God Loves You So Much…

My partner today finally grasped the significance of the fact that for any given sect of Christianity which believes it is THE true Christianity and will go to heaven, they represent far less than 1% of all the people who have ever lived. So to this pic I’d add the following words

That he created hell just in case you don’t love him back in exactly the right way.

Can I get a big loud “fuck that” for the 99?

Thinking out loud

View original post

Advertisements
    • J_Agathokles
    • April 27th, 2013

    It really does sound like he’s like a possessive, obsessive, manipulative lifeparter doesn’t it.

    • Exactly. This, in a nutshell, is why I have problems with certain religious belief but not others. Polytheism does not hold doctrine/dogma like this and I find no harm in it. Ultimately, what I believe to be true does not permit belief in what has no evidence, but I do not hold that all religions are caustic or harmful. Our brains are such that structure and process are important. Religion offers this… but too often brings with it wrongful/caustic belief and action. In ways that are not readily apparent, Hellenistic belief is helpful in my view.. for those that find it so. It brings structure and process and in this way is helpful and does not seem to bring caustic thought or action. I am slightly OCD. Most call me anal retentive… that is me forcing structure and process in my life. Yes, I know that just demeaned all those that suffer from actual OCD and I did not mean it that way. What I mean to say is that I understand the need for structure and process and find that it is helpful in all life, even animals. This is just how things are. I rebel and fight against caustic forms of structure and process. I would not have anyone tell me how to find that in my life and won’t tell others how to find it, but I will object (stridently at times) to such as causes harm to others. The Abrahamic faiths are exactly this type of caustic form.

      I would like to thank you just now for keeping me honest on how I talk about it. It has been more helpful than you know.

      • I don’t know if you’ve ever really considered the harm caused by empowering any kind of faith-based belief. Sure, religious belief requires faith and some contain threats of non belief to some kind of perverted and immoral punishment, but all empower faith. I think faith is a method of inquiry that produces and promotes and protects pseudo-explanations and pseudo-answers equivalent in all ways to ignorance unconnected to the reality we share. For example, I see no qualitative difference between believing a faith-based claim that, say, praying has a causal effect to be different from the claim that vaccinations cause autism, that evil spirits roam the earth, that mystical energy flows between chakras, that tarot cards predict the future, that diluted water amplifies it memory, that they really are out to get you, and so on. Empowering faith is another word for empowering ignorance in the guise of explanations and answers that are untethered to the reality we share. So I am always against respecting any faith-based belief because it is incompatible and in conflict with how we create knowledge about reality.

        • tildeb, thanks for commenting.
          You are correct. I won’t argue with any of what you have said. Not one jot or tittle of it. We all have beliefs that are personal, superstition based, and are not in themselves harmful. I do not equate all superstitious belief to be the same. I argue only against those that are caustic because it is these that harm society. I am not the thought police and I don’t want to be. You have mentioned many of the reasons that I think harmless believers are wrong and it is difficult to tell the beliefs I don’t care about from those that are moderate believers of the beliefs I do care about. You have a good point. It is difficult to tell. I try to not tar all with the same brush. If that is not clear I can do a post on it.

          • I understand what you’re saying and I think that when we own a faith-based belief (one of my ongoing delusions is that my favourite team is always going to win), we accept that it is a statement not of reality but of hope and wishful thinking that is clearly detached from reality… but phrased and/or expressed in such a way to sound plausible even when we know perfectly well it’s anything but. Sometimes – and this is essential in maintaining the delusion – it even turns out to be true and I can bask in the glory and grace of my (completely misplaced if framed by reason and good sense) confidence and trust! But I do not – ever – pretend that it is my silly faith that causes a real world effect in the faith’s outcome and I do not expect anyone else to assume that my faith is anything but personal for my own agonizing enjoyment.

            • Yes, you have pointed out here that there is a difference in belief. One is hope the other is knowing. One is not harmful, the other is. It is a difficult thing and there are some atheists who work to keep the good parts but abandon all the wrongful and harmful beliefs. Without evidence all belief in gods is wrong. I’ll give you that. But not all belief goes so far as to be caustic. My problem is not with the non-caustic forms.

