"Any help we can get with this will be greatly appreciated and, I believe, rewarded in heaven."

August 25, 2007 3:45 PM

Ted Haggard returns --with a cash for heaven offer to support him while he helps "broken people". Unfortunately, the procedure outlined is illegal, and the charity (Families With a Mission) is unregistered and run by a convicted sex offender. Meanwhile, Mike Jones, Haggard's favorite whore, pops up at a dirty bar trivia night (questions about Haggard and him, maybe nsfw, textwise)
posted by amberglow (184 comments total)

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:55 PM on August 25, 2007 [5 favorites]

Have some extra cash? Feel like going to heaven? Then you might consider sending Ted Haggard and his family some monthly checks for the next two years while they move into a halfway house and get psychology and counseling degrees from the University of Phoenix.

That is a great opening paragraph.
posted by billysumday at 3:56 PM on August 25, 2007

I was under the impression that Haggard's position had made him very wealthy, which is what rankled me so when I saw him in Affluenza preaching the necessity and virtue of the simple life.

Also, good use of the chutzpah tag.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:58 PM on August 25, 2007

From the first link:

In what is clearly a fundraising letter, Haggard indicated, "we need to raise our own support." However, he doesn't mention that when he left the church, New Life Church leaders agreed to pay his salary through 2007 - estimated at about $138,000 annually.

In addition, as Colorado Confidential reported earlier this month, El Paso County Assessor property records show that the Haggard's still own their 5-bedroom, 3-bath home in Colorado Springs. Sitting on 5.1 acres, its current market value is listed at $715,051.

I guess he would be even less successful if he called his fundraising drive "Please give money to gay meth-head disgraced pastor with a million dollars in assets".


Not that there's anything wrong with being gay. But there is something very wrong with being Ted Haggard.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:59 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

He's like a case of herpes on the junk of society: just when you think he's gone, all of a sudden oozing sores start popping up again.
posted by papakwanz at 3:59 PM on August 25, 2007 [3 favorites]

I guess he would be even less successful if he called his fundraising drive "Please give money to gay meth-head disgraced pastor with a million dollars in assets".


Maybe he’s saving it for hookers and meth?
; >
posted by amberglow at 4:02 PM on August 25, 2007

and isn't the University of Phoenix some mail-order university or diploma mill or something?
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on August 25, 2007

So the illegal part is tax fraud, right? Laundering donations through a nonprofit or something? That seems like it's illegal, but it's not 100% clear to me. Does this letter represent a conspiracy to commit tax fraud?
posted by mr_roboto at 4:06 PM on August 25, 2007

Could you imagine teaching, say, Psychology 315: The Psychology of Sexuality, and seeing Ted Haggard's garish mug boring a hole in your soul from the first row?
posted by lazaruslong at 4:07 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

"I am pursuing my master of science in counseling..."

Did any of you also come across this in Ted's letter and get to wondering..?
posted by toma at 4:09 PM on August 25, 2007

You can't designate a tax-deductible contribution to a charity to be allocated that way (the 90-10 thing), and the charity is not registered with the state-- Illegal in at least 2 ways.
posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on August 25, 2007

It's not illegal to ask for money for your family's living expenses (and actually this sort of thing is commonly done among Christians who are going on a mission of some sort), but it is illegal to claim a tax deduction from a dissolved charitable organization.

I'd hope that no one gives him any money, but I know better.
posted by orange swan at 4:09 PM on August 25, 2007

"I am pursuing my master of science in counseling..."

Did any of you also come across this in Ted's letter and get to wondering..?

Er, yeah. Is there such a thing? Since when is counselling a "science"?
posted by orange swan at 4:11 PM on August 25, 2007

Actually, I thought perhaps his group counseling employed a 'Master of Science' guy, and Ted had a crush.
posted by toma at 4:15 PM on August 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Of course, anybody who fancied himself a 'Master of Science' might cut a pretty dashing, authoritative figure, who could blame him..
posted by toma at 4:18 PM on August 25, 2007

The University of Phoenix isn't exactly a diploma mill, but it is not without its detractors.

They let anyone enroll, have no professors, and everything is online. You do actually have to do things to get your degree, but it's mostly worthless. It's surprising how many people in IT have these imaginary degrees; it doesn't necessarily say anything about their competence (two extremely talented people I know got their degrees from UoP after they had mastered their fields, just to have a "piece of paper"), but without extensive experience, it looks pretty bad on the resume.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 4:26 PM on August 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

I should mention that I myself have not "attended" UoP, so I don't know these things firsthand. This is from the three people I know who took classes offered by them. I did, however, attend ITT, which is even worse: much more expensive.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 4:28 PM on August 25, 2007

Most of UoP's courses are offered either online or in evening classes; students typically take only one class at a time; and a typical class meets four hours per week. So Ted's plea for handouts to help with his "full-time" courseload sounds like a scam (shocker!).
posted by brain_drain at 4:34 PM on August 25, 2007

Calling the guy who runs the organization a 'sex offender' is guilding the lily a little bit.

He had sex with a 17 year old girl when he was in the military. Surely not good judgement, but it's not Dateline material.
posted by empath at 4:51 PM on August 25, 2007

I'm loving the way everybody's digging up all kinds of flaws with Haggard's letter.

It's such a mistake to try to misrepresent yourself or your activities in the Age of Information.
posted by orange swan at 4:56 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

He's got enough connections that someone could give him a job. I'd really rather see that happen than this. It would be better for him in the long run.
posted by konolia at 4:58 PM on August 25, 2007

empath, according to the article he had sex with an underage girl who was a "ward" of his family, and he was also convicted in Hawaii for attempted sexual assault. So he is more than a little bit worse than just a soldier who hooked up with a 17 year old.
posted by brain_drain at 5:09 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

Calling the guy who runs the organization a 'sex offender' is guilding the lily a little bit.

He had sex with a 17 year old girl when he was in the military. Surely not good judgement, but it's not Dateline material.
posted by empath at 6:51 PM on August 25

Yeah I gotta call bullshit here. He was 39, married with three children. He began masturbating in front of a 17 year old girl at a public pool, then went off and had "consensual sodomy" with her.

He then pled not-guilty and lied about it in court, claiming no sexual contact occurred and blaming the girl for seeing him naked because she was in the "men's area" of the pool.


To me, that doesn't say "poor judgment", it says "psycho scumbag".
posted by lazaruslong at 5:10 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

empath, given the various age of consent laws around the USA, it might actually be quite factual (if fucking stupid) to call him a sex offender.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:19 PM on August 25, 2007

Points for some clarity:

1) That letter is pretty SOP. I've seen letters like that dozens of time from pastors, 'freelance' preachers, missionaries, etc., since I grew up in a small Colorado town and was raised by evangelicals. It's not uncommon, and any Xian reading this article is likely to note that the letter by no means says that you'll go to heaven for giving, but that your kindness will be rewarded. I agree to the extent that I believe that kindness, no matter how misguided, is rewarded. What I'm saying: the article, and this post, are quite inflammatory, and take on the tone of a tabloid, not unlike most of the reportage about Haggard. This letter, for example, is by no means I can recognize illegal, any more than it would be illegal if I sent out a letter that said that a friend and I were starting a discreet gay sex collective for the purposes of exploring our love for each other, and if you'd be so kind as to do so, it would be nice to have some contributions. Nor is it necessarily bloody perversion for a military man to have sex with a 17-year-old, though it might be a real mistake. Lots of things are getting blown out of proportion here.

2) If the estimations of Haggard's net worth, his current 'severance package,' and the worth of his house are correct, the man's a tremendous asshole, or at the very least quite silly, for not seeing the audacity of what he's doing here. Perhaps the rich should be forgiven for misunderstanding how much money it takes to live frugally, but he's been forgiven plenty enough, and one would think he'd want to be ahead of the curve. This is one more reason why I'd really like the chance to sit this fucker down and explain to him in detail why nearly everything he's done since sperm met egg has been mind-numbingly idiotic, and why he ought to quit while he hasn't lost it all.
posted by koeselitz at 5:19 PM on August 25, 2007

He's got enough connections that someone could give him a job. I'd really rather see that happen than this. It would be better for him in the long run.
posted by konolia at 7:58 PM on August 25 [+] [!]

Really? Because I'd rather see him suffer for his fucking hypocrisy for the rest of his life. I want him to have no fucking chance of making more money ever again. I want to see him drown and suffer in the mountains of bullshit he has peddled.

Of course, you're the one who said he wasn't gay. So what do you know?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:21 PM on August 25, 2007 [3 favorites]

koeselitz: "Nor is it necessarily bloody perversion for a military man to have sex with a 17-year-old, though it might be a real mistake."

Noticing the details above in the thread, the tendency of this comment is withdrawn. I don't really see the point in giving an asshole more than his due.

While I don't like fanning the flame of rumor and speculation, I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that the %10 'administrative fee' going to this 17-year-old-german-girl-molesting fellow might in point of fact be a payment for past debts or future discretion.
posted by koeselitz at 5:23 PM on August 25, 2007

I'd rather see him get a job and become, if not a decent human being, then at least a reasonabe facsimile of one, who works to counteract much of the damage he's done in his life.
posted by orange swan at 5:26 PM on August 25, 2007

Dirtynumbangelboy, my point is that working for a living just like everyone else might be what he needs more than a handout.

I never specified WHAT job. I myself have worked in the past as a third shift Waffle House waitress. It didn't kill me.

One other point. No matter what Haggard may or may not deserve, his wife is definitely suffering for something she had nothing to do with. I'd be more inclined to donate for HER to go to school if I had that choice.
posted by konolia at 5:27 PM on August 25, 2007

orange swan, I love you to bits, but he will never learn. I would love for him to be confronted with the fruits of his hypocrisy and learn from them, but he just doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would. One would think that his extremely public shaming might have done that, but his cognitive dissonance and his investment in Who He Is are fare too strong.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:28 PM on August 25, 2007

He could just be trying to pay off a very large mortgage.
posted by koeselitz at 5:28 PM on August 25, 2007

While I don't like fanning the flame of rumor and speculation, I wonder if it's occurred to anyone that the %10 'administrative fee' going to this 17-year-old-german-girl-molesting fellow might in point of fact be a payment for past debts or future discretion.

forget fanning flames--that pretty much pours gasoline on it, koeselitz. : >
posted by amberglow at 5:28 PM on August 25, 2007

I agree with you, DNAB. He won't learn, much as it would be best for all if he did. So, let the pointing and laughing resume!

He could also own that house mortgage free and also have considerable capital socked away somewhere, koeselitz. Something else for the internet sleuths to find out.
posted by orange swan at 5:32 PM on August 25, 2007

i bet the church paid for that house.
posted by amberglow at 5:33 PM on August 25, 2007

dirtynumbangelboy: "orange swan, I love you to bits, but he will never learn. I would love for him to be confronted with the fruits of his hypocrisy and learn from them, but he just doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would. One would think that his extremely public shaming might have done that, but his cognitive dissonance and his investment in Who He Is are fare too strong."

People who can't help how awful or terrible they are cannot, unfortunately, be blamed. They have to be helped. That's what punishment is for. Forgiveness is for those of us who are charged with punishing them, so that we don't lose sight of the fact that the object of punishment is to help every living thing.

And, though 'forgiveness' is a word that Haggard and his type are wont to toss around wildly, it is in reality still a very, very valuable thing.
posted by koeselitz at 5:33 PM on August 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

I've never really understood how so many, otherwise intelligent, Christians get fleeced by con men like this. And not just once, but over and over.

How many Bakkers, Swaggarts, Robertsons and Haggards need to be exposed as blatent, lying, frauds before Christianity as a whole actually stops supporting them? I mean, this guy is less believable than a Nigerian spammer and I'll give you any odds you want that he'll be rolling in cash from the suckers before another month or two has passed. WTF is wrong with those people? Is it some odd form of mass psychosis, or just plain old stupidity?

konolia Either his wife is a masochist or she's in on it with him. I know the "I can change him" meme is regrettably strong in many women, but her husband has been revealed to be a drug addict who has gay sex with drug addicted prostitutes. If she hasn't dumped him after that she's either an accomplace or she genuinely enjoys suffering. Either way she's obviously happy in her situation and thus I see no need to give her money for anything. Let her work for minimum wage and see how she likes living like the poor saps her husband fleeced. I've got nothing but bitterness, contempt and revulsion for both of 'em.
posted by sotonohito at 5:37 PM on August 25, 2007 [4 favorites]

He's got enough connections that someone could give him a job. I'd really rather see that happen than this. It would be better for him in the long run.
posted by konolia at 4:58 PM on August 25

Why don't you offer to let him stay at your house? That would probably be better for him, right? And as you said a few months ago, he's not gay and he doesn't have any substance abuse problems. So pick up the phone.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:37 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

Anybody who is surprised at this hasn't paid much attention to how the preacher scam typically works.
Robert Tilton is still at it, even if he isn't raking it in like he used to.
There's always some pathetic loser waiting to be fleeced by the jesus hustle.
posted by 2sheets at 5:51 PM on August 25, 2007

Off-topic, but related ...

Quite the time for the right(eous), 'Family Values' crowd these past few weeks:

North Carolina: former Christian group leader pleads guilty to solicitation.

Minnesota State Rep. Mark Olsen, the co-sponsor of a (failed) state marriage amendment to ban gays and lesbians from marrying, was convicted by a jury for domestic assault.

Orlando Murder-Suicide involving GOP Consultant -- a Lovers' Row?

Busted Florida Republican state rep's "black gay panic" defense on soliciting charge.

Defiant Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Will Risk Tourism for Anti-gay Views.

Baptist minister arrested for indecent exposure, DUI -- and that's just the start.

posted by ericb at 5:54 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

ericb, that first link of yours-my husband knew that man (through politics.) The state Republicans are pretty shocked and upset about it.

Christians (and or folks who think they are) really should know that none of us (that is, none of us Christians) get away with stuff. God makes sure we get caught if we mess up.

I really don't have a problem with that.
posted by konolia at 5:58 PM on August 25, 2007

if I sent out a letter that said that a friend and I were starting a discreet gay sex collective for the purposes of exploring our love for each other, and if you'd be so kind as to do so, it would be nice to have some contributions

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine and I did something very similar, as we effectively started a discreet straight sex collective for the purposes of exploring our love for each other, and we did send out a large number of mailings, many of which resulted in generous contributions from friends and family.

Most people would call those mailings "wedding invitations."
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:59 PM on August 25, 2007 [3 favorites]

I've never really understood how so many, otherwise intelligent, Christians get fleeced by con men like this. And not just once, but over and over.

I think it's because we tend to want to believe the best of people. But I do wish we would use the sense God gave us and STOP IT.
posted by konolia at 6:00 PM on August 25, 2007

He could also own that house mortgage free and also have considerable capital socked away somewhere, koeselitz. Something else for the internet sleuths to find out.

I suspect that there'll be results of such sleuthing popping up on the Internets this week and next.
posted by ericb at 6:04 PM on August 25, 2007

If he's still paying a mortgage on that thing he's in trouble.

The housing market at that level is pretty soft there right now.
posted by konolia at 6:09 PM on August 25, 2007

Have some extra cash? Feel like going to heaven? Then you might consider sending....

As a Lutheran, for historical reasons I have a serious problem with the opening sentences of this pitch.
posted by pax digita at 6:18 PM on August 25, 2007 [4 favorites]

And, though 'forgiveness' is a word that Haggard and his type are wont to toss around wildly, it is in reality still a very, very valuable thing.

koeselitz, I absolutely agree. But there are some things for which forgivenss is not possible. His continuing demonization of gay people, whilst indulging in all of those same activities, is unforgivable to me.

I think it's because we tend to want to believe the best of people. But I do wish we would use the sense God gave us and STOP IT.
posted by konolia at 9:00 PM on August 25 [+] [!]

Like when you were saying that Haggard wasn't gay? That's some pretty awesome common sense right there.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:36 PM on August 25, 2007

nail 'em on the door pax, nail 'em on the door;)
posted by vronsky at 6:46 PM on August 25, 2007

No gaydar tag?

At this point I can only assume one thing: The scamsters who profit from the gullible are secular con artists. The money they take from the gullible (and use to enrich drug dealers and gay prostitutes) means that much less is available for the scammed to send to the GOP. It used to anger me--but now I'm all for it.
posted by maxwelton at 8:09 PM on August 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think it's because we tend to want to believe the best of people. But I do wish we would use the sense God gave us and STOP IT

He can't stop it... HE'S GAY!
posted by disgruntled at 9:16 PM on August 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

koeselitz writes "This letter, for example, is by no means I can recognize illegal, any more than it would be illegal if I sent out a letter that said that a friend and I were starting a discreet gay sex collective for the purposes of exploring our love for each other, and if you'd be so kind as to do so, it would be nice to have some contributions. "

What about the "tax deduction" shit, though?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:11 AM on August 26, 2007

How many Bakkers, Swaggarts, Robertsons and Haggards need to be exposed as blatent, lying, frauds before Christianity as a whole actually stops supporting them? I mean, this guy is less believable than a Nigerian spammer

So? Logically, Nigerian spammers are more credible than the occurances and descriptions in any holy book . By these standards these con men people make tons of sense. I dont know if this can be fixed. I think if people lived with the amount of skepticism you advocate then they probably wouldnt be regular church-goers to begin with.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:31 AM on August 26, 2007

damn dirty ape I'm an atheist myself, and I'm not trying to turn this into a LOLXIANS thread.

Besides, it isn't the case. There are many regular church-goers who are savy enough to avoid being scammed. In fact, I'd guess that the majority, perhaps even the vast majority, of American Christians neither have in the past nor will in the future send any money to such fraudsters. But the ones who do seem to have some sort of actual mental problem in that seem unable to stop. There appears to be a core group of a couple million idiots who can't seem to say no when even a proven fraud says "God wants you to give me money".

As for LOLXIANS, I will observe that most scientists in the US are Christian of one brand or another and they seem to operate just fine. Admittedly, I suspect they do so by compartmentalizing their minds, but Christianity is not, in and of itself, evidence of suckerhood or a lack of critical thinking skills. I'd be perfectly happy if it and all the other remnant superstitions would just dry up and blow away, and I do think it is, though at a speed much lower than I want.

Also, curse you d.d.a. for making me defend Christianity, and religion in general. I hate when I have to defend something and/or someone I really don't like because the attack on them is so annoying.
posted by sotonohito at 4:53 AM on August 26, 2007

Christians (and or folks who think they are) really should know that none of us (that is, none of us Christians) get away with stuff. God makes sure we get caught if we mess up.

And he pays us back for it by giving us teh AIDS
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:18 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, I am an atheist too, and have no qualms:

LOLXTIANS

Jeebus F**ing H. Christ. So people still want to think of Haggard as a "fallen" "man of god" after all this? They deserve each other.

And as for konolia's comment that Xtians should know they can't get away with shit, come the hell on. They get away with (and have for ages) running a massive tax-exempt business for profit and giving almost nothing back to society, molesting altar boys for decades, and scamming billions from the sheep who believe the stories in their little good book. And they get away with hijacking the secular government of a country founded on freedom of and from religion and the separation of church and state. They get away with almost *every* absurd, illegal, awful, insane, illogical, small-minded, greedy, un-Christian thing they do. The reason the Haggard-esque stories are cool is that they are among the FEW times these hypocritical liars in cassocks and crosses actually DON'T "get away" with anything.

If you mean by "they don't get away with it" that they might someday go to "hell," that's silly. Because unless you can prove there is a hell, it is reasonable to presume there isn't, and they will have gotten away with whatever they got away with in their lives on earth. We have earthly justice to consider here, and earthly justice would seem to call for the taxation of every religious institution, just for starters, that collects a dime in revenue from any source. Saying that the evil-doing Christians will pay for their sins in the afterlife is special pleading, enabling, and excusing immorality you supposedly condemn as a "Christian."

And dont' talk of "forgiveness" until you exercise some yourselves. Or at least "tolerance." Or just shut the hell up, do what you believe is right for yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:35 AM on August 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

God makes sure we get caught if we mess up. ...So, is God, like, the internet?
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:08 AM on August 26, 2007

Well, I MEANT caught in THIS life.

Because if they don't get caught until the NEXT life, I doubt they were really Christians to begin with.

God spanks His kids.
posted by konolia at 9:02 AM on August 26, 2007

The mind boggles. It really does.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:21 AM on August 26, 2007

Also, curse you d.d.a. for making me defend Christianity, and religion in general. I hate when I have to defend something and/or someone I really don't like because the attack on them is so annoying.

Perhaps I wasnt clear. I know a lot of religious people but very few are regular church goers. Or regular church goers who give in to Chrisstian programing and Christian rock and bumper stickers, and hot button issues, etc. To these, say, more extreme elements, i stand by what I wrote. They so credulous to begin, it makes perfect sense they give their cash to these ridiculous characters.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:47 AM on August 26, 2007

Well, I MEANT caught in THIS life.

Because if they don't get caught until the NEXT life, I doubt they were really Christians to begin with.

Wait, so if I avoid converting to Christianity, I have a better chance of getting away with stuff? What are the "getting away with stuff" modifiers for each religion/philosophical stance? My inner min-maxer wants to know. Does Satanism have the best modifier?

God spanks His kids.

God burns his kids' hands on the stove and shoves them down the stairs. Then he screams that he loves them and demands that they obey him and not make him hurt them again.

And that's just the story of Noah!; the whole book is full of such abusive behavior. If the Bible happened in America today, god would be doing most of the rest of his life on child abuse charges and humanity would be getting bounced around various foster homes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:03 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

konolia Sorry, you can't play the "real Christians" card and expect to be taken seriously. You aren't the arbiter of who is Christian and who isn't, anymore than I am. If someone says they're a Christian, then they're Christian. I'm not allowed [1] to disavow the atheists I'd like to, so there's no way I'll let you get away with claiming that Christianity, by definition, excludes evil little shits like Haggard.

I'm not going to play LOLXIANS, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call you on that sort of crap. Christians are just as capiable of evil as anyone else, and trying to claim that the evil Christians aren't "real" Christians is pretty slimey.

damn dirty ape That's very nearly a tautology: people who give to religious hucksters are so credulous that they'll give to religious hucksters. But, I see what you mean.

Pope Guilty Re: minmaxing. If you accept Christian premises then no, Satanism isn't the best choice. Christianity is. Take the two basic premises:

1) Good behavior in this life has *NOTHING* to do with whether you get tortured for all eternity by the will of a loving god, or if you get into heaven.

2) A simple prayer in Jesus' name will get you divine forgivness for absolutely anything.

Given those premises the most rational behavior is to indulge every nasty, petty, and evil, urge you think you can avoid secular punishment for, say a daily (or hourly, or whatever) prayer for forgivness and rest assured that even if you raped, tortured, and ate a whole kindergarten class you'll be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, while the Buddhis monks (suckers!) who lived good lives will scream in agony for all eternity because God loves them.

The docterine of eternal damnation is, I think, what will finally kill off Christianity. Most people who accept it simply haven't thought it through. It'd take a genuine psychopath to really and truly think that eternal damnation makes sense, and is the work of a loving and just deity.

[1] By my own self-honesty.
posted by sotonohito at 10:12 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

sonotohito, I'm not talking about otherworldly consequences. konolia seems to be suggesting that Christians won't get away with things in this life, so I'm asking what the modifiers are for other religions. It strikes me that if Christianity gives a 100% chance of getting caught, then Satanism, its negation, should have a 0% chance. But then again, Satanists, in the classic sense (rather than in its LaVeyan sense) are basically Christians who are worshipping the wrong guy- so I dunno what the best religion/philosophical stance would be. I was hoping konolia would know, since she apparently knows Christianity's modifier.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:37 AM on August 26, 2007

Pope Guilty: "Wait, so if I avoid converting to Christianity, I have a better chance of getting away with stuff? What are the "getting away with stuff" modifiers for each religion/philosophical stance? My inner min-maxer wants to know. Does Satanism have the best modifier?"

The 'modifier' is 'trying to do good,' you flaming dipshit. It's pretty damned obvious. I have a feeling that if you were an earnestly patriotic German girl in 1943 who carried her Nazi card and baked cupcakes for the troops, not knowing the atrocities and believing they were saving the world, you'd still be doing a good thing; being a morally upright person is in the intention, not in the outcome. So even a silly and empty faith, like satanism and atheism, can have earnest and caring adherents.

The trouble isn't that religious people are vacuous. It's a common mistake in these times, because people have a hard time recognizing in themselves the faults they see in others. The trouble is that western humans, and especially the godforsaken, empty, robotic, soulless citizens of the United States of fucking America, are vacuous, cruel, heartless, tragic, and numb. We're all fucked. And if we look across the aisle and see it in the Xians, we should know we're looking in a fucking mirror.

Everyone-- Xians, atheists, republicans, democrats, everyone-- is on the same foolish level. It's obvious even in this thread, and in the way that, while Xians sit and try to hold up their pale imitation of the standard of faith by clinging to such things as "creation science," atheists don't even pretend to reflect on the possibility that Xians might have forgotten the depth of their tradition, and consider religion refuted when a few monkeys who've memorized a few bible verses are proven to be idiots.
posted by koeselitz at 10:42 AM on August 26, 2007

Oh, koeselitz, you really should read sonotohito's comment and my reply before you make it abundantly clear that you haven't.

Also:

atheists don't even pretend to reflect on the possibility that Xians might have forgotten the depth of their tradition, and consider religion refuted when a few monkeys who've memorized a few bible verses are proven to be idiots.

LOL, sir.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:49 AM on August 26, 2007

Pope Guilty: But then again, Satanists, in the classic sense (rather than in its LaVeyan sense) are basically Christians who are worshipping the wrong guy- so I dunno what the best religion/philosophical stance would be."

Since you bring this up again, I find it serves my larger point (that your understanding of Xianity is akin to that of most Xians in being spectacularly limited) is well-served when I point this out:

Probably the most important and influential Xian teacher of the last hundred years, C. S. Lewis, took the position in his children's books that even an adherent of the most backwards Satanism would find redemption if he'd done it because he confused Satanism with the good. Morality, again, is about intention, not outcome. Specifically, please note that, at the end of the Lion, Witch, et al. trilogy, Aslan tells one of his clearly satanist enemies: "you are one of my own, and were all the time, because you did what you thought was right."
posted by koeselitz at 10:49 AM on August 26, 2007

I have a feeling that if you were an earnestly patriotic German girl in 1943 who carried her Nazi card and baked cupcakes for the troops, not knowing the atrocities and believing they were saving the world, you'd still be doing a good thing; being a morally upright person is in the intention, not in the outcome.

This is insane. Working in service of evil is not good.

Opening the closet door to reveal Haggard's lies and immorality and hypocrisy and crimes was a good thing. If people continue to be deluded by this guy and continue to support him, they're not doing good--no matter what they intend.

Q. What is Mike Jones doing at the Irish Rover on a Monday?
posted by amberglow at 11:03 AM on August 26, 2007

Probably the most important and influential Xian teacher of the last hundred years, C. S. Lewis, took the position in his children's books that even an adherent of the most backwards Satanism would find redemption if he'd done it because he confused Satanism with the good. Morality, again, is about intention, not outcome. Specifically, please note that, at the end of the Lion, Witch, et al. trilogy, Aslan tells one of his clearly satanist enemies: "you are one of my own, and were all the time, because you did what you thought was right."

Hi there! I was raised Christian and, up until I started to really think about the implications of some of the teachings, I was known at the church I was raised in as the kid who knew more about the Bible than the Sunday School teachers and one of the pastors. I embarassed senior members by pointing out problems in their theological assessments.

I'm not saying this to toot my own horn-nowadays, I regard knowledge of the Bible as spectacularly worthless outside of a few narrow areas, like being familiar enough with Leviticus to smack down homophobes with it. My point is, I'm quite familiar with the Bible. And frankly, I don't give two shakes of a dead rat's ass for C. S. Lewis' fantasies about a loving God. It's unbiblical and reflects a desire for God to be loving and merciful that is unsupported by scripture.

At any rate, you're failing so badly at reading comprehension that you can't even realise that you're essentially confirming what I said as accurate- that Satanists are basically Christians who fucked up and chose the wrong guy to worship. The Bible says that it's only through Christ that man can attain Heaven. Lewis' argument boils down to salvation through good intentions. Perhaps you've heard of a road that's paved with them?
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:10 AM on August 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

koeselitz I always enjoy discussing theology, so I'll dive in here.

A study of Christian theologists, as well as Biblical sources, indicate that the message Lewis included in The Last Battle is hetrodox in the extreme. The vast majority of Christian scholars agree that it is, in fact, the name of the deity you worship, not the intent that counts.

The axioms in my argument above, if not the conclusion, are perfectly within orthodox Christian theology. Considering that I paraphrased those axioms from Aquinas, I'd say that I'm in the realm of orthodox Christian thought.

As for "morality", I'll ask you to define the term. In my experience most people use it to mean "obedience to the sexual taboos of my tribe and the cheerful obedience of inferiors to superiors". Then I'll ask you what morality has to do with Christianity.

Because we keep coming back to the forgivness angle. Yes, the Bible does have not one, but dozens, of laundry lists of prohibited behaviors [1], but I've never understood why. Since no one is good enough for heaven (Romans 3:20-23), and Jesus represents the only way to heaven (the ever famous John 3:16 and dozens of others).

In fact, some mainstream Christian sects preach exactly what I've just written. They usually say "Faith not works" or something along those lines, but the message is the same.

Since behavior is, according to orthodox Christian theology, irrelivant WRT heaven and hell, why would any Christian bother following the various prohibitions? It doesn't matter if you do or don't.

Which brings me back to the question of why a Christian should, or would, bother trying to do good? As an atheist I have what I consider to be valid reasons for trying to do good, but I'll admit that my study of Christian theology has yet to show me a good reason for a true Bible believer to have the faintest desire to do good.

Pope Guilty I misunderstood your question, sorry. Also, on preview, what you said.

[1] Note, however, that never once does it explain *WHY* a given behavior is immoral, or wrong, or abomination, or whatever. Thus making it all but impossible to determine whether an action that is not inclued in the laundry lists (cloning, for example) is moral or not. A laundry list is not a system of morality, and a system of morality cannot be devised from a laundry list.
posted by sotonohito at 11:17 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

They usually say "Faith not works" or something along those lines, but the message is the same.

Who was it that had that line about a faith that doesn't produce works being empty? I always thought that that was a solid point.

Since behavior is, according to orthodox Christian theology, irrelivant WRT heaven and hell, why would any Christian bother following the various prohibitions? It doesn't matter if you do or don't.

It's my understanding that such prohibitions reflect the will of God WRT morality- if you're really saved, then you want to be good and to please God. You would, then, follow the rules set down in the Bible not because you think you have to in order to go to Heaven, but because you want to please God and those rules are an indication of what pleases and displeases God.

You can always go with the Jack Chick "Say the magic words!" definition of salvation, but it's so very hollow.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:35 AM on August 26, 2007

Not my fault. The Devil made me do it!
posted by ericb at 11:37 AM on August 26, 2007

I don't believe in "say the magic words" either.

My definition of it is "repent and believe the gospel." The true gospel teaches that if one has faith, one WILL be producing the works. That is what sanctification is about.

One can be forgiven and justified (made right before God) but the process of sanctification needs to continue throughout one's lifetime.

I guess the best way to explain this is that an apple tree will produce apples. In the same way, if you are the possessor of a saving faith, you WILL be doing good works. You WILL be walking more and more as Jesus walked.

In essence: a Christian's spirit IS saved, his soul is BEING saved and his body WILL be saved.

If you are confused, that's okay. But if nothing else please understand that just repeating a prayer saved no one. Repenting and believing does. There IS A DIFFERENCE.
posted by konolia at 11:44 AM on August 26, 2007

konolia, that's pretty much my understanding of the theology, there.

I'm still waiting on the +get caught modifiers for the various religions, by the way.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:47 AM on August 26, 2007

If someone says they're a Christian, then they're Christian.

Well, not even the Bible teaches that. The Bible itself says there are those who call Jesus "Lord, Lord" but his response is " I never knew you."
posted by konolia at 11:47 AM on August 26, 2007

konolia -- I think it's because we [Christians] tend to want to believe the best of people.

Konolia, Christianity is inescapably hostile to the entire concept of believing in the innate goodness of people. Christianity teaches that every human is born drench in the evil of original sin and spiritually doomed without active intervention.
posted by NortonDC at 12:26 PM on August 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Konolia, Christianity is inescapably hostile to the entire concept of believing in the innate goodness of people. Christianity teaches that every human is born drench in the evil of original sin and spiritually doomed without active intervention.

Exactly.

But I was referring to what is commonly called the "love" chapter of First Corinthians, chapter 13
posted by konolia at 2:14 PM on August 26, 2007

So do you see how a reasonable person could think that's at odds with believing the best of people?
posted by NortonDC at 2:27 PM on August 26, 2007

konolia I'm perfectly aware of what the Bible teaches, I'm not Christian myself and never have been, but I'm interested in theology.

However, my point is that neither you, nor I, am the arbiter of who is or is not a Christian. Given that either I'm right and your deity does not exist, or if you are right he's hiding and not saying anything, the only real option we have is to take people at their word when they say "I'm a Christian". Or are you proposing that you are the mouthpiece of your god? Because unless you are proposing that, I don't see how you're in any position to judge whether or not someone is Christian any more than I am.

As for doing good, I can see your line of reasoning, and think it makes for a better way to be Christian than many others. Unfortunately the Jack Chick magic words approach is being widely embraced and spread by the Mega-Church type places that measure success in number of bodies. And, needless to say, by Haggard and his ilk.

Speaking as an atheist I'm especially unwilling to ever say that any person is not really a member of the religion they claim.

Pope Guilty Yup, except for the fact that the rules still seem to imply that the minmax approach to Christianity, if we assume Christinity is real, would work just fine. There doesn't seem to be any requirement that one truly desire to please God in order to be saved. Jack Chick and his magic words do have quite a bit of Biblical basis.

I think, honestly, its an example of Paul getting too clever for his own good. Several of his letters (Romans, for example) include quite elegant logic chains (his "everyone believes and if they say they don't they're lying" bit is especially fun). But if you say "good behavior matters" then there will be less incentive to go to church and give your money to the priests, so he couldn't say that. The problem is that by putting in all the "belief alone is all that matters" stuff it offers no real reason to do good.

Among teenagers exposed to several modern preachers and televangalists it often gets expressed as "if I go party and screw around I can make up for it by harrassing the teacher about evolution".

I think the faith vs. works bit a pretty serious theological flaw, and I think its contributory to the declining numbers of Christians. Between that and eternal damnation it isn't surprising that you see so many people abandoning Christinaity, or at least orthodox Christianity. One of my arch-fundamentalist friends recently came out of a crisis of faith and became a Universalist (not a Unitarian Universalist) because he was unable to accept the docterne of eternal damnation once he started really thinking about it.
posted by sotonohito at 2:44 PM on August 26, 2007

I don't see how you're in any position to judge whether or not someone is Christian any more than I am

You may be surprised to know that I can't claim to know 100 percent if someone is really Christian. What I can claim is that God Himself does know who is regenerated and who isn't. As the Bible does teach, man looks at appearance and God looks at the heart.


One of my arch-fundamentalist friends recently came out of a crisis of faith and became a Universalist (not a Unitarian Universalist) because he was unable to accept the docterne of eternal damnation once he started really thinking about it.

In order to receive my certificate for a worship leading course at my church's Bible college, I had to take two pretty intense courses in systematic theology. In those courses I found out that ultimately every one of us deserves nothing less than hell. It's a true miracle of grace any of us gets anything better. Either way it's pretty mindboggling. I can understand why someone would become a Universalist (and I can think of one prominent pastor who did just that) but Biblically there is no way I could defend that belief system.

I wish we all were going to heaven. I wish we all were fit for heaven, and I wish we could have been fit for heaven without Jesus doing what He did and suffering what He suffered. But that isn't how things are. I do trust that God in His wisdom and mercy does all things right, even the hell part.

People go to hell because they are rebels against God, period. If God glossed that over, he'd have to let Satan back in. That ain't happening.
posted by konolia at 3:42 PM on August 26, 2007

In those courses I found out that ultimately every one of us deserves nothing less than hell. It's a true miracle of grace any of us gets anything better.

Your religion is tragic and sad--and belittling. God never believed or said that any of us belong in hell, and he purposely and repeatedly engaged in covenants with us because we are so worthwhile and because we have so much promise and value--as humans.
posted by amberglow at 4:12 PM on August 26, 2007

I don't even see why anyone is pro-life at all if everyone deserves hell--what's the point? Mass suicide should be Christian doctrine.
posted by amberglow at 4:19 PM on August 26, 2007

Reading the rest of this thread, I feel like I'm standing in the shadows of a dimly lit room. Three figures sit in regal mahogany armchairs with plush cushions the color of blood.

They sip 15 year old single malts with a little ice and a dash of spring water, and have excellent hand gestures.

One is wearing a furry suit.
posted by lazaruslong at 4:19 PM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

In order to receive my certificate for a worship leading course at my church's Bible college, I had to take two pretty intense courses in systematic theology. In those courses I found out that ultimately every one of us deserves nothing less than hell. It's a true miracle of grace any of us gets anything better. Either way it's pretty mindboggling. I can understand why someone would become a Universalist (and I can think of one prominent pastor who did just that) but Biblically there is no way I could defend that belief system.

wow it's weird that out of the literally thousands of Christian sects and interpretations of the Bible the correct one turned out to be the one taught at a community college night class in Shitburg, WV
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:32 PM on August 26, 2007 [3 favorites]

Pope Guilty: "Hi there! ... I'm quite familiar with the Bible."

Hi there! Bullshit.

"And frankly, I don't give two shakes of a dead rat's ass for C. S. Lewis' fantasies about a loving God. It's unbiblical and reflects a desire for God to be loving and merciful that is unsupported by scripture... The Bible says that it's only through Christ that man can attain Heaven. Lewis' argument boils down to salvation through good intentions."

If you weren't so busy spinning your head around inside your own ass, you'd realize that you're merely parroting the "Jack Chick" version of Xianity that you seem to acknowledge isn't the deeper reading of it. It is clear, and has been clear since day one of this whole Christ thing, that it can have an inner meaning and an outer meaning. And only the most simplistic fools would take the verses near the beginning of the fourteenth chapter of John to mean that "no one comes to the father except if they mutter some prayers which happen to include the Anglicized version of my name."

In fact, there are so many aspects of that passage that you're blatantly ignoring, it's as though you're wearing sunglasses smeared with shit. Don't fool yourself; you're just as brainwashed as the simpletons who ran your sunday school classes.

First of all: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" why those three things? I have a feeling it's not merely because you get into heaven with his ticket, else somebody along the line might've made it more economical and just changed it to "life." Second of all: "no one comes to the father except by me," what exactly does it mean to 'come to the father?' You'll say, 'ah, well, it's just a metaphor for going to heaven,' because, as I've said, you've been brainwashed like the rest of them. I'll remind you (if you knew it, which I doubt) that church doctrine, original and correct church doctrine, indicates that there is a delicate and difficult-to-define relationship between the persons of the trinity; careful reading of the bible bears this doctrine out. Why it must be necessary to 'come to the father' in order to attain whatever it is Jesus is promising to his followers here? What exactly is the meaning of the apparent metaphor about his father's house having many rooms?

Third of all, and finally: what exactly does it mean to come to the father through the Christ? While useless bags of piss (like you, my Papal friend) are given to acting as though this simply means one must have "JESUS IS COOL!" stamped on a sort of membership card when one meets the proverbial Peter at the proverbial Pearly Gates, the context, and especially the metaphor with which the chapter begins, indicate that this is an image; and it would be hard to read the new testament as a whole honestly and come away thinking that it's suggesting we start some sort of club.

It's not for nothing that that original church doctrine (remember that pesky little bugger? Did you ever, in your supposedly long and careful years of studying the bible, even think to consider what it might have been?) claims that, not only did the Christ become man, he became wholly man, he became mankind itself, and is forever crucified within the hearts of every single human being. We must, doctrine continues, follow 'the way of the Christ,' bringing about a little resurrection within our hearts of the bit in us which partakes thusly, and, as it's known in that faded phrase, 'accept him into our hearts.'

Christianity is not about crosses, swords, church, baptism, crusades, politics, hatred, or anything like that.

Christianity is about the way that the finite, limited, spectacularly small moment is saturated, drenched, soaking and dripping with the infinite, the absolute, all-encompassing and unlimited. It's about the fact that that saturation of the limited by the unlimited is a sacrifice, and it means that we humans, for all that our minds are limited, for all that our knowledge, our experience, our love and our hate is infinitely small-- in other words, for all that we, too, will very soon lie empty and motionless on the ground and not even warrant a memory fifty years hence-- can, by grabbing on to the absolute that stoops down into limited reality, follow a pathway that opens us into infinity and eternity.

That pathway is what the Christ means in the fourteenth chapter of John. If anyone, of any religion, is able to follow it, then they attain salvation, according to the teaching of the verse. I hope you can begin to see by now just how difficult it will be for us to say whether other religions endorse this path, though it's clearly possible for it to have occurred to people outside of Christianity. If you'd like, I can begin producing a list of doctors of the church who thought the same damned thing.

But I have a feeling you don't really care to see it. Anyone who assumes that s/he attained deep mastery of a text that has puzzled the entire world for about twenty centuries by watching dunderheads play with felt cutouts of sheep and various ancient peoples at the age of ten probably doesn't really understand what reading actually entails.

on preview, since why stop now?

konolia: "... ultimately every one of us deserves nothing less than hell. It's a true miracle of grace any of us gets anything better. Either way it's pretty mindboggling. I can understand why someone would become a Universalist (and I can think of one prominent pastor who did just that) but Biblically there is no way I could defend that belief system."

Fucking hell. Please go read Dante now.

amberglow: "Your religion is tragic and sad--and belittling. God never believed or said that any of us belong in hell, and he purposely and repeatedly engaged in covenants with us because we are so worthwhile and because we have so much promise and value--as humans."

Fucking hell. Please go read Dante now.
posted by koeselitz at 5:42 PM on August 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

wow it's weird that out of the literally thousands of Christian sects and interpretations of the Bible the correct one turned out to be the one taught at a community college night class in Shitburg, WV

First of all, it was in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and not a community college. And our text was Berkhov's Systematic Theology.

For the first time in its long and acclaimed history, Louis Berkhof's monumental treatment of the doctrines of the Reformed faith is now available together in one volume with his Introduction to the Study of Systematic Theology, which serves as the prolegomenon to his theology. Designed to be read together with his Systematic Theology, the Introduction includes Berkhof's discussions of the nature and character of dogmatics, the methods and history of theological systematics, and the principia, or foundations, of theology: Scripture and God. This edition also includes a new preface by Richard A. Muller that explains both the publishing history and the relation and importance of the Introduction to the rest of Berkhof's text.
Written in a concise style and organized in a manner ideal for detailed study, Systematic Theology covers the full range of systematic loci including the doctrines of God, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The work also includes an extensive bibliography and full indexes to the authors, subjects, and Scriptures referenced in the text. Revised and enlarged throughout his lifetime until it reached its final form, Systematic Theology not only stands as Berkhof's magnum opus, but also is widely considered to be the most important twentieth-century compendium of Reformed theology.

Those two courses I took were the hardest classes I have ever taken in my life and that includes the philosophy class I took at NC State back in the day.
posted by konolia at 6:02 PM on August 26, 2007

I've read Dante. Fiction.
posted by konolia at 6:05 PM on August 26, 2007

In what sense?
posted by koeselitz at 6:30 PM on August 26, 2007

koeselitz. Buddy. You're trying very hard to do several things here, and you're still not disagreeing with me as badly as you want to because I'm not saying what your heart is burning for me to say so that you can smack me down. I'm still, no matter how satisfying it would be for you if I did, not arguing that you can just say a magic prayer and get it. Christ is pretty clear that it's through him only, and at no point does he appear to be endorsing any sort of "Say my name and get half off!" deal.

You go on about all these aspects that you need, desperately, for me to be unaware of so that you can smack me down by elucidating them. Hey, that's fine. It's good that you've found something to be passionate about. You're wrong, of course- I'm quite aware of those implications.

It's not for nothing that that original church doctrine (remember that pesky little bugger? Did you ever, in your supposedly long and careful years of studying the bible, even think to consider what it might have been?) claims that, not only did the Christ become man, he became wholly man, he became mankind itself, and is forever crucified within the hearts of every single human being. We must, doctrine continues, follow 'the way of the Christ,' bringing about a little resurrection within our hearts of the bit in us which partakes thusly, and, as it's known in that faded phrase, 'accept him into our hearts.'

Oh, koeselitz, I'm so aware of this. I mean, the idea of "original church doctrine" being even vaguely binding on any human being with discernment is as loathesome and vile as ever, but I can find no fault in your reading and interpretation- I think we hold many of the same points, excepting that you regard them as relevant to reality and I regard them as on the same level as the rules to Settlers of Catan.

That pathway is what the Christ means in the fourteenth chapter of John. If anyone, of any religion, is able to follow it, then they attain salvation, according to the teaching of the verse. I hope you can begin to see by now just how difficult it will be for us to say whether other religions endorse this path, though it's clearly possible for it to have occurred to people outside of Christianity. If you'd like, I can begin producing a list of doctors of the church who thought the same damned thing.

And here we go astray. Do not be deceived by Universalism, koeselitz; all religions are not one religion. Judaism does not offer salvation, nor Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Neo-paganism, nor any of the others. Many of them hold a certain portion of the contempt for humanity which stands at the base of Christianity, but they are not pointing at the God of Christianity. If they did so, there would be no moral disagreements between the faiths; as roads pointing in the same direction, their paths would vary only by their starting points, but the straight and narrow path would be no more crooked. It is not difficult for us to say whether other religions endorse this path; ask any professor of comparative religions. Knowledge and study dispel the doubt and ignorance that you're advocating for. And the fact that you can bring up Christians who agree with you is pointless- one can find Christians who believe nearly anything.

But I have a feeling you don't really care to see it. Anyone who assumes that s/he attained deep mastery of a text that has puzzled the entire world for about twenty centuries by watching dunderheads play with felt cutouts of sheep and various ancient peoples at the age of ten probably doesn't really understand what reading actually entails.

Again you project your ignorance upon the world, koeselitz. The Bible has existed in roughly its current form no longer than 1700 or so years, and it has spent a large amount of that time being hidden from the public behind a linguistic barrier in order to ensure that only one interpretation- a horrifying mess of tacked-on ideas and principles and theories- could exist. I take further exception to your claim that it puzzles anyone- there is a massive corpus of scholarship upon the subject. Whatever you wish to know, you have only to ask the right person. That you prefer to remain in ignorance and darkness is your own affair, however sad.

Fucking hell. Please go read Dante now.

How like you, to insist that people who are not Biblical authors be considered to have some sort of authority. If non-Biblical authors have the same authority as Biblical authors, then you've destroyed the authority of scripture. Congratulations. Welcome to reality.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:42 PM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Those two courses I took were the hardest classes I have ever taken in my life and that includes the philosophy class I took at NC State back in the day.

If you find intro to philosophy hard, that would go a loooong way to explaining your posting history.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:43 PM on August 26, 2007

I just checked Pope Guilty's posting history. Wow, impressive!

And by impressive I mean, please stop, you are boring us to death.


And from your profile, philosophy major, Muncie - I'm guessing Ball State, amirite?

again, impressive!
posted by vronsky at 8:04 PM on August 26, 2007

Actually it was metaphysics. A lot of people dropped the class, including all the other girls.

I got a B.
posted by konolia at 8:44 PM on August 26, 2007

Ah, I had metaphysics last year. Not my strong suit- I lean much harder toward ethics.

...though I'm kind of baffled. What level was that?
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:07 PM on August 26, 2007

words
posted by konolia at 6:02 PM on August 26

tell you what: you and your crew all just go ahead and convert all the jews and the muslims and all the other heathens and mud people or whatever it is you and your parents call them and then you can go ahead and inform us here that you and the good people of Fayetteville invented the One True Faith

also, you don't need to tell me or any of us that we're going to hell anymore, because a world with theologians who also happen to be "spin certified" is indistinguishable from hell already
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:50 PM on August 26, 2007

Spin class isn't THAT hot.
posted by konolia at 5:09 AM on August 27, 2007

I've read Dante The Bible. Fiction.

Fixes that for you. LOLXTIANS
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:13 AM on August 27, 2007

And to be specific, The Inferno is allegory, which is to say non-fiction disguised as fiction to make it more palatable and less slanderous in an age during which that could have gotten Dante tortured or killed. Rather the opposite of the bible, which is fiction disguised as non-fiction to sucker the gullible -- of the ancient Near East. But translate it into English and dumbass Americans still fall for it.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:15 AM on August 27, 2007

konolia Wow.... And conservative pundits say the liberal atheists are motivated by a hatred of humanity.

Seriously, and with no snark at all, let me second amberglow's question: Why don't you endorse mass suicide since you hate people so much?

Also another one, again with no snark at all: How can you live with yourself, or even find the motivation to get out of bed in the morning, if you seriously believe that you are so disgusting, worthless, and vile?

And finally, on a different subject: Why should you, or I, or anyone, care even a little about Jesus' suffering on the cross [1]?

Let me elaborate. He is/was God, creator of the universe, etc. He chose to suffer in that manner, very much like a sub at a BDSM club choses to be beaten. Why should I care about one, chosen and willingly embraced, crucifiction more than I care about the thousands of people the Roman empire crucified who didn't chose it, who didn't embrace it, and who weren't God?

So Jesus, an immortal, omnipotent, universe creating being experienced pain of his own choosing for a few days. Why should I care about that more than I care about the billions of people who, if I accept your belief system, are currently suffering vastly worse pain in hell, and will continue to suffer that pain for not just their lifetime, not just a few hundred years, not just a thousand years, but for ALL FUCKING TIME, because your ever so loving and kind god is a sick, evil, sadistic, thug who won't even let them die?

I know where my sympathy lies, and it lies with the little girl born into the Hopi tribe who died at age three months, having never harmed anyone or done anything wrong, but who (becuase your god is so loving and kind and delightful in all ways) is now being tortured eternally, never to know release from pain, because she was born in the wrong place (America) and time (AD 1491) and thus had no chance to even learn about your twisted religion, so therefore (according to the laws of your kind, loving, and benevolant god) she is suitable for nothing but an eternity of torment that he *could* release her from, but because he's so nice and kind and loving he won't.

With all that in mind, tell me why I should care even one tiny bit about the suffering your poor, all powerful, Jesus suffered?

Nope. I still maintain that the docterne of eternal damnation is one of Christianity's weak points and is a contributing factor to the shrinkage your religion is experiencing.

[1] Assuming for the sake of argument that the incident described in the Bible was real, which for the record I don't, but for the sake of argument....
posted by sotonohito at 5:27 AM on August 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

I reject the slanderous accusation that I hate people.

I reject the slanderous accusation that God is not kind, loving, just and perfect in all His ways.

I may not understand everything He does. As to that baby, I don't believe babies go to Hell. Jesus died for them, and I assume He is smart enough to know how to appropriate His sacrifice for their salvation.

What I do know is that it is a very very VERY bad idea for someone to willfully rebel against Him. I do not recommend it.
posted by konolia at 5:44 AM on August 27, 2007

I reject the slanderous accusation that God is not kind, loving, just and perfect in all His ways.

There's a difference between "slanderous accusation" and "judging from the evidence". The book that is allegedly the Word of God depicts a psychotic monster who kills everything in the world except a single family and its menagerie because he's upset. He annihilates a city because he's upset with it. He designates a group as his chosen people, and the Jews go on to become a punching bag for pretty much the rest of history. Read the Bible- God is evil.

I may not understand everything He does. As to that baby, I don't believe babies go to Hell. Jesus died for them, and I assume He is smart enough to know how to appropriate His sacrifice for their salvation.

Got some kind of scripture for this, or is this the sort of wishful thinking that koeselitz has been engaging in?

What I do know is that it is a very very VERY bad idea for someone to willfully rebel against Him. I do not recommend it.

I don't respond well to threats of violence, which is exactly what this is. Why do you respond to them, and why are you making them?

Oh, I've heard the answer that I know is coming a hundred times before- "it's not a threat, I'm just letting you know what the consequences of your decision are!" A man holding a gun to your head could say the same, and in the case of Hell, that's precisely what's happening. If God's the creator of everything, then God created Hell. All that fire and agony is God's creation, and it is God's Will that those who reject him suffer infinitely. This is not a loving god. This is a jealous lunatic who kills people that anger him. Loving such a fiend is a reprehensible act that stands as a betrayal of humanity.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:31 AM on August 27, 2007

konolia You wrote: "In those courses I found out that ultimately every one of us deserves nothing less than hell"

So, you believe that humans deserve nothing *less* than eternal agony of an unimaginably horrific nature that will never be ended even by death. Your statement implies that humans might deserve something even worse.

You also wrote: "I reject the slanderous accusation that I hate people."

So, if you don't hate people, why would you say that we all deserve to be tortured, not, mind you for a day, or a week, or a year, but forever? I'm not sure I hate anyone enough to wish them to be tortured for even a couple of weeks, yet you think everyone, that is every human being who has ever lived and will ever live, deserves to be tortured eternally and without end. That's hate cousin. It isn't possible to think that someone deserves an eternity of torture without hating them.

Perhaps you need to rethink your position on hell if you don't hate people.

You wrote: "I reject the slanderous accusation that God is not kind, loving, just and perfect in all His ways."

So this god person tortures people for all time, with no possibility of ever stopping, because he loves them. Right, got it.

So, explain why this, kind, loving, just and perfect in all ways god tortures people without end and won't even grant them the respite of death?

Doesn't compute. You can't torture someone and love them. You can't mete out infinate punishment for finite crimes and be just.

This, BTW, is why I think the docterne of eternal damnation is so damaging for Christianity. It also doesn't do very much good when it comes to converting people who have been non-Christian for a long time, as you'll have to get them to accept that a) their ancestors are being tortured for all time, and b) they must love the being who is torturing their ancestors.

You wrote: "As to that baby, I don't believe babies go to Hell."

Ummm.... So, where does it say that in the Bible? Specific chapter and verse please. Either that or an admit that you don't consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority on such matters, and explain exacly where you think the Bible is in error, and why we should take your word for that.

Also, what's the magic cut off age? Age 5? Age 8? Age 18? What Biblical authority can you cite for that age?

Finally, if you honestly believe that a) babies won't go to hell, and b) people over a certain age will if they don't *SOMETHING* [1] would this imply that c) the best thing you could do for a child is to kill them before they hit the cut off age? I mean if they get past the get out of hell free age and don't repent they'll suffer for eternity, but if you kill them before that age there's no chance they will suffer for eternity. I'm assuming that you don't think that's the case, but could you explain why not?

You also haven't answered my question as to why I should care about the willingly chosen suffering of Christ more than I should care about the unwillingly chosen suffering of all the Buddhist monks in hell?

[1] You haven't specified what particular actions, rituals, etc that you believe are necessary for salvation, insert them where you see the *SOMETHING*.
posted by sotonohito at 6:57 AM on August 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

sotonohito, it suddenly occurs to me that if one really believed that babies go to heaven, and that life begins at conception, abortion would be a sacrament.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:02 AM on August 27, 2007

Pope Gulty Yup.

I've always wondered about that "life begins at conception" thing. Considering that for the average woman fully 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant and are simply expelled during the menstral cycle. Does this mean they consider those to be, auto-abortions, divinely caused abortions, or what?
posted by sotonohito at 7:24 AM on August 27, 2007

And to be specific, The Inferno is allegory, which is to say non-fiction disguised as fiction to make it more palatable and less slanderous in an age during which that could have gotten Dante tortured or killed. Rather the opposite of the bible, which is fiction disguised as non-fiction to sucker the gullible -- of the ancient Near East. But translate it into English and dumbass Americans still fall for it.
Boccaccio's worth 20 of Dante--and he recognized the value of people and their lives, and the value of life in general. Dante was social criticism mixed with fantasy, based on his own views of earthly power and its uses and misuses.

Dante reminds me of this relevant forgery tho: the Donation of Constantine
posted by amberglow at 7:33 AM on August 27, 2007

I don't hate people. I AM "people."

God is holy. We are not. God is perfect. We are totally not.

Think about it. Ecosystems work just fine until you inject humans into them. And that's with a FALLEN creation.

God loved us and made a way for us to be saved. At a pretty high and painful cost to Himself. He did not have to do that but He did.

As far as abortions being a sacrament? The flaw in your reasoning is that you think mankind has a right to decide life and death. One of the perks of being God is being in charge of life and death. One of the flaws of humanity is thinking WE are in charge of anything.
posted by konolia at 10:32 AM on August 27, 2007

I don't hate people. I AM "people."

Self-loathing is a very common human trait, and a measure of it is necessary in order to believe that you are in need of salvation. Heck, we have this huge marketing/advertising industry whose business is largely in perpetuating it.

Think about it. Ecosystems work just fine until you inject humans into them. And that's with a FALLEN creation.

There is no "Just fine". Animals die. Extinctions happen. Ecological disasters occur whether we're here or not. Your statement rides the border between ignorance and nonsense. Furthermore, at the present some humans are behaving irresponsibly, but there are any number of "primitive" societies that slot into their local ecosystem just fine without burdening it. Guess what religion none of them are?

God loved us and made a way for us to be saved. At a pretty high and painful cost to Himself. He did not have to do that but He did.

God's omnipotent, remember? He could have simply said "Okay, all's forgiven!" and just brought everyone back to Heaven if he wanted to. The agony of crucifixion, the whole business of Hell and damnation and so on, all of it was chosen by God. Your God could have chosen to bring everyone to Heaven and forgive everything unconditionally. He did not, choosing instead a path of agony and torture and death. These are not the actions of a loving, peaceful, merciful being, but of one that is obsessed with violence and pain and death.

As far as abortions being a sacrament? The flaw in your reasoning is that you think mankind has a right to decide life and death. One of the perks of being God is being in charge of life and death. One of the flaws of humanity is thinking WE are in charge of anything.

Said the death penalty advocate.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:04 AM on August 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

God's omnipotent, remember? He could have simply said "Okay, all's forgiven!" and just brought everyone back to Heaven if he wanted to.

Omnipotence is only one of God's many attributes. He is also a Just God. It would violate His Justice to do what you just suggested he could have done. Being both Just and Merciful He did what He did.

I could go on and on but we spent weeks on the topic in theology class. If you are genuinely interested you could do worse than get a copy of Berkhov's Systematic Theology and go through it.
posted by konolia at 11:18 AM on August 27, 2007

konolia You haven't explained what Biblical justification you have for your belief that babies are immune from damnation. Am I to take this to mean that you have no such justification, or what?

Also, you wrote: "Think about it. Ecosystems work just fine until you inject humans into them. And that's with a FALLEN creation."

This is, interestingly, one of the less popular arguments for humanity as evil. I suspect it is because generally those arguing that humanity is evil are often those arguing against preservation of the ecosystem.

However, it is a completely false argument. Humans, qua humans, are not inately damaging to ecosystems. You are making the classic mistake of confusing "humans" with "humans who belong to my meta-culture".

Prior to the invention of totalitarian agriculture [1] humans lived for tens of thousands of years (possibly millions of years, new research indicates that the species may be older than previously thought) without causing particular damage to the ecosystem. It is true that our current meta-culture is inately harmful to the planet, but our current meta-culture is not inate to humans, and I suspect that it will be collapsing soonish.

The point is that it is not necessary to assume that humans are perfect in order to assert that humans are not inately harmful to their environment, and that imperfect humans were not particularly harmful to their environment for the vast majority of their existence as a species.

On to other matters. You wrote "God loved us and made a way for us to be saved. At a pretty high and painful cost to Himself. He did not have to do that but He did."

Another interesting theological area. Why would it require a painful cost to God in order to save humans? He is all powerful, yes? All powerful means "able to do *ANYTHING*", which, you might notice, includes saving humanity at no cost to himself at all.

Further it raises the question: what of the humans who lived before the supposed birth of Jesus? Are they simply damned for being born too soon? If so this hardly seems to be the result one would expect from an all powerful and loving god.

And, what of the people of the American continents who were unable to learn about salvation for nearly 500 years? Did your god simply forget about them? Or did he have special reason to hate the native Americans and thus doom another 500 years of their people to eternal torture just for grins and giggles?

Or will you now tell me that, again without Biblical justification, the native Americans were also immune to damnation prior to it being possible for them to be saved?

[1] Some people will say that what was invented in the fertile cressent some 10,000 years ago was agriculture, but this is not the case. Agriculture, in one form or another, has been around for tens of thousands of years. What was invented in the fertile cressent was totalitarian agriculture, a term I lifted from Daniel Quinn, and a useful term despite his being wrong on so many things.

Totalitarian, in this instance, does not refer to a political system, but rather the system of agriculture as we practice it today, where someone decides that in a certain area only our food can grow and takes effort to systematically wipe out anything other than our food. Other systems exist, none produce the sort of surplus that totalitarian agriculture does, and none require the intensity of labor that it does either. Google "permaculture" for an example of an alternate agricultural system developed in the modern world.
posted by sotonohito at 11:18 AM on August 27, 2007 [1 favorite]