God Hates Fundies

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-02 06:23pm

Check this out:

http://www.godhatesfundies.com

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-02 06:29pm

Wow, what a site! Some of its articles are hilarious.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-02 06:37pm

Bwahaha! Where's your eschatology now, bitch?

Artanis · Post by **Artanis** » 2003-02-02 08:06pm

Fucking Hell, I went to one of the "Jack Chick is an idiot" parts of the site, and saw Jack Chick comics for the first time ever.

I believe my brain is currently trying to crawl out my ear to seek refuge from the stupidity contained in the mere 4 panels. I see now why he is hated by all, and I agree with that hatred entirely.

*whimpers* the pain...

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2003-02-02 08:26pm

It's nice to know that we are not alone in our crusade against the stupid. It's all re-affirming and stuff.

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-02-03 12:57am

It's people like Jack Chick who butcher Christianity into a mockery of it's ideals of compassion, and social justice...(Tho I do realize that much evil has been done in the name of Christianity...)

The really disturbing part is that he probably thinks he's doing the right thing by attacking science, liberal Christians, and so on...

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-02-03 04:26am

Strafe wrote:It's people like Jack Chick who butcher Christianity into a mockery of it's ideals of compassion, and social justice...(Tho I do realize that much evil has been done in the name of Christianity...)

Have you ever read the bible? It is one of the most intolerant, hatefilled, biggoted books ever writen. The biblical Yahweh is FAR from the kind, loving, benevolent god he is often made out to be.

Strafe wrote:The really disturbing part is that he probably thinks he's doing the right thing by attacking science, liberal Christians, and so on...

Ofcourse he does, he is after all a stupid fundie fuck, wouldn't expect anything better of him.

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-02-03 10:10am

Sir Sirius wrote: Have you ever read the bible? It is one of the most intolerant, hatefilled, biggoted books ever writen. The biblical Yahweh is FAR from the kind, loving, benevolent god he is often made out to be

Oh I have. It's obvious that the Bible has been translated many times over, with new things added or taken away thus changing it's meaning many times over. That is where literalists get into a lot of trouble when they try and reconcile such contradictions.

In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-03 01:07pm

Strafe wrote:In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT.

The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity? You call that "compassionate"?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-02-03 01:13pm

Not really compassionate as in he doesn't have such direct involvment.

Still I don't believe I have yet to see a warm and all loving God anywhere in the Bible.

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-02-03 03:15pm

Darth Servo wrote:The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity?

Which I honestly believe to be a gross misinterpretation thrown in there by people wishing to exercise political control and increase the power of the pope/Church. (Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)

In addition to which Hell was taken from Norse mythology in the first place. (Hel, goddess I believe of the underworld or some such thing. Same thing with Christmas, taken from an ancient Roman cult of Mithraism...)

You can't say Christianity advocates a certain position merely because the Bible says so. It is necessary, but by no means sufficient. You have to deal with the fact that the Bible was written by man, and is thus quite open to fundie-esque additions. For instance the whole part of the Bible being against homosexuals specifically was added by fundamentalists for the NIV version. It never existed before that.

What better way then to get the populace to support you than to say they are all going to hell?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-03 03:24pm

Strafe...back away...slowly.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-03 04:26pm

Strafe wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity?
Which I honestly believe to be a gross misinterpretation thrown in there by people wishing to exercise political control and increase the power of the pope/Church. (Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)

Oh, so parts of the NT are BS and others aren't. Precisely how do you pick and choose which irrational parts to believe in and which not?

In addition to which Hell was taken from Norse mythology in the first place. (Hel, goddess I believe of the underworld or some such thing. Same thing with Christmas, taken from an ancient Roman cult of Mithraism...)

And is described in the canon scripture. If you want to claim that the NT descriptions of hell are figurative, fine, but don't try and claim that the concept of hell is not biblical.
Many of the OT stories that Christians claim are legitamate seem to come from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Much of the bible (NT and OT) was copied from "heathen" legends and folklore.

You can't say Christianity advocates a certain position merely because the Bible says so.

Of course not. I never claimed to hold that position. To believe in something simply because "the Bible says so" is stupid. I can demonstrate however that the whole concept of hell fire and eternal damnation is quite Biblical and to quote YOU: "In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT." YOU are the one claiming the scriptural authority of the NT, not me.

It is necessary, but by no means sufficient. You have to deal with the fact that the Bible was written by man, and is thus quite open to fundie-esque additions. For instance the whole part of the Bible being against homosexuals specifically was added by fundamentalists for the NIV version. It never existed before that.

Thats funny. My KJV Bible has all those condemnations of homosexuality.

What better way then to get the populace to support you than to say they are all going to hell?

Which is why the NT writers put it in there in the first place. They apparently didn't want the warmongering bloodshed of the OT, but still needed to keep followers in line.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2003-02-03 04:37pm

(Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)

It was a German king, Henrich the Fourth