                • J_Agathokles
                • April 28th, 2013

                BTW MAL, have you looked at my drafts for that post on Hellenismos yet which you were interested in doing?

                • Yes, but work and life have flooded me. That post is still on the back burner… it will happen

              • J_Agathokles
              • April 28th, 2013

              @tildeb: I’d like to chime in here to point out that not all religions are “faith”-based in quite way that you probably mean. I assume in this comment that the way you mean is conceived on the basis of Christianity and perhaps Islām mostly, which are exclusivist and believe they alone hold the one truth (ignoring the countless varieties and sects within these religions which each claim the others are wrong on one thing or another). Judaism is a bit of a misfit in this as they are, or can be, exclusivist, but generally don’t proselytise and force their religion upon others.

              To put it bluntly, this conception is wrong. Most religions out there in the world are not exclusivist or caustic to society. It is Christianity and Islām who are the exceptional minority, despite their current numerical overweight against most other religions. Hinduism, Hellenismos, Natib Qadish, Taoism, Shintoism, Native American religions, etc., simply don’t work like that. They are normally inclusive and tolerant, which is why various sects may exist within these religions, and there isn’t any problem between them. Hinduism and Hellenismos, to take just two, also have a healthy culture of respectful debate, or searching for further knowledge and understanding, both spiritually and scientifically. Do not forget that the ancient Hellenes are the ones from which the Western civilisation has received it’s science, yet the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and all the philosopher’s and scholars of the ancient world worshipped the Gods.

              To further use the example of Hellenismos, my religion, it is not so much a faith-based religion, an orthodoxy (right belief), but rather an orthopraxy (right practice). It is a religion which is practical and experiential, by doing rather then believing and being told what to think. One of it’s messages is basically that actions speak louder then words, to put it in the modern adagium. And that doing is supportive of the community an dof society at large, and in those cases where it isn’t, it will be because society itself is crooked and needs correcting. For example the religious situation in Hellas (Greece), where the Greek-Orthodox Church is the official religion, and a few other monotheisms are recognised as well. But the constitution of Hellas does not actually have separation of (Greek-Orthodox) Church and State. Hellenismos is also discriminated against by the state and the church, and it is this that Hellenists there rightfully fight against. And fighting for the separation of Church and State is not caustic to society, rather it is supportive of it and trying to heal it.

              Furthermore, there is no contradiction between science and religion for Hellenismos, if something is scientifically proven, reason tells us it is to be accepted, until such time it is disproven, if such a time ever comes or can come. Remember, Western science came forth from the Hellenic and Roman science, as I already pointed out.

              I hope this will convince you that not all religions are harmful.

              • Unlike MAL, I’m not concerned with only caustic faith-based beliefs; I’m concerned that when we empower faith-based beliefs to be an equivalent method of inquiry into reality, we sabotage our ability to produce knowledge.

                You make a bunch of claims here that are, I think, factually wrong. But by far the most egregious is the claim that the method of inquiry into reality that we call ‘science’ is derived from Hellenismos belief. No, it’s not. Hellenismos belief produced metaphysics and it has taken us nearly two millennia to break free of its seductive grasp. A fine example is Aristotle’s metaphysical claim that women had fewer teeth than men for all the ‘right’ metaphysical reasons… it took Galileo to suggest that perhaps we should actually count.

                This turning to reality may seem obvious to those of us who have been immersed in a world revolutionized by science as a method of inquiry into it, but there was a very long time where metaphysical musings held the greater sway… much to the detriment of real people in real life having to deal for dozens of centuries with ignorance masquerading as knowledge untethered to the reality it purported to describe. Science is a method that allows reality to adjudicate claims made about it and not a product of right thinking. And this method most assuredly did not come to us today from ancient Greece but emerged in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.

                  • J_Agathokles
                  • April 28th, 2013

                  “A fine example is Aristotle’s metaphysical claim that women had fewer teeth than men for all the ‘right’ metaphysical reasons… it took Galileo to suggest that perhaps we should actually count.”

                  And if Aristotle had been around to see the evidence he’d have accepted it. I also didn’t say that Hellenismos produced science as we know it today, I said that the ancient Hellenes passed it on to us. And off course it was in antiquity not yet as we know it know, but was refined when it was rediscovered by the West. And when was it rediscovered? In the 16th and 17th centuries after the fall of Constantinople and Byzantine scholars fled to the West with what ancient texts (copies thereof at least) they could, resulting in a surge in the number of ancient texts available in the West, leading to new insights and knowledge, all resulting from reading ancient texts that had previously been unknown or inaccessible.

                  Perhaps it would have been better on my part to have used the term proto-science to refer to antiquity. The point is, that it is the accumulative effort of thinkers and scholars throughout the ages to get where we are today. You can not judge the ancient ways of going about things by the same standards we have today. That’s like blaming Newton for not coming up with quantum theory.

                  And before you blame “faith” for blinding scholars, faith didn’t prevent Newton from thinking of gravity, which he in his works attributed as a Law of God. Similarly what you have mentioned about Aristotle and women’s teeth was based on arguments which were found logically by him at the time, based on the knowledge available. And now we know some of his claims are wrong. But if he had been aware of the things that we are know, he’d have accepted the proof.

                  • You can’t have it both ways, J Agathokles: Greek metaphysics – specifically the ‘natural’ philosophies of Plato and Aristotle – informed early christianity. Aristotelian ethics in particular were taken on board the catholic church and its dogma wholesale. It was this Greek natural philosophy that continued the supremacy of religious metaphysics (like the writings of Aquinas) that produced the right reasons why Galileo was to recant his conclusions. But you want it both ways, in that the same kernel – Greek metaphysics – produced both the European catholic church and its profoundly anti-reality dogma as well as the kernel necessary for giving birth to the European scientific method that had to fight tooth and claw to be free of it.

                    This is faith-based belief in action, where no matter what the evidence from reality shows us to be the case, all – even plainly incompatible claims – will support the faith-based position.

                    How convenient.

                    And it is Galileo in particular on whose shoulders Newton admittedly stood for his laws of physics and calculus and optics. Now imagine how much more the man could have contributed using only the scientific method rather than his faith-based beliefs wasting the remainder of his life on alchemy and superstitious nonsense.

                    Yes, many believers produced (and continue to produce) good science, but only when faith-based belief played no active role. As soon as faith-based belief plays an active role, then we’ve moved away from reality and knowledge and good science and into the realm where reality plays no mitigating part. That’s why faith-based belief is incompatible with the method of science. (For an analogy of compatibility between faith-based beliefs and the method of science, substitute pedophilia for faith-based belief and priests for science to show why the reasoning that asserts compatibility is clearly wrong.)

                    • tildeb, I won’t jump in between two commenters but will add 2 cents. I understand your desire to stop faith based enquiry completely. It is not useful. I do not think that Hellenisic belief uses faith for scientific enquiry, rather for them the two are separate. Science as we know it today did not exist for the Greeks of antiquity. They bequeathed us many things here in the west, even though they were nascent or skeletal.

                      The denial or destruction of faith based enquiry is an honorable goal. It has a higher purpose, one that I think you miss slightly by broadly applying the cleansing brush. Faith or belief without credible evidence will probably never go away. As it turns out, we naked apes tend to do better when life has structure and rhythm. For many religion gives this. Even without religion we need it to a large extent. This is the distinction then that I call on. Caustic belief is bad while benign belief does bring benefit. Arguing about what happened thousands of years ago is useless because we have the evidence needed to settle truth now and working against one another is nothing but a call for division and hate.

                      Polytheists today, as I’ve seen them, are not divisive, hateful, or caustic. What they think about when the put their heads down to sleep or what dress they use in the annual parades is of no concern. How they vote and spend their money is not caustic. They are, if you’ll allow this, productive members of society despite or perhaps because of their beliefs. I am not the thought police and none of us should be. So I focus on merely that which is caustic. I agree that faith based enquiry is incompatible with science, or rather science is incompatible with faith. Until we reach a point where it is a question for all I think that harmony is more useful than rigid ethics. That is called politics.

                      • J_Agathokles
                      • April 28th, 2013

                      “Aristotelian ethics in particular were taken on board the catholic church and its dogma wholesale.”

                      Only because Christianity twists and mutilates everything that may serve it’s purpose. It’s an institute that is only interested in power and control through to appropriation and usurpation of whatever it can find.

                      The Hellenic religion, ancient or modern, simply does not have this tendency, there is no stifling dogma smothering any further inquiry, as there was later when Christianity took hold. You can not hold Aristotle, who lived centuries before Christ, responsible for what Christians later (ab)used his work for, especially since he worked within a completely different world view.

  1. Would you prefer a god who didn’t pass any kind of judgement and exact justice on the likes of Hitler, pol pot, suicide bombers, rapists, murderers? If a god made everything and owns it, including the oxygen you breathe and the chemicals in the food and water that keep you alive, I reckon he might reserve some right to say how his creatures ought to behave.

    • Why don’t you focus on proving that a god (any god) exists. Then we can talk about what a god should be. Your ignorant argument about what a god should or should not be is … well, ignorant without any credible evidence that a god exists. Your particular version of a god is without credible evidence. I reject your version and every other version without evidence. If there were evidence or an actual god we’d not be talking about what is acceptable. Keep your fairy tales to yourself and stop asking me to participate in them.

      • The argument presented in the image does not prove or disprove anything about whether God existence either – whether one likes or dislikes a belief has no bearing on whether the belief is true or not. (assuming the image presents an accurate representation of beliefs about judgement)

        • The argument in the picture doesn’t have to be true… it is based on the Christian argument for god.. and makes a huge dent in the validity of that argument. If every argument had to be ‘based’ on truth we’d all just call believers idiots without bothering to argue.

          Your assertion that it has no bearing on proof or disproof is useless. You offer nothing in return. There is no credible evidence for the existence of any god. If you are a believer then you have a lot of explaining to do.

  2. Matthew, proof is for math and logic that have mutually acceptable axioms. In terms of religious belief, like any claim about reality, we don;t have these axioms. What we have is reality and it is from reality that we gather evidence to support, to inform, to give cause to our beliefs about it. This falls under the heading of evidence and it is require from reality to justify claims made about reality. That’s why, for example, you do not believe in Thor: you have no good reasons, no compelling evidence from reality, to do so. We are full agreement.

    But the same condition pertains to all claims about this god or that one: atheists – the honest ones – have no good reasons to believe them to be found in reality. This is why believers require faith; they simply don;t have compelling evidence from reality to justify the claims made about it. To be clear, then, faith and justified true beliefs are not synonyms; faith is required in the absence of good reasons based on compelling evidence from reality.

    So if you really are concerned in the slightest about whether or not a belief is true (and most people who think faith is a virtue don’t care enough about what’s true when it comes to their religious faith-based claims), then you have to leave faith out of it altogether and show good reasons why such a belief is justified to be called ‘true’. And this requires compelling evidence from reality to show justification for the belief, external to your desires or wishes or comforts or faith, that it is true.

    The claim that god is real enough to love us requires compelling evidence from reality to be considered justified. That the notion of hell is often linked to the cost of not believing that god is real, that its love is real, is an obvious immature and desperate ploy to make this kind of divine love highly conditional. Even relatively naive people understand that ‘true’ love does not come with conditions or it’s not ‘true’. Why believers who accept the belief without justification that it’s okay for a divine being to offer conditional love is a pretty clear indication of the shallow depth and narrow scope and poor quality of the object of the belief.

    • Dude, that is an awesome comment… awesome!

  3. We say that the evidence for God is primarily found in Jesus of Nazareth, his death and resurrection, to whom (and to which) we are to respond with trust, confidence, for reconciliation to God.

    On your third paragraph, and to address the problem with the picture, I agree that “Even relatively naive people understand that ‘true’ love does not come with conditions or it’s not ‘true’. ” I agree, and this is exactly the view presented in the New Testament. The Christian view is that we escape the divine judgement owing us not because of our love for God, but because God first loved us in spite of all our wrongdoing:

    1 John 4:10 “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

    Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

    Ephesians 2:4 (paraphrasing) God saves out of his mercy and love.

    Now I’m not using the above statements as proof of God’s existence, but it seems to me the picture is at least attacking a strawman of some kind.

    • God loved us so much that he sent himself, knowing he would be resurrected, to temporarily ‘die’ for a metaphorical sin by a metaphorical ancestor we’ve literally inherited so that we are in need of his blood sacrifice that isn’t really a permanent sacrifice, in order for him to grace us with an escape from an otherwise divine judgement for our ‘sins’ of being born human.

      Freely given, I see.

      And it’s Jesus, this symbol of this divine love in action, who introduces us, his love objects, to hell (or so says the author of Matthew). Nobody knew about this hell before Jesus but, thanks to him, now we do. The threat of eternal torment is such a loving kindness that I’m rather touched Jesus could stand firm with it. A moral human might be tempted to mitigate eternity it to, say, 100 trillion years.

      • Yeah, it is ridiculous. I explained to a deist today how less than 1% of all humans will ever make it to such a heaven if in fact any of the thousands of Christian sects has it right. It was like setting off fireworks when it finally sunk in. If the end is coming, they said, god would have to spin a wheel and say “hey, you’re the lucky ones, you got it right. The rest of you are fucked”

        Life can be awesome some days.

      • The big ‘sin’ is acting as if humans are ultimate authority; all others flow from that.

        From God’s point of view, he provides oxygen, water, food, everything that we need for life, relationships, all these good things yet we fail to acknowledge him and act like he doesn’t exist. It would be like me living in your house, eating your food, making a mess, not cleaning up, sleeping in a room you provided me, using your power and amenities, walking in and out all day, constantly presuming on your goodness, and never thanking you for or acknowledging you while using and consuming all your stuff.

        (This argument doesn’t prove God exists.)

        • Mathew, clearly you are not a scientist of any kind, not even the arm-chair kind. All I can hope is that you will wake up and see that your dream world of gods and magic is wrong. You are talking like you can understand a god’s point of view. His mind is meant to be unknowable yet you claim to understand it. Your argument assumes that a god exists. This is 100% fail and I still can’t believe you are doing this here on my blog. Do you have any idea at all what my blog is about? Your careless and lazy comments are much like you describe:
          It would be like me living in your house, eating your food, making a
          mess, not cleaning up, sleeping in a room you provided me, using
          your power and amenities, walking in and out all day, constantly
          presuming on your goodness, and never thanking you for or
          acknowledging you while using and consuming all your stuff.
          Wake up Mathew. Take a look around. Read some of my blog. You’ll see that quoting scripture is not workable here. You have to think for yourself. You have to be able to reason for yourself. Before you quote scripture you’re going to have to either say you’re doing it for this reason or that or prove that your scripture is right and all the other holy texts are wrong. Quoting it as truth will get you mocked here. Not simply because it infers a belief in magic but because it’s lazy.

          So, what are you trying to say again?

          • J_Agathokles
          • April 28th, 2013

          This also assumes that there is a creator of all these things. In Hellenismos the kosmos didn’t need any creator to come into being, so from our perspective this argument means absolutely nothing.

          Your argument also implies you speak from a position that Christianity, or at least monotheism, is truth, which in itself is an extremely flawed and highly presumptuous premise.

          • “Anonomouse”
          • May 6th, 2013

          Matt, our first problem is taking you seriously, you will not find me weaseled by your apologetics Vs. apology. Ergo, as your interlocutory, pseudo-logic benefits only you, I will use deductive, linear logic, which benefits the evidence based Truth. It will be heavily sprinkled with a side of Zim’s Gir, and Hammi the Squirrel, as this dead guy on a stick
          debate is nothing more then a waste of my time.
          :
          Your gods (triple cannot be mono, and if mono can be triple, its schizoid, MPD, or DID) pulled a party trick by reincarnating as mortal born, just so he could engage in child abuse, apathetic to “his” own “son’s” death as “the most powerful person on earth”. Not someone the sane would “look up to”, never mind, he bonked Mary without getting married first, and the Magi used your verboten astrology, “the star”, to find the adulterer’s kid.

          So either the “dying” for my non-extant sins was a mere parlor trick against a once happy-now-duped, people, or
          now that “he died” for my “sins”, I could screw your sister before marriage, my sister, and 69 a dog this weekend, all at the same time; and yet still go to heaven because my “sins” are instantly “poof”, gone as soon as they are made… because “he” “died” for them.
          So why do I need to get dunked in the dirty “holy” water, get strongly yelled at weekly, and give money (the root of all evil, so give me 10%), if it is not possible to commit a sin that I can be held accountable for, unless the J death was meaningless, meaning your religion is, coming full circle, a triple fraud, and is consequently reducto ad nilio; reduced
          to nothing.

          So, umm, Matt… can I have your cassock? I figure if I rip off the sleeves, buttons from the hips down, and white throat square thing, then I can have something to wear at an emo club; be the only one wearing black in there ;-p.

          Also, Adam, Eve, and their two sons “repopulated” Earth according to you; that means, you, your dad, and your brother be bonking your mother! How else do three males and one woman, all related to each other, do it? That also means that you and your brother, watch as your parents bonk, also you and your dad watch as your brother and mom bonk… no clothes implies no privacy. Makes it sound like “soggy waffle” is the safer alternative, yay frat life!… or something… *nerdy thug shrug while whipping out MS. Word. Ver. 7.0.*

          Furthermore, I can not take seriously, a religion that has the whole “meat and fish” problem. WTF do you think fish consist of, jello?! Fish are a type of meat!

          You Oedipus-complex, thanatophilic, anhedonic, phallophile, gynephobic, logophobic, schizoid; less whine, more cheese (feta, obviously), and stop leaving your bubbler by the Jacuzzi/baptismal font, what do you think the internet is, a manger?! Go wash your mouth out with beer if you have porn, swallow! repeat! Finnish beer! repeat repeatedly repeating! Now, use sober logic like the rest of the human species! Srsly? Srsly!

          Furthermore, the Romans were not nearly as incompetent as you are at record-keeping; and yet, no mention of the “Jewish Vs. Roman governor debate”, about the “propaganda” of the one “true” “god”, upsetting the Emperor, in regards to Christianity SPECIFICALLY.
          BTW, where is “your” book made of rocks, the “chalaice”, “spear”, “true” cross, “noah’s ark” ad nauseum… IOW where is your evidence?

          Opa!,
          “Anonomouse”
          PS – Matt reminds of a Darwin quote… “Ignorance more frequently…”
          PS^2 – Why did Noah leave the dinosaurs, but keep the mosquitos? Wasn’t the “command”, save the animals because I don’t feel like doing it myself even though “I” am the “most” powerful; and most boring.” And the paradox again, saving the whales means doing nothing, as they would not drown, but sticking them on the boat would kill them; but “he” was given some “command” to “save every animal”.
          PS3 🙂 And if earth is “flat”, where did the water go that “covered it all”?
          PS4 – “Wii” was spelled incorrectly; shouldn’t it be “Whee”?
          PS infinity minus one is still oddly infinity – Obviously Cheesus would be locked up, too many psychological problems. Guy obviously does not know walking on water, and ice-skating, is same thing….
          Wait, the Abrahamic religions are stoner-born religions?! 0.o
          The Abrahamic religions use stoner/drunk [pseudo-]logic and that is why the bastards can never be beat in a debate!
          Matt, you drunk off the baptismal wine, or “trippin'” on the manna? Keep your beer “chillin'” in the baptismal font/cooler, and its “holy beer”(TM) ;-p
          Christianity is 1900 year old “Bill and Ted’s Crappy Adventure Ver. Mega Meh”

          • That made me laugh. Thanks for commenting.

    • Mathew, the picture is a charicature of Christianity. If you find it offensive it is probably because your version of love and religion is being lampooned by that picture. You’re even quoting scripture on my blog. That quoting scripture here is a sure sign that you’re not fully cognisant of where you are.

      1 Jesus was not from Nazareth. Look it up.
      2 Calling Jesus the son is problematic with a triune godhead. A blood sacrifice as scapegoat is truly problematic when the idea is to save us from a sin created by that god, and whose punishment is being avoided by sacrificing that god. The lust for blood sacrifice should tell you how fucked up it is, so if you are thinking that such a thing makes it more profound I’m going to have to let you know that despite the entire thing being a fable/myth you are one very twisted individual.

      3 Quote mining from the bible to sound like you know what it what is not going to work here. I find it offensive. It’s lazy and insulting. You quoted one of the most egregious parts of the Christian bible.

      6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in
      heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

      7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his
      grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

      8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
      it is the gift of God:

      9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

      Just a few sentences away is the root of evil, right there in Ephesians. It is not works, but faith. Only by faith can we be saved, so it says. Every Christian has a get out of jail card for ALL of their evil ways. Faith. You don’t have to be a good person, you just have to have faith. What a fucking piece of shit philosophy that is.

      Let’s have a look at verse 6. Have you been to any heavenly places lately? why not? Have you not been in your god’s good graces?

      Your quote from John follows on to say that you can’t hate your brother and love god. Have you met my brother? Or my neighbor? Clearly you like to quote the bible without regard to the context. It doesn’t make you look like the best apple in the barrel.

      All this sin and sacrifice bullshit and you almost hit a home run:

      Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
      imputed when there is no law.

      So all you folk that are busy spreading the law are really trying to condemn everyone. Thanks a fucking lot for that.

      • “If you find it offensive it is probably because your version of love and religion is being lampooned by that picture”

        Well, I’m used to that. The picture is engaging with a strawman and hence the verses I put out were just pointing out the strawman version that suggests God lets us in when we love him. The Gospel is God making a way for us to get in despite all of our wrongdoing and when judgement is rightly earned. It’s not a get out of jail free card, because Christ is said to pay for us (out of love). Letters like Ephesians constantly remind us of our position – salvation is by grace, it is not earned so we can’t boast or condemn others (as you rightly point out.)

        Since you brought it up, “brother” suggests the writer thinks of his audience (other Christians) as family. Jesus defines neighbour for us in the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the surprise is it’s not about who is my neigbhbour but about *us* being neighbourly, loving and not going about condemning everyone (which we don’t always do well I’m sorry to say. I would be the first to say)

        • It’s only a strawman if nobody is like that… ooops. There are tons of people like that. Not a strawman. Despite your delusions, your sect of Christianity makes up less than 1% of all the humans that have ever lived. You think you know how to get into heaven and the other 99% of everyone is fucked and condemned to hell. Do you even realize that your philosophy demands this? How are you going to be happy in heaven when 99% of everyone you know or love is not going to be there with you? Is your god going to give you a lobotomy so you won’t remember them? How does this work? Will you be happy in heaven while looking down on the people in hell? Will their suffering make you happy? Yes you will be able to see them… it’s in your book, look it up.

          So how is that going to work out? Will you enjoy the suffering of loved ones who didn’t make it in to heaven? How will heaven be a place of no suffering?

  4. Matthew writes From God’s point of view, he provides oxygen, water, food, everything that we need for life, relationships, all these good things yet we fail to acknowledge him and act like he doesn’t exist.

    I see no compelling evidence from reality that what you’ve described comes from god (unless you reduce god to gravity, I guess). To use your analogy, you are assigning home ownership to someone or something that doesn’t exist and telling those that live in the house they themselves have built out of available material that they are actually squatters who now owe rent to an invisible landlord. And if they submit, they will die and spend the next life, which just so happens to be eternal, in some dreadful ghetto if they don’t start paying rent now.

    It looks to me like a very typical shakedown used forever by school yard bullies.

    • Sorry, that should read, “If they DON’T submit

    • I have to say that I like your thinking. Even if I think it somewhat strict at times. Mathew is regurgitating what he hears on Sunday mornings. He is not thinking it through at all. This post and the picture that spawned it was for him and people just like him. A trite statement that lambasts the sound bites from Christianity. Mathew has not yet begun to think. It takes a lot of banging on heads to get them to think for themselves. While they believe they need a parent to take care of them it is difficult to get them to think on their own. Stockholm syndrome is very strong.

    • “Anonomouse”
    • June 11th, 2013

    Religion of memes? Have you heard of our Lady, and Damn-er, Ceiling Cat, (-10^3)2 year old version? Might explain the syncretism method? Might be why “clowns for christ”, “toucan sam”, and “flo”, are bat-spit illogical, but make great sales quotas every month.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: