Someone needs to strap the Commissar down to a chair and make him watch it. Over and over.

Ok, at exactly 23:20, Kirk Cameron is putting the moves on tha gal he's interviewing. Totally.

"But when I look at you ..."

bill, here's a reprint of my comment at dean's--

ha ha ha!
I recognize that voice!

That is gormless irrelevent annoyance Kirk Cameron, scourge of frontrange hiphop and alternative music stations and stooge for the ubiquitous Focus on the Family group.
Those guys pay for advert time on all the local youth stations and are completely detested and mocked by their target audience.
Switching to another station is automatic when they come on.

I had to forcibly drag my hand back from closing the window in a reflexive action.
You have to wonder if they realize how many potential conversions have been ruined forever by the bad biofeedback loops laid down by their endless proselytizing.

Plus the extreme irony of financially supporting hiphop, gansta, and alternative music culture which is diametrically opposed to everything they stand for.
It is to laff. ;)

you have to wnder if they have any clue at all about how their target audiences view them. In a way it is horribly pathetic.

Bill, I watched it (or most of it) even without being strapped down to a chair. Hey, I believe. I think it was the banana ridges and the hand grooves that persuaded me.

Let me ask you a question, who do you know that is insane? Your mother, your sister?

"A surgeon isn't going to spend his time working on your dandruff when he knows you have heart failure"?

What?

If there is a benevolent god, Kirk Cameron, his representative on earth, would be better prepared in the arena of ideas.

Hilarious.

How many hours do you think they spent finding an atheist that was so ill-prepared as the first man? I could have schooled the Australian dude in one sentence-"Do you eat shellfish?" And I'm fifteen.

Because that rests in the ninety-nine percent of things I don't know.

Damn.
I would bet all the gold in Chinese' mouths that Kirk is going to hell just for this video.

Foster ... you're really 15?

I thought the first man wasn't that bad, pretty much standard responses, they just declared victory after having gotten him to admit that he was more technically an agnostic. But yeah, they seem to miss the point that there is a rather, um, massive gap between agnosticism and following things like Leviticus 11:9-12 (as you point out).

I'd love to be interviewed by Kirk Cameron. He'd wind up feeling like his head was on backwards. Either that or he'd get Boner to hit me.

"I found it silly"

I didn't get the shellfish reference.

Ah, I see. What if he said no?

That whole banana bit suddenly made me think Freud might have actually been on to something.

A well-prepared Christian would have an answer on the shellfish thing; there are parts of the New Testament which basically say these rules don't apply to gentiles.

I prefer to simply gently ask them what they would think of me if I put someone in a dungeon against their will and tortured them with whips and fire, and what that would make me. Then I ask what that would make God.

They don't usually like that question. The best they can do is say that God is beyond human judgements, in which case I simply say, "He's not beyond mine, and if that's how he behaves he's an evil monster. Good day to you."

Sort of cuts right to the heart of the matter, you know?

(Notably, there's no problem having such a discussion with mainline Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox, i.e. the vast majority of Christians worldwide, since their views of these things aren't so extreme as these guys.)

Dean,

I assume you're referring to hell. God doesn't put you there, you must choose it yourself. God would prefer you didn't suffer for eternity. You might be ineterested in reading "Mere Christianity" by Lewis or "Fundamentals of the Faith" by Kreeft, which is more in depth.

Using C.S. Lewis's "Mere Xianity" as a supporting source is the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION. Tho perhaps he's written companion volumes when I wasn't looking (say, over the last 30 years): Mere Islam; Mere Shintu; Mere Hindu; Mere Zoroastroism; Mere fill-in-the-blank.

Dude, you're killing us.

Jacob - I always suspected Judgement Day was really just an excuse to throw a party in heaven. God, presumably, is running the dunking booth.

"Have you ever used God's name in vain?"
"Yeah."
"OK, that's called blasphemy."

Ouch, I'm laughing too hard!

Unka,

What on earth are you talking about?

God would prefer you didn't suffer for eternity.

And this, of course, jibes with the image of an all-powerful, all-loving God exactly not at all.

This isn't like a father giving a child a punishment that passes in a few hours and serves as a lesson on future behavior; the hours are endless and the future is forever lost to that poor soul.

You know, if you believe that nonsense.

Andy,

Hell can be regarded as a punishment, but it is really the fulfillment of valuing yourself over others and over God. If it is your nature to value your wants over everyone else's, then you'd rather be in hell anyway. I would not expect an altruistic atheist would go to hell, but I expect a selfish Christian might.

God is not all powerful in the sense that he will not make your decisions for you. He is all powerful in the sense that he could.

I would not expect an altruistic atheist would go to hell, but I expect a selfish Christian might.

You'd think that such logic would hold true in a just religion, but it apparently doesn't; de facto fealty to that religion, its tenets, its God are rather fundamental prerequisites for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, last I was aware. Which is something that puts the logical off from organized religion, a confused distaste further compounded by the fact that even zealous followers of the religion only follow about half of the rules, about half the time.

Bill, I'm afraid you're getting bad information. The church teaches that salvation is through Christ alone, but not that you have to believe the Christian checklist to go to heaven. Peter Kreeft has said (in the book I mentioned earlier,)"God does not send you to hell for flunking his theology exam." You do not have to have particualar intellectual knowledge to be saved. You do have to have faith - the desire to do good, repentance for the bad things you've done, and love towards your fellow man might be a reasonable approximation of faith for an atheist. It is fairly involved, and I am by no means an expert. I suggest you read Kreeft if you are interested in learning what the Church actually teaches.

Bill, I'm afraid you're getting bad information.

Actually no, I'm not, as ...

The church teaches that salvation is through Christ alone,

... is particularly what I'm referring to, though more specific tenets do have similar, if lesser, power. Bottom line: Accept Christ as savior or burn. Jews, Muslims, kindhearted atheists will not get a pass into heaven, as you wrongly intimate.

I reject this fundamental prerequisite to organized faith. I'm insulted by its hubris, cruelty and situational malleability in declaring the apparently evident triumph of a tiny sliver of belief among the many beliefs held by billions and billions of followers throughout human history. It's so irrational as to be ridiculous, to my eye.

Bill,

You apparently didn't read what I just wrote. I just explained why "Jews, Muslims, kindhearted atheists will not get a pass into heaven." is false.

insufferable much? I read what you wrote, and am familiar enough with Christian theology to know that your specific interpretation of Christianity, as espoused by an academic named Peter Kreeft, is in direct contravention to both what is contained (as a literally outlined and fundamental tenet) in the Bible and what is also directly taught by a majority of Christian faiths throughout the world. Throughout the history of the faith.

The fact that you speak as if this liberal interpretation of Christianity is a self-evident fact is odd to the point of silly eccentricity or childish naivete, and flies in the face of a couple thousand years of Christian doctrine and history. Coupled with your arrogance over a highly subjective concept ("you're getting wrong information," "you didn't read what I wrote," "false") this puts you in singularly obnoxious commenting territory.

But don't take my word for it - go try out your ostensibly de facto interpretation of the liberal admittance policy to heaven on a devout Catholic or an evangelical, and get back to me on what they think. Though I can spare you the trip to the Vatican: "Faith to do good and feel sorry about doing bad even if you reject Jesus and God" does not amount to "the belief in God and Christ as savior and official repentance," in the eyes of most Christians on the planet. That planet, by the way, is called "Earth."

Bottom line: I read what you wrote, I just think you're objectively wrong, only potentially subjectively "right," in the view of a number of liberal Christians and certain theologists that you marshall as evidence.

I picked up a few things in Catholic instruction, you know.

"A well-prepared Christian would have an answer on the shellfish thing"

Honestly, now, does Kirk Cameron look like a well-prepared Christian?

Doogie there has been in some unintentionally humorous Jeezo-Apocalypse movies that I've run across a few times. Not as bust-your-gut funny as Tilton or Robertson, but worth a few chuckles. The bit about the banana was great. Thanks for providing the timings, because I couldn't sit through that whole thing.

A friend of mine who sometimes switches into Proselytization Mode ™ with me when he knows better usually just gets a reminder/warning that he's making me sleepy, but one time when he was too persistent I brought up some of the fun Leviticus material. He told me that I was being ignorant and mean.

Gay-nanna.

The lipophilic cuticular wax. The pentagonal tip. The generous compound radius. The little handle on the end so it doesn't get lost. And look, it fits perfectly.

When Ali G returns from the Chomsky interview, he needs to go talk big chiquita with the Reverend Dude.

I prefer to simply gently ask them what they would think of me if I put someone in a dungeon against their will and tortured them with whips and fire, and what that would make me. Then I ask what that would make God.

I'm confused. Are you implying God is into S&M?

You know, it's interesting to consider Einstein's view of God, because both atheists and the religious try to claim it for their arguments. What Einstein basically said was that God was in the physical laws of the universe, the majesty of creation that allows beings like ourselves to live and love and experience the consciousness we do.

This argument seems especially persuasive here, at the peak of human civiliation, with technological comforts that make the average American the envy of any medieval lord. Anyone from more than a century or so ago would be hard-pressed to believe such things could even exist. Perhaps the fact that they do says something profoud about the nature of our existence.

Perhaps the fact that they do says something profoud about the nature of our existence.

Yes, that we're a very inventive and creative species, dreaming up everything from the toaster to God.

But in a larger sense, it wouldn't matter how inventive we were if the laws of physics forbade such things.

Bill,
I'm sorry I pissed you off - I didn't realize I was speaking to someone with signficant knowledge of Christianity. A more orthodox source to back up my statements is the catechism of the Catholic Church. See nos. 846-848. The relevant statement is from lumen gentium http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
see number 16

If you still disagree with me, I give up.

Myself I see the three letters which make up the word ‘god’ as representing a very very simple prehistoric and broad concept: i.e. “The reason for everything” or “The reason for life and death”.

When you ask so called atheists "if you believe in god?" and they say "no", what they hear you say, and what you mean is, "do you believe in my definiton of god, my reasons for Life and death?"

Both are staring at the three lettered word g-o-d and often never get to the reasons and definitions.

So its not really that an "atheist" can not or does not "believe" in god, its that he, and most others, dont know that the general term "god"
can be used to refer to whatever is in your "bundle" of explanations and what matters is the reasoning of your bundle.

To use the word g-o-d without qualification is like pointing to a room full of people and asking your friend “do you see that guy?”, and instead of your friend saying: "which guy do you mean?" he says "I dont believe in guys". And you let him forever be known as someone who cant see guys at all.

The big question is simply whether someone “believes” in Reason...a reason for Everything, a reason for anything.
Now usually everyone will say yes to that. Disagreement comes when we start specifying our reasons.

Insisting that the other person cant use the word god to describe their reasons is like insisting they cant use the word reason to describe their reasons.

Then we all sit an argue about using that word.

amazing.

If you have your reason, for anything, you have your god.

So then the question is not whether they or you have a reason or use the same word for reason, but rather whether your both civlized enough to compare and test your reasons and reach common understanding.

an civilization itself is nothing more than a set of common understandings.

There.

Jacob:

That's a decent explanation for people who have not received the Gospel. But there's a big difference between saying a Jew or Muslim can get to heaven and a Jew or Muslim is likely to get to heaven. It seems to essentially to serve as a sort of "pass" for those who, through no fault of their own, lived in a time or place where there was simply no access to the Gospel. (e.g. people who lived anytime before B.C., Native Americans before Columbus, etc.) That's most likely the common view of many Christians (I've personally met some hardline Calvinist evangelicals who believe those people are going to hell because they were predestined by God to go to hell), but it won't help the majority of non-Christians. Jews and Muslims deny the divinity of Christ, if they were to hear the Word and still deny that "Christ is Lord", they would pretty much be SOL.

Mainly it gives them a pass because they did at least recognize one "God" even if they got a lot of the particulars wrong. How on earth that would allow for a kindhearted atheist, someone who explicitly rejects the idea of a god, to enter heaven is beyond me. (Well, not totally beyond me. It's called "salvation by works" and seems to be rejected by most Christian churches. But I am not an expert.)

dorkafork,

As I said before Bill popped a vein, I also am not an expert. It is explained slightly more clearly in the catechism. The situation of atheists is more complicated. I have neither the time nor the expertise to go into it further, but I have seen Albert Camus given as an example of an atheist who very likely could be in heaven, whereas Jean Paul Sartre is almost certainly not.

Regarding lumen gentium: Other religions are not "given a pass" because they also believe in God. They may be saved by striving to follow the will of God as known in their conscience. I think this statement, "Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life." is an oblique reference to agnostics/atheists. The statement doesn't really clear up the issue of atheism, in my opinion.

Despite Bill's assertion, Peter Kreeft and C.S. Lewis are considered quite orthodox, and either of the books I previously recommended are an easy to read source on these matters.

I think the context of that statement is pretty clear.

And I have to wonder if you're misunderstanding Peter Kreeft's arguments. Surely this passage is an argument against salvation by works?

What is heaven's entrance ticket? What is the Way, the Truth and the Life?

I am horrified to report that I've asked this question of hundreds of Catholic college students, and far fewer than half have known the answer. This means that the Church's religious education has been not a failure but an inexcusable disaster. Most reply either "God is good to everybody" or "I'm basically a good person."

If anyone out there is unsure of the correct answer, then for the love of God get out your Bible and study for your finals! To save you time—since you may die while reaching for your Bible—I will quote God's scandalously simple answer to the most important question in the world, how to get to heaven: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

dorka - I won't get into the "faith without works" discussion. But 'striving to follow your conscience" is not justification by works. You can be a serial killer and still (possibly) 'strive' to follow your conscience. On the other hand, you could ignore your conscience, and do good things just because you're a really boring guy, and therefore not be saved. As far as I know, justification by works means that, regardless of the state of your soul, having a sufficient positive balance on your good deeds ledger will buy your spot in heaven.

If you still disagree with me, I give up.

I still disgree with you.

And I'll point out the fundamental hole in your argument and specific citation - the Catholic Church saying that individuals may get in if they acknowledge a different God in good faith is different than saying an avowed atheist can explicitly reject God (and his son) and get into the Happy Place. There is a reason why pascal made his wager.

PS - I don't "bust a vein" until someone argues like a dick. There are room for your arguments, but

A. They do not represent Christianity's default position

B. You assert them as if they do, objectively, ignoring the bulk of direct contradictions.

I just thought the video was a joke. seriously. and i thought it was all penis innuendo. so did my friends, specially the gay ones. lol. and now i find out that it was serious! and christians think it is serious! lol!

I am completely converted!!! Wow, the argumant he lays down here is jsut too good to refute! I mean, if something exists, didn't something have to MAKE it to exist? It makes so much sense... But... wait... if God exists, then what made him??? I mean, nothing can MAKE God, right??? *zapped with cattleprod* oh that's right! I don't need to question faith! I jsut need to be a mindless zombie! Christ rules!

Charli: for you, from Chester's remark to the video on onegoodmove.org [April 23, 2006 07:49 PM
]:

=== === ===
My girlfriend says "But how can a soda can exist unless something or someone made it? Don't you see? It's a metaphor, like for the universe, ok?"

"Ok, ok fine. But then the same thing applies to God, who made God?

"No one made God, God is just God."

"Yeah but you just said that a thing can't exist unless something made it. How can God exist unless something made it!?"

"I don't get it."

"I mean how can something exist unless something made it!? You just said that!"

"So."

"SO!! What do you mean SO!?"

"So you're just being stubborn that's all. I think you really do believe in God."

"No I don't. I really don't."

"Yes you do."

"I'm going to bed."
=== === === ===

Jacob, the notion that "good" nonbelievers go to heaven is by no means a universally held belief among Christians.

It would be more appropriate for you to take up this discussion up with a conservative evangelical.

thank you very much for your help. You guys 56452 rock, thanks again.

ionolsen20 HI! I love this place!www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

ionolsen40 So interesting site, thanks! WFVT 55 cdfe

viagra gum .

I agree with Jacob. But Jacob, Don't be sorry about offending people try not to of course but telling people that they need God is ultimately gonna offend people. Bill, you can know a lot about christianity and not be an expert. Remeber that. Drina, congratulations, I am an conservative christian. one question though, why is it more appropriate for Jacob to have the conversation with me? I thought the whole point of most of these things was to voice your opinions and argue with people who don't agree. Yes, I am writing because I am too stupid not to. The rest of you, all this talk about the banana being a body part is untrue and frankly, SICK. I think next time you should listen to him. The banana is a part of creation so it must have a creator a building must have a builder, it is part of the man-made world, the painting must have a painter. Make sense?