Mailbag

I have been sent the below YouTube Personal Message by a person (almost certainly female) that I may (or may not) have known in real life.

prosletyzing

Let us respond to her proselytizing.

After this life is over do you know for sure where you will spend eternity?

-No. I don’t particularly care what happens to my body after my death. Spending my post-life period as ashes is just as acceptable to me as spending it as a rotten body buried beneath the ground. Besides, no human body lasts for eternity. Yes, I do know you are referring to the bizarre (oft-religious) concept of brainless human thinking, something that is, as far as I know, impossible.

The Bible says that there is only 2 choices…

“HEAVEN” or “HELL”

God says that “SAVED” people go to Heaven and lost people go to Hell.

-[citation needed]
The case for a literal Biblical fiery Hell is pretty slim. There’s also a good Biblical case for Universalism (or, at least, no long postmortem punishment).

The “Good News” is that God LOVES us and wants to save you from going to that terrible place called hell. Check this really cool verse out from the Bible…

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

-An omnipotent supernatural being with multiple personality disorder (one personality that wishes all men to be saved and one personality that wishes some to be damned) is hardly believable. I do not think the word “all” means what you think it means. Does this “all” include Zoroastrians?

AJAL…God does not want to send anyone to hell. We CHOOSE where we are going to spend eternity!!

-According to the most commonly accepted Christian theology on this topic, God is all-knowing and all-powerful, thus, he knows our choices before we make them and has determined what our choices would be from the day he created the Universe, and, probably before (what would be the meaning of ‘all-powerful’ if he didn’t?). Determinism makes more sense than free will all the way, in both the secular and religious worldviews.

We all deserve to go to Hell because of SIN.
When we sin we break God’s laws of righteousness!

-So your god is a sadist, too, wishing people to suffer for reasons undetermined (remember, if God is responsible for creating everything, he is responsible for creating sin).

~ God will send every LIAR to hell. That means we all deserve to be there but we do not have to go there!!

Relevant part begins at 0:24

We can’t just tell God that we are “SORRY” for what we have done wrong!

-Why?

You can become righteous in God’s eyes by trusting Him to forgive you!

-Why do we have to trust this god?
Now seems like a good time to trot out this Darkmatter2525 video (warning-impolite language).

You can become righteous in God’s eyes by trusting Him to forgive you! Being saved is a FREE GIFT from God. PLEASE keep reading and I will show you how to be saved OK?!! :)

-What difference does it makes if one admits his/her sin? The sinful act still happened. If the gift is “free”, why does it not guaranteed from birth?

– Jesus Christ was SINLESS. He didn’t have to die. When He died it was to PAY YOUR SIN DEBT in full…

-Depends on the definition of ‘sin’, doesn’t it? Also, Paul never had a video recording of Jesus’s entire life.

– YOU CAN BE SAVED RIGHT NOW!
All you have to do is trust Jesus Christ to save you!

Believe that He shed His blood for you by dying for YOUR SIN, and that He rose from the dead to justify you before God…

-Or should I hedge my bets and make offerings to all the most widely-accepted gods of today? In any case, I go by the evidence, not by simply accepting an old book as inerrant and calling it a day.

We have seen above a typical ‘please accept Jesus before you die’ message. It expresses genuine concern for me, but does not express any understanding of what a Skeptic like me needs to accept the claims of Christianity. This attempt at evangelism fails on a number of counts. Firstly, it does not even try to defend the idea that the Bible is any kind of authority on the process of thought, which modern science has not demonstrated to occur outside the Brain and demonstrated to occur inside the Brain. Secondly, it assumes a Skeptic like me has not heard the Four Spiritual Laws message repeated to him at least three dozen times. I live in America, a nation in which this guy is run unopposed by the other major political party in these United States. Ya think I haven’t heard the Soterian message of the Christians at least three dozen times before in my life? In short, here is Dan Fincke’s list of actions Soterian Evangelicals should avoid doing. The author of the above message really, really needs to read that list.

In the end, it seems a good time to trot out a NonStamp video.

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

9 thoughts on “Mailbag”

  1. one personality that wishes some to be damned” [citation needed]. Do you also believe that modern judges in American courts have multiple personality disorders for sentencing criminals? If not, please explain. Do you believe these judges wish all Americans would commit crimes so they can remain employed?

      1. Here’s you paraphrased: “I’m going to logically prove that God has Multiple Personality Disorder by stipulating that God must save everyone & must condemn some members of the ‘Everyone’ class [2 stipulations for which you failed to provide citations by the way] because God claimed to have the power to do A and not-A at the same time in the same context [something else for which you would not be able to provide a citation].”

        If you really believe that “all” should always apply to sensible/rational & nonsensical/irrational things, you’re stipulating that the laws of logic no longer apply, in which case your argument is invalid/fallacious. The only rational way to interpret Scripture on this issue is that God wants everyone to be saved, gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, & will punish everyone who rejects that offer (Ezekiel 34:22; Matthew 13:47-8; one OT & one NT citation should suffice, though a plethora of others exist).

        If you allow a single fallacy (such as a contradiction where a judge is supposed to sentence a criminal & the same judge is NOT supposed to sentence the same criminal at the same time in the same context; or where a rock manufacturer is supposed to make a rock so big that he can’t move it; or more generically, do something [A] that can’t be done [not-A]), then you’re simply embarrassing yourself for positing the challenge. Besides, if you’re aware that you cannot prove that something does not exist, why would you attempt to prove something does not have a particular power? Does Aristotle need to rise from the dead to tell you that’s a futile endeavor?

        You made other fallacious statements in this post where you attempted to defend your position, but I’m not going to address any of the others until you acknowledge you were wrong on this one. Please take your time to think about it over the weekend if you’re busy during the week. I don’t mind waiting.

        1. Here’s you paraphrased: “I’m going to logically prove that God has Multiple Personality Disorder by stipulating that God must save everyone & must condemn some members of the ‘Everyone’ class [2 stipulations for which you failed to provide citations by the way]…

          -Correct so far. I don’t need to provide any more citation than the blockquoted sections of CarpenterKarenAnne’s Personal Message-I was responding to her ideas, not necessarily yours or the Bible’s. My assumption CarpenterKarenAnne believes her god is omnipotent is, admittedly, my assumption, which was neither confirmed nor denied by her.

          …because God claimed to have the power to do A and not-A at the same time in the same context [something else for which you would not be able to provide a citation].”

          Not God (he does not exist); CarpenterKarenAnne claimed her god has that power.

          If you really believe that “all” should always apply to sensible/rational & nonsensical/irrational things, you’re stipulating that the laws of logic no longer apply, in which case your argument is invalid/fallacious.

          -Not “things”, men. This is the first of your sentences here the meaning of which I had a tough time understanding.

          If you allow a single fallacy (such as a contradiction where a judge is supposed to sentence a criminal & the same judge is NOT supposed to sentence the same criminal at the same time in the same context; or where a rock manufacturer is supposed to make a rock so big that he can’t move it; or more generically, do something [A] that can’t be done [not-A]), then you’re simply embarrassing yourself for positing the challenge.

          -I still don’t understand what you mean by this sentence. Where have I proposed allowing ‘a single fallacy’? Which ‘challenge’ are you talking about?

          Besides, if you’re aware that you cannot prove that something does not exist, why would you attempt to prove something does not have a particular power?

          -If I cannot prove that Peter Popoff does not exist, why would I attempt to prove he does not have the power to work miracles? The answer should be obvious.

      2. Okay, thanks for your patience while I FREELY CHOSE to cope with my computer’s untimely demise last weekend.

        I was responding to her ideas, not necessarily yours or the Bible’s.”

        She didn’t say God has one personality that wishes some to be damned if they haven’t first had the opportunity to be saved; so I’m merely pointing out that in countering her argument, your assumption was far-fetched.

        Not “things”, men. … Where have I proposed allowing ‘a single fallacy’?”

        You’re assuming that the power to control all people is restricted to people who have NOT been authoritatively granted a modicum of freedom; & then you’re simultaneously contrasting that with people who have been authoritatively granted a modicum of freedom. The contradiction is in your assumption, not in a rational interpretation of CarpenterKarenAnne’s argument (which is based on the Bible, where people are given choices & commanded, which presupposes the freedom to choose).

        The answer should be obvious.”

        It’s not. Think carefully & see if you can answer it directly rather than with a rhetorical question. Again, why would you attempt to prove that Peter Popoff does not have the power to work miracles? Here, let me assist you: He does not have that power because… [You fill in the blank.] It’s one thing to believe that he doesn’t have that power, & go about your life as you may; but why would you attempt to prove it (assuming you know it’s impossible for you to prove the non-existence of something without getting caught in a fallacious circle)?

        1. Well, I did say I was going to respond to you by the end of this year, so I will.

          She didn’t say God has one personality that wishes some to be damned if they haven’t first had the opportunity to be saved; so I’m merely pointing out that in countering her argument, your assumption was far-fetched.

          -She didn’t say that explicitly, but I still don’t think my assumption was far-fetched.

          I can’t see how “free will” makes any sense from any perspective. I think I understand your criticism, though. I assume CarpenterKarenAnne’s god to be omnipotent, and, thus, having already completely determined all human decisions, while most Christians understand God as having given humans a limited ability of choice, which extends to ability to choose religions.

          He does not have that power because

          miracles are extraordinary claims for which Popoff has not given extraordinary evidence.
          Though it is impossible to prove a negative, it is possible to show that a negative is extremely likely given lack of expected evidence.

  2. I, Recess Lady, did not make these comments. However, I do find them very amusing, and I’m still praying for you.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s