Special Edition
Posted by RazorsKissJan 30
Updates:
Jesus General is a humour site with serious intentions. One of these is to reign in the insane cabal who have hijacked your Government and who are currently waging an illegal war on a sovereign country with the sole purpose of stealing the wealth of that country.
The second is to expose religious nutters who seek to justify your ill-advised governments actions as somehow sanctioned by God, but who in reality would be burning people for heresy given half a chance.
Yes, I confess. My ultimate goal is to have you on the rack, plucking at your eyes, until you do my bidding. Then I’ll burn you at the stake… (/sarcasm)
I mean, really. Is the self-deception really this deep? Please tell me, since I have a very understated emphasis on politics on this site (mostly because I am sick and tired of dueling with lefty delusionals who have no clue what logic means), and have since it started…
So, tell me- what do you think about SUDAN? Hrmm?
What about Christian bashing (and please.. I read the comments, and the entries over there. Don’t even bother telling me it’s anything else.) is “serious”? Don’t give me that bullcrap about “it’s just pointing you to the light, not an attack on Christianity as a whole”. That’s all it is. Bull.
Updates:
I must have hit a nerve with “Jesus'” General. Two posts in as many days.
Welcome, troll minions – have a debate!
Plenty of subjects to comment on, and debate about, over in the archives on your right, or in the subject listings on your top left.
Enjoy your stay – and watching my traffic meter jump.
Announcing:
Vox Apologia:
The Vox Apologia III will be held at Revenge of Mr. Dumpling.
Subject: Euthanasia
Submissions must be recieved by midnight tonight. See here for more details.
Carnival of the Godless:
Is up – right now. Now, you apologists out there: You, my dear friends, are your own worst enemies, if you don’t read what they are saying. Additionally, you are failing to respond to my challenge, if you don’t find someone to engage with from among these folks, or the blogrolls of these folks.
So, go, and see. Find someone to talk to – and do it today.
After Action Reports:
I’m French, and going to Hell:
Patriot Boy, at the so-called “Jesus’ General”, takes me to task (satirically) for being French. That, and not equating his obvious satire with the Word of God.
I’m really hurt.
Ok, I’m lying. But, if you ever want to see what the secular community _really_ thinks of you: read that blog. It might be informative. Hope you have a strong stomach though.
His little troll minions, incidentally, invaded Eric’s Evangelical Underground.
He has a point though, when it comes to tradition becoming more important than doctrines – doesn’t he Rand? Protestants shouldn’t have anything to do with those “Nazi Jew” Catholics, as you so descriptively compared them…
But anyway. The comments section is a gold mine of distortion and twisting of the Christian faith, incidentally. If you can stomach it. It’s some interesting stuff to look at, if you’re interested in seeing how people who _hate_ Christianity think of us. It also gives you lots of links to other sites that are anti-Christianity.
What was I saying about “going out to defend”?
Here’s your chance. Get crackin.
61 comments
Comment by mentata on January 30, 2005 at 11:37 pm
When you link twice to the same page in two sentences, it makes me wonder if perhaps you’re compensating for something.
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 30, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Typo – thanks for pointing it out.
Comment by Uncle Festus on January 30, 2005 at 11:42 pm
I guess you’re one of those Christians who is against abortion, for the death penalty, and who endorses our -political commentary – DELETED! war of liberation in Iraq.
Good on you. Because, in the grand sceme of things, what’s the sanctity of human life when it comes to proving that liberals are wrong?
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 30, 2005 at 11:45 pm
Actually?
I haven’t posted anything on politics since shortly after the election, and only rarely prior.
I concentrate on Christian apologetics here. If you’d prefer a political debate, I have a list of politics blogs on the right that you might enjoy more. Feel free to browse.
Comment by Milo Johnson on January 31, 2005 at 1:14 am
Contempt? Don’t flatter yourselves. All I
feel for any of you superstitious buffoons
is pity.
Comment by Lotharsson on January 31, 2005 at 1:22 am
I think you missed the point of Jesus’ General, just like a lot of Christians missed the point of Monty Python’s film “Life of Brian”. It’s not poking fun at Jesus, but at the distortions of Jesus’ message that are being used to justify all sorts of behavior today, and which are quite often heavily embedded in American culture and politics. The satire is one way to puncture those cultural assumptions and point out how brutal the consequences they are “justifying” are.
Comment by salvage on January 31, 2005 at 9:25 am
Razorkiss – You need a bigger hat, lots of stuff seems to go right over your head.
Comment by Holy Jack on January 31, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Dear Razorkiss,
Your pseduointellectual rants about the poor, poor persecuted Christians are hilarious.
If I didn’t know better, I would say it would be impossible for anyone of the Christian faith to hold office in the country. Aren’t all you poor victims in concentration camps?
Actually, you people are running this country as you wish and control most of the world’s wealth.
I feel sorry for you poor victims. Really I do.
Comment by Sue on January 31, 2005 at 4:58 pm
We hate Jesus? A group dynamic happening right under your eyes? In your country? An interesting quote from M. Scott Peck (a Christian psychologist, but I’m sure that you’ve read it) from ‘People of the Lie’. First, Peck defines evil as intellectual laziness; the inability to examine oneself or react realistically to reality. These folks work tirelessly to protect their self-image of perfection (often by hiding under the guise of a religion). Those who are unable to justify their own sinfulness become chronic scapegoaters. “Some people must deny their own badness, so they must perceive others as bad. They project their own evil onto the world”. There are other groups who have done this. Can you name a few?
Comment by Deana Holmes on January 31, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Dear Mr./Ms./Miss: Razorskiss:
Let me explain to you about self-deception. You are absolutely full to the brim with it if you think that the people over at Jesus’ General care doodly about you and your fulminations beyond laughing at you. -political crap- DELETED!
Let me explain a tiny bit about myself. For quite a long time I was a devout believer in the “Jesus” taught by people like you. But over a fairly long period of time (about 15 years, you can date it from the time of the fatwa agaist Salman Rushdie, in fact), I’ve come to the conclusion that the Jesus you preach is not helpful to my life, but in fact harmful. Let me count the ways:
1) I came to the conclusion that it was harmful for my personal mental health to believe in a god who had no problem throwing people into hellfire for failure to believe. I’d read all the scriptural prooftexts, I’d tried to get my head around it, I’d even heard a sermon about the need I had to get the reality of hell into my life so that I could go out and evangelize more fiercely and bring more souls to Christ, and what did it do for me? It caused me to question what I was doing believing in a god that made Hitler look like an amateur. People of good conscience cannot believe that their friends, neighbors, family members and Salman Rushdie are going to hell because they don’t believe in the Jesus that’s being preached at them without it causing severe mental strain. This knowledge was bought with great anguish, so don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, but let’s move on to the next area.
2) The Christianity as preached by Protestant fundievangelicals is very narrow. First of all, it’s no longer just enough to accept Jesus as savior, we also have to believe everything that the Christian Coalition says as well. So we get obscenities like the CC influencing an attempt to do a major tax overhaul in the state of Alabama, to make it fairer–and this has something to do with God’s salvation? That’s the wacked out and wacky world of “Christianity today”, both the magazine and the culture in the US of A. So we end up with evil upon evil piled on, where people are told that being a Democrat is somehow consorting with Satan, for example.
3) Fundievangelical “Christianity” as practiced today ignores people who are outside the church lifecycle. Forget it if you’re in your 30s, 40s and 50s, never married and with no kids. The entree is a child, or a few. I fall into that category, and let me tell you, there’s no place for men and women like myself in a world where the nukular faaaaaaaamily is not only acknowledged, but worshipped right next to the Trinity. Which leads me to…
4) The churches’ absolute inability to deal with women in any way, shape or form, except as subordinates, wives, or children. It’s grim for me to reflect on how the fundievangelical churches especially make a point of pushing women back. I like to say that I get more respect at my secular, non-Christian job than I do from so-called Christians, because my work doesn’t care a bit about my gender, but for the Christians, my gender, my marital status and my childbearing status are the absolute most important things about me!
So, Mr./Ms./Miss Razorskiss, here’s to you, you’ve just reinforced every stupid stereotype of fundievangelical Christians out there. You live in another world that bears little resemblance to the world the rest of us live in, you can’t see that people have real concerns about how you all present yourself and your religion, you cannot answer the real questions of life without falling back on prooftexting and fulminations, and you know, you’ve reinforced my decision that there’s no place for me in your world.
He who has ears, let him hear.
Comment by Ted on January 31, 2005 at 7:44 pm
They’re all going to burn in hell, God willing.
Wow. That hateful, vindictive rhetoric sounds precisely like the “Islamofascists” conservatives claim to be on a Crusade against.
Christianofascists are no different than “Islamofascists”. They think their religion is divine, and all others are delusions, and wish those who don’t think like they do eternal torture (hey! that’s a conservative value as well!). Sound familiar?
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 31, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Wow. I didn’t hit a nerve. I did a root canal.
Cool.
Comment by itsrainingkarma on January 31, 2005 at 9:00 pm
I find it ironic that you can be Christian and believe that Christ exists soley on faith and at the same time claim to be logical. There is nothing logical about a belief in a “god.” There is also nothing logical in believing in a pantheon of gods like the despised pagans. How can the pagans be wrong but you be right? It is illogical to assume that your god is the one true god. It is illogical to base your reasoning on a book that was written 1600 years ago. 400 years after it’s main character died, mind you. It is illogical to be pro-life and pro-death penelty. I believe one of the commandments is that anyone who kills another shall he himself be killed. According to that anyone involved in a trial where someone recieved the death penalty is in fact a sinner. If it’s a sin to kill and the person who kills should be killed then shouldn’t the person who killed the killer be killed as well since after all, he did kill. Illogical, aye? How about saying “Free countries don’t start wars.” as (heil) Bush did and then invading a country. Illogical, aye. At what point did logic and faith meld into one for you?
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 31, 2005 at 10:44 pm
“Pastor Tobin Maker”, “JibJab”, “little troll minion”, “Altarboy”, “Gary”, “Will is White”, “Ron Charest”:
The next time you visit, please leave the troll at the door. If you want to actually discuss something, let me know. Otherwise, I’m deleting it. I’m not wasting my webspace, or database space, on nonsense.
Thanks.
I’ll be putting up a comments rules post up soon. Until then, well… I guess I’ll just do whatever I want on my own site!
Comment by Padraig on January 31, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Followed the link from Patriotboy, and found myself on your site. I do have to admit that the whole “razorkiss” thing sounds a little odd. It does smack a little of S and M, I’ll admit, but then, who am I to judge 🙂
Seriously, tho, I think you may mistake Secularism for anti-Christianity. Secularism merely says that Public life (ie, voting rights, civil participation, laws, etc.) should be founded on ethics and non-factional morality. Secularism means freedom to practice religion, or not, as the individual conscience sees fit. It means not imposing one’s religious views through the law (evangelising and whatnot are fine). There are certain Christians who take the view that law comes from God, not man, and that the law must be religiously based. In the Christian and Islamic worlds, of course, they are called fundamentalists. It is these religious that we secularists have a problem with. And we have the founding fathers’ backing on that one. Hell, Thomas Jefferson considered Christianity to be an abomination, and once ripped every page out of his bible but the sermon on the mount. So, insofar as we go off on the fundies, it is because their goal of creating a bible-based law, a Christian Sharia, is literally unamerican. Personal belief, which we may disagree with, we will fight to defend. But we have the right to be irreligious, sacreligious, and even blasphemous, if we so choose. God, after all, is beyond comprehension, and a little divine lunacy is only proper when confronted with those who claim to know His thoughts. I don’t know if you’re a believer, or a fundamentalist. If the former, good on you. If the latter, well, go find a nice theocracy to join. This is a secular country, and has been for around 225 years. Hope this clarifies things for you.
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 31, 2005 at 10:47 pm
“Uncle Festus”, “Wal”, “Gary”, “GMT”, “Sue”: This isn’t a political blog. There are roughly 200 or so other religious/political blogs to talk (spew?) about your political views on.
This isn’t one of them.
All right – deleted (most) of the crap comments – left the ones legitimately asking questions, or trying to make a point other than ” u r dum god suks”.
Replies forthcoming.
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 31, 2005 at 11:59 pm
Milo – although the intent of your comment was, of cours,e insulting – you’re free to visit. Comments made which sincerely disagree, do not resort to profanity, and are honestly made,regardless of the level of ire, are free to remain. Comments made to “score points”, but with no discussion value, will be removed. As many have been. This is a forum for discussion. Opinion noted.
Festus – I am against abortion. Children have done nothing to deserve death. The government, on the other hand, has the right to determine whether the crimes a person has committed are worthy of a death penalty. This is the government’s responsibility. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s.” In a criminal setting, the government enforces law. Abortion does not equate. There is no justice, or law, or crime involved: save the murder of children for the sake of convenience. This is a crime in every sense. Governments, incidentally, are who decide who we are at war with, and who we are not. We have a responsibilty to ensure we are not endorsing tyranny over others, of course – but, I fail to see how any sort of tyranny is being endorsed, given Iraq’s liberation, and ongoing free elections. Regards!
Lotharsson – I don’t care who’s poking fun at what. I take issue at portraying Jesus as anything but the Son of God. Especially when He is portrayed as follows, in today’s post: “Instead, he looked me straight in the eyes and told me a filthy joke about a traveling salesman and a milking machine. I’m sure it was some kind of parable, but I can’t figure out what it means.” It makes me angry. Not because I care what is said about me. I care about what is said about Jesus, and how Jesus is portrayed. That is what makes me angry. I couldn’t care less about the “political” connotations.
salvage – probably so. I don’t pretend to consider myself superior. That comment was about as vague as it can get, however. When a pronoun is used, it’s customary to attempt to explain what the general reference might be.
“Holy” Jack – what “pseudointellectual rant” about “persecuted Christians” would you be referring to? Specificity helps, if you want to make an actual criticism, rather than a blanket “you are dumb” comment.
Sue – If he defines evil as such, he’s a bit off base. A Christian defines evil as “morally wrong”, with the standard of perfection being the holiness of God. If you’re basing a supposed Christian morality pattern on his definition… the rest of your argument is out the window as “Christian”.
Deana – I’m sorry you never accepted the authority and lordship of Jesus over your life. If you had done so, you wouldn’t be having this conversation – and there is no way you could say you used to believe. That is unfortunate. Once Jesus is your Lord, there is no “used to”. A Christian’s life is lived to please God – not “fulfill duties”. Devoutness pertains to religion, not belief. Religion is centered in externals, not internals. This is the reason much of Evangelical Christianity is in a moral shambles these days. I would advance a thought for you. When you say “Christians”, do you mean the people you almost certainly met that were not only externally different, but internally different? If they don’t act like Christians – followers of the Christ I’m certain you know enough about to know – they most likely are either severely out of the fold, or not in it at all.
I’m not here to give some excuse for Christians who don’t act like it. They are either severely in the crapper, in God’s eyes, and others, or there are just “playing church”. Noone is perfect. Christians don’t pretend to be. There ARE judgemental, self-righteous pharisees out there. There’s a distinct difference, however, in calling what is wrong, wrong, and proclaiming your own perfection from the housetops.
I’m anything but perfect. I’m just as evil as anyone else is. However, my goal is to please God, despite my failings. Not to tell everyone else what a good job I’m doing at it. Feel free to stop back by. Let me know what concerns you about me – I’m willing to have an open discussion about it. That’s why I started this blog in the first place.
