 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
News of interest to former Christians
From Newsweek:
'Hi my name is Lindy and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit and you should too.'
With that five-second submission to YouTube, a 24-year-old who uses the name "menotsimple" has either condemned herself to an eternity of punishment in the afterlife or struck a courageous blow against superstition. She's one of more than 400 mostly young people who have joined a campaign by the Web site BlasphemyChallenge.com to stake their souls against the existence of God. That, of course, is the ultimate no-win wager, as the 17th-century French mathematician Blaise Pascal calculated—it can't be settled until you're dead, and if you lose, you go to hell.
The Blasphemy Challenge is a joint project of filmmaker Brian Flemming, director of the antireligion documentary "The God Who Wasn't There," and Brian Sapient, cofounder of the atheist Web site RationalResponders.com. Their intent was to encourage atheists to come forward and put their souls on the line, showing others that you don't have to be afraid of God. The particular form of the challenge was chosen because, by one interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a part of the Christian Trinity, is the only sin that can never be forgiven. And once something you've said gets posted on YouTube, as any number of celebrities can attest, you never live it down.
For better or worse, though, hell may not be so easy to get into. Despite the seemingly clear language in Mark 3:28-29 ("all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven"), most theologians are reluctant to pronounce anyone beyond repentance and salvation. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the passage, read in context, refers to a very narrow and specific definition of blasphemy: maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon. Merely "denying" the Holy Spirit, by this reading, doesn't qualify. "My response," Land says, "would be to pray for these people: 'forgive them, [for] they know not what they do'."
To which another self-described blasphemer, whose real name is Michael Lawson, replies that he knows exactly what he's doing: he's daring God to send him to hell. "We want to show that we really mean it when we say we don't believe a word in this book," he says. He means the Bible.
God could not be reached for comment.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16409851/site/newsweek/
'Hi my name is Lindy and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit and you should too.'
With that five-second submission to YouTube, a 24-year-old who uses the name "menotsimple" has either condemned herself to an eternity of punishment in the afterlife or struck a courageous blow against superstition. She's one of more than 400 mostly young people who have joined a campaign by the Web site BlasphemyChallenge.com to stake their souls against the existence of God. That, of course, is the ultimate no-win wager, as the 17th-century French mathematician Blaise Pascal calculated—it can't be settled until you're dead, and if you lose, you go to hell.
The Blasphemy Challenge is a joint project of filmmaker Brian Flemming, director of the antireligion documentary "The God Who Wasn't There," and Brian Sapient, cofounder of the atheist Web site RationalResponders.com. Their intent was to encourage atheists to come forward and put their souls on the line, showing others that you don't have to be afraid of God. The particular form of the challenge was chosen because, by one interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a part of the Christian Trinity, is the only sin that can never be forgiven. And once something you've said gets posted on YouTube, as any number of celebrities can attest, you never live it down.
For better or worse, though, hell may not be so easy to get into. Despite the seemingly clear language in Mark 3:28-29 ("all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven"), most theologians are reluctant to pronounce anyone beyond repentance and salvation. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the passage, read in context, refers to a very narrow and specific definition of blasphemy: maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon. Merely "denying" the Holy Spirit, by this reading, doesn't qualify. "My response," Land says, "would be to pray for these people: 'forgive them, [for] they know not what they do'."
To which another self-described blasphemer, whose real name is Michael Lawson, replies that he knows exactly what he's doing: he's daring God to send him to hell. "We want to show that we really mean it when we say we don't believe a word in this book," he says. He means the Bible.
God could not be reached for comment.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16409851/site/newsweek/
The first 200 comments appear here under the article. If over 200 comments are posted, click on the "newer" and "newest" links on the Post a Comment page to continue reading the latest comments.
Subscribe to this post's Comments (Atom). Subscribe to every post's Comments (RSS).Quickly catch up on all recent comments posted on ExChristian.Net on the Recent Comments page.
<< Home
Shop
Previous News
Rick Warren discusses Syrian/American relations wi...Pat Robertson prophecies 'mass killing'
Tele-evangelist sued for claiming that God healed ...
God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends
Pastor charged with stealing
Apocalypse threat tops this year's religion storie...
Christian help for responding to atheists, evoluti...
Papa Pilgrim pops a plea
10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism
Collegue of Ted Haggard admitts sexual misconduct
Top News Stories This Month
News Stories RSS Feeds
Books, DVDs, etc.
Topics: Leaving Christianity
Atheism
Parenting w/o religion
Skepticism
Science vs. Religion
Evolution
Bible
Ethics & Logic
Authors:
Isaac Asimov
Dan Barker
Clarence Darrow
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Stephen Jay Gould
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Robert Ingersoll
Robert M. Price
Carl Sagan
Michael Shermer
Julia Sweeney
Misc:
Various works
Audio Books
Apparel
DVDs
Magazines
Software & Games
Recent activity in the forums
Blog stats
Disclaimer
Click here and readbefore commenting
Search this site
Translate
Donate
Help support this site with a one time donation:
First things
WebMaster's Anti-Testimony I don't have enough faith to be a Christian
Conversion, Spiritual Epiphanies and Mystical Experiences
Not ready to be nice
Test Your Bible Knowledge
Take the Gospel Story Quiz - English
Take the Gospel Story Quiz - French
Compact Bible Errors Helper
Anti-Tracts Archive
Becoming an Ex-Christian
A Letter to CHRISTIANS
A Plea to TRUE Christians
Recent Comments
Click here to read all the latests comments and even subscribe to receive updates of recent comments posted to ExChristian.Net.
Email updates via
|
|
Join the ExChristian.Net Google Group notification list to receive an email whenever a new article is posted. |
| Visit this group |
Blog Roll
ROTFLMAO!!
Shit, even when i was a Christian, I always worried that i had committed the unpardonable sin anyway. At least now, I can be sure.
Now, it will be interesting to see how many Christians have a panic attack with this one.
-Gretchen
I love reading the Christian responses.
Not to belabor a point but, WHERE IN THE HELL IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
Quoting bible babble is like quoting Mother Goose. It proves nothing.
If Pascal’ Wager is viable, have you, Paul, also professed your belief in Allah with Mohammed as his messenger in order to hedge your bet? Or professed belief in Thor, Vishnu, Buddha, Ra, and every other god known to humankind?
If not, why do you reject Pascal’s Wager for them?
Well, a god worth worshipping would be a lot bigger than that. If not, fuck it.
There! Blaspemy worthy to send me to hell, where all the smart people go!
By the way, where exactly is the soul located? I can't remember ever learning it in school. Could it be that it's just another fear tactic invented by christianity to keep us "worthless" humans in check?
Accept the fact that you're not going to earn any brownie points for your god here.
Imagine this. I hold in my hand a red hot poker of the type often found beside a hearth, and I make the following claim. If you do not ram this poker up your butt, the infinitely powerful god I worship will torture you for all of eternity with red-hot branding irons while you deep fry in canola oil. There will be much gnashing of teeth. However, if you do ram it up your butt (and suffer for a brief time) you will be rewarded with eternal bliss when you die. God wants nothing more than for you to accept his free gift by inserting said implement. Now, even if the odds of my god existing are one in a hundred billion trillion, the expected utility (i.e. average payoff) of ramming the poker up your butt far outweighs the expected payoff of not doing so; this follows from elementary probability theory. In fact, it amounts to choosing between positive infinity (eternal bliss) and negative infinity (eternal torture), with respect to which the finite "odds" of my being right, as well as the finite inconvenience of submission, are utterly inconsequential. So, my friend, here is the poker. Can you afford to take a chance with eternity?
I'm eager to see if you can escape the logic of this dilemma without shooting yourself in the foot.
Err...letting slide the "logic" part of that (wagers are based not on logic but on what are perceived probabilities), it must make God proud to have so many people believing in him because they had a pants-wetting experience during metaphysical contemplation concerning their "eternity". You gotta love that kinda sincerety.
Further evidence that faith is no more than self serving self deception.
Remember what Jesus last words were
"When faith fails you, CYA".
Grace saves, do's and dont's do not!
"We are saved by grace plus nothing" Christ, died for all mankind period, and thus will save all mankind period..
"Not one is going to the so-called eternal Hell. It does not even exist, this is also a fabrication of the Church of Rome, like Easter, Christmass, Lent, and all the other Pagan festivals.
The Apostle Simon Peter was never in Rome.... Jut a fable of The Church Rome.
But Simon Peter Magus the Magigian was, anmd He started it all with all his Black Magic tricks, and it was bought hook line and sinker...By the illiterite!
Excuse the spelling and Typ-Os
-- Or was that Satan he received?
Beats me. I never could tell those two apart in the Bible.
Imagine that you were born into a little room with a group of other people and no one had ever seen or been outside the room...
How then, could anyone possibly know anything factual about what was outside?...
They couldn't -- that is, unless the information came --in--to--you from the outside...
That would make everything else just conjecture!
The same is true here in our own little world...(along with everything on this website)...you got nothing!
con·jec·ture = The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
ex·trap·o·late = To infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
sci·ence = systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
experiment = the testing of an idea.
hy·poth·e·sis = a mere assumption or guess.
---If your so called "knowledge" was derived from science, extrapolated from experiments to form your hypothesis -- it's conjecture...and quite frankly, hearsay...you got nothing!
Nice try, but it doesn't count in the infinite world. You are disqualified.
From Pauls ignorant responces, it is safe to say that he could not be over 12 years old, mentally that is.
You've got nothing to prove that your information comes from the outside. Just hearsay.
Disqualified.
Much of what you said above is actually true: I agree with your definition of "conjecture". I agree completely that people in the hypothetical room can know nothing about what is outside if they cannot observe or test it in any way. I agree that science relies upon extrapolation from to known to the unknown. However, where we disagree is in concluding that science is therefore mere conjecture. The problem with your argument is that it ignores degrees of confidence; that is, you seem to suggest that anything short of absolute proof is mere conjecture (i.e. an unwarranted assumption).
Here is a simple thought experiment. Suppose there is a button on the wall of your hypothetical room. Every time the button is pushed a light comes on for exactly one second. Numerous people try pushing the button, and the result is always the same. You walk up to the button and pause before pushing it. You correctly assert that this time the result may be different; pushing the button may not make the light come on. But can you say that it is mere conjecture to assert that the light will very likely come on when you push the button? Is that expectation precisely as unfounded as asserting that an alarm will sound (when there is absolutely no precedent for the latter)?
Science is in the business of making informed and rational judgments based on controlled observation. Yes, there is a presupposition that things behave somewhat uniformly. If this were not the case, then the universe would be pure chaos and life (as we know it) would be impossible. In a nutshell, asserting that something will continue to behave as it has in the past is far different from asserting that something radically new will take place. That is the difference between science and conjecture.
Precisely! All we can possibly hope to know about is that which we can experience, directly or indirectly. I completely agree.
Tizso: "...and you have no business preaching beyond your area of expertice."
Now who are you addressing? I have never once claimed to know anything about supernatural entities or supernatural realms. Religionists, on the other hand, continually claim to know about all manner of deities and goings on in invisible realms. I wish they would stick to their area of expertise, don't you?
And, sorry, I was responding defensively due to the overall spirit of this blog. You seem like a reasonalble person. (Am I being too nice?)
Nice chattin'...
"Imagine this. I hold in my hand a red hot poker of the type often found beside a hearth, and I make the following claim. If you do not ram this poker up your butt, the infinitely powerful god I worship will torture you for all of eternity with red-hot branding irons while you deep fry in canola oil. There will be much gnashing of teeth. However, if you do ram it up your butt (and suffer for a brief time) you will be rewarded with eternal bliss when you die. God wants nothing more than for you to accept his free gift by inserting said implement...."
Well Jim, the problem with you new "wadger" is that you are relating a life of Christianity and service to God (or at the very least, salvation) to what? - ramming a hot poker up your butt???
Hmm... well I've been a Christian for several years now, and I am ENJOYING IT. Living for God has been an experience quite the opposite of what you have compared it to. And you certainly would not know either way, seeing as how you clearly have never experienced it. That very well may be the WORST example I have ever seen -
not sure where you get these strange ideas Jim....
"Imagine this. I hold in my hand a red hot poker of the type often found beside a hearth, and I make the following claim. If you do not ram this poker up your butt, the infinitely powerful god I worship will torture you for all of eternity with red-hot branding irons while you deep fry in canola oil. There will be much gnashing of teeth. However, if you do ram it up your butt (and suffer for a brief time) you will be rewarded with eternal bliss when you die. God wants nothing more than for you to accept his free gift by inserting said implement...."
Well Jim, the problem with you new "wadger" is that you are relating a life of Christianity and service to God (or at the very least, salvation) to what? - ramming a hot poker up your butt???
Hmm... well I've been a Christian for several years now, and I am ENJOYING IT. Living for God has been an experience quite the opposite of what you have compared it to. And you certainly would not know either way, seeing as how you clearly have never experienced it. That very well may be the WORST example I have ever seen -
not sure where you get these strange ideas Jim....
Part of the supernatural picture, or natural picture. How do you make a supernatural picture, with only natural pieces of the puzzle.
Tizso: “You can’t really any anything except that which is within your grasp."
And, so when did your supernatural god fall within your natural grasp?
You missed the point by a country mile. My argument has the same form as Pascal's Wager. I claim that you should do X because if your do, you will receive an infinite reward, and if you don't you will suffer for eternity. Whether X has any finite advantage or drawback in itself is totally immaterial (that is, the difference between the hot poker and whatever joys you claim to derive from Christianity is completely irrelevant--as it makes no difference to the probabilistic argument, I chose something completely absurd). Moreover, all that is required in the argument is that the probability of the reward/punishment scheme being correct is nonzero. The numeric value makes no difference to the computation of expected benefit; another reason to pick something completely outrageous.
Now, although you clearly do not like having your religion supplanted by a hot poker, you failed to point out how my wager fails without giving Pascal the flush at the same time. Good luck with that. (By the way, if you don't trust me on the mathematics, I'll spell it out in complete detail. It's very elementary, though, so I think you can figure it out.)
Life as "we" know it? You obviously "know" more than the non-theist, else, you wouldn't be here---thus, yes, you most certainly are saying the non-theist doesn't have a "good reason" to "disbelieve". Disingenuous in one thread; ad hominem in another.('Gotta love variety)
Tiz: What I am saying, is, it's only part of the picture.
Define "picture". Or wait...don't you mean "plan"? Yup...I'll bet you mean "plan". And WHO'S "plan" might that be? Hmmm...it's "God's plan", right? Right----and once again, presuppostional heresy until objective evidence is made available to people of all colors, creeds, cultures, sub-cultures, and geographical locations.... and/or, until all people "shoot out of their bodies into space" and meet "God" personally(at which point, they can argue over whether they talked to Muhammad, or Jebus.)
Tiz: You can't really no(know) anything except that which is within your grasp.
Define "grasp".
Tiz: Outside of that...you can't know the ultimate truth. You can be knowledgeable, you just cant know it all, and you have no business preaching beyond your area of expertice.
Who says a position of neutrality and a "know-it-all" are mutually inclusive? Who?..yOU?..the theist?...the one who "KNOWS" there's a "bigger picture"?
And who's "preaching"? Preaching?...nah, I'm waiting......just waiting on the evidence, and/or, to meet Muhammad myself. Or wait.....some "know-it-all" told me Muhammad doesn't exist. lol
I understand that your intentions are good, that you are trying to tell all these people the truth, but you are not doing a very good job. Trying to scare non Christians into accepting Christ will not work. I am not only talking about you here, too many "Christians" today act so harshly to non believers and that is completely contrary to what Jesus taught us. We need to love all people and accept them for who they are no matter what they believe. I am not saying that I agree with atheists or other religions but the point is not to fight about it but to discuss and come to the best conclusion, and as for the fact that you are condemning all these people to hell is not your call. Jesus told us not to judge others but to just live a life of love. I am not trying to hate on you Paul, I just don't think what your doing is helping anyone.
I understand that your intentions are good, that you are trying to tell all these people the truth, but you are not doing a very good job. Trying to scare non Christians into accepting Christ will not work. I am not only talking about you here, too many "Christians" today act so harshly to non believers and that is completely contrary to what Jesus taught us. We need to love all people and accept them for who they are no matter what they believe. I am not saying that I agree with atheists or other religions but the point is not to fight about it but to discuss and come to the best conclusion, and as for the fact that you are condemning all these people to hell is not your call. Jesus told us not to judge others but to just live a life of love. I am not trying to hate on you Paul, I just don't think what your doing is helping anyone.