Welcome to Doomsday (The John Hagee Phenomena)

[Nbadan]

Welcome to Doomsday
By Bill Moyers


There are times when what we journalists see and intend to write about dispassionately sends a shiver down the spine, shaking us from our neutrality. This has been happening to me frequently of late as one story after another drives home the fact that the delusional is no longer marginal but has come in from the fringe to influence the seats of power. We are witnessing today a coupling of ideology and theology that threatens our ability to meet the growing ecological crisis. Theology asserts propositions that need not be proven true, while ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The combination can make it impossible for a democracy to fashion real-world solutions to otherwise intractable challenges.

In the just-concluded election cycle, as Mark Silk writes in Religion in the News,


the assiduous cultivation of religious constituencies by the Bush apparat, and the undisguised intrusion of evangelical leaders and some conservative Catholic hierarchs into the presidential campaign, demonstrated that the old rule of maintaining a decent respect for the nonpartisanship of religion can now be broken with impunity.

The result is what the Italian scholar Emilio Gentile, quoted in Silk's newsletter, calls "political religion"—religion as an instrument of political combat. On gay marriage and abortion— the most conspicuous of the "non-negotiable" items in a widely distributed Catholic voter's guide—no one should be surprised what this political religion portends. The agenda has been foreshadowed for years, ever since Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other right-wing Protestants set out to turn white evangelicals into a solid Republican voting bloc and reached out to make allies of their former antagonists, conservative Catholics.

What has been less apparent is the impact of the new political religion on environmental policy. Evangelical Christians have been divided. Some were indifferent. The majority of conservative evangelicals, on the other hand, have long hooked their view to the account in the first book of the Bible:


So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

There are widely varying interpretations of this text, but it is safe to say that all presume human beings have inherited the earth to be used as they see fit. For many, God's gift to Adam and Eve of "dominion" over the earth and all its creatures has been taken as the right to unlimited exploitation. But as Blaine Harden reported recently in The Washington Post, some evangelicals are beginning to "go for the green." Last October the National Association of Evangelicals adopted an "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," affirming that "God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." The declaration acknowledged that for the sake of clean air, clean water, and adequate resources, the government "has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

But even for green activists in evangelical circles, Harden wrote, "there are landmines."


Welcome to the Rapture!


There are millions of Christians who believe the Bible is literally true, word for word. Some of them—we'll come back to the question of how many— subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the nineteenth century by two immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them with their own hallucinations into a narrative foretelling the return of Jesus and the end of the world. Google the "Rapture Index" and you will see just how the notion has seized the imagination of many a good and sincere believer (you will also see just where we stand right now in the ticking of the clock toward the culmination of history in the apocalypse). It is the inspiration for the best-selling books in America today—the twelve novels in the Left Behind series by Christian fundamentalist and religious- right warrior Tim LaHaye, a co- founder with Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority.

The plot of the Rapture—the word never appears in the Bible although some fantasists insist it is the hidden code to the Book of Revelation—is rather simple, if bizarre. (The British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for refreshing my own insights.) Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the Antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned the Messiah will return for the Rapture. True believers will be transported to heaven where, seated at the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents writhe in the misery of plagues—boils, sores, locusts, and frogs—during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I read the literature, including The Rapture Exposed, a recent book by Barbara Rossing, who teaches the New Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, and America Right or Wrong, by Anatol Lieven, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. On my weekly broadcast for PBS, we reported on these true believers, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the Rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. To this end they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers.

For them the invasion of Iraq was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelation, where four angels "bound in the great river Euphrates" will be released "to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed—an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the Rapture Index stood at 144—approaching the critical threshold when the prophesy is fulfilled, the whole thing blows, the Son of God returns, and the righteous enter paradise while sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

What does this mean for public policy and the environment? Listen to John Hagee, pastor of the 17,000- member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, who is quoted in Rossing's book as saying: "Mark it down, take it to heart, and comfort one another with these words. Doomsday is coming for the earth, for the nations, and for individuals, but those who have trusted in Jesus will not be present on earth to witness the dire time of tribulation." Rossing sums up the message in five words that she says are basic Rapture credo: "The world cannot be saved." It leads to "appalling ethics," she reasons, because the faithful are relieved of concern for the environment, violence, and everything else except their personal salvation. The earth suffers the same fate as the unsaved. All are destroyed.

How many true believers are there? It's impossible to pin down. But there is a constituency for the End Times. A Newsweek poll found that 36 percent of respondents held the Book of Revelation to be "true prophesy." (A Time/ CNN poll reported that one quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.) Drive across the country with your radio tuned to some of the 1,600 Christian radio stations or turn to some of the 250 Christian TV stations and you can hear the Gospel of the Apocalypse in sermon and song. Or go, as The Toronto Star's Tom Harpur did, to the Florida Panhandle where he came across an all-day conference "at one of the largest Protestant churches I have ever been in," the Village Baptist Church in Destin. The theme of the day was "Left Behind: A Conference on Biblical Prophecy about End Times" and among the speakers were none other than Tim LaHaye and two other leading voices in the religious right today, Gary Frazier and Ed Hindson. Here is what Harpur wrote for his newspaper:


I have never heard so much venom and dangerous ignorance spouted before an utterly unquestioning, otherwise normal-looking crowd in my life.... There were stunning statements about humans having been only 6,000 years on Earth and other denials of contemporary geology and biology. And we learned that the Rapture, which could happen any second now, but certainly within the next 40 years, will instantly sweep all the "saved" Americans (perhaps one-half the population) to heaven....

But these fantasies were harmless compared with the hatred against Islam that followed. Here are some direct quotes: "Islam is an intolerant religion—and it's clear whose side we should be on in the Middle East." Applause greeted these words: "Allah and Jehovah are not the same God.... Islam is a Satanic religion.... They're going to attack Israel for certain...." Gary Frazier shouted at the top of his lungs: "Wake Up! Wake Up!" And roughly eight hundred heads (at $25.00 per) nodded approval as he added that the left-wing, anti-Israel media—"for example, CNN"—will never tell the world the truth about Islam. According to these three, and the millions of Americans they lead, Muslims intend ultimately "to impose their religion on us all." It was clear, Harpur wrote: "A terrible, final war in the region is inevitable."

You can understand why people in the grip of such fantasies cannot be expected to worry about the environment. As Glenn Scherer writes in his report for the on-line environmental magazine Grist, why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? Why bother to convert to alternative sources of energy and reduce dependence on oil from the volatile Middle East? Anyway, until Christ does return, the Lord will provide.

Scherer came upon a high school history book, America's Providential History, which is used in fundamentalist circles. Students are told that "the secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie…that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." The Christian, however, "knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's Earth.... While many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

While it is impossible to know how many people hold these views, we do know that fundamentalists constitute a large and powerful proportion of the Republican base, and, as Anatol Lieven writes, "fundamentalist religiosity has become an integral part of the radicalization of the right in the US and of the tendency to demonize political opponents as traitors and enemies of God and America"—including, one must note, environmentalists, who are routinely castigated as villains and worse by the right. No wonder Karl Rove wandered the White House whistling "Onward Christian Soldiers" as he prepared for the 2004 elections.

I am not suggesting that fundamentalists are running the government, but they constitute a significant force in the coalition that now holds a monopoly of power in Washington under a Republican Party that for a generation has been moved steadily to the right by its more extreme variants even as it has become more and more beholden to the corporations that finance it. One is foolish to think that their bizarre ideas do not matter. I have no idea what President Bush thinks of the fundamentalists' fantastical theology, but he would not be president without them. He suffuses his language with images and metaphors they appreciate, and they were bound to say amen when Bob Woodward reported that the President "was casting his vision, and that of the country, in the grand vision of God's master plan."

That will mean one thing to Dick Cheney and another to Tim LaHaye, but it will confirm their fraternity in a regime whose chief characteristics are ideological disdain for evidence and theological distrust of science. Many of the constituencies who make up this alliance don't see eye to eye on many things, but for President Bush's master plan for rolling back environmental protections they are united. A powerful current connects the administration's multinational corporate cronies who regard the environment as ripe for the picking and a hard-core constituency of fundamentalists who regard the environment as fuel for the fire that is coming. Once again, populist religion winds up serving the interests of economic elites.

The corporate, political, and religious right's hammerlock on environmental policy extends to the US Congress. Nearly half of its members before the election—231 legislators in all (more since the election)—are backed by the religious right, which includes several powerful fundamentalist leaders like LaHaye. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups. Not one includes the environment as one of their celebrated "moral values."

When I talk about this before a live audience I can see from the look on the faces before me just how hard it is for a journalist to report on such things with any credibility. So let me put on a personal level what sends the shiver down my spine.

I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. I confess to having always been an optimist. Now, however, I remember my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered, "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I believed that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe this—it's just that as a journalist I have been trained to read the news and connect the dots.

I read that the administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:

• that wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the national Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural resources;

• that wants to relax pollution limits for ozone, eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport utility vehicles, and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment;

• that wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public;

• that wants to drop all its New-Source Review suits against polluting coal-fired power plans and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies;

• that wants to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America;

• that is radically changing the management of our national forests to eliminate critical environmental reviews, open them to new roads, and give the timber companies a green light to slash and cut as they please.
I read the news and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency plotted to spend $9 million—$2 million of it from the President's friends at the American Chemistry Council—to pay poor families to continue the use of pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry concocted a scheme to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read that President Bush has more than one hundred high-level officials in his administration overseeing industries they once represented as lobbyists, lawyers, or corporate advocates—company insiders waved through the revolving door of government to assure that drug laws, food policies, land use, and the regulation of air pollu-tion are industry-friendly. Among the "advocates-turned-regulators" are a former meat industry lobbyist who helps decide how meat is labeled; a former drug company lobbyist who influences prescription drug policies; a former energy lobbyist who, while accepting payments for bringing clients into his old lobbying firm, helps to determine how much of our public lands those former clients can use for oil and gas drilling.

I read that civil penalties imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency against polluters in 2004 hit an fifteen-year low, in what amounts to an extended holiday for industry from effective compliance with environmental laws.

I read that the administration's allies at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon-Mobil and others of like mind and interest, have issued a report describing global warming as "a myth" at practically the same time the President, who earlier rejected the international treaty outlining limits on greenhouse gases, wants to prevent any "written or oral report" from being issued by any international meetings on the issue.

I read not only the news but the fine print of a recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with ob-scure amendments removing all endangered species protections from pesticides, prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon, waiving environmental review for grazing permits on public lands, and weakening protection against development for crucial habitats in California.

I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer —pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age twelve; Thomas, ten; Nancy, eight; Jassie, three; SaraJane, one. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then the shiver runs down my spine and I am seized by the realization: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."

And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?

What has happened to our moral imagination?

On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"

I see it feelingly.

Why don't we feel the world enough to save it—for our kin to come?

The news is not good these days. But as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. The will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. We must match the science of human health to what the ancient Israelites called hochma—the science of the heart, the capacity to see and feel and then to act as if the future depended on us.

Believe me, it does.

Bill Moyers, The NY Review (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852)

[Useruser666]

Man, that was the most boring scrolling I've ever done! And I don't like Hagee.

[Jekka]

Man, that was the most boring scrolling I've ever done! And I don't like Hagee.

Hagee uses the church as his financial platform, nothing more. When you stand up in front of millions of viewers and say, "The Bible is the best financial handbook ever created, and let me tell you why," there's a problem. When you say, "Anything you give to this church you will receive back in tenfold by the grace of God," there's a problem. As uncredible as he is, I wish more of the sheepish masses would see it - they're not blindly following God, they're blindly following Hagee - from their wallets to the polls.

[travis2]

It is quite possible to be religious, be a conservative, and not follow John Hagee...

[Clandestino]

Hagee uses the church as his financial platform, nothing more. When you stand up in front of millions of viewers and say, "The Bible is the best financial handbook ever created, and let me tell you why," there's a problem. When you say, "Anything you give to this church you will receive back in tenfold by the grace of God," there's a problem. As uncredible as he is, I wish more of the sheepish masses would see it - they're not blindly following God, they're blindly following Hagee - from their wallets to the polls.

did you see benny hinn on dateline last night? he is another one of those crazy evangelicals... his church rents a private jet for him for $115,000 a month... 10+million dollar house...he wears versace, prada, etc.... and when asked why he won't show dateline financial records he says, "it is very simple, because God said not to."

[Useruser666]

Is that really you Jekka or are you channeling Manny again? :lol

I never trust a priest that has their own tv show.

[travis2]

Is that really you Jekka or are you channeling Manny again? :lol

I never trust a priest that has their own tv show.

Hate to get technical here...but John Hagee is not a priest.

[Clandestino]

yeah, most priests live poorer than you or me...

i can't believe people give so much to the evangelicals.. dumbasses..

[MannyIsGod]

That was actually Jess. Whenever discussing Christian topics, I have to digress to the woman who grew up as the ministers daughter.

[Jekka]

It is quite possible to be religious, be a conservative, and not follow John Hagee...

No I know, I grew up with some of those people - and while it is possible to be all those things and not follow a "mega-church" like Cornerstone or Fallwell's congregation, there is a disturbingly large number of people that do follow those teachings. When Swaggart can get in front of a TV camera and say, "I NEED A MILLION DOLLARS RIGHT NOW OR I'M GONNA DIE!!" and people actually send the money in plus extra, those are the people I'm talking about that blindly follow people like Hagee, and there are too many of them.

And User, it takes someone who grew up on church politics to be this bitter about religious corruption, so nope, it's not Manny (but he probably wouldn't have been with me this long if he didn't feel the same way, at least a little).

[travis2]

That was more directed at Dan...I didn't think you were saying any such thing.

And I remember the Swaggert fiasco...and Oral Roberts and his 900-foot Jesus...

[Jekka]

did you see benny hinn on dateline last night? he is another one of those crazy evangelicals... his church rents a private jet for him for $115,000 a month... 10+million dollar house...he wears versace, prada, etc.... and when asked why he won't show dateline financial records he says, "it is very simple, because God said not to."

I'd looooove to see him quote some scripture on that. What do you want to bet he'd come up with some nonsense about Pharisees and public display of wealth and piety. The only thing the Bible says about what to do with your wealth is to give as much of it to the church as possible - and that doesn't mean the pastor, it means the actual church and all of it's programs.

[Clandestino]

No I know, I grew up with some of those people - and while it is possible to be all those things and not follow a "mega-church" like Cornerstone or Fallwell's congregation, there is a disturbingly large number of people that do follow those teachings. When Swaggart can get in front of a TV camera and say, "I NEED A MILLION DOLLARS RIGHT NOW OR I'M GONNA DIE!!" and people actually send the money in plus extra, those are the people I'm talking about that blindly follow people like Hagee, and there are too many of them.

And User, it takes someone who grew up on church politics to be this bitter about religious corruption, so nope, it's not Manny (but he probably wouldn't have been with me this long if he didn't feel the same way, at least a little).

that is what benny hinn did on tv.. after dateline ran their story seveal months ago.. he asked for more money saying that they needed to reach more people because dateline caused their donations to drop by 10%

[Useruser666]

Hate to get technical here...but John Hagee is not a priest.

Travis, I know he is not a priest. That was a little tongue in cheek humor. Priests don't live in The Dominion.

[desflood]

All I can think of are the gospel passages in which Jesus himself drove the money-changers and vendors from the temple...

[JoeChalupa]

I like Joel Osteen.

[travis2]

Travis, I know he is not a priest. That was a little tongue in cheek humor. Priests don't live in The Dominion.

Oh-bee-kay-bee :)

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/tv/images/sp-313.jpg

Uhnow, our deflector shields are useless against phorton torpedoes, and we really need your support on this one, folks. Here at the 600 Club we need your money to spread the Word of Jesus, and build more advanced deflector shields for our galactic cruiser. Call now, and we'll give you this free pin.

[Guru of Nothing]

i can't believe people give so much to the evangelicals..

I may make a lot of money, but hey, I eat lot,

sincerely,

http://www.tbn.org/about/newsletter/0102/010205.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

I may make a lot of money, but hey, I eat lot,

sincerely,

Probably has to get custom-tailored suits as well.

He was the subject of many discussions in a history of religion in America class I took last semester - and he's also one of the only religious topics on which my mother (a Methodist minister) and I both agree. When I told my mother about his lifestyle and financial gospel she immediately replied with, "That is just wrong - it is so wrong for a pastor to live that way and claim that it is Biblically supported." She's brought him up unfavorably a few times subsequently after reading about him on her own as well.

Edit: Goddammit, Manny didn't sign out again. This was Jekka.

[Spurminator]

Some of Christianity's worst enemies are often Christians themselves. It's unfortunate.

[Useruser666]

I'm glad I have actually seen you in person Jekka, or I would think Manny has multiple personalities.

[Extra Stout]

I'd glad to see that Bill Moyers hasn't fallen into the trap of painting all his political opponents with one broad brush. It's good to see the left trying to expand its appeal rather than wallowing in shallow self-righteousness by portraying everyone else as fringe lunatics.

[Nbadan]

portraying everyone else as fringe lunatics

:lol

I think John Hagee does a well enough job of this himself.

[bigzak25]

hagee is to religious conservatives what moore is to moderate liberals.

all a church should ask for it's people to give is their heart to Jesus, imo.

offerings are between you and the good lord. you give what you want to give.

hagee comes across as a used car salesman....

of all the pastors on tv, i like TD Jakes.

[Nbadan]

did you see benny hinn on dateline last night?

:lol

At least Hagee doesn't claim to be anything more than a spiritual healer - yet.

[Drachen]

Actually I read some article in the ex news about 2 months ago and he basically said that he felt he was some kind of "trigger" for Armageddon, due to his program where he finances Jewish families to go back to Israel.

[Guru of Nothing]

So John Hagee, God was just kiddin' around about that "gluttony" thing .... Right?

[Nbadan]

Actually I read some article in the ex news about 2 months ago and he basically said that he felt he was some kind of "trigger" for Armageddon, due to his program where he finances Jewish families to go back to Israel.

In truth, most of Hagee's followers don't meet the critieria for being fatalists fanatics like the old Heaven's Gate crowd. Stone Oak is one of the most effluent parts of San Antonio, most of Hagee's followers have family members with advanced degrees and very fat wallets - so they carry a tremendous amount of political weight. I would suspect that this is the case for a majority of the super-churches.

[Nbadan]

This article was to juicy to pass up...hell, the title alone is worth posting...

Channeling Dr. Strangelove or How America learned to stop worrying and love the Rapture
by arendt

....Among the questionable alternatives to religion embraced by
....contemporary society - among the various ersatz religions, that is -
....one must include the kind of fundamentalist teaching promulgated
....by certain sects and churches in Britain and the United States. Like
....all ersatz religions, these teachings eschew responsibility for
....everything a genuine religion entails and offer something else -
....something potentially dangerous - as a palliative...

....It has taken us a great many centuries, and cost a great deal of
....bloodshed, to learn a measure of tolerance. That we can feel shame
....at such aberrations as the Inquisition, or the witch trials of the Middle
....Ages, the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation, attests to
....some genuine advance in learning, some genuine education
....on the level where education truly matters - in values and attitudes.
....It bodes ill when such gains are threatened by a return to fundamentalist
....simplicities - by a return, in other words, to the use of religion as mere
....tribal myth.

....In the past, fundamentalist simplicity has often served as a refuge for
....oppressed minorities, or even for an occupied country...What is occurring
....today, however, is the embrace of fundamentalist simplicities...by some
....of the wealthiest, most comfortable, most powerful, and theoretically,
....best educated people in the world...Not since the excesses of seventeenth
....century Puritanism...has religious fanaticism and bigotry been allied
....in the West with wealth and power on so large a scale. Except, of course,
....for the Third Reich.

........"The Messianic Identity"
........M. Baigent, R. Leigh, and H. Lincoln (1986)


The real fight in American politics today is not between left and right, not even between religion and secularism. The real fight is between sanity and insanity, between reality and delusion, between tolerance and bloodlust, between national survival and national suicide. If that sentence sounded like a Rod Serling voice-over for a Twilight Zone episode, it is because that is the kind of place America has become since Bush took over.

What else can the policies of the GOP over the last five years be called but insanity?

*It is insane to unilaterally restart the nuclear arms race in a "one superpower" world and threaten first use.
*It is insane to underfund police and do nothing about cargo containers and chemical plants in a terror war.
*It is insane to unilaterally junk the anti-missile treaty and rush to deploy a system that flunks even rigged tests.
*It is insane to run the National Guard and the Reserves through an endless, meat-grinder guerilla war.
*It is insane to spend more on arms than the rest of the world combined, and yet still be paralyzed with fear.

(You might recall that these military policies have been put in place by the neocon clique George Bush, Sr.
and Colin Powell derisively refer to as "the crazies".)

*It is insane to deliberately bankrupt the country with tax cuts for the rich in time of war.
*It is insane to ruin Social Security and add another trillion dollars to our childrens' debt load.
*It is insane to ship our country's industrial base to Asia with government subsidies and encouragement.
*It is insane to deny the world-wide scientific consensus that climate change is real and a serious threat.
*It is insane to drill for marginal amounts of oil in sacred places when conservation is derided.

And, finally, there is the classic definition of insanity - doing the same thing over again and expecting different results:

*It is insane to replace sex education with "abstinence only" programs and lies about condom ineffectiveness.

However, it is not that the inmates running the asylum of America today are totally bereft of logic, rather they are totally bereft of judgment. They are logical enough to use any excuse to do what they intend to do. They have judged that they have enough military, police, media, and financial power to stamp out democracy and any opposition anywhere in the world. They don't seem to notice America is hemorhaging money, jobs, and allies with every stomp of their boot. They are literally delusional - dangerously, violently insane.

----

At the root of these insanities is a pathological hatred of self that is projected outward as a hatred of the world and a literal death wish. (The Left isn't kidding when they talk about the "Neocon Death Cult".) Since the Emperor Constantine rammed his version of Christianity down his empire's throat, the Church of Punishment has dominated the Church of Love that Christ founded. The portrait of this world as something to be endured, as a place to be escaped from as soon as possible, fit very well with the needs of a failing Roman Empire. Indeed, the English historian Gibbons called Catholicism "the slave religion". This dismal perception of the world as a terrible place resonated with (some would say, caused) the nadir of Western Civilization, the Dark Ages. It only lost its grip after the Black Plague decimated Europe and the Church descended into the Avignon era of corrupt, dueling Popes.

It is one thing to see the world as a trial; but a person could still feel OK about himself. From where, then, does this self-hatred come? Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to talk about fundamentalism without talking about sex. For a bunch of people who profess to despise it, there are one heck of a lot of sex scandals among fundamentalist clergy, not to mention the pederastic Catholic clergy who inaugurated this whole sick style of women-hating religiosity.

Only the willfully blind can miss the constantly recurring combination of misogyny and macho set in totally homo-social societies. Macho guys hate what they perceive as weakness, feminineness in their nature. So, they project that weakness onto women, and demonize them. The fundamentalist Jews have segregated and denigrated women for close to 4,000 years; the fundamentalist Moslems for almost 1,500 years. The Catholic clergy is strictly male, and the pederasty problem is off the scale. The Baptists scream that "women must be subservient"; and then we have Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, and a never-ending parade of abused and assaulted women who sometimes act out by killing their children.

Meanwhile the really "manly men" in America spend their time hanging out in locker rooms and bars, whacking each other on the butt as they watch other macho guys in tight, revealing costumes grapple sweatily. Isn't the save-the-fetus, abandon-the-child lifestyle exactly what you would expect from insecure guys who need to prove their masculinity by fathering children, but think that actually nurturing children is for sissies and female slaves?

The basic stance of the fundamentalist male is that this world is nothing more than a trial by a cruel God, that any source of pleasure in the world must be vigilantly watched, lest it prove to be a "snare of the devil". As H.L. Mencken observed, "Fundamentalism is the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be happy." In this divinely-ordained pleasure-trap, the biggest obstacle to mens' salvation is women. Women are the "agents of Satan", the temptresses, Eve, the source of all uncleanness. And sex is taboo, except for procreation, and always "dirty". The sexes therefore must be segregated; and women must be placed under virtual house arrest to protect men from them (and to safeguard the sacred blood lines of these holy men).

Could there be any set of rules more likely to produce exactly what these repressed hysterics fear? Women are dangerous; therefore I will surround myself with men or young boys; that way I will be safe. Wrong! Savage self-repression, of any kind, eventually leads to self-loathing. For example, there are many doctors forced into that profession by controlling parents. It is not a rare occurrence to find such unhappy doctors either abusing alcohol or drugs, or eventually committing suicide. They hate themselves because their lives are a lie. Self-repression of sex leads to sexual perversion, often sadism or masochism, which is always about control instead of pleasure.

It is a movie cliche that the more a guy baits and bashes gays of either sex, the more he is suppressing homosexual tendencies. The Gannon/Guckert scandal, which the corporate media is trying to marginalize, is typical of the double standard of the fundamentalist leadership. Crucify your opponent by tying him to the legitimate rights of open gays, but when your side is caught red-handed (is that the proper appendage?) with a gay prostitute, scream persecution. The total aversion of the corporate media to cover a juicy sex and spy scandal is the "dog that did not bark". It puts the lie to the ten year old cover story that Bill Clinton was merely the victim of a scandal-seeking press.

----

Lest anyone think I am bashing all Christianity or all religion, it is relevant to note that "modern" fundamentalisms are, by and large, creations of the 19th century - rural reactions to the onslaught of industrialization. Hassidic Jewish "traditional" dress is 19th century Russian peasant clothing. Anglo-Saxon fundamentalism was started by a crackpot named Darby in Britain in the 1840s.

The tenets of Darbyism, and most modern Christian fundamentalisms, amount to cutting Christ out of the Bible, leaving only the misogynistic, macho texts from the Old Testament and Paul as moral guidance. Their bible, the Scofield reference bible makes the Catholic catechism look like an exercise in moral relativism, prescribing exactly how you must comprehend every sentence in the Bible. (Apparently, Mr. Scofield is more divinely inspired than the Church fathers who wrote the original. How did we miss this prophet among us?) Finally, the keystone of their "morality" is the drooling anticipation of a murderous return of an old-testament god who will torture the world for a thousand years. If this is sadism can be called religion, I would be proud to be called an atheist. More than a few genuine Christians have called the "we have to screw up the world to make god bring the Rapture" mindset to be sorcery, conjuring, necromancy, and blasphemy.

You can't reason with fundamentalists the same way you can't reason with a heavily armed psycho who thinks you are a rabid dog that needs to be put out of its misery. Those who have drunk the militant religious kool-aid are beyond the reach of rational argument. Only the defeat of their cause can break their hypnosis. But, the fight to free ourselves from this insanity depends on reaching the de-politicized, yet non-fanatical, segment of America. The fanatics are already politicized and mustered against reason, against the Enlightenment.

----

The best way I can think to reach the media-addled, de-politiciized demographic is to draw an analogy to a movie - something they might have seen. It is probably no coincidence that the movie itself is a parable about hubris. The movie is the 1950s sci-fi classic "Forbidden Planet", whose plot line was lifted from Shakespeare's "Tempest". The movie, made soon after the H-bomb was exploded, when people were terrified of the planet committing technical suicide, is a cautionary tale.

The planet in the title contains a mysterious, vanished civilization - the Krell. The
Krell left behind a vast complex of nuclear reactors that have functioned flawlessly
for a million years. But, when humans came to the planet, all but one of them were
killed by mysterious forces in a short time. To cut to the chase, (spoiler coming!) the
reactors power machines that materialize thoughts. The Krell thought themselves to
be rational; but their sub-conscious hatreds ("monsters of the id" in the memorable,
if dated, phrase from the dialogue) caused their thoughts to wipe out their race and
the humans to wipe out each other as well. In the end, the humans blow up the reactors and flee.

----

Today, the American nation is looking like that planet. Technology created by geniuses
is in the hands of moral morons, led by criminal sociopaths. They are using that technology to enslave their fellow citizens and kill anyone they can't enslave. The most animal of emotions - tribalisms, petty grudges, and grade-school bullying are amplified by a totally corrupt media to bring all rational discussion to a halt. Genuine, serious issues of the very survival of civilization are ignored or mocked, while what little investigative reporting is available goes into savaging the political opposition with bogus scandals.

Technology that could educate is used to deceive, to dumb down, to avoid facing real issues. Weapons designed in fear for defense are used for conquest. Hard-won knowledge of the fragility of our environment is laughed at. And, if anyone is blamed for this power run amuck , it is the scientists themselves - purportedly for letting the genie out of the bottle. But it was society that demanded to free the genie, and corporations who made a bundle from the release of the genie. People wanted what science had to offer; and they still do.

Even in the political arena, sane people want rationality. Rational politicians in a rational society faced the Cuban Missile Crisis, and they stared down the suicidal ideologues on both sides. Brinksmanship was played by all, and we were lucky to have survived. Militant Communism was defeated by 1990, joining Fascism on the junkheap of history - or so we all thought. We actually had a decade of relative peace and prosperity.

But the lunatic fringe could not tolerate the elimination of "the enemy", the external glue that held together their world of hatred and projection. So, while they vainly tried to inflate minor-leaguers like Noriega and Saddam into genuine threats like Stalin or Mao, they turned most of their energies against their own countrymen - the despised Liberal. The hatred that had been focussed outward now turned inward. It became a loathing of American democracy.

The fundamentalist horde is now busy committing national suicide. They have already shredded our Constitution, bankrupted our government, ruined our military, begun to re-despoil our environment, and made us a pariah nation. As a liberal, I do not say this lightly: I would rather have Richard Nixon, with all his neuroses, leading our country than the gang of thugs in charge today. At least Nixon loved his country and cared about his place in history. All the Busheviks love is money, power, and their sick, suicidal unconsciousness.

In closing, let us remember another metaphor from the nuclear-nightmare fifties. America is channeling Dr. Strangelove - one hand strangling itself, while babbling fantasies of winning nuclear wars. We have become what we most feared: a society mesmerized by nuclear destruction.

[travis2]

:rolleyes

That guy is even wackier than Hagee, and Hagee is off the charts.

Of course, few can hold a candle to our own Dan...

[sbsquared]

While I am not a huge fan of John Hagee, I believe he is sincere and his message is true. I also am a believer in the reality of the Rapture. I don't have time to argue with everyone about this - but I just hope you all will remember this thread when the Rapture occurs. Also, there is a great website devoted to this subject - it's raptureready.com. They even post e-mails from non-believers.

Sadly, it will take the occurance of the Rapture to make believers out of many - and then they will be in for a very rough ride.

[Guru of Nothing]

Sadly, it will take the occurance of the Rapture to make believers out of many - and then they will be in for a very rough ride.

Wouldn't you feel silly if God forgave me anyway.

[Bandit2981]

I also am a believer in the reality of the Rapture
apples and oranges. no one said anything about the rapture, the discussion was whether people like Hagee are truly living by a christian doctrine

[Shelly]

that is what benny hinn did on tv.. after dateline ran their story seveal months ago.. he asked for more money saying that they needed to reach more people because dateline caused their donations to drop by 10%


And I bet he made up his 10% donation and then some.

Suckers.

[Jekka]

Wouldn't you feel silly if God forgave me anyway.

Haha, that's beautiful. :spin

[Jekka]

While I am not a huge fan of John Hagee, I believe he is sincere and his message is true. I also am a believer in the reality of the Rapture. I don't have time to argue with everyone about this - but I just hope you all will remember this thread when the Rapture occurs. Also, there is a great website devoted to this subject - it's raptureready.com. They even post e-mails from non-believers.

Sadly, it will take the occurance of the Rapture to make believers out of many - and then they will be in for a very rough ride.

Wow, is it going to be just like the Left Behind books?

[ididnotnothat]

I fear not the Rapture, for the Lord is with me.

[sbsquared]

Wow, is it going to be just like the Left Behind books?

Probably - I believe those books are pretty accurate. Tim LaHaye is known as a foremost expert on End Times Prophecy. Here's an idea for you - why don't you buy the complete set of Left Behind Books and you can see how accurate they are when you're going through the tribulation!

[GoldToe]

Probably - I believe those books are pretty accurate. Tim LaHaye is known as a foremost expert on End Times Prophecy. Here's an idea for you - why don't you buy the complete set of Left Behind Books and you can see how accurate they are when you're going through the tribulation!

Wouldn't the pages burn?

[MannyIsGod]

Probably - I believe those books are pretty accurate. Tim LaHaye is known as a foremost expert on End Times Prophecy. Here's an idea for you - why don't you buy the complete set of Left Behind Books and you can see how accurate they are when you're going through the tribulation!

Man, I hate to get into religous dicussions, but I feel I have to say at least this.

Any god that feels their love is conditional, can put me in hell, give me eternal damnation, or leave me behind. But they can also go screw themselves.

You see that icon to the left of this post? Yeah, that goes out to any god who puts conditions on love. Especially when those conditions aren't delivered by certified mail, but by word of mouth. Ever play the game telephone? Yeah, maybe thats why nobody can make up their damn mind as to what the bible means.

What a great way to gain followers, through fear of damnation. I love it.

Santa Clause is coming, to town!

[Spurminator]

I feel that life is worth those conditions.

[Jekka]

Probably - I believe those books are pretty accurate. Tim LaHaye is known as a foremost expert on End Times Prophecy. Here's an idea for you - why don't you buy the complete set of Left Behind Books and you can see how accurate they are when you're going through the tribulation!

You know, there are some doubts on the credibility of John's (the third John of the New Testament who penned the book of Revelations) statements. I personally have a hard time taking most of the Bible seriously - while it was "inspired by God", it was written down by man. We didn't get a direct fax from God in English that hardbound itself and found its way into millions of hotel rooms. It just didn't happen that way. Man wrote it, man edited it, man translated it. Not all prophets are reliable just because they wrote something down thousands of years ago. I believe that anyone who takes the Bible at face value without questioning it is kidding themselves. It's more important for a Christian to have their own relationship with God based on personal communication - the Bible is there for inspiration and guidance, but it's not an absolute truth.

And who are you to assume I will be stuck down here if the "Rapture" happens? That's what the world needs less of - judgmental Christians. It's not your place to judge, and you should know that.

[2centsworth]

You know, there are some doubts on the credibility of John's (the third John of the New Testament who penned the book of Revelations) statements. I personally have a hard time taking most of the Bible seriously - while it was "inspired by God", it was written down by man. We didn't get a direct fax from God in English that hardbound itself and found its way into millions of hotel rooms. It just didn't happen that way. Man wrote it, man edited it, man translated it. Not all prophets are reliable just because they wrote something down thousands of years ago. I believe that anyone who takes the Bible at face value without questioning it is kidding themselves. It's more important for a Christian to have their own relationship with God based on personal communication - the Bible is there for inspiration and guidance, but it's not an absolute truth.

And who are you to assume I will be stuck down here if the "Rapture" happens? That's what the world needs less of - judgmental Christians. It's not your place to judge, and you should know that.
Read all the reply's and you'll notice the only one's judging are the non-christians.

New testament was written by the disciples of Jesus. Pretty good source of god's word.

[Jekka]

Read all the reply's and you'll notice the only one's judging are the non-christians.

New testament was written by the disciples of Jesus. Pretty good source of god's word.

I don't think any non-Christians here have said that someone's going to hell, or not going to heaven for that matter.

[Drachen]

Read all the reply's and you'll notice the only one's judging are the non-christians.

New testament was written by the disciples of Jesus. Pretty good source of god's word.


Written by the disciples of Jesus, 1000's of years ago, and has gone through countless translations by many people with different backgrounds/agendas.

Pretty good source of God's word indeed.

[2centsworth]

I don't think any non-Christians here have said that someone's going to hell, or not going to heaven for that matter.
Maybe not, but they have been very judgemental nonetheless. Just an observation.

[2centsworth]

Written by the disciples of Jesus, 1000's of years ago, and has gone through countless translations by many people with different backgrounds/agendas.

Pretty good source of God's word indeed.
The countless translations argument is actually a case for the new testaments authenticity. There are over 24,000 ancient manuscripts written in thousands of different languages, and they all say virtually the same thing. Only differences are a few variations in spelling.

Compare that to the Illiad with 650 ancient manuscripts that virtually say the same thing, and no one ever questions it's authenticity.

[Drachen]

The countless translations argument is actually a case for the new testaments authenticity. There are over 24,000 ancient manuscripts written in thousands of different languages, and they all say virtually the same thing. Only differences are a few variations in spelling.

Compare that to the Illiad with 650 ancient manuscripts that virtually say the same thing, and no one ever questions it's authenticity.


I think one of the reasons no one questions the Illiad is that no one has gone to war, and persecuted millions of people over homers book (i.e. it's not important enough).

[Jekka]

The countless translations argument is actually a case for the new testaments authenticity. There are over 24,000 ancient manuscripts written in thousands of different languages, and they all say virtually the same thing. Only differences are a few variations in spelling.

Compare that to the Illiad with 650 ancient manuscripts that virtually say the same thing, and no one ever questions it's authenticity.

That's because no one takes the Iliad as truth - it's a reknowned work of mythology. If you want to say that the Bible is mythology, then I won't argue the translations, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're out to prove. Maybe a better analogy on your part would help.

And as for being judgmental - that's just something that everyone does - only the non-Christians aren't throwing hell in your face. Everyone is judgmental to a degree, but for something as eternal as your fate, that's not to be taken as lightly as say, a bad haircut. There's a difference is judging someone's opinion, which is stupid anyways, and judging someone as a whole person - like assuming the outcome of their afterlife.

I'm not debating your system of beliefs to be wrong - I'm just saying that they are your beliefs and not mine. You're the one accusing me of being in the wrong, while I'm just pointing out some of the alternative possibilities of the derivation of Biblical text. You're telling me I'm going to rot in hell basically - who's being judgmental?

[2centsworth]

That's because no one takes the Iliad as truth - it's a reknowned work of mythology. If you want to say that the Bible is mythology, then I won't argue the translations, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're out to prove. Maybe a better analogy on your part would help.

And as for being judgmental - that's just something that everyone does - only the non-Christians aren't throwing hell in your face. Everyone is judgmental to a degree, but for something as eternal as your fate, that's not to be taken as lightly as say, a bad haircut. There's a difference is judging someone's opinion, which is stupid anyways, and judging someone as a whole person - like assuming the outcome of their afterlife.

I'm not debating your system of beliefs to be wrong - I'm just saying that they are your beliefs and not mine. You're the one accusing me of being in the wrong, while I'm just pointing out some of the alternative possibilities of the derivation of Biblical text. You're telling me I'm going to rot in hell basically - who's being judgmental?

1. You're missing the point on the illiad. the translations remained the same, just like the bible. Debating the value of the content is a different matter, I'm just telling you whatever your bible says today is the same as it was told 1000's of years ago.

2. I only read one person on this thread somewhat judge people by throwing hell in someone's face. The other 30 or so reply's were all about judging, and generalizing christians. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

3. Again, if you read more closely I never accused you of anything. Also, find where I told you you're going to rot in hell basically. All I did was acknowledge your point and offered a counter point.

[2centsworth]

I think one of the reasons no one questions the Illiad is that no one has gone to war, and persecuted millions of people over homers book (i.e. it's not important enough).
Again you miss my point. The Illiad is true to it's original manuscript because the 650 ancient manuscripts/translations are almost identical. The same holds true for the bible.

As to your point about persecuting millions of people, the crusades were a long time ago and religion does a lot more good than it does bad. Secularism is a mark of communism like the former soviet union and communist China. You're surely not saying human rights are better there than they are here with our Judeo-Christian values and system of government.

[MannyIsGod]

1. You're missing the point on the illiad. the translations remained the same, just like the bible. Debating the value of the content is a different matter, I'm just telling you whatever your bible says today is the same as it was told 1000's of years ago.


Of course, nevermind the different texts that aren't included in the bible. The Gospel Of Mary Magdalen, anybody?Nevermind that most of this stuff is at the discretion of people like the Vatican. Nevermind that even though the bible is the same (allegedly. I admit, I know hardly enough to enter an academic debate on the history of it), there are different interpretations of what it all means.

I mean com'on, not only is this God putting conditions on his love, you also need a decoder ring to figure out what those conditions are.



2. I only read one person on this thread somewhat judge people by throwing hell in someone's face. The other 30 or so reply's were all about judging, and generalizing christians. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.


Untill the wonderful rapture was brought into play, (sidenote: I hope it happens after Fiesta), the only Christians people were judging were those who had heaven and salvation for sale. I wonder how much angel's wings go for on Ebay?

[2centsworth]

(allegedly. I admit, I know hardly enough to enter an academic debate on the history of it), there are different interpretations of what it all means.

Is this true of anyting. We both read the same book we can surely have a different interpretation of the book. The problem is that lots of church's like to add rules and text that's not in the bible. Example, drinking is not allowed when we know drinking is almost encouraged it's drunkeness that's a sin. That's a pretty darn good code of conduct, drink but don't get drunk.


I mean com'on, not only is this God putting conditions on his love, you also need a decoder ring to figure out what those conditions are.

There are no conditions on his love! What do you think the whole dying on the cross was all about. Jesus died for our sins. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a chance in hell of salvation.


Untill the wonderful rapture was brought into play, (sidenote: I hope it happens after Fiesta), the only Christians people were judging were those who had heaven and salvation for sale. I wonder how much angel's wings go for on Ebay?

I was kinda looking forward to Fiesta myself. Guy who referred to the rapture I'm sure noticed how all the posters were ganging up and generalizing all christians. However, I understand that evangelicals in general in the past have done a bad job of promoting christianity. It's just not like that anymore for the most part. David Robinson and Avery Johnson are better examples of what Christianity is really like.

[Extra Stout]

Probably - I believe those books are pretty accurate. Tim LaHaye is known as a foremost expert on End Times Prophecy. Here's an idea for you - why don't you buy the complete set of Left Behind Books and you can see how accurate they are when you're going through the tribulation!Yeah, they're super-accurate. Like the part where Israel abandons its advanced technological economy, and reverts to agriculture, "miraculously" growing crops (based on carbon) from sand (based on silicon). And that somehow makes them far more ridiculously wealthy. Because, you know, agricultural havens like the Ukraine are just raking it in. :rolleyes

Oh yeah, and the Arabs let them annex most of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and part of Iraq with no complaints. That's realistic.

The Left Behind series appears plausible to those who either are uneducated, or have a narrow range of education for a particular vocation. I just cannot imagine how anyone with any breadth of knowledge about the world could take those books seriously as Bible teaching. They're Christian pulp fiction.

[2centsworth]

Yeah, they're super-accurate. Like the part where Israel abandons its advanced technological economy, and reverts to agriculture, "miraculously" growing crops (based on carbon) from sand (based on silicon). And that somehow makes them far more ridiculously wealthy. Because, you know, agricultural havens like the Ukraine are just raking it in. :rolleyes

Oh yeah, and the Arabs let them annex most of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and part of Iraq with no complaints. That's realistic.

The Left Behind series appears plausible to those who either are uneducated, or have a narrow range of education for a particular vocation. I just cannot imagine how anyone with any breadth of knowledge about the world could take those books seriously as Bible teaching. They're Christian pulp fiction.
I hope people except them for what they are, purely entertainment. I acutally liked the movie, just like the Omen. I love stuff like that.

[Jekka]

1. You're missing the point on the illiad. the translations remained the same, just like the bible. Debating the value of the content is a different matter, I'm just telling you whatever your bible says today is the same as it was told 1000's of years ago.

2. I only read one person on this thread somewhat judge people by throwing hell in someone's face. The other 30 or so reply's were all about judging, and generalizing christians. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

3. Again, if you read more closely I never accused you of anything. Also, find where I told you you're going to rot in hell basically. All I did was acknowledge your point and offered a counter point.

Okay, I'll concede on points 2 and 3, mainly because I don't want to argue about personal accusations on here - whatever, it's all cool.

But, as for point #1 - different languages=different connotations and implications. When a work goes through a translation it loses a lot - especially depending on the subject matter. The Iliad is a mythological tale based on acts of bravery, etc. The Bible, especially the New Testament, which is what we are mainly arguing here, is based on philosophy and emotions and love. Most of the NT was written in Greek. Greek has THREE different words for "love" depending on the situation in which it is used. How can you translate that into English? You can't. That's just one example of how the Bible can be manipulated to say what you want it to say. Many Christians (not all, by any means) like to take things out of context. Take the book of Corinthians for instance where Paul says that women are not to speak out in the church (I'm at work and don't have a Bible handy, so I can't give you the chapter and verses). The Catholics and the Baptists among others have construed this to mean that they cannot ordain women. What they fail to take into account is that the Corinthians locally worshipped Aphrodite and women were whoring themselves out in front of the church and Paul was saying (in his letter directed at the Corinthians) is that they shouldn't be selling themselves - not that women cannot also be disciples and leaders in the church.

The Bible is full of stuff like this, it's more important than the Iliad because people don't live by the Iliad.

[Jekka]

There are no conditions on his love! What do you think the whole dying on the cross was all about. Jesus died for our sins. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a chance in hell of salvation.

So it's unconditional as long as you believe that Jesus is your only way to Heaven, otherwise you're going to hell? Sounds pretty conditional to me.

[2centsworth]

Okay, I'll concede on points 2 and 3, mainly because I don't want to argue about personal accusations on here - whatever, it's all cool.

Of course, you'll only concede only because you don't want to argue, it has nothing to do with you being wrong. Give me a break.

[Jekka]

Of course, you'll only concede only because you don't want to argue, it has nothing to do with you being wrong. Give me a break.

And instead of commenting on the Bible discussion you choose to belittle my backing off. That's pretty low.

[scott]

God is dead.

[desflood]

...said Nietzsche.

[Guru of Nothing]

God is dead.

God is not dead .... he's just a no-show (probably hiding from the self-righteous)

[2centsworth]

So it's unconditional as long as you believe that Jesus is your only way to Heaven, otherwise you're going to hell? Sounds pretty conditional to me.
Not a condition, because if you don't believe in him it doesn't matter. The choice is left to the individual.

[2centsworth]

God is not dead .... he's just a no-show (probably hiding from the self-righteous)
Talk about self-righteous.http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

[Guru of Nothing]

Talk about self-righteous.http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

You have quite the knack for ignoring salient discussion.

[Jekka]

You have quite the knack for ignoring salient discussion.

Amen.

[Jekka]

Not a condition, because if you don't believe in him it doesn't matter. The choice is left to the individual.

But it does matter, because there are millions of believers walking around thinking God is going to judge non-believers a certain way. The fact is that believers in the Christian faith think that God puts some people in a good place and some people in a bad place and think that this God loves everyone the same - which I cannot understand. Apparently, God only loves you unconditionally if you accept God as your savior - and that, by definition, is a condition.

[desflood]

But it does matter, because there are millions of believers walking around thinking God is going to judge non-believers a certain way. The fact is that believers in the Christian faith think that God puts some people in a good place and some people in a bad place and think that this God loves everyone the same - which I cannot understand. Apparently, God only loves you unconditionally if you accept God as your savior - and that, by definition, is a condition.
Think of it this way, Jekka: If you have many children, and love them all the same, but a couple do something bad and need to be punished, does that mean that if you punish them you don't love them anymore? Of course not.

[Spurminator]

Unconditional Love does not guarantee Unconditional Reward.

[Jekka]

Think of it this way, Jekka: If you have many children, and love them all the same, but a couple do something bad and need to be punished, does that mean that if you punish them you don't love them anymore? Of course not.

There's a big difference between being grounded for two weeks and being damned for eternity.

[2centsworth]

But it does matter, because there are millions of believers walking around thinking God is going to judge non-believers a certain way
Anyone who does this should take this to heart "don't judge lest you be judged yourself."


Apparently, God only loves you unconditionally if you accept God as your savior - and that, by definition, is a condition.
1.In the christian religion, it's do you believe in Jesus as lord.? If you do then naturally you will accept him as your lord and savior, because if you don't then you're saying yes Jesus is lord but I don't want what god has to offer. Fair enough.

2. If you don't believe Jesus is lord and savior then it doesn't matter to you what Jesus promises.

I think if you can understand those two points you'll realize that Jesus does not place a condition on his love, by choice people reject what he has to offer. that's ok too, but remember it's your choice.

[Jekka]

1.In the christian religion, it's do you believe in Jesus as lord.? If you do then naturally you will accept him as your lord and savior, because if you don't then you're saying yes Jesus is lord but I don't want what god has to offer. Fair enough.

2. If you don't believe Jesus is lord and savior then it doesn't matter to you what Jesus promises.

I think if you can understand those two points you'll realize that Jesus does not place a condition on his love, by choice people reject what he has to offer. that's ok too, but remember it's your choice.

But in this supposed "unconditional love", where is the compassion? Where in this "unconditional love" does eternal damnation fit in? No, Spurminator, unconditional love does not have to mean unconditional reward, but why does it have to mean unconditional and eternal punishment? Christians don't believe that non-believers don't have to answer to the Christian god just because they don't believe he exists or is the savior - they believe that those nonbelievers end up in hell for all ages. You can't get away with saying that "it's your choice, you don't have to accept what Jesus offers", because if you don't want to burn in hell, Christians believe that you do have to accept what Jesus offers. There is a condition placed on your fate in this scenario, and if God is omnipotent and knows every move you're going to make and has predetermined it all, why would God create people that were going to go to hell. If there is a God that is omnipotent and "knew us before we were conceived" and knew everything that we would do, is there really the free will that you're speaking about? Isn't that predestination? Calvinism obviously must not be obsolete here. What unconditionally-loving God would predestine some people to hell?

[2centsworth]

there's no predestination. You have choices.

If you believe in him and still reject him and refuse what he has to offer, he is going to grant you your wish.

If you don't believe in him, then why is their any debate and who cares what chrisitians think.

[Jekka]

there's no predestination. You have choices.

If you believe in him and still reject him and refuse what he has to offer, he is going to grant you your wish.

If you don't believe in him, then why is their any debate and who cares what chrisitians think.

Predestination and an omnipotent god cannot be separated. If God knows what you're going to do before you do it then God also knows if you're going to Heaven or Hell before you die. That is predestination, and that's not unconditional love - and with predestination you don't have choices, you're just acting out something that's already been planned, whether you're aware of it or not.

And also, are you saying that if you believe in Christ and don't accept what's to offer then you "wish" to go to hell? That's some smug logic.

[Nbadan]

And also, are you saying that if you believe in Christ and don't accept what's to offer then you "wish" to go to hell? That's some smug logic.

This is the arrogance behind the Christian Church I have the most trouble with, If you believe in Islam, Budda, Hindu or any other of the worlds dominant religions not based on Christianity, you don't have a shot in hell (forgive the pun) of making it into heaven. My belief is that different religions exist because no one religious cloak fits all people in all circumstance, and we all go to the same place when we die.

[2centsworth]

JEKKA AND NBADAN,

You guys are great at adding stuff that doesn't exist in my post. I called you on it before Jekka and you got your feelings hurt. You guys do what you want, because it's obvious you're not interested in any meaningful dialogue.

[desflood]

I went to a Catholic high school. They taught us that if in the end if you sincerely repent your sins you will end up in Heaven. Maybe anybody who can look God in the face when he decides their eternal fate and still not repent what they did wrong should go to Hell. They also taught us that even if you don't believe in God your whole life, if you believe in him when you face him in the end, you will get into Heaven.

[desflood]

As a personal belief, I think that even if you do not believe in God and he exists, you will still get into Heaven if you lived your life as a good person. Those Commandment things (ha ha) are actually a good blueprint for a good life.

[Jekka]

JEKKA AND NBADAN,

You guys are great at adding stuff that doesn't exist in my post. I called you on it before Jekka and you got your feelings hurt. You guys do what you want, because it's obvious you're not interested in any meaningful dialogue.

What are you saying that I added in my last post that wasn't relevant? Forgive me for not wanting to run around in circles - so I brought up some things that could be implied by your prior response. And as for "getting my feelings hurt", quit being condescending and realize that I backed off in a situation where I knew that I couldn't win. Take your victories where you can and don't rub it in my face.

I am trying to "engage in meaningful dialogue"; I am attempting to bring in some relevant information and anotherl point of view. You, however, do not seem to be willing to step outside yourself for one second to realize that everyone does not have to think the way you do to have "meaningful dialogue" - and with that I am exiting this thread, because it is obvious that you are not interested in a discourse with alternative points of view that I may not even believe but felt a need to expose.

[Shelly]

Quote from my sister-in-law when my great-aunt was dying from liver cancer.

sil: "Does she believe in Jesus?"
my mom: "I don't know."
sil: "Then she's going to Hell!"

Niiiiice.

[Spurminator]

Where in this "unconditional love" does eternal damnation fit in? No, Spurminator, unconditional love does not have to mean unconditional reward, but why does it have to mean unconditional and eternal punishment?

It depends on what one's definition of hell is. I believe hell is simply the absence of God. Not necessarily literal "fire and brimstone," but chaos. If Heaven is perfect beyond anything humans can imagine, then hell (by comparison) is a horrible punishment.

If you look at damnation as simply being denied access to the Kingdom of Heaven, it doesn't seem unreasonable for God to turn His back on those who have rejected Him... even though He loves them.

I'll try to get some Scripture to back it up, so it's not just my philosophising.

[MannyIsGod]

It depends on what one's definition of hell is. I believe hell is simply the absence of God. Not necessarily literal "fire and brimstone," but chaos. If Heaven is perfect beyond anything humans can imagine, then hell (by comparison) is a horrible punishment.

If you look at damnation as simply being denied access to the Kingdom of Heaven, it doesn't seem unreasonable for God to turn His back on those who have rejected Him... even though He loves them.

I'll try to get some Scripture to back it up, so it's not just my philosophising.

I must disagree entirely.

[desflood]

You know, everybody believes something different. My mother has this theory that the life we're living now is Hell, and if we can get through it without going crazy and committing any major sins (like murder) we automatically go into Heaven when we die.

[MannyIsGod]

As a personal belief, I think that even if you do not believe in God and he exists, you will still get into Heaven if you lived your life as a good person. Those Commandment things (ha ha) are actually a good blueprint for a good life.

See, THIS, I can buy much more. However, what you just said doesn't fit very well with a standard christian doctorine.

And the church will never come out and acknowledge anything like that. Why? Because it would make the church pretty damn trivial.

[desflood]

Well, I'm not a Christian. Actually, I was never baptized into any faith. I just try to be a good person.

[Shelly]

My mother has this theory that the life we're living now is Hell,

I was just going to post that! Makes sense to me.

And if there is such a place as Heaven, I hope we have access to celebrities. Cuz I really want to talk with John Bonham.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I'm not a Christian. Actually, I was never baptized into any faith. I just try to be a good person.

:lmao

Well I hate to tell you, but according to some posters in this thread, you'll be "left behind"

I think that religion definetly leads to lots of good things. I've done community service through churches, as has Jekka. In fact, I doubt anyone in here has done more than her, and she's probably the youngest one in this conversation.

I think Christianity provides the foundation of a very good phiosophy on how to live your life. I do however think that it is used far too often as a method of control. I think that there are too many inconsistencies that seem to come from an overzealous church than from anything else.

[travis2]

And the church will never come out and acknowledge anything like that. Why? Because it would make the church pretty damn trivial.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 843

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

[desflood]

There have been instances of churches of any faith being overzealous. However, there are also people of all faiths who would be too weak to police themselves without the benefit of said churches.

[MannyIsGod]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 843

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

Oh no way, not nearly the same as saying that you don't need to go to church every Sunday to have a relationship with god.

That in no way is an acknowledgement that to the Vatican, cathlocism is the only way to be saved.

[travis2]

Oh no way, not nearly the same as saying that you don't need to go to church every Sunday to have a relationship with god.

That in no way is an acknowledgement that to the Vatican, cathlocism is the only way to be saved.

You can choose to believe what I post or not...but I gave my source, which is a direct and primary source.

Do NOT call me a liar...which is what you just did.

[MannyIsGod]

You can choose to believe what I post or not...but I gave my source, which is a direct and primary source.

Do NOT call me a liar...which is what you just did.

Woah, infering a bit much there?

Switch to decaf Travis, because what I said was that paragraph is saying that other churches have some value, but thats all. In no way does it say that you can gain entry to heaven through them. Nor does it say in anyway that you can be saved without the catholic church.

How in the hell is that calling you a liar?

[2centsworth]

What are you saying that I added in my last post that wasn't relevant? Forgive me for not wanting to run around in circles - so I brought up some things that could be implied by your prior response. And as for "getting my feelings hurt", quit being condescending and realize that I backed off in a situation where I knew that I couldn't win. Take your victories where you can and don't rub it in my face.

I am trying to "engage in meaningful dialogue"; I am attempting to bring in some relevant information and anotherl point of view. You, however, do not seem to be willing to step outside yourself for one second to realize that everyone does not have to think the way you do to have "meaningful dialogue" - and with that I am exiting this thread, because it is obvious that you are not interested in a discourse with alternative points of view that I may not even believe but felt a need to expose.

Ok, let's sorta start over then. This is all I'm saying.

1. Do you believe in Jesus as Lord? If no, then don't worry about what Chrisitains say. If you want to debate the existance of Jesus and his power, well that's another argument.

2. If you do believe in Jesus as Lord then doesn't it make sense to make Jesus your savior? If not, you're essentially saying Yes Jesus is Lord creator of the universe but you still won't except him as your savior. It's easy to see why that person is choosing hell?

If you answer no to the first then there's no need to answer 2.

[travis2]

Woah, infering a bit much there?

Switch to decaf Travis, because what I said was that paragraph is saying that other churches have some value, but thats all. In no way does it say that you can gain entry to heaven through them. Nor does it say in anyway that you can be saved without the catholic church.

How in the hell is that calling you a liar?

Maybe I went a little too far...it sounded to me as though you were directly questioning the veracity of the source I posted. My apologies.

Some more relevant passages from the Catechism:

838: The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

839: The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ"; "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

[Spurminator]

I must disagree entirely.

Why? What makes someone who spent his/her entire life rejecting God entitled to spend eternity WITH God?

[MannyIsGod]

Why? What makes someone who spent his/her entire life rejecting God entitled to spend eternity WITH God?

If I had a child who rejected me their entire life, I would NEVER turn my back on them, leave them, or anything as similar. That is what real love is. Especialy when Love is supposed to come from the most merciful of all beings.

[2centsworth]

If I had a child who rejected me their entire life, I would NEVER turn my back on them, leave them, or anything as similar. That is what real love is. Especialy when Love is supposed to come from the most merciful of all beings.
first you're not a child.

second, do you believe in jesus as god or not? Talking in generalities is pointless. If you don't believe in jesus as god, then you shouldn't be worried about chrisitans say or believe. If you do believe in jesus as lord and then deny him, that's between you and him.

[MannyIsGod]

According to you, am I not God's child?

I'm not trying to get you to belive my point of view 2 cents.

I'm having a discussion. My views are irrelevent because I don't subscribe to a religion you deem relevant? How would you ever discuss religion with someone outside of your sphere of beliefs then?

I believe Jesus existed and I believe he had a great philosphy on how to live life that many people could do well to follow.

However, I do not subscribe to a god that most Christians subscribe too, because I don't believe an all loving god places the rules Christians believe he does.

[Spurminator]

If God would let everybody into Heaven, then what is the point of piety?

[MannyIsGod]

Ever think that heaven/hell was an invention of people seeking control of people in the form of piety?

[2centsworth]

According to you, am I not God's child?

I'm not trying to get you to belive my point of view 2 cents.

I'm having a discussion. My views are irrelevent because I don't subscribe to a religion you deem relevant? How would you ever discuss religion with someone outside of your sphere of beliefs then?

I believe Jesus existed and I believe he had a great philosphy on how to live life that many people could do well to follow.

However, I do not subscribe to a god that most Christians subscribe too, because I don't believe an all loving god places the rules Christians believe he does.

You're god's child like my child will be when she's an adult, so an adult has the ability to make his own decisions.

Your view are not irrelevant, but you say you can't believe in Jesus as God because the bible says some people will go to hell. The bible say's that going to heaven is as simple as believing in Jesus as Lord. If you don't believe then the choice is your's not his. A lot of God's to choose from, and there can only be one. Eventually you have to choose one, make one up as you go, or be an anthiest. Jesus states if you're an adult you're old enough to make a decision.


What rules are you talking about?

[Jekka]

Jess was still logged in, reposting under my name.
-Manny

[MannyIsGod]

The rules you just laid out.

The rules of the different demoninations.

Mainly, the existence of a hell, whatever it may be, is contradictory to an all loving and merciful god and can not coexisit, in my view.

I also find it contradictory to say I'm supposed to worship somebody while being on an equal level as them. And if I'm not on an equal level, then how can god not have pity on me regardless of what I may or may not do?

And, I don't need succumb to any organized religion, and I don't need to be an atheist. I can find spirituality within myself, and be at peace with that and nothing more. And if that happens to offend any god or son of god out there, so be it.

[Spurminator]

Ever think that heaven/hell was an invention of people seeking control of people in the form of piety?

Most definitely. I have no doubt in my mind there are those in our history who have used the threat of hell for power without truly believing in God, and I believe there is a place in the deepest circle of hell for them. But that's really another discussion altogether, isn't it?

The debate is whether or not an Unconditionally Loving God could possibly deny Unconditional Reward.

[MannyIsGod]

The debate is whether or not an Unconditionally Loving God could possibly deny Unconditional Reward.

Ok, and quite simply to me, an unconditionaly loving god could not punish for eternity, or even deny an eternal reward.

I find it contradictory to think that it could.

[2centsworth]

The rules you just laid out.

The rules of the different demoninations.

Mainly, the existence of a hell, whatever it may be, is contradictory to an all loving and merciful god and can not coexisit, in my view.

I also find it contradictory to say I'm supposed to worship somebody while being on an equal level as them. And if I'm not on an equal level, then how can god not have pity on me regardless of what I may or may not do?

And, I don't need succumb to any organized religion, and I don't need to be an atheist. I can find spirituality within myself, and be at peace with that and nothing more. And if that happens to offend any god or son of god out there, so be it.

The decision is yours.