The other day I came across an atheist blog that was hysterically over-reacting to a defense of the doctrine of God's just retribution. In "answering" this rational argument the demonstrate their totally inability to think in any rational way about basic humanity. It's railing against a member of the CADRE called "BK."
The blog is called "Hallq."
The Hitler answers shows real inability to understand the issue. The fact that they aren't singled out as "atheists" indicates their atheism is not excusable. They just happen to be hiding in the masses of innocent victims. Of course being atheists doesn't mean that they deserved to be killed by Hitler so there's no reason to single them out on the basis that some of his victims "might" have been atheists. But we reall have no way of knowing anyway, so why make a category of which we cannot be sure?BK’s defense of damnation for non-believers
January 11, 2010 by Chris Hallquist |
BK starts off by saying that atheists never make the list of non-Christians who don’t deserve to go to hell. I should point out that there’s a sense in which that isn’t true–Hitler’s victims are usually mentioned in these discussions (though BK avoids doing so)–and the Nazis didn’t care about actual religious beliefs, I’m guessing that’s hundreds of thousands of atheists implicitly mentioned in the usual discussions.
But never mind the whole thing about God doing worse things to Hitler’s victims than Hitler did. A few people who’ve commented on this have made things a bit more personal. Here’s Charles Darwin:
He quotes BK himself:
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.His answer:
I could list, among others, my girlfriend, a couple of previous girlfriends, two of my three roommates, the aunt and uncle I just spent the last weekend with, and myself. A great deal of fundie rhetoric around Hell plays on normal people being to modest to say they don’t deserve to go there, but no one should be afraid to say this any more than they should be afraid to tell a fundie “I don’t deserve to be shot for not following your religion.” But for the incurably modest, I recommend Darwin’s strategy the next time you have to discuss Hell with a fundie.
Like most atheists he totally misses the point. He's so busy fearing hell that he can't even think rationally. The point BK made was that Christians are not trying to get some kind of leverage over people they are genuinely reacting to something that they believe to be a problem, they are trying to help the people they care about. All the little atheist can think about is how to dump more crap on Christian's heads.He tuns it into people being too modest to say they don't deserve hell but the original issue is not that, it's about people who believe in hell trying to respond to what they perceive is something those they love genuinely need to be saved from. The concept of really caring about people being saved totally alludes the atheist.
BK’s entire response to this problem is to whine about an “entitlement mentality”–among the examples of which BK mentions the fact that people think we are entitled to freedom of speech. BK responds that, no, these things have to be paid for, people have worked and fought for free speech. What this fails to see is that right and wrong exist even when nobody can defend them. People have a right to free speech, and this means that if a tyrannical government is shooting dissidents, this is wrong even if there’s no George Washington to lead a revolution against the government.He proves BK right in his inability to think fairly about the issue. BK points out the atheist's sense of entitlement which says "I want what I want the laws of the good be banned. I deserve my desires because I hold them, not because I earned them but because I have them, and no amount of God being right deserves to get in my way." It's an attitude of totally selfishness, me first, screw what is right and good. Calling him on his selfishness is "whining." Then he tries to put it in terms of right and wrong, but is the "right" for which he struggles? His right to ignore what is true and good, his right to flip the bird at God and go his own way. No one is questioning the right of Americans to fee speech so did that get in there?
It's really in terms of the commenter that they demonstrate their true loss proportion.
Fist one I noticed, our old buddy Hermit who has often times graced the pages of this blog with his own inimitable brand of nagging:
A Hermit on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 4:19 pmThat is true irrationality. To think that winding up with the fate that atheists choose to accept when they shuck belief and chase off after a life style based upon non-belief, is just as "inhumane" as burning on fire every minute for eternity with no break and no chance of ever getting off, how can that possibly compare? What a loony tune idea is that to put those two things on the same level!??
I’m having a discussion with BK’s friend Metacrock over at his blog where he presents a different point of view. According to Metacrock there is no Hell; it’s just a metaphor for the suffering we experience if we don’t seek God. The natural consequence of this failure to seek God, he says, is the destruction of our otherwise everlasting soul after physical death.
This is supposed to be a more loving, humane version of Christian doctrine but it seems to me to be every bit as reprehensible as BK’s more fundamentalist version.
I came to comment here after finding a link to you on the Freedom Blog. Apparently Metacrock is a fan of theirs, and linked approvingly to their post about you on his atheistwatch blog. Thought you’d like you know…;-)
Of course it's because his brain has been so shrunken by atheism that he can longer comprehend the idea that he makes God his enemy why should he be rewarded for that when the friends of God are being murdered. I'm not saying that God is really setting it up that way. But just consider for a minute the two ideas in comparison. His choice as an atheist is a choice that says "I will some day cease to exist for all eternity" and that's go to be ok enough with him that he's willing to live with that as opposed to seeking out another belief that offers a different hope.
when he thinks God set it up that way suddenly it becomes really bad and evil. why? He chose it anyway what's the difference?
Stevie Carr, long time idiot who has bothered the posting community for years with his lack of insight:
Do you think Jesus should be in Heaven?First of all, here's true proof that his judgment is impaired. He says Hitler should be in heaven. Not that he is less evil than a God who sends people to hell, but that he should be in heaven! why? what makes Hitler worthy of heaven? He still murdered millions of innocent people. For no better reason than that he's being judged by God who Stevie hates becuase Stevie doesn't want give up his little pet sins, that makes Jesus more evil than Hitler and it makes Hitler worthy of heaven! What could be a more distorted view of reality?
Of course Hitler should be in Heaven. He is a better person than your Jesus, who is going to have Jews in Hell forever.
If you think what Hitler did to the Jews is bad, just wait until Jesus gets through with them.
Secondly, he assumes that Jews are going to hell automatically becasue they are Jews. Nothing like that is ever said in the New Testament it's a lame assertion. The qualification must at least be made by the most conservative fundamentalist to limit it to the Jews who lived in Jesus day and after. All the Jews who came before were judged under the law. But Paul says Jews are judged under the law (Romans 1-2). So that applied to the Christian era and beyond. If Jews live under the law they qualify for the entreaties of the law just as though Jesus never came. Jesus never says he's going to send people to hell just because the are Jews! Stevie distorts the phrase "if these miracles had been done in tyre (these real sinful places) they would have repented. Hes not saying "you are going to hell" he's saying "you don't recognize your own guy." If hell is not the literal place with fire and brimstone then obviously they are not going there anyway. Even taking that passage head on as a conservative fundie it does not say that!
Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
Jesus is worse than Hitler because he would send little Stevie into the pit for nothing worse than the fact that little Stevie spends most of his waking hours trying to convince people to choose hell too. But it's Jesus who must pay for wanting people to be good! How messed up can one get? What sense of equilibrium would but God's righteousness on a level with Hitler merely one's own selfishness leads him to choose oblivion over truth? These guys have serious problems in distorted proportion. The just fact that Hitler wanted to kill all Jews and Jesus wanted to save all Jews, regardless of what result came from rejecting his help should make Jesus better than Hitler even one denies his deity. But the wacked out equilibrium of the atheist, demented form years of selfishness is too screwed up to place real problems along side those they create for themselves.
I want mine! I want mine now! I want mine cause I want it! I don't care what's true or right. They are willing slughter the turth they are willing to lie about anything. No lie is too great, to hurt placed upon the enemy (sweet loving people who care) is too evil to hold back in the serive of my holy wants and desires which must outweigh all that is good.
But of cousre we are up against the self righteous moralizing of the PC crowd who like to pretend that they on the side of the good more so than Christians. Evil old Christians don't go to fund raisers for the local peace group, and most of them tend to be politically conservative so they are evil. I'm so into peace it would be a real sin to send me to hell, of course they have to put their own little judgment above that of the center of right and truth and the good, because they have little self saving PC crap to pat themselves on the back about.
Hermit is right that I don't believe in hell. I don't think God would cause people burn for eternity for any reason. It's not a just settlement. But is the alternative really total cessation of existence for anyone not "saved?" Or are all saved? I don't know. If they are saved automatically it's because of what Jesus did for them, but they will never be grateful because they believe they are supposed to be rewarded for being God's enemies and despising him. It never dawns on them how they put themselves agaisnt God and the truth everyday on message boards, but their abilities to weigh truths and consequences are so screwed from selfishness they have no sense of proportion anymore.
Of course Hermit is only half way quoting what I've said, I have said the cessation thing is the way I see it. But that's only tentative, my views are always in transition as I learn more things, I'm not fully committed to that ideas. What I am committed to is the idea that there's a truth apart from the desires of these precious little denizens of the hate group and they can't see it and they don't care.
No comments:
Post a Comment