I was disgusted watching this. And quite angry at the thought of a young kid watching something like this and being absolutely terrified.
What an evil marketing tactic. Does this bother religious folk as much as me? Aren't there better ways of spreading the notion of sharing your faith with those around you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
God apparently does not have a very high bandwidth on his tube website.
edit: I also think the answer to your last question is obvious.
[ January 25, 2008, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow... very deep. But so true. Makes me glad I'm not going to hell. I would be terrified if I thought I was. To answer your question, no it doesn't bother me because it is the truth. Hell is real.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You'd like to think it would be obvious, BB, but aparently not.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It seemed a little contrived. I don't think most people would take that seriously.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You'd like to think it would be obvious, BB, but aparently not.
just wanted to say, I don't mean to imply that I think this is the norm. I know there are better ways and I'm sure many good people are engaging in those methods.
The line in the description about this "not being a scare tactic" got me. What exactly is it then?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
So is this less or more dispicable than anything the Church of Scientology could cook up?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: It seemed a little contrived. I don't think most people would take that seriously.
Unfortunately it, and other videos like it, are generally aimed at children. Depending on their age, I think they would take it quite seriously.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I actually wanted to laugh. Talk about over dramatic. What is more disturbing is less the presentation than the militant message. If you don't force your religion down people's throats then they are going to torment you. Better to torment them with your Christianity now then they torment you later.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: The line in the description about this "not being a scare tactic" got me. What exactly is it then?
It's being put out there, I would wager, by the same kind of people who insist to me that the whole idea of 'Hell' is somehow not a threat.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I think, if it's aimed at children, I would have more of a problem with the parents of that child then with the makers of this video.
*** Edited to Add***
By that, I mean parents who would want their child to watch that video. Unless, they're like my parents, who would rate the video quite high and let me watch it if I needed a laugh.
But, parents who think it's an appropriate education tool for young christian children rank somewhat close to abusive parents. I can't see how this film would every be good for anything but a laugh.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
What’s the big deal? Christians believe in hell. They believe to avoid hell you have to believe in Jesus. That’s pretty universal in Christianity. Even the bible has a story about the rich man in hell being tortured and asking for a drop of water and then begging for Lazarus to be sent to his family to warn them. Pretty much the same sort of story. Just a bit of a modern twist and more detail. Are you saying they shouldn’t share what they believe to be true? And for the most part I think this message is meant for believers. Saying that if you don’t witness to your friends, this is what can happen to them. Maybe some of you need to think about that message.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good to know people aren't responsible for their own actions and choices.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Even the bible has a story about the rich man in hell being tortured and asking for a drop of water and then begging for Lazarus to be sent to his family to warn them.
And as I recall, Abraham tells him no because the prophets are supposed to be enough for them to believe. Which is pretty arrogant, coming from a man who is supposed to have spoken to god personally.
We're against it, Jay, because it's an shameless scare tactic. It's like holding a gun to someone's head and saying 'convert or die'. Some of us know that the gun isn't loaded. But the person who has it at their temple might not be aware of that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Wow, a video Chick Tract.
Apparently the parts of the Bible that say Works will not get you saved, but faith and belief will, are only true if by faith it means faith to convert others.
Apparently that sinners don't dwell on the sins that brought them to hell, but dwell on the fact that some Christian didn't offer them salvation in a timely fashion.
Apparently even though others brought up Christianity several times during just one day in the damned boys life, the fact that another Christian didn't join in on the conversation is enough to cause that sinner to go to hell. Its not the sinners fault, but the faithful.
And of course, you do realize that if that an identical video with an identical plea from Hell could be made from an Islamic point of view. Why didn't your martyr yourself so that I would become a Muslim and not have to be in Hell?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Jay, honesty, not telling lies, is an important part of Christianity too. So when a Christian Web-site has a Scarey Video designed to Scare believers into trying harder to witness to their friends, coworkers, and even "unknown little girls playing in the street." then highlights the idea that this is NOT a scare tactic, honesty seems to be missing.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Maybe some of you need to think about that message.
Why?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So you want to point out where he says it’s not a scare tactic but ignore the part where he said it’s intended for believers? Ok, glad I know the rules now…… By the way, for believers it’s not a scare tactic, but something think about.
Javert, Abraham then goes on to say that they wouldn’t believe even if one rises from the dead. Hummm… sounds familiar.
Why think about the message? Well, if you’re a believer and not worried about your friends going to hell that’s probably not very nice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The idea that God would condemn people to eternal torment because of what some one else failed to do, belies the idea that God is either just or merciful.
If this is what as Jay says "all Christians believe", then I'm glad they don't consider me and mine "Christians".
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Oh, nice. Okay.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Oh, wow, I had to turn that off after about 5 seconds.
How'd they get the voice talent not to crack up reading that script?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Now now, I specifically avoided the word “all”. I said “pretty universal”. I do know there are groups that have other believes, but are still Christian. And it was not because of what someone else failed to do, but because of what they failed to do. I really think you’re not getting the point of this being meant for believers to encourage them to witness. When you look at it that way it makes more sense.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I really think you’re not getting the point of this being meant for believers to encourage them to witness. When you look at it that way it makes more sense.
Maybe you're not getting that we -are- getting that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I really think you’re not getting the point of this being meant for believers to encourage them to witness.
That was, after all, the approach Jesus used and encouraged. "Go forth and terrify your fellow man into renewed faith."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Javert, Abraham then goes on to say that they wouldn’t believe even if one rises from the dead. Hummm… sounds familiar.
Yeah. It's a lie many fundamentalists say all the time. So of course it's familiar.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: What’s the big deal? Christians believe in hell. They believe to avoid hell you have to believe in Jesus.
Some. Christians. Whole swaths of us do not believe this at all. Some of us find it offensive.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Wow, a video Chick Tract.
That's exactly what it is. Gag me.
Though it does explain a lot about why some Christians (thankfully few) act as appallingly as they do.
It makes me understand atheists, I'll tell you that. Mark Twain's "malign thug" is a charitable description of a deity who would order permanent torture for someone who didn't agree to becoming a Christian. Very charitable.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Sorry, it just seemed strangely relevant.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And it was not because of what someone else failed to do, but because of what they failed to do.
That certainly wasn't the message in the video. The video quite explicitly said, "Your friend is in Hell because you didn't witness to him".
I'm with kmboots on this one, I find the whole idea that if you don't accept Jesus before you die you will suffer eternal torment to be highly offensive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Javert,
quote:Yeah. It's a lie many fundamentalists say all the time. So of course it's familiar.
Is it necessary to become so antagonistic?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Javert,
quote:Yeah. It's a lie many fundamentalists say all the time. So of course it's familiar.
Is it necessary to become so antagonistic?
In response to antagonism, yes. That being said, all I did was say what I believe to be an honest assessment of Jay's claim.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Come now Javert, you know just as well as I do that honesty and antagonism aren't mutually exclusive.
Nor must antagonism always be met with antagonism either. Or do you imagine anyone's mind will be changed, on this topic, by it? By being antagonistic you're just preaching to the choir, no pun intended.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Come now Javert, you know just as well as I do that honesty and antagonism aren't mutually exclusive.
Nor must antagonism always be met with antagonism either. Or do you imagine anyone's mind will be changed, on this topic, by it? By being antagonistic you're just preaching to the choir, no pun intended.
I have no desire to change anyone's mind, Rakeesh. I was responding to an arrogant comment. If I came off as antagonistic, it was because I was responding to someone being arrogant and intending to insult.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have no desire to change anyone's mind, Rakeesh.
Can I quote you on that later? Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I have no desire to change anyone's mind, Rakeesh.
Can I quote you on that later?
Of course.
That doesn't mean I won't defend my positions, or argue with others about their own beliefs.
I just don't care if by doing so I convert anyone. No one goes to hell for not being an atheist. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm still trying to figure out how the kid wrote a letter on a piece of paper that wasn't consumed by the flames of eternal torment. Must have been refractory paper.
quote:It makes me understand atheists, I'll tell you that. Mark Twain's "malign thug" is a charitable description of a deity who would order permanent torture for someone who didn't agree to becoming a Christian. Very charitable.
Umm, atheists don't believe in a malign thug. We don't believe in any gods at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't say anything about converting, just about changing one's mind on a small subject. Two totally different things.
Yes, no one goes to hell for not being an atheist; some, according to some atheists, live stupid lives of pointless mysticism for not being atheists, though.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, no one goes to hell for not being an atheist; some, according to some atheists, live stupid lives of pointless mysticism for not being atheists, though.
The difference is that atheists don't believe that a being outside those people causes those lives to be that way, and then worship that being for doing so.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
That video reminds me of the "Hell Houses" that many churches put up around Halloween.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Jay, we know that its directed at believers.
Its still uses SCARE Tactics that is specifically claims its not using.
It isn't trying to scare anyone into converting. It tries to scare them into converting others.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The difference is that atheists don't believe that a being outside those people causes those lives to be that way, and then worship that being for doing so.
Say What?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The difference is that atheists don't believe that a being outside those people causes those lives to be that way, and then worship that being for doing so.
Say What?
Rakeesh was trying to compare atheists who think that certain believers are wasting their lives with believers who believe that atheists and other non-believers are going to hell.
I was trying to express the difference between the two.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm still trying to figure out how the kid wrote a letter on a piece of paper that wasn't consumed by the flames of eternal torment. Must have been refractory paper.
quote:It makes me understand atheists, I'll tell you that. Mark Twain's "malign thug" is a charitable description of a deity who would order permanent torture for someone who didn't agree to becoming a Christian. Very charitable.
Umm, atheists don't believe in a malign thug. We don't believe in any gods at all.
Glenn she was saying that if you see the Christian God as a malign thug (as Mark Twain did), you probably wouldn't worship him either and would be an atheist.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The difference is that atheists don't believe that a being outside those people causes those lives to be that way, and then worship that being for doing so.
Say What?
Rakeesh was trying to compare atheists who think that certain believers are wasting their lives with believers who believe that atheists and other non-believers are going to hell.
I was trying to express the difference between the two.
That much I understood the first time around, it was your very awkward wording of "a being outside those people" that had me perplexed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm still trying to figure out how the kid wrote a letter on a piece of paper that wasn't consumed by the flames of eternal torment. Must have been refractory paper.
quote:It makes me understand atheists, I'll tell you that. Mark Twain's "malign thug" is a charitable description of a deity who would order permanent torture for someone who didn't agree to becoming a Christian. Very charitable.
Umm, atheists don't believe in a malign thug. We don't believe in any gods at all.
Scuze. "Hypothetical malign thug".
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn she was saying that if you see the Christian God as a malign thug (as Mark Twain did), you probably wouldn't worship him either and would be an atheist.
I understand that. But being an atheist doesn't mean that you believe in a god and fail to worship him, it means that you don't believe in the god in the first place.
It's a common fallacy, and notably attributed to C.S. Lewis, who claimed that he was an atheist, but his descriptions of atheism are all based on being angry at god.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Scuze. "Hypothetical malign thug".
That works.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Do Christians really believe the part that when you die that you will wait on line to give your name and then an angel will take you to hell if you didn't believe in Jesus?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm still trying to figure out how the kid wrote a letter ...
I'm more impressed with the US Postal Service which had to pick up the thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The difference is that atheists don't believe that a being outside those people causes those lives to be that way, and then worship that being for doing so.
Ha! What a delightfully deliberate misinterpretation of what theists believe, Javert. Nicely done!
Or do you actually believe that theists think God makes their lives stupidly mystical and worships Him for it?
Maybe we should get back to talking about how rotten fundies are, though.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Yes, no one goes to hell for not being an atheist; some, according to some atheists, live stupid lives of pointless mysticism for not being atheists, though.
Is this a contrapositive Pascal's wager?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm still trying to figure out how the kid wrote a letter ...
I'm more impressed with the US Postal Service which had to pick up the thing.
Neither snow, nor rain, nor gloom of night, shall stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
Nope, hellfire isn't part of the job description.
Maybe there's a diplomatic courier between here and there. I'll bet Blackwater has the account.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ha! What a delightfully deliberate misinterpretation of what theists believe, Javert. Nicely done!
Or do you actually believe that theists think God makes their lives stupidly mystical and worships Him for it?
Maybe we should get back to talking about how rotten fundies are, though.
And how nice of you to misunderstand what I wrote.
No, I don't think "theists think God makes their lives stupidly mystical and worships Him for it."
I think some theists believe that their god punishes non-believers with an eternity in hell, and then they worship him for it.
That's the difference. I don't worship or support what I believe may be the negative connotation of certain people's beliefs. (The connotation being to "live stupid lives of pointless mysticism for not being atheists", quoting you.)
Certain believers, on the other hand, DO worship and support what they think is the negative connotation of my non-belief. (The connotation being your god damning us to hell for eternity.)
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: Scuze. "Hypothetical malign thug".
I nominate Lisa for Thread Winnage!
(I think it's the "Scuze." that really makes the funny.)
--Enigmatic
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I think, if it's aimed at children, I would have more of a problem with the parents of that child then with the makers of this video.
My thoughts exactly. It amuses me that people would seriously produce such a video, but the thought of parents actually making their young children watch it is absolutely infuriating.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm still trying to figure out how the kid wrote a letter ...
I'm more impressed with the US Postal Service which had to pick up the thing.
I'm trying to figure out how he kept writing as they were dragging him away and tossing him over a cliff, and even as he started to burn... talk about determination. Maybe he had Bluetooth and was using some kind of streaming speech-to-text program hooked up to a computer with a printer. At least it's good to know that you can get a signal in Hell.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I'm still trying to figure out how the kid wrote a letter on a piece of paper that wasn't consumed by the flames of eternal torment. Must have been refractory paper.
"Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to carve 'aaaaaggh'. He'd just say it!" "Well, that's what's carved in the rock!" "Perhaps he was dictating." "Oh, shut up. Well, does it say anything else?" "No. Just 'aaaaaagggh'." "Aaaauugggh."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
It has just been pointed out to me that you can mark the video as "inappropriate". Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You'd like to think it would be obvious, BB, but aparently not.
It can be obvious and yet be unknown by certain folk.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I remember this stuff as a kid. I remember them telling us to go up to random people and ask "Do you believe in Jesus?"--and I did it a few times. Always felt weird. They've certainly gotten more dramatic with their presentation. I remember being terrified, though--with the "left behind" movies they made us watch, and the idea that some people who died would be in fire for eternity.
I hope I make better decisions with my kids.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Nathan2006: I think, if it's aimed at children, I would have more of a problem with the parents of that child then with the makers of this video.
My thoughts exactly. It amuses me that people would seriously produce such a video, but the thought of parents actually making their young children watch it is absolutely infuriating.
I just realized while reading that that I spelled 'than' with an 'e'.
I'm very unhappy with myself right now.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The comment on the side made me laugh. We all get a steak dinner when we die?
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
I hate religion... why can't people just treat each other with respect and love without all this BS.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by dab: I hate religion... why can't people just treat each other with respect and love without all this BS.
I don't hate atheists. However, they (speaking of them in general, and not as individuals) have been no less prone to mistaken beliefs about others, prejudice, disrespect, and outright bigotry than anyone else I've met.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
while the comment may have been uncalled for, it's worth pointing out dab said he hated "religion" and not "religious people", and is suggesting people can be good to each other without the organization.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
So at the risk of being a smart-Aleck, what is IMPLIED by "believing" in Jesus? I'll assume that it's something about his being godly, being resurrected, healing a select few people with a select few disorders and being very charismatic, but "believing" in him fundamentally only requires belief in his existence. I'll agree that there probably was a very nice man name Jesus Christ who was a strong proponent of God etc. etc, but I don't think my belief in his existence qualifies for the above "belief" that is desired.
(Just curious, and probing through questioning)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Believing in Jesus means you trust him at his word that he will save you if you sincerely repent. It involves acknowledging that he was more than a man who has power to deliver you from hell. At least, that's my jibe on it.
[edit: It also involves believing his atonement was infinite, and believing that everyone who has wronged you in life is in his hands. Everyone you have wronged, if you are indeed saved, you will be filled with desire to make restitution. I go in and out of phase on the saved thing. It's why our ordinances are continually telling us to remember Jesus.]
quote: I think some theists believe that their god punishes non-believers with an eternity in hell, and then they worship him for it.
I don't think people who love God see that as God's best feature. Those who love God love their fellow people and don't cherish the thought of their spiritual demise.
But that's LDS cosmology, that hell is simply separation from God: an absence of light, love, truth, and mercy.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Back to the video. I am not a believer, so it was not meant FOR me. OK.
Somehow, (that is, because of this thread) I watched it. For the record, this video qualifies for the most disgusting piece of fiction I’ve ever laid my eyes upon.
I wonder how many believers remember that the “letter” (just like the entire story about Josh and Zack) is fictional (it is stated in the video!) ? I mean, they hold “Hell” to be Real, but this story is just fictional and therefore NOT a Scare Tactic. I hope they believe that, and remember it.
Another thing: I have Christian friends; most of them don’t push their beliefs in Jesus on me. Now, is this fictional story supposed to be ABOUT me? Am I, as a non-believer, going to write such a letter after death? If not, show me what non-believer is supposed to do it, if this fiction is meant to have at least some relevance in the Real world.
I feel insulted. Even if I get to some form of “hell” when I die, I won’t accuse anyone else but myself for not being able to avoid it. I am self-RESPONSIBLE, because I chose to. And I leave this written here for the record too. (Should I still wonder why do believers have such a bad impression about non-believers?)
If this video could change my mind, it would do it in the opposite direction than the intended one. I would reject a religion whose followers would see this video as “helpful fiction”. Well, what do you know, I already did!
Have a nice afterlife.
A.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I remember this stuff as a kid. I remember them telling us to go up to random people and ask "Do you believe in Jesus?"--and I did it a few times. Always felt weird.
There was a scene like that in Jesus Camp. It was when they were in the bowling alley and it was very awkward.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Wow. This is hilarious. Angel bouncers. Overly-dramatic. Misplaced anger. I mean, honestly, if events played out like this for me, I'd be furious at God and the angels, I wouldn't care at all about the people on Earth, it's not their fault.
This would make a great post card and summary all in one:
A letter form Hell -
P.S. Wish you were here.
I was rolling on the floor with laughter at this point. He signs the letter, and even adds a witty barb at the end. Some friend he turns out to be! "Wish you were here." In Hell, terrified and suffering with me? I guess I'm not surprised he ended up in Hell, he seems like a self-centered individual incapable of accepting the consequences of his own actions.
I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before, but I'll say it again. Making Christians feel guilty is like shooting fish in a barrel. With a cannonball. And the barrel is mounted to the end of the cannon. So you really can't miss. You get the idea.
Anyway, that's the point of this video. It's not a threat, it's a guilt trip, and Christians really love that stuff.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Believing in Jesus means you trust him at his word that he will save you if you sincerely repent. It involves acknowledging that he was more than a man [literally the Son of God] who has power to deliver you from hell. At least, that's my jibe on it."
That is a nice and quick summary of what Mormons believe it means to know Jesus, although I added clarification. However, even Christians on Hatrack have expressed this is NOT what it means. To them and especially to those who made the video it means:
You have to believe that Jesus is God incarnate as a Trinity of God, Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost of the same substance and personage. God (who is also the Resurrected Jesus) is a Spirit and has no body or shape of any kind. You have to believe all of this on top of what pooka said or you still will go to Hell. At the same time, if you reject this and still believe in the saving power of Jesus that is worse than not believing in him at all.
That is only the start. There are a lot of other things you must believe to avoid hell. In fact, there are many things that if you believe even when you believe in the saving power of Jesus you will still end up in hell. It all sounds so simple to "believe in the salvation of Jesus," but when you actually confront Christians of this type you find they mean something very complicated. That is why, as someone pointed out earlier, it didn't make sense that Jesus was brought up many times and didn't count.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I found this more funny than threatening. I think even people who thought this made a valid point would be able to see that it was a tad bit over-the-top.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Does it even pretend to be biblically based? I haven't actually watched it and don't intend to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: while the comment may have been uncalled for, it's worth pointing out dab said he hated "religion" and not "religious people", and is suggesting people can be good to each other without the organization.
It's still rude because it's akin to saying, "I don't hate educated people, but I hate organized education and what it does to people."
Why can't we all learn without all that other BS?
I for one do not consider the religion I love, that has been so good to me and all those around me BS.
I am grateful when people recognize that while some horrible things have happened under the banner of religious belief, it does nobody any good to blanket all religion, as if anybody really understands them all and say they are worth less then nothing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, even Christians on Hatrack have expressed this is NOT what it means. To them and especially to those who made the video it means:
You have to believe that Jesus is God incarnate as a Trinity of God, Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost of the same substance and personage. God (who is also the Resurrected Jesus) is a Spirit and has no body or shape of any kind. You have to believe all of this on top of what pooka said or you still will go to Hell. At the same time, if you reject this and still believe in the saving power of Jesus that is worse than not believing in him at all.
Could you link to the posts wherein Christians on Hatrack have expressed this?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You have expressed this many times to me, unless I have misunderstood. I knew you would question my statement for some reason. Perhaps because you still don't know how hurtful it is to be called non-Christian or Christian of a different Christ.
Agreed that this hasn't been stated on Hatrack outright like the kind of Christians who create video's like the above. However, the implication has been present. I will also admit that the Christians on Hatrack are much more tolerant and charitable than many others I have met.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Dear <hypothetical Christian friend>:
I died and in the afterlife it turns out that the rules governing all that stuff actually turns out to be remarkably like the stuff in those Chick tracts. So even though I lived a good life and was charitable and empathic and kind and self-sacrificing, I'm being consigned to hell for all of eternity because I didn't follow a couple of technical rules. The angels coming to cast me into the lake of fire told me that their hands were tied on this issue and that it's my fault for not assuming before my death that the rules of one specific evangelical subset of a specific form of protestant Christianity was true and all the rest were totally not true.
At first I was complaining that this was totally weak but then a Yanomamo boy from deep in the jungles of south america pointed out that he was going to hell too as he hadn't even really heard about Jesus from, well, much of anyone. I agreed that he got dorked even harder than I did.
Anyway, the point of this letter is to let you know that it's pretty much all your fault and I want to endlessly guilt you for not taking every opportunity to wave a bible in my face. if only you were more like those pliable drones in Jesus Camp, maybe you could have saved me. Shame on you. Shaaaaame. Here's hoping you are more or less terrified into tossing chick tracts at people and preaching at people during wildly inappropriate times. You might as well start with your jewish and buddhist friends by constantly reminding them how totally wrong their religion is. You don't want to be further shamed by your lack of zealotry, do you? You had better get started because, after all, the man in charge is apparently such a stingy git about the afterlife.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Try the thread for a discussion on what "Christian" means. And yes, to be "Christian" means to believe in Jesus.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You have expressed this many times to me, unless I have misunderstood.
No, I haven't.
quote:Try the thread for a discussion on what "Christian" means. And yes, to be "Christian" means to believe in Jesus.
Let's see, in that thread I said:
quote:To be clear, I think both definitions are accurate. If I were making an organizational chart of world religions, I'd have "Mormon" under the branch labeled "Christian."
Moreover, I may have missed it, but I don't see where I stated that anyone is going to hell. Perhaps you could point that out to me.
To reiterate, I have never, to the best of my recollection, said this: "You have to believe that Jesus is God incarnate as a Trinity of God, Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost of the same substance and personage. God (who is also the Resurrected Jesus) is a Spirit and has no body or shape of any kind. You have to believe all of this on top of what pooka said or you still will go to Hell. At the same time, if you reject this and still believe in the saving power of Jesus that is worse than not believing in him at all." Nothing you have linked, or can link, will contradict this fact.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I didn't even know godtube existed...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's still rude because it's akin to saying, "I don't hate educated people, but I hate organized education and what it does to people."
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I didn't even know godtube existed...
"What does god need with a tube?"
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Bok wins. Thread over.
Blackbade, like I said, I'm not saying the comment wasn't rude. I was just pointing out that Puffy's example of not hating atheists even though they have just as many flaws as everyone else, wasn't completely apt.
Dab said, "i hate religion. can't we all get along without it" and puffy responded, "hey, i don't hate atheists!" It would have been more proper to respond with, "I don't hate atheism". That's all.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
On the contrary. Javert wins.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
I like the LDS concept of Hell. To us, Hell isn't necessarily some hideous place of fire, brimstone, and ungodly demonic beings flaying us alive. To be sure, there is probably some place in Outer Darkness that could be somewhat like that, but that's only for those who want to be in that kind of condition.
In the LDS tradition--from what I understand--Hell is rather the gnawing, eternal feeling that, had you done better in mortality, you could've obtained a higher degree of glory than the one you're currently in.
For those unfamiliar with LDS doctrine, there are three distinct degrees of glory that the entirety of mankind is separated into post-Judgment.
1. Telestial. For all of those that willingly mocked and disobeyed God--but had no direct knowledge of his reality. Unrepentant sinners come here. Of course, this is still a degree of glory; from what I understand, the average man would, upon having a vision of this kingdom, kill himself just to come here. They have the direct presence of the Holy Ghost.
2. Terrestrial. For all of those who repented post-Mortality. They have the direct presence of both Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, and can minister to those who dwell in the Telestial kingdom. The ratio of glory from this kingdom to the Telestial kingdom is probably about the same as that of the Telestial kingdom to mortality--in other words, a pretty big ratio.
3. Celestial. For those who were obedient and good in life. They have the direct presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, dwell in glory, and--at the highest tier--are deified. Same ratio to the next-lowest kingdom probably applies here, as well.
So, we can see that even if you're a blatant sinner, you'll get something pretty awesome; if you're somewhat repentant after death, you'll get something even better; and if you've been a good little boy or girl, you just might get the grand prize. Pretty sweet, isn't it?
Of course, if you ever meet God after you die before judgment, and decide to spit in His face, you'll be exiled for time and all eternity, removed from His glory forever--but hey, who's nuts enough to do that with all the rewards going the other way?
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Oh, and Bok--that site hurts my brain. A lot.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's still rude because it's akin to saying, "I don't hate educated people, but I hate organized education and what it does to people."
I love that he has this companion site with one line of text and one link.
It's beautiful.
[ January 26, 2008, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Of course, if you ever meet God after you die before judgment, and decide to spit in His face, you'll be exiled for time and all eternity, removed from His glory forever--but hey, who's nuts enough to do that with all the rewards going the other way? "
Depends on the nature of said god and its attributes, along with the personality of the person potentially doing the spitting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's still rude because it's akin to saying, "I don't hate educated people, but I hate organized education and what it does to people."
Having to read that website and other word compositions with the same flavor to me would be hell. Geez, I am still reeling from that website.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I like what CS Lewis had to say about getting into heaven...
In Mere Christianity, he said (I'm Paraphrasing sooo much right now, it's been so long) that the Bible just says that anybody who is in heaven, is there because of Jesus Christ.
The Bible never said that the belief in Jesus Christ is the only way in to heaven. We're just told that if we believe in Christ, it's guaranteed. (This is a 'once saved, always saved'* belief. There are some christians who think there is more to do after salvation in order to get into heaven.)
Instead, we're told that 'no one comes to the father except through me [Jesus]' Note that it's Jesus himself, not the belief in him.
We have no way of knowing how far Jesus' mercy extends to those who don't believe in him. God never decided to tell us. We just know that if somebody ends up in heaven, it's going to be because of Jesus, however roundabout their relationship with him may be.
That's my personal belief.
* Once save, always saved is the belief that after Salvation, you're a Christian as long as you want to be. The other belief is that you are saved as long as you perform certain actions. i.e refraining from drinking achohol, attending church every Sunday, etc.
Both groups of people do acknowledge that 'Faith without works is dead'. They're just in different areas of that spectrum. Some fall more towards faith, others towards works.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Depends on the nature of said god and its attributes, along with the personality of the person potentially doing the spitting.
Not really. Not if there's eternal suffering and loneliness on the other side of the equation. How many people do you know, of any religious or non-religious stripe, who would remain steadfast in the face of such a thing?
Of course, it could come to be rather like the situation in A Thousand Deaths, that old short story by Card, where not just acceptance but true sincerity is required.
This isn't a slam against atheists or anyone else, it's simply a comment on human nature. Few enough people can keep steady even under brief, physical torment. Fewer than that can endure it for lengths of time.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I remember this stuff as a kid. I remember them telling us to go up to random people and ask "Do you believe in Jesus?"--and I did it a few times. Always felt weird. They've certainly gotten more dramatic with their presentation. I remember being terrified, though--with the "left behind" movies they made us watch, and the idea that some people who died would be in fire for eternity.
I hope I make better decisions with my kids.
Ditto, pretty much. Except I overheard my kids creating a video game character and arguing over whether to call it "Zombie Jesus" or "Jesus Claus" so I probably went a tad too far in the other direction...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Dear <hypothetical Christian friend>:
I died and in the afterlife it turns out that the rules governing all that stuff actually turns out to be remarkably like the stuff in those Chick tracts. So even though I lived a good life and was charitable and empathic and kind and self-sacrificing, I'm being consigned to hell for all of eternity because I didn't follow a couple of technical rules. The angels coming to cast me into the lake of fire told me that their hands were tied on this issue and that it's my fault for not assuming before my death that the rules of one specific evangelical subset of a specific form of protestant Christianity was true and all the rest were totally not true.
At first I was complaining that this was totally weak but then a Yanomamo boy from deep in the jungles of south america pointed out that he was going to hell too as he hadn't even really heard about Jesus from, well, much of anyone. I agreed that he got dorked even harder than I did.
Anyway, the point of this letter is to let you know that it's pretty much all your fault and I want to endlessly guilt you for not taking every opportunity to wave a bible in my face. if only you were more like those pliable drones in Jesus Camp, maybe you could have saved me. Shame on you. Shaaaaame. Here's hoping you are more or less terrified into tossing chick tracts at people and preaching at people during wildly inappropriate times. You might as well start with your jewish and buddhist friends by constantly reminding them how totally wrong their religion is. You don't want to be further shamed by your lack of zealotry, do you? You had better get started because, after all, the man in charge is apparently such a stingy git about the afterlife.
Samp, I used the above in sort of response/parody of the letter to Hell. I haven't posted it to my YouTube yet, because I really want to get your permission first. And give you credit for writing it, unless you prefer to remain anonymous.
It's one of my finer acting jobs, I might add.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Nathan, The Last Battle is a bit more explicit than that about non-Christians getting to Heaven. I think most Christians would do a lot better by reading what Lewis had to say about Heaven and what it means to be a Christian.
Regarding timecube.com, I can't believe I've gone through life without knowing about this website. Absolutely hilarious. I love how it builds up the wisest human being, and then it shows the man. He looks like my grandma's brother, who's retired in Ocala, Florida. I'm sorry if this offends, but my favorite line is: "Mother and father gave me birth, not a queer jew god."
[Edit] He's going on about Santa now... my sides are starting to hurt. I can't believe I've been educated stupid all my life.
[Edit again] There's another page! A letter to the Wisest Human Being on Earth:
"Dear Mr. Ray- For a year now I have studied your Time cube truths but have not been able to convince others of its reality (dumbasses). My mother is a teacher, and she said it was "nutty" and "stupid." But guess what- I cornered her, literally, in the living room one evening, and forced her to admit it."
I'm sure you did.
[ January 26, 2008, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's still rude because it's akin to saying, "I don't hate educated people, but I hate organized education and what it does to people."
I love that he has this companion site with one line of text and one link.
It's beautiful.
You know, it used to be that people like this would xerox a bunch of weird rambly crud together and post it on bulletin boards. I actually used to collect them. But now theres the web.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Javert, you must give us a link to that once you post it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Javert, you must give us a link to that once you post it.
Will do. It's all done, just waiting on the writer's go-ahead. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Did you add any background sound effects? I could have sworn I heard a cow mooing in the original.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Did you add any background sound effects? I could have sworn I heard a cow mooing in the original.
Not much. A little opening music, some pictures as opposed to just the words, and I lowered the pitch of my voice using my software.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, you need a cow. Or better yet, a goat.
Get to it!
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I think what's interesting about this video is that it implies this Josh character never really heard the Christian message. That means that those who have not had the opportunity to convert are also damned.
A prospect, I think, that doesn't speak well of that religion. In such a cosmology, I'd be proud to go to Hell.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In such a cosmology, I'd be proud to go to Hell.
Honestly? If such a religion were correct (something I have no faith in at all), I would probably be too angry at evangelicals for spending so much time kissing their own asses instead of spreading the word.
I mean, heh, there's a lot of tough talk about people rather wanting to go to a torment-style hell than submit to a creed they don't believe in, but frankly I don't buy it. People just aren't that tough. When we're threatened with torture, much less once it actually starts, we break. We don't stick to moral convinctions when splinters are being driven under our fingernails, or at least not for long.
So who here says they would choose an eternity of damnable torment in hell as opposed to submission to the will of god in the afterlife, even if that will is odious to you personally?
I mean, I'd love to say that I'd choose hell, but if I were given the choice just between me, God, and Beezlebub, and no one else would ever know? I doubt I wouldn't choose submission PDQ. Bearing in mind, of course, that the decision ends there (because in this silly religious hypothetical question of mine, it does) Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I mean, heh, there's a lot of tough talk about people rather wanting to go to a torment-style hell than submit to a creed they don't believe in, but frankly I don't buy it. People just aren't that tough. When we're threatened with torture, much less once it actually starts, we break. We don't stick to moral convinctions when splinters are being driven under our fingernails, or at least not for long.
But when dealing with that sort of torture, our torturers aren't omnipotent. They don't know what we're thinking, so we're free to tell them whatever it is that will get the torture to stop.
So yeah, if faced with that cosmology, I would want to lie to get out of all the nasty bits. But you can't exactly lie to someone who knows everything, can you? So off to hell I would go.
I would be happy with the fact that I wasn't submitting to what I thought of as a cruel and unjust god. And that, I think, would make hell just the tiniest bit bearable.
[ January 27, 2008, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Javert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So yeah, if faced with that cosmology, I would want to lie to get out of all the nasty bits. But you can't exactly lie to someone who knows everything, can you? So off to hell I would go.
I didn't make it clear in my silly hypothetical, but sincerity isn't relevant: all that matters is the submission part, not whether you mean it, unlike the short story A Thousand Deaths.
quote:And that, I think, would make hell just the tiniest bit bearable.
If such an unlikely cosmology were correct, 'bearable' and 'hell' would be mutually exclusive, no matter how tiny.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And that, I think, would make hell just the tiniest bit bearable.
If such an unlikely cosmology were correct, 'bearable' and 'hell' would be mutually exclusive, no matter how tiny.
Depends on how this hell is set up. If I'm allowed to still be ME, then I would find it better.
If I were changed so I were no longer me, well, then I'm not me, so it doesn't matter that much what my answer is.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
For the record, timecube wa sone of the earliest crank websites. It goes back to 1998.
-Bok
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: In such a cosmology, I'd be proud to go to Hell.
In most Christian cosmologies, all who go to hell are. YMMV depending on your definition of "pride".
Jay points out the beggar Lazarus and the rich man as and example of Jesus scaring people with hell, but that's not the point of the parable (IMO). I think it was another reiteration of a constant theme of His: do not judge people by what you see here... what you think you know is not the whole truth and may, in fact, be the exact opposite. The alcoholic homeless beggar may be a saint and the finely dressed family man in church every Wednesday and Sunday may well be headed for flames... so abandon the pretense that you know who is and isn't and simply treat all people as brethren.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Depends on how this hell is set up. If I'm allowed to still be ME, then I would find it better.
If I were changed so I were no longer me, well, then I'm not me, so it doesn't matter that much what my answer is.
I guess I'm not being very clear. I'm not saying, in this hypothetical, that you have to change to get into heaven. Just lie, say you submit to the will of God, and into Heaven you go, as opposed to eternal torment where you would have whatever pride you felt due for having been honest.
I'm asking this because, in these sorts of discussions, every so often pops up, "I'd rather go to Hell forever than acknowledge that this particular God is right!"
To me, that smacks of the same sort of pride that someone might have and say, "I wouldn't give up my car at gunpoint, I'd floor it or fight or grab the gun or something!"
So the reason I'm posing my silly little hypothetical is to ask who thinks they would stick to their principles and suffer eternal torment, instead of telling a lie just between you and God and go to heaven?
I'm not saying I think that's what the afterlife is like, just to be clear.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: In such a cosmology, I'd be proud to go to Hell.
In most Christian cosmologies, all who go to hell are. YMMV depending on your definition of "pride".
Jay points out the beggar Lazarus and the rich man as and example of Jesus scaring people with hell, but that's not the point of the parable (IMO). I think it was another reiteration of a constant theme of His: do not judge people by what you see here... what you think you know is not the whole truth and may, in fact, be the exact opposite. The alcoholic homeless beggar may be a saint and the finely dressed family man in church every Wednesday and Sunday may well be headed for flames... so abandon the pretense that you know who is and isn't and simply treat all people as brethren.
^^ What he said, though the beggar Lazerus in that story was not an alcoholic. The begger being an alcoholic would sorta dilute the effectiveness of the parable.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:To me, that smacks of the same sort of pride that someone might have and say, "I wouldn't give up my car at gunpoint, I'd floor it or fight or grab the gun or something!"
So the reason I'm posing my silly little hypothetical is to ask who thinks they would stick to their principles and suffer eternal torment, instead of telling a lie just between you and God and go to heaven?
I'm not saying I think that's what the afterlife is like, just to be clear.
And I'm saying that the problem is that god, under most people's definitions, couldn't be lied too.
Depending on what heaven consisted of, I might lie, if I could, to get there. I'm not too upright to deny that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Good work Javert!!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote: Scuze. "Hypothetical malign thug".
I nominate Lisa for Thread Winnage!
(I think it's the "Scuze." that really makes the funny.)
--Enigmatic
"Scuze" actually means "excuses" and is used to say "Excuse me."/"Sorry." in Romanian. I was a bit startled to see it. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Corwin, are you sure? Why would Lisa use a Romanian word?
A.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: For everyone's more or less enjoyment:
Very nice. But isn't zealotry pronounced "ZEH-luh-tree"? Or is that a regional thing?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote: Scuze. "Hypothetical malign thug".
I nominate Lisa for Thread Winnage!
(I think it's the "Scuze." that really makes the funny.)
--Enigmatic
"Scuze" actually means "excuses" and is used to say "Excuse me."/"Sorry." in Romanian. I was a bit startled to see it.
I doubt it's just Romanian. To be honest, I have no idea where it came from. I say it in real life, too. It's probably just a lazy way of saying "Excuse me".
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Yeah, me too. But it was the Romanian spelling, so that set of the weird moment. By the way, it's not pronounced the same way in Romanian anyway. "u" is the same as in "put", and "e" is the same as in "pet", and the whole word has two syllables, 'scu-ze, with the stress on the first.
Not that anyone wanted to know all that. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Isn't the Italian word for "excuse me" "scusi"? Not that it's particularly surprising to find similaritites between Italian and Romanian, of course.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Yeah, that's it. In fact, according to the Romanian dictionary, the Romanian word comes directly from Italian.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Isn't it pretty much the same in French, too?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: In such a cosmology, I'd be proud to go to Hell.
In most Christian cosmologies, all who go to hell are. YMMV depending on your definition of "pride".
Jay points out the beggar Lazarus and the rich man as and example of Jesus scaring people with hell, but that's not the point of the parable (IMO). I think it was another reiteration of a constant theme of His: do not judge people by what you see here... what you think you know is not the whole truth and may, in fact, be the exact opposite. The alcoholic homeless beggar may be a saint and the finely dressed family man in church every Wednesday and Sunday may well be headed for flames... so abandon the pretense that you know who is and isn't and simply treat all people as brethren.
^^ What he said, though the beggar Lazerus in that story was not an alcoholic. The begger being an alcoholic would sorta dilute the effectiveness of the parable.
Really? Why? I don't see how.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: For everyone's more or less enjoyment:
Very nice. But isn't zealotry pronounced "ZEH-luh-tree"? Or is that a regional thing?
Thanks!
I've only heard it pronounced "zeh-luh-tree" by people with English accents. Since zeal is "zeel" I figured zealotry was pronounced the same.
But I could be wrong.
I was told by my speech professor that harass is pronounced "harris", but I still pronounce it "huh-rass". Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
From Webster's dictionary
Main Entry: zeal·ot Pronunciation: \ˈze-lət\
Main Entry: zeal·ot·ry Pronunciation: \ˈze-lə-trē\
Main Entry: zeal Pronunciation: \ˈzēl\
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Oh, and
Main Entry: ha·rass Pronunciation: \hə-ˈras; ˈher-əs, ˈha-rəs\
So it looks like Webster's prefers your pronunciation to that of your speech professor all though it does list both.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
It's pronounced zeh-luh-tree.
Anyway, awesome vid, though that ruined it for me. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Isn't it pretty much the same in French, too?
It's "excuse" in French. I believe the English word has at some point come from French. (with Latin at the origin)
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I remember, reading Dante, this one guy in Hell who was there for blasphemy. He had claimed he was greater than God, and so was sent to Hell. But he did not acknowledge God's power to punish him. As such, his suffering was far worse, because he had not abandoned his pride. I have never admired a character in literature as much as that man.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, never?
Which character do you mean? It's been ten years since I read Inferno, but it would seem to me that refusing to acknowledge God's power to punish (in this setting) would be the height of stupidity. Refusing to acknowledge God's right to punish would be a different story.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It's probably just a lazy way of saying "Excuse me".
"Scuze me," said the elephant's child, most politely, "but could you please tell me what the crocodile has for dinner?"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, never?
Which character do you mean? It's been ten years since I read Inferno, but it would seem to me that refusing to acknowledge God's power to punish (in this setting) would be the height of stupidity. Refusing to acknowledge God's right to punish would be a different story.
I liked Inferno. Niven and Pournelle are among my favorite writers. It wasn't as good as Footfall, but it was fun.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: For everyone's more or less enjoyment:
It would have been better with a goat in the background - in the silence just as you built up with all that anger. Would have been awesome.
Just sayin'...
Good job, though.
Posted by Darth Petra (Member # 11464) on :
I watched about two seconds of that and turned it off. It was just one of those things whrere we try to scare Atheists into belief. Good Gravy.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, never?
Which character do you mean? It's been ten years since I read Inferno, but it would seem to me that refusing to acknowledge God's power to punish (in this setting) would be the height of stupidity. Refusing to acknowledge God's right to punish would be a different story.
Given the kind of entity God is supposed to be, isn't that a nonsensical distinction?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: In such a cosmology, I'd be proud to go to Hell.
In most Christian cosmologies, all who go to hell are. YMMV depending on your definition of "pride".
Jay points out the beggar Lazarus and the rich man as and example of Jesus scaring people with hell, but that's not the point of the parable (IMO). I think it was another reiteration of a constant theme of His: do not judge people by what you see here... what you think you know is not the whole truth and may, in fact, be the exact opposite. The alcoholic homeless beggar may be a saint and the finely dressed family man in church every Wednesday and Sunday may well be headed for flames... so abandon the pretense that you know who is and isn't and simply treat all people as brethren.
^^ What he said, though the beggar Lazerus in that story was not an alcoholic. The begger being an alcoholic would sorta dilute the effectiveness of the parable.
Really? Why? I don't see how.
The point of Lazerus getting into heaven was that although he was lowly in station, he is still valuable in God's eyes. I think the point is that Lazerus is still a good and humble servant of God. If Lazerus is an alcoholic then he his cultivating an attribute that is not conducent to being like God. It turns the parable away from the message of, the meek and lowly poor get into heaven before the prideful rich, into "God is willing to look past alcoholism but not an ungiving heart."
I don't think Jesus would touch the subject of just how bad we can be and yet still enter heaven.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
There is absolutely nothing in the parable to suggest any particular virtue for Lazarus except that he is, in fact, carried to the Bosom of Abraham.
As for your last comment, Jesus touched that subject directly... most famously in the Passion according to Luke where he assured a criminal, who admitted deserving crucifixion, of heaven.
I would also, though, mention that any discussion of what God is willing to overlook (in a Christian context) is not complete without mentioning Matthew 5:21-22 (NIV here)
quote: 21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
All that to say Lazarus would have been valuable in God's eyes, alcoholic or no, and "getting into heaven" is not about any specific behavior, one way or another. More accurate to say it's not about behavior at all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll have to get to your interesting points tomorrow Jim-Me, 8 hours of school, 5 hours of work, and 2 hours of errands has kicked my butt for the day.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
'scool... believe me, I understand busy Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Jim.
BB, I think that Lazarus would have been no less valuable or beloved to God if he had been an alcoholic. (I also think that the rich man was just as valuable and beloved by God as Lazarus. The rich man put obstacles in his own way.)
Now. It is possible that what you mean is that using the parable to illustrate two important ideas might have confused the issue. Possible. But I think that both ideas - that earthly status is not an indicator of our value to God and that God loves sinners - are both important Gospel messages.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Resh...wanna hear something funny?
I live in Ocala, FL. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:All that to say Lazarus would have been valuable in God's eyes, alcoholic or no, and "getting into heaven" is not about any specific behavior, one way or another. More accurate to say it's not about behavior at all.
Then how do you explain this teaching of Jesus.
quote:Mathew 25: 31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Or this teaching of Jesus
quote:Mathew 7: 21-24 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I didn't say it was accurate that it wasn't about behavior... I said that was more accurate than making it all about behavior.
If it's all about behavior, then as the passage I cited makes clear, none of us have a chance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:BB, I think that Lazarus would have been no less valuable or beloved to God if he had been an alcoholic. (I also think that the rich man was just as valuable and beloved by God as Lazarus. The rich man put obstacles in his own way.)
And Lazerus cultivating alcoholism is the same thing as a rich man cultivating his love of riches.
Jin-Me: While carefully trying to avoid a faith v works discussion. My only point was that for the purposes of telling a parable, had Jesus pointed out that Lazerus was an alcoholic and left the rest of the parable intact, we as readers would be forced to examine what Jesus' intent was in pointing that out. A natural conclusion would be that alcoholism is not as bad in God's eyes as being uncharitable.
To me the difference in the rich man and Lazerus is that Lazerus was not in a position to help anyone but himself as he was destitute. The rich man on the other hand had been given so much and had not used it in making others happy, everything else between the men is more or less equal for the purposes of the parable.
The parable becomes needlessly complex by making Lazerus an alcoholic. In addition, Lazerus can't help others and contributes to his own situation by being an alcoholic. He is just as guilty as the rich man who does not help others as much as he could.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
And Lazerus cultivating alcoholism is the same thing as a rich man cultivating his love of riches.
Not the same thing at all, in my opinion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The parable becomes needlessly complex by making Lazerus an alcoholic. In addition, Lazerus can't help others and contributes to his own situation by being an alcoholic. He is just as guilty as the rich man who does not help others as much as he could.
Unless of course you view alcoholism as a disease (which many do) rather than a free choice. In your mind, would it change the parable dramatically in Lazarus had leprosy, no legs or was blind?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Whether he is cultivating the alcoholism is a matter of the desires of his heart, which only God is acquainted with. He might loathe himself every time he drinks, while it is unlikely that the rich man loathes his riches- at least in that day and age. Jesus' teachings that rich people are not God's elect were as revolutionary as his teachings to love your enemy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The parable becomes needlessly complex by making Lazerus an alcoholic. In addition, Lazerus can't help others and contributes to his own situation by being an alcoholic. He is just as guilty as the rich man who does not help others as much as he could.
Unless of course you view alcoholism as a disease (which many do) rather than a free choice. In your mind, would it change the parable dramatically in Lazarus had leprosy, no legs or was blind?
I see leprosy, no legs, and blindness as akin to poorness in that it merely inhibits the individuals ability and therefore expectation they help others.
Obviously Lazerus could have an addictive personality, and became addicted before he could do much about it, but he also could be a man who enjoyed the occasional drink, knew alcohol is addictive, and indulged too much in it to the point that he is not an alcoholic.
In the latter's case, he is hardly the ideal candidate that Jesus would use in his parable.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think I see where we are at cross purposes, at least a little.
I am not trying to say it wouldn't make a difference in the parable if Jesus specified alcoholism... I'm trying to say the parable, as it stands, is not affected, one way or another, by the fact of Lazarus's alcoholism *or* lack thereof.
I'm saying that whatever moral failings Lazarus may have had (and there is certainly nothing to indicate he is without them), they are not relevant to the parable. Lazarus, were he real, may have been a remarkably pure soul or he may have bene an average gutter wino. It makes no difference to the parable as told.
Does that make more sense?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Blackblade, do you know any alcoholics? Just curious.
JM, If it makes no difference in the parable as told, why are we embellishing it with him being drunken?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I found thiswoman's blog entry rather disturbing. She praises and thanks the "Mormon Lady," but ultimately implied she will go to Hell.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Pooka, because I was translating it to the modern day streets, picking a couple of generic characters whom I might encounter on my daily commute.
edit: that is to say, "do encounter from time to time."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I found this from Occasional's link:
quote:And, let me tell you right now that I think Joseph Smith was either a lunatic or a liar
Amusing ironic reference of the Trilemma Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Blackblade, do you know any alcoholics? Just curious.
JM, If it makes no difference in the parable as told, why are we embellishing it with him being drunken?
Yes I do. I also know what it's like to have an addiction.
Curiosity satisfied?
edit: That last bit is a bit impish, I don't mean it to be.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay. Thanks for the elucidation. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Okay. Thanks for the elucidation.
Hey I like to be as lucid as possible.
Jin-me: TBH we probably are not arguing anymore, but I don't really see the distinction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The point I was trying to make was that we are called to care for the poor regardless of the reasons people are poor. The gospel doesn't have an "if they deserve it" clause. We are not asked to judge the worthiness of the poor, just to help them. Even if we think that their poverty is their own fault.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I just realized while reading that that I spelled 'than' with an 'e'.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I'm very unhappy with myself right now.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The begger being an alcoholic would sorta dilute the effectiveness of the parable.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)