Video: “A Letter From Hell”
posted at 4:40 pm on October 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I can’t imagine why the Washington Times would devote an article to this, unless they’re as strapped for material as we are today, in which case touche. It comes from GodTube, the religious-themed YouTube competitor that the boss blogged about a few weeks back. Judging from the attention paid to it by Nightline, this is one of their showcase clips, and with good reason. It’s well performed, especially given the poor quality of most amateur horror. The lapsed Catholic in me loves it: lots of guilt, lots of brimstone. Atheists will love it too, especially the emphasis at the beginning on how “Josh” and “Zack” lead comparable lives; if Josh has done anything evil to invite a dunking in the lake of fire, we’re not privy to it. His sin is his benightedness, and even that’s not presented as his fault, exactly. It’s Zack’s fault for not badgering him into converting. Does that mean Zack’s going into the lake, too? Doubtful.
Hitchens relishes railing against religious people who assure him that God loves him and in the next breath promise that he’ll be roasting for eternity not for any misdeeds but for simply lacking faith. I’ve noticed some of our readers shying away from that claim in our comment battles on this site, possibly due to some innate sense that it’s unjust. Not everyone agrees, obviously.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
hmmm, I’m a practicing Catholic, and even I think that’s a little too in your face to be effective.
John from OPFOR on October 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I’m a Catholic as well (convert from Protestantism), and things like this were fairly common in my early Protestant days. Churches around here still have morality plays like this – fairly common. One of the most popular is Heaven’s Gates, Hell’s Flames.
tizzidale on October 30, 2007 at 4:52 PM
The primary motivations of guilt, guilt, and more guilt would lead most people to embrace atheism as a worldview, despite its foundation being rooted in shifting sand. I believe that Happiness and Joy are part and parcel of being a daily Christian.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM
I disagree somewhat. It’s not exactly a lack of faith but a rejection of Christ.
And yes, this video is a bit much, but it’s intent is to scare the crap out of Christians, not unbelievers.
Esthier on October 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Dude, I am groovin’ on sulphur right now.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Is it wrong to have laughed?
Nonfactor on October 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I’ve said before in our comment battles – judgment does not come as a result of “not having faith.” Judgment is the result of sin. In traditional orthodox Christianity, the judgment is for a person’s sin – both individual sins, and inherited sin.
I don’t know why people insist that one is “sent to hell” for lack of faith. It is not the position of traditional Christianity.
What’s the deal with all the religion posts in the past few days? Not that I’m complaining, just curious.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Well, with a snarky little comment like “p.s. Wish you were here” at the end… I wonder if there was any hope for him anyway!
That was a bit over the top.
Nineball on October 30, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Arguing over religion is like running in the special olympics….
I thought this fire and brimstone shit went out with Jonathan Edwards.
John from OPFOR on October 30, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I’m quite surprised by this. I thought even atheists were beginning to understand the concept of hell and damnation as the person’s turning away from god, rather than god condemning the person there.
The idea is that God loves you and we have free will. People choose to reject god and condemn themselves to the one place, hell, that is utterly stripped of god’s presence or anything else divine or divinely inspired.
Nessuno on October 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM
load of bollocks
Ochlan on October 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Convenient. “Pay no attention to the lake of fire behind the curtain.”
Sorry, but the whole system of belief is deeply flawed, from “original sin” right through to “propitiation by proxy”, and however embarrassing certain aspects of the dogma may be, it’s all part of the same scam.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM
To-may-to, to-mah-to. The effect is the same: accept Christ as your savior (and expunge the original sin) or burn.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Yup, into the lake-o-fire you go!
No, you’re not gonna need a swim buddy, this isn’t day camp…BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I think it accomplished what it set out to do: Motivate Christians to share their faith. Nothing wrong with that in my book. Jesus told a similar story in Luke Chapter 16.
Matticus Finch on October 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM
All you have to do is say “I believe” and ask for forgiveness before you die and you’re Golden!!
So long as you see it coming…..
bbz123 on October 30, 2007 at 5:04 PM
You’d better let the guys who made this video know that. It seems clear to me that “Josh” hasn’t turned away from God at all. He just hasn’t “found” him (yet).
Enjoy the fire, Josh.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM
But then you’ve condemned yourself to Muslim hell. I prefer to keep my options open and attempt to rationalize my way into heaven once I die.
Nonfactor on October 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Dude.
