Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Does God Love Everyone?

Photobucket



new carm boards are oppostie of normal boards. the last post is at the top where the OP should be and the OP is at the very bottom where the new post should be. So when you see pages 1,2,3,4 the op is on 4 not on 1. The last post in on page 1.



I got into a thread arguing against Calvinists. I usually avoid becuase it's pointless (they don't listen and they are the elect so they don't care what you say). These guys were saying something damaging and anti-God I felt I had to take part. They were saying "God doesn't love everyone." Those who God has predestined to burn he hates. Of cousre those would be sinner so God hates sinners. They were such self religious idiots about it. I hate it when people come on that way. Such bullies and they worship an idea of God that amounts to nothing more than a big bully in the sky.

The guys loved to make big bold proclamations to the effect that they are men of God and if you disagree with them you must be full of satan.They quite love with weakness and Holiness with anger. God is angry at sin (which apparently just happens to coincide with all those disagree with their view point) and apparently anger is what they like about God.


The thing is I equate anger with loss of control. To me anger is a childish emotion that means one is losing it. I can't see God as red faced and hysterical. Now it's one thing to say God disapproves of sin, another to say God is angry or that God hates. I know the Bible says it, but I just think that in speaking to ancient desert barbarians who are always screwing up, always losing faith and wanting to go back to Egypt and all, it's not not enough to say "I have a theoretical predilection that God views that behavior with a certain disapprobation." No, with those those guys you have to say "God is Pissed!" Otherwise it just doesn't have the power and they wont listen.

Therefore I think it's a metaphor to say God hates sinners or God is angry or God has wrath. That doesn't make God any less Holy, it makes him more self controlled. I can see that there could be a form of perfect divine anger that would not be red faced and losing control, but then I'm sure we are talking about the same emotion. I would not make sense to say "God divine hates sinners, but not human hates them." I mean that has no meaning. So we have to understand it as metaphor for some extreme disapprobation but not one that is red faced and hysterical.

Another thing, what little I know about Hebrew has it that meaning in Hebrew is pictorial. So in other words, you want to emphasize strength you say "mighty right arm." You want to say this guy is way more strong tahn anyone else you pile on image upon another, "his mighty right arm is a rino horn." So you keep piling up images like that show he's not just really disapproving of this, but he's really really REALLY disapproving. A good way to do that would be to use strong words like "hate."

Now another point that has to be addressed, does this mean that love turns out to be a different emotion than human love? Yes! I sure hope so! Human love is a frail and fickle as human anger is out of control and hysterical. We are talking about different emotions really in the NT when Paul gives us the sermon on love (1 cor 13) he's talking about something the Greeks called "agape." He's not talking about the sort of love I feel for Ice cream or Joan Baez (in the 60s) or that I feel for the decade of the 60s (Nostalgic love) he's talking about clean pristine egalitarian "will to the good of the other."

So in assessing these divine attitudes toward sin and sinners we definitely have to figure we don't really know anything. It highlights the futility of "literal readings." Inerrency is not literalism anyway. I think a lot of people confuse those two.

One of these bold men of God dashed off this article by some clown who agrees with them (someone I have never heard of) with a dashing air such that I'm given to understand this a man who passes for "big guns" in their theological world.



Here is an article by John H. Gerstner. It can be found here. Let's see if Gerstner has enough exegetical training to convince these people...



“Repent or Perish” forces people to ponder seriously the popular slogan, “God hates the sin and loves the sinner.” Is a necessary repentance consistent with “God loves the sinner?” If God loves the sinner while he is alive, it is strange that God sends him to hell as soon as he dies. God loves the sinner to death? Loves him to everlasting torment?

That would be strange but not inexplicable, there is another option on it. the upshot of that could be that therefore God doesn't love them, the other option is that he doesn't send them to hell. Of cousre you can't be a good fundie without that and it would certainly put a crimp in one's superiority and electiness if that wasn't the case. One might also consider that a parent who obeyed the law and does what is right, even though ti hurts his guilty child, does not love his son less but understands the importance of law and equality under the law and the dictum that the guilty must pay. There's something profoundly simplistic about not being able to understand that.



There is something wrong here. Either God loves the sinner and will not send him into the furnace of His eternal wrath; or He sends him into His eternal wrath and does not love him. Either “you are going to hell unless” because God hates you, as you are. Or, God loves you and “you are going to hell unless” is false.

That is nothing more than a rehash of the same brittle logic exposed above. There need be nothing personal and it certainly doesn't need to involve hate in the principle that somethings are more important than loving a particular individual. God does not hate sinners, God is profoundly sorry that sinners suffer, but he loves holiness more. He's not going to call off the deal and make sin ok just becuase people he loves rebel and sin. On the other hand this guys seems to understand that hell is wrong and bad in itself and yet rather than banish hell he makes God into a hateful spiteful individual who uses his partial nature not to let the sinner off the hook becuase he has compassion but just hates him so he's not troubled by the loss. I find that an profoundly disturbing image and extremely emotionally retarded. I would could never bring myself to believe was that way. it would be incredibly ridiculous to have such a God.

What leads almost everyone to believe that God loves the sinner is that God does the sinner so much good. He bestows so many favors including letting him continue to live. How can God let the sinner live and give him so many blessings, unless He loves him? There is a kind of love between God and sinners. We call it the “love of benevolence.” That means the love of good will. Benevolens — willing well. Doing well. God can do well to the sinner without loving him with the other kind of love. “Complacent love,” a pleasure in, affection for, admiration of. It exists in perfection between the Father and the Son, “in whom I am well pleased”(Matt.3:17; Mk.1:11).

That is not answer, that makes God more retorted than ever. Because he can understand the nobles oblige benevolence but still not be moved enough by empathy or compassion to either cancel hell or muster up a bit of love for the sinner. Unless of course what they really mean by "God does not love the sinner" is that God doesn't allow himself to be destroyed by corny over sentimental feelings about something or to allow himself to cave in on the consequences he allows for the mistakes of those he loves. But why would anyone confuse that with not having actual love for people? O the answer is obvious because these guys don't have love,t hey understand love, they confuse it with weakness. They worship bullyism and they don't understand what love or compassion is. They think if you love you bend the rules and become a hypocrite because love is just weakness, either that or you quite loving. I would be truly curious to know what they think love is. So distorted and so warped is their understanding of love that here's what they teaches one that God will forgive:

God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) “The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.” (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2).

God has no complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him, “I hate them with a perfect hatred.”(Ps. 139:22)

Why does God do so much good for those He perfectly hates and as soon as they die impenitent send them immediately to hell and never in all eternity does them one solitary favor more? It is to show His willingness to forgive the sinner if only he will repent. It shows the sincerity of God’s willingness to pardon the greatest sinner that, even while He hates him with a perfect hatred, He showers him with constant daily blessings.

That certainly would not lead me to conclude that God forgives. It would lead me to conclude that God is a betrayer. He gives you blessings until you cross some invisible line you can't understand because he blessed you when you were bad so you had no real reason to assume that he meant business then suddenly stops forever and will never do it again for seemingly no reason. Since this takes place after death how are they supposed to learn the lesson before it's too late?


As I mentioned in Chapter 1, there is no “problem of pain.” The only problem is the “problem of pleasure.”
 O there's a brilliant statement, no problem of pain as though the elect don't feel pain. If you feel pain in life then you aren't predestined. That's true that Calvin gave hints of who was in the elect those hints had to do with financial success. That's still idiotic becuase even financially well off people have pain and experience tragedy and hardship of some kind. To say that there is no problem of pain is just idiotic. It's begging the question but then it does make sense if believe God sends some people to damnation from before birth, no questions, nothing they can do about it, merely to prove that he's sovereign, he damn well should hate them. But I could not believe in a God who would do that. For me that's a major reason why I'm an Methodist.

30 comments:

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

You get points right out of the gate for using the Monty Python picture. :-)

I never bought into Calvinism either.

Metacrock said...

I love Monty Python, thanks MIke

A Hermit said...

I still think your belief that atheists like me will be annihilated after death while believers live forever isn't substantially different from the fundie's belief that I'll be punished in Hell forever; it's no less hateful of God to kill me for my unbelief than it is for Him to torture me eternally for it...

Metacrock said...

Hermit:

(1) I never said I know what will happen to you. I say that's God's job not mine.

(2) annihilation is basically wht you want.

(3) that's such a double standard not to admit it's more humane it's total hypocrisy.

you really not consequences for your actions and no moral standard to live up. anything you don't get what you want you say it's evil and cruel.

Kristen said...

"I hate them with perfect hatred" from Psalm 139 is not God's words, but the Psalmist's. When will these people learn to actually read their Bibles for context?

Sigh.

Metacrock said...

ahahaha exactly! in that whole long thread (10 pages) there was not one time that I remember that they actually analyzed anything. In fact that was one of my main arguments throughout, they work by proof texts only and when I made points about their hermeneutic methods they said things like "you are not going by the word of God but by the wisdom of man."

of course only the verses they use can be understood at face value. Any verse we used is just satan misleading us by they never explained how.

Metacrock said...

like I told one buy on the atheist board, if I thought those guys were the only kind of Christian I would be an atheist too!

Kristen said...

I'd go further than that, Metacrock. If that were what God was like, I couldn't follow or serve God. Heck, I couldn't even love such a tyrant.

This is a god that any normal human being is morally superior to. The whole point seems to be obedience-- the true God considers things "sin" because they hurt us, other humans and/or the creation, but this god just wants instant, slavish obedience for its own sake. What kind of god is that-- a god who hates and controls? It's a god made in the image of its creator-- the author of that essay.

Kristen said...

It's ego-boosting to get on a high horse and say one's own interpretation is the "word of God" and everyone else's is "the wisdom of men." But N.T. Wright says:

"[W]e imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply na├»ve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying."

This actually shows LACK of proper respect for the Bible, since you're reading it to make it a tool for your theology, rather than trying to figure out what the writings were originally intended to mean.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

A Hermit said...

"(1) I never said I know what will happen to you. I say that's God's job not mine."

This is a cop out. You claim there are consequences for unbelief, and the ultimate consequence is annihilation. If you really believe it don't be squeamish about it...or on the other hand if my unbelief by itself doesn't condemn me in your opinion than what exactly is the standard?

"(2) annihilation is basically wht you want."

Nonsense; nobody wants that. I accept that it probably is the end for all of us, but if I really believed there was option do you think I would choose death? This is another cop out. You're trying to avoid the obvious implications of your own idea.

"(3) that's such a double standard not to admit it's more humane it's total hypocrisy."

What's a double standard? I suppose you could argue that shooting someone in the head is "more humane" than slowly roasting them alive but really from the point of view of your victim neither option is terribly attractive, is it?

"you really not consequences for your actions and no moral standard to live up."

I accept that there must be consequences for our actions; but I don't see why you think being honest about my beliefs (or lack thereof) should carry such heinous consequences, or how the imposition of those consequences, be they quick slaughter or drawn out torture, imply anything other than anger and hatred on the part of the party imposing the consequence.

As for having moral standards, you know better than that.

Metacrock said...

(1) I never said I know what will happen to you. I say that's God's job not mine."

This is a cop out. You claim there are consequences for unbelief, and the ultimate consequence is annihilation. If you really believe it don't be squeamish about it...or on the other hand if my unbelief by itself doesn't condemn me in your opinion than what exactly is the standard?

you have bloxed it again! you just love to screw with truth don't you. You changed and distorted it back to saying "hell is for wrong belief." You know dman well I did not say that. but here you are changing it back after I specifically deneied it. why are you just so perverse you have to screw wtih pure good ture ideas?

It's simple. you don't want God. you want to be annhiliated tha's why are you an athist. God give syou what you want and you are pissed off about it! If you want eternal life then God.

Its' simple! It's easy. It's obvious. what do you want?

if you don't want to live forever then such your bleeding cake hole.


"(2) annihilation is basically what you want."

Nonsense; nobody wants that.

you are an atheist! you could say you have hope in anything, you choose to place your hope in a philosophy that says your life is an accident and when it's over your dead all over.


I accept that it probably is the end for all of us, but if I really believed there was option do you think I would choose death? This is another cop out. You're trying to avoid the obvious implications of your own idea.


If you wanted to live on after life you wuld express a hope in a belief that allows for that. Instead you express one in a belief that demands the opposite.
I think you are wuss. real atheists would embrace annihilation.


"(3) that's such a double standard not to admit it's more humane it's total hypocrisy."

What's a double standard? I suppose you could argue that shooting someone in the head is "more humane" than slowly roasting them alive but really from the point of view of your victim neither option is terribly attractive, is it?

since I'm not neither advocating shooting anyone or roasting anyone it's really not analogous is it?

"you really not consequences for your actions and no moral standard to live up."

I accept that there must be consequences for our actions; but I don't see why you think being honest about my beliefs (or lack thereof) should carry such heinous consequences, or how the imposition of those consequences, be they quick slaughter or drawn out torture, imply anything other than anger and hatred on the part of the party imposing the consequence.

for one ting I don't see you being honest. I see you being a wuss and wanting it both ways.

As for having moral standards, you know better than that.

You mean I should not have moral standards?

Kristen said...

Meta, I read some of the CARM discussion, but had to stop before I really got upset. They don't know the difference between the Psalms and the Epistles; they think the Psalms set forth doctrine just like the Epistles do. So when it says, "God hates the wicked" that's a doctrinal, not a poetic, statement. And then they read the word "hate" without reference to what nuances it might have in the original languages/cultures. If they insist on using it that way, they must believe Jesus really meant we are to hate our mothers and fathers, children, etc-- even though that's in direct contradiction to his command to "love your neighbor." We're to love our neighbors but hate our relatives? Is that really what Jesus meant? That's what you'd have to think he meant if you read the Scriptures the way they do!

They read the Bible without understanding or respect for what God meant it to be-- and then condemn others for reading it with respect and understanding. Blech.

Metacrock said...

Kristen I pointed all of those kinds of things out to them and they oblivious. That's what they call "traditions of men." It's very troubling the fundies have produced a kind of super fundie who is super ignorant of how to read a text. Unrestrained Bibliolotry.

Kristen said...

Hah. Not only unrestrained Bibliolatry, but unrestrained arrogance and judgmentalism. They're very quick to decide who's a real Christian and to tell people whether or not they're judged as saved or not.

But how can anyone expect any different? If they truly believe in a god who hates everyone but the elect, then how can *they* love anyone but the elect? And they *have* to figure out who's elect and who isn't, so they don't waste their time loving someone their god hates.

They say they don't do this, but I think they can't help it. It's the logical consequences of their beliefs.

A Hermit said...

"You mean I should not have moral standards?"

I mean you should know better than to accuse me of not having any.

And you're still avoiding my questions.

Metacrock said...

You mean I should not have moral standards?"

I mean you should know better than to accuse me of not having any.

And you're still avoiding my questions.

I never accussed you of that and you know I didn't beasue I don't believe in that and you know I don't.

that proves to me that you are merely here to cause trouble. you are not interested in a valid dialogue you are only trying to twist what I say. that's what you have done in every single exchange. you change my words and re arrange them to fit the little atheist straw man set of fears about Christian opinions instead of looking at what I really said and responding honestly. you will not be allowed to comment here until you learn to do so fairly and honestly.

Metacrock said...

the actual issue in this thread was that the fundies are wrong from making God's love exclusionary. but Hermit is not into truth he's only here to screw things up he makes the issue that I'm not hateful enough to the fundies so therefore I must be one and I share their prejudices. To "prove" that he re-states my views every time he quotes them.

Metacrock said...

Hermit said:"I still think your belief that atheists like me will be annihilated after death while believers live forever..."

I never said anything about him or anyone like him or pretended to know his eternal fate, but he can't accept this and continues to act like I did.

"isn't substantially different from the fundie's belief that I'll be punished in Hell..."

Not be conscious of suffering isn't substantially different from eternal conscious torment? that's absurdly absurd. It obviously is on face value.


"This is a cop out. You claim there are consequences for unbelief, and the ultimate consequence is annihilation. If you really believe it don't be squeamish about it...or on the other hand if my unbelief by itself doesn't condemn me in your opinion than what exactly is the standard?"

(1) why is he making what I beileve the issue when the issue is God's love and this Calvinist view? So his aim is clearly to subvert what I'm doing by changing the attention for them to me. As though I'm so bad, clearly I'm the target.

(2) he wants to phrase it as a matter of me backign down and being afraid to make consqeunces when I have saqid repeatedly hundreds of times, moral law on the heart, if you follow it you are following Jesus defacto, not my job to say the fate of individuals only God knows the heart, but he turns that into a liability and something to be blamed for, sing of weakness, why am I the issue in the first place? I don't have this blog so people cast aspersions on my personality.

(3)he's trying to force the issue in such as way as to negate my standard response on people of other faiths, God looks on the heart, if they follow the moral law ect. I call that the "Romans 2:6 clause" he's trying to just make it go away to make my opposition seem unfair.

(4) he asks "if my belief doesn't commend me what is the standard?" I've said this over and over gain. If he actually read my piece he would know. I said not condemned for believing wrong things becuase we are all wrong about something, tis' impossible to get all beliefs right.

the standard is God's will, following the moral law on the heart is not a matter of belief but it is a matter of God's will since God put the law there; that all taps out to love because love is the SPIRIT of God's law.

Once again we see Hermit is not listening to what I say, he's changing my words every chance he gots and trying to play one part of my view off agaisnt another.

Metacrock said...

Hermit:
quotes me:"(1) I never said I know what will happen to you. I say that's God's job not mine."

Hermit says:This is a cop out. You claim there are consequences for unbelief, and the ultimate consequence is annihilation. If you really believe it don't be squeamish about it...or on the other hand if my unbelief by itself doesn't condemn me in your opinion than what exactly is the standard?

Just answered that above, he said it twice. Both times he subtly changes my argument.

Meta:"(2) annihilation is basically wht you want."

HNonsense; nobody wants that. I accept that it probably is the end for all of us, but if I really believed there was option do you think I would choose death? This is another cop out. You're trying to avoid the obvious implications of your own idea.


It's obviously his cop out. I say annilahtion I see the words used in the Bible and that seems to be the upshot of phrases like "the destruction of your soul." So it looks to me like that's really waht the Bible teaches. But it's vastly different than burning on fire forever without a break and being aware of it. But he's trying to say it's no different. The kicker is it's what he thinks happens anyway.

He's treating like I'm made that up and it's showing how bad I am for thinking it but by the same token he chooses to believe annihilation is the case anyway, but somehow he's not upset about it when it's just nature but is if it's in a world where God exists, even though I'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT IT'S NOT SET UP BY GOD AS A PUNISHMENT BUT IS JUST THE NATURAL OUTCOME OF THINGS AND GOD CAN'T FIOT IT OUT BECAUSE IT'S LOGICAL NECESSITY.


Meta:"(3) that's such a double standard not to admit it's more humane it's total hypocrisy."

HWhat's a double standard? I suppose you could argue that shooting someone in the head is "more humane" than slowly roasting them alive but really from the point of view of your victim neither option is terribly attractive, is it?

Meta:It's not up for election. It's just as much a necessary consequence in one system as the other.

Meta:"you really not consequences for your actions and no moral standard to live up."

HI accept that there must be consequences for our actions; but I don't see why you think being honest about my beliefs (or lack thereof) should carry such heinous consequences, or how the imposition of those consequences, be they quick slaughter or drawn out torture, imply anything other than anger and hatred on the part of the party imposing the consequence.

I've said many times they are the result of logical necessity not set up as a punishment. I also think it's massively stupid to say that death and annihilation is cruel at all. Stupid because many atheist philosophers have argued that eternal life would be boring and thus torture and annihilation would be rest. If there's no pain isn't that your great utilitarian ideal? avoid pain?


HermitAs for having moral standards, you know better than that.

MEta:I see where he got the idea that I say he doesn't have moral standards. I'm not sure if he does, but I know he claims to so I take on face value, but I meant no way of grounding them. I"m sure he has ideas he feels are moral but he has no way of proving why they should be followed and not their alternatives.

A Hermit said...

"that proves to me that you are merely here to cause trouble. you are not interested in a valid dialogue you are only trying to twist what I say. that's what you have done in every single exchange. you change my words and re arrange them to fit the little atheist straw man set of fears about Christian opinions instead of looking at what I really said and responding honestly. you will not be allowed to comment here until you learn to do so fairly and honestly."

I'm presenting to you what I see as the implications of your beliefs as you have stated them here. You are trying to avoid those implications, but I'm not convinced by the excuses you make.

You don't believe in Hell or punishment, but you believe that annihilation is the natural consequence of...what exactly? If not unbelief then what is it that causes some people to be annihilated after physical death while others (like you?) are not? And Why?

And if God created the universe as it is then He is the one who is ultimately responsible for establishing those conditions, so it seems to me the effect is the same as "punishment".

Meanwhile, as you preach love and tolerance here, on your other blog you're promoting a link to a site which maintains "God's Hitlist"; a list of people God hates...

So which is it Joe?

Metacrock said...

I'm presenting to you what I see as the implications of your beliefs as you have stated them here. You are trying to avoid those implications, but I'm not convinced by the excuses you make.

As I pointed out, you have distorted and lied about I've said and misrepresented by views every single time you have talked about them. Its' way too consistent to be a mistake.

You don't believe in Hell or punishment, but you believe that annihilation is the natural consequence of...what exactly? If not unbelief then what is it that causes some people to be annihilated after physical death while others (like you?) are not? And Why?


You either know damn well what I've said, or you haven't actually read anything I've written.

Lost means you are not seeking God and in relationship with God just like playing on the freeway will get you killed, being spiritually dead will snuff eternal life.

God is life, God i being itself, if you are against God and not with God you are turning away from the source of your being, so you cease to be.


And if God created the universe as it is then He is the one who is ultimately responsible for establishing those conditions, so it seems to me the effect is the same as "punishment".

what did Is ay about logical necessity? why would you equate the universe with logical necessity? just becuase God can create the universe does not mean he can cross logical necessity. God can't smell next Thursdays. He can't give you life if you seek death and refuse to live. If you reject the source of your being you can't be and not be at the same time, that's logical necessity.

asking God to allow one to be spiritually dead and yet have eternal life is like asking God to smell next Thursday.


Meanwhile, as you preach love and tolerance here, on your other blog you're promoting a link to a site which maintains "God's Hitlist"; a list of people God hates...

that's an example of your attempt to control my blog. yo are not in charge here. you will not control my blog. You are not invited to give commentary on the links.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Wow, just checked out Atheistwatch again, big mistake. Linking to rightwing fundies? Really?

A Hermit said...

"You are not invited to give commentary on the links."

I think that link is pertinent to this discussion. You're telling us you don't support the view that God hates people and punishes them for believing the wrong things, yet on your other blog you are actively promoting a site which espouses a particulary vigorous and offensive version of that point of view. You contradict yourself when you do that.

Metacrock said...

I think that link is pertinent to this discussion. You're telling us you don't support the view that God hates people and punishes them for believing the wrong things, yet on your other blog you are actively promoting a site which espouses a particulary vigorous and offensive version of that point of view. You contradict yourself when you do that.

I can tell you've had some kind pf pc brain washing. was it "consciousness training?" Or "sensitivity training?" someone someone brain washed you into thinking that if you quote a link you are responsible for everything on the sight you link to.

No you are not that's stupid grow up.

I chose the links not you.

btw doesn't posting here also make you guilty for the links and the things on the sites they go to?

A Hermit said...

'I can tell you've had some kind pf pc brain washing. was it "consciousness training?" Or "sensitivity training?" someone someone brain washed you into thinking that if you quote a link you are responsible for everything on the sight you link to."

I'm just asking why you are promoting someone like that...

"btw doesn't posting here also make you guilty for the links and the things on the sites they go to?"

Not at all; as you keep pointing out you choose the links, not me...;-)

Metacrock said...

I'm just asking why you are promoting someone like that...

"btw doesn't posting here also make you guilty for the links and the things on the sites they go to?"

Not at all; as you keep pointing out you choose the links, not me...;-)


that's the way the pc crowd teaches one to think: if you quote a link you must agree with the whole site. That means your posting here must agree with my whole site.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Joe, what would you think of an atheist site that had a hit list of conservatives they wanted to die? I sure wouldn't link to it.

Don't let your hatred of atheists blind you.

Metacrock said...

Joe, what would you think of an atheist site that had a hit list of conservatives they wanted to die? I sure wouldn't link to it.

Don't let your hatred of atheists blind you.

there are fundie sites or at least churches where they pray for certain people to die, usually good people like Obama.

I would think either version is insane. I don't hate atheists and I don't pray for anyone to die. I have felt hatred for them but never stuck with and have reprented any times, they have provoked me to that but I choose to love them. Even Hermit. ;-)

Metacrock said...

yes I love Hermit, I don't care what everyone says about him hahahahaa just kidding.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Joe, I don't read atheist watch or most of your posts on your board about atheists because of the vitriol you spew. You say things I wouldn't even say to people I hated.

The way you fly off the handle makes me doubt God even more. I'm sorry, but it's how I feel.