Ted – Notice that that comment is gone. He was either a troll, or someone with no clue of what Christianity is. Either way… I don’t tolerate that here. So, yeah… call me intolerant. heh.
itsrainingkarma:
“and believe that Christ exists soley on faith” – I don’t. I believe I am saved through my faith in His power to save me from my own folly. My faith in his existence is based upon a host of logical, physical, and historical evidence. If you care to discuss this… that’s what I do. So, let me know.
“illogical to assume that your god is the one true god” – care to support, or will you just make a drive-by assertion? I deal in discussion, debate, and apologetics. Not random assertions.
“written 1600 years ago” – Wrong. The earliest book was written only decades after Jesus’ death, and the Old Testament was written hundreds of years prior to His birth. Support it, don’t just assert it. Frightfully lazy.
The commandment is “do not murder”, not “do not kill”.
“At what point did logic and faith meld into one for you?”
They are not one – they are mutually complementary aspects of the same worldview, and the same dedication to the Lord of my life. If you’d like further discussion, you’re welcome to return to do it, or to trackback your own discussions to this blog. Your choice. God bless.
Padraig – Secularism is one thing. We’re not talking about some “neutral” denial of all religions. We’re talking about direct usage, and distortion of the Biblical, Christian Jesus, in order to discredit Christianity, and to discredit political views that are linked to it. That isn’t a “neutral” site.
“There are certain Christians who take the view that law comes from God, not man”
It does. Moral law. Secular law is determined by governments, not churches. However, if the morality of secular society departs from God’s moral law (in it’s principles, not it’s specifics), we believe that this nation, as it now exists, will cease to be anything but yet another repeat of the slide into moral and cultural depravity that was the downfall of Rome, if you want a historical reference.
“I don’t know if you’re a believer, or a fundamentalist.”
See my recent post about what “fundamentalist” really means. In that meaning of the word (the original meaning), yes to both. Yes, I am a believer. I also believe that mocking Jesus, even in satire, is a very, very bad idea. Yes, it makes me mad – but, honestly, I believe it will make God madder. So, I’m going to say my peace about it.
“If the former, good on you. If the latter, well, go find a nice theocracy to join.”
I don’t want a theocracy. I want a society which is not on the slippery slope to moral bankruptcy. I couldn’t care less who’s running it – as long as they aren’t funding “piss christs” with the NEA, and calling it “art”. Just as an example.
“This is a secular country, and has been for around 225 years.”
Early American history is a favorite subject of mine. Patrick Henry once said this: ““It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!”
Not “governmental authority” was founded – but this “nation” was founded. A nation is not the government OF a nation. It is the threads which bind people together to FORM a nation. That thread, both moral, and cultural, was Christianity – practicioners of, not “members” of.
I don’t want a theocracy. I want a country where morals are an important part of daily life, and where morality is not taboo – but applauded, and even expected. Sure, it’s utopian. It’s also a wonderful thought.
Anyway. There’s some time spent on comments. Have a good night.
Comment by Ted on February 1, 2005 at 1:32 am
Didn’t I say I don’t want politics?
This isn’t a public sidewalk, and it isn’t your grandma’s kitchen. It’s my house.
I think I was pretty clear.
~ RK
Comment by Ted on February 1, 2005 at 1:41 am
Ted – Notice that that comment is gone. He was either a troll, or someone with no clue of what Christianity is. Either way… I don’t tolerate that here. So, yeah… call me intolerant. heh.
Good on you. You’re an equal opportunity filthy comments censor, and I can live with that.
Comment by Milo Johnson on February 1, 2005 at 2:06 am
Interesting. You say my comment was intended to insult, but have no evidence to support that. I already told you, all I feel is pity for people who have to populate the universe with invisible friends. Do you think I’m lying when I declare my intent? You are all welcome to believe in the tooth fairy if you want, the fervency of your belief has no bearing on reality. Reason and faith are mutually exclusive. You pretend you can walk on both sides of the fence, but you can’t escape that you have no evidence to support your invisible beings and supernatural events. Show me objective evidence and I’ll be willing to entertain it. Meantime, you are only trying to prove your point by testifying how strongly you believe in it. Science is a self-correcting methodology, superstition thrives only on blind acceptance.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 1, 2005 at 7:19 am
“Buffoon” is an insult.
“Superstitious”, as commonly used, is an insult.
Hate it, but when you use insulting language, that really does mean you’re insulting people. Like I said – I don’t care. I just thought I’d point it out. You are free to continue to believe in a pitiless, nihilisitc worldview. Just don’t be surprised when you find out you were wrong.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 1, 2005 at 7:41 am
Ted: No, I’m a Christian, not an “equaity” activist.
I don’t allow people to take a dump on my lawn. “Equal opportunity” hsa absolutely nothing to do with it. My moral code has everything to do with it. If I don’t want what they say shown on my site, for moral reasons, or personal reasons – it won’t stay on it. It’s just that simple. Anyone can disagree; if they don’t break my rules, and don’t put anything on my site (language-wise) that I wouldn’t put there myself. People from my church visit here, and so do several younger folk.
Comment by G. D. Frogsdong on February 1, 2005 at 11:15 am
You know, I’ve tried to engage you in discussion, but you don’t answer any points I make, and the points I have made about straw man arguments, for instance, were exactly on point, as well as what I said about redefining commonly understood words to suit your argument. I’m sorry, but until you can come up with a real argument and make use of some logic, you’re just too weak to stay with. It isn’t that the Religious Right, fundamentalists lack the intellectual power or worthy arguments to address, it is just that you don’t have any of those things.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 1, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Or, perhaps, that I don’t have time to follow every rabbit?
I’ll get to ya. I had something else I was doing before JG decided I was French, or whatever. I’ll get to you.
Comment by Michael on February 1, 2005 at 9:33 pm
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It does me no harm that my neighbor worships 20 gods, or no God.”
That was the voice of a man who respected his neighbors and had a generous heart – and was open to dialogue. Today’s fundiligionists have not only departed from the Founding Fathers’ values, they ceaselessly distort them.
Comment by Funky Dung on February 1, 2005 at 9:59 pm
RazorsKiss, if you and your Christian readers would like to read the blog of an atheist that doesn’t foam at the mouth, I whole-heartedly recommend Theomorph (http://theomorph.blogspot.com). He’s a nice guy who argues rationally, calmly, and politely. If only all my gadflies were so nice. 😉
Comment by Milo Johnson on February 1, 2005 at 10:11 pm
The dictionary says a buffoon is either a clown or a ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool. I don’t think religious people are clowns. I do think they are fools. That’s not an insult, that’s a conclusion based upon observed behavior. If you don’t wish to be labeled a fool, don’t believe in foolish things. Superstitious applies to one who believes in the supernatural, which is foolish. There is tons of evidence that the universe behaves in accord with simple physical laws. There is zero evidence for anything supernatural. To believe that there is flies in the face of objective reality. That is foolish. Therefore, I stand by my characterization of superstitious buffoons. If the shoe fits, don’t gripe about the style.
Comment by Mr.Murder on February 1, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Politics are for political blogs. K, buh bye.
~ RK
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 1, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Is that politics I smell?
DELETED!
Comment by Ted on February 2, 2005 at 12:44 am
Just don’t be surprised when you find out you were wrong.
Hmm. And what if you cease to exist when you die, and you never knew you were wrong? It certainly sounds like you are asserting a superiority of your beliefs by saying, “don’t be surprised when you’re wrong.” Bottom line is, I can’t say there isn’t a god, heaven, hell, etc., and you can’t say that there is. We’re deadlocked, so lay off the condescension of non-believers’ positions.
People from my church visit here, and so do several younger folk.
Then why censor the post saying, “They’re all going to burn in hell, God willing.” Isn’t that what you people believe? Don’t “accept Jesus as a personal savior” == going to the place you call “Hell”?? It’s great that you understand that this position has become morally deplorable here, and around the world, but why stifle your own opinions?
Comment by Ted on February 2, 2005 at 12:51 am
If you don’t wish to be labeled a fool, don’t believe in foolish things.
Milo, don’t bother. These people will cling to their fear-of-death superstitions till the end. Just take comfort that you will face reality, no matter how cold and lonely it may sometimes be, rather than base your entire life on delusions designed to aleviate a genetic need for survival that is so strong, it compelles people to believe in anything that promises them the chance to survive death.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 6:56 am
Ted (* name edited – typo. Sorry Milo.) – “It’s great that you understand that this position has become morally deplorable here”
It’s not the truth that people are going to Hell if they don’t believe. It’s wishing it upon them that is morally deplorable. I don’t wish that on anyone. That is not what we believe. If you’re going to make an assumption – make sure it’s correct.
“fear of death superstitions”
You really don’t get Christianity. I don’t fear death at all. That’s the point. The second point is that others _should_.
Comment by Funky Dung on February 2, 2005 at 7:32 am
RK,
I hate to agree with the opposition here, but you’ve missed Ted’s point. He’s claiming that your lack of fear of death is a direct result of your faith. Without that faith, you’d be as scared as he presumably is. Ala Marx, religion is the opiate of the masses. To Ted, we’re just “doped up” on God so we’re too numb to be afraid.
Comment by Ken on February 2, 2005 at 8:38 am
Deleted for reasons of general idiocy.
~ RK
Comment by Lefty on February 2, 2005 at 8:57 am
Politics.
~ RK
Comment by Milo Johnson on February 2, 2005 at 11:04 am
Say what? If you don’t want me to think you’re a fool, at least be bright enough to not attribute quotes to me that I didn’t make! Let me be clear about something: I sincerely support your RIGHT to believe in whatever nonsense you want to. Just don’t pretend that there is anything rational about believing in that which is not supported by demonstrable and verifiable evidence. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that when you believe in the supernatural you are willingly abrogating your power of reason. It’s your free will and your choice, but don’t expect me to respect it as having any merit, any more than a belief in the tooth fairy or any of the other irrational ideas that some people cling to.
Comment by brother on February 2, 2005 at 11:20 am
The two solitudes: Christian and non-Christian.
How lucky we are to live in America where the word of Jesus is freely available and that we may at least choose to accept Jesus’ loving embrace, or forgo it and be thrown into Hell (upon dying) to suffer its unimaginable torments forever and ever. Sometimes it makes me feel sad to think of all those people born in foreign countries that never even hear of Jesus and how they will be thrown into Hell too. But we must have faith in God’s plan for us all.
Comment by Ted on February 2, 2005 at 11:31 am
You really don’t get Christianity. I don’t fear death at all. That’s the point. The second point is that others _should_.
And you just made my point for me! If you didn’t hold the belief that your death is not the end of your existence, you would certainly be “afraid” of death. You just pulled a chicken and the egg argument. Christianity gives people the comforting idea that they won’t cease to exist when they die. Try contemplating the idea that you will, and see what emotions that conjures up.
Comment by Ted on February 2, 2005 at 11:35 am
To Ted, we’re just “doped up” on God so we’re too numb to be afraid.
I don’t think that about religionists at all. I, too, used to be a devout ‘Christian’ for 17 years. Finally, I decided that the only reason I could think of to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence was the comforting thought that there would be an afterlife. The after-life concept is the ONE common thread that runs through every religion in one form or another. It seems to be religions most central idea.
And yes, I’m afraid of death. If you aren’t you need psychiatric help. You can’t be sure what happens to you when you die, and if you aer, you’re deluding yourself.
Comment by Ted on February 2, 2005 at 11:39 am
Sometimes it makes me feel sad to think of all those people born in foreign countries that never even hear of Jesus and how they will be thrown into Hell too. But we must have faith in God’s plan for us all.
If this were any other site, I would have assumed that quote was satire. Funny how one post saying all who aren’t Jesus followers burn in hell is deleted, and this one is left alone. Not that I care what anyone does with their blog, but it just shows the glaring inconsistency.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 12:25 pm
I work during the day…
Comment by brother on February 2, 2005 at 12:44 pm
I work during the day…
Unlike these godless socialists. I hear you.
Comment by Milo Johnson on February 2, 2005 at 5:29 pm
You must not pray properly.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 10:26 pm
I can, indeed, say that there is a God, a heaven and a hell. As with every argument containing conflicting worldviews, both sides will assert things. That is what I’m doing. If you are convinced that there is no such place, and have firm evidence you believe backs it up – you’re free to say so, all you please. That doesn’t mean it’s right. Christians tend to have some extremely firm convictions abotu what is, and is not true – when it is explicitly laid out for them in the Biblical account. Opinions outside of that account are not equally valid, and taking them to be so is not valid, for a Christian. Heaven, hell, and God are explicitly and minutely explained (if not fully – noone but God has full knowledge of anything) – and evidencially buttressed by what I have found to be true, and what I have learned, and been taught. This rests upon a bedrock of logical thought-forms, which assist in supporting the over-arching framework of those various ideas. It isn’t condescension. It’s certainty. If you don’t have an equal certainty in your beliefs – ask yourself – why do accept something which you yourself do not fully believe?
Let’s define “willing”. This statement is directly contra-Biblical.
2 Peter 3:9 says: “Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” God does not desire anyone to go to Hell. Going to hell is your own choice, and your own choice alone.
The difference is that the individual chooses it. God is NOT willing that any should perish… The consequences of your decision carry consequences – be they good, or bad. But, the choice lies on you. That is the difference.
So, having a consequence for your own choice is morally deplorable? I never said that, and I’m puzzled why you assume I did. The contra-Biblical injunction he made, while professing to be “Christian” was why that was deleted. Like I said – distortion of Christianity to make it out in the worst possible light ticks me off. An honest question is one thing – deliberate distortion is another. His comment was the latter.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 10:39 pm
I’ll expand my earlier comment. You said “fear-of-death” superstitions. When I saw that, it implied that I fear death. I don’t. We’ve established that. Now, when you look at why, and in what way – it’s not as “superstitious” as you think. From a purely pragmatic standpoint – a selfish standpoint – someone would never die for their convictions. We all, however, believe that there are things worth dying for. I hope. Christianity believes that laying down your life for a friend is the greatest expression of love possible. Jesus is our friend, as well as Lord. He already died for us – so how could we possibly balk at doing the same for Him? Or for anyone else? Even if we don’t receive the promise we were given – we still stand for something – a very poignant something, which can’t be explained away by pure pragmatism. 10 of the 11 remaining disciples of Jesus died a martyr’s death. Thousands upon thousands throughout time have died the same way. Christians do not fear death. It is a frightening concept – the lack of fear when death approaches, is it not? I’ll ask you a question, though. If death is merely a nothingness – and not the hell or heaven choice Christians claim – what is there to truly fear? If such a thing is true – how would it matter? What do you gain by fear of a state in which you will have no consciousness to care whether you are alive or dead? I find that aspect puzzling about areligious thought. What is there to fear, if there is nothing after death? In essence… you are afraid of nothing. I’ve never understood that.
Indeed, Paul said it best: “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”. However… what comfort is there in the fact that there IS no comfort?
Here’s something to think on. We trust that God promises us eternal life, true. However. Let me advance a curious take: If we love God, as we say we do – would it matter whether we received what we were promised, or not? We have faith in a God that will show us mercy – even though we know we deserve death for our rebellion. If He does not show it to us: I would advance the argument that we should love Him, for His own sake – because He’s worthy of it. Not because we have some promise of an afterlife. After all – we promised Him our lives, and our Love. It is His regardless of what happens to us.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 10:48 pm
I’m going to address this as a real comment, not a snide one. Why? because it’s closer to the Biblical pattern than the other.
This is not bad doctrine. It’s a tough statement, but correct doctrine.
1. He does not say “God wills” people to go hell. He will judge them worthy of it, eventually – but it is their own choice. So, this is correct.
2. Hell does last forever, it does torment, and it does happen post-death.
3. Hell is resultant upon rejection of Christ – so this is also correct. These statements (while, perhaps, a bit out of left field, and not exactly on the topic…) are correct – but badly timed.
