1/07/2006                                                                                       View Comments

Paul Harvey’s REVISED Christmas Tale

by Salvatore

This past Christmas Eve (2005) I was awaiting the arrival of a friend for a lunch date. He was running about thirty minutes late so I sat in my car listening to some talk radio (as I am wont to do). I switched over to an AM station and caught Paul Harvey ("The Rest of the Story") launching into a Christmas tale. (The following is my own paraphrased rendition.)

As the story goes, there was a family all preparing to go to church at midnight on Christmas Eve. The father, an unbeliever, was reluctant to accompany but promised to stay up until their return. So the family set off to their service leaving the faithless father behind.

As the night drew on, the snow started coming down pretty hard. After some time, he began to hear a thumping commotion on the front porch; something akin to snow balls being lobbed against the door. In curiosity, he opened the front door and noticed a small assemblage of birds that had sought refuge from the snowy tempest.

Feeling compassion for the birds, the father contemplated how he could relieve their suffering. Thus, he purposed to direct the ensnared creatures to the barn in his backyard that would provide a reasonable quantity of sanctuary until the snowstorm abated.

At once he opened the door to gather them up in his arms but, in fear, they scurried around the porch unapproachably. He endeavored to place breadcrumbs from the porch leading to the barn, but with no success. Lastly, he sought to shoo them forcibly by waving his arms and corralling them, but they would not comply.

Disheartened, the father dropped into his chair wondering how to achieve his aim. Straight away it occurred to him, “If only I could become a bird myself! Then I could approach these objects of my affection and, in their own language, instruct them to safety.” Immediately thereafter, the sound of the local church bells tolled into his ears. Stricken in heart, he fell to his knees in prayer for a few moments. Rising, he seized his overcoat and made his way through the snowy night to join his family in worship.

And that is where Paul Harvey ended the story.

As I reflected on Harvey’s narrative aimed at tugging his listeners’ heartstrings (and converting them to Christianity, no doubt), I felt that he failed to paint a complete portrait of the “loving father” who obviously is the analogue to the Bible’s “Heavenly Father.” I think to properly round out the analogy, the story should have concluded as follows:

… At once he opened the door to gather them up in his arms but, in fear, they scurried around the porch unapproachably. He endeavored to place breadcrumbs from the porch leading to the barn, but with no success. Lastly, he sought to shoo them forcibly by waving his arms and corralling them, but they would not comply.

Disheartened, the father dropped into his chair realizing his own failure. Straight away he arose, located a fishing net from his boat in the garage, stood opposite the anguished beasts and avowed, “Because you have spurned my attempts at beneficence, either out of ignorance or fear, I shall now justly castigate you in proportion!”

Without delay, the loving father forcibly ensnared the weak animals into his net, dragged them into his living room where the sizeable hearth raged with the fresh fuel of newly positioned logs, and cast them squarely into the fire. As the pitiable birds writhed in misery, the father brushed off his hands and reclined into his chair, delighting in the glory of his deeds.

-------

This, I believe, would have portrayed a truer picture of the “Loving Heavenly Father” as depicted in the sacred scriptures of Christianity. Salvatore-- “Good Day!”

51 comments:

Onanite said...

"Disheartened, the father dropped into his chair realizing his own failure. Straight away he arose, located a fishing net from his boat in the garage, stood opposite the anguished beasts and avowed, “Because you have spurned my attempts at beneficence, either out of ignorance or fear, I shall now justly castigate you in proportion!”

Without delay, the loving father forcibly ensnared the weak animals into his net, dragged them into his living room where the sizeable hearth raged with the fresh fuel of newly positioned logs, and cast them squarely into the fire. As the pitiable birds writhed in misery, the father brushed off his hands and reclined into his chair, delighting in the glory of his deeds."


This would be the logical conclusion to Paul's little story and it would follow the doctrines of the hate filled Christian right.

Hard to imagine that people wit an IQ of above 90 could possibly believe this myth, but they are out there. Incredible!

Onanite
http://onanite.blogspot.com/

Jim Lee said...

Christians are some of the greatest liars on earth.

Anonymous said...

this guy's a softy, the real "Loving God" would periodically revive the birds, not letting them die, so that they'd writhe and suffer for all eternity

GoneNsane said...

I don't understand what was so wrong with leaving them on the porch. They flew there for a reason.

These kind of stories make me hurl.

Dave8 said...

There is a deeper implication in this story, however subtle...

The implication that the birds didn't have the capacity to understand a higher intelligence's communications or intentions, i.e., the loving human father... The birds' context of reality is on a different platform than a humans'...

Paul Harvery, asserts that the loving father, through his experiment, hearkened and understood the need to communicate with others, like his family, as they reside on the same platform, as communication can bring people closer together...

I find it amusing, that these "like" minded people, are sitting in a church, and most likely would appear to be to a higher intelligence... no more than "mere birds", chirping away in bird-house churches on a snowy night...

Truly, communication and being with people of like minds, and having the willingness to understand another persons' point of view has its merits... However, understanding and caring for someone is not synonymous with... placing blinders on and ignoring reality...

Also, Paul Harvey shows in his story, that the family left to go to church, and "leave" the father behind... Everything being equal, why didn't the story end with... His family showing up on the porch, wanting to "understand" the loving fathers' lack of faith...

It appears that respect and understanding is a two way street... I think the story is however, more accurate than Paul Harvey meant it to be...

From experience, I have known many non-believers who are capable of seeing past beliefs, and caring for the person if allowed to approach... much more, than I have observed the devoutly religious, who are taught that you can't separate the person from their beliefs... In short, the story shows that the loving father was the one to seek out his family in an effort to provide care and comfort... it was not the other way around...

The stories that are told, have deeper implications many times, as the author has a philosophy they are wanting to underscore... distilling that philosophy from the story at times is hard, but, its pretty apparent that Paul Harvey was attempting to push people to engage and encourage those who are religious... I make a distinction between encouraging the belief of another person, and caring for the person regardless of belief, and typically, I verbalize my thoughts to those I care for, in that manner, to ensure that they know I support them as a person..., beyond that, I don't necessarily have to agree with their beliefs...

Mike said...

I have heard this story before and I just love it. It demonstrates to me what kind of parables modern disciples would have written if the bible was being written in this era rather than in the first century. Now, would anyone in the here and now believe that this actually happened? Or would we think it is what it is, a nice story depicting a moral truth?

This is what the writers of the bible were faced with back in the first century. They needed to describe something and they were completely unprepared for the task so they did the best they could using poetry, metaphores, analogies and relations to old testament figures of greatness to describe that which was true yet tottally beyond the limits of their comprehension.

This story is a parable describing perhaps why God chose to come to earth as jesus so that He could bring himself down to there level and make them understand.

I know most everyone here doesn' t believe and I respect your beliefs. But if I may be so bold as to ask that from time to time you point your unbelief at the lunacy of the fundamentalist interpretation of god and not at the real God who is NOT portrayed in the bible.

Dave8 said...

Mike: "I know most everyone here doesn' t believe and I respect your beliefs. But if I may be so bold as to ask that from time to time you point your unbelief at the lunacy of the fundamentalist interpretation of god and not at the real God who is NOT portrayed in the bible."

Okay, no two gods can be envisioned exactly the same way between any two people, metaphysically speaking... So, its quite impossible for to to determine which god(s), are better than others... they all appear to be equally unknowable to me... well, except if I were to create one in my own image... Okay, my god is now in the running, for the "best" god, based on my anthropomorphic creation of a god object...

Its impossible to separate one god from another, no two christians can envision the "same" exact god, as each person builds an image based on unique sensory information based on their own unique lives, and stored in their memory... To say, one god was better than another, would require me to be omniscient, and able to see in everyones' mind... sorry, I am still not there yet, and... unlike, many others, I am not even trying to achieve the impossible... I just live day to day, doing to best I can with what I have been given...

Mike said...

dave8, I'm not sure I follow you but I think that may be because I am not explaining myself very well.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the true God is visible in all living things. Like I was trying to relate God as the Chi in an earlier post. That also does not quite hit the nail on the head either but, as was the problem with the first century writers of the bible, I am attempting to describe something with the limits of my own knowledge and perceptions. I believe God to be a real force throughout the universe and the bible is a source for understanding but absolutely not the word of God.

If Dave8 were the personified God (and I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just making an example) and a group of people wrote in the bible that Dave8 said anyone caught working on the sabbath must be taken out of the city and stoned until death. would it be your fault and would we all have the right to blame you for this atrocity simply because a bunc of ignorant fools swore that this is your word and your law?

Would it be your word simply because some fundamentalist, fallable human being said so? Of course not.

Dave8, you and I have had some really indepth discussions lately and I have come to respect your and I could not imagine you saying something so insane. I also cannot believe for one minute that God said this either. Now, does this mean there is no God? No, this simply means some ignorant but well meaning fool tried to describe the all powerful God in a rather terrible and ominous way so that the enemies of the Jews would truly fear the awesome and all powerful Jewish god.

Dave8 said...

Mike: "dave8, I'm not sure I follow you but I think that may be because I am not explaining myself very well."

Actually, I tend to understand what you say, and your meaning. I however, at times don't see the smooth transitions and links you seem to make, and thus, I make comments. Its typically how people get my attention when I don't make a connection.

Mike: "I believe God to be a real force throughout the universe and the bible is a source for understanding but absolutely not the word of God."

Many religious people who believe in God(s), believe there is a place extant from this Universe, where perfect objects exist, i.e., it would be where a god in a perfect state of being would exist, especially if one were to claim that "god" is not of this world. I don't know your particular belief system, perhaps you can enlighten on how your "god", or what you believe to exist that is intertwined in this physical reality co-exist. Do you suggest that your "god", moves mountains "literally", or is your god more the clockmaker god, who put the universe in motion and sits back observing. Perhaps, you believe that your god, is the Universe, and all of life and substance is of "one" nature. Mike, you have an apple, and you have a laser beam. You blow the apple up with the laser beam. Are the laser beam and apple the same objects? You may suggest no, however, at the most fundamental level as "far as we know", isn't everything made of the same substances... i.e., electrons, protons, nuetrons, etc... We can't visually "see" these, however, we know, just as in your example of pluto, the cause effect relationships of sub-matter, and therefore, understand that predictability does establish "knowledge"...

Just as obejcts "interact" with eachother, they thus, fall on the same spectrum of "reality"... Again, many religions believe in different modes of "reality", to accomodate a perfect being, i.e., god(s), etc. Again, I don't know your particular beleifs, but if you believe that god exists in "this" reality on a daily basis, then you have a much different view of religion than most christians who use the bible as doctrine...

The argument for god and jesus being of same substance or similar substance was at the beginning of the religious debates in Rome...

"The Nicene Creed, which is a classic formulation of this doctrine, uses "homoousia" (Koine Greek: of same essence). The spelling of this word differs by a single Greek letter, "one iota", from the word used by non-trinitarians at the time, "homoiousia" (Greek: of similar essence): a fact which has since become proverbial, representing the deep divisions occasioned by seemingly small imprecisions, especially in theology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

In much the same way, I am asking whether you believe that god and the universe are homoousia, of the same substance... or... if god is homoiousia, of similar substance to the universe... This relationship, of course is what truly separates one entire belief system from another... Depending on how you answer this question, you may be more a pantheist than a christian...

If you choose, of similiar substance, then of course you have created a duality where god's "chi", is separated even at the most fundamental levels of this natural universe, and thus you would not be able to state that god can be "understood", by observation of this universe, as your gods' "chi" wouldn't be perceivable by mere humans bound to this natural reality...

If you choose to say, your god concept, etc., is of "same" substance, and you can feel the presence of god in your every day observations and perceptions... then, you are a monist... and not a dualist... The same exact arguments were made during the early stages of christian theology development, and there were many views out there, but there was "one" army capable of stamping out a lot of the dissenting views, that would be the Roman Army...

You state that you believe the bible to be a source for understanding god, but not necessarily the breathed words of god... If that be the case, then do you accept all of the other religious documents of that era, like the Ebionites, Gnostics, etc., etc., as also providing some understanding. They all did have a different view of what god, Jesus, etc., were, and thus how they would reveal themselves in this reality...

Mike: "If Dave8 were the personified God (and I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just making an example) and a group of people wrote in the bible that Dave8 said anyone caught working on the sabbath must be taken out of the city and stoned until death. would it be your fault and would we all have the right to blame you for this atrocity simply because a bunc of ignorant fools swore that this is your word and your law?"

Thou shalt not use the god (Dave8's) name in vain ;-) For if you do, you will burn in hell forever more. Also, you can't deny the ghost, that moves my "pen" as I write this divine post, lest you be making the unforgivable sin, and will surely go to hell...

Mike, in what manner do you allow the bible to "exemplify" your god... You yourself assert that a bunch of people wrote the bible, for their own purposes in an effort to achieve some goal. Do you assert that because the bible was canonized by gathering letters, epistles, scripts, etc., together over a period of 1K years, that the "train of thought" of a "god" concept somehow lends credence of a "god"... if so, couldn't it just as well be said, that there is nothing new under the sun, and that mankind has reinvented and repainted the same themes in history, with each new language as they evolved over time, giving more color and clarity to the thoughts... Thoughts are constructed from knowledge, knowledge is gained from this physical reality... Babies aren't born with knowledge, and thus, don't have god(s)... So, Mike, can you please allow me the benefit on knowing the "spark", that somehow ignited a "god" concept throughout history, and lets go well before christianity, as there were "gods" many years prior... Lets start with a "god" could be created using "knowledge" of this physical universe... lets take the "Sun" for instance, and how it was "personified", with human like personality, and made into magical force icons, the Sun, is an object readily observable in Nature, which was the bringer of "life" per many cultures... The dates below reflect the time periods of archeological records showing worship of Natural symbols...

A-a = Sun Goddess, Babylonian Akkadian, 2400BCE-550BCE

Aditya = Collective name for Sun gods, Hindu-Vedic & Puranic, 1500BCE-Present

Ah Kin = Sun God, Mayan, (mesoamerican), 480BCE-1050CE

Alk'unta'm = Sun God, Bella Coola Indian (British Columbia, Canada)

Amaterasu-O-Mi-Kama = Sun Goddess, Shinto, (Japan), 600CE-Present

Amun = Sun God & Supreme Creator, Egyptian, (Egypt), 2400BCE-400CE

Asis = Sun God & Supreme Creator, Suk and Pukot, (Kenya & Uganda), 1500CE-Present

Aten = Sun God & Creator God, Egyptian,(Egypt), 2,000BCE-1362BCE

Atum = Sun God & Creator God, Eyptian, (Egypt), 2700BCE-400CE

Belenus = Pastoral-Solar Worship, Celtic, (Irish), 500BCE-750CE

Cautha = Sun God, Etruscan, (Italy), 1,000BCE-200CE

Hammon = God of Evening Sun, African, (Libya)

Helios = Sun God, Greek, (Greece), 800BCE-400CE

Huitzilpochtli = Sun God, Aztec, (Mexico), 750CE-1500CE

Inti = Sun God, Inca, (Pre-Columbian South America), 650CE-1550CE

Iruva = Sun God, African, (Cameroon, Congo, Tanzania, etc)

Mandulis = Sun God, Nubian, (Greco-Roman Cult)750BCE-500CE

Mor = Sun Goddess, Celtic, (Irish), 500BCE-750CE

Phanes = Primordial Sun God, Greek, (Greece), 1250BCE-500CE

Pu'gu = Sun God, Yukaghir, (Eastern Siberia)

Pusan = Sun God, Hindu-Vedic & Puranic, (India), 1500BCE-Present

Rbhus = Sun Gods, Hindu-Vedic, (India), 1500BCE-Present

Re = Sun God & Creator God, Egyptian, (Eghpt), 3,000BCE-400CE

Samas = Sun God, Mesopotamian, (Babylonian-Akkadian), 2400BCE-550BCE

Sams = Sun God, Pre-Islamic, (Arabia)

Sapas = Sun God, Western-Semitic, (Canaanite)

Saule = Sun Goddess, Latvian, (Latvia)

Savitar = Sun God, Hindu-Puranic, (India), 1500BCE-Present

Senx = Sun God, Bella Coola Indian, (British-Columbia, Canada)

Sisphos = Sun God, Corinthian, (Greece)

Sol(1) = Sun God, Roman, (Rome), 500BCE-500CE

Sol(2) = Sun God, Nordic, (Icelandic), 550CE-1250CE

Surya(1) = Sun God, Hindu-Vedic, Epic & Puranic, (India), 1700BCE-Present

Surya(1) = Sun Goddess, Hindu-Vedic, Epic & Puranic, (India), 1700BCE-Present

Svarozic = Sun God, Slavic, (Eastern European)

Tate Velika Vimali = Sun Goddess, Huichol Indian, (Mesoamerican), Mexico

Tayau = Sun God & Supreme Being, Koryak, (Southern Siberia)
***SuperNatural Deity, who conducts business with the physical earth through his majordomo Big Raven

Tayau Sakaimoka = Sun God, Huichol Indian, (Mesoamerican), Mexico

Tezcatlipoca = Sun God, Aztec, (classical mesoamerican), Mexico, 750CE-1500CE

Tsohanoai = Sun God, Navajo, (United States)

Utu = Sun God, Mesopotamian (Sumerian), (Iraq), 3500BCE-1750BCE
***Yes, Iraq and Egypt had the first Sun Gods...

Wai = Sun God, Ntomba, (Democratic Republic Of Congo, Central Africa)

Waka-Hiru-Me = Sun Goddess, Shinto, (Japan)

Wi = Sun God, Sioux Indians, (United States)

Wuriupranili = Sun Goddess, Australian Aboriginal, (Australia), ~3500BCE-Present

Yeloje = Sun God, Yukaghir, (Siberia)

Yhi = Sun Goddess, Australian Aboriginal, (Australia), ~3500BCE-Present

What do these have in common Mike... They are "all" Natural objects, that were worshipped... SuperNatural meaning was imposed onto the Natural Sun object, to explain its behavior and to provide comfort... humans, have always wondered about their Natural universe, we "describe" it, but obviously using the same Natural objects...

God did not create man in his image per the Christian tradition... Man it appears, using our Natural reality, has created "god" in his image, his personality, and with special characteristics, "all" attributes are drawn from this Natural reality, and placed ontop of a natural god object...

If you want Mike, I can show how the Christian god morphed into what Christians perceive today, would that make you happy... Perhaps, its enough to just say, that there is nothing new under the sun, and we can only perceive and describe this Natural reality, based on our limited sense abilities...

Anonymous said...

Salvatore...with all due respect, Why did you continue to listen to Mr. Harvey once it became apparent he was using a story to illustrate a Biblical truth? Personally, I've got little or no time for any TV, Radio or Hollywood figure who uses their position to moralize. (Sean Penn immediately springs to mind.) Why not turn the station, or drop in a CD? (I did it with Stern all the time.) Liberals are forever cautioning us over the evils of censorship and how if something offends one's modesty they should just change the channel. Doesn't the same apply here in reverse? If you don't like Paul Harvey's good news, why not try something else. Or do you get off on complaining?

Anonymous said...

Wow, lookit at all the existential shit. So many of you have a lot of nebulous theories to prove.
Ex-christians wrongly blame God for instead of the phony churches who taught them stupid stuff about the faith.
Go to www.yeshuaunderground.com and get it right.

Anonymous said...

WOW!!

Salvatore, what is it like to be so cynical and so negative!

You could LEARN from the story if you would open your heart rather than just spewing the typical liberal hate speech.

I feel sorry for you.

But merry CHRISTmas to you anyway!

And GOD Bless! ;-)

Anonymous said...

There never has been a Christian without sin, therefore the world can point to members of Christianity's imperfections and imply that being religious is hypocrasy and of itself deceitfully evil. Religiosity is evil- the Pharisees of biblical times were religious zealots putting themselves above others- deeming themselves more worthy of god's love than others. The goal of a human being should not be Religiousness, but having a TRUE RELATIONSHIP with a living, loving God- this surpasses all religious doctrine and is more akin to seeking the heart of God. To envision God as a heartless disciplinarian who gladly pitches us "birds" into the fire is the sign of someone who has a complete lack of respect for authority. Those that CHOOSE to disobey are the ones who are judged- and if you say there should be no rules to obey, then you condone chaos, anarchy and find no wrong in people pulling out a handgun and shooting the person that just switched lanes in front of them in traffic. The TRUTH is we all have sinned, and therefore don't deserve to go to heaven to live next to a PURE and HOLY GOD who by his very nature can not inhabit sin. It is by his grace, mercy and the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and accepting Him into our hearts that we are given a second chance into Heaven. The story is a beautiful illustration of why God chose to come amongst His people as a baby- so as not to scare us, but to be able to communicate with us humanly. Yes God does use discipline, but only after giving us every possible chance to do what is right.

Anonymous said...

You're exactly right, anonymous!

A rapist recently was in court and he said whenever he rapes a woman or a child, he always tells his intended paramour, "Just love me the way I demand and I will gladly let you live. But if you spurn my affections, I'll have to slit your throat."

He was before the judge for slitting a young woman's throat.

He told the judge, "I gave her choice. She chose to reject me! It's not my fault at all. I told her the consequences of her actions, and she got what she chose."

The judge was an anonymous Christian and his sense of divine justice ruled in favor of the rapist.

"If it's right for God, it must be right for men," said the judge.

Jesus loves you. But if you don't love him back, he is going to make you regret forever and ever and ever. He will be so pissed at you that you will NEVER be allowed to die, because his sentence will be everlasting torture!

Hey, he's god, you know? He doesn't have make sense. He doesn't have to be better than people. He makes the rules. If he wants to be sadistic monster, he can. Has not the potter power over the clay? If God wants to treat you like so much garbage, he not only has that right, but you'd better smile even if he F****S you in the ass. And if you don't like it, it's because you don't (Insert Cartman voice here)RESPECT HIS AUTHORITY.

Robert Markham said...

I agree that the analogy created by Paul Harvey did not sufficiently portray the biblical parallel he sought.

1. The Genesis Account of Adam and Eve show all men condemned to death and hell for their original sin. What was their sin? Rejecting the rule of God and desiring to rule themselves. That is why they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (same sin Satan committed) How would you feel if the car you created decided to rule itself and leave you out of the picture? Coincidentally God has allowed man to rule himself for the last 6,000 years and look what a mess we have.

2. Jesus did not come to lovingly gather the people and shelter them from the storm. He came to pay the penalty for their sin and save them from Hell and death. He took the opportunity while He was here to correct their misunderstanding of the scriptures.

3. The Bible makes it clear that God communicated with man 4,000 years before Christ came so communication with man was not the problem.

4. Those who reject Christ and His payment for their sins shall burn in hell because they justly deserve to as a result of their original sin. God loved man enough to come and pay the penalty for mans sin. For man to reject the remedy is worse than the first sin of rejecting God. Essentially man rejects God twice.

5. I am sorry that you are one of those who chose to reject God and will be burning in hell.

6. Your revised Christmas tale shows you missed the point the same as Paul Harvey. Hopefully you still have time to revise your view of Christ atonement and be saved from destruction.

Jim Arvo said...

Robert,

First, can you explain the logic of condemning all of humanity for the actions of two individuals? More generally, when does it make sense to punish one individual for the actions of another?

Second, how can one person pay a moral debt on behalf of another? I can see how someone might pay an inconsequential fine for another, but we do not let people serve prison time on behalf of another, do we? Would that make sense to you?

Third, do you "reject" Buddha's offer of enlightenment, choosing instead to remain unenlightened? Do you "reject" Krishna's compassion, spurning his selfless gift? I'm guessing that you find those statements inappropriate, and for the same reason we find yours inappropriate. Simply put, one does not "reject" what one does not even believe exists.

You put all of these non sequiturs together in the statement "Those who reject Christ and His payment for their sins shall burn in hell because they justly deserve to as a result of their original sin." Can you begin to grasp how nonsensical this dogma sounds to us? It's rife with ridiculous concepts, such as guilt and atonement by proxy, everlasting retribution for incorrect belief, and "free" gifts that come at a high price (namely, one's sanity and dignity), to name just three.

You also said "I am sorry that you are one of those who chose to reject God and will be burning in hell."

I think I speak for most of the regulars here when I say that you have a ghastly nonsensical religion. Good luck with that.

Astreja said...

Robert Markham: "What was their sin? Rejecting the rule of God and desiring to rule themselves."

In the absence of proof for actual gods, self-rule is the best course for humanity.

Even with actual gods in the environment, self-rule is a highly desirable goal. To coin an analogy of My own, it's the difference between keeping one's adult children at home for the purpose of controlling and threatening them... As opposed to guiding their development until they can become self-sufficient.

"That is why they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (same sin Satan committed)

Satan ate from the tree? Chapter and verse, please.

"How would you feel if the car you created decided to rule itself and leave you out of the picture?"

Me? It would probably amuse Me immensely to have a sentient car. At worst, I'd set it free so it could pursue self-realization (and pay for its own oil changes). I certainly wouldn't have a hissy-fit and set it on fire.

"The Bible makes it clear that God communicated with man 4,000 years before Christ came..."

Just because your pretty little book says it... Does not make it so.

"God loved man enough to come and pay the penalty for mans sin."

Your god apparently didn't love man enough to just wipe the slate clean for all humanity without further penalty.

Or not institute a penalty in the first place. The god of the Bible supposedly declared this "original sin" bullshit in the first place. Rather lacking in foresight for an allegedly omniscient deity.

And apparently it does not love people like Me. I rejected Christianity because I consider both Original Sin and substitutionary atonement to be vile, immoral nonsense. In My opinion, the god of the Bible is a fucking maniac, unworthy of worship or respect even if it did actually exist.

Christianity is one of the most vicious and stupid religions ever conceived by humanity. It is shameful in that it encourages people to accept blood sacrifice as something desirable and necessary, rather than as the primitive atrocity that it is.

Jim Arvo said...

"It would probably amuse Me immensely to have a sentient car. At worst, I'd set it free so it could pursue self-realization (and pay for its own oil changes). I certainly wouldn't have a hissy-fit and set it on fire." --Astreja

Priceless!

Robert Markham said...

Jim Arvo,

Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and therefore sinned. Sin became inherent in them and in their offspring. This means that every human being inherited the tendancy to reject God (and you are a living testimony of this -- as am I). So God is not punishing all humanity for Adam and Eve's sin. God punishes each individual for the sin inherent in themselves. This we all inherited from Adam and Eve. We all have committed the sin of rejecting God's rule and set about to rule ourselves.

Another person cannot pay the moral debt on behalf of another. God is not another person. God is our creator. He set forth the ideal for blood sacrifice of animals for two reasons: 1. So that we understand the vileness of sin (because our sin does not seem that vile to us but the death of a thing is vile -- this was a permanent reminder to us that sin equals death and death is vile -- therefore our sin is vile) 2. The second reason is to help us understand our redemption would come from the sacrificial death of God in human form. Only a man that is sinless can be a propitiation for a man that is sinful. Jesus Christ had a human mother but God as a father. The child takes the blood of the father. Jesus Christ was a sinless man. His body was prepared of God to be a sacrifice so that in believing God had done this thing we sinful men could receive atonement for our sin. Man's first sin was he did not believe God for God said if he ate of the fruit he should surely die. The second part of salvation is repenting of our own deeds and accepting God's rule in our life (which is the opposite of rejecting God). Through belief and obedience man will be resurrected into a sinless body and live eternally as God had originally planned for Adam and Eve.

God is evident throughout all His creation. Life is impossible without him. We know that good and evil exist. Men make conscious choices everyday concerning these issues. They reject the good or reject the evil. Following good will eventually lead us to understanding and knowing God if we seek Him. None of us will have an excuse on that day. You say you cannot reject what you do not believe exist. But you have heard of God and you reject what you heard of Him. Therefore you are guilty. Belief is something I find easy after 20 plus years of study, research and interaction with God. Belief is something you find difficult. But it is difficult through your own choice.

I can grasp how nonsensical and dogmatic my statement sounds to you ... and God also understands it. The Bible says that the gospel of salvation is foolishness to those that perish.
It is indeed a high price to follow Christ. One must be willing -- to crucify ones fleshly desires daily. But it is not necessary to give up ones sanity and dignity. The price of not accepting Christ is higher. It leads to our ultimate death and torment in hell.

My religion is not ghastly or nonsensical. Put in proper perspective these things make a great deal of sense. Unfortunately most Christian's don't know or understand how to relate them so they make up their own versions -- as did Paul Harvey. Stories and explanations like that are ghastly and nonsensical and lead to distortion. Distortion of the gospel is a horrible thing and people like you sieze upon those distortions and justly make them out to be just what they are.

Unfortunately there are two kinds of people in the church. Those compared with wheat and those compared with tares (weeds). The wheat is good seed planted by God. The tares are evil seed planted by the devil meant to corrupt the good seed and pervert the gospel. If I were you I wouldn't base my opinions on the bad seed. Jesus said, "Many are called but few are chosen." "Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it." And "He who endures to the end shall be saved."

Salvation is a life long process, a life time full of trials and errors, of sins and forgiveness. We live the rest of our life fighting our natural desires to lie, cheat, steal, and commit every disobedient act to God. Some make it, some give up. In the new world that God is creating for our resurrected bodies there will be sinless man ruled by God. There will be none of the corruption, murders, thefts, adulteries that our world ruled by man for 6,000 years has produced. I want to be a part of that. Buddah does not offer that to me and Krishna does not offer that to me. God does. I believe that. And I'll stake everything on it. If I am wrong -- there is no harm done. I end up with you. If I am right I've everything to gain. But what if you turn out to be wrong?

AtheistToothFairy said...

Robert Markham wrote:
This means that every human being inherited the tendancy to reject God (and you are a living testimony of this -- as am I). So God is not punishing all humanity for Adam and Eve's sin
---
Wow Jim Arvo,

How very deep the 'well of delusion' in a xtian mind can go, huh.

I guess this god must have modified our DNA so we have the ability to reject such a god.

Well 'thank god' for small favors then!!


Hey Robert,

Any ideas on why your god didn't just kill Adam and Eve and make a new first couple, perhaps Dick and Jane, who might have not eaten that stupid piece of fruit?
Just wondering why god "painted himself into a corner", is all????



ATF (Who wonders if Robert has any proof of this god, outside of his own deluded brain cells)

Jim Arvo said...

Robert said "God punishes each individual for the sin inherent in themselves."

You are making a distinction without a difference. As a direct result of the action of Adam and Eve (according to this childish story), each of us is now inherently sinful, through no fault of our own, but by inevitable inheritance. You are still left to explain why a merciful god would punish something that is inherent. Would it be okay to punish somebody for having brown hair? Blue eyes? How about dark skin?

Robert said "Another person cannot pay the moral debt on behalf of another. God is not another person."

Another distinction without a difference. One entity pays the moral debt of another entity. The point of moral debts, Robert, is that they be paid by the wrong-doer. Either that, or they are dismissed. It makes no sense whatsoever to be paid by a proxy. That's like offering to serve prison time on behalf of a murderer. It's nonsensical.

Robert: "He set forth the ideal for blood sacrifice of animals for two reasons: 1. So that we understand the vileness of sin..."

So we are (were) to slaughter animals to help us understand how disgusting our behavior is to god. Therefore, we are (were) required to engage in a thoroughly disgusting behavior just to fully understand how disgusting our inherent behavior is in the eyes of god.

Robert: "The second reason is to help us understand our redemption would come from the sacrificial death of God in human form."

You have yet to explain why the actions of one person (deity or not) carries over to another, in the case of either guilt or atonement. That is completely nonsensical. Saying that it's the way god wants it done explains nothing. Saying that the man is actually a deity explains nothing. Guilt by proxy is absurd. Atonement by proxy is absurd.

Robert: "Only a man that is sinless can be a propitiation for a man that is sinful."

And why is that? Who made that rule? Was is god? Or is god simply obeying a rule made by someone else?

Robert: "His body [Jesus'] was prepared of God to be a sacrifice so that in believing God had done this thing we sinful men could receive atonement for our sin."

Robert, read that sentence to yourself a few times. Honestly now... does it make any sense? God "prepared" this body (which is really god himself), so that he could be temporarily "sacrificed" to himself, so that his own demand for blood could be appeased, which in turn would allow him to forgive man for something others did, but ONLY on the condition that they believe this tall story! Robert! Can you say that with a straight face?

Think, Robert! Would an almighty infinitely-compassionate god wish you ill for exercising your capacity for critical thought? Why would an almighty creator require that he sacrifice himself to himself to absolve someone for something they didn't do? It's all doublespeak, Robert. Snap out of it!

Jim Arvo said...

Robert asks, ominously, "But what if you turn out to be wrong?"?

Look up Pascal's wager. It's a fallacy.

What if YOU are wrong, Robert, and Allah is the one true god? Do you know what will happen to you? You will spend eternity in torment for the blasphemy of believing that god could become flesh. That's right, Robert. Does that argument carry any weight with you? No, it doesn't. Put in those terms, you can plainly see the fallacy, just as we plainly see the fallacy in your wager.

Astreja said...

Dear, sweet uncle Loki, not Pascal's Wager again!

(tosses tired old "What if you're wrong?" argument onto pile with the other 3,247 received this week)

(pours lighter fluid on pile, sets it ablaze, starts warming Her hands)

Robert, I will put this as gently as possible. The following is what I believe at the very core of My being:

Christianity is destructive crap.
The Bible is fiction.
Yahweh is a myth.
Jesus did not rise from the dead.
There is no Holy Spirit.
There is no sin.
There is no salvation.
There is no heaven.
There is no hell.

I simply cannot believe what I do not believe, and that is where your "What if you're wrong?" gambit fails. I can no more accept your beliefs than *you* would accept that I'm actually a Scandinavian goddess with a guardian dragon who does Humphrey Bogart interpretations.

And you shame yourself by coming here and attempting to frighten people with Tales of Yahweh the Bogeyman.

Your bloody death-cult mythology has become tiresome. Now's the time on Sprockets ven ve dance!

Robert Markham said...

Astreja:

Adam and Eve had the benefit of seeing and hearing God therefore absolute proof of God existed. Therefore, their best course of action was not self-rule.

God created man to rule over the whole of His creation with the exception of man ruling over himself. This God reserved for Himself. You can criticize Him for that if you like but He has allowed us to rule over ourselves for 6,000 years and we see where that has gotten us. He had a different intent for man than wars, murders, suicides, infanticides, euthanasia and a life that ends in 70 plus years.

Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to become self-sufficient. Satan's rebellion was aimed at becoming self-sufficient. Adam and Eve sinned because they were beguiled into thinking this is what they wanted. God knew this. That is why He provided a remedy for their sin. Now we can choose. Do we accept God's remedy or do we continue to follow Satan? If we continue to follow Satan he becomes our god and we deserve to burn in hell with him.

Satan did not eat from the tree. Satan was created with the knowledge of good and evil. He chose rebellion against God's rule. He beguiled Adam and Eve. In both cases the sin was rebellion. For Satan it was pre-meditated and purposeful. Adam and Eve were innocent creatures that were taken advantage of by a superior being. The account of Adam and Eve is found in Genesis 3. The account of Satan's fall is found in Isaiah 14:12-23 which I submit for you here to save you the trouble of looking it up.

"12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
20Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
21Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
22For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
23I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts."

Now if I had a car that pursued self-realization by crashing through my house, killing my children, and committing all the sins of man I would at the very least put it out of commission. It would not amuse me at all.

My pretty little book is backed up with more concrete evidence than any book in history and prophecies written thousands of years before events occurred give me a pretty solid foundation in believing its content. But it is not the Bible alone -- it is the relationship I share with the Bible's author that helps me to trust it. Some Christians believe in it without proof. I studied it and proved it.

And just because your pretty little comment infers God's Word is not true... does not make it so.

You missed the point of what God has done for those who accept Christ. God did wipe the slate clean for all humanity who returns to His original purpose for us. That original purpose is to believe God and to be ruled by God. God has been patient with man for 6,000 long years and has suffered watching the ravages of sin, death, and destruction. We've not done a very good job at ruling ourselves. God has allowed us to demonstrate this over and over again throughout history. There is a new world and a new body awaiting those who accept His terms. No death, no pain, no suffering. But if God welcomed the unrepentant into the new world than we have this world all over again. That would be self defeating, wouldn't it?

Did God lack foresight when He left Adam and Eve alone in the garden? Or did He create man for the very purpose that man has lived out? You assume God did not forsee man's rebellion. I assume God did forsee mans rebellion and had a much greater purpose for man than to tend the garden of eden. But that purpose required refinement. Just as gold is refined from ore man is refined through the firey trials and choices he makes every day. It makes sense to me that God set the stage and let man make a choice. Through our ordeal of self rule we learn that God's rule is better. I bet in the new world we will never choose the forbidden fruit again no matter how much we are tempted.

But you are right about substitutionary atonement being vile. The concept is supposed to be vile. It is supposed to make us sick to our stomach so we have something to compare our sin to. We excuse our sin. We sugar coat it. The only way we can understand how bad it actually is is for something as vile as substitutiionary atonement to be given us as a reference. How you see it as immoral is a mystery to me. Perhaps we define immorality differently.

I can see you have a strong emotional opinion against God. It is actually Satan that is the maniac. It is he that is unworthy of worship or respect. Why do you give it to him? He's the one that preaches self-sufficiency.

Humanity did not conceive Christianity. Why would we? We conceive things like Buddhism and Hinduism. God conceived Christianity. There is nothing vicious in Christianity. A man giving his life for another man is the greatest act of love that can be demonstrated. God giving His life for sinful man is a marvel. What is vicious about that? But the Bible does say that the gospel of salvation is foolishness to those that perish. So I can see why you would call it stupid.

You are mistaken in saying that Christianity encourages us to accept blood sacrifice as something desirable. It is not desirable it is detestable. It is however the only remedy available to us in our fallen state.

You have taken me far from my original intent at sharing my point of view on Paul Harvey's little anecdote.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But you have every right to make your own decision. I just wish you were not so angry about it.

Robert Markham said...

My poor deluded brain cells are tired right now and I'm going to have to turn in for the night.

Before I do, I'd like to answer the question about Allah. A minute study of Islam shows that the entire religion is Mohammad's distortion of Ancient Judaism and Christianity. It was one man's opinion created for the purpose of rallying an army for self-grandoisment. Enough contradictions exist to make it completely unviable. I have little fear about it being correct.

I apologize for happening upon your site and stirring up your defenses. You probably think I came here to evangelize you. The fact is I was doing a search for some Paul Harvey CD's and I hit on your site. I couldn't help commenting on your comment.

I really have no further interest in your site although your views do explain a lot of questions to me? Questions like why Christianity is so obvious to me but others reject it. You really have some good arguments. I'm surprised at some of the emotions though. Why get so emotionally worked up if your so sure about what you believe?
I would spend more time studying your precepts and aruging my views but I'm afraid it would be pointless for me. You could argue against my belief forever without changing it and I could argue against your point of view forever and not change it. I don't have that kind of time right now.
And I don't feel the Holy Spirit compelling me to make you a life-long mission. So I guess this is it for now. Within the next 70 years or so we'll have this thing settled once and for all. I know I won't be sorry for the way I lived or what I believed. I sincerely hope that you are not either.

Jim Arvo said...

Robert: "My pretty little book is backed up with more concrete evidence than any book in history and prophecies written thousands of years before events occurred give me a pretty solid foundation in believing its content."

And where did you get this information from? I'll wager that you never even read all those "prophecies" in their original context, and you are taking someone's word that they were indeed legitimate prophecies that were fulfilled. Ditto with the hisorical evidence. (Both claims are nonsense.)

Robert: "But you are right about substitutionary atonement being vile. The concept is supposed to be vile."

So you regard god's plan (i.e. sacrificing himself to himself) to have been vile? If so, we may not be so far apart. I feel it's thoroughly illogical first, but I could go with "vile" too.

Robert: "I can see you [Astreja?] have a strong emotional opinion against God. It is actually Satan that is the maniac. It is he that is unworthy of worship or respect. Why do you give it to him? He's the one that preaches self-sufficiency."

I think you are terribly confused. Neither I nor Astreja believe there is a Satan either. Both are fictional characters, as far as I know, and as far as anyone has ever shown. It seems you wish to prop up your argument for one invisible character by invoking another. Sorry, but that's a rather silly ploy; no thank you.

Astreja said...

Robert Markham: "Adam and Eve had the benefit of seeing and hearing God therefore absolute proof of God existed."

Já, riiiight. Are you really so fucking stupid as to think that Adam and Eve were actual people rather than storybook characters?

"My pretty little book is backed up with more concrete evidence than any book in history..."

Pure bullshit. There is no evidence in Egypt that the Israelites were even there. Zero legitimate geological evidence for a global flood. The myth of a 6,000-year-old-Earth is contaminating the minds of countless would-be science students around the world. And how do you, from your cozy little 21st Century perspective, know for sure that these Biblical "prophesies" were actually written before the events they supposedly predict? Or that someone didn't make them come true on purpose?

"You missed the point of what God has done for those who accept Christ. God did wipe the slate clean..."

Only a completely incompetent fool of a god would need to kill to forgive. No thanks.

"I bet in the new world we will never choose the forbidden fruit again no matter how much we are tempted."

A third of the angels in heaven would tend to disagree with you there.

"How you see it as immoral is a mystery to me. Perhaps we define immorality differently."

Killing an innocent person is wrong. Always wrong. Being a god is no excuse. Your god should be burning *itself* in Hell.

"I can see you have a strong emotional opinion against God. It is actually Satan that is the maniac."

Let's see... (flips through Bible) I don't remember Satan drowning a planet, ordering Abraham to murder his son or setting his own son up to be the fall guy for someone else's misdeeds.

"Humanity did not conceive Christianity."

Yes it did.

"There is nothing vicious in Christianity."

The murdered neighbours of My Scandinavian ancestors say otherwise.

As do the murdered neighbours of My partner's German ancestors.

And My daughter, and the son of a neighbour, who have both experienced "Christian love" (sic) firsthand, in the form of taunts and beatings.

"You are mistaken in saying that Christianity encourages us to accept blood sacrifice as something desirable."

Then dump John 3:16 now.

"I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But you have every right to make your own decision. I just wish you were not so angry about it."

My anger shall continue down the ages, in the minds and words of others who feel as I do, until Christianity is relegated forever to the back pages of some out-of-print mythology book.

We have every right to be angry, and we shall not be silenced.

Jim Arvo said...

Robert said "I'm surprised at some of the emotions though. Why get so emotionally worked up if your so sure about what you believe?"

I'm not sure who you are addressing. You are here espousing a belief that I (we) think is ridiculous; how you got here is immaterial. I've told you why I think it's ridiculous. The "emotions" and being "worked up" is your interpretation--I'm guessing that you're not accustomed to conversing with those who do not share your religious beliefs. I think you are confusing disagreement with hostility and anger. It's a common error.

webmdave said...

You people are very sad MORONS!

webmdave said...

Clearly, your post - and many of the replies on here - demonstrate that there are still countless "birds", flapping your wings in vain and dying in the process, completely ignorant of the facts that the God of the universe (who IS the God of the Bible) is a God of love, that He does desire to save you from the consequences of your poor decisions (i.e. sins), and that He longs to bless you beyond anything you can imagine. You, my friend, are the reason that Christians still have work to do...for as long as there are lost people among us, blind to the truth of God's love, mercy, and grace, then we (Christians) must continue praying and seeking to reach out, proclaiming the truth and pointing the way to the "barn" - as this parable describes - of God's unending love. I pray that your eyes will someday be opened so that you will experience the true mercy of God. Regardless, He still loves you, and so do I. Blessings to you, and may you choose the right path - the ONLY path that offers you salvation from your sins - while you still have time to do so.

With love in Christ,
Pastor Dear

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18)

webmdave said...

"You, my friend, are the reason that Christians still have work to do"

And you Sir are the anti-voice of RATIONAL THOUGHT, and the very reason that I will continue to fight against the mental virus that you try to infect the innocent with.

You THINK you hold some grand truths, but those truths are nothing but mere fairy tales and all the evidence you have for your huggy-bear god resides inside your own deluded brain.

How dare you come into our home and spew your mythology as 'fact' to us.

GO AWAY!

ATF

webmdave said...

Dear Pastor Dumbshit,

First of all, let me enlighten you to a couple of things that have eluded your brilliant insight:
You are responding to a post that is almost 6 years old!
You are on a site called 'EX-CHRISTIAN.NET'!

Do you understand what EX-christian means? It means that we were all 'Christians' prior to becoming EX christains.....duh!
You are not telling us anything of any substance, just the same old apologetics.......God is Real (I believe your word was "fact") God is Love, He wants to save us from our "sins"..... blah, blah, blah ...... blah, blah, blah........God's mercy......God's grace........blah, blah, blah.......................ad infinitum!!!!!

How about this: Show us one shread of PROOF. Verify ONE thing that you have mindlessly spouted here! And don't cop out with the old "you have to accept it on faith" bullshit!
Proove it!
If you truly worship "the God of the universe", I would think that he would have a number a means at His disposal to VERIFY his existence and PROVE that He is real.
I would think that He could do this very convincingly WITHOUT the lame and tedius apologetics that you are vomitting all over yourself in this old post!

You prove my point - Christians are STUPID!

Ex-Pastor Dan

webmdave said...

If god is love then why is there the concept of hell? Why is there even a hint of eternal flames for his fragile creation? We, who are mere humans, do not deserve the kinds of punishment that are spoken of by god's Christian representatives.

I will further state clearly to you, Dear Pastor, that the poorest decision I ever made was to get involved in Christianity in the first place. A most misguided religion.

Though you speak of love and the god of the Bible as the god of the Universe, you take the time to threaten us " .. may you choose the right path - the ONLY path that offers you salvation from your sins - while you still have time to do so." Or what? Your god will fry us forever in his eternal furnace? Nice.

webmdave said...

Pastor Deer-In-The-Headlights: "...countless "birds"... completely ignorant of the facts that the God of the universe (who IS the God of the Bible) is a God of love..."

Your psychotic imaginary friend is the very antithesis of love. Loving beings do not have to offer "mercy"; they offer actual assistance in time of need, without conditions. If I saw you drowning, I would quite gladly throw you a lifeline without first demanding that you believe in Me, or in My dad Oðinn or brother Thor, or in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or in fact anything at all.

And I don't consider Myself a particularly loving goddess, either. I just like doing the right thing for its own sake.

"You, my friend, are the reason that Christians still have work to do..."

You are not My friend. I do not befriend people who deliberately teach unconscionable ancient mythology as "the truth."

webmdave said...

Oh Salvadore, my heart aches for you. You clearly have never experienced the awesome God I know.

webmdave said...

Good grief. This is a parable for Pete's sake. Like a good fable, it's a simple story intended to convey a profound truth. This is not something intended to be dissected and critiqued line by line like you're doing scriptural exegesis. God entered into our world in the person of his Son Jesus Christ and revealed more clearly to us his nature. Through Christ, God revealed himself more fully to us. God related to us in our world of temporal, visible reality in order to show us the way to his world of invisible, eternal reality. Paul Harvey's Christmas parable conveys this truth quite well if one hears it with the innocent imagination of a happy, well-nurtured, secure child rather than the angry skepticism of a paranoid old man.

webmdave said...

IT IS WRITTEN; DO NOT CAST YOUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE. you are obviously a low life reprobate.don't worry you will get what you have coming all in one day. hope you enjoy.

webmdave said...

IT IS WRITTEN; DO NOT CAST YOUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE. you are obviously a low life reprobate.don't worry you will get what you have coming all in one day. hope you enjoy.

webmdave said...

Too bad you can't believe in a God, although I have seen people who looked like they came from monkeys! Do you not believe that if people treated each other equal there would be more peace on earth? I'd sure rather believe there is a God and it turns out not to be true than to not believe, and it turns out there is

webmdave said...

Nancy: "Oh Salvadore, my heart aches for you. You clearly have never experienced the awesome God I know."

As indeed has nobody else - for your god exists only in your imagination.

Nancy, My heart would ache for you, but for two reasons:

1. My heart only pumps blood, and

2. You are obviously lost to the death-cult.

The primary reason you have a brain is to think with it, not merely to suppress the echo between your ears. Make your brain happy - USE IT TODAY!

Peace,

David

webmdave said...

Xians:

Look like people - think like monkeys - the clever ones, anyway.

webmdave said...

Dennis: "Do you not believe that if people treated each other equal there would be more peace on earth?"

Yes. That is definitely a good way to improve the quality of life for all of humanity.

But Christianity will never let that happen, Dennis. It divides us all into "sheep" and "goats", "saved" and "unsaved". Your version of Peace on Earth was doomed from the start, by design, and nothing will make it work.

And if you would rather believe in a mythical deity because of some vague Pascal's Wager "what-if" fear of hellfire, then you have thrown away something very precious... Your intellectual integrity, and your right to live a life free of vague, hypothetical fears and enemies. Get better soon.

webmdave said...

Dennis: "Do you not believe that if people treated each other equal there would be more peace on earth?"

Yes. That is definitely a good way to improve the quality of life for all of humanity.

But Christianity will never let that happen, Dennis. It divides us all into "sheep" and "goats", "saved" and "unsaved". Your version of Peace on Earth was doomed from the start, by design, and nothing will make it work.

And if you would rather believe in a mythical deity because of some vague Pascal's Wager "what-if" fear of hellfire, then you have thrown away something very precious... Your intellectual integrity, and your right to live a life free of vague, hypothetical fears and enemies. Get better soon.

webmdave said...

Robert said "I'm surprised at some of the emotions though. Why get so emotionally worked up if your so sure about what you believe?"

I'm not sure who you are addressing. You are here espousing a belief that I (we) think is ridiculous; how you got here is immaterial. I've told you why I think it's ridiculous. The "emotions" and being "worked up" is your interpretation--I'm guessing that you're not accustomed to conversing with those who do not share your religious beliefs. I think you are confusing disagreement with hostility and anger. It's a common error.

webmdave said...

Robert Markham: "Adam and Eve had the benefit of seeing and hearing God therefore absolute proof of God existed."

Já, riiiight. Are you really so fucking stupid as to think that Adam and Eve were actual people rather than storybook characters?

"My pretty little book is backed up with more concrete evidence than any book in history..."

Pure bullshit. There is no evidence in Egypt that the Israelites were even there. Zero legitimate geological evidence for a global flood. The myth of a 6,000-year-old-Earth is contaminating the minds of countless would-be science students around the world. And how do you, from your cozy little 21st Century perspective, know for sure that these Biblical "prophesies" were actually written before the events they supposedly predict? Or that someone didn't make them come true on purpose?

"You missed the point of what God has done for those who accept Christ. God did wipe the slate clean..."

Only a completely incompetent fool of a god would need to kill to forgive. No thanks.

"I bet in the new world we will never choose the forbidden fruit again no matter how much we are tempted."

A third of the angels in heaven would tend to disagree with you there.

"How you see it as immoral is a mystery to me. Perhaps we define immorality differently."

Killing an innocent person is wrong. Always wrong. Being a god is no excuse. Your god should be burning *itself* in Hell.

"I can see you have a strong emotional opinion against God. It is actually Satan that is the maniac."

Let's see... (flips through Bible) I don't remember Satan drowning a planet, ordering Abraham to murder his son or setting his own son up to be the fall guy for someone else's misdeeds.

"Humanity did not conceive Christianity."

Yes it did.

"There is nothing vicious in Christianity."

The murdered neighbours of My Scandinavian ancestors say otherwise.

As do the murdered neighbours of My partner's German ancestors.

And My daughter, and the son of a neighbour, who have both experienced "Christian love" (sic) firsthand, in the form of taunts and beatings.

"You are mistaken in saying that Christianity encourages us to accept blood sacrifice as something desirable."

Then dump John 3:16 now.

"I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But you have every right to make your own decision. I just wish you were not so angry about it."

My anger shall continue down the ages, in the minds and words of others who feel as I do, until Christianity is relegated forever to the back pages of some out-of-print mythology book.

We have every right to be angry, and we shall not be silenced.

webmdave said...

Robert: "My pretty little book is backed up with more concrete evidence than any book in history and prophecies written thousands of years before events occurred give me a pretty solid foundation in believing its content."

And where did you get this information from? I'll wager that you never even read all those "prophecies" in their original context, and you are taking someone's word that they were indeed legitimate prophecies that were fulfilled. Ditto with the hisorical evidence. (Both claims are nonsense.)

Robert: "But you are right about substitutionary atonement being vile. The concept is supposed to be vile."

So you regard god's plan (i.e. sacrificing himself to himself) to have been vile? If so, we may not be so far apart. I feel it's thoroughly illogical first, but I could go with "vile" too.

Robert: "I can see you [Astreja?] have a strong emotional opinion against God. It is actually Satan that is the maniac. It is he that is unworthy of worship or respect. Why do you give it to him? He's the one that preaches self-sufficiency."

I think you are terribly confused. Neither I nor Astreja believe there is a Satan either. Both are fictional characters, as far as I know, and as far as anyone has ever shown. It seems you wish to prop up your argument for one invisible character by invoking another. Sorry, but that's a rather silly ploy; no thank you.

webmdave said...

My poor deluded brain cells are tired right now and I'm going to have to turn in for the night.

Before I do, I'd like to answer the question about Allah. A minute study of Islam shows that the entire religion is Mohammad's distortion of Ancient Judaism and Christianity. It was one man's opinion created for the purpose of rallying an army for self-grandoisment. Enough contradictions exist to make it completely unviable. I have little fear about it being correct.

I apologize for happening upon your site and stirring up your defenses. You probably think I came here to evangelize you. The fact is I was doing a search for some Paul Harvey CD's and I hit on your site. I couldn't help commenting on your comment.

I really have no further interest in your site although your views do explain a lot of questions to me? Questions like why Christianity is so obvious to me but others reject it. You really have some good arguments. I'm surprised at some of the emotions though. Why get so emotionally worked up if your so sure about what you believe?
I would spend more time studying your precepts and aruging my views but I'm afraid it would be pointless for me. You could argue against my belief forever without changing it and I could argue against your point of view forever and not change it. I don't have that kind of time right now.
And I don't feel the Holy Spirit compelling me to make you a life-long mission. So I guess this is it for now. Within the next 70 years or so we'll have this thing settled once and for all. I know I won't be sorry for the way I lived or what I believed. I sincerely hope that you are not either.

webmdave said...

My poor deluded brain cells are tired right now and I'm going to have to turn in for the night.

Before I do, I'd like to answer the question about Allah. A minute study of Islam shows that the entire religion is Mohammad's distortion of Ancient Judaism and Christianity. It was one man's opinion created for the purpose of rallying an army for self-grandoisment. Enough contradictions exist to make it completely unviable. I have little fear about it being correct.

I apologize for happening upon your site and stirring up your defenses. You probably think I came here to evangelize you. The fact is I was doing a search for some Paul Harvey CD's and I hit on your site. I couldn't help commenting on your comment.

I really have no further interest in your site although your views do explain a lot of questions to me? Questions like why Christianity is so obvious to me but others reject it. You really have some good arguments. I'm surprised at some of the emotions though. Why get so emotionally worked up if your so sure about what you believe?
I would spend more time studying your precepts and aruging my views but I'm afraid it would be pointless for me. You could argue against my belief forever without changing it and I could argue against your point of view forever and not change it. I don't have that kind of time right now.
And I don't feel the Holy Spirit compelling me to make you a life-long mission. So I guess this is it for now. Within the next 70 years or so we'll have this thing settled once and for all. I know I won't be sorry for the way I lived or what I believed. I sincerely hope that you are not either.

webmdave said...

Dear, sweet uncle Loki, not Pascal's Wager again!

(tosses tired old "What if you're wrong?" argument onto pile with the other 3,247 received this week)

(pours lighter fluid on pile, sets it ablaze, starts warming Her hands)

Robert, I will put this as gently as possible. The following is what I believe at the very core of My being:

Christianity is destructive crap.
The Bible is fiction.
Yahweh is a myth.
Jesus did not rise from the dead.
There is no Holy Spirit.
There is no sin.
There is no salvation.
There is no heaven.
There is no hell.

I simply cannot believe what I do not believe, and that is where your "What if you're wrong?" gambit fails. I can no more accept your beliefs than *you* would accept that I'm actually a Scandinavian goddess with a guardian dragon who does Humphrey Bogart interpretations.

And you shame yourself by coming here and attempting to frighten people with Tales of Yahweh the Bogeyman.

Your bloody death-cult mythology has become tiresome. Now's the time on Sprockets ven ve dance!

webmdave said...

Dear, sweet uncle Loki, not Pascal's Wager again!

(tosses tired old "What if you're wrong?" argument onto pile with the other 3,247 received this week)

(pours lighter fluid on pile, sets it ablaze, starts warming Her hands)

Robert, I will put this as gently as possible. The following is what I believe at the very core of My being:

Christianity is destructive crap.
The Bible is fiction.
Yahweh is a myth.
Jesus did not rise from the dead.
There is no Holy Spirit.
There is no sin.
There is no salvation.
There is no heaven.
There is no hell.

I simply cannot believe what I do not believe, and that is where your "What if you're wrong?" gambit fails. I can no more accept your beliefs than *you* would accept that I'm actually a Scandinavian goddess with a guardian dragon who does Humphrey Bogart interpretations.

And you shame yourself by coming here and attempting to frighten people with Tales of Yahweh the Bogeyman.

Your bloody death-cult mythology has become tiresome. Now's the time on Sprockets ven ve dance!

webmdave said...

Robert asks, ominously, "But what if you turn out to be wrong?"?

Look up Pascal's wager. It's a fallacy.

What if YOU are wrong, Robert, and Allah is the one true god? Do you know what will happen to you? You will spend eternity in torment for the blasphemy of believing that god could become flesh. That's right, Robert. Does that argument carry any weight with you? No, it doesn't. Put in those terms, you can plainly see the fallacy, just as we plainly see the fallacy in your wager.