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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
In my opinion its exactly this type of presentation that drives atheism, or if not atheism then at least a rejection of Christianity. Maybe the folks that made this video thought they were doing a good thing but I don’t think Jesus would approve.
A burning question (no pun intended) in many people’s minds is how could God cast those into hell who have never heard of Jesus, how is that fair ? Well, in my small mind, it isn’t and even being raised as a Baptist and having hear my share of fire and brimstone sermons… I still think it isn’t. I know a loving God that does indeed love us all and the God I know, wouldn’t do that and I have great assurance in my heart that, that’s not the way it works.
How does it work? The Scriptures do speak of this. Since I don’t know my Bible that well I can’t give you the references, but Romans comes to mind. There will be a just standard by God that weighs what you knew in light of how you lived. I know I’m going to catch a lot of flak from those who will remind me that Jesus is the only path to God. I agree, Jesus is the only mediator so please don’t ping me on that I’m only expressing my personal belief.
Those in greatest danger of actually getting to hell are those that engage in outright blasphemy, these are people that actually hate God, and I think don’t doubt his existence at all. Satan chose his path, he knows God exist.
God is very forgiving and He is anxious to bring each of us unto Himself. Giving God a chance is the most important thing. And for those who say they don’t believe in God it’s only because they don’t want to know. It’s because they are trying to run from and hide from Him. That won’t work.
However if you sincerely don’t believe God exist then there is a very simple solution to that. Step one is that you really got to want to know, step two is pray sincerely and ask him to prove he exist to you, He will do it. He will do something for you that can be explained no other way than by a supernatural power.
Jesus already paid the price for you to enter heaven and He’s standing there wanting to give you the ticket, you should accept, you won’t regret it.
Maxx on October 30, 2007 at 6:58 PM
You really like to push that guilt-trip thing, but I don’t see where it comes from. You talk to a lot of Christians here. How many of us seem like we walk around feeling guilty all day? I feel joy, not guilt, that someone would love me so much to endure what you so eloquently described a couple of months ago:
BadgerHawk on October 30, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Not quite. True, science cannot, and does not claim to, prove absolutely anything. What it does do is establish a perpetual cycle of hypothesis-test-hypothesis. All you need to start is a provisional hypothesis which can be tested. The more you test and adjust, the more confidence you can have in your hypothesis.
A priori standards? As a provisional agreement subject to modification, yes. As solid and un-mutable basis for a belief system? See Zeus, Odin, Santa et al above.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM
So if you are unfaithful to your wife or husband and she or he leaves you that is unjust too? If you are starving to death and a man brings you food everyday but you refuse to eat it that is unjust? Or teaches you to fish (as the saying goes) and you refuse to cast your line that too is unjust?
Those who find injustice in God saying “Depart from me, I never knew you” at the end of their lives, when they spent their entire lives rejecting Him, are inventing an injusitce. H(h)itchens himself has stated his only reason for being an “antitheist” (his word) is because he doesn’t want “some divine overlord telling me to be moral”. This is easy for me to understand because I spent many years of my life angry at God for the same thing. In the end I was shown that the only tyrant in the God/me relationship was me. I was a tyrant to my family, friends, co-workers, the people I used and abused for my own pleasure but mostly to myself. God does not impose Himself on us, but we love to impose ourselves on Him and then whine and cry when we start to feel guilty about it (mainly because we refuse to admit that we feel guilty because we know we are doing wrong — not because God is making us feel that way).
srhoades on October 30, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Yeah, imagine a God who decides is born in which countries etc. Now imagine a person born on a tiny island in the middle of an ocean. They lead an honest productive life etc and live and die without ever hearing the word of God because the technology doesn’t exist to reach them. Now this god has also decree that all persons must hear the word of God before they die or else they go to hell for all eternity.
THIS is the God that some “Christians” identify with.
I do not because I believe that the teachings of Christ were quite clear. I would have mercy on that person who was born on the Island, and since I cannot outdo God in anything, then it is my assertion that a just God would not create a situation that would assign a person to hell for all eternity for his amusement. It isn’t like there is a hell quota that God must fill before the universe achieves balance.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 7:13 PM
We both agree here with Karl Popper and others, that science, properly understood, cannot and does not claim to prove absolutely anything.
There are many atheist apologists who disagree with both of us here. I think they are mistaken.
2 points:
1.) But even hypotheses require the immaterial laws of logic.
2.) Remember, the “confidence” which you speak about is due solely to past empirical observations which are contingent in nature. They cannot say anything meaningful or cogent about the future, or about “what should be the case.”
Question:
are a priori standards rooted in human convention?
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I think it’s time to talk about moral values.
If the video is correct, when I die, I will have to go through another TSA-type security screening, and when they look me up in their no-heaven database and find out that I haven’t been sucking up to God (or at least pretended to be brownnosing Him before the moment of my death), His Gestapo goons will rudely throw me into a holding cell (no habeas corpus, I suppose; no corpus, as a matter of fact) and then they’ll torture me eternally.
Given the Christian alternative, what gives me the strength to go through life is my unshakable faith in the non-existence of God and my conviction that upon my death my body and my consciousness will disintegrate into oblivion, and that the only place in which I will live on is in the memories of those I have touched in my life.
For those of you who believe that this colossal, gigantic unfairness is the governing rule of the cosmos: I wonder in amazement how you can worship such a supremely unjust being, such a celestial Stalin who will condemn to an eternity of suffering in His everlasting Gulag the billions of people who are no worse than the average, except that they don’t worship Him, including people who had never even heard of him, including people who died even before they had gained the mental capacity to make a conscious decision about God. Just what kind of cowards are you, going to His pep rallies every Sunday, praising and glorifying His supreme ego, simply so you can save your souls from ending up in the concentration camp He set up for those not pliant enough to follow His selfish rules?
Think about it: if you believe in the message of the video, the only logical and moral conclusion is to be ashamed of your lack of courage.
factoid on October 30, 2007 at 7:17 PM
that’s a helluva friend.
writing me from the afterlife. blaming -me- for him not becoming a christian. then wishing i was in hell with him.
i’d write back and say yeah, and i’m banging your GF now, too.
lorien1973 on October 30, 2007 at 7:19 PM
I am seeking clarity on your quote above concerning “provisional agreement.”
Are you saying that the a priori standards are provisional in nature?
I want to understand your position first, so as to avoid attacking a straw man.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 7:19 PM
I would be interested in discussing moral values, too.
Are moral values rooted in human convention? Are they based in or reducible to psychology or sociology?
What normative standards does your worldview contain for evaluating the rightness or wrongness of a particular moral action?
Some of us Christian theists have already expressed our disagreement with both the motivation and methodology of the video. We believe it is a false and weak caricature of Christianity.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM
See this is what I don’t “get”? Neither of these statements bother me in the least. I don’t believe that Zeus or Odin are real gods, thus any threat to strike me down, etc don’t offend, I just find them amusing (as I suspect their authors intended), but even if the authors were totally 100% serious, it still wouldn’t bother me
So, why is it that so many athiest’s get so upset when someone tells them that, what the athiest believes is a mythical being is going to send them to a place the athiest doesn’t even believe exists?
What would those athiest’s say if I threw a hissy fit everytime someone posted about Zeus or Odin striking me down and claimed that those who posted it were “hateful”?
P.S. I don’t believe in a “hell” that is a cavern full of fire where the devil with his little pitchfork sits behind a desk and tells the demons to do a better job of torturing the “souls” either.
But if “hell” is just separation from God. And athiests don’t believe in God and don’t want to be associated with him, why would the athiest get upset at being told they are going to get their wish? I mean, would the athiest really want to spend eternity with a being they don’t believe in? So what exactly is all this “Christians hate me because they say I am going to hell” stuff all about anyway?
Fatal on October 30, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Wrong, atheistic Darwinism DOES claim its absolute position. Its advocates say that the fact that it is constantly changing proves its absolute position (you yourself have said it). Why do you think they oppose ID being taught? Why do you think they try to dismiss it as “Creationism repackaged”?
Science is observing and experimentation. There has been and is no way to study and experiment with atheistic Darwinism (no one was present when the world was made, except God, and there is no way to duplicate it in the lab), therefore it is a philosophical starting point, not a scientific one.
Michael Behe shows in his new book how AIDS has mutated many millions of times since its discovery but has yet to become a new organism, a new virus, or even change what it does. Yes, on a micro-evolutionary scale it has become more resistant to treatment but on a macro-evolutionary (or atheistic Darwinism) scale it has not changed at all.
srhoades on October 30, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Of course they say something meaningful – they predict the future. They don’t ordain or determine the future, they predict what will happen. Sometimes the prediction is correct (good hypothesis) sometimes wrong (back to the drawing board), sometimes a mixed bag (poorly formed test, or perhaps new information).
I’m not sure what you mean by this. If you are referring to the human convention of “logic”, as referenced earlier, I’d say that it’s only “a priori” in that we are born with brains that allow us to think logically. If you mean “do I believe there are ‘laws’ which determine the behavior of the universe and its parts?”, I would say yes. But do we know what all (or even any, precisely) those laws are? No.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 7:27 PM
That’s not why we go. It’s because we feel closer to him who we love, by gathering with like-minded people who love him also and focusing on his message of foregiveness as given through a skilled pastor. You wouldn’t think that by reading some of the supposedly Christian comments here, but that’s why we do.
pedestrian on October 30, 2007 at 7:27 PM
The debates here are typically interesting in regards to theism vs athiesm and all the topics that branch out from that. I enjoy lurking and educating myself from most of you on these topics.
But I don’t understand the constant bashing of someone’s beliefs if they are minding their own business and want to promote something within their own group/church/whatever that doesn’t effect you guys or anyone else outside the group whatsoever. What is so enjoyable about putting this vid up and everyone bashing it and making fun of it?
nottakingsides on October 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM
“i know what i smelled and it wasn’t no brimstone.didn’t come off no stone either.”
mcptek on October 30, 2007 at 7:35 PM
And some of us, non-Christians appreciate that.
factoid on October 30, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Double wrong. It is a very well formed theory, with vast amounts of confirming data. Absolute position, no. It can (and has been and will) been modified and corrected in light of new data.
Because that’s exactly what it is.
Evolution cannot be duplicated in the lab because it requires too much time to develop the hypothetical result. But we can look back in time and see evidence of the process in action. You may choose to ignore the fossil record and believe that there is a “designer”, but don’t pretend to call it science. Do a little research on Behe and his organization’s roots, and the agenda is all too clear.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Empirical observation cannot, nor does it have the normative power of future prediction.
The skeptic David Hume even admitted that the fact of the sun rising and setting every single day, which we know by empirical discovery, does not provide any normative power for assuming the sun will rise tomorrow on October 31, 2007.
Countless numbers of empirical observations or “empirical tests” do not provide any normative support to warrant universal conclusions. What these empirical tests reveal is what we have learned from the past. But the past is no guarantee of the future.
The above point is not even contestable in philosophy of science.
David Hume’s point was that even though empirical methodology does not provide universal conclusions or does not provide ability of future prediction, nonetheless, we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because of ….
human custom.
Now I disagree with David Hume’s worldview.
But as a Christian theist, I admire his intellectual honesty, and I think he was right here:
empiricism cannot provide any sense of future prediction at all.
Thanks for your response here.
Question:
are the laws of logic reducible to “brain states” found in homo sapiens?
This is a different angle.
Maybe in the future we could discuss that.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 7:41 PM
The unfair and negative way in which Michael Behe has been treated by many, leads me to believe that Thomas Kuhn was right about certain things. The “scientific community” is, after all, still a community.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Sorry I have to jet. It’s been fun, and I appreciate the give and take. Sorry if some get their feelings hurt, but I offer my thoughts (and some barbs) in the spirit of intellectual honesty.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 7:45 PM
My two cents are:
Theistic folks should just keep it simple: focus on information, information, and how reality is ultimately Mathematical, not empirical.
There are immaterial preconditions necessary for science, morality, and logic.
You can’t find these preconditions in an atheistic universe governed by chance, plenty of time, random variable, energy, etc.
Whether we are discussing economics or cosmology,
“there is no free lunch.”
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 7:49 PM
And I thank you very much for expressing your thoughts.
I enjoyed our conversation too.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Ditto you and Maxx’s earlier statement to the same. It doesn’t make sense that someone who never even had the chance to hear about God would be sent to hell. I remember being told once that the only unforgivable sin was to deny God until your death. I don’t have a reference for that, perhaps ColtsFan could help out? Like I said above, I wish more Christians would focus on the love aspects of their faith.
BadgerHawk on October 30, 2007 at 7:56 PM
The fact that he had to write the letter and didn’t have internet access alone should cause everyone under 30 to convert immediately!
This is like those plays some churches every couple of years about the Columbine shootings. I’ve never been a fan of scaring people into converting. If one chooses to have a relationship with god it should be out of desire and not irrational fear of a cosmic bully.
Bradky on October 30, 2007 at 7:59 PM
I think verse 31 may be the answer.
One friendly note of caution here:
Christian theists, by definition, are non-naturalists. We are not naturalists or atheists, in part, because we do not believe all of reality is reducible, ultimately, to nature and nature alone.
As Christian theists, we must be very careful then not to seek or desire man-centered views or anthropological-driven reasoning in our theology.
If theism is true, and God exists, we must not assume that God views mankind in the same way that mankind views mankind. The Scriptures themselves say that “God is not a man…”
When atheists point out anthropologically-driven motivations present in Christian practices (i.e., “Christian churches only want our money,” or other abuses committed by Christians in violation of their Christianity), we as Christian theists should thank them for reminding us how Non-natural Christianity really is.
And I am using “non-natural” not in a pejorative sense, but in a philosophical sense.
God is not a man.
Why should we expect our theology to be palatable and tasteful to people who are not Christians?
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 8:12 PM
It was a letter…
From…
Hell…
A letter…
Enrique on October 30, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Excellent point.
And I, as a Bible-believing Christian, join my atheist friends in refuting those pseudo Christian churches which reek of too much human anthropology in their tactics and beliefs, and no theology.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Ah, the sex that stems from consoling a loss is so very sweet.
Tag lines: “I’m here for you.” “You shouldn’t be alone tonight.” “I used to hold Fawn like this.”
James on October 30, 2007 at 8:18 PM
No. The Star Wars-style intro was just too surreal. Followed by a post-mortem guilt trip. Oh and my favourite part “Why didn’t you ever tell me about this ‘Jesus’?” It’s not like the Son of God is an obscure English ’80s indie band on Pink Records. Then the vindictiveness, as if Zack’s descent into eternal torment would satisfy Josh.
aengus on October 30, 2007 at 8:24 PM
I like how they slipped in the drunk driving. It would be a lot less motivational if your non-believing best-friend died of cancer and then went to hell.
pedestrian on October 30, 2007 at 8:28 PM
A very, very good point my friend.
nailinmyeye on October 30, 2007 at 8:50 PM
That’s attrition.
You have to really believe or else it counts for nought. It’s not like playing the lotto.
Perhaps Allah, you are having some second thoughts into how you wish to spend eternity?
Blogging, presumably.
aengus on October 30, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Hm the quote function went haywire for that third sentence.
aengus on October 30, 2007 at 9:10 PM
For Christians…no big deal. For evangelical Christians who see it as their duty to convert people to Christianity…which this video absolutely SCREAMS at the viewer…eh, you might want to look into that palatable thing again.
James on October 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I disagree with the motivation and methodology of the video.
I disagree that the primary purpose of evangelical Christians, like myself, is to go around and convert other people, using anthropologically centered or man-driven, “palatable” means.
I hold, instead, that spiritual conversion is of the heart, done by God alone. And I believe that my primary purpose is to trust Christ and obey His commands.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Where to begin, where to begin…
First: that video was over the top. I LAUGHED even though I totally believe in Hell, and I didn’t want to laugh. But I’m sorry, that was ridiculous.
Second: Catholic (or Catholic Christian, if that floats your boat) teaching is what the Bible teaches: that no one is saved except through Jesus.
BUT we believe that God is just and more than fair. He is also very merciful. If you have never heard of Jesus through no fault of your own, for any reason, or have only heard of Him through hypocritical or evil Christians who turned you off from the message, or your parents taught you atheism or whatever (you get the drift–it’s called “invincible ignorance”) BUT you follow your best lights and your HONESTLY developed conscience and Jesus saves you even though you may not meet Him or appreciate His sacrifice for you until you die.
Got that? “No one is saved except through Jesus” and “No one comes to the Father except through Me” {spoken by Jesus) are both true statements, but do NOT EQUAL: Accept Jesus Christ by name as your Lord and Savior or you will burn forever.
This is why the Catholic Church (and the Bible: see Matthew 7:21-23 for just one example, or Romans 2:5-16, or Matthew 25:31-46) say that God judges us, in Christ, but on what we do, and whether we acted according to our properly formed consciences is a factor–that is, we can’t just say “my conscience says so” as an excuse to do whatever we want to do).
The only way you are going to Hell is if 1) you know and believe that Christianity is true and Jesus is Lord but obstinately reject Him anyway, or 2) if by your deliberate and unrepentantly bad actions–whether believer or not–you say the same thing (i.e.: I don’t WANT to spend forever with You) then God will very sadly but respectfully leave you to your free will and you will spend eternity away from Him. And that (but terribly and horrifically) is all Hell is.
inviolet on October 30, 2007 at 9:40 PM
I should have added: to those who ask “then why bother beconing a Christian?” I will just say, “Because it is true.” That’s the only good reason to believe. Although it does happen to be true that putting oneself in a position to accept help in the way He offers it (through grace offered through the Holy Spirit and the Church He established) makes (if one is sincerely pursuing this and not being a lazy Christian) living a life pleasing to God, in thanksgiving for saving us, much easier. We are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) by faith, but not by faith alone (James 2). God inspires the faith and the works (Philippians 2:12-13 and 3:12-16).
inviolet on October 30, 2007 at 9:54 PM
meant to type “through” faith. Before the non-Catholic Christians get me :).
inviolet on October 30, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Thanks. I’m still curious on what happens to people who have never had the chance to hear about God.
BadgerHawk on October 30, 2007 at 10:03 PM
If there is a God I don’t think he gives a damn about our earthly titles and labels or what name we worship God by. Live a decent, honest and moral life is all it takes IMO to receive God’s favor. The judgemental mentality that bring us videos like this are a part of why I turned away from organized religion. I can’t stand that, “You either worship God MY way or you’re going to Hell” It’s a bunch of B.S. and I tend to think that if there is a God that he thinks very little of those who use such methods to try to “convert” others.
Yakko77 on October 30, 2007 at 10:32 PM
I don’t expect people to forgive me, when I regret doing something wrong and shameful. Perhaps I’m not arrogant enough ? Certainly not arrogant enough to believe in caring and forgiving gods. Or any god, for that matter.
So why should an atheist ask an imaginary god for anything at all, let alone for total forgiveness ?
Syndic Nuruodo on October 30, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Interesting twist, can’t say I’ve heard this exact formation before. By this standard, I am GOLDEN. Although the standard on point two is a bit vague and make me nervous. How bad is bad? Murder? I’m good. Don’t help around the house enough? I’m cooked.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 10:36 PM
It might be a good idea if you practice what you preach. Atheism is a lack of belief. And I know this may come as a shock, but Christ is just one of the many supernatural beings atheists don’t believe in.
We have a lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy, too.
Jaynie59 on October 30, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Close to the core of the issue. See my comments above on original sin and propitiation by proxy.
If I “sin against you”, say, steal your wallet, what right does god have to pronounce me forgiven? It was you I wronged. Christian doctrine says that since you to are a sinner, you can’t hold me to task and God’s forgiveness trumps your flawed complaint. So we sacrifice the ultimate holy goat (Jesus) and all is forgiven no matter how heinous.
And I only intend to be slightly provocative with the “hold goat” comment. Animal sacrifice in a migrant agrarian society is where all this logic started. See Moses.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Two scotches into the evening, so inevitable corrections:
“holy goat”, Abraham more than Moses.
peski on October 30, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Here is my answer.
Note: that is just an answer to your good question.
I do not use that verse to “prove Christianity is true.” To prove that, I argue ****not from the Bible****, but from the following:
A.) We inhabit a world reflecting logical necessity, immaterial laws of logic, abstract entities, moral absolutes, and the contingent physical laws of science.
B.) the logical impossibility of atheism as a worldview
Structure of argument:
1.) If atheism is true (P), then the laws of logic are a matter of human convention or reducible to sociology, biology, physics, or anything material in nature (Q)
2.) But the laws of logic cannot be reducible to anything material or physicalistic in nature. (Not Q)
3.) Therefore Not Q, Not P
Hence, Atheism is false.
The structure of the above argument is called Modus Tollens.
ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Agreed. I’m so utterly bored with the religion threads that I can’t muster a comment.
It’s all so … predictable.
And nobody has any answers, any more than I do.
But Bad Candy kept me amused. He may not have saved my soul, but he tickled my funny bone. And that’s pretty close.
Professor Blather on October 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM
You gotta admit – the Greeks had some cool deities.
I’d have picked Aphrodite, though. She was hawt.
Professor Blather on October 30, 2007 at 11:49 PM
peski, if creating life from non-life was so simple that it could happen by accident, man would have figured out how to do it long ago.
Maxx on October 30, 2007 at 11:50 PM
So I watched the video.
Yikes.
Despite my lifelong Catholicism, I think I finally understand atheism. I think, after seeing that, I get it now. No wonder they feel the way they do.
Here’s the delicious irony: I wonder how many people who see that video will have the same reaction I had – and will be so disgusted that they turn their backs on religion because of it.
In other words, I wonder how many people that video will send to Hell. How many who would otherwise have found faith, but didn’t because of that creepy little exercise in self-indulgence?
That’s some meaty irony right there.
Dear Atheists:
Don’t blame me for that kind of crap. I didn’t make the stupid video.
Love,
God
P.S. Zach and Josh are both gonna burn. What pricks.
Professor Blather on October 31, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Because God is love.
pedestrian on October 31, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Excuse me, but I CAN hold you responsible for the crime.
In the court of law.
And my own imperfection is irrelevant here.
I see such a forgiveness as wrong and immoral.
Besides, I didn’t sacrifice Jesus. And nobody asked me whether I would support such a horrible act. Jesus wasn’t a bad guy. I don’t like the idea of killing good people for the promise of my own selfish benefit in the “afterlife”.
This whole “Jesus died for our sins” concept stinks.
Syndic Nuruodo on October 31, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Sacrifice start out with Cain and Abel. When God got fed up with man and all his killing, he almost hit the reset button, but let Noah and his family live. Then they starting sacrificing, so God said alright, but there are a lot of rules you are going to have to follow if I will allow that.
In no way did we sacrifice Jesus for our own gain. That was God’s plan to show us in terms we would understand how much our sins pain him.
pedestrian on October 31, 2007 at 1:18 AM
AP,
out of serious curiosity, have you ever read the Bible? This isn’t in reply to any previous comment. I’m just sincerely curious. You say that you used to be Catholic, but that tells me nothing. I’ve known enough Catholics that have never even opened a Bible.
j_ehman on October 31, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Really? We have three scripture readings each Mass. Sure you’re not embellishing a little?
John from OPFOR on October 31, 2007 at 1:47 AM
But your answer ignores the Scriptural message that the authentic gospel and the cross do offend people who have not been regenerated first by the power of the Holy Spirit. Later Paul repeats this theme of focusing on faithfulness to preaching, instead of trying to make it “palatable” to everyone.
People’s hearts are darkened. They require heart surgery first.
When Christians attempt to make the gospel message palatable and tasteful to unbelievers, it is a sure bet that heresy and false doctrine are lurking nearby.
ColtsFan on October 31, 2007 at 1:49 AM
I really like the planes you got on your site.
How about some Apache helicopters in the future?
ColtsFan on October 31, 2007 at 2:03 AM
My intended point was not to say that we should present anything but the real truth. It was instead that the real truth will naturally appeal to people if it is presented accurately, which follows logically from gracious nature of God. So if the what we are presenting is turning people off, then it must be that we are not doing our job presenting the glory of God. As Paul says, when we do that we will be ridiculed and thought of as fools, but if the reaction is “You either worship God MY way or you’re going to Hell” as one commenter said above about what the Christian message sounded to him, then something is missing.
The crisis of the Enlightenment to Christianity was that the old technique of scaring people into belief was not longer going to work. The problem with this video is that it triggers that old way in people’s mind. Back when torture and other horrific practices were common, people could understand eternal flames as a just punishment. There is not such much sin these days that seems like such a punishment is just. We either have to carefully explain why throwing one’s friend into a pit of fire is essential to a loving God, or we need to carefully study the Bible to see what it really does say about the afterlife.
pedestrian on October 31, 2007 at 2:30 AM
Great post.
Nonfactor on October 31, 2007 at 2:47 AM
imaginaaaa-shun.
imaginaaaey aey shun
imaginaaaaaaashun
etc.
jummy on October 31, 2007 at 2:53 AM
lol!
jummy on October 31, 2007 at 2:54 AM
so, is “theocon” a bad word?
apparently i am a “chump” and a bigot because i used it in another thread.
jummy on October 31, 2007 at 3:28 AM
Let me summarize my opinions about this post:
The Christian God does not exist.
The Bible is not a factual document.
Hell does not exist.
This is not to say that life is meaningless.
I live a very happy life knowing that when I die I will simply no longer exist.
If you aren’t comfortable with this you’re probably religious.
And you probably make inane videos and post them on GodTube.
Nonfactor on October 31, 2007 at 5:02 AM
No, agnosticism is a lack of belief…they don’t know what to believe about God. Atheism is a positive belief that God does not exist.
James on October 31, 2007 at 7:44 AM
It a ridiculous word pertaining to “Christiants” who are bent on transforming America into a Christian theocracy. It was coined by the author of one of those “the Christian fascists are coming” books that no one reads. You applied it to the non-Rudy candidates suggesting you were on a Ron Paul kick and ready to guest on Alex Jones’ show. I didn’t call you a bigot.
aengus on October 31, 2007 at 7:50 AM
It=Its
aengus on October 31, 2007 at 7:55 AM
Agreed. That was a pretty dumb statement.
Not only does he not know “enough Catholics” who’ve “never opened a Bible,” he doesn’t know one. They don’t exist. It’s not even possible.
If his argument is that some Catholics don’t exactly make Biblical study a priority, well … he might have a point.
Professor Blather on October 31, 2007 at 7:59 AM
You are indeed, as always, a non-factor.
Though I love the irony of your need to proselytize your religion. The fact that you simply must spout your own beliefs while denigrating others – like any religious fundamentalist – is pricelessly funny.
If you aren’t comfortable with that … you’re as thick-witted and humorless as you appear to be.
;)
Professor Blather on October 31, 2007 at 8:01 AM
I don’t see any problem with the film’s basic message. It wasn’t made to be a proselytization tool. It doesn’t even present the gospel. So why debate what christians believe vis-a-vis this video?
The gospel is not “If you don’t believe in Jesus, you are going to hell”. If one was perfect, he wouldn’t need Jesus.
joe shmoe on October 31, 2007 at 8:22 AM
I know Catholics in my own family who do not own a bible; the one they received at Confirmation is long gone and they never cracked it open to begin with. Yes, Catholics who attend mass do hear scripture readings. Hearing a scripture reading is not the same thing as opening a bible. If you think it’s as good, that’s fine, but it is not the same thing. And during my confirmation classes, we didn’t use the bible at all, we used the catechism and other study materials. So, yes, it is entirely possible.
Laura on October 31, 2007 at 8:25 AM
i honestly didn’t know it was of lefty coinage, sorry.
jummy on October 31, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Bad Candy,
“Militant atheism”, often invoked but rarely defined, is apparently the kind of atheism which does not immediately acquiesce to Christian proselytizing.
It seems like the demerits of such “militant atheism”, from your point of view, are that it gets under your skin. From my point of view, that’s not so bad considering that your religion is inherently harmful to people. I’m willing to debate that point. Maybe we can get you to agree to stop laying guilt trips on people in the name of your religion.
Correct. I will resist the harmful parts of your religion and criticize them compulsively.
Correct. I’m not willing to forgive the years of my life that were wasted in Christianity, not to mention all the guilt and fear that I felt because of the harmful aspects of that religion.
I don’t know where you got that. Christians are not out to get me. They seem pretty tame. Maybe you’re projecting.
Whiny? I prefer to think of it as strident and uncompromising. Then again, it’s in your interest to dismiss everything that I write. Your faith is unshakable, isn’t it? Time will tell…
Loundry on October 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM
This is very true.
However, there are lots of Catholics who do read Scripture regularly, in addition to hearing it at Mass. Just mentioning it, I suppose, to bring a balance to this discussion.
(I will say as a BTW that even hearing Scripture though–OT, NT and a reading from the gospels–regularly at church every Sunday, of whatever Christian denomination, though not sufficient, is pretty darn good at exposing people to good chunks of the Bible–some of which they may–or may not–have “gotten to” in their private devotions.)
inviolet on October 31, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Uh, I meant NON-gospel NT. (Howard Dean moment :) )
inviolet on October 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM
So which is it? A well formed theory or a theory that can be modified and corrected in light of new data? How often has Relativity been modified and corrected? You’ve proven my point. If Evolution were a car it be a hybrid of the Edsle and the Pinto – won’t run and tends to blow up in your face.
When something cannot be duplicated in the lab, proved or disproved by the scientific method it is no longer science. Evolution is not science – it is a philosophical presupposition.
Then it is not science – plain and simple. Science can be duplicated, otherwise your going on faith.
Apparently you can’t “look back in time ad see evidence of the process in action” because every time something new shows up in the fossil record, the evolutionist change the theory to accommodate it. Never has the fossil record confirmed what was previously believed – it has changed it. (I won’t even mention the number of hoaxes perpetrated against the fossil record in the name of Evolution.) Again, you’re working on faith friend. I have already stated that any discussion of the origin of life is philosophical and not science – until you stop trying to sell your faith as science we will get nowhere.
Is that all you got? Behe has put forward research that can be challenged and duplicated. His research is done using science, not philosophy. AIDS has mutated many times over since its discovery and has yet to transform into anything other than AIDS. Of course give it six months and you guys will twist his research to show that it actually proves the new form of Evolution that you’ll create is true.
Exit question, do you believe in Evolution?
srhoades on October 31, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Speaking of reading your Bible, this was so good I’m'a link it again (the rapper is now the pastor of a nondenominational Christian church BTW):
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=97759aa27a0c99bff671
–Rap Fan Catholic
inviolet on October 31, 2007 at 9:48 AM
What does any of that have to do with my statement? Just because you don’t believe in the god of a certain religion, it doesn’t give you the right to add things to that religion that just aren’t there.
I’m not convinced that the scientologists have it right, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to accuse them of cannibalism.
That’s a very sad existence. In my life, I’m surrounded by people who love me unconditionally so much so that I do know they will forgive me even when I do something shameful. I’m sorry that you are uncertain about those in your life.
I don’t understand why people believe insults are a good form of debate.
The bottom line is if it’s true, arrogance has nothing to do with it. If it’s just a story we made up to make ourselves the center of the universe then sure, it’s arrogance.
So what you really meant to say is that you’re not arrogant enough to make up a God who would forgive you unconditionally. But your comment above indicates that might have more to do with the fact that you don’t trust anyone to love you unconditionally.
As I’ve said above, talking to a god you created is very arrogant, much like the imaginary friend many kids had while growing up.
But talking to God and asking for forgiveness is another matter. Unfortunately, it’s not the matter you wished to discuss.
Coltsfan already gave this scripture, but I wanted to post it here and address something else in it.
Basically it says all men know God and either accept or reject Him. But it’s the part that follows that really intrigues me.
As punishment, God gave man over to sin. Giving into sin is punishment from God.
For all of those who talk about guilt and the rules from God, things are entirely the opposite. Sin enslaves people, and those who accept Christ are freed from that sin. People can choose to go back to it if they choose, but they’re only punishing themselves.
I’ve never understood the problem there either.
He’s hardly the only atheists in conservative politics. There are many even on this site who agree with Allah’s lack of religious belief.
And he’s got no reason to not be respectful. There is no logical association of atheism and jackassedness. There are certainly atheists who are jackasses, but that doesn’t mean they all are.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 9:49 AM
AP, no Christian wants to see someone they respect or care about (sorry dude, not a man crush, just an observation) burn in the fires of Hell. Do we pray for you, Yes. As for me, I’ve always considered Hell to be a cold place, away from the warmth of God. I and I suppose many of your Christian readers will continue to pray for you, just because its what we do. Take care.
serenity on October 31, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I understand people’s desire to spread their beliefs to others, but I find it to be arrogant in the extreme for any religion to condemn ALL others not of their faith to an awful eternity.
This kind of stuff makes me glad that I finally realized that I am a Deist. I believe in God, but my relationship with him is none of your business. When my time on this Earth is done, I will have to atone for my conduct the same as everybody else.
It is really hard not to see all the problems that are created when one person has decided that the religion of another is wrong. If you believe in a supreme being, explore your relationship with him and make your own decisions.
dvldog1142 on October 31, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Fair enough. No hard feelings.
aengus on October 31, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Numerous times in this post and in many, many others, Christians have refuted this idea outright. No one is condemning anyone to anything.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I’ll admit I didn’t have the patience to read all the preceding posts, but isn’t the premise of the video if you don’t accept Jesus as your personal savior your name will not appear in the Book of Life and therefore get you a one way ticket downstairs?
dvldog1142 on October 31, 2007 at 10:41 AM
That’s because you’re a Christian and are used to living under life-long guilt. If you have to live under it, then why can’t other people impose it?
It sort-of presents the gospel. The “born bad” and “you need Jesus” parts of it are contained.
Because it is harmful and immoral to make people feel undeserved guilt and unwarranted fear. If that makes your religion harmful and immoral, then so be it.
Loundry on October 31, 2007 at 11:22 AM
No. The premise of the video is that you should feel really, really guilty for being responsible for sending your loved ones to ETERNAL TORTURE for selfishly refusing to share your faith. This kind of garbage is par for the course because Christianity is a guilt-based religion.
Loundry on October 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I disagree with the video, but I am kinda curious?
By what universal standard are you using, as an atheist, to label and criticize something as “guilt-based” rather than not as guilt-based?
ColtsFan on October 31, 2007 at 11:33 AM
This was addressed as well. Many here disagree with the video.
The premise of the video is not the premise of Christianity.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 11:41 AM
You are so full of it Loundry. This is something you’ve put in to Christianity that just isn’t there.
So what if you were made to feel guilty in the past. That’s an anecdote. One cannot make assumptions based on anecdotes.
Many others have refuted your claims with claims of their own that are directly opposed to the concept that Christians are nothing but guilt-mongers.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 11:43 AM
I too disagree with Loundry’s view.
But, in all fairness, let us pretend for the moment that Loundry is right:
Christianity is essentially a guilt-filled religion.
Now 2 questions emerge:
1.) Even if one hypothetically agrees on a psychological level (read: DESCRIPTIVE level) with Loundry’s opinion, how is his opinion logically relevant to the following questions:
Is Christianity rational?
And does the Christian God exist?
Loundry’s own human opinions may be interesting, but they are not logically related or relevant at all to the above. They are irrelevant, and can be quickly dismissed.
After all, God could exist with a divine nature that is quite different from the rest of us.
My point is the existence of God is independent of whether or not one “psychologically feels comfortable” with particular doctrines, say, the doctrine of original sin, for example.
1.) ColtsFan may or may not exist.
2.) But the particular doctrine of Colts Fan (i.e., “Peyton Manning is the 2nd greatest thing that happened to Circle City since the invention of sliced bread)
is independent of and not logically relevant to the first issue, his existence.
One could agree with Issue 1 (my existence) and yet deny the second.
ColtsFan on October 31, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Another question I have for naturalists are,
“By what standard are you expressing your contempt for the Christian God?”
Is that standard rooted in human convention? Or is it just another example of the fallacious appeal to “Science?”
Is that standard rooted in subjective, personal, mere human opinion?
ColtsFan on October 31, 2007 at 12:11 PM
His opinion is rooted in his own experiences. It’s not so much God he’s railing against as it is people, people who have professed to be Christians and yet treated him badly quite some time ago.
I agree with everything you say here. The only problem is my time spent discussing Christianity with Loundry has convinced me that he is not interested in doing anything but dwelling in his past.
Basically, I think you’d have an easier time convincing a woman who’s been cheated on and left by her husband that despite her opinions on the man there are actually some doctrines the man believes that are worthwhile.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 12:30 PM
No. Christianity, along with thousands of other religions, forces its constituents to take a leap of faith in not only believing a purported fact “God exists,” but also believing that “God has a good plan that humans can’t understand.” To attempt to claim this as rational thought is insane.
No, and what dooms you guys here is the fact that you keep claiming that The Bible is the word of said God and said word is flawless. When evidence comes out conflicting with said word you go into total denial mode. I’m sure if Christianity is to survive the next 1000 years there has to be drastic variations to the interpretation of The Bible.
Nonfactor on October 31, 2007 at 3:00 PM
The so-called evidence is generally so weak that it makes Truthers seem credible.
Also, to try and claim that a supreme being exists whose plans are well understood by mankind is to engage in illogical conclusions.
If there is a God, a being higher than humans, then He must have thoughts that we, mere mortals cannot understand.
Feel free to rag on the leap of faith required to believe in God, but believing that His plans are too sophisticated for us, is really just elementary.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 3:07 PM
It’s easy to believe in something if you believe all the evidence contradicting it is subject to the things manipulation.
Nonfactor on October 31, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Have you seriously considered my argument for Christian theism above in this very thread?
My argument for Christian theism is not based on the Bible being the word of God.
My argument is based on the:
a.) existence of immaterial abstract entities
b.) universal laws of logic
c.) moral absolutes
d.) physical laws of science,
e.) the impossibility of atheism as a worldview being able to rationally justify the existence of a.) through d.)
I did not appeal to the Bible at all.
ColtsFan on October 31, 2007 at 4:47 PM
So now it’s easy to believe even though before you were talking about how difficult it is.
Apparently even while discussing contradictions you have no problem using them yourself.
It really doesn’t matter. You’re still not making any legitimate arguments.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 5:06 PM
I know your argument and I’m ignoring it. There are many other ways to refute the veracity of Christianity. What your argument does is attempt to combat atheism when atheists readily admit “we don’t know,” it doesn’t support the Christian God, it supports a concept of god; you’ve taken that concept and used your bias to assume it’s the Christian one.
I’ve never claimed it’s difficult to believe that you’ll go to a perfect place in another universe if you read and follow a book.
Nonfactor on October 31, 2007 at 5:27 PM
We are making progress!!
You are right: it supports the concept of god, or Theism.
I have taken that concept of God, or Theism, and applied it to Christian Theism because of the following reasons:
—there are conceptual difficulties with other broadly theisic worldviews, causing me to disavow them.
—example: the Islamic doctrine of abrogation leads me to reject Islamic concept of God
—empirically, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ did occur, and there are non-biblical references and sources why I believe that to be true.
In short, the Argument from Reason shows the impossibility of atheism, thus paving the way open for some sort of Theism. But upon further philosophical investigation and empirical discovery, Christian Theism alone is the answer.
Other broadly Theistic worldviews suffer from internal inconsistency or contradiction or lack empirical support.
ColtsFan on October 31, 2007 at 6:31 PM
You’re certainly not talking about Christianity here.
Esthier on October 31, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »