NoGodBlog.com

Whatever xians want to see will blow - see The Passion of the SNuff Movie and Narnia.

Things they boycott you know will be good.

Maybe we should boycott Catholicism's boycott of the movie. That would really rattle some cages. ^_~

I'll wait for the DVD as I rarely go see movies at the theater. However, if the Catholics do protest it sufficiently I will go see it just to let me know they are being countered. I know it's early but don't forget The Beast comes out June 6.

TXatheist-

The Beast?

It sounds like "National Treasure"-redux... plus, it's an unacknowledged rip-off,
both of the book that supposedly inspired it, and of the computer game : "Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned".

It is hype at its worst.
But hey, maybe it'll turn out to be a good movie... i just doubt it.
Though I'm an atheist, I won't automatically brand a movie lambasting theists as "good".
That kinda group think, as far as I'm concerned, is the playground of the believers.

When I read the DaVinci code I started to have a lot of doubts about the church. I Googled "the historical Jesus" and now I'm here. I feel very good about myself after giving up the magic and beoming a skeptic. That is exactly what the RCC is afraid of....the truth.

I am really bored of films drenched in Abrahimic mythology to tell you the truth. Maybe when i was young this stuff was more interesting, but now when I see stuff like this, or the passion of the christ, or Constantine or that crusades movie its like "snore" I miss that good run of existential filmmaking that happened at the start of the millenium (Fight Club, I Heart Huckabees, happiness, etc)

AS a book I actually liked the prequel ANGELS AND DEMONS better but Ill give this movie a try !!!

"Though I'm an atheist, I won't automatically brand a movie lambasting theists as "good".
That kinda group think, as far as I'm concerned, is the playground of the believers. "

It was also a joke, Captian No Humor.

I started reading the Davinci code, and found it uninteresting. I also found out that it was based upon a turn of the 20th century scam, and any credibility left in it was gone.
Not that there is any credibility at all in the RCC.

Comment from: Lya Kahlo [Member] · http://memeescape.blogspot.com/
"Though I'm an atheist, I won't automatically brand a movie lambasting theists as "good".
That kinda group think, as far as I'm concerned, is the playground of the believers. "

It was also a joke, Captian No Humor.
03/02/06 @ 15:26
---

Really?
Shit... mucho appoligies then!
Just that ME being called "Cap'n No Fun" is pretty ridiculous...
just ask uncy Relucty!
Or better not... he'll just spank me again!

Did anyone hear about the lawsuit regarding the book Holy Blood/Holy Grail and Dan Brown? What I don't understand is how someone can sue for essentially a copyright infringement if the book was fully acknowledged by the author as the source of some information? (Does that make sense? The authors who wrote HB/HG are suing DB for copyright infringement while DB had HB/HG in it's bibliography and acknowledgements as the source of some of the historical data.) Just has me wondering.

Only those who beieve in fiction could be offended by another work of fiction.

"Comment from: Intercaust [Member]
Only those who beieve in fiction could be offended by another work of fiction.
03/02/06 @ 16:06 "


I'll second that... vehemently!
Well said.

Don't see it. The scholarship behind this movie is 100% BS, that's more likely to aid the Christian cause than hurt it. You can't use lies as propaganda.

Julian.
What you're saying was sort of my original point.
But I have to say that this line:
"You can't use lies as propaganda.", made me laugh out loud.
Just because it is so awkwardly funny.
But I agree with the essence of it.
As I've often said, there's no need to make stuff up... the bible is bad enough AS IS.

I just read the Ellen Johnson post and how she was on with that horse's ass tucker carlson. For those of you still reeling from the unbelievably stupid man this is for you:

A transcript... a wonderful, wonderful transcript:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htm

I think you can watch it here:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/v/stewartcarlson.htm

sorry, I'm a little late on this one. Okay, back to regularly scheduled DaVinci movie.

spanders-

I just watched it. John really makes bow-tie guy look stupid. And the audience loves him. ^_^

i read the book...it was a good adventure novel.

some of the ideas were interesting, and i support the movie due to the fact that most of the religious people i know hate the book, even though they haven't read it.

i don't like the blockbuster status...i think i would have been better if i could have gone indie...

i plan to see it, but i hardly ever got to the movie anymore.

but, the book was pretty darn fun to read

I have a question for all Atheists...

Wher do Atheists go when they die, does there soul just disappear like magic, like a funny magic trick, a joke just like an Atheist's life?

We all go to heaven unless we sin or don't believe in god.

spenserthechristian,

What soul would that be? The magic trick is to define the thing in the first place. Please, be my guest and give it a try.

We all go to heaven unless we sin or don't believe in god.

Sorry bud. The evidence points to death being the end. Life after death has all the hallmarks of wishful thinking or self delusion.

hey, spense:

we go to a magical place, it is called death. we die, and our bodies stop functioning, our heart stops beating and our brain stops electronic transmissions.

we have accepted this, you make up an illusion to make yourself sleep better at night.

i sleep well knowing that i am truly living each day as if it is my last, because i do not believe in a fairy tale world that no one has proved exists.

stop believing in fairy tales and accept reality for what it is.

spenser,
here's where I tend to have issue with that point of view: if we (yes, I'm a christian) believe in salvation by grace and understand the nature of blood attonements then we understand the all encompassing nature of salvation. Even the notion of what salvation is should be called into question. Heaven can be described as closeness with god and hell has been described as seperation from god. These concepts can be expressed here on earth right now. How we treat one another is a manefestation of heavan or hell depending on how we choose to be. Even your statement of we all go to heaven unless we sin... if you believe in original sin and total depravity, then this is out the window. Merely being born is enough to condemn one to hell if that is the doctrine you embrace. Look at how many time Jesus talks about taking care of the poor and treating people the way you want to be treated in comparison to him condemning people to hell for sinning or not believing in god. So I guess the question becomes what happens to worst sinner, let's say Hitler, but he believes in god? To engage in this level of rhetoric leaves no room for judgement of others.

As christians, we cannot and should not claim eternal judgement on any others or try to claim moral high ground. We can simply engage in a faith to take care of others in non judgement (I know, I'm rather judgemental of tucker carlson... but I don't think he has a soul ;-). I wouldn't presume to ask atheists what happens to them after they die. Rather, we should ask ourselves what good we can do for others as a reaction to our faith while we are alive.

manefestation = manifestation

bad, bad spelling

spanders:
once again, you show your class in your response. i really appreciate your point of view on this site. i was raised in the catholic school system, and i wish i knew more people as tolerant and intelligent as you.

thank you for your positive influence on this blog.

Mesoforte
Jon Stewart makes the bow tie guy (no talent ass clown tucker carlson) look stupid because he is stupid. Sorry, I just really can't take his bad, bad shows. He should be banned from television. And his bow tie too.

fthechurch

When I read the DaVinci code I started to have a lot of doubts about the church.

I read the DaVinci code because of doubts, thinking maybe this guy knows something. Strangely enough my path to realizing the truth probably started with this book. I can also credit Ayn Rand with pointing me toward atheism. I mainly credit the AA site for finally opening my eyes with the facts. For the life of me I can't understand why it took me so long. Just caught up in the daily grind of life too much to do any "soul searching" so to speak. In retrospect I can't believe I didn't devote more thought to such an important personal matter. Take the time to check out all the great info on the AA site. You're on the path to truth.

JayDave

AS a book I actually liked the prequel ANGELS AND DEMONS better but Ill give this movie a try !!!

I too read Angels and Demons. I must say though, the part about the helicopter flying cardinal and the dude that survives falling from it was a little hard to swallow.

Hey Podry,
I appreciate it. I don't often think too highly of myself, so it's nice to get positive feedback. Sometimes I'm not sure I'm actually adding anything here. I'm glad I can on occassion. Sorry about going off on tucker. Man, I really can't stand him. I doesn't mean I hate him... it just means I don't like his TV persona.

Here is a site that I found that is just wonderful science and short skeptic essays.
http://www.thirteen.org/bigideas/index.html

I'll wait for the movie to come out on disc.

JIM

Sorry, I just really can't take his bad, bad shows. He should be banned from television. And his bow tie too.

After those few minutes, I would have to agree.

Spanders

Even the notion of what salvation is should be called into question.

Really? He who confesses Jesus is Lord and believes he has risen from the dead... ring any bells?


"Look at how many time Jesus talks about taking care of the poor and treating people the way you want to be treated in comparison to him condemning people to hell for sinning or not believing in god."

I am the way, the truth, the life etc.? What does this mean then? Are you saying deeds can buy a spot in heaven?

"So I guess the question becomes what happens to worst sinner, let's say Hitler, but he believes in god?"

If he accepted Christ as saviour and repented he was saved. Unconditionally.

"As christians, we cannot and should not claim eternal judgement on any others or try to claim moral high ground. We can simply engage in a faith to take care of others in non judgement (I know, I'm rather judgemental of tucker carlson... but I don't think he has a soul ;-). I wouldn't presume to ask atheists what happens to them after they die. Rather, we should ask ourselves what good we can do for others as a reaction to our faith while we are alive."

You're right in sayng that we shouldn't claim moral high ground. But we can't ignore the great commission even though people get offended by it.

Just some thoughts.

spanders:

don't worry about bashing tucker, he is a no talent ass clown who wears a bow tie and he is over 35...

my fiance was cracking up wathching the clip...

john stewart rules!

Speaking of boycotting movies did you all notice that the fundies made barely a peep over "Brokeback Mountain"? I reckon they knew that it would be a waste of their time and money to boycott what has become a very succesful phenomenon. Any person who is not brought to tears watching this movie is not human-I was so hysterical that I cried out my contact lenses and had to drive home half blind.
Alex.

Goose,
while I appreciate the reminders, I don't really need them. I'm pretty familiar with the Bible. You interpret "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6) as having a specific need to accept Jesus into your heart (which always seemed such an odd statement to me). I interpret it as not having that specific requirement of acceptance. I see it as more universal than that. Even if no one gets to the father except through jesus, who are we to tell jesus who he lets in or doesn't?

"Not everyone who cries to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven but whoever does the will of my Father shall enter the kingdom ..." (Matt 7:21). You see Goose, it seems as though some christians LOVE to condemn other people and feel bad for them and feel bad for their "condemned" souls. The reality is, we interpret the way we want to interpret. I pretty much stick to the book of Mark and even there, a few verses (16:9-20) were tacked on and are the only place in this oldest and most likely most authentic account that put qualifiers on salvation. Prior to that in the book of Mark, there isn't really a straight line between accepting Jesus and being saved. Even salvation is poorly described. What is your understanding of heaven?

I have read the bible and have come up with some pretty random interpretations. If you're honest, you would admit the same about your interpretations. Random interpretations aren't enough to condemn other people or ask them to change who they are. The problem in the US and Europe is not that people don't know about the "good news". The problem is they know too much about the people spreading the news and how they spread it. I would suggest you enjoy your religion (I do), but we should keep the condemnations and pity out of it. It only gets in the way.

"I also found out that it was based upon a turn of the 20th century scam, and any credibility left in it was gone."

"The scholarship behind this movie is 100% BS"


That's because the book (and therefore, the movie based off it) are FICTION. They are touted as FICTION, and never proclaim to be the truth.

Since when does a novel have to have accurate scholarship & credibility? That's the whole point!

kestrien:
That's because the book (and therefore, the movie based off it) are FICTION. They are touted as FICTION, and never proclaim to be the truth.

Perhaps the fundies are concerned because this fiction is more credible than their own xian fiction? It's sad to be threatened by a better story.

spanders,

The problem in the US and Europe is not that people don't know about the "good news". The problem is they know too much about the people spreading the news and how they spread it. I would suggest you enjoy your religion (I do), but we should keep the condemnations and pity out of it. It only gets in the way.

Thank you. That was very nicely said.

I know I've said it before, but if only all Christians had the "live and let live" attitude that you do, and promoted a firm separation of church and state, we would not have any issues with them.

Re: Da Vinci Code
I read the book, I enjoyed it but thought it could have been better written. I was already an atheist when I read it, but I do know of a lot of people who were led to research Christianity after reading it, which I thought was great.

I'll probably go see the movie but there have been other movies, more obscure, about much more controversial things that Xians could have gotten upset about.

My husband rented a DVD a few years ago, I think the movie was called "The Body", Antonio Banderas played a priest who was called to investigate the possible discovery of the body of Christ. Now if that wouldn't turn Christianity on its head more than Jesus possibly being married, I don't know what would. Apparently this movie came in under the radar since it wasn't a blockbuster and the Church missed it, or else they ignored it entirely, because I don't remember hearing about any controversy surrounding it.

Does anyone else remember this movie?

spanders:

You interpret "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6) as having a specific need to accept Jesus into your heart (which always seemed such an odd statement to me).

Why does that strike you as “odd”?

I interpret it as not having that specific requirement of acceptance. I see it as more universal than that.

Could you expound on this a bit more? It sounds an awful lot like you’re espousing the doctrine of “the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man” there.

Even if no one gets to the father except through jesus, who are we to tell jesus who he lets in or doesn't?

How did you arrive at that? Who has made any such pretenses?

I pretty much stick to the book of Mark and even there, a few verses (16:9-20) were tacked on and are the only place in this oldest and most likely most authentic account

Does that mean you regard the other Gospels as false?

The problem in the US and Europe is not that people don't know about the "good news".

I would have to disagree with you on that.

Does that mean you regard the other Gospels as false?

Copies with interpolations that were also edited to suit a particular ancient church. I'm writing an essay about it. ^_^

Peach:

Does anyone else remember this movie?

Saw a preview of it. Would love to watch it, but my local movie store STILL doesn't stock it.

jcc,
I'll get back to you later. Your questions merit thoughtful answers and I'm out of time. So... many... deadlines....

From The Secure Ward Of The Asylum,
this was actually uttered:

"Comment from: jcc [Member]
spanders:

You interpret "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6) as having a specific need to accept Jesus into your heart (which always seemed such an odd statement to me).
Why does that strike you as “odd”?
I interpret it as not having that specific requirement of acceptance. I see it as more universal than that.
Could you expound on this a bit more? It sounds an awful lot like you’re espousing the doctrine of “the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man” there.
Even if no one gets to the father except through jesus, who are we to tell jesus who he lets in or doesn't?
How did you arrive at that? Who has made any such pretenses?
I pretty much stick to the book of Mark and even there, a few verses (16:9-20) were tacked on and are the only place in this oldest and most likely most authentic account
Does that mean you regard the other Gospels as false?
The problem in the US and Europe is not that people don't know about the "good news".
I would have to disagree with you on that.

03/03/06 ".

I've had my fill of sermons gloyfiying hatred. (And war).
Jcc- whoever you love, shouldn't be a judgmental yardstick... certainly NOT as seen from your
faulty 1-D-Specs.
So what if a good man loves a good man, or good woman loves a good woman?
Shouldn't love itself, and the powers it imparts be the measure?

It could HARDLY do worse than a moronic screed expostulated by nomads more than two thousand years ago.

HMDK:

Shouldn't love itself, and the powers it imparts be the measure?

Beautifully said, my friend.
My highest accolade:
Wish I'd said it.

Hairless
Indeed, a beautifully made statement about love. But I am lost as to what jcc said to test your patience. Was it
"the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man", or just the idea that one has to accept christ to get to god? He wasn't talking about homosexual love in that post. Or am I so daft today that I'm missing something?

(Don't be afraid to take the gloves off with me darlin'.)

Spanders,

First of all, I want to compliment you on your response to spenser. You manage to provoke thought without provoking too much negative emotion. We need more of that, both here and in world at large.

Unfortunately, you also provoked me into thinking (and responding). Always a worrisome event. Your comment:

“Heaven can be described as closeness with god and hell has been described as separation from god.”

Sounds much better than the usual description of being sent to hell for one’s sins or whatever, but still seems to contradict the idea of an all-powerful and all-knowing god. Doesn’t he know that the person he created will move away from him? Or do you not believe that god’s knowledge extends into predicting the future?

I realize you are busy and your thoughts have got more people than just me thinking and asking questions, but if you find the time to respond, I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

Completely off topic

Hey Hairless
I can't email ya right now, cos the music is still downloading, but there's a *funny* story about that in my outbox waiting to go to ya.
You may be ready to strangle me. Hope you didn't have as much trouble sending these songs as you did the first TW one.

Okay, JCC,
I find the statement of accepting Jesus into your heart odd as it's become, to me, hackneyed and without deep meaning. For me, it seems that when one uses that type of language it seperates people neatly into those who have accepted and those who have not... those who are saved and those who are not. It is odd for me because I don't think like that. I don't like putting people into neat little distinctions. People are much more messy in their thought process. That and I think I've heard too many people use the term in a judgemental way and I'm really turned off by it (that's the short version).

Could you expound on this a bit more? It sounds an awful lot like you’re espousing the doctrine of “the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man” there.

Universal Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man... I really like that! If people had non-judgemental understandings of god, there would probably be a lot less road side bombs, crusades, and violent jihads in this world. I don't normally ascribe male or female to god as I think god is beyond that type of description. I don't like to get involved in a patriarchal understanding of god.

Okay, so moving onto the universal aspect of my thoughts. If we use the two aforementioned verses we can get a clearer understanding

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6)

This verse has been used to justify exclusionary understandings of salvation. Let's pull it apart a little bit. No one comes to the father except through me. When anyone suggests that particular groups are condemned simply because they belong to a group, let's say muslim, they are not going to heaven because they don't believe in Jesus. They haven't accepted Jesus into their hearts. Don't we take on the role of Jesus in judgement? How are we to know what the measuring stick for salvation is? The next verse is an example of this

"Not everyone who cries to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven but whoever does the will of my Father shall enter the kingdom ..." (Matt 7:21)

Okay, so maybe they're not going to heaven because they haven't REALLY accepted Jesus or maybe they have, but they haven't done the will of the Father. Maybe they are going to heaven because they did the will of the father without accepting Jesus.

Who has made any such pretenses?

Isn't it awfully arrogant of people to take on the role of judge of eternal salvation? What is your assessment of the eternal destination of atheists? If one thinks they don't go to heaven, then they are engaging in the pretense of judging what you have to do to get salvation. I've decided that it's not up to me to assess the eternal destination of people. I don't feel the need to "save" them. I feel neither pity nor judgement. They're on their path and I'm on mine. Some days I need saving and some days they need saving. We need each other... to understand each other, to help each other up and to treat each other as we would like to be treated. Would you like people to tell you that you're going to hell because you don't believe in Allah?

I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm doing enough mental gymnastics to come to the beliefs I have without taking on the impossible task of justifying a literal interpretation.

Does that mean you regard the other Gospels as false?

I think they are embellishments or written for a particular audience. Matthew starts out with the liniage of Christ. For Greeks this is not important. For Jews, this is. The book of John adds all sorts of details to the crucifixion that isn't in Mark that seem to be focused on salvation. From my research I have discovered that Mark was written first and is probably the most authentic. Are the other books false? I don't know. I think they were written by people who were writing for particular audiences. I sometimes read them saying "you crazy Colossians (or insert any group) and your undefined heresies that Paul (or any major figure) is trying to put down". Circumcision of the flesh or the spirit? Well, adult males aren't signing up for the flesh version, so we'll let that one slide and say the cricumcision of the spirit is good enough (wink wink).

Okay, so do you think that people aren't signing up for christianity in Europe and the US because they don't know about Christ? I would argue that we have that one covered. It's not a question of publicizing a new religion that's having trouble getting the word out. Do you disagree? Am I not understanding you?

TomSD,
I'm glad I can get people thinking... although I will say that I have no desire to change people's ideas about god or the lack thereof.

So, why would god create something that he/she knows will be condemned to hell? You could go with the free will argument, but even there the question comes up that if god knows that the person will turn away then why bother creating him in the first place? This is one of the reasons I don't pull out my eternal judgement yard stick. I'm just not smart enough or wise enough to tell people why they are or are not going to heaven. I simply don't know and will not judge people on a flimsy understanding of judgement. I'm sure a theologan could beat me about the head with my interpretations. Although I would say that they could give me some really good guesses based on study, which I respect, but even in that context there's a wide range of disagreement. Biblical scholars can't even agree. I say let god sort 'em out (without the killing them all part). It doesn't make sense to judge people's eternal destination because we're all just too screwed up to make that assessment.

Maybe I can even get this thread back on track. The DaVinci Code even challenges ideas of how the Bible is interpreted and what it means. I say go for it. Why shouldn't we constantly be challenging our pre-concieved notions. Would it have been a sin for Jesus to have sex? Maybe he even masturbated. I like to believe in a god that I can identify with ;-).

Attention all xtians

Your heart is a pump, nothing else. No thoughts are in your heart. Its all in your head.

I'm 11 and found this site searching for La Guillotine, for a Tale of Two Cities project and this site i thought was a joke at first. Nogodblog? I guess it's just funny to me.
I can't believe i got that big of a rise out of a bunch of old people. Mission Complete.

Yall are all stunt doubles for broke back mountain!

spense:
don't worry, your age was revealed in your comment...

the sponge bob website is in the other direction, or is that to homo-friendly for your beliefs?

come back when you are older and we can talk...good luck until then.

spenserthechristian, I find it intriging that you would consider a no god blog "funny".


Are you not aware that there are other religions besides christianity?

Are you not aware that some people need proof before believing?

And no one, anywhere, ever, has managed to prove the existance of an omnipotent being? You would think such a being wouldn't be hard to find.

Perhaps you won't get it but if you like to think for yourself and like googling try researching the Flying Spaguetti Monster. Here, I even got the adress for you: http://www.venganza.org/

If you're a smart kid you'll come back and explain how you can prove your god is more plausible then mine.

Real, actual proofs. Not "I feel like". Or not "My pastor told me".


I'll remain a pastafarian 'till then.

Spanders,
Thanx for the Jon Stewart bit. That guy is so smart.
And tucker carlson is so not-smart.

Spencer your only 11 and already youve learned to denigrate people who you do not know. When you take time to read through these posts you'll find that you are just like the other ignorant fundametalist murderers. It's too bad you've had such a poor education.
I hope you take some time in your life to examine the facts of what you have been taught.
JIM

I thought I was the youngest poster. . .

*feels shunned*

spense,

I advise you to take an objective look at your religion before you place it on such a pedestal. Maybe you'll find what we've all found; it's a load of crap.

Spanders

"I find the statement of accepting Jesus into your heart odd as it's become, to me, hackneyed and without deep meaning. For me, it seems that when one uses that type of language it seperates people neatly into those who have accepted and those who have not... those who are saved and those who are not."

I doubt it someone who has accepted Jesus into their hearts would find it "hackneyed" and without deep meaning.

"It is odd for me because I don't think like that."

Ok. Jesus seemed to do it.

"I don't like putting people into neat little distinctions."

Whats wrong with saying one is saved and the other is not?

"People are much more messy in their thought process."

What do you mean?

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6)
This verse has been used to justify exclusionary understandings of salvation. Let's pull it apart a little bit. No one comes to the father except through me. When anyone suggests that particular groups are condemned simply because they belong to a group, let's say muslim, they are not going to heaven because they don't believe in Jesus. They haven't accepted Jesus into their hearts. Don't we take on the role of Jesus in judgement?"

Not if we claim that the only way to the Father is through Jesus. Jesus himself ordered us to spread this message to the whole world. We can't judge anyone, but we can proclaim the truth. If people reject the gospel it is up to them.

"How are we to know what the measuring stick for salvation is?"

He who confesses that Jesus is Lord and in his heart believes... is the measuring stick.

"The next verse is an example of this"Not everyone who cries to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven but whoever does the will of my Father shall enter the kingdom ..." (Matt 7:21)"

And what is the will of the Father? That we believe in the One that he has sent.

"Okay, so maybe they're not going to heaven because they haven't REALLY accepted Jesus or maybe they have, but they haven't done the will of the Father."

Which is believing the one he has sent.

"Would you like people to tell you that you're going to hell because you don't believe in Allah?"

People can tell me what they want

Anyway, i know we shouldn't discuss theology onan atheist board. I just react to some things.

Have a nice day

spenser
You got 3 thoughtful and polite responses to your original post. You call that a big rise?
I'm glad you found our site. Maybe you'll visit more and learn something.
At least you know that there is more than Christianity in the world now. There are choices, Spense. You don't have to accept what you've been fed since infancy.
And if you stick with Christianity, try to outgrow the self-righteous style of it. It's very unbecoming.

spenser,
when they ask you to become an alter boy...just say no.

spanders:

Thanks for your responses. If I may add to GooseHenry’s thoughts:

it seems that when one uses that type of language it seperates people neatly into those who have accepted and those who have not... those who are saved and those who are not.

So, are you saying that you think there are more than two destinations after death?

Universal Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man... I really like that!

An interesting response. May I ask, what are your thoughts on the divinity of Christ and His resurrection?

I don't normally ascribe male or female to god as I think god is beyond that type of description. I don't like to get involved in a patriarchal understanding of god.

I didn’t coin the phrase so I’m not trying to push a sexist agenda—gender aside, it’s still a valid theological question.

When anyone suggests that particular groups are condemned simply because they belong to a group, let's say muslim, they are not going to heaven because they don't believe in Jesus. They haven't accepted Jesus into their hearts. Don't we take on the role of Jesus in judgement?

That’s not what is going on in that case. Salvation through Christ is absolutely on an individual basis. Engaging in a “group think” of a clearly false religion cannot (according to Christ, himself) provide for the individual’s salvation and pointing that out is not taking on the role of Jesus in judgment.

How are we to know what the measuring stick for salvation is?

I agree with GooseHenry, as Paul said in Romans 10:9: “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Maybe they are going to heaven because they did the will of the father without accepting Jesus.

Are you saying salvation can be a matter of “works”?

Isn't it awfully arrogant of people to take on the role of judge of eternal salvation?

Sure, but the only way that’s possible is if those people also claim to know exactly what’s in a person’s heart. But who can make such a claim? Are you confusing rebuke for judement?

What is your assessment of the eternal destination of atheists?

My “assessment” is (again) Romans 10:9—but am I privy to what’s in their hearts? No. That’s purely between them and God.

I don't feel the need to "save" them.

Don’t you understand, you can’t save them—their salvation is a personal choice only they can make.

I feel neither pity nor judgement. They're on their path and I'm on mine.

If so, then what are we to make of the Great Commission—“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation”? Are we, who have accepted that truth, to remain silent about it, or are we to share it with those who need it as much as we do?

Would you like people to tell you that you're going to hell because you don't believe in Allah?

Knowing what I do about Islam, it does not bother me.

I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Again, does that also mean you don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Christ’s resurrection?

I'm doing enough mental gymnastics to come to the beliefs I have without taking on the impossible task of justifying a literal interpretation.

Wow, if that truly is the case, then why do you believe at all? Please don’t take this as being condescending, but are you sure you’re not really a Unitarian Universalist?

Okay, so do you think that people aren't signing up for christianity in Europe and the US because they don't know about Christ?

Yes and no. Yes, they know about Christ; no, they don’t know Him personally—big difference.

It's not a question of publicizing a new religion that's having trouble getting the word out. Do you disagree?

I think it’s a matter of, in the 20th century, the church utterly failed in it’s purpose of evangelism. That it didn’t even try to counter the Post Modern arguments for materialism because it didn’t know how to engage the argument. It’s not the message that’s flawed, it’s the messengers. Christ’s life, death and resurrection were real. He trusted those who saw it to faithfully get the message out, and they did. The message hasn’t changed for 2000 years, but unfortunately, those who accepted the responsibility to carry it on haven’t always been true to their task.

Goose, you're right... I don't want to monopolize this thread any more. Read back through your response and see how many times you are adding your own interpretations to the bible and how many assumptions you are making. You doubt that I've really accepted Jesus in my heart, you're assuming how Jesus thinks, assuming the will of the father, and telling me you know how to judge the eternal destination of people. Wow. Pretty powerful stuff. Are you sure you really want to go around making these assumptions? We're both making assumptions and we both should be very careful about telling people what the truth is.

I know It is just a MOVIE but this movie SUCKS A LOT... JESUS ROCKS MY WORLD!!!

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3

Hey JCC,
again, just to try not to monopolize an atheist board with a theological discussion. However, my final thoughts will be the following:

You, like goose, are choosing to focus on certain aspects of the bible and certain verses to derive meaning. Simply by emphasizing some verses over others you are engaging in your own interpretation. You choose Romans 10:9 and I choose Matthew 7:21. You're concerned about the great commission of going out and telling people about the gospels, but what about Jesus commissioning us to sell all we have and give it to the poor and follow him. Well, I haven't done that one either. My guess is that you haven't either. Some commissions we embrace and others we ignore. I would suggest if all christians engaged in that level of self sacrafice, we wouldn't have to worry about the first commission. Right now what we're spreading the good news that we believe in non-violence, but preemptive war is okay, give everything to the poor unless you live in suburban US, then buy like crazy, don't judge, but knowing what we know of Islam, we can judge them. It's a confused message. Go out and spread the word... what word are we spreading?

Maybe we should accept the message in our heads instead of our hearts and spread the word by doing and letting people ask us if they're interested in finding out why we do what we do.

Please feel free to respond, but I really am feeling like I've overdone it here a bit so I probably won't get back to you, at least on this thread. I appreciate your questions and I don't say anything out of anger... simply expressing some of the (possibly half baked) ideas that are in my head.

Just for clarification, I do believe in the divinity of Jesus. You talk about Unitarian Universalism like it's a bad thing ;-). I go to a UCC church if you're wondering. I think it's a wonderful group of people.

Spenserthechristian,

You crack me up little dude.
You’ve got so much fire, and so much spit and gutsy little huevos! Don’t ever lose your nerve. You just have to learn how to channel it.

OK ALL ATHIESTS GO TO HELL... gahh stupid, blind people...

Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Whoops! We have another poser. Someone call the fake police. Anyway, this kind of hypocrite makes me want to watch the movie even more. Hurray, more monies for doubting controversy!

Spenserthechristian, don't believe anything your family has ever told you about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or God. Go watch the Davinci Code. It's more fun than Harry Potter.

(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

jesus_rocks has rocks in his head.

More like it's quite simple.

(1) God doesn't exist whether you like it or not.

(2) God exists like invisible flying unicorns also exist, not to mention Larry, God's dad who lives two blocks down.

(3) Therefore, God is happy make-believe nonsense.

(1) Atheists like to think that they can control their emotional desires.
(2) But they're Atheists, so they can't.
(3) Therefore, Atheists feel the need to indulge in whatever they feel like without worrying about committing sin.
(4) This just goes to show how they need God in their lives.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

That was specious. However, here's a more true list.

(1) Therefore, God doesn't exist.

ughh whatever..

Here's a good list:

(1) Fundamentalist fanatics refuse introspecting to understand themselves emotionally.

(2) They justify this irresponsible refusal through shame constructs, which they place on themselves through fear in a made up prohibitive fascist God figure, a symbol for intolerance.

(3) This refusal to understand the emotional dynamic in people by seeing it within themselves first, leads to a refusal to accept that people are content not following their religion.

(4) Since other people see no value in fanatic religion (with no value placed in made-up God beliefs), while still being happy, and fundamentalist fanatics depend on the reflection of others for reassurance, they see nonbelievers as a threat to their imaginary source of wellness.

(5) The fanatic is threatened by the lack of reassurance from other happy people, and the devaluing of their imaginary God figure.

(6) The fanatic irresponsibly blames others for his/her flimsy God idea. This becomes dangerous when the fanatic justifies killing non-fanatics, refusing to accept that others can be happy without fanatic ideas.

(7) The fanatic seeks resolve by demonizing non-believers, instead of sitting down, and seeking happiness through responsible understanding, and placid control over personal emotion in an indifferent universe.

(8) Anxiety management through group therapy support is recommended to the fanatic.

The fanatic, so angry, so unhappy, so unlike a pleasant peaceful Jesus idea (noting only the peacemaker positive aspects of the idea, of course).

spanders, goose and jcc
Go ahead and keep up your discussion. I'm enjoying it. No one else has objected.
Besides, I think it only serves to solidify our side of the argument-that you guys, no matter how left/right or centrist you are, just can't get your act together. Yet you all believe in the same mythical being.

spanders, you're still the most rational and flexible of the lot.

Jesus-Rocks,

You are incredibly arrogant, ignorant, and annoying. Here's a way for you to get in on some actual conversation:

You said "god exists"
Prove it.

jcc, goose, spanders, jesus-rocks, spense,

1) If gawd is so mighty, why are there non-believers? Does gawd want us to go to hell? Is he unable to make us believe? Does he not know that we don't believe? Doesn't sound like a very worship-worthy fellow to me.

2) If gawd is so mighty, why can't his own followers agree on his ideas?

But do go on arguing about interpretations of the bible. If I may add my interpretation:

It's a work of fiction that any reasonably intelligent 12-year old could write.

And, in response to one of JR's comment about satan:

6 billion humans on earth, the vast majority of which are going to hell according to your book.

Sounds like satan has your god beat.

Deadly Doomham:

1) If gawd is so mighty, why are there non-believers?

Free will.

Does gawd want us to go to hell?

No.

Is he unable to make us believe?

No, He gives us the choice.

Does he not know that we don't believe?

Yes, He knows you don’t believe.

Doesn't sound like a very worship-worthy fellow to me.

Maybe that’s because you’re free to have that opinion.

2) If gawd is so mighty, why can't his own followers agree on his ideas?

Again, free will.

If god really made us, wouldn't we have an innate connection to him/her/it and WANT to believe, intead of having to be told about it or read it in a book and be convinced?

So jcc,

Your god has given us minds, but when we try to use them, he sends us to hell? I'm free to go to hell? Why would gawd do that?

Oh yeah, because he doesn't exist.

It's very easy to tell somebody they're going to burn in hell for not believing the same things as you. It's much harder to accept the fact that they might never be punished for this obvious CRIME; it's much harder to accept the fact that you might end up in the same place as them, when it's all done (nowhere at all).

But back to the topic. . .

I've never read the book. I actually have no clue what it's about.

spanders:

again, just to try not to monopolize an atheist board with a theological discussion.

Like karen, I think our discussion isn’t monopolizing the thread (yes, it’s their blog, but it’s also public and in a very real sense, our discussion is quite germane to the subject at hand). I am curious as to what your answers are and hopefully, you’ll choose to continue on. :) But if you don’t would you mind clarifying the UCC you attend? There are several institutions with those initials and I’m just curious about which one you attend.

boy, between spense, jesus rocks, and phreedm, this is looking more like a theistic blog every day...

too bad their arguements are so weak and pointless...

1. grow up
2. read more
3. stop using numbers and lists to somehow make god real...fairy tales, son...fairy tales.

podry:
1. make your spirituality grow
2. read the bible
3. stop using the evolution theory since its just an assumption.

if you say we evolved from apes, why does apes still exist in zoos or wherever you find them? where's the "missing link?"

jesus rocks:

You are too ignorant to argue with us about evolution.

rosemary:
i'll try my best, you never know.
you may open my eyes if you can, you might "convert" me to atheism if you can, you may prove me wrong... this could help me discern things. =)

jesus_rocks:

if you say we evolved from apes, why does apes still exist in zoos or wherever you find them? where's the "missing link?"

Well, it's education time...again.
First off, the verb is 'do'. No biggie.
2nd off: we share a common ancestor.
3rd off: some species retain or stay in much the same state, like alligators, sharks, etc.
4th off: here's a poser: why did Australopithecus die off?
Try reading up at www.talkorigins.org. Get back to us.
Oh, & here it is again: definition of 'theory':
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
look it up at answers.com. You're apparently using definition #6.

karen:

If god really made us, wouldn't we have an innate connection to him/her/it and WANT to believe, intead of having to be told about it or read it in a book and be convinced?

Another excellent question!

May I ask, do you not have an innate need to be loved, and loved unconditionally? And can any human fully satisfy that need?

jcc:

I'm butting in here, since you are asking Karen...but, if you need unconditional love...get a dog. It will never condemn you to hell.

Deadly Doomham:

Your god has given us minds, but when we try to use them, he sends us to hell?

That’s a bit of a non-sequitur.

I'm free to go to hell? Why would gawd do that?

Again, another non-sequitur. Yes, you’re free to choose to hell. In the end, God merely gives you what you want.

Deadly Doomham if you ask why God wants some bad people in hell, go read the bible.

jesus rocks:

1. i have read the bible...have you? make sure to document the violence and hatred that your god endorses (allowing slavery and homophobia)

2. i don't need spirituallity. i believe in myself. i live each day to the fullest, not counting on some magic place to "catch up" on all my just deserves.

3. read my post again...i never mentioned evolution, but if you want to converse, you will have one hell (if you excuse my pun) of a time trying to challenge us in this blog.

seems like not only do we have a wandering troll on this blog, we may have found pippin's long lost relative...

spenser don't let these atheist change your faith... =)

jcc:

May I ask, do you not have an innate need to be loved, and loved unconditionally?

Gah! So much wrong w/that sentence.
No such thing as unconditional love. All love is based on conditions. Food. Form. Pheromones.
Free will?
Follow me and be reborn, or roast! (or be separate, wandering about in the darkness, gnashing of the teeth, have it as you wish).
Really, when 1 has a child, life is multiple choice. A variety of directions.
1 doesn't penalize the child for taking the path least trod, unless there's danger in it.
This either/or really puts paid to the notion of free will.
Suffer or believe?
How dichotomous.

Rosemary:

if you need unconditional love...get a dog. It will never condemn you to hell.

No, but he will bite you if you try to take his food from him. See my response to Deadly Doomham. We choose to condemn ourselves.

notice the immature writing style of spense and jc rocks...two little hobbits.

sorry, i am sort of a tolkein nerd (which i am sure is not allowed in spense, jc rocks, or phree's home)

FOR FRODO!

gahh, i'm no hobbit

jesus_rocks:
Hey, hobbits rock.
Big hairy feet, like to dance, tell stories, quaff an ale or 2, etc.
J.R.R Tolkien was a Catholic, who managed to convert an atheist. C.S Lewis, to be exact.
Could be worse. No 1's called you an orc. That's a gahh, capital G.

jcc,
Unconditional love from a god that sends you to hell because you refuse to buckle, is not unconditional.
I’ll take Rosemary’s dog anyday.

In regards to Rosemary's comment I wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes though I wonder if my dogs might be mistaking me for a god. To them I must seem omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. But that's just assuming dogs have human foibles. In reality they probably just think I'm the alpha male. What a letdown to my ego.