a reader of Randy Alcorn #fundie

a reader of Randy Alcorn #fundie epm.org

I was struck by the fact that it really is insane, illogical, plain NUTS to choose to sin, to disbelieve God. I mean, everything’s laid out, God’s explained everything, and yet there are people who would prefer to suffer in hell than serve God. Satan knew everything, and he chose to rebel, and so many other people do likewise. I’m simply amazed at the audacity of human pride, and its stubborn depths.

116 comments

old comment by = POPE =

This could be fun...

I was struck by the fact that it really is insane, illogical, plain NUTS for a grown person to believe in spooks and demons.

I was struck by the fact that it really is insane, illogical, plain NUTS to believe that an all powerful creator of the universe needs idiots to sell Him to other idiots.

I was struck by the fact that it really is insane, illogical, plain NUTS to believe what some authority figure says without additional proof.

Meh, not as much fun as I thought.

"I’m simply amazed at the audacity of human pride..."

That's because shame is so much more profitable that you have been thoroughly conditioned to it.

old comment by Danarth

@His4life

Strange, There does seem to be at least one set of rules in your religion. Ten Commandments was it? (Hint: There's a commandment about lying)

Of course, if the only qualification for salvation in your interpretation of Christianity is believing in god rather than living by any rules set down by him really does show not only the morality of not only you but your god too.

'Accept his obedience' is nothing more than an encouragment of blind obedience and acceptance in place of using one's brain.

As for the rest, the person who made the orginal comment really does just go to show how worthless Pascal's wager and the argument about free will and god is.

old comment by Canuovea

Variant of Pascal's Wager, which was some pretty good logic in its own right. Don't believe me? Nietzsche loved Pascal, and would never forgive Christianity for corrupting the poor man.

But it has some errors. The main one being that every religion in the world can make the same claim, which really buggers up the math. Pascal's response to this? Christian scriptures are perfect, ergo more authoritative. I think that was it. Anyway, turns out... that isn't exactly the case.

Also that whole thing about taking out a fire insurance... well, no. Technically Pascal had a "regimen" for catching Christianity that basically involved self brainwashing. Which would work (it turns out) to a degree except, well, you know that you brainwashed yourself. And where that leaves the doctrine of grace (which Pascal believed in) up in the air. I mean, if God is the one who gives you grace, that means you can't take it yourself, right?

His4Life,

The more I listen to what you say, the more I suspect you are just trolling for shits and giggles. There is so much logical contradiction and silliness here that I simply can't believe you are who you say.

old comment by Canuovea

His4Life,

Well, you agree with this: "The point of the bible is that EVERYONE sins. What truly matters is if you genuinely seek forgiveness"

And say this: "the only requirement for salvation was faith in Christ's completed work on the cross." Though you do add on this: "All you need to do is accept his obedience in place of your own." Which is easier said than done, after all, the scripture, etc, is not always all that clear on what obedience consists of. Not to mention, genuinely seeking forgiveness and simply having faith in Jesus are separate requirements.

BUT you react to this: "So if I believe in evolution and an old universe, think there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay, and think that it's morally acceptable for a woman to abort a fetus because she doesn't have enough money or time to care for it, that's all OK with God as long as I have 'faith in Jesus's completed work on the cross,' and I'll still go to Heaven if I believe those things up until the moment I die?"

With this: "...you'll be surprised to learn how wrong you are when you come face to face with Jesus. Why would a follower of Christ hold those beliefs? Seems a little odd." Though I will give you credit that you seem to have said someone who believed as such would go to heaven. You still suggest that someone who believes that isn't really a follow of Christ, when there are quite a variety of people who are/believe they are genuine Christians. Additionally, the above person would not have sought forgiveness, but would have believed in Jesus. What happens then?

If it is so that people will go to heaven if they believe in Jesus, regardless of the details, what difference do those details make? Why argue over them?

And the burning in Hell bit did bother me as you say.

old comment by His4Life

Well, sorry if I offended you. I could have been more tactful. As far as your question goes, the details do matter, but not as a condition of salvation. Think of it this way - a good parent-child relationship is unconditional. But love compels children to obey their parents and (assuming the parents are good role models and loving providers) to imitate them and become more like them. I choose to follow Christ and strive daily to imitate him not so that I can go to heaven (that's already a done deal, based on his work on the cross), but because I love Him and desire to emulate him. Any heart that truly loves and seeks God will want to follow his precepts to the best of its ability. On the other hand, if we claim to love God but don't make any effort to follow his teachings, then how real is that love? It's not for me to say, but I'd really question it.

old comment by Canuovea

His4Life,

No need to apologize, we say what we say.

You say that you love Jesus and desire to emulate him, which is great, but... even those Christians who support gay rights, abortion, etc can probably say the same thing. Or at least they believe that they do. Emulating Jesus is not exactly as easy as it appears to be. After all, he taught in parables and riddles most of the time, which even the apostles often didn't comprehend.

So in a kind of reverse Pascal wager... most Christians don't agree on the details (birth control, homosexuality, etc), but they agree on the central focus about believing in Jesus being the path to salvation. Since anyone can be wrong about the details, don't sweat them. By all means, don't give up your beliefs for no reason, but live and let live. that seems to make sense for me. Of course there will always be issues that are very divisive and two-sided (abortion for instance) that increase friction and seem very much like a zero sum game.

old comment by Toothygrin

@His4Life
The discussion on loving your parents bears critique and is an analogy that would not go well for you. Children should obey their parents unquestionably until a certain point. That point is when they begin to think for themselves. We can still love our parents but not agree with them.

Eventually one day, we all move out of our parents' house in quest of our own lives. Those that don't - those who live in their parents' basements at 40 - may be considered dysfunctional. We learn for ourselves that we are our own people, that our parents are ignorant about some things and we outgrow them.

So it has been with society. If we consider religion to be an ignorant parent, we can use the last 2700 years of scientific learning to begin to question the assumptions and obsolescence of our religious past. Atheists have accepted that we need to move out of our parents' house. Religion/our parents no longer have all the answers. The wisest of us will take the good lessons that religion may have and use them, but discard the incorrect.

Your threat of hell is exactly like our parents threatening us with a spanking. We have moved out- they won't be spanking us. It's an empty threat.

old comment by CelticPagan

His4Life- You do know that pain is felt via the nervous system, and when we die, it stops working, right? Ergo, we would not be able to feel pain in hell, since even if you did prove the existence of souls, (which you would have yet to do) you can't feel pain without a functioning nervous system.
Even so, if your feeble excuse for a god were real, (which I doubt) would he really be worth worshipping? He's portrayed as a malevolent, insecure, sadistic pyschopath. I would gladly march into hell with my head held high before showing such a thing the slightest bit of respect. I have no interest in a leader who rules through fear rather than love. A good god would not need the threat of hell or promise of heaven to have people worship him.

old comment by Devil's Advocate

Some sense from a former Christian: Christians believe that when we go to heaven, we will either have no recollection of the world before or be too astounded to even care. Falil's case for friends in hellfire would be a moot point to them. But the real point is how your god would be a fucking dick if either one was true. If wee were too astounded, the argument/contradiction of “good works without faith is dead” and Pascals Wager stands. But the true hypocracy would entail the former, the belief which my father and his church sold to me. It's exactly like sending an amnesiac to the gas chamber for a crime, or having him arrested in the hospital after an accident. The dickishness of punishing with full force a person with no recollection of what he did wrong sickens me. Either way, His4Life, you lose. You seem like the type of hardcore Christian my father is, the type to believe in the former. Like I said, its a lose-lose either way.
-Devil's Advocate

old comment by DinosaurRidinJeebus

Okay first off "insane" is a pejorative for mental illness. Having one belief or another has nothing to do with mental illness. In fact, if believing in something that isn't real makes you "crazy" than most of our country is bat shit insane.

Secondly, you don't know the first thing about logic. LOGIC dictates that we should demand hard evidence for any claim and dismiss any beliefs we may have that don't line up in reality. You believe in something that does not exist, that is not logical. SIMPLE. Although you morons make this alot harder than it should be.

Lastly, being an atheist has nothing to do with "rebelling" or wanting to "sin." Being an atheist means you were open minded enough to listen to your logic teacher and examine your beliefs. Being an atheist means not believing in lies that only gullible sheep (like you) continue to believe after learning logic. You are a sheep. Get over it.

old comment by His4Life

CelticPagan, that is a good question. It's a common misconception that we will be disembodied souls in eternity. What the Bible actually teaches is that God will resurrect both he saved and the unsaved when Christ returns, giving both of them imperishable physical bodies similar to the bodies we have now, but not subject to death. It's these bodies that will be burned, sodomized, etc., in hell, while the saved in contrast will spend eternity in a glorified body serving God. Presumably God will restore and perhaps even strengthen the nervous system in both groups of people.

Marvel not at this: for the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment (John 5:28-29).

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1329-the-resurrection-of-the-wicked

Hope this helps to answer your question! God bless you.

old comment by Isis-sama

Said by His4Life - "It's a common misconception that we will be disembodied souls in eternity. What the Bible actually teaches is that God will resurrect both he saved and the unsaved when Christ returns, giving both of them imperishable physical bodies similar to the bodies we have now, but not subject to death. It's these bodies that will be burned, sodomized, etc., in hell, while the saved in contrast will spend eternity in a glorified body serving God. Presumably God will restore and perhaps even strengthen the nervous system in both groups of people."

So according to you your God restores the dead's ability to feel pain for the specific purpose of torturing them for eternity? That sounds pretty messed up if you ask me. (And may I say that my belief is that no one deserves to be tortured for all eternity, even the most depraved, much less the poor soul who lives a good life but doesn't believe in God.)

old comment by

Isis-sama, you're focusing on only half he equation. According to the Bible, everyone will be resurreced to receive the reward for their obedience to Christ:

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." - 2 Corinthians 5:10

God does not restore the dead to life just to "torture" them for eternity. For those in Christ, we have a beautiful, glorified body just like that of our resurrected savior to look forward to one day. We are physical beings and God created us with bodies. It makes sense, then, that we would receive the reward or punishment for the things we do in that body as a physical, as well as spiritual reality. My understanding of the Bible is that our departed loved ones are in an intermediate state until Christ returns and they are given new bodies. According to scripture, the saved rest and are at peace while they wait for their bodies, while the unsaved are tormented by the consciousness of their guilt and shame before God.

Eternity could begin any day, Isis-sama. Where do you think you will go when God calls you into eternity? Would you like to know how to have peace about this issue?

old comment by His4Life

DA, here's the story. It seems obvious to me that both those in heaven and hell will remember the details of their lives and will retain their normal identities:

"Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom.

He cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in agony in this flame."

But Abraham said, "Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in the same way, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us."

He said, "I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won't also come into this place of torture."

But Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them."

He said, "No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent."

He said to him, "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead."

Luke 16:1931

old comment by His4Life

DA, here's the story. It seems obvious to me that both those in heaven and hell will remember the details of their lives and will retain their normal identities:

old comment by Anon-e-moose

'a reader of Randy Alcorn'. Well, along with 'God's explanation', he clearly can't think for himself.

But then, that's the Bible: it does the thinking for you.

Someone else - who was probably a born-again Christian for far longer than you, 'a reader', suddenly - by dint of his own critical thinking faculties - started thinking for himself.

He was amazed at the simplicity of fundie delusion and it's stubborn depths and pride. Like the rest of we Atheists, he concluded that the notion of only the religiously fundamentalist could be moral was insane, illogical, plain NUTS.

He - like the rest of we Atheists - has chosen to disbelieve 'God'. And like the rest of us, Jonathan Edwards doesn't rebel, nor, unlike so many other people who do likewise: Sin.

Moral: The rest of the world is becoming more and more secular. Your light is dying, fundies, and you know it. Deal with it.

old comment by His4Life

DA, here's the story. It seems obvious to me that both those in heaven and hell will remember the details of their lives and will retain their normal identities:

old comment by Isis-sama

@His4Life -

Yeah. I don't remember the Bible saying that Jesus got a "glorified, perfected" body upon his return to life. In fact, I recall that upon his return, he went out of the way to reassure his disciples that he was as flesh and blood as they were.

So according to you the only suffering the unsaved will go through is the guilt and shame about being wrong about what God thinks is right? What about the lake of fire mentioned in Revelation? Not to mention, if it turns out that God believes everything that you people say that he does, guilt and shame would really be the last emotions I'd be feeling. Just because an argument comes from authority - even the ultimate authority - does not make it right.

And believe me, I know where I'm likely to be going if God is the kind of being you believe him to be, and I *am* at peace with that fact. Sometimes, you have to take a stand for what you believe in, even if you have to make sacrifices for doing so. I have no desire whatsoever to compromise my morals in order to follow your god, whether or not he is real, and if he is, well, I don't believe anyone ever said what would happen after the damned are sent to Hell. But even if God ends up ruling the world with an iron fist forever, that won't change the fact that I believe the things you believe he believes are wrong. And I refuse to feel guilty or ashamed of that. Ever.

old comment by His4Life

Isis-sama, sorry, my post wasn't very clear. What I meant was that the unsaved dead are tormented by their guilty conscience while they await the resurrection. The Book of Daniel says "many will awaken in that day - some to life and some to eternal shame and humiliation." At the resurrection, the saved will enter into God's kingdom, while the unsaved will be humiliated and then cast into the lake of fire for eternity. The Bible is clear that this is a literal destination and that the suffering in the lake of fire is real, not metaphorical. However, equally real is the beauty, joy and peace of God's kingdom, to which ALL people are invited, including yourself.

BTW, Isis is the name of a pagan deity.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Devil's Advocate

The person in this thread - who shall remain clueless - replied to you: 'my personal belief'. Sums up the stupidity of religion, really. 'Their' personal belief, with the emphasis on 'their' and especially 'personal'. So not only their own solipsistic - and therefore subjective - viewpoint, without considering differing (and potentially belief-destroying) thinking: reality, based on facts backed up by evidence (and no, a mere 'book' of fairytales cannot be used to prove it's own claims). In other words, their own opinion. Well, as The Dude would say...

image

...with emphasis on your.

And someone who bases not only their 'opinions' on said book of fairytales, but their whole mindset on such (thus is the psychological lobotomy that is fundie religion; 'the Bible. It does the thinking for you', and all that jazz), then everything they say, do and above all think, is worth less than nothing. In your comment, Devil's Advocate, you said 'you lose'. Well, as demonstrated in past posts by said person who shall remain clueless, when, in their attempts to force you to their way of thinking - and 'beliefs' - and they realise they're not getting their way, they are reduced to threats ('Turn or Burn', 'Sodomising by demons for eternity' etc), then they know they've lost far more than just the argument. the term 'Argumentum ad Baculum' ('Argument by Force'). It exists for a reason. And said person in this thread who shall remain clueless, you & your 'opinions' are the reason why that term exists. And why you lose, as Devil's Advocate points out. Not just argumentally, neither; when they resort, nay, are reduced to not only threats, but insults, then...!

Religious Fundies: they simply can't handle the concept that they - and their 'beliefs' & 'faith' - are completely wrong in every conceivable way, and have been proven wrong time & again, thus their use of 'Turn or Burn' threats; psychological blackmail. Because they know they have no control over you otherwise. Control: the real agenda behind religion. Well, that's what Atheism - thinking for oneself - is all about, turning the tables on what used to be the dominant paradigm, and - via legislation (Roe vs Wade, Kitzmiller vs Dover, Proposition 8's & DOMA's overturning & repealment etc) - religious control over people is now the people having control over religion. In the increasingly Secular world, religion - and it's unjustifiable dogma - has been found wanting. And people no longer want it. Fundie Christianity had been revealed as the worse than sewer of depravity, despite it's preachers' claims of being 'Saved'; right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. And it's followers themselves do nothing to clean up their own house - and with the same zeal (& 'Guilty until proven innocent') as was used against supposed 'Communists', as per the witchhunts by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Because they know that if they did, there would be no right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity left in the US.

China is, at best, irreligious. Nope, they - and their education system, and thus their R&D via universities (no Kitzmiller vs Dover required there; as with the UK, and it's legally enforceable National Curriculum - even in 'Faith schools', it's teaching the Big Bang & Evolution as fact - or else) aren't hamstrung by unjustifiable religious control. Indeed, quite the opposite. In Soviet China, God worships you.

Moral: In the 21st Century, religion no longer has the right to control people. It's people who have every right in the world to control religion. And if it requires religion - via legislation - to be forced to bow to the whims of the people, then so be it. After all, Democracy stems from the Greek words 'Demos' ('The People') and 'Kratos' ('Strength'). Thus 'Strength of the People': Democracy. The superiority of the people. The only other alternative: 'Theocracy'. Three words: Iran. Saudi Arabia.

...the notion of Pat Robertson & his ilk being forced - via the law - to like Atheists, women wanting abortions, Liberals, LGBT people et al isn't sounding so bad, eh? Secularism is becoming the dominant paradigm after all; and what's so bad about individual people thinking for themselves, and taking control over their own lives...? Ergo, fundamentalist religions - and their clergy & believers' raison d'etre: controlling people via psychological blackmail - can never justify their existence. QED.

tl;dr: Religion - and it's 'morals' - have been found wanting, and we the people no longer want it. Your 'God' doesn't exist (because you can't prove otherwise to our satisfaction), and we the people are now your God (otherwise you fundies hate democracy, making you Nazis; you are right-wingers, after all. Hitler was pro-Life too). Deal with it, fundies.

old comment by Dr.Shrinker

@ His-4-Life

You have just demonstrated that you have no idea what a parable is. They are not descriptions of literal fact. They are fictional stories told to make a point.

That being said, you have obviously missed the point of the parable you quoted. Had you actually read it, you would have noticed that nowhere does it talk about the faith of either Lazarus or the the rich man. All we know from the parable is that Lazarus was miserably poor and the the rich man was, well rich. If anything, this parable is the single greatest argument against the absurd "faith alone brings salvation" that bible thumpers like you try to pound into people.

Criminy lady, just once couldn't you demonstrate some basic competence?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@SpukiKitty

I say simply let aforementioned person (in this thread) who shall remain clueless continue their committing verbal seppuku; digging themselves an argumental hole far deeper than the one that could be made by the drill in Nero's ship Narada in the JJ Abrams "Star Trek" film. As I point out in this thread:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87268&Page=3

Such is the nature of the right-wing fundie: everything they say, do, and think results in their own annihilation, logically- and credibility-wise. Because right-wing Funda[i]mental[/i]ist Christianity itself - as well as the book of fairytales called 'the Bible' it is based on - is made of more than infinite FAIL.

old comment by Isis-sama

So the damned definitely will suffer, for real? And yet you say that God will not grant the damned the ability to feel pain just so they can suffer? Do you then think the restoration of the damned's bodies that you say will happen is a natural thing, something that God has no say over? You really think that God couldn't do something about that and prevent the damned's suffering if he really wanted to? According to you, he *is* omnipotent, after all.

As for the "invitation" to join heaven - my understanding of that is that I'm only "invited" to enter Heaven if I agree to follow God, well your particular interpretation of God, and leave the rest of the people who God doesn't think is worthy, including those who worship him but not the right version of him, to their fate of eternal suffering.

A God who decides the worth of people based on whether or not they follow him and not whether or not they are good or bad people doesn't strike me as being someone worthy of much in the way of loyalty - especially if he condemns all those who don't follow him the right way to an eternity of suffering because of that fact.

You say it's a simple choice between Heaven and Hell, but really it's more than that. It's a choice between agreeing with the decision to willingly consign the majority of the human population into an eternity of suffering and the fact that they deserve that, and Hell. Not so simple anymore, huh?

And about my screenname being that of a pagan goddess - I'm honestly surprised it took you this long to comment on it.

old comment by Canuovea

Anon-e-moose,

How the heck do you manage to write so long of a response without getting told your post is too long?

Also, you simply can't force people to like something, by law or otherwise. Well, most of the time you can't. Hitler tried it... Fundies try it all the time, like the Byzantine Empire, which managed to shoot itself in the foot because of that.

Isis-sama,

As for torture and hell... Paul doesn't actually go into it that much, he focused more on heaven. Then along came people like Augustine, who made a whole bunch of stuff up. Or, if you prefer, made more stuff up. Like Original Sin, for instance, which many other Augustinian contemporaries thought was absurd.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

To quote a fellow commenter in a past thread; and what a certain person in this thread who shall remain clueless would do well to read very carefully:

@Xotan

"Do you have to mention religion at all? Are you so utterly incapable of compassion and love that the only way you can relate to people is through your fundamentalist beliefs?

Besides, what makes you so sure that you too will escape hell. Read your Bible properly and with attention and you will see that fundamentalism is essentially a virulent form of self-righeouness that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees.

In believeing as you do that someone is going to hell, you are arrogating to yourself a decision that is god's alone. That is pride. In believing that you are saved is also pride and presumption. In even thinking as you do about hell and others you are setting limits to the power and the mercy of god. That is a blasphemy. For shame!"

Just because you 'think' - as in believe - that you are 'Saved', dare not presume that Matthew 7:1 doesn't apply to you, via everything you say, do and think now, lest you join those whom your 'God' will 'judge'. Mayhaps because of you and your self-righteous ilk, it's you right-wing fundies who will burn and be sodomised by demons for eternity, and we 'beknighted heathens' who will live in Heaven forever in your stead. There's nothing in your book of fairytales that says that this won't happen; but then Jesus doesn't actually condemn homosexuality in the NT - not word one by him...! [/smartarse] >:D

These funda[i]mental[/i]ist Christians 'believed' that they were 'Saved'.

Committing the deadly sin of Pride, whilst 'believing' to be 'Saved'. Tut-tut. Now, what was it a certain man once said to a woman he'd just saved from a howling, stone-wielding, self-righteous, judgemental & hypocritical mob; and after he'd forgiven her for her misdeeds - in this case prostitution...? Oh yes, that's right: 'Go and sin no more'.

A certain someone in this thread who shall remain clueless has - as their track record here in FSTDT proves - sinned many times, whilst being 'Saved'. Matthew 7:1 does not give you the right to an 'opinion' about anything, never mind be judgemental about anyone not exactly like you (but then, not being exactly like you is a bad thing... how? At least we're not hypocrites, in claiming to be 'saved', yet 'believe' that 'Salvation' gives us carte blanche to be douchebag cunts to everyone else. That's why you'll never see Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, Sufi Muslims, Buddhists etc quoted here in FSTDT; keep themselves - and their beliefs - to themselves; don't bother anyone [least of all politically], they're not bothered by anyone).

Remember: James 2:17: 'Faith without works is dead'. Which is what all you right-wing fundies will be: dead. For eternity.

@Canuovea

Here in the UK, racist speech is illegal, as per Section 4 of the Public Order Act. Speech designed to outrage public morals, decency, and cause harassment, alarm & distress to others (especially minorities) is illegal under Section 5 of the Public Order Act (merely swearing at police will get you arrested. You do the maths). Several years ago, smoking in public restaurants, pubs, workplaces and generally anywhere enclosed where members of the public congregate was made illegal.

As a non-smoker, I have no problem with that. Nor am I racist, sexist, homophobic or anti-abortion. So what if laws force others to be Politically Correct? Again, I have no problem with that.

PROTIP: If Rush Limburger deigned (and dared) to show his face on UK TV, he - via OFCOM & it's legally enforceable laws - would be forced to be both left- and right-wing simultaneously ('Divide By Zero. O SHI-'?!). Forced balance in TV media (thus no UK arm of Faux News; if there were, and Sarah Failin appeared on such, she would have to be both fundie and Atheist - or else.)

'Forced neutrality in TV'? No 'opinions' allowed in our news? I have no problem with that III.

There's something to be said for our oft-criticised 'Nanny State'. It was that which resulted in the creation of our National Health Service in the late 1940s. Welcome to the 21st Century, USA. You have Obama to thank for catching up, re. Universal Healthcare; Cuba spenda as much on Health, as it does Defence after all...!

China - as are we in the UK - is working on Gene Therapy, as well as gene-based cures for various ailments. How's that 'Faith Healing' by 'prayer' working out for you, eh Texas...?! [/smug]

old comment by Isis-sama

@Canuovea

To be honest, I have no idea why people take Paul's opinions on heaven as having any basis on reality, even among people who take what the Bible says literally. According to the Bible, Paul was just a guy who had a vision of Jesus and then became a Christian. How exactly does that make him an expert on what God's will or Heaven is like? The other parts of the Bible at least claim that God or Jesus said such and such is wrong or right. How come the views of essentially one random Christian get quoted as fact nowadays when he, according to his own words, didn't know anything more than anyone else?

old comment by Canuovea

Anon-y-moose,

You can force people to say something, or not, by law. That doesn't mean they will like following that law.

And if you have no problem with it, all the better for you. Until they do something you have a problem with and there are no controls to prevent it. Nature of a unitary parliamentary system, I'm afraid.

Isis-sama,

Paul... ergh. Not only was Paul visited by Jesus (or so he claims), but everything he taught was divine revelation straight from God (or so he claimed). Basically, he claimed to speak for Jesus. That is why he is considered so important. And someone believed his claims (as opposed to those claims that went against his, which we know exist because he complains of them) and boom Niccea and Bible compilation.

Basically, Paul won so people believe him. Nevermind the fact that he thought the Kingdom of God would come in his lifetime. He explained Christians dying by saying they would get new bodies, I believe... so there is that.

old comment by His4Life

There is a lot here to respond to. I've been very busy these last few days, so please give me some time to catch up.

Paul is not the only one to focus on Heaven, rather than Hell - Jesus did as well. And that's what I would prefer to do. However, hell is also a reality described in the Bible and one we need to be aware of. Why believe Paul? Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus Christ as an apostle, or messenger. Some churches believe that the office of apostle passed away after the first century, but in my church, we continue to recognize modern day apostles. An apostle is someone who is directly commissioned by Jesus to go and carry his message to the world. Remember, as Christians, we believe Jesus is still alive, so the idea of someone encountering Jesus is not absurd if you believe that he is just as alive today as he was in the first century. That also means you can get to know him, just as easily as if he was walking around on Earth.

As far as the question about sodomy goes, I don't want to dwell on it, as it's something I've addressed before on this site. The verse comes from Daniel and refers to the unsaved being raised to "shame and public humiliation." Historically, the term for "public humiliation" was associated with sodomy. It was common for victorious generals to humiliate their prisoners in this way in ancient times. My pastor gave a talk on this subject a few years back and I can get his notes if it's something you'd like to study further. It's not a central issue in the Bible, though, so I don't really want to spend time on it; besides, even if you take the threat of humiliation out of the equation, you still have to deal with the Bible verses that describe hell in other ways. Taking the issue of sodomy out of the equation doesn't make the afterlife rosy for the unsaved.

Hope this helps.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Canuovea

Question: Is there a Westboro Baptist Church here in the UK? If your answer to that question is the only one possible, not only have you proved my point, but have also annihilated your own argument.

No 'WBC' - or it's equivalent - in the UK? Because such wouldn't be allowed to exist? I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I have no problem with that.

I bet there's a hell of a lot of people in the US who would agree with me too.

PROTIP: Before 2007, Tony & Cherie Blair were Church of England. As in Protestant. It wasn't until he'd been replaced as Prime Minister by Gordon Brown, that the Blairs admitted they'd become devout Roman Catholics. In our Parliament, openly admitting to be a fundie is a sure fire vote-killer, electorally. In the main political parties, your allegiances are to your country, monarch, political party, constituents, media, and God; and in that order. If you so much as imply in public that you're a fundie, the Chief Whips will put you right in no uncertain terms (losing your office, aides etc; to say nothing of losing any chance of advancing up the 'Greasy Pole' to a future cabinet position; the ambition of any member of a political party). If you're a member of Parliament - Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat - as far as you're concerned the Chief Whips/Party Leader are God, and you must accept this fact - as well as the party's policies (even if such policies conflict with your 'beliefs') - or face deselection at the next election, and kiss goodbye to your future political career.

So, y'see, our political system is extremely Secular** - true Separation of Church and State (even though we have a state religion, the Church of England*, lol) - if not outright Atheist. And as I must keep saying: I have no problem with that.

Even if the WBC's Home Office-ordered ban on entering the UK was lifted, remember: Sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act. Forced to have 'God Loves Gays' etc on their placards. That's how we roll in my country. Romans 13:1-5. Suck it, Fred Phelps.

If there's one thing we tolerant Brits will never tolerate, it's intolerance. Just ask fascist & Hitler-lover Oswald Mosley, after the Battle of Cable Street. The salt-of-the-earth, no-nonsense, support the underdog, pro-Jewish Cockneys made sure Nazism - and it's unjustifiable right-wing thinking - was never allowed to exist here. Denying the right to exist, of those who themselves want to deny racial & sexual minorities, women, and left-wingers their basic rights? And - via legislation - ensuring their unjustifiable right-wing/fundie way of thinking has no right to exist? I have no problem with that.

Related factoid: During the latter half of WWII, when US troops were stationed in the UK (especially prior to D-Day), the whites insisted that there were segregated pubs for black & white US personnel, but the British there refused; in the resulting fights between white and black troops, guess who the British patrons in said pubs sided with...?

...but then, having your country attacked by a right-wing inferior subhuman racist Nazi (who dared to think he had the right to have ideas above his station) will do that to you, I guess.

Moral: 'Then they came for the religious fundies & anti-democracy extreme right-wing Dominionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a religious fundie or a Nazi. Because I was the one who reported them to the authorities for their unjustifiably bigoted 'beliefs'-based Thoughtcrimes.'

The Muslim Council of Great Britain are very pro-government & democracy. Proof? They keep the Home Office, Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Section, and MI6 appraised of any & all Islamist extremist/Al-Qaeda activities & information related to them. As in their Thoughtcrimes. Said Home Office, Scotland Yard & MI6 shares this anti-terrorist info - Islamist extremist/Al-Qaeda Thoughtcrimes - with the FBI/CIA/NSA/Interpol/Mossad. Which has been proven to have prevented potential terrorist attacks in the UK, Europe, Israel & the US.

Your call, Canuovea.

*- Our religious clergy aren't allowed to vote. USA, take note.

**- India's political system is even more secular. And India is the the most religious country on the planet. Oh, teh irony.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Canuovea

"Maggie Thatcher couldn't have done half the crap she did without the British system working as it was designed."

And look what happened to her - and the Tories - as a result; certainly in Scotland, when she introduced the Poll Tax there first.

Like her bum-chum Ronnie Raygun, she went loopy (but then, such are right-wingers: they're mentally inferior). There's a potential treatment for Alzheimer's (in it's early stages), so at least Sir Terry Pratchett can benefit from this new research. Pity that The real Antichrist Maggie Thatcher (*spit*) is too far gone for such to help that vile right-wing slimebag. [/Schadenfreude] >:D

old comment by Canuovea

Anon-e-moose,

Thatcher and Hitler are quite different and you know it. While Thatcher might have screwed up Britain, she did so with the majority support of the British people for 11 years. And the British system worked as it was designed to. Not only is that a Godwin, but it is just a bad comparison.

And you hate people who think differently from you in one specific respect? Huh. Says bundles. Even I don't see a reason to hate right wingers, generally, I just disagree with most of their policies most of the time.

Anyway, as you say, conversation ended.

His4Life,

I was under the impression that the concept of Hell, just like Original Sin, was focused on more by Augustine. Paul mentions God, like a potter, creating some vessels for destruction, but doesn't go too much farther into the fate of those who don't get to Heaven. At least as far as I can recall.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"I was struck by the fact that it really is insane, illogical, plain NUTS to choose to sin, to disbelieve God."

'Alcorn', eh...?

image

Well, as a Brony, I'm struck by the fact that it really is insane, illogical, plain NUTS to choose to be intolerant, to disbelieve Princess Celestia.

Because, unlike your so-called 'God', we can at least see this Alicorn, Alcorn.

Take a letter, reader of Randy: 'Dear Princess Celestia: today, I learned how it's bad to force your way of thinking upon everyone else; 'Pride' and 'Stubbornness' are traits among certain 'Humans' (not all of them, thank Lauren Faust!) that aren't shared in Equestria. Even Nightmare Moon eventually saw the error of her ways, when shown the power of Friendship, Forgiveness, and Love.'

a reader of Randy Alcorn #fundie epm.org

116 comments

Confused?