John from OPFOR on October 30, 2007 at 5:09 PM
nailinmyeye. It may not be a position of traditional Christianity, but that doesn’t stop modern day born-agains from using it as part of their stump speech. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been treated in just this manner, both as a non-believer, and then as a Jew-by-Choice. (again, a non-believer in many eyes!) There are countless ‘Christians’ out there who believe this is orthodoxy. You may not, and you come from a pretty good foundation, given what I’ve read over the years, but that doesn’t change the fact that many do.
nukemhill on October 30, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Here you go.
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Peski,
What worldview are you assuming, in advance, that allows you to say Christian theology (however, roughly understood by the video) is “deeply flawed.”
What evidence do you have for your embrace of this worldview?
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Yeah, that bothered me. They put all the responsibility in “Zach’s” hands for not forcing “Josh” to become a Christian.
Which is further proof that God is loving. He is so loving that He will allow you a place completely devoid of His presence.
Basically with hell, you get exactly what you want. Christians claim you don’t really want to be separated from God for all eternity, but not everyone agrees. Hitchens thinks God isn’t really great, and that’s fine. He isn’t forced to be any where near God.
Esthier on October 30, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Oops, see that got scrubbed. Mods, feel free to wipe my 5:09.
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Strikes me as a piss-poor theology. God is so merciful that He’ll forgive anybody for anything… except for not reading His particular book. Ouch.
morganfrost on October 30, 2007 at 5:12 PM
It has nothing to do with a book. The basic idea, and it really is basic, is that He’ll forgive anybody for anything so long as the person actually wants and asks for forgiveness.
It’s like New Orleans after Katrina. Bush was open to providing the city with help from the National Guard, but he could just invade a state. Blanco had to ask for the National Guard.
It may have seemed heartless when people were stranded on their rooftops, but if presidents were allowed to send troops into states at his discretion, we might have some problems.
The exact same concept is applied here. If you want to bash it, feel free to do so, but at least have a clear idea of what you’re bashing.
Esthier on October 30, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Not exactly the same. And, I would say that the, “nuance”, is significant.
But, you stated above that Hitchens loves it when people say God loves him and “in the next breath promise that he’ll be roasting for eternity not for any misdeeds but for simply lacking faith. If the result is the same, or it doesn’t matter, why make the distinction?
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:16 PM
That was funny.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM
That was cool how he was able to continue writing even while they grabbed him, dragged him and threw him in The Fiery Pit.
Oh, and for the creators of this little gem – proofreading is your friend.
Laura on October 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM
It is what is it.
I wish Christians would push the love aspects more and the burning in hell less. If someone is going to come to believe and have a relationship with God, they’re going to do it because of love. They may go through the motions because they fear hell, but I don’t really see people truly believing out of fear alone.
lol. Good luck with that.
BadgerHawk on October 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Don’t braise me bro?
I got nothing.
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I just thought it ironic that one of Jesus’ parables stress the fact that one can’t “send a letter from hell” (not that parables are to be taken that literally) – yet they use this as a plot device to scare the crap out of people. I also
lovehate the use of the word, “personal.” It’s not enough for Christ to be your Savior, He must be your “personal” savior. It’s not enought to have a relationship with Him, it must be a “personal” relationship. Gah, i hate that term.All of that being said, Allah, you have one major man-crush on Hitchens. I thought you had it bad for MKH . . .
tizzidale on October 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Name a single tenet of Christian (or any other) faith, and I will probably disagree with it. The specific issues I was referring to above are original sin (I’m guilty because of something my forebears did) and “propitiation by proxy” – the idea that sacrificing a scapegoat can then cleans me of that guilt. And these two concepts are clearly the core of what Christianity is all about.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Perhaps Allah, you are having some second thoughts into how you wish to spend eternity? All you have to do is ask Jesus to forgive you and then do your best to walk the walk and talk the talk. None of us on this side of the isle can ever live up to His example, but then thats why He died for us and why there is Forgiveness. End of Sermon for Today and not a bit sorry if I offended anybody.
serenity on October 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM
It seems clear to me that “Josh” hasn’t turned away from God at all. He just hasn’t “found” him (yet).Enjoy the fire, Josh.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Well, Christian theology, as I understand it, would portray all people as separated from God, not just those who outright have rejected him.
And, I don’t particularly like that video either. I would actually be quite surprised to find literal tortuous fire in the afterlife.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
They should do more proof reading. They spelled “own agenda” as “on agenda” at 6:12.
O-Dub on October 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Ugh. That was supposed to be a quote, not a strike. Hot Air gives me a preview button, and I’m not grateful enough to use it. Please, forgive me!
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM
No. I’m a Christian, but that’s so over the top it, I bust out laughing. Couldn’t help myself. Christians are allowed to have a sense of humour…
Actually, nowhere in the New Testament does it say that one should accept Christ as savior. Of course, Christ is our only salvation (John 14:6), but Paul does say that we should receive “Christ as Lord.” (Colossians 2:6)
zb42 on October 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM
I don’t see how Loundry’s deleted comment was much different than several of Allah’s posts. Rather it was more concise.
Free Constitution on October 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Great observations.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM
I believe the question of “whether or not Christianity is emotionally pleasing to the average person” or “comfortable” or “emotionally palatable” is independent of the question of: “is Christianity true?”
Let us be honest here.
Does anyone doubt that Islam’s embrace of “72 virgins concept” stems directly from the Qur’an’s anthropological-centered, and man-driven theology?
Atheists love to point out flaws in Christian theology that they find uncomfortable with.
But may I respectfully challenge atheists to seriously wrestle with the past philosophical writings of atheists scholars themselves. You may find the answer leads to Christian Theism.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 5:27 PM
You’re saving this thread for me.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:27 PM
ROTFLMAO
peski on October 30, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I could never buy into that concept; it completely disregards Romans 8:29 – 30. Calvinism makes a lot more sense than Christianity as a form of Amway, which may not be how many Christians think of it, but it’s certainly how they behave – as evidenced by this video.
I mean, the thinking seems to be that Jesus is coming back and he’s accidentally going to fry a bunch of people if I don’t get busy and meet my quota. The bible, as I’m reading it, does not support that view at all.
Laura on October 30, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I agree with your last point, but I disagree that it supports Calvinism.
Esthier on October 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Heh.
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM
The only way to know what kind of person you really are is to see what you do in tough situations. Nowadays we don’t have many of those. But God knows what we would do in every situation, and I think we will be given that knowledge also on Judgement Day. Because it is our nature to think of ourselves first and ignore the suffering of others, we are simply not worthy to be in God’s presence at all, much less for eternity. The modern day sense of entitlement that we feel extends to us expecting to be pampered by God for all of eternity. God said he will remove the toil from those who love him, but for the rest he will not. If you don’t love God now, when will you?
For those who don’t go with God, what will happen to this universe? Since matter and energy are not destroyed, it is reasonable to conclude that consciousness is also not destroyed. Because of the laws of thermodynamics, energy will just dissipate into entropy. Since the universe is expanding, accelerating actually, everything will get farther and farther apart, unless it is all black and near absolute zero. So while it sounds cold and dark, physicists actually call it heat death because there will be no energy in the universe except heat that is spread out across vast distances. Maybe something like that resolves the Bible’s explanation of being thrown into a lake of fire (heat death) but also into outer darkness.
“But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.” Hosea 13:4.
pedestrian on October 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM
“Dear Zak, I died today…it..it’s alot different than I expected…”
BWWAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAA…HOOOHHOAHAAHAHAHAAH!
PUHLEEEEZE! This is what passes for spirituality? Cheesy melodramatic fear mongering. BOOOOHHH Teh Debilz gona gicha!
Remember to send in you “Love Gift”. Big weekend at the track coming up.
ronsfi on October 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Very good observation. Thanks for that.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Never have I said or suggested that Christianity “sucks.” Ever. On the contrary, I’m sure I’ve said in a number of comment threads that I think it’s a force for good on balance. I just think it’s based on fiction.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Na. I find almost all “philosophical writings”, whether by atheists or not, to be chiefly a game of muddle-headed pseudo-logic. Pull out Occam’s razor and slice right through that Gordian knot of babble. The best such thinking can do is indicate that maybe some sort of theism might be reasonable to consider. But provide the basis for a system of belief? In an omnipotent personal God? Who will throw me into a bubbling cauldron of fire when I die because I was unconvinced of his existence? It’s just a rickety house of cards.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Your passive-aggressive denigration of Christians is getting old. If you choose to deny Jesus Christ, that is your prerogative. Move on. What you allege to be a “simple lack of faith” is, in reality, your conscious, willful and callous rejection of Jesus Christ. Again, that is your prerogative. But, rest assured, any judgment will rest upon the following:
Matthew 10:33 – But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Judgment won’t be based upon any “po’ ol’ pitiful me – I didn’t do anything wrong” routine; but, rather, upon the total and utter rejection of Jesus Christ. Don’t take the matter up with readers, who you allege are “shying away” from our “unjust” Lord. Take it up with Jesus Christ, and your rejection of Him before men. It is you who are shying away from Jesus Christ.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Thank you, my brother. I hope you’re there to see me denied. It sounds like you’ll enjoy it, although I know you have to pretend like you won’t.
Incidentally, I’m coming around to a belief in Zeus. And let me tell you: when he learns of your conscious, willful, and callous rejection of him, it’s going to be thunderbolt time.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Thank you for your response.
I cannot fulfill your request above because that is never the purpose or methodology of the Christian in debating atheists.
However, I would like to respectfully discuss the question,
“Is Christianity true?”
We never discuss particular tenets of the Christian faith, because those tenets already assume the prior acceptance of the Christian worldview. We do not “beg the question” in advance when speaking to atheists.
Rather, what the Christian apologist does is to move rationally from the known facts of our universe, to the unknown.
Unlike the atheist worldview, the Christian does not move from the unknown to the unknown.
And we explain to the atheist that only Christian Theism can provide a meaningful worldview that satisfactorily explains and rationally justifies the preconditions for science, laws of logic, and morality. The atheist worldview borrows heavily from the Christian worldview, simply because in a physicalistic universe guided by time, chance, contingency,random variables, it is impossible to have universal laws.
That is why I refer to the immaterial laws of logic, because everyone uses the laws of logic.
This is why the key question is, “Is Christianity true,” rather, “do I find some particular tenet of Christianity emotionally pleasing or discomforting?”
Atheists themselves may be wonderful people. I have several of them, though we disagree vehemently on choice of NFL teams.
But despite the fact that atheists themselves may be respectful folks, their worldview ****as a system**** does not allow them to be so. They are in opposition to their own worldview.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Hitchens vs D’Souza
tizzidale on October 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Thanks for making my point for me.
When reason fails, resort to fear mongering. That’s what’s getting old. Thousands of years old.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 5:46 PM
There may be a lot of confusion and crap in philosophy.
I see it similar to eating chicken:
eat the meat, and throw out the bones.
Yes!!
Now we are making some progress here.
In order to accomplish even your very good suggestion of Occam’s Razor, you need a worldview that allows you to do so, if not, then all of us can walk around and be logically inconsistent all the time.
No. I disagree, and I would like to offer reasons why.
May I?
Do you understand that the Christian does not make the rules here?
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 5:50 PM
It addresses and affects ONLY those who ALREADY believe all of that to be true and is intended ONLY to motivate us out of our comfort zones and laziness. If nothing else…, it reminds us to be better examples of Christians and more willing to show just how serious WE are about our faith, our beliefs and our concerns.
It can’t hurt for Christians to consider the consequences to those we already believe might be doomed and for non-Christians to recognize the sense of DUTY which naturally grows within our hearts. If it seems like just another horror flick, big deal… People pay money to see less entertaining movies etc… Who does it hurt…? Absolutely NO ONE… Right…
Rugged Individual on October 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Taking the bait.
Laws were in place before the foundation of the world. Laws have been broken. A debt needs to be paid and everyone owes it. Christ paid the price, all you need to do it accept the payment. In otherwords, you’re already going to hell but Christ is standing at the fork in the road say, no dude, come this way.
If the loan on your house is about to be for foreclosed and your father goes, “Here’s a check, go pay it off,” but you say, “I don’t believe you. That check isn’t real. It’ll bounce,” and you don’t take it and use it. 1 + 1
- The Cat
MirCat on October 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I guess that you missed this part. I couldn’t care less what you do or don’t believe in. Once again, don’t take it up with the readers. My post concerned your use of Hitchens as a forum to passively-aggressively denigrate Christians. It’s the old “I didn’t say it, Hitchens’ said it” routine. Since last week [and based upon your use of Hitchens], you’ve sought to have Protestants quarrel with Catholics; and, now, to have both quarrel with Mormons. Your routine is old. Your purpose is obvious. And, your methods are cowardly.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Zack and Josh…
They were best friends…
Until Zack died…
Bummer…
But then Josh…
Got a letter…
That’s right…
A letter…
You want to know where that who that letter was from…
It was from Zack…
A letter…
A letter from Zack…
Zack’s dead…
And still he wrote a letter…
A letter to Josh…
A letter…
This is a dramatic representation of that letter…
A letter…
From Zack…
To Josh…
From…
Wait for it…
From HELL…
A letter from Hell…
That’s right, a letter…
A letter…
From Hell…
(Where was that letter from?)
