sun tzu wrote:Oh, and one last thing: What's the deal about not being {able} to redeem oneself? Now, I don't think I've ever done something really bad (possibly because I almost don't interact with people ).
Then you can't do others any good either This is something I struggle with as I find myself becoming ever more reclusive Sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission...
All my 'sins' are small stuff. If my good actions more than compensate whatever harm I have caused, why do you consider [that] I haven't 'redeemed' myself?
At the risk of sounding Chickian (?), God grades on a step-function, not a curve :|
[Please] note that with that logic, Gandhi hasn't redeemed himself either. What does the fact [that] he wasn't a Christian mean, in your opinion? Is he in Hell for destroying himself?
If he never accepted Christ, that's why he's in hell, sorry.
sun tzu wrote:Oh, and one last thing: What's the deal about not being {able} to redeem oneself? Now, I don't think I've ever done something really bad (possibly because I almost don't interact with people ).
Then you can't do others any good either This is something I struggle with as I find myself becoming ever more reclusive Sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission...
All my 'sins' are small stuff. If my good actions more than compensate whatever harm I have caused, why do you consider [that] I haven't 'redeemed' myself?
At the risk of sounding Chickian (?), God grades on a step-function, not a curve :|
[Please] note that with that logic, Gandhi hasn't redeemed himself either. What does the fact [that] he wasn't a Christian mean, in your opinion? Is he in Hell for destroying himself?
If he never accepted Christ, that's why he's in hell, sorry.
sun tzu wrote:Oh, and one last thing: What's the deal about not being {able} to redeem oneself? Now, I don't think I've ever done something really bad (possibly because I almost don't interact with people ).
Then you can't do others any good either This is something I struggle with as I find myself becoming ever more reclusive Sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission...
All my 'sins' are small stuff. If my good actions more than compensate whatever harm I have caused, why do you consider [that] I haven't 'redeemed' myself?
At the risk of sounding Chickian (?), God grades on a step-function, not a curve :|
[Please] note that with that logic, Gandhi hasn't redeemed himself either. What does the fact [that] he wasn't a Christian mean, in your opinion? Is he in Hell for destroying himself?
If he never accepted Christ, that's why he's in hell, sorry.
[Please] note that with that logic, Gandhi hasn't redeemed himself either. What does the fact [that] he wasn't a Christian mean, in your opinion? Is he in Hell for destroying himself?
If he never accepted Christ, that's why he's in hell, sorry.
So Gandhi is in "hell" simply because he didn't "accept Christ?"
Tim McVeigh "accepted Christ."
John Wayne Gacy "accepted Christ."
Ted Bundy "accepted Christ."
sun tzu wrote:Oh, and one last thing: What's the deal about not being {able} to redeem oneself? Now, I don't think I've ever done something really bad (possibly because I almost don't interact with people ).
Then you can't do others any good either This is something I struggle with as I find myself becoming ever more reclusive Sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission...
All my 'sins' are small stuff. If my good actions more than compensate whatever harm I have caused, why do you consider [that] I haven't 'redeemed' myself?
At the risk of sounding Chickian (?), God grades on a step-function, not a curve :|
[Please] note that with that logic, Gandhi hasn't redeemed himself either. What does the fact [that] he wasn't a Christian mean, in your opinion? Is he in Hell for destroying himself?
If he never accepted Christ, that's why he's in hell, sorry.
I think, Honestly, that there is something Mr. Chick has completely fogoten, that was really, at the core of the protestant Reformation. Its also something I'd like to point out to some of the people who are saying good deeds redeem.
Disclaimer one, I AM a Christian, Anglican to be precise, and I attended a small private Arminian/Wesleian based Christian college where we took classes in theology as well as our normal studies as part of our education.
disclaimer Two: That being said, I am NO expert in theology, I am a history teacher, not a Padre. There is bound to be flaws in my theology somewhere.
One thing that Martin Luther had so much trouble with before he made his revelations from scripture, was that the Catholic Church in the 1500s had put a heavy burden on works for redemption (there was the whole thing of indulgences too, but we're not going to go into that). What Luther re-discovered through scripture (His ideas are Pauline [ie: from St. Paul] and were also taught by the Church Fathers) was that good works can never redeam you. We as human beings are fallen cretures. That being said, God is not a wrathful, vengeful God (as some who take certain Old Testemant versus point to Him being) he provides for us, as long as we beleive in Him, a gift of Grace, a pardon for our sins not of our doing but His. Works are wonderful things yes, Luther admited it fully and commended beleivers who commited their lives to missions and other good works, but, they alone can never redeam us.
As for Gahndi, a very prominant missionary, E. Stanely Jones, visited him once before his assasination. Gahdi said he saw the good that Christianity had done throughout the ages, saw the peace and serenity in people like Jones, and wanted to beleive. However, he still could not rectify himself with the evils that men have commited not only in India but in other countries as well. He could not bring himself to beleive in a religion that he saw, no matter how right or good he thought it, as causing so much pain. It is, I think at times, our own faults as Christians many times that we prove our sinful nature in the worst possible of moments, and poison others to our faith because of it.
That is, sadly the legacy of religion in a fallen world, wether it be Christianity, Judaisim, Islam, Paganism, any religion. There will always be those who espound to be members of a religion, and seem to be at first glance, be they Mr. Chick, or Osama bin Laden himself, but if one digs deeper, they will find selfish, greedy motives under men who preach as Mr. Chick, and many involved in the 'Jihad' against us as western culture and the United States in particular. It is, many times about power I am afraid with people like that, and, they find that religion is a powerful tool for gaining the influence and power they want. Yes, I beleive that Christianity is the true faith, but, I am not blind to see that there are many bigots racist, and flat out hate mongerers who call my faith their own as well. A 'minister' who recently visited Lexington Ky is a prime example of this, I cannot, for the moment remember his name, but, he attacks, attacks gays in open sight, on Holy Ground. That is not Christianity, please, don't think it is what the Lord God wants. Yes, we as Christians beleive that homosexuality is wrong, but, there is a distinction. "Love not the sin, but the sinner be loved" as the translation from my favorite bible says. Just because we beleive something is wrong does not meant hat we should, or can even call the wrath of the Lord down upon the people. It is not our right to do so. 'Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, and I give the nations of the world providence ou'r it' (that is far from an exact translation of the verse, as soon as I find it, I will correct it). We are called to love, not to hate, this is what really breaks my heart to see. I live in the 'upper south' and my homeland (I am a proud southerner, though my family did not arrive in the States till 1933) has used God as an excuse far too many times to be bigots and racist for my tastes.
In the end? my statement? Listen, make your own desicions about our faith and what we beleive, but don't make hasty or ill informed snap judgements please. I think that Ralph will not try to shove a bible, or cross down your throats, niether will I, or any of the other Christians here. Please however, do not dismis our faith out of hand though as bigots, hate mongers and racists, we are not that, we do not want to be that, we are not called to be that. We are simply people, who are called to love, and preach the Good News, and Ralph I think, sees his strip as a small chance to do that, in a low-brimstone-count way.
It's a lovely phrase, isn't it? "Shoving religion." Comes in handy for SO many situations and circumstances... generally for throttling other people into silence.
Ladies and Gentlemen, precisely *how* does one "shove their religion down your throat?" I would really like to know. Seeing as most preachers can't even get their own congregations to listen to an entire sermon without falling asleep, I consider it a miraculous act that they can accost people outside the church at random and spontaneously force them to believe. I would really love to know how to do this-- it would be a wonderful timesaver, all things considered....
Now, I can understand you not wanting to live under someone else's governmentally opposed morality or religion. After all, we Christians are rather sick of living under government-enforced atheism and agnosticism ourselves. After all, if Christians began forcing parents, on pain of punitive legal action and even loss of custody of their own children, to send their children to Sunday School every week, you'd be rather upset-- rather in the fashion Christian parents are upset that they are forced to send their own children to atheist indoctrination camp five times a week, and at their own expense to boot--
But I digress.
You see, among the guaruntees of the Bill of Rights are *Freedom of Religion,* and *Freedom of Speech and Press.* That means that I can worship my Creator, as can everyone else, each according to the dictates of their own conscience. ***This also means I am free to follow the moral dictates of that faith.***
And, as I am also guarunteed Freedom of Speech and Press, I am allowed free reign to state my beliefs-- and insomuch as proselytising is part of my religion's dictates, this is all to the good.
In truth, Freedom of Speech and Press should have been further defined as *The Right to Criticize.* Which was, after all, the root purpose in defining it in the Constitution.... stating, in black and white, that the people had the right to criticize the behavior of their Government and their fellow citizens, and to expound on the morality and ethics of their behavior.
Now, as a free citizen of this country, I am guarunteed the protection of my right to believe as I wish, to speak those beliefs, and to act on those beliefs insomuch as they do not infringe upon the self-evident rights of other people. If you disagree with what I say and believe, you have the right to argue back that I am wrong. You have the right to not listen.
You do not have the right to silence me.
If my beliefs about heaven and hell offend you --- namely, that which one you are headed for depends upon your accepting Jesus Christ or not-- tough. If you don't like that I vote or speak or act according to the moral dictates of my faith, sucks to be you.
And if I get mad because you ignore me, sucks to be me.
But if you ever, EVER try to silence or disenfranchise me, I swear by God Almighty I will take you by the shorthairs and drag you through every court in this land till you think your middle name is "tort reform."
Otherwise, do what the pornographers and the sewermouth actors and the hate-puking christian-bashers keep telling outraged christians--- You don't like it? Don't listen.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
RHJunior wrote:But if you ever, EVER try to silence or disenfranchise me, I swear by God Almighty I will take you by the shorthairs and drag you through every court in this land till you think your middle name is "tort reform."
I don't meant to make an enemy out of someone I (normally**) agree with, RH, but technically he's free to tell you to shut up all he wants. Likewise, you're free to ignore whoever you think is a doody head. Or not, in which case, they're free to ignore you.
In fact, we can alll ignore everyone as much as we want!
**-I'd explain, but there's enough argument in this thread as is.
I have to agree here, Ralph. You are allowed to say your opinion with your comic, just as your audience is allowed to say its opinion on the forums.
About "shoving religion down one's throat". I don't have much experience with it, but I think it's annoying in the way door-to-door salesmen and telemarketeers are annoying. Personnaly, the only time in my life someone in the street gave me a religious pamphlet was a few weeks ago. As a result, we engaged in a discussion on religion and atheism. Predictably, neither one of us didn't convince the other.
Now, I can understand you not wanting to live under someone else's governmentally opposed morality or religion. After all, we Christians are rather sick of living under government-enforced atheism and agnosticism ourselves. After all, if Christians began forcing parents, on pain of punitive legal action and even loss of custody of their own children, to send their children to Sunday School every week, you'd be rather upset-- rather in the fashion Christian parents are upset that they are forced to send their own children to atheist indoctrination camp five times a week, and at their own expense to boot--
Isn't this kinda proving my point from earlier, about each side thinking they're the ones under attack? Now, excuse me if I make a few mistakes here, as I have spent less than a year in America - but how can you speak of government-enforced atheism, when virtually your entire government is made up of christians, like 85% of the population? Did you ever look at the pledge, which children are expected to recite in your schools? The "In God we trust" on your currency, which has replaced the original "E Pluribus Unum" in the 50ies? How your politicians never hesitate to flaunt their religious beliefs, since they know it'll increase their odds come election day? The economic support given to religious organisations? The way I see it, it's atheists who are discriminated against. Is my view influenced by my being an atheist? Probably. Is your view influenced by your being a christian? Probably. So here's an advice: Check what the other side side has to say: http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/. And, yes, present us your side.
And just for the record, I greatly dislike "pornographers ans sewermouth actors".
RHJunior wrote:It's a lovely phrase, isn't it? "Shoving religion." Comes in handy for SO many situations and circumstances... generally for throttling other people into silence.
Ladies and Gentlemen, precisely *how* does one "shove their religion down your throat?"
Well, Ben did it by blowing the atheism lobe out of Petey's brain with a maser cannon.
Seriously though, I do have a question. Where did Ben get that crucifix from? The evil clown made everything he was wearing vanish, I would have assumed that jewelry would have been included in that.
I consider it shoving if I say, "Sorry, not interested at this time", and the person in question insists on continuing with their attempts to convince me of the rightness of their faith.
Mind you, as far as I'm concerned, this applies to Christians, Wiccans, and even atheists; who insist on not letting be.
We can't consider that RH is trying to shove, since it's his forums and his comic. If you don't want to run the risk of reading a Christian message, then DON'T READ THE COMIC, AND DON'T VISIT THE FORUM! Easy as that.
(I expect that I will now get some rather heated arguments about calling atheism a religion...)
BeeDee wrote:Seriously though, I do have a question. Where did Ben get that crucifix from? The evil clown made everything he was wearing vanish, I would have assumed that jewelry would have been included in that.
Well, while the clown's taken over, it *is* Ben's dream. I'd guess he'd have enough power over it to bring an object that important to him.
Seeing as the clown is really Ben's subconscious, I'd say that everything ben sees is really a reflection of what's going on in his head. Lost his clothes? Really low self esteem. Saw that crucifix? Remembered what's important to him. The clown probably doesn't have any physical power, so long as Ben doesn't believe his inner demon.
Oh, and I'll go on the record as saying that I think you all misunderstand Jack. But forget it for now, the evil clown is a far more interesting discussion than the relative merits of a comic featuring a cross between Wile E. Coyote and the Grinch as the main character.
I'm glad somebody's rational enough to switch this thread to something more low-key. We've already had that debate people, so lay off, okay? We're not likely to get anywhere, except to a rather large migraine. Ouch.
As for the cross, we've been down this road before. It's all a dream. I remember somebody saying that once you realize it's a dream, you have control over it. The clown had control until Ben was made aware of his true nature. Now Ben has control, so he could have called up the cross as a symbol to remind him of his faith and help him get stronger. A lot of people are comforted by knowing that God is with them.
And for those who think athiests are persecuted, let me point out a couple things:
1. Not all who call themselves Christians are saved. Some figure they are saved because they go to church and try to do what they think is right. Nevermind that they're doing things the Bible says are wrong; they're saved, so what's the big deal? (And it's not just liberals; some conservatives don't get it either.)
2. Humanist ideology is constantly taught in public schools. My biology book was filled with "Big Daddy Darwin", and only had a small blurb on creation. This implies to children that their parent's ideas are wrong, and that, if they want to succeed in life, they'd better jump on the band wagon and leave their religion behind. When a textbook that compares evolution and creation fairly is published, then I'll stop complaining.
I read a rather interesting book recently from an agnostic (I think - he says he's non-religious), who makes an effort to point out some of the holes in what he refers to as Neo-Darwinism. He's a science reporter (and curse me for a fool for not being able to remember his name right now) who carefully looked at the evidence the Darwinists use, and proceeds to pull it apart. The age of the Earth? Apparently none of the methods used are foolproof. Darwin's Finches, on the Galapogos (sp?) Islands? Well, there are problems there, too.
Ah, found it - The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism
by Richard Milton. He specifically states in the book that he is NOT a Creationist, and is apparently, in fact, non-Christian. I will admit in reading it that I was having problems with it, but I plan on hunting down the info for myself, to verify or disprove. It was a rather interesting read, though.
When a textbook that compares evolution and creation fairly is published, then I'll stop complaining.
Okey-dokey. I'll support that as soon as they publish a Bible that does the same. And by the way, I remember that creationnists had had evolution removed from the college cursus in one state a few years ago (I think it was Kentucky, but I'm not sure).
(I expect that I will now get some rather heated arguments about calling atheism a religion...)
I guess it depends entirely on your definition of religion.
About the age of the Earth: I'm no expert, but according to my biology teachers, various methods give similar results. As for the age of the Universe, please consider the following:
-It takes one year for light to travel over one light-year (weel duh!).
-Various galakies, such as Andromeda and the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, are estimated to be at a distance of millions, sometimes billions of light-years from here.
-And yet, we can see them.
It doesn't have anything to do with evolution, but it means I have a hard time believing that our universe was created some 6000 years ago.
Re: atheism as religion - I only use that to describe the rabid ones, who can't seem to let someone else's religious beliefs alone. "You WON'T believe, and I'll see to it you DON'T!" Those are the ones that I refer to having the religion of atheism.
As for the age of the Earth - I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the guy. I just thought that it was an interesting book, that managed to make his point without falling into the "The Bible says it, so that means God said it, so that means the universe is only 6000 years old" argument.
(As an aside, I got a chuckle from Heinlein's "JOB: A comedy of Justice" - where you discover that the universe IS 20 billion years old, but it was created 6000 years ago - it was created old.)
Assuming special creation (Genesis creation), The world and the Universe would have to be created with some appearance of age by necessity.
Consider that plants and animals could not survive if they were created as eggs, seedlings, infants, etc. It is assumed that Adam and Eve were full grown.... likewise the trees they ate fruit from and the animals they named. If you encountered a full-grown redwood, for instance, you would assume it had been growing thousands of years. If you met Adam or Eve, they could have been in existence for only a day, yet being full grown, you would assume them to be around 20 to 30 years of age. (Then it gets really hairy when you consider that they were immortal...)
Time is no smooth unchanging river, either. No matter what model you use, time at the beginning of the universe was pretty funky. Even now it demonstrates strange fluctuations, bends and ripples-- flowing faster in some circumstances and slower in others (near lightspeed or near the event horizon of a black hole, for extreme examples... but even ordinary planetary bodies bend spacetime in strange ways...) Even weirder, recent theories in physics hint that *the speed of light is slowly dropping*..... and since, according to the theory of relativity, the speed of light is the measuring stick for everything else-- including the flow of time and the expansion of the universe....
It's quite possible that eons of cosmic "aging" and expansion could have taken course over the greater expanse of the universe in seven terrestrial days.
And (at the least geologically speaking) it has been demonstrated that a lot of things assumed to take centuries or eons can occur in a rather short period of time. Accidents with artificial dams have demonstrated that "centuries" of water erosion can take place in days or even hours....One of the creationist models for the formation of the Grand Canyon, for instance, is that as the waters receded, the Central Plains formed a sort of catch basin--- and the grand canyon was essentially the spout where the waters finally broke through and drained off. To prove the point that this could happen naturally, they showed footage of a cracked dam--- where the water had broken through, what looked like hundreds of years of slow water erosion had worn the concrete to smooth ripples and convolutions. It looked like a limestone cave... yet the erosion had taken place over the course of a single day.
Other "long, slow" phenomenon--- the formation of fossils, creation of petroleum, the fusing of coal into diamonds-- has been replicated in the laboratory within the space of a few hours (don't get your hopes up. Apparently more fuel goes into making petroleum out of garbage than you get out of it.)
And BTW: the 6,000 year thing was only a rough estimate by guys who went through the bible geneologies and counted on their fingers and toes. Most contend nowadays that the age is anywhere between that, and 15,000 years. (Physical problems arise beyond that point, such as extrapolating the speed of the earth's rotation or the thermal output of its magnetic field backwards... a mere quarter million years renders this planet utterly inhospitable to life--- rotating so fast that it distorts into a discus, and emitting radiation strong enough to liquify rock....)
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
RHJunior wrote:And (at the least geologically speaking) it has been demonstrated that a lot of things assumed to take centuries or eons can occur in a rather short period of time. Accidents with artificial dams have demonstrated that "centuries" of water erosion can take place in days or even hours....One of the creationist models for the formation of the Grand Canyon, for instance, is that as the waters receded, the Central Plains formed a sort of catch basin--- and the grand canyon was essentially the spout where the waters finally broke through and drained off. To prove the point that this could happen naturally, they showed footage of a cracked dam--- where the water had broken through, what looked like hundreds of years of slow water erosion had worn the concrete to smooth ripples and convolutions. It looked like a limestone cave... yet the erosion had taken place over the course of a single day.
There's a specific word for that, and they have proof that it's happened, during the time of the glaciers. I can't spell the flippin' word (I think it begins with a "J"), but it's pronounced something like "yokel-hops". (Looks weird, I know, but that's the pronunciation I learned. I think it's Scandanavian in origin.)
According to the Magic: The Gathering Encyclopedia:
"Jokulhaups" literally means "jumping lake" in Icelandic. It refers to a glacier burst, a catastrophic surge of water and debris caused by a sudden rising of a lake that pushes or lifts up a glacier damming it.
This particular card basically destroyed everything in play.
).
This is something I struggle with as I find myself becoming ever more reclusive 
