Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[BigDongedHoe]

I get it. Would no work or deeds work better? You understand the point I was trying to make.

Different from Muslims who think they have to live a strict disciplined lifestyle which I actually respect. Muslims as a whole are much more devout than Protestants. If we had as much discipline (myself included) as them we would be much better examples of Christ.

[ninjaface]

Honestly, not trying to be a dick here or anything, but maybe I don't fully get your point and I think perhaps you still don't totally get Blonde's.

You basically said no "work or doings" can get you "his love". Then you said "All I have to do is..

I'm pretty sure if you do something that is considered a doing.

[vaga1220 *]

BigDongedHoe's posts hurt my brain.

[BigDongedHoe]

I got it... thats why I changed it to works or deeds.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

I got it... thats why I changed it to works or deeds.

A deed is still something you do

[ninjaface]

I'm hoping DDTempest said it in a way you can understand. If so, that was the point Blonde was trying to make. If not... please explain what you dont understand about a "deed", or "work", or "doing" all meaning the exact same thing: an action that is performed intentionally or consciously.

[Ugly Bastard]

An uber-lame thread is getting even more lame. Alright, we get it, BDH said something contradictory. Can we move on now? I think it was pretty clear what he meant.

[ninjaface]

As often as it happens, I feel like this is a bit more important, but I also recognize that it could be the same as all the other times and he will "explain" it away and nothing will come of this.

[BigDongedHoe]

I'm not going to argue semantics. Forgive my ignorance.

[Repugnant Abomination]

My point stands. By putting him first you're putting yourself first, because it's in your best interest to do so.

[Dent]

Author Christopher Hitchens diagnosed with cancer | Books | The Guardian

[Dent]

YouTube

YouTube

!

[zebrazebrazebraSHAFT]

Originally Posted by Dent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L640v...ayer_embedded#!

"How could an african-american person evolve from a white person? Wur differnt skin."

How telling.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dent

Author Christopher Hitchens diagnosed with cancer | Books | The Guardian

God is clearly punishing him.


In regard to BDH's "More than a Carpenter" book, i've been reading it on and off, i'm finding it difficult to read nonfiction while traveling. I take most nonfiction pretty seriously and try to "study" it rather than just read, and fiction is much easier for lounging in buses, trains or beaches. However, i've read about half of it and the pages are stained blue in notations. The book is extremely frustrating to read primarily because from page 1, practically all the author does is quote the Bible as a definitive source. Example:

This statement from the Bible HAS to be true because it says it in Ezekiel XX:XX, and Luke XX:XX.

I'm currently finishing the chapter on the historical accuracy of the Bible, during which the author states that there exist more legitimate ancient scripts from the Bible than any other ancient text (The Illiad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, etc, other historical documents about wars and historical happenings) that nobody dares question like they do the Bible. This is simply put aside by saying that in almost all of these historical cases, no one is claiming to be a god, and that they healed the sick, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. etc. Those that DID claim these things (Greek mythology, for example) are nowadays obviously not taken seriously and are looked at as exaggerated tales of real events (what I believe the Bible to be) or simply fabrications.

"Why do YOU think most of the human race doesn't regard the Bible with the same kind of historical nonchalance as they do with Greek (or any other ancient) mythology?" COULD IT BE EVIDENCE, IN IT'S TRUEST FORM, OF THE THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?!

Seriously, there are ridiculously loaded questions in the margins every few pages just like the one above, with only one Christ-implicated answer possible given the phrasing. The book on the whole makes pretty good logical sense---If you believe that every single thing in the Bible is true. It also practically only quotes Biblical or Christian scholars to back up of all it's claims, which gives way to the kind of "putting on the blinders"/"lalaalallala i can't hear you Jesus is LORD!" bias I mentioned earlier in this thread.


Anyways, just wanted to update and say i've been reading it, but have been pretty busy to give it a serious post. I'll try and put all my notes together in the form of a critique post in the coming weeks.

[zebrazebrazebraSHAFT]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I'm currently finishing the chapter on the historical accuracy of the Bible, during which the author states that there exist more legitimate ancient scripts from the Bible than any other ancient text (The Illiad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, etc, other historical documents about wars and historical happenings) that nobody dares question like they do the Bible. This is simply put aside by saying that in almost all of these historical cases, no one is claiming to be a god, and that they healed the sick, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. etc. Those that DID claim these things (Greek mythology, for example) are nowadays obviously not taken seriously and are looked at as exaggerated tales of real events (what I believe the Bible to be) or simply fabrications.

"Why do YOU think most of the human race doesn't regard the Bible with the same kind of historical nonchalance as they do with Greek (or any other ancient) mythology?" COULD IT BE EVIDENCE, IN IT'S TRUEST FORM, OF THE THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?!

That is a pretty weak assumption the author is making, I've always thought that Christians regarded the bible more accurate than say the Iliad, because the Iliad was written 300-400 after the events that took place, whereas the bible (new testament) was written within the lifetime of possible eye-witnesses.

[Fruitacious B]

Originally Posted by zebrazebrazebraSHAFT

whereas the bible (new testament) was written within the lifetime of possible eye-witnesses.

doubtful

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by zebrazebrazebraSHAFT

That is a pretty weak assumption the author is making, I've always thought that Christians regarded the bible more accurate than say the Iliad, because the Iliad was written 300-400 after the events that took place, whereas the bible (new testament) was written within the lifetime of possible eye-witnesses.

Yes, that's what the author says. Did I say something different?

[zebrazebrazebraSHAFT]

Originally Posted by Fruitacious B

doubtful

I'm basing that off Wikipedia which gives a list of secular scholar date ranges:

Mark: c. 68–73,[14] c 65-70[3]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[14] c 80-85.[3] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[14], c 80-85[3]
John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90–110,[15] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Yes, that's what the author says. Did I say something different?

I thought [you said] the author was making a case for the historicity of the bible based on the fact that people don't believe greek mythology thus its evidence of the holy spirit?

[DDTempest]

YouTube

YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by zebrazebrazebraSHAFT

I thought [you said] the author was making a case for the historicity of the bible based on the fact that people don't believe greek mythology thus its evidence of the holy spirit?

No, I was being sarcastic when I made that remark.

[Mr. Blonde]

Mel Gibson's tirades are the distilled violence, cruelty, and bigotry of right-wing Catholic ideology. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

great article, learned a couple new words (as I always do when I read anything Hitchens writes) as well as a lot about Mel Gibson's family fucked-upedness. Personally I care much more about the existence of these religious groups in themselves than Mel Gibson or pretty much anyone that has anything to do with Hollywood, so....

Hutton Gibson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mr. Blonde]

HOWWWWL-LE-LU-LA

YouTube

YouTube

more where that came from: Christian Nightmares

[Dent]

Topic of Cancer | Culture | Vanity Fair

[Mr. Blonde]

YouTube

YouTube

I like the part at the end where he addresses the ridiculous " there are no atheists in foxholes" argument.

Related:

[Mr. Blonde]

A Message to Those Praying for Christopher Hitchens - Culture - The Atlantic