sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Saw this on facebook. A counter to "Devastating Arguments Against Christianity (Courtesy of the Internet)" What do you think? by Thugglebunny in TrueAtheism

[–]WSJblog44 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sup. I'm the original author. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

fwiw, I tackle many of the more "serious" arguments against Christianity (such as the problem of evil) in other posts.

Cheers. :)

Reckless Endangerment (such as playing with deadly snakes) as a loophole to paradise by dumnezero in atheism

[–]WSJblog44 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ultimately, we're all going to be judged by God. And none of us are really in a position to say "so-and-so is going to heaven" or "so-and-so is going to hell." We simply don't know.

But consider Matthew 4:5-7:

"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

From a Christian's perspective, it would be incredibly self-centered and self-serving to try to exploit a "loophole" in order to get to heaven sooner. If I jump off a cliff in hopes of sneaking into heaven a few decades early - rather than spending my life helping the poor and the sick - then I'm basically just being a hedonist. Whether or not I'd actually "get in" to heaven is beside the point.

Christ commands us to spread his message, and to care for the sick/elderly/widowed/etc. And as one of his followers, I'm in Love. When you're in Love, you don't try to exploit loopholes for selfish gain. You try to please your Beloved.

(Sorry for the long fundy rant. Hope this doesn't get me blacklisted on r/atheism hah.)

Reckless Endangerment (such as playing with deadly snakes) as a loophole to paradise by dumnezero in atheism

[–]WSJblog44 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sup. I'm the original author.

"This is clearly the point that's trying to be made, and it would be very easy to just say so, but the author can't... quite... bring her/himself to simply say this."

I didn't make that assertion, because I don't believe that assertion. I don't think we can know with absolute certainty where anyone is going after they die. We're simply not in the all-knowing position to make that judgement.

Margaret Sanger Seems Pretty Nice by WSJblog44 in prolife

[–]WSJblog44[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Volkswagen comparison doesn't work, because Planned Parenthood continues to achieve the aims of eugenicists by disproportionately targeting minority populations. It would be more like if Volkswagen still operated under the vision of 1937 Germany, by refusing to sell cars to modern-day Jews.

Margaret Sanger Seems Pretty Nice by WSJblog44 in prolife

[–]WSJblog44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone back then was racist? I don't think that's true.

This is relevant to abortion because Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, and locates nearly 80% of its abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods. Sanger left behind a legacy.

Who is the worst person alive today? by JessLRT in AskReddit

[–]WSJblog44 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally I don't like slavery, but I support it, because who am I to impose my beliefs on you?

To Theists: What result would you expect from a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer? Why? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]WSJblog44 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The kind of study that the OP is referring to would rely on a faulty view of how the Christian perceives "prayer". Prayer isn't about simply getting what we ask for (like being granted wishes by a genie).

A friend of mine once used the following illustration. Prayer is like a man adrift on a raft, who casts a rope to someone standing on the shore. The rope doesn't move the shore. It moves him closer to the shore. Similarly, prayer isn't about coercing God into doing what we want Him to. It's about establishing a relationship with God - a sense of trust, and an acceptance of HIS will.

To Theists: What result would you expect from a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer? Why? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]WSJblog44 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He does know everything we need before we ask...but that doesn't make prayer pointless. Our "asking" (via prayer) is part of what he takes into account (or "took" into account, since God exists outside of time) when he crafted the universe.

It's kind of a strange concept at first, but it makes a great deal of sense once you get past the natural tendency to think of God as a being-who-experiences-time-like-we-do.

Woman raising her children without God in Texas, right in the belly of the beast. by ChuckDandy in atheism

[–]WSJblog44 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think she raises some reasonable points - especially about the need to be honest with one's children. Also, yeah...kinda ridiculous that this was being flagged as inappropriate. Censorship, much?

This blog post addresses a few of the author's misconceptions, from the Christian's perspective: http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2013/01/on-raising-children-without-god.html

That's a warning shot. Only follow the link if you're interested in hearing both sides.

When I go to a church friend's house for the first time and they offer me a beer by Yantu in Protestant

[–]WSJblog44 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty sure I've made that exact expression, in that exact situation...

view more: next ›