From Hell…
Enrique on October 30, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I appreciate your discussions of Christianity, your fairness and respect, even though you disagree – and even when Christians show a lack of respect for you, and your atheism.
I have never felt that you thought I sucked for believing the things I do – I just appreciate the conversation. Thank you.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM
That is pretty much exactly how I felt about that video!
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Thanks ColtsFan, but with equal respect I must repeat that I find these philosophical arguments completely and utterly unconvincing, and even if they were convincing they crumble in to insignificance in the face of those inconvenient “tenets” that are lurking in the background.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM
ditto. I used to be an atheist, and empathize with alot of AP’s sentiments.
zb42 on October 30, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Okay.
I was hoping for a rational discussion on the philosophical merits of Christianity.
You turned me down on the above.
Could I please, at least, request your support for this?
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 6:03 PM
And he keeps on writing the letter as the angels are carrying him off. I kept waiting for the “Don’t damn me, Bro!”
pedestrian on October 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM
THERE IS NO SUCH BEING AS ZEUS. ODIN WILL SMITE YOU FOR THAT!
kate q on October 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Josh is a haunting noob. Snailmail? ROFLMAO! Why did’nt he just post a video on Youtube?
ronsfi on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Now your both on Santa’s list!
ronsfi on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM
ditto, ditto. I was more agnostic, but still… I appreciate the opportunity to defend my faith. It makes it stronger, and who knows what God may use? His word will not return to Him void, so I appreciate the chances to apply it when appropriate.
Ordinary1 on October 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I disagree. Christianity has some good points, but the bad outweighs the good. Hence, I think it sucks. In particular, I think the life-long guilt trip is particularly harmful. The superiority complex that it inspires in its most fervent believers is annoying, but not as harmful as the self-destructive guilt.
There, we agree.
What’s up with the suppression? This is, by far, not my first criticism of the core negatives in Christianity. (I particularly despise the gospel.)
Loundry on October 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Waz up?
Yeah, that video made me sick. I did not finish watching it.
There are weak, silly caricatures of every worldview or “ISM” or philosophy or religion. Every system, whether it be atheism or Christianity or Islam, has adherents who are silly or who are weird. We should never confuse the message with the messenger.
That is why I believe in discussing systems, and not individuals. Plus, ad hominem arguments are always a bad thing too.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Gladly. As an Angels fan (ironic, I know), I despise all sports teams Bostonian.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM
How about a discussion on the philosophical demerits of Christianity? Such as: the life-long guilt trip.
Loundry on October 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM
The constant barrage of what Hitchens said and how you in agree, and literally comparing Christianity to belief in Santa Claus -those don’t bother me.
What does bother me is the combination of those and saying Christianity is a good thing… It’s hard for me to believe you. That’s gotta be some cognitive dissonance or you’re simply lying through your teeth out of respect for your readers.
Free Constitution on October 30, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Sorry bout that…
Zeus? Eff that, go with Thor, he’s the Paul Anka of Valhalla.
/slice like a f*cking hammer!
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Loundry is unabashedly honest.. Thank you.
Free Constitution on October 30, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Why? You don’t believe the myth of Santa Claus is a good thing?
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM
That view is a new view — likely springing from the sola fide views of the Protestant reformation. The Catholic Church teaches that to go to hell, “a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.” Atheism (by itself) isn’t a turning away from God any more than walking past a stranger in the mall is “turning away” from them.
Mark Jaquith on October 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM
How about the the demerits of aggrieved militant atheism, like compulsive, bitter, paranoid and whiny ranting?
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 6:15 PM
The reason is because “life-long guilt trips” are not logically relevant to the truthfulness or falsity of the system at question.
Besides, we should not “beg the question” in advance by discussing particular tenets of Christianity or atheism as a system without first answering the more logically relevant question of,
“Is Christianity (or atheism) rational?”
After all, there have been former atheists who have argued along the lines of your comment above, etc., and these former atheists have now found Christianity psychologically satisfying, etc…
Arguments by appealing to the testimony of people who may or may not find Christianity (or atheism) psychologically healthy or not are simply not valid in rational discussions.
I am only interested in a rational discussion.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM
There’s FC’s whole agenda in six words: actually thanking the guy who I almost banned earlier in the thread for saying “Christianity sucks.” Why? Because FC’s out to prove that all critics of Christianity are motivated by something hateful and irrational; he can’t bear to consider that it might be otherwise. There is indeed some cognitive dissonance going on here, but not on my part.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM
So, now you are comparing the intellect of us Christians to little children? Or the perpetuation of a lie is good how?
Free Constitution on October 30, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Before this unnecessarily escalates, I don’t think you’re hateful nor Loundry. I think he is honest, and you quite possibly are not.
Free Constitution on October 30, 2007 at 6:20 PM
I’m down – my team won the World Series, and you were quite gracious about that. I can support your team knocking the Pats down a notch.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 6:20 PM
The poem at the end was rather Seussian.
James on October 30, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Isn’t that the kind of faith that Jesus expects of you? The faith of a little child?
Once again, thanks for making my point. The perpetuation of a lie (90++% of the Old and New Testaments, not to mention the Koran, and don’t even get me started on the Book of Mormon)is good how?
peski on October 30, 2007 at 6:23 PM
I would say it comes as a reaction to Arminianism, because to a Calvinist it is God’s judgement at the foundation of the world who is elect.
pedestrian on October 30, 2007 at 6:25 PM
ROFLMAO again.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Allah has no reason to lie. So far as I can see he’s been very honest in his opinion of Christianity. There have been times when I’ve wondered if he found any redeeming qualities in the religion, but he’s answered that question time and again, even defending it from unreasonable attacks.
Esthier on October 30, 2007 at 6:28 PM
It’s all in your head Loundry. You can’t fault a religion for something you’ve added to it.
Esthier on October 30, 2007 at 6:29 PM
There are many atheists who, while disbelieving in Christianity, nonetheless, find Christianity to be a “noble myth” in that there are some sociological, some psychological “benefits” (or cultural “benefits”) that a false religion may provide to its well-meaning, but deluded, followers.
Free Constitution,
May I encourage you to focus on how we, as professing Christians ourselves, intend on faithfully obeying this Biblical command?
The real question for us professing Christians is:
how can we show a dying and unbelieving world that Jesus Christ is the life-giving answer to all the false worldly
counterfeits.
And I wrestle with that question myself.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Thanks!!!
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM
I don’t think Allah is characteristically irrational, hateful, or a liar. He’s got a conservative blog to run, and him being an atheist and all… There’s bound to be a few snags.
I think the snag is him being respectful contrary to his beliefs. Then he attacks me… although I could’ve been more polite as well.
Free Constitution on October 30, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Cool.
Any more takers?
Keep em coming!!!
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 6:35 PM
I think there was a link from Hot Air to a story on religion being merely an evolutional adaptation. Maybe those athiests think this “myth” is good for survival. That’s what I love about Darwinism, it explains everything.
Free Constitution on October 30, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Yes, it even explains the weaknesses in the the evolved solution. Good for survival? Maybe, but very flawed.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM
But why would god create “Josh” knowing he’d be sent to Hell. It’s so unfair!
SouthernGent on October 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Yeah, Darwinism tries to.
Despite the following negative strikes:
***the inability to move from a descriptive fact to a universal conclusion, thanks to the clear writings of skeptic David Hume, who said (and he was right) roughly,
“you can’t derive an ought from an Is.”
Yet atheists love to talk about ways to improve the world. “Their ways” to improve the world.
***the tendency of atheistic Darwinism to appeal to vacuous, fluid, and changing notions of “Science” despite protestations from the scientific community on the very complexity of defining “what is a science?” After all, there is a reason why the Realism vs. Anti-realism debate occurs in the Philosophy of Science.
Yet atheists themselves claim to have the full authority and backing of “science.”
***in spite of the awkward appeal to the vague and unclear notion of “science”, the atheist criterion of establishing truth runs into another brick wall:
Science itself cannot establish the truthfulness or falsity of propositions by appealing to the empirical methodology of science. One needs a priori standards in order to get the philosophical boat out to sea, and atheistic Darwinism provides none.
Yet atheists themselves talk about the scientific method all the time. Yet their atheistic worldview does not allow them to even rationally believe, on the level of consistency, in the scientific method.
Yes, atheistic Darwinism wants to explain everything.
The problem is their worldview does not allow them to.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »