"I'm gonna go to hell when I die..."

Edit: Why did I write this? I was watching "Drawn Together," and the website flashed across the screen - and Grant told me to go check it out... as I started watching it I was partially amused and partially annoyed. The analogies presented made very shallow sense - on the surface they worked, but really they contradicted each other. What really got me, though, and inspired me to blog, was the beginning if the evolution part - Ray sets it all up, that we are going to watch these "Evolutionists," and see how they back pedal and use words like "maybe," etc... I was all excited - here would be some great evolutionary scientists and they would point out every time a "maybe" occured - Sounds great! I love a good fight... I was so disapointed when he started interviewing some college kids - they aren't experts! They don't have all the scientific evidence! ARG! It pissed me off... so - here is my blog about www.wayofthemaster.com.

I'm gonna go the hell when I die..Are you?

Way of the Master was very educational. After I watched the introduction, I was presented with three choices.

In part one, I learned that I am going to hell. I am going to hell because I have broken the ten commandments, and following the commandments is what makes one a good person. I screwed up there. god damn it.

I also learned that God is just and good because he doles out fair punishments - comparable to a Judge - If a Judge ruled that a rapist could go free, then the judge would not be a good judge: SO if God were to let a sinner like me go free, then he would not be a good God.

I also learned that hell is a place of pain and punishment, a place where someone like Hitler is spending his eternity.

However, part 1 left me with some questions. For example, if God is comparable to a "good judge," would that judge still be considered a "good judge," if he gave the same sentence to a petty thief as to a child molester or a mass murderer?

hmmmm.... (By the way, in rereading this, I can see how its very confusing. If you want, you can go watch the video clips first.

Well, let me see what I can learn from part 2. Ah! Lets start with Evolution. The beginning of the video is not quite convincing, as Ray Comfort interviews a bunch of college kids about the theory of evolution, and points out how shaky the theory of evolution is when these kids respond with words such as "maybe", "possibly", and "I don't really know..."

Um... these are hardly scientific experts he is interviewing. Seriously, when he set this up, I thought he'd have some stuffy professor guys interviewing with scientific jargon... I thought he was joking when he kept asking these college kids... come on... give me some field experts!

really, I think if you were to interview these same guys on the biology behind why eating fruits and vegetables is healthy those same words might pop up - Pass me the french fries!

Some other interesting tidbits I learned here:
Rented orangutans don't have appropriate table manners, and when Ray and Kirk get salads with all of the fixing and unfairly order the orangutan a plain salad with lettuce only, the orangutan breaks the commandment of coveting his neighbors goods when he prefers to eat the good salad.

I learned that because Darwin was sexist and racist, his theories of evolution couldn't possibly be true.

I learned that a good way to find the truth is to "circumnavigate the intellect."

But if you want to use your intellect, you can purchase their book which explains how evolution is not factual and is unscientific. I hope the book is more intellectual then this video.

Next, I learned that dying is like jumping out of an airplane, and that "the fact" that we will face judgement when we die has the same merit, truth, and is as factual as the law of gravity.

I also learned that people can create some really crappy analogies.

I'm going to carry on, because I need to finish examining my soul.
Feel free to continue with me, or travel to The Way of the Master to examine your own soul. Kirk is waiting for you, with loads of analogies to make everything crystal clear.

Again, this probably doesn't make much sense. Sorry. Its 2:30 AM.

Atheism

Well, I don't know how interesting this video will be. Atheism is almost as unprovable as theism. I don't understand why anyone would speak of such spiritual matters, matters that can not be proven, with certainty.

But commentary could be fun, so we'll see.

"It takes more faith to be an atheist then to believe in God. Atheism is the opposite of intellectualism."

Hmmm... I feel an analogy coming on...

Ah! The "Intelligent Design" theory, except Ray prefers using a soda can instead of a watch - not an original analogy, which probably explains why its a decent one - although here even Ray tries to simplify the argument to almost nonsensical form - a watch, unlike a soda can, has small parts that work together, internal and external, that serve an intricate purpose, much like a life form.

Ok - So this intelligent design theory always argues the existence of natural things through the existence of unnatural things. A building must have a builder - a painting must have a painter... but both of these things, paintings and buildings, are not found in nature.

Unnatural things have inventors so natural things have inventors. I'm suppose to follow this logic and say that a tree has a treer and a rock has a rocker? Party on....

The fact that there is nature does not convince me that there is a God. They keep poking fun a the concept of the Big Bang, "Would you believe us if we told you we had a big bang in this room and this video just appeared...?" yuck, yuck....

Um, no.

But would I believe that a Big Bang created millions of stars with billions of solar systems and circling planets and at least one of those billions of possibilities fell into orbit at just the right distance from its star that made the environment on that planet conducive to life? Sure...

Thats right. I believe in cosmic accidents. Some people find reassurance in "A PLAN." I find reassurance in randomness. This applies to creation. This applies to crap in our lives. I believe little girls who have been fighting Leukemia all of their lives are victims of a cosmic accident, not a puppet in some grand Master plan.

I also think it is very human to think that this whole universe was invented FOR us, rather then taking our place in nature as a by product of its growth.

I mean, humans must be much more significant then any other piece of life on our plant, right? (um, yes, this was a sarcastic paragraph. )

Well, at least, in theory, we agree on this - humans don't know everything! There is knowledge that we don't know yet.

Why is it that they can admit and point out how little humans really know when arguing that atheists couldn't possibly know for certain that there is no God, but they themselves can be so sure not only that there is a God, but of what God believes and how he will judge us, what he wants and expects in our lives, and what he will punish?

Kirk's "Gold in China" analogy sort of contradicts what he said earlier. The analogy says: You need absolute knowledge to say "there is no gold in china," but you just need to know of one gold ring to be able to say "there is gold in china."

I agree, but where is the "gold ring?" Where is the shred of knowledge that God exists?

Also, at the beginning, they said it took more intellect to be a believer, and yet now they are saying that you really don't need to know much in order to believe in God. Which is it?

What is frustrating about this video is the facts or analogies they use are so silly - they are trying to make people with ideas that are different from their's seem ludicrous, but to me it is defeating the purpose. "So an atheist must claim to know absolutely everything, including the romantic love lives of two fleas on the back of Napolean's bed..." What? Are you serious with that?

And then they point out that most atheists are really agnostics, because an intellectual being must acknowledge that the can't possibly know everything. And right when I am ready to finally agree with a point, yes, most atheists truly are agnostics, Kirk has to open his house and say," So agnostics are like someone who looks at a building and says that he isn't sure whether or not there is a builder..." trying in one swoop to ridicule the agnostic.

Sigh.

He never acknowledges that the building's construction is not necesarily comparable to nature's construction.

Sigh. He keeps saying that you are not a good person if you don't follow the 10 commandments. He keeps saying "what if you died and God judges you by the way you followed the 10 commandments..." but following the ten commandments does not make me good, and not following them does not make me bad. And God never told me those are the laws he wanted me to follow. You can't use the Bible as proof to someone who does not believe that the Bible is more then a famous history book.


Do I consider myself a good person? Yes. Have I broken some of the commandments? Yes. But I don't think, and I don't believe, that the ten commandments are God's recipe for what makes a good person.

Jean ValJean stole bread to feed his family.

Javert's justice involved imprisoning ValJean.

The Bishop's justice involved giving Valjean all the bishop had so that ValJean could live in freedom.

According to Kirk and Ray, God is a Just God - Just like Javert. A sinner is a sinner, and the punishment will be doled out, the debt, the consequence, must be repaid.

How can they presume to KNOW what kind of Justice God will dispense?

Besides, - fear is not a reason to profess faith.

Now, when interviewing the atheist, the atheist admits that he doesn't know everything, and based on what he knows, he does not believe in God. When he acknowledges that he does not know everything, Kirk and Ray accuse him of "backsliding." Sigh. But Ray and Kirk themselves just said that humans can't know everything. They are just interpreting the given data to the best of their ability; just as everyone is. Yet when they admit they don't know everything, its being human. When the atheist admits it, it is back sliding.

I guess only regular humans only know 1% of everything. Christians like Ray and Kirk know much more.

I don't know... that last video was a big waste of time. I don't think it is hard to convince an atheist that they are really agnostic. I think its a big jump to convince the agnostic that they must accept the plan of salvation.

This blog is probably way crazy. As I watch this stuff, millions of things fly through my head. I only get to jot bits and pieces down.

Just to conclude - I've been told by Christians that they totally respect the questioning individual, they just have a problem with those who "work against Christ" to convince others that Jesus is a myth, that the Bible is just a book. Sometimes I can see that it would seem that I am doing just that - fighting against Christianity. I don't think I am doing that, because I can't say without a doubt that Christianity is not true.

The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I JUST DON'T KNOW. And truth be told, I don't believe anyone can truly know the nature of God with absolute certainty - and thats what I am fighting against. The concept of anyone saying that they really know the true nature and intent of God.

They don't know. Thats why you can't have logical arguments - because it doesn't come down to knowledge. It comes down to faith.

Logic is supported by knowledge and facts.

Faith is supported by beliefs and opinions.

The truth? No one really knows the truth.

I think I will save part 3 for another day.