconstrued conclusions based on the limited knowledge of the ancients.

See, if you've got an omniscient god, and you set out to write "Your Word" (which, actually, I find to be quite a blasphemous and idolatrous label, as the Bible itself never claims that status, and attributes that term exclusively to Jesus) - why bother with laws that tell people how to shave their beards, or what food they've got to eat on a Saturday. Why not use that opportunity to teach them about things that they could not figure out on their own at that time?
THAT would not only improve the lot of everyone who listens, it'd also provide incontrovertible proof of the inspired nature of these Scriptures.

(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

On this, and the basis that Christ and the writers of the New Testament constantly refer readers back to Scripture, we believe as we do. It's easy to see why Scripture would be referred to as God's word and within the community of believers there's no confusion between Christ as the Word of God and Scripture as the Word of God or God's Word. Context usually dictates. I've never heard a Christian complain of blasphemy, although I've heard plenty of non-believers make the accusation. Interesting.

The purpose of the Bible is contained within the second quote above. It's a spiritual and historical piece (or pieces) intended only to chart God's relationship with Man, not a scientific guidebook, as you've already identified. You may as well ask why any scientific textual work makes no reference to God. They're different things with differing intentions.

Did God miss a trick by not including instructions on how to build a nuclear power station or a time machine? I don't think so. I think He's happy to let Man make his own discoveries. Our journey of discovery drives us forward and makes us what we are. Our constant search for knowledge and improvement is self-defining. Even debates like this aren't always about showing how clever we are, but can be genuine searches for knowledge.

There's a massive misapprehension that believers are a form of sub-species, incapable of understanding science, its uses and limitations, progress and everything else "of the world". It's a caricature, and although they may exist in Amish and Mennonite communities, they are few and far between.

Many of the world's greatest discoveries and much of scientific progression has been driven by men of God, as has much of the world's charitable support. God's purpose in Scripture (I believe) was to guide us into becoming those sorts of men, not give us instruction on how to bypass that journey.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.[

On this, and the basis that Christ and the writers of the New Testament constantly refer readers back to Scripture, we believe as we do.

Basing such a fundamental cornerstone of your world view on a single, isolated verse is never a good idea to begin with, but it's especially disastrous in this particular case.
And here's why:

1. The author of this epistle is not talking about the Bible, or even about any part of the "New Testament".
He's addressing the specific question of whether Pauline Christians, who've discarded most Judaic elements from their religion, ought to read or discard the Tanakh - and affirms that it's still a valuable source even if you don't heed the Mosaic law, because it's talking about Jesus's god.

2. The whole doctrine basically revolves around a very specific interpretation of the single word theopneustos ("god-breathed"); inspiration can take many forms, and to read it as a sort of literal, inerrant dictation akin to the muslim Qur'an hardly does justice to the sheer diversity of texts and theological viewpoints we encounter in the anthology called "the Bible". You could easily read "god-breathed" as "inspired people talking about God" rather than "God using ispired people as his direct mouthpiece".

3. Last but not least, the second epistle to Timothy is most likely pseudepigraphical, along with the other two "pastorals". Nowadays, New Testament scholarship is virtually unanimous in affirming that the Pastoral Epistles were written some time after Paul's death. You might find some dissenters from this consensus, particularly in the most conservative quarters, but I dare say that their confirmation bias is rather obvious.

I've never heard a Christian complain of blasphemy, although I've heard plenty of non-believers make the accusation. Interesting.

I see that you haven't been following this thread very closely, then. trientje pretty much dishes out accusations of blasphemy in every second post of hers (hyperbole intended), finding that to even raise questions constitutes a slap in the face of the Almighty that will be requited with utmost terror.

The purpose of the Bible is contained within the second quote above. It's a spiritual and historical piece (or pieces) intended only to chart God's relationship with Man, not a scientific guidebook, as you've already identified. You may as well ask why any scientific textual work makes no reference to God. They're different things with differing intentions.

What about references like the serpent of bronze that's supposed to cure snake bites? What about slapping mud and spittle on the eyes of a blind man to heal him? It's not as if the Bible refrained from referencing all sorts of folk magic.

Did God miss a trick by not including instructions on how to build a nuclear power station or a time machine? I don't think so. I think He's happy to let Man make his own discoveries.

You know, I actually agree with that statement (even though I approach it from a very different angle that does not involve personal supernatural deities). Which is why I questioned trientje's eagerness to attribute all scientific progress to direct divine intercession.

There's a massive misapprehension that believers are a form of sub-species, incapable of understanding science, its uses and limitations, progress and everything else "of the world". It's a caricature, and although they may exist in Amish and Mennonite communities, they are few and far between.

Well, you cannot simultaneously understand science and be a Young Earth Creationist. These two are simply mutually exclusive, because it's not just Darwin and natural selection that stand in the way - it's pretty much every single scientific finding of the last two hundred years, across an *extremely* broad spectrum of scientific disciplines that are tangentially related at best.

 

[dlamberth]

What you said: "But I understand a bit more now. If a person is not opened to the awareness of anything beyond the material, physical or chemical, they are not going to be aware of what might be beyond that."

And if they are being aware of what might be beyond that, what are they being aware of? That's the question being asked here!

Yes, life is life. It is something we experience. It is something we do. It is something that makes us humans. I agree with all of that.
But it is not anything "beyond". It is here and now and part and parcel of everything else.

We are in agreement.

The question really, I think, is what is contained within the "here and now". I don't see it limited to the worlds of the material, physical or chemical.

.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Basing such a fundamental cornerstone of your world view on a single, isolated verse is never a good idea to begin with, but it's especially disastrous in this particular case.
And here's why:

1. The author of this epistle is not talking about the Bible, or even about any part of the "New Testament".
He's addressing the specific question of whether Pauline Christians, who've discarded most Judaic elements from their religion, ought to read or discard the Tanakh - and affirms that it's still a valuable source even if you don't heed the Mosaic law, because it's talking about Jesus's god.

2. The whole doctrine basically revolves around a very specific interpretation of the single word theopneustos ("god-breathed"); inspiration can take many forms, and to read it as a sort of literal, inerrant dictation akin to the muslim Qur'an hardly does justice to the sheer diversity of texts and theological viewpoints we encounter in the anthology called "the Bible". You could easily read "god-breathed" as "inspired people talking about God" rather than "God using ispired people as his direct mouthpiece".

3. Last but not least, the second epistle to Timothy is most likely pseudepigraphical, along with the other two "pastorals". Nowadays, New Testament scholarship is virtually unanimous in affirming that the Pastoral Epistles were written some time after Paul's death. You might find some dissenters from this consensus, particularly in the most conservative quarters, but I dare say that their confirmation bias is rather obvious.

You'll note that I included those verses as examples of why we believe. We find it difficult to believe that Christ would refer people back to the Old Testament if it didn't provide anything more than Man's best guess at the time.

I see that you haven't been following this thread very closely, then. trientje pretty much dishes out accusations of blasphemy in every second post of hers (hyperbole intended), finding that to even raise questions constitutes a slap in the face of the Almighty that will be requited with utmost terror.

Obviously Christians will accuse others of blasphemy. I'm referring to inter-Christian charges regarding the phrase "Word of God". My own view is, the more questions the better, providing people listen to the answers.

What about references like the serpent of bronze that's supposed to cure snake bites? What about slapping mud and spittle on the eyes of a blind man to heal him? It's not as if the Bible refrained from referencing all sorts of folk magic.

The serpent of bronze appears to be a one off situation, commanded by the Lord. It doesn't say everyone who makes bronze snakes has a cure. Ditto the mud and spittle - one off and never suggested as a cure in the folk magic sense. In both cases I've always assumed (even as an atheist) that these examples were visual dramas and contained no inherent power in themselves. The power comes from God, and Christ effected the same and similar cures without the drama, most of the time. To support your folk magic argument I'd expect to see further examples of mud-slapping by non-believers effecting cures. It's never been an issue.

You know, I actually agree with that statement (even though I approach it from a very different angle that does not involve personal supernatural deities). Which is why I questioned trientje's eagerness to attribute all scientific progress to direct divine intercession.

I don't speak for others, but I believe God guides where He wants to and not when He doesn't need to.

Well, you cannot simultaneously understand science and be a Young Earth Creationist. These two are simply mutually exclusive, because it's not just Darwin and natural selection that stand in the way - it's pretty much every single scientific finding of the last two hundred years, across an *extremely* broad spectrum of scientific disciplines that are tangentially related at best.

I'm not supporting either the YEC or evolutionist view in saying this, but there's a huge difference in the science which observes, replicates and forms theories on that basis, and science which starts with the assumption of age (based on Darwinian evolutionary principle, itself a guess with selective supporting evidence) and the extrapolation of limited evidence into scientific theory. I'm interested in DNA, and examining the possibilities of such appearing, even over aeons, from a series of biological accidents. One person's worldview will conclude that these accidents have happened and here we are, another will conclude that the chances are so remote that they border on impossibility and another source must be responsible.

The supporter who says "Yes, it's practically impossible, yet here we are" (the third group) is also the person who can dismiss much of the bible as practically impossible too, where perhaps a more open view is applicable.

 

[Freodin]

And if they are being aware of what might be beyond that, what are they being aware of? That's the question being asked here!

We are in agreement.

The question really, I think, is what is contained within the "here and now". I don't see it limited to the worlds of the material, physical or chemical.

.

So what is there? That is indeed the question being asked here... and not answered.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Nope, my answer was correct in regard to your question, concerning the "biological imperative for the appreciation". That is "brain chemistry"... the way our brain in structured and processes outside stimuli.

But you want to have the "outside stimuli" as well? Ok, light and sound and smell.

So here I "tried again."

Now it's your turn: explain both the non-phyiscal stimuli as well as the non-biological imperative for the appreciation of "beauty"!

TRY AT ALL!

Still not my turn I'm afraid. We have a different definition of biological imperative, so two examples of mine would be the need to procreate, or the need to survive. So can you find a biological imperative for the appreciation of beauty, presuming that whatever that imperative is results in "brain chemistry"?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You'll note that I included those verses as examples of why we believe. We find it difficult to believe that Christ would refer people back to the Old Testament if it didn't provide anything more than Man's best guess at the time.

Jesus does not exactly strike me as the kind of person who'd take every single word of the Old Testament as gospel (pun intended); in fact, in light of how he treated most of the mosaic law, it's clear to see that he did the virtual opposite: reducing complex catalogues of random rules to a very simple principle of reciprocity and agape-love.

I'm not supporting either the YEC or evolutionist view in saying this, but there's a huge difference in the science which observes, replicates and forms theories on that basis, and science which starts with the assumption of age (based on Darwinian evolutionary principle, itself a guess with selective supporting evidence) and the extrapolation of limited evidence into scientific theory.

Dating methods are not even remotely connected to "Darwinian evolutionary principle". In fact, most data that pretty much substantiates the actual age of the Earth is not even remotely connected to evolutionary biology. Isotopes, ice cores, dendrochronology: none of that necessitates even a cursory knowledge of Darwin or his antecessors.
Plus, evolutionary biology is NOT based on "limited evidence"; it might have been in Darwin's day (although even back then, the facts were pretty clear), but it's come a long way since and - apart from adjustments that account for new discoveries such as DNA, epigenetics, etc. - it has withstood the test of time.

I'm interested in DNA, and examining the possibilities of such appearing, even over aeons, from a series of biological accidents. One person's worldview will conclude that these accidents have happened and here we are, another will conclude that the chances are so remote that they border on impossibility and another source must be responsible.

The supporter who says "Yes, it's practically impossible, yet here we are" (the third group) is also the person who can dismiss much of the bible as practically impossible too, where perhaps a more open view is applicable.

Well, I'd say it's a LONG way from admitting: "there might be more to this than just laws of probability" to "and that's because this book of ancient mythology is a direct line of communication to a personal deity that's just like us".

I find that the former might actually OPEN the mind to immense possibilities that are as of yet beyond our comprehension, while the latter firmly CLOSES it by affirming that most of the truly relevant answers are already there, in a book that describes a deity in the fashion of ancient middle-eastern tyrant kings, considers biological death to be a supernatural punishment for disobedience that'll be done away with at world's end, and affirms that in order to "settle the score", that god needed innocent blood as payment.

 

[Freodin]

Still not my turn I'm afraid. We have a different definition of biological imperative, so two examples of mine would be the need to procreate, or the need to survive. So can you find a biological imperative for the appreciation of beauty, presuming that whatever that imperative is results in "brain chemistry"?

If we have a different definition of "biological imperative" and you are not satisfied with my answers using my definition, it would be very helpful to tell me your definition. Obviously, I cannot answer your question if I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Of course there's a biological imperative for the appreciation of beauty:
in terms of procreation, choosing a partner with attractive features over a partner with unattractive features tends to favour people with good health during body growth, thereby increasing the likelihood of healthy offspring.
In terms of survival, many sceneries that we'd instinctively regard as the most aesthetically pleasing also tend to be the ones conductive to our survival. (cf. locus amoenus)
When young human children from different nations are asked to select which landscape they prefer, from a selection of standardized landscape photographs, there is a strong preference for savannas with trees. The East African savanna is the ancestral environment in which much of human evolution is argued to have taken place. There is also a preference for landscapes with water, with both open and wooded areas, with trees with branches at a suitable height for climbing and taking foods, with features encouraging exploration such as a path or river curving out of view, with seen or implied game animals, and with some clouds. These are all features that are often featured in calendar art and in the design of public parks.

Apart from that, of course, culture has to play its part as well. Man is quite capable of transfering, shifting, or even shaping his instinctual drives. Are obese people attractive? What about anorexic people? What does somebody's hair colour signify? Different cultures will give (and have given) vastly different answers to these questions.

And people who might once have been avid hunters may instead end up collecting stamps, or baseball cards, or Star Wars action figures.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

A few thoughts on open-mindedness:

Strangely enough, I often find that the people who clamour loudest for an open mindset are the very ones who seem to close their eyes to any possibilities beyond the scope of their own particular world views.

This is especially the case whenever the concept of faith is brought to the table and presented as an unassailable virtue. In many (but not all) of these cases, "faith" is used synonymously with contra-intuitive and contra-evidential beliefs that cannot be substantiated with anything other than unmerited conviction. Indeed, as far as fundamentalism is concerned, I'd go so far as to suggest that only irrational beliefs can actually work for a 'literal' religion, because people will not make emotional investments in defense of perfectly obvious truisms, but only in defense of highly questionable ones.
Faith exists only in the context of a continual dialogue with doubt - and that is why apostasy and blasphemy are such horrible evils to people who embrace it. The very concept of a fellow believer coming to a different conclusion is such a collossal stumbling block to some that they must conceive of apostates as people who've never REALLY believed to begin with, but only pretended to do so for some peculiar (and probably reprehensible) reason.

 

[Gadarene]

A few thoughts on open-mindedness:

Strangely enough, I often find that the people who clamour loudest for an open mindset are the very ones who seem to close their eyes to any possibilities beyond the scope of their own particular world views.

I've had it asserted to me plenty of times. All it requires is that you acknowledge the possibility that you be wrong. That doesn't remove the burden from the opponent to produce a viable argument for their claims.

Saw this with trientje earlier - told me (and others) to be open minded to her ideas, then asserts that she could never be wrong about them. So she's hardly taking her own advice.

 

[Tomk80]

I've had it asserted to me plenty of times. All it requires that you acknowledge the possibility that you be wrong. That doesn't remove the burden from the opponent to produce a viable argument for their claims.

Saw this with trientje earlier - told me (and others) to be open minded to her ideas, then asserts that she could never be wrong about them. So she's hardly taking her own advice.

For a very good explanation on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[crimsonleaf]

Of course there's a biological imperative for the appreciation of beauty:

Certain types of beauty (see below).

in terms of procreation, choosing a partner with attractive features over a partner with unattractive features tends to favour people with good health during body growth, thereby increasing the likelihood of healthy offspring.

Agreed.

In terms of survival, many sceneries that we'd instinctively regard as the most aesthetically pleasing also tend to be the ones conductive to our survival. (cf. locus amoenus). When young human children from different nations are asked to select which landscape they prefer, from a selection of standardized landscape photographs, there is a strong preference for savannas with trees. The East African savanna is the ancestral environment in which much of human evolution is argued to have taken place. There is also a preference for landscapes with water, with both open and wooded areas, with trees with branches at a suitable height for climbing and taking foods, with features encouraging exploration such as a path or river curving out of view, with seen or implied game animals, and with some clouds. These are all features that are often featured in calendar art and in the design of public parks.

That's a massive punt to be honest Jane. I happen to love stark barren Icelandic landscapes as much as verdant, tree-filled ones. Nothing to do with survival or ancient historical roots. Maybe I just find them "beautiful"?

Apart from that, of course, culture has to play its part as well. Man is quite capable of transfering, shifting, or even shaping his instinctual drives. Are obese people attractive? What about anorexic people? What does somebody's hair colour signify? Different cultures will give (and have given) vastly different answers to these questions.

And individuals within cultures can and do hold differing views. However, it doesn't surprise me that Inuit men like well upholstered, broad-faced, relatively small-eyed women as they largely form the gene pool from which a selection must be made. Equally, in some cultures black guys like white women and white women like black guys. I'm relatively olive-skinned (Spanish great-grandmother) but I'm attracted to pale-skinned redheads. Go figure.

if you are a pale-skinned redhead feel free to disregard my last remark.

And people who might once have been avid hunters may instead end up collecting stamps, or baseball cards, or Star Wars action figures.

Desperate methinks. I respect you as an academic (and a person) Jane, but taking the scenic views argument, while it may or may not be true that a number of children worldwide are drawn to certain scenarios, the statement that this is linked to ancient survival genetic memory is only an alternative, not definitive, view to the one we hold, which is that our appreciation of beauty is God given. In reality it seems unproven either way and depends on worldview. You are a godchild of Gaia, and environmentalist and state your religion as "nature". I'm a Christian. I am not massively intellectually removed from your philosophy and have sympathies with it, but so do all Christians, and I think your worldview colours your answers as much as mine colours mine.

I think "I collect old milk cartons because I come from a hunting heritage" is a stretch though.