Questions for Jesus-Freak

You are mad at me because of the personal failings of your ex-husband?

Hmmm, not very rational.

Oh, please. I do get so tired of this intentional pretense at misunderstanding.

Not biting, get another fish.

Oh, and I don't recall that I was addressing you in the post you quoted. Unless you are willingly taking on the label of god-pusher.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and I don't recall that I was addressing you in the post you quoted. Unless you are willingly taking on the label of god-pusher.

Which is strange, as I haven't seen "Rational Reverend" doing any actual pushing. Which is good.

But I haven't seen him do any actual discussion, rational or not... which is okay, I guess.
 
And let's just never mind the ad hom, while we're at it. :D

EDIT:

Just wanted to add this. This is a god-pusher, and one of the more infamous of the group.
And this is how I was reared, in this kind of church, with this kind of God-gives-you-good-things indoctrination. Those are real people in those seats, you know. And every one of them believes this man and what he pushes about gawd. It's such a shame.

Or maybe you think he isn't real? Maybe you think he's a fluke? An anomaly? I assure you, he's not as much of an anomaly as it might be more comfortable to think.

 
Last edited:
Now that JF is back, I'm going to shamelessly repost an earlier question I asked. This was originally in response to a statment JF made about evolution, I couldn't tell if he genuinely thought he had an accurate idea about it.

Jesus Freak, do you believe that evolutionary theory states anywhere that a dog has or ever would give birth to a mouse? Has anyone ever defended that (frankly bizarre) statement?
 
wow let me answer these one at a time...1)never! 2)hopefully not very often but I will have to ask her 3)by "cheat" on her I assume you mean have sex with others, if that is correct the answer is 0 4)I can't say I never lie to her but I try not to...if that means anything 5) never...like I have told you before, I really do feel bad for you about having to deal with a husband like this, but that is no reason to get upset at God.

I don't think Slingblade is saying she's mad at you and RR, nor that she's mad at God. She means, I think, (and a look around at the world says she's right even if you conveniently dismiss the content of her own direct experience) that saying you're a Christian and your marriage is centered around Christ is meaningless as an indicator of how you'll do as a husband, because while you may well use those principles as a guide to the best behavior, many use the same set of beliefs as an excuse for the worst.

Deep and ardent faith is no guarantee of good behavior, and if it convinces you, as sadly it seems to convince many, that anything you do according to your understanding of it is incapable of error, it's quite likely to be the opposite. If your faith in Christ helps you to be a better man, all the better, but we'd all do well every once in a while to step back and make sure we're also behaving well in a way that doesn't need a label, an argument, or a justifying text.
 
wow let me answer these one at a time...1)never! 2)hopefully not very often but I will have to ask her 3)by "cheat" on her I assume you mean have sex with others, if that is correct the answer is 0 4)I can't say I never lie to her but I try not to...if that means anything 5) never...like I have told you before, I really do feel bad for you about having to deal with a husband like this, but that is no reason to get upset at God.

Well, now we know that you care more about talking banally about yourself than you care about others...
 
And let's just never mind the ad hom, while we're at it. :D

EDIT:

Just wanted to add this. This is a god-pusher, and one of the more infamous of the group.
And this is how I was reared, in this kind of church, with this kind of God-gives-you-good-things indoctrination. Those are real people in those seats, you know. And every one of them believes this man and what he pushes about gawd. It's such a shame.

Or maybe you think he isn't real? Maybe you think he's a fluke? An anomaly? I assure you, he's not as much of an anomaly as it might be more comfortable to think.


my apologies, I was under the impression that you would view all evangelizing Christians as "god-pushers"
 
I don't think Slingblade is saying she's mad at you and RR, nor that she's mad at God. She means, I think, (and a look around at the world says she's right even if you conveniently dismiss the content of her own direct experience) that saying you're a Christian and your marriage is centered around Christ is meaningless as an indicator of how you'll do as a husband, because while you may well use those principles as a guide to the best behavior, many use the same set of beliefs as an excuse for the worst.

Exactly, Nail on the head time and all that.

Deep and ardent faith is no guarantee of good behavior, and if it convinces you, as sadly it seems to convince many, that anything you do according to your understanding of it is incapable of error, it's quite likely to be the opposite. If your faith in Christ helps you to be a better man, all the better, but we'd all do well every once in a while to step back and make sure we're also behaving well in a way that doesn't need a label, an argument, or a justifying text.

Well said; bravo!
 
my apologies, I was under the impression that you would view all evangelizing Christians as "god-pushers"

Well, hon, that depends. It really does.


What reason have I to believe in god, in your opinion, that does not require some kind of bargain be struck?

I mean, we can't really say that the Christian God's love is unconditional. If you choose not to believe in or worship this particular God, something very bad is going to happen to you after death. And it's never going to stop happening to you. This is a punishment with no lesson to be learned. It's just sheerest eternal torture for daring to make up your own mind.

You realize that if I offer you the choice of having a cookie or having your hand cut off, that there really is no choice there, right? Not for a rational mind.

We are still talking about "rationality," right?

We can use Solomon as an anecdotal example. So these two women are arguing over a baby, right? And Solomon, in his wisdom, says "Okay, here's your choice: I can give the baby to one of you, or I can cut him in half, and you can both have a piece."

This is not a choice. Not for a rational mind, and most people, being rational, would recognize that.

One of the women did. She used her rational mind and came up with an alternative not offered: "I will give the child to the other woman, so that he may live."

Solomon did not offer this choice. He did not say, "Well, one of you could be big about this, think of the child instead of yourself, and just let him go." That woman gave the matter thought, and made a better choice, not offered.

So what kind of choice do you tell me your God offers? Pick the really pleasant-sounding thing or the really UNpleasant-sounding thing. And why torment? Is he really that thin-skinned about not being chosen? Why not just: "Look, I made you and everything you see. Even everything you can't see. And since I made you, I know what your weaknesses are. Just do us all a favor, including yourself: live the very best life possible, and you'll reap rewards all the way through it. Live a crappy life, and you'll get what you deserve during it. And when it's all over, I'll bring you all here, with me, and love you forever, regardless."

Seriously: don't you think the choices supposedly offered by a god sound more like the petulance of some really hung-up, control-hungry, very human power-mongers?

[Kyle] Really? [/Kyle]
 
Last edited:
Seriously: don't you think the choices supposedly offered by a god sound more like the petulance of some really hung-up, control-hungry, very human power-mongers?
Yes, in fact it is very likely that god was patterned after the kings of the times. God mirrors the culture of the Jews and that is why he is "king of kings". I've always thought that I could come up with a more reasonable and equitable plan. But to be fair I was borne after civilization had experienced significant enlightenment. It's really not fair to pit modern day reason against bronze age myths. If I were to invent a god and a plan of salvation it most certainly would not come with eternal punishment.

A billion years is quite sufficient to punish anyone. I really doubt there would be any justification to make it that long for most people. Perhaps Hitler and Fred Phelps. Whatever the length of time it would not be and could not be the same length for all people. That is by definition unjust. That is why we don't give life imprisonment to all offenders. Some get probation and some 10 years, 15, etc. Also, I most certainly wouldn't include any punishment that was cruel or unusual like unrelentingly being consumed by fire. My plan of salvation would be about education and translating lessons learned from mortal life to an eternal one. It would include reconciliation. In all sincerity I don't want the person who wronged me to be punished for time and all eternity. I want that person to realize that he or she had wronged me and to pay some price for that wrong. Let them be punished until they are contrite then let them into the party. Eternal punishment would be an eternal buzz kill for me. I most certainly could not be happy knowing that people, men, women and children were suffering because they were "born into sin" and their nature was to commit sin and they didn't "find god" or some similar notion.

As it is, any "plan of salvation" that includes eternal bliss for all who believe and eternal pain and torment for those people who were born with inquisitive minds and or who found the evidence lacking is at best equivalent to the cutting off of a thief's hands. It's barbaric and antithetical to the concept of a just god. It's also not possible unless god wipes the memories of those who were saved so they will be free of the knowledge that there exists beings who will suffer for a billion years and that is but a blink in time of their torment.

The idea of brain washing to make people happy is just plain weird.
 
Last edited:
Seriously: don't you think the choices supposedly offered by a god sound more like the petulance of some really hung-up, control-hungry, very human power-mongers?
That's always been my problem with the biblical God. He's so small and so human in scale. Biblical tubthumpers are always ready to pull out "God's unfathomable plan" when contradictions arise or things go wrong that they can't explain, but whenever they think they understand, it's that petulant unimaginative little guy with the magic tricks that they come up with, the god they'd be if they were God.
 
I'm thinking, just musing in text, that if I were a god, I might do it something like this:

I make you fallible, able to do right and wrong. You can hurt, or you can help.

I give you a brain capable of reason. You know right from wrong, perhaps in the sense that helping is generally better than hurting.

I make you capable of exerting free will. You get to choose to help or to hurt. But there will be consequences for both, good and bad.

And I make myself and my abilities widely known to you all. I am active. I take part in your lives, by making reward and punishment immediate and pertinent. You don't have to "choose" to believe in me, because I'm real, and I'm here and you all know it.

Pretty much like Ur Mom. Only I really DO have eyes in the back of my head, and my reach knows no limits.

So, what happens now? Provided I covered everything....like I said, I'm musing in text.

There is no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, from which you cannot eat. Doesn't exist. I give you this knowledge freely. You're going to need it.

So. I want you to work, to contribute to others and keep yourself occupied. I want you to earn what you have, so you'll appreciate it. You can choose not to work. But if you don't work, you don't....anything, really. You do without. How much you "earn" depends on how much you do. You do just enough, you get the necessities. You do more, you get more. But you are gonna have to work really, really, really hard to get rich. It frankly won't be worth it.

What about sickness? Hmmm...why have it? Ah, some of you need to die, and some sooner than others. We have to make room for more, and living forever isn't fun for lots of reasons. But, that kind of assumes I make just the one earth, and that you get old. I could make more planets. I could let you live as long as you like, and just move the excess to new planets, infinitely. I could create a place for you to go rest from life for a while; like death, but temporary. Whenever you were ready to be born again, just say the word and do it again. I think the idea of eternal paradise is just lazy. :)

Maybe I won't have sickness. Unless it's a bring-it-on-yourself kind of sickness. To encourage you to be clean about yourselves, I'll create bacteria and junk that will make you sick if you go dirty. I'm not forcing you to choose cleanliness (which is, after all, next to me); I'm just saying if you don't choose it, you're gonna be one sick mamma-jamma. Not an eternal punishment: one that is pertinent and immediate. And one you can rectify by taking a bath and washing the dishes. Simple.

But things like cancer....I might give those a miss.

What about crime? Hey, I'm the police, judge, and jury. You hurt someone, I know it. You hurt someone bad, I send you back to start all over again. It's diaper time for you, junior. But why are you going to want to hurt someone? All you have to do is work at a job that pleases you (because it's going to be possible to have that, in my cosmos), and you will have the things you both need and want. A lot of the pain that causes pain will simply not exist. No one should be going hungry, or naked, or hurt....

Mental illness. Nope, I'm just not going to have that. Everyone will have a good brain. If you get injured, I'll fix it. And ugliness. Nope. You can all be reasonably pretty. And you can explore ways to make yourselves prettier, if you want to.

Now, what about the things we do to hurt ourselves, like over-eating, binge-drinking, drug-abuse?

That's hard. I have to let you choose. But your choice could end up hurting someone. Okay, so if you do, I'll fix the damage you did, and send you back to Nappyland. Start over; try again. But there should be no harm in sitting home or with friends, having a couple of drinks. No harm in making a pan of "special brownies." Although I'm torn on smoking. Well, if life can be generally pleasant, why am I creating things that mess with your head and your health? I have choices to make here, too. If life is good, do you really have a need for things like alcohol and heroin? For example, I mean? Maybe I won't make stuff like that. Boy, that's a hard one.

Sex. [cue trumpets] It's good for at least two things: it makes more of you, and it can be lots of fun. But it's not a toy, although it might utilize a few. No sex with kids. Period. They have better things to do, like learning about the rest of life, in order to be better able to cope with highly emotional and physical things like sex. I think I ought to change things up just a bit so that your bodies and minds develop into their adult forms without all the horny-making hormones. I'll turn those on at maturity. In fact, maybe it would be better if puberty happened really fast, and a lot later. Say, at 20. One month you have a tall but childlike body, and in about a month, you've transformed into an adult. However I do it, I'll make sure that first the mind is ready, and then the body follows. Yeah. The other way is just backwards.

So, did I get it all? What do you think? Can I be god? :D
 
Last edited:
Oh come on, just follow some of the new age junk and learn that you ARE a god!

Uh, no I'm not.

I'm not even very good at being a person. Very imperfect, quite flawed. No way do I think I'm a god.


What an odd thing to say. Or believe.
 
Having skimmed through thisthread, I feel the following statement might be pertinant, basic idea from Terry Pratchett.

I believe there is no god, but the god I don't believe in is the CofE god; I think this god is quite a lot harder to dismiss.

I would say that the following is true for many inthe CofE, and probably less so for other Anglican churches)

As far as I can understand, there are many (probably most) in the CofE who accept evolution and that the flood was a myth to explain a local severe flooding, and that the bible was an ancient attempt to explain real happenings (with varying degrees of supernatural intervention).

Of course the CofE actually goes all the way to the former Bishop of Durham, who stated that the virgin birth was probably a metaphor, and that the bodily resurrection was also...

I do not know what the difference between that and agnostocism, and what it leaves.

A god that created the universe and then remains bound to obey physical laws?


I know the following point has ben made before, but it can bear repeating:

Why would a creator fabricate the evidence that the Earth was 4 G yrs old, and give us the intellect and observational skills to deduce this, then only tell the partial truth to a group of obscure semitic tribes, and the actual truth to only one of them?

The "universe" described in Genesis seems very small to me, rather what one might expect for a neolithic/bronze age tribe that has some contact with other tribes in a small part of the Middle East. This contact does include some shared myths (Gilgamesh being the most famous version).

I would also say that some of the Genesis passages make more sense (in the English translations that I *can* read) to me if "God" is just part of a pantheon for the purposes of the myths, "Let us make man in our own image"

This makes sense when one looks at the surrounding tribes, would someone please confirm if Yahweh was actually part of other tribes pantheons? I vaguly recall seeing that it was but can't remember the details.

Jim
 
If I were to invent a god and a plan of salvation it most certainly would not come with eternal punishment.

I've long thought that a more fitting punishment for the evil one has done would be to experience the suffering one has deliberately inflicted on others that one didn't already feel bad about. If the person you wronged forgave you then you get a free pass for that incident. And piddly little stuff like reading your kid sister's diary or not letting that guy in front of you in traffic wouldn't count. So people like Pol Pot, Hitler, Napoleon, Idi Amin etc. would be in "Hell" for quite a long time as they experienced the pain they inflicted on each and every person who suffered as a result of their actions. That includes the people who suffered emotionally as a result of their crimes. Someone who tortured and murdered a young girl would have to endure not only her suffering but the lifetime of suffering inflicted on each of her family and friends. After one had shared the suffering one had caused then that person would be admitted to Paradise.
 

Back
Top Bottom