Feed on Posts or Comments 24 June 2018

Christianity Johnson on 26 Mar 2009 12:33 am

Why are Christians afraid of heaven?

This comic alludes to a very simple question that every Christian avoids:

Click to enlarge

The cornerstone of Christian mythology is the idea that a Christian who dies gets to go to an eternal paradise in heaven. Everyone else burns in the eternal torture of hell.

Therefore, shouldn’t a Christian parent, like this robot, kill his or her children? By killing them, the parent eliminates any possibility of the children wandering off the straight and narrow path. The children go to heaven immediately and are there eternally.

How does the parent make sure he or she goes to heaven? Simply by asking Jesus for forgiveness and believing in Jesus. Then the parent should do everything in his or her power to hasten his or her own demise. Why would a parent see a doctor or go to an emergency room? For that matter, why would a Christian doctor treat a Christian patient? The doctor should simply let the patient die as nature intended so that the patient can go to heaven.

108 Responses to “Why are Christians afraid of heaven?”

  1. on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:39 pm 1.Hermes said …

    [ Repost from the forums. ]

    Topic: The existence of the soul and an afterlife that humans can go to. Specifically, “Where will I go when I die?”

    I’ll start. (I’ll even let you know that there is a weakness in my argument that I know of but I haven’t gotten around to addressing yet.)

    Important: This does not address all of your religious beliefs. The comments below only focus on the topic (above). As far as I’m concerned, except for the narrow exceptions made here, everything about your religion could be true. Yet, from what we know from knowledge gained from a variety of disciplines, I think this narrow but important part (an afterlife) can not be based in reality. Keep in mind that this also applies to any claims of an afterlife — regardless of the religion (if any) that is involved.


    “Where will I go when I die?”

    I know the answer to that. When I’m alive, I am — when I’m dead, I am not.

    Here’s the long version;

    Summary: There is no such thing as a soul. Because of that, there is no existence for us after our lives are over. That’s why it’s called death.

    How can I write that with any confidence?

    Think about what we know — what we can actually check and examine. Think about what we do not need to speculate about — on both life and death.

    1. Death is not a clear line; on one side alive, on the other completely dead.

    Death happens in stages as individual cells no longer retain integrity for a variety of reasons, often because of oxygen starvation from organ failure or trauma that prevents the blood from circulating. Parts of us are dying and new cells are being made all the time.

    2. Organ transplants. Even when ‘we’ cease to be, parts of us are still coherent, allowing organ transplants. There is even a method of blood extraction from corpses that is used occasionally.

    3. All of our thoughts while we are alive are contained in a structure of neurons. This can be seen in a variety of well documented cases from Phineas Gage through to the impacts of severing the corpus colosum and the impacts of traumas such as strokes and alzheimers as well as the structures found that map nerves to a variety of tasks and thoughts.

    4. When people start to die, the brain is frequently one of the last organs to be starved of oxygen.

    5. The ‘tunnel of light’ is caused by the visual cortex losing oxygen and the remaining parts of the brain attempting to deal with that. The same ‘tunnel’ can be simulated. Pilots experience this when they use a centrifuge under high G forces for training or to test new gear. Both these are documented and can be duplicated with the proper equipment and/or circumstances.

    6. People who live after being through this oxygen starvation tell stories based on their brain’s attempt to deal with the stress. They talk about ‘flash backs’, they talk about ‘stepping outside’ of themselves and seeing themselves. The same thing the pilots in the centrifuges report.

    7. The more time the brain or any organ is starved, the more damage.

    8. People don’t act any differently from more damage (that brings them closer to complete death and thus an ‘afterlife’) then other victims of brain damage.

    9. When people ‘come back’ from ‘the dead’ their bodies have not suffered complete cell death; they weren’t completely dead.

    10. When cell death is complete, there is no place for ‘us’ to stand; there is no way to ‘see the other side’ and return to talk about it.

    11. Think back to #3. Now, with that in mind, where do ‘we’ go if our brains suffer a stroke or other damage? Are there surpluses of souls hanging around, waiting for brain damage before they can be inserted into a live body?

    Source (with a few more details): http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=5274.msg115284#msg115284

  2. on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:48 pm 2.Hermes said …

    Note: The comment made in the paragraph titled “Important:” was an introduction for someone who did not provide any details about what their religion was except that they were “a Christian”. As that can mean just about anything, I left the door open for them to define themselves, yet at the same time made it unimportant to address those issues before addressing my comments on an afterlife.

  3. on 27 Mar 2009 at 12:39 am 3.Gern Blansten said …

    I think most believers, deep down, have a degree of doubt. Some of them probably have quite a bit. When a loved one dies, they start to wonder if what they believe is really true. Will they see that person again? I think there’s probably a part of their brain saying no.

  4. on 27 Mar 2009 at 3:03 am 4.GotMooo said …

    Of course, but lying to ourselves is sometimes the only way we can comfort ourselves from reality. The reality that you will not see that person ever again is enough for most to remain delusional.

  5. on 27 Mar 2009 at 12:34 pm 5.Lou said …

    LOL, I think the webmaster is having a little fun. “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the big ten I believe.

    i am sadden for those who experience life so negatively that they believe it is better to commit suicide if heaven awaits. Often it is physiological but the majority of the time psychological and a life long struggle. Life is quite good and worthy of living.

  6. on 27 Mar 2009 at 1:39 pm 6.BrianE said …

    “LOL, I think the webmaster is having a little fun. “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the big ten I believe.”

    And yet, this doesn’t stop Christians throughout history one bit. They’re all too quick to burn a witch, go to war with those that disagree with them, and support the death penalty.

  7. on 27 Mar 2009 at 3:11 pm 7.Steve said …

    The commandment is better translated murder not kill. The death penalty is is not murder since it is lawful execution. Too bad athesit are not as quick to condemn needless & irresponsible murder of babies.

  8. on 27 Mar 2009 at 4:18 pm 8.GotMooo said …

    The commandment is translated as both murder and kill, depending on which bible you are using.
    It seems murder is supposed to be barbaric while killing is negotiable. It depends on who’s being killed and who’s doing the killing.