There are some interesting theories about this. This is the only thing that makes me wonder whether he’s being sarcastic, or honest. I’m trying to decide – and it’s very, very hard to tell tone, or intent via text.
I’ve struggled with this myself, to be honest. However, I trust God more than I struggle with this issue. I believe God does have a plan – as is evidenced by the frequent well-nigh instant connections some missionaries make in “barbaric” cultures, due to the common heritage of man’s conscience (which leaves no man with an excuse) and the common threads of similar innate understanding of spiritual truth which is found elsewhere. I don’t now God’s mind. I am convinced that one day, as Job says, “I will see God in the flesh”. On that day I will know, as will everyone.
Comment by Deana Holmes on February 2, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Dear Mr./Ms./Miss Razorskiss:
I stand all amazed at your bald assertion that I never “accepted the authority and lordship of Jesus over [my] life.” You simply have NO idea about my life and to make that kind of judgment shows the incredible hubris that apparently comes along with being a fundievangelical Christian. I would know about that, by the way, because I was there once, and I could judge right along with the best of them. Sorry to shout, but YOU DO NOT KNOW THE TYPE OR QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIP THAT I HAVE WITH GOD. To assume, from my very real criticisms of four aspects of fundievangelical belief that I never believed is, in my opinion, a most amazing thing. But then again, I am not surprised. You cannot deal with spiritual struggle or doubt in any form, apparently, and like so many other of the devout ‘n’ saved, you must denigrate the messenger to avoid the contents of her message.
There’s nothing else I can say about your remarks except that again, you’ve proven why leaving fundievangelical Christianity was the best thing to do for my mental health. If I had to think like you, I know I’d be getting out the razor and slitting my wrists from trying to deal with the contradictions.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 10:52 pm
Now, in light of the previous comment, I’m inclined to think “brother” is a troll.
I don’t edit posts, do maintenance during the day – because I can’t. I work. Which my answer to Ted’s comment about my “inconsistency”. Which is a bit silly, as he posted it at 11:20am, and Ted’s post was ten minutes later. I posted a reply in all of 30 secs, while I was finishing lunch.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 10:53 pm
You can’t tell me what to do!
Or, was that an improperly formed “You must not have prayed properly?”
I still fail to see the reference.
Comment by Milo Johnson on February 2, 2005 at 11:01 pm
THAT’S the best you can do? Once again, I pity you. Seriously, it’s been fun. I wish you health and happiness. I also hope that someday your eyes open to the fact that the natural universe is all there is, and is more than sufficient in and of itself.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 11:09 pm
If you had actually made any statements that were specific, merited a specific response, or were anything more than an ill-disguised rant against religion in general, and Christianity specifically – you would get a response.
I’m not going to waste my time arguing with a militant atheist who doesn’t even live in the same world I do. If you accept no definitions of reality I would offer (as I can see you do not), and I accept none of yours, there is no reason, or plausible excuse for me to waste time better spent on more meaningful and fulfilling pursuits.
If you wish a discourse, not potshot practice, feel free to return and discuss. Otherwise, I wish you well, and I pray you see reality as it truly is – the creation of a loving God against whom you are in rebellion.
Comment by Milo Johnson on February 2, 2005 at 11:30 pm
See? Yet another superstitious hypocrite. I offer a polite and sincere farewell, and in return you prove yourself to be a (don’t curse on my blog, please. Thanks. ~ RK). Where are the vaunted “values” your superstition reputedly imbues you with? I hope you are happy with your worship of the tooth fairy or whatever illusory deity you think pays personal attention to you. Perhaps you should consider actuallly practicing what you preach.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 2, 2005 at 11:40 pm
See what?
That you make all sorts of sweeping accusations, offer no backing for them, and run off i na huff, because i won’t rise to the bait?
You keep saying “I pity you”, that I’m “superstitious”, that I’m delusional, and the like… but you offer nothing that would start a dialogue. A harangue is NOT a discussion. It is a single-sided barrage of accusations. I’m not going to bother arguing with someone who doesn’t seem to want an argument, only a free soapbox.
I’m sure you would like to vent – go ahead. We don’t have anything to discuss unless you discuss something.
What, praytell, am I failing to practice? There’s a start for your dialogue. What does “values” have to do with the fact that all you’ve done is take potshots, with no attempt to start, or maintain a discussion?
Just as a side note – praying for you, in my so-called “superstition”, normally includes the intent, and practice, of sincere concern. I wouldn’t pray for you if I didn’t care, Milo. Try and scale back the venom a bit, and scale up the rational discussion quotient for the issues you have issue with. If you don’t want to – fine. I’ll pray for you anyway.
Don’t flip out because I don’t respond to the flamebaiting in some proscribed manner.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 3, 2005 at 12:02 am
Why? Jesus said “Noone can snatch them out of my Father’s hand”. Noone includes yourself. If, as you say, you are a “former” believer in Hell – this means you were never one to begin with. Noone who calls Jesus “Lord”, as He himself said, (“And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’), can call Him Lord, sincerely, and then “not believe in Hell”. There are no “former” Christians – and, I’ll be blunt, i sincerely doubt Christianity can exist with no belief in a literal hell. There really isn’t any wiggle room there. Disagree if you like, but not on the basis of your own opinion. In a matter clearly covered by Biblical truth, and since Christianity is defined completely by Biblical truth, there is no other source. That is the basis by which I made that statement. Don’t argue with me. Argue with Jesus. He said it exists, and what it exists for.
I’m sorry, but applying your own statements to clear doctrine has nothing to do with hubris. It has to do Biblical doctrine, and your misunderstanding of it. There are no “former” Christians. There are only Christians. Not all who name themselves Christian are, or were. If they do not believe in fundamental doctrine, why are they calling themselves Christians to begin with? Call me intolerant if you wish, but an “all-love” God ignores God’s Justice.
I’m not judging anything. I’m taking your own words, comparing them to scripture, and giving you the result.
That’s about all I can tell you. I’m sorry if it makes you angry, but that doesn’t change what the Bible says. If you don’t currently have Jesus as your Lord, and thus accept that there is a reason you NEED to be saved, you never did. Lordship means just what it says – He is your Lord, Master, and King. You can’t believe He is your Lord, yet have no reasoning for repentance from sin, if sin carries no consequences
If there is no Hell, there is no need for salvation. If there is no salvation, there is no need for a Savior. If there is no Savior, the Gospel is void. If there is no Gospel, there is no Lordship – because you would need no Lord, if you need no salvation – would you?
No, I doubt the reality of a Christianity that contains no Hell. I doubt the reality of A Christianity that has no explanation for what Jesus Himself said: “”Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
I doubt the reality of a Lordship which denies the very reason for that Lordship, and the dcontrine of the entire first half of the book of Romans: That all men are sinners, and that death is the sentence for sin.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The contrast is clear. Without sin, and death, there is no need for salvation, or Lordship. They are contrasted as opposites. If you remove the reason for, you destroy the foundation of your own salvation, and the Lordship of Christ.
I would be more worried about examing the definition of Biblical Lordship than your mental health.
If I had to delete half of the Bible to get to my conclusions… well. I’d call the something that results a grotesque parody of Biblical Christianity. Judgement, Sin and Hell are central doctrines in Christianity. Remove them, and you gut everything about it.
I’m an apologist. Give me a statement clearly antithetical to Biblical doctrine, and to the very foundational truths of the Bible, and I will ignore everything else – because it is not only irrelevant, in comparison, but riddled with the same errors in doctrine – thus, faulty by default. In order for me to respond to your correction – you have to be correct. If you aren’t even professing the same Jesus (a non-saving, anti-justice, no-Lordship, “nothing but love” Jesus), we have to get past the differences in your professed theology, and Biblical theology, before you can do any criticizing of anyone else’s.
I’m a student of the Bible, and that is the central focus of this blog, and everything I do on it. If you fly directly in the face of Biblical theology, expect to get that addressed first, before you get anything else addressed.
Comment by Ted on February 5, 2005 at 1:24 am
Unlike these godless socialists. I hear you.
Comment by brother — 2/2/2005 @ 12:44 pm
I’m god-less, but I’m a capitalist. Small business owner, in fact.
Comment by Ted on February 5, 2005 at 1:28 am
I can, indeed, say that there is a God, a heaven and a hell.
Please explain. How, exactly can you prove this is true?
If you are convinced that there is no such place, and have firm evidence you believe backs it up – you’re free to say so, all you please
Did you not read my earlier post? I, in fact, said that I can’t prove there ISN’T a god, heaven, and hell, and you can’t prove that there IS. I repeat: we’re deadlocked. You believe in something that can’t be proven, and at the same time I can’t prove you’re wrong. But it’s sort of like proving that the toothe-fairy doesn’t exist. Do I really need to try?
Comment by Ted on February 5, 2005 at 1:32 am
The difference is that the individual chooses it. God is NOT willing that any should perish… The consequences of your decision carry consequences – be they good, or bad. But, the choice lies on you. That is the difference.
I rest my case. Not believing in Jesus==burning in your hell. I doubt many starving children in Bangladesh ever hear of your European, Roman founded religion. They all must be in eternal torture thanks to all of your missionaries not getting there soon enough to prosyletize.
Comment by Ted on February 5, 2005 at 1:35 am
Indeed, Paul said it best: “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”. However… what comfort is there in the fact that there IS no comfort?
No delusion. Understanding the universe for what it is, not what makes me feel good.
This is too easy.
Comment by Ted on February 5, 2005 at 1:47 am
Christianity believes that laying down your life for a friend is the greatest expression of love possible.
I guess it all depends on who your ‘friends’ are, doesn’t it? I seem to recall the low estimate of the civilian Iraqi casualties at around 15,000. Christians turned out in droves to re-elect Dear Leader Through Whom God Speaks.
I’m so sick of christian hypocrisy. “Pro-life” for you people has always ended at birth.
Comment by Ted on February 5, 2005 at 1:50 am
YOU DO NOT KNOW THE TYPE OR QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIP THAT I HAVE WITH GOD. To assume, from my very real criticisms of four aspects of fundievangelical belief that I never believed is, in my opinion, a most amazing thing.
Don’t wory, Deana, it’s not personal with these types. If you’re not a complete Talian-esque fundamentalist like them, you’re an atheist. There’s no in-between for them.
Comment by RazorsKiss on May 28, 2005 at 1:22 am
I suppose I should respond to these, eventually.
It just seems pointless, really. they got all the answer they needed already. I’m not going to bother.