  9. on 27 Mar 2009 at 4:48 pm 9.Steve said …

    The Hebrew word “harag” is translated to be killing of any kind. However the word that is used in this commandment in the original Hebrew is “ratsah” which, refers only to criminal acts of killing. Hebrew is the original language of the Torah & the OT.

    When in doubt check the original text. Was Stalin & Mao negotiating or being barbaric?

  10. on 28 Mar 2009 at 2:55 am 10.Hermes said …

    Lou, yet even a genocide of Christians would be the best thing for them if they are right and they will live forever in Heaven.

    That the whole concept is disturbing, that it may make you feel tense, that the concept may horrify you, shows that living in Heaven forever is not really the point of life.

    If you haven’t seen the latest video on the GIIVideos channel, it covers this topic quite well and in a way I haven’t see elsewhere;


  11. on 28 Mar 2009 at 11:47 am 11.Lou said …

    Genocide Hermes?

    Hermes are you a guy who lives for the big moments and fails to enjoy the small pleasures? Why is it you believe life is so bad that one must rush to heaven? There is elegance in the journey.

    I can’t speak for any christian denomination but I don’t see that scenario or implication anywhere Scripture. On the contrary, Jesus is always teaching to Love God, Love your neighbor and go and do likewise. Therefore your implication seems to be a violation of his teachings.

    Why don’t atheist just end it all when they convert? Isn’t life pointless? Lastly, why does the same guy read for all these atheist videos?

    For the atheist video reader, the US has a military because we are a secular nation. Second we have a military because we are loving our neighbor.

  12. on 28 Mar 2009 at 12:21 pm 12.Hermes said …

    Lou: “Genocide Hermes?”

    A dramatic example can show the flaws in a proposition. Religions that point toward a better — or any — afterlife are disconnected with reality. By raising the bar to that horror as a mental exercise, the flaws rise to the surface.

    Consider it an overt example of Jonathan Swift’s satire; http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1080

    As such, I’m a bit puzzled how you could consider what I said to be anything but pointing out that life is what matters not a proposed eternal after life.

    Let me make it obvious; Life has meaning because it is limited; every moment matters. Any one moment of eternity, on the other hand, is inconsequential.

    I would be more poetic, yet when I put my best forward you seem to totally miss the point that others have so readily glommed on to.

    Maybe you should not do armchair analysis of my psyche, and put more effort into the words in front of you?

    That said, after this message to you, I propose moving our off-topic blog spam to the forums. If you don’t want to do that, then do not expect much a reply from me here.

  13. on 28 Mar 2009 at 1:38 pm 13.Lou said …

    LOL, Hermes, how can you not see that this life and eternity BOTH matter. This is not an either/or proposition. If you aspire to understand try “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis:

    I see no reason to workshop this since it seems simple and straight forward.

  14. on 28 Mar 2009 at 3:50 pm 14.Thomas Beha said …

    Lou – you got that all wrong. 1st of all C.S. Lewis was pulled into Christianity not by thinking through carefully. He was taken back by his “barber” that he was praying he would come the very day he needed a haircut.

    C.S. Lewis wasn’t thinking clearly and to think about that assertion by his barber and realize, heck he needed a haircut frequently and the barber was praying everyday so it was just chance that his “prayer” for C.S Lewis came true to show up the day he prayed for a visit by him.

    Mere christianity proves the insanity of the teaching that you must sell everything you have and follow “christ” abandoning any assocation with his parents, brother and sisters. Yahweh said this to his followers and if his word is true, then the church are fiddling while the world is “burning” just like Nero.

  15. on 28 Mar 2009 at 5:51 pm 15.Hermes said …

    Lou, forums or not? If not, bye.

  16. on 29 Mar 2009 at 12:31 am 16.Lou said …


    I’m sorry but that is just a myth. His conversion to Christianity was a slow process. He became a theist in the late 20s and a Christian in the early 30s. He was influenced by the writings and associations of Tolkien and Chesterton.

    Check on Francis Collins & Josh McDowell for alternative sources. I went to Med school with Collins many years ago.

  17. on 30 Mar 2009 at 2:54 pm 17.Steve said …

    Thomas — Where did you pick that story up from?

  18. on 30 Mar 2009 at 6:41 pm 18.Red Chili said …

    Lou, can you prove that wasn’t a myth?

  19. on 30 Mar 2009 at 7:44 pm 19.Lou said …

    Why yes indeed Red Chili. Are you willing to by a book?

    “Surprised by Joy” CS Lewis.

    Tell me Red Chili, why did you ask for proof from me but not Thomas?

  20. on 30 Mar 2009 at 11:34 pm 20.Chris said …

    I disagree with you Lou, eternity is a total garbage waste of time in my opinion.

    I’d rather live my life fully as a rational person than dedicate my life to delusion as you are, trying to show “God” how “good” you are.


  21. on 31 Mar 2009 at 12:11 am 21.Hermes said …

    Chris, you may find this interesting, if you have time to slog through it;


    While I don’t have much sympathy for the fervently and unrelentingly religious, I do have some pity for them.

    Unlike the cynics who don’t really buy into what it means to be good, they really do want to be good. They do want to be on the side of justice and morality. Yet, they are obedient first — to show that they are good — as opposed to making the effort to understand just how difficult morality really is. This, also, is only partly their fault.

    They’ve been sold an idea about what is good, and they don’t want to be seen as not being good, so they latch on to that idea. The more they realize that they aren’t on the right side, the more they cling to the idea of goodness. It becomes an abstraction. It becomes unreal, like a story book from a children’s author. Deus ex machina tweaks to the universe make more sense to them than careful examination of the world for what it is, and an acknowledgement that “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer.

    They are victims, making the next generation of victims. Fortunately, some snap out of it. For that, I am hopeful.

  22. on 31 Mar 2009 at 12:15 am 22.Lou said …

    You are more than welcome to disagree. I’m happy to live this delusion with the great men who have contributed so greatly to mankind. Some pretty good company to be counted with and I hardly feel worthy.

    You might to look into what the belief is really about before you show your misunderstanding. Its about how perfect Jesus is not how good I am.

    I wish you well with your pragmatic rationalism.

  23. on 31 Mar 2009 at 1:45 am 23.Hermes said …

    Chris, also watch out for theological cheer leading. Like guilt by association, but in reverse. It’s a type of false humility.

  24. on 31 Mar 2009 at 3:37 am 24.GotMooo said …

    “When in doubt check the original text. Was Stalin & Mao negotiating or being barbaric?”

    They were barbaric. From my knowledge, they have killed tens of millions of people over power, not over any gods. They did not invoke gods or religion to justify their actions. I am not excusing their actions, I am only saying religion wasn’t the issue. It was power and politics. I can’t stand when people try to justify their actions with their holy books.

    Atheism isn’t a religion and does not have any holy books to use as a guide or as a book of laws and commandments. Atheism has no holy books that excuse barbaric acts because of a deity or deities or anything else. It is a lack of belief in gods.

  25. on 31 Mar 2009 at 9:26 am 25.Lou said …


    Atheism really is a religion, in essence, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Religion is nothing more than a worldview. Some religions are man centered while others are god centered.

    So you don’t believe it is possible for men to kill as a result of their atheistic beliefs? I wouldn’t agree. Any man can take their beliefs to such a fever pitched that they could justify their actions using their worldview as justification. Stalin & Mao are such examples in my opinion.

  26. on 31 Mar 2009 at 4:38 pm 26.Steve said …

    Sure it is a religion. The holy book is blogs and books and Dawkins & Hitchens. Their denomination is AA and there preachers are Dawkins & Hitchens. They also get ticked off when they are told they are wrong.

  27. on 31 Mar 2009 at 7:38 pm 27.Hermes said …

    Steve, errors are easy to address — you do that by (well) addressing them, then they don’t get propagated.

    What’s your short list?

    Is it backed by neutral facts or an assertion of personal preference?

  28. on 31 Mar 2009 at 10:17 pm 28.Lou said …

    Every group has there leaders Steve. You offer up an obvious list since these are men are ones atheist are constantly quoting. There is a nice list of philosophers you could offer up as well. EVERYONE is influenced by the thinking of someone. Those who claim otherwise I just cannot buy.

  29. on 31 Mar 2009 at 11:41 pm 29.Hermes said …

    Atheists aren’t a unified group; most atheists don’t know they are atheists. Atheists just aren’t theists.

  30. on 03 Apr 2009 at 4:13 pm 30.anybody said …

    What would you do if your life was perfect? Think about it, you would have absolutely nothing to do! You would have everything you always wanted and would have done everything you would have ever wanted to do. There wouldn’t be a single challenge in life or “afterlife” for you.

    What would you have to do?

  31. on 05 Apr 2009 at 12:54 pm 31.Dave said …

    How can anyone ignore all the problems listed here and still beleive? Seriously. Are you stupid? I understand the Human need to explain our existence but god is not the answer. The bible is written so inconsistently about so many things.

  32. on 05 Apr 2009 at 3:49 pm 32.Lou said …

    “I understand the Human need to explain our existence but god is not the answer.”

    Do you have any proof Dave? I keep looking for someone to once back this statement. I would gladly join the atheist cause if this assertion can be proven. Can you help us out?

  33. on 05 Apr 2009 at 4:24 pm 33.Anonymous said …

    Do you have any proof, ? ? I keep looking for someone to once back this statement. I would gladly join the Christian cause if this assertion can be proven. Can you help us out?

    (I forgot your name as it wasn’t written at the end of your post.)

  34. on 05 Apr 2009 at 4:25 pm 34.Anonymous said …

    Isn’t the burden of proof on the ones MAKING the claim and not on the ones refuting it?

  35. on 05 Apr 2009 at 11:38 pm 35.Dave said …

    I dont need to proove it its obvious. I dont feel compelled to research it or provide evidence because i know im right.

    “Isn’t the burden of proof on the ones MAKING the claim and not on the ones refuting it?”

    Exactly right.. Christians make the rediculous claim that a magical creator exists. I tell you your wrong. Its your job to proove your right not the other way around. So proove to me god exists with evidence that isnt rediculous.

    And i dont want a “cause the bibile exists” type argument because i can say the same for king arther and merlin.

    We dont really care if you join us thats why dont walk around trying to proove anything. Its the insecure christians who do that :) So i put it to you to convince US and we will join YOU.. ok?

  36. on 06 Apr 2009 at 12:59 am 36.Lou said …

    It is not my place to answer your tu quoque, if we can go to that extreme. It is no less reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. It is justifiable.

    YOU made the claim God is imaginary. The claim you are “smart” while no doubt incontestable is not solid attestation.

    Appreciate Anony, we have those who claim we never walked on the moon, the earth is flat, the Holocaust never took place, etc but they offer no verifiable proof either. There must be more than an empty claim on your part.

    I am still here and willing to reflect on your case.

  37. on 06 Apr 2009 at 1:09 am 37.Dave said …

    What… Doesnt you religion claim you msut spread the word… so my point still stands… you are here to answer and convert me otherwise you arent following your own religion properly.

  38. on 06 Apr 2009 at 1:12 am 38.Dave said …

    Using fancy words doesnt change the fact that there is no evidence of god. There is more evidence that there is no god than there is for there is a god if it was simply a numbers game you already lose.

    How is beleif in something that makes no sense justifiable? like.. at all

  39. on 06 Apr 2009 at 1:54 am 39.Anonymous said …

    #36 (whatever your name is, put it on the bottom of your posts, I cannot remember!):

    “It is not my place to answer your tu quoque, if we can go to that extreme. It is no less reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. It is justifiable.”
    Wrong. If you come here to make the claim he does exist, you, you know, have to prove that. Otherwise it is not reasonable to believe you.

    “Appreciate Anony, we have those who claim we never walked on the moon, the earth is flat, the Holocaust never took place, etc but they offer no verifiable proof either. There must be more than an empty claim on your part.”
    And we have evidence against all those claims. God (and those people you mentioned) has none. Big difference.

    “I am still here and willing to reflect on your case.”
    It’s not “our” case; it’s “God’s” (and therefore as his followers, your’s)case to convince other people he does. Just saying you can’t disprove God does not lend itself well towards recruitment.

    For the record, I’m not articulate and I have poor debate skills, so take that as you will.

  40. on 06 Apr 2009 at 2:00 am 40.Dave said …

    Well said and you dont need great debating skills because there is nothing to debate. Especially because there is no evidence on the side of the god squad.

    What do christians say about the direct evidence that they borrowed alot of there beleifs from the sumerians? who btw existed some 9000 years before jesus. I have brought this up with alot and they just say things like “they never existed”. But we have evidence they did.

    any rational person can see christianity is the mixture of many regional beleifs. its obvious. history and archeology tells us this. And so to claim your religion and god exist you need to accept that atleast 100 million other gods also exist thus dis proving christianity as a religion. So all you can say for certain is that perhaps lots of gods exist…

  41. on 06 Apr 2009 at 6:39 am 41.Anonymous said …

    I think your numbers are a little off, but the point about the borrowing from other religions stands.

  42. on 06 Apr 2009 at 12:29 pm 42.Lou said …

    Hmm, now you back off your assertion with this “there is no evidence for God”. That is a more credible claim although belief on the other hand is quite justifiable. Evidence is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.

    Your original assertion (God is imaginary)is without foundation as I was attempting to point out. I see no reason to reconsider my theist position.

    It is not necessary to have great debate skills or to be articulate to have an opinion.

  43. on 07 Apr 2009 at 3:10 pm 43.Chris said …

    “any rational person can see christianity is the mixture of many regional beleifs. its obvious. history and archeology tells us this.”

    Really? Please provide the history & archeology proves this.

  44. on 08 Apr 2009 at 2:33 am 44.Hermes said …

    Chris, meet the precursor to the Noachian flood story;


  45. on 08 Apr 2009 at 2:35 am 45.Hermes said …

    Chris, meet the precursor to the Decalogue;


  46. on 08 Apr 2009 at 2:47 am 46.Hermes said …

    Chris, for the flood, just read the Genesis account of the great flood then listen to or read the Epic of Gilgamesh (Babylonian). Audio can be found at librivox.org.

    For the Decalogue (“10 commandments”), take a look at the ‘Egyptian Book of the Dead’ as referenced in the above link. A walk through is available at religioustolerance.org;


  47. on 08 Apr 2009 at 2:54 am 47.Anonymous said …

    You know Chris’ll respond with “Satan corrupted those oh-so-true stories!” or those stories were just ripped off.

  48. on 08 Apr 2009 at 3:23 pm 48.Chris said …

    A flood story….yes that would make sense if there was a massive flood, all cultures would have a story. Even many of the American Indian tribes do.
    Once again, how does this prove that the Hebrews borrowed anything from anyone anonymous? We need to have proof, not similarities. You too Heremes since you felt the need to add you 2 cents.

  49. on 08 Apr 2009 at 6:12 pm 49.Anonymous said …

    There is absolutely zero evidence for a global flood.

    Consider Jesus, Horus, Bacchus, Mithras, and so forth. What do they all have in common?

  50. on 08 Apr 2009 at 6:13 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    ‘sides, there’s that incest implication. You know how Biblegod hates incest.

  51. on 08 Apr 2009 at 8:15 pm 51.Lou said …

    The Australian Aborigines have a flood story as well. Seems in this decade more evidence seems to be mounting for a possible flood of huge proportions in the earths past.

  52. on 12 Apr 2009 at 3:00 am 52.frank said …

    Consider this, we live in a fallen world. Every since adam and eve the world has been different. Cancer is one of the results of sin. People who kill each other are results of sin. Jesus came and gave his life as a sacrifice to cover these sins. for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.

  53. on 12 Apr 2009 at 3:40 am 53.Anonymous said …

    Have none of you ever even looked at the forum? The ‘arguments’ you all seem to bring up over and over again have been covered ad nauseum over there.

    Frank, what’s your point? That’s not a very convincing argument there.

  54. on 13 Apr 2009 at 3:27 pm 54.See in the light said …

    A true Christian would not be afraid of heaven. Now, if you are talking personnally being afraid of heaven, then
    consider the love of Jesus Christ that he may know you when you go before God Kingdom.

  55. on 13 Apr 2009 at 5:55 pm 55.Anonymous said …

    Let’s assume you’re right. What are you gonna do there for eternity? Praise him for all eternity or something? I guess being a boombox on repeat is pretty special? Eh…

  56. on 13 Apr 2009 at 6:22 pm 56.Lou said …

    “A true Christian would not be afraid of heaven”

    That sounds better than just rotting in the ground for eternity SEITL. If you are wrong, you haven’t missed a thing.


  57. on 13 Apr 2009 at 7:29 pm 57.Anonymous said …

    Pascal’s Wager only works if it’s just atheism and Christianity, not if there’s you know, multiple religions.

    What can you apply from the bible (and don’t say morals because that’s bullshit) to our daily lives? Inaccurate history? That’s it? Eh…

    With evolution, you at least get medical and biological advances.

  58. on 13 Apr 2009 at 8:52 pm 58.Anonymous said …

    Just because it “sounds better” doesn’t make it so.

  59. on 14 Apr 2009 at 1:45 am 59.Hermes said …

    Chris, the Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the Genesis flood. If you have read both texts, and the Egyptian book of the dead, the texts would smack you in the face. That you aren’t embarrassed by that the two stories are so similar to non-Jewish sources that pre-date them only shows you haven’t looked at them.

  60. on 14 Apr 2009 at 1:49 am 60.Hermes said …

    Question for the folks who promote a world wide flood ala Noah in Genesis;

    Why did the other cultures not notice the flood at the same time as the Jews reported it?

    An additional bonus question;

    Why didn’t the people in the other cultures notice that they were all wiped out?

    They seemed to have the gaul to not only not notice that they were all killed, but they continued to record their own histories as if they weren’t killed off en masse.

  61. on 14 Apr 2009 at 1:55 am 61.Hermes said …

    Frank, I take it you think that a literal Adam and Eve really lived with no predecessors. Additionally, I take it that you think that there was a real error made by that couple that was worthy of punishment, as described in the Bible.

    Is this accurate, or do you have a less literal view?

    Let me know what your view is.

  62. on 14 Apr 2009 at 2:05 am 62.Hermes said …

    Anonymous: “With evolution, you at least get medical and biological advances.”

    Agreed, though the practical value of biology is a bonus not a reason for modern biological sciences to be taken seriously. Your other comments were good as well.

    As for the whining competition, theologists seem to be a little lacking in deliverables;

    Thread: “What new knowledge have religious professionals
    brought to the world in the last 100 years?”


    I don’t expect the knee-jerk reactionaries to read that thread, though I’ll allow them to make silly statements about the value of their individual sect or dogmatic presuppositions. It is unfortunate, yet predictable. Maybe this pointed criticism will get them to act differently this time? Unlikely, yet one can hope.

  63. on 14 Apr 2009 at 2:42 am 63.Anonymous said …

    Foiled by semantics… Eh.

  64. on 14 Apr 2009 at 4:36 am 64.GotMooo said …

    “They seemed to have the gaul to not only not notice that they were all killed, but they continued to record their own histories as if they weren’t killed off en masse.”

    It’s a cover up, I’m telling you. Just believe me, the devil is behind this. *Runs off*

  65. on 05 May 2009 at 5:35 pm 65.anonymous said …

    anyone can say they’re a christian. but, after church, only i know if I have accepted christ. if i havent, killing all the “christians” would mean the robot could be potentially sending the whole lot of us to Hell.

    btw, you get to heaven through Jesus, not good acts. good acts come from loving Him and accepting his commandment to love others. that being said, many use God’s name to justify their causes in the same way Bush invades Iraq by saying he was trying to protect human rights. true christians rarely are the ones you see on TV promoting a crusade against Muslims. A real Christian is the missionary in Africa risking his or her life to provide food and shelter to impoverished children.

    question: why can’t creationism and science be the same? science could be humanity discovering the rules and laws of the universe created by God.

    answer to whyGodwonthealamputees?: i would say because actions result consequences. wtf, right?! if i didnt study for an exam, i would fail. if americans planted mines and launched cruise missiles, children are going to get hurt or killed. you made a mess, you have to accept responsibilty. that being said I know the amputees werent given a choice in the matter and are hurting. but imagine now, God would heal the innocent hurt from war, war would be endless to gain anything and everything. People would live in deep immorality because they feel God will fix any mess they make. think about it. if you found out today, you could do anything without any consequences, what would you do? Find a hot girl or guy and hook up. Kill anyone that pissed you off. Down the road, everyone would eventually doubt His presence in their self-confidence. Then, you end up with a world destined to Hell. That’s why He has to keep a balance. No miracles then you have even the strongest Christian doubting his existence. Too many, we take Him for granted. That’s my take on why amputees are not always healed.

  66. on 05 May 2009 at 5:56 pm 66.Riffner said …

    Did you think you would convert anybody to your cult with that tripe? PHAIL

  67. on 05 May 2009 at 11:11 pm 67.anonymous said …

    im not trying to convert anyone to my “cult,” im just answering a question to a blog. anything i answer with be it truth or lie will not be enough to satisfy for the world’s problems. assume you are God. what would you do after a massive war like Vietnam or Iraq?

    any miracle or sign from God can be dismissed as natural or a coincidence or a lie. any healing miracle from broken bones to cancer can be dismissed as a magic trick. what is your take on the parting of the red sea which was seen by the entire Israelite nation?

    you athiests have the ultimate hand in the argument. everything in this reality could be dismissed as a simulation with no relevance to this world. i have nothing i can provide to prove His existence against that.

  68. on 05 May 2009 at 11:31 pm 68.Liffner said …

    “what is your take on the parting of the red sea which was seen by the entire Israelite nation?”

    Uh, that never happened.

    Also, please learn some anthropology.

  69. on 05 May 2009 at 11:32 pm 69.Liffner said …

    You know, anthropology says the Israelites were never even in Egypt, so they had no need to even to part the sea to begin with.

  70. on 06 May 2009 at 12:27 am 70.ANONYMOUS said …




  71. on 06 May 2009 at 1:40 am 71.anonymous said …

    ok, so some extra hyped christians thinks the coral is an Egyptian chariot. that still doesn’t give a very solid base to believe why the Israelites were never in Egypt. also, dont trust the news too much, its controlled mainly by mormons (scary ppl with paramilitary divisions).

  72. on 06 May 2009 at 3:16 am 72.Liffner said …

    What base is there to believe they were in there to begin with? One, if they really were in Egypt for oh so very long, shouldn’t their language show that? It doesn’t. At all.

    Scary mormons who control the entire media? I call Poe.

  73. on 06 May 2009 at 5:26 am 73.anonymous said …

    i will look into that, but for now, i need to sit and start studying for this math midterm for electronics

  74. on 06 May 2009 at 6:53 am 74.Anony said …

    So, that’s a no, #72?

  75. on 06 May 2009 at 9:05 am 75.ANONYMOUS said …

    He probably is a holocaust denier as well. You can’t reason with a guy who doesn’t accept basic history.

  76. on 06 May 2009 at 5:07 pm 76.anonymous said …

    the israelites lived in goshen, separate from the egyptians or hittites

  77. on 06 May 2009 at 5:22 pm 77.Lou said …

    Anonymous, Goshen was a part of of Egypt. The Bible is clear that the Hebrews lived in Goshen. They also make pretty good tennis string.

  78. on 07 May 2009 at 2:46 am 78.anonymous said …

    yeah, i know Goshen is in Egypt. they lived there because they were shepherds.

    question: so just because i live in canada, does that mean my chinese will incorporate english or french?

  79. on 07 May 2009 at 2:49 am 79.ANON said …

    i think you need to read to 76. i think he means their communities are separated from the egyptians, but not Goshen from Egypt

  80. on 16 May 2009 at 8:15 pm 80.Random said …

    You dont seem to be the most educated person around. You dont seem to understand that god created all of us in his own image. He created the world and everything in it. By saying he is not real, and is imaginary, you might want to check your research. There are many miracles happening around the world. By saying that there is no evidence of what God has done in the past, is completly bazarre. Many people are being healed, and are praising God for it. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the rock i stand on.

    Annaliese Kline

    P.S. How did Lasurious rise from the dead? Check it. By the way I’m more educated then you think.

  81. on 16 May 2009 at 8:26 pm 81.Monterey Jack said …

    Not educated enough to know that it’s LAZARUS..

    How do you know LAZARUS was raised from the dead? Or existed at all? If you say the bible, I’ll do something drastic.. besides being rightly able to call you stupid.

  82. on 16 May 2009 at 10:40 pm 82.Pepper said …

    How do you know Plato existed? If you claim his writings or ancient writings I’ll have to call you stupid. Don’t you realize Plato is only imaginary and never REALLY existed.

  83. on 17 May 2009 at 1:42 am 83.Hermes said …

    Pepper, nobody insisted that Plato had supernatural powers and required belief in him or you would be damned for an eternity.

    Like Buddah, if Plato never existed, we still have some good philosophy to mull over that we can take or leave depending on it’s actual merits. (Some of what Plato said was just wrong, btw.)

    Yet, Plato is a diversion, right? Let’s address the main issue. Let’s skip the fluff.

    There is no such thing as a soul that exists after death. As such, there is no afterlife that we can go to.

    Thus, regardless of any supernatural entity existing or not, everyone deals with one life and the carrot and stick of an afterlife of joy or pain is not an issue.

    If you — or anyone else — disagrees, feel free to correct me in the forums where I provide details;


  84. on 17 May 2009 at 2:14 am 84.Monterey Jack said …

    Why the hell do I care if Plato actually existed? What does this say about Jesus who has no contemporary evidence outside the bible?

    (Also, to be pedantic, Jesus didn’t actually write anything.)

  85. on 17 May 2009 at 9:29 am 85.Pepper said …

    I will ask you one more time MJ or new arrival Hermes. How do you know Plato existed? Lazarus was just a man, not supernatural, not one to believe in for eternity. The cases are very similar and you cannot or will not answer the question. I can post a wiki page for Lazarus as well but is that proof enough for you?

  86. on 17 May 2009 at 1:04 pm 86.Wildbird said …

    Plato left a great body of work, for one. By contrast, not only did Jesus leave no writings, no record of his works were recorded until decades after his death. I have always thought it odd that, if Jesus was a carpenter and a god incarnate, then his carpentry should have been exemplary, even perfect, yet I have never heard of any such relics. Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Babylonians and many pre-Jesus builders created things that have lasted for thousands of years, but nothing that a god built is around? I don’t think I have even seen any mention in any of the accepted, or denied, writings about Jesus on this. Odd.

    There was plenty of independent contemporary verification of Plato’s life, as well. No so much for Jesus. Writings referring to Jesus are pretty much all from people with an investment in Christianity. That’s kind of like viewing infomercials as fact. Skeptics are like Consumer Reports, but on a bigger scale. And just as there are people who will buy a particular brand no matter what Consumer Reports says about the facts regarding their products, there are people who are brand-loyal to any religion.

    We might more appropriately compare the writings about Jesus with Lao Tzu. Although Lao Tzu’s name is on the Tao Te Ching, there is a lack of documentation about Lao Tzu that causes scholars to believe that there was no such person; that the Tao Te Ching was more likely written by unnamed individuals. My understanding is that the gospels were assigned authors based on their perspectives — that the clergy guessed who wrote them.

    I kind of think that whether historical figure X actually existed is not even terribly relevant or helpful. If we find, for instance, the writings of Plato to be contradictory to what we know to be factual, then we must put them aside and move on. Sure, Newton existed. But that didn’t preclude Einstein’s work. Nor did Einstein’s existence (I have seen photos of him — I’m pretty confident he was real), or even his criticism of “spooky action at a distance” negate the facts of quantum mechanics. Einstein clung to his beliefs, and the world moved on without him (that’s how I am able to communicate this to you)

    I am cool with people believing something because of faith. Just be confident enough to admit it. Saying you believe myths as history degrades one’s stance, as direct observation of the facts (facts which, if you believe in a god or gods, were divinely created) shows more and more that religious texts are, when taken literally, self-contradictory, vague, ignorant of fact and truth, of suspect authorship, and flawed in many ways.

    It seems to me that if religious texts were written or inspired by any god(s), these texts would be more consistent with each other and with observable fact.

    I’ll grant that there are plenty of unexplained miracles in the world (healthy babies dying suddenly, holocausts, rape, war, drug overdoses, cancers, etc.) and that the fact that these things happen more to the pious societies and individuals than non-pious ones could seem to show a divine hand in the matter, but to say that anything we don’t currently understand must be the work of god X, Y, Z, etc. is pretty arrogant, as it implies that we currently know everything that is knowable.

  87. on 17 May 2009 at 1:40 pm 87.Gouda said …

    You think you’re clever, but you’re not. If we can’t even prove Plato existed (There was that whole academy thing he had but whatever.) then jebus is up shitcreek w/o a paddle. Do you see the problem?

  88. on 17 May 2009 at 2:01 pm 88.Pepper said …

    There are 66 books written by numerous authors over a hundreds of years dealing with the coming and life of Christ. There are more copies of the ancient texts (over 25,000) available and over 99% accurate with one another. Plato cannot come close to such numbers. The Iliad is 2nd on the list with just over 600 copies. If Jesus was a hoax, history would have revealed that by now. It wouldn’t have grown to the movement we see between Jews, Christians and Muslims all who acknowledge the man, Jesus.

    Bottom line, you both believe Plato existed because of ancient texts and that is all you have. I have no issues with that. The fact Jesus or Lazarus (the original subject) existed has as much if not more ancient texts providing evidence of their existence. I just wanted to back our cheese man into a corner to put his own logic on display as a straw man. He is not even able to stick with his original subject, Lazarus, much less but up a supportable argument.

  89. on 17 May 2009 at 2:28 pm 89.Gouda said …

    Those irrelevant number of copies? Plato’s not real because he’s less popular? Speaking of faith, if Vishnu was a hoax, history would have revealed that by now.

    You know, it’s not like Plato FOUNDED A WELL-RECORDED ACADEMY or anything. Also, we don’t care if Plato existed. Get off your strawman.

    Uh, Jews and Muslims don’t recognize his divinity, so yeah.

    Lazarus and Jesus are both “biblical” so I can use whichever I want. You’re sure

    In any event, you’re still not any closer to actually proving Jebus existed and are closer towards disproving him. What else you got?

  90. on 17 May 2009 at 2:31 pm 90.Cheddar. said …

    “Pepper, nobody insisted that Plato had supernatural powers and required belief in him or you would be damned for an eternity.”

    “Yet, Plato is a diversion, right?”

    Please, Pepper, forget Plato because nobody cares about him. Move on to proving Jesus, alrighty?

  91. on 17 May 2009 at 7:18 pm 91.Lou said …

    I think you sliced up the variety of cheeses there well pepper (LOL). A change in subject will always follow when an answer cannot be provided.

    Personally I get a chuckle out of holocaust deniers and now the Jesus deniers. Very few individuals actually deny Jesus existed. But you must admit, to be true that would be a classic not to mention cheesy hoax!

  92. on 17 May 2009 at 7:39 pm 92.Kira Dahmer said …



    I noticed you had nothing to contribute. What is your damn point, troll?

  93. on 17 May 2009 at 7:40 pm 93.Kira Dahmer said …

    “Very few individuals actually deny Jesus existed.”

    Four billion people deny his divinity, so it doesn’t really matter if he existed or not.

  94. on 17 May 2009 at 9:39 pm 94.Pepper said …

    Do you change the subject because you can’t answer MJ? You keep going to Jesus and have yet to defend the Lazarus claim. You have this need to leave Lazarus and go to Jesus? Why does it make you uncomfortable in that corner?

    Kira I noticed you added divinity. Does that mean you acknowledge Jesus existed?

  95. on 17 May 2009 at 10:19 pm 95.Wildbird said …

    I think there’s a decent chance that a historical Jesus actually existed. What is unlikely is the matter of the stories about him being historically accurate, especially since they were not written down for decades.

    Anyone who has done any historical research at all realizes that:

    1. Accounts of events, even by eyewitnesses at the time, can vary greatly. Deciding who to believe can be tough. If one of the observers is more aggressive than the others, that version is likely to be the seed from which the historical “facts” grow, even of it was less accurate.

    2. Even agreed-upon versions can later change a great deal. I have seen events from as recent as the 1970s change drastically, to the point where they are totally false.

    3. People are better story-tellers than historians. Prying folklore from fact is one of the toughest aspects of historical research. Adding some spice to a story tends to get more “oohs” and “ahhs” from the audience.

    4. People have an inherent tendency to add their worldview to events. Show the exact same event to a liberal and a conservative and see if their reports of the event mesh, for instance.

    Add to that lower literacy levels in early history, and the relatively recent development of history as a discipline, and you quickly see that trusting ancient texts is not a great way to establish facts. It’s okay to say “we don’t really know for sure.” I know it is scary, but that’s the real world.

    >There are more copies of the ancient texts (over 25,000) available and over 99% accurate with one another.<

    I’d have to call shenanigans on that one. Please cite a reference that I can check.

    One of the things that turned me away from the Abrahamic religions when I was looking at the world’s major religions was the lack of self-consistency. It all seemed so obviously made-up and haphazard. Heck, even the gods referenced were different, and that’s a major problem for a monotheistic tradition.

  96. on 17 May 2009 at 10:46 pm 96.Monterey Jack said …

    What changing? Jesus, Lazarus? They’re BOTH BIBLICAL PEOPLE. It’s the same standard for either of them. Isn’t Jesus more important than Lazarus anyways? Let’s focus on HIM, since they have the same amount of evidence. (read:none)

    “Kira I noticed you added divinity. Does that mean you acknowledge Jesus existed?”

    Your reading skills need work.

  97. on 17 May 2009 at 10:58 pm 97.Monterey Jack said …

    Let’s put it real simple, Pepper.

    You are saying jesus was real just because the bible says so. We said no, because Jesus is just a character in it. You then try to say prove Plato existed w/o using his writings attributed to him.

    The difference is, Plato has evidence OUTSIDE HIS WRITINGS. He wasn’t a character in them. He just wrote them, which is more than Jesus did for the NT. A more comparable example to jesus would be Hercules since both only have a basis in myth, although nobody believes in Herc anymore.

    Stop trying to play word games and give actual evidence jesus existed.

  98. on 17 May 2009 at 11:26 pm 98.Pepper said …

    So you admit to having nothing but ancient texts and not as many as Jesus has for said existence. Therefore, you cannot prove Plato anymore than Jesus but you accept Plato and not Jesus due to your obvious hatred of Christianity. My case is made. Thank you for your assistance.

    I don’t need to prove Jesus existed. You have to prove he didn’t. I have 66 books that claim He did exist.

    Since you seem to be a fringe element guy this seemed appropriate.

  99. on 18 May 2009 at 12:28 am 99.Monterey Jack said …

    “So you admit to having nothing but ancient texts and not as many as Jesus has for said existence. Therefore, you cannot prove Plato anymore than Jesus but you accept Plato and not Jesus due to your obvious hatred of Christianity. My case is made. Thank you for your assistance.”

    You.. you’ve completely ignored my posts to make completely inane ramblings of your own. I’m going to type the next bit in ALL-CAPS to try to get through to you. Let me know if it works!

    We have comtemporary evidence OUTSIDE OF HIS OWN WRITING HE EXISTED. HE FOUNDED A WELL KNOWN ACADEMY, WAS RECORDED IN ACTUAL HISTORICAL TEXTS (outside mythology) blah blah blah. (Before you say jebus founded christianity, think again. It was Paul!) PLATO WAS NOT A FICTIONAL CHARACTER. HE WASN’T FEATURED IN MYTHS OR HIS OWN WRITING.

    Jesus only exists in the bible, a collection of puffed-up Jewish fairy tales. He has NOTHING other than that. HE DIDN’T EVEN WRITE THE NEW TESTAMENT.

    “I don’t need to prove Jesus existed. You have to prove he didn’t. I have 66 books that claim He did exist.”

    Is that because you can’t? I mean seriously. You have done nothing to promote jesus at all. I think he would be ashamed of you if he existed.

    Replace jebus with Hercules. Replace the bible with collective Greco-Roman lore. THERE I HAS PROVED-ED itS! Just for the record, you know there’s more than 66 books, and they were all arbitrarily chosen well after jebus was supposed to live?

    Don’t like that example? Replace it with Harry Potter. He was in 7 books and (will be) in a total of 8 movies! That’s just gotta count for something!

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    What the fuck does that last link refer to? Atheists are Holocaust deniers? Is that what you’re implying? Seems assbackards to me, as it was a genocide of Jews caused by christians.

    Some homework!
    When you can refute every point here, then you come back and share. I will give you a cookie, and it will be chocolate chip. The best kind.

    Before you sit down to “write a response”, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO TYPE. Put some effort so people won’t openly mock you as I will if I see any more stupidity coming from you.

  100. on 18 May 2009 at 12:32 am 100.Wildbird said …

    A “number of books” is not a good way to establish factuality. I’d bet there are more books on UFOs than the historical evidence for Jesus, but I sure am not waiting up for little green men tonight.

    The quality of the evidence is really all that matters, and that is tough when we are talking about people or events from thousands of years ago.

    Before we explore these 66 books, can get a citation for this (I asked once already):

    >There are more copies of the ancient texts (over 25,000) available and over 99% accurate with one another.<


  101. on 18 May 2009 at 12:38 am 101.Wildbird said …

    Be careful, MJ. Christians don’t want people to know that Hitler was a philosophical descendant of Martin Luther. They like to tell people that Hitler was, of all things, an atheist. That sort of outright lying, BTW, is one of the major problems I have with the Abrahamic religions. I think the fact that they are based on absurdities makes their adherents think that absurdities are okay to spread.

  102. on 18 May 2009 at 9:21 am 102.Lou said …

    Plato could be a fairytale? I don’t think so and neither was Jesus. He was a real man and he was written about as a real man even if you don’t believe in his divinity.

    Pepper is right. There is as much evidence for Jesus and Biblical events as for Plato. Just because Plato supposedly wrote for himself doesn’t prove his existence. I don’t believe we have a single original manuscript.

  103. on 18 May 2009 at 11:28 am 103.Anony said …

    Lou, I know you have trouble thinking and that’s OKAY. YOU WILL RECEIVE HELP ONE DAY MY “FRIEND.”

    It’s probable he existed. You know, it’s not there was an ACADEMY he founded or anything. It’s not like he didn’t occur outside his own writings. But you know what?


    You’ll actually have to present something for jebus other than, “Hey, this dead Greek guy might not have existed. Even though this applies to jebus too, but with far less evidence (none), I’m-a believe in-a him!”

    Seriously, since neither one of you actually want to prove jesus, I’m saying Hercules was real. Go. Disprove him. If you can’t, Hercules wins! I’m not gonna give any evidence either. Lore is good enough for me!

    It’s about what your special pleading amounts to.

  104. on 18 May 2009 at 2:31 pm 104.Lou said …

    I’m not worried about hell and personally have no problem with you believing in Hercules. I don’t even require you to provide evidence. Good Luck with that.

  105. on 18 May 2009 at 2:34 pm 105.Lou said …

    Here is something wildbird. You might find it interesting.


  106. on 18 May 2009 at 3:11 pm 106.Anony said …

    I thnk Lou admits there was/is no Jesus/Hell and has no reason to continue failing at converting people. It’s special pleading at its finest.

    Also, I don’t know if you realize this, but it’s not “The Blog for WhyWontPlatoHealAmputees.” So, Plato has no relevance here. OKAY? DO YOU UNDERSTAND? WE DON’t CARE. Even though he has more proof to him than Jebus, I could live w/o him being actually historical, which apparently you can’t the same for your guy.

  107. on 18 May 2009 at 7:46 pm 107.Wildbird said …

    Thanks, Lou. I read the link. But I have to admit I don’t get the relevance.

    I’d really like to find those 25,000 texts with 99% similarity in information (presumably about Jesus). In years of researching religions, I have yet to encounter such a thing. As my goal in life is simply “to understand,” which requires a high degree of factuality and truthfulness, such information would be of great assistance. If someone was to provide information that thoroughly countered the at-best-haphazard Abrahamic writings, I would not hesitate to embrace it. Plus, it would allow me to spend more time exploring other aspects of reality (I’d love to spend more time on the clash between general relativity and quantum physics — darn that gravity).

    I often think that what happened to Jesus and the Buddha are similar. I think that they both — assuming they did exist as such — taught similar things (at times, it almost looks like Jesus copied the ideas of his predecessor) and suffered some of the same twists of history, becoming turned into deities by small-minded people. I heard a report on NPR a few weeks ago about a Chinese man who had lost faith in the Buddha (as if there was such a singular entity) because of last year’s earthquake and the losses his family suffered therein. That is so totally twisted from what the historical Buddha taught (again, assuming the mythology reflects history in some respect). The First Noble Truth is that “Life is Suffering.” The earthquake confirmed that. This man’s suffering is caused by his attachment to the world of samsara. Any Buddhist should know that.

    Comparing those two religions is interesting, as one of them has created peaceful societies and the other has created some of the most violent, even though they were based on similar core teachings. An odd twist of fate.

    Even here, though, I am not sure that the actual existence of the historical Buddha is important (and he would agree). What is more important than the historicity of a tradition is its impact in the real world. That, and the problems with the assembled Christian writings, is what makes me want to keep my distance.

    Another case in point would be Taoism. Scholars are pretty sure that there was no such person as Lao Tzu, but that does not detract from the tradition. If anything, it may add to its veracity.

  108. on 11 Oct 2011 at 5:08 pm 108.ShirleyHull35 said …

    People all over the world get the mortgage loans in different banks, because this is fast and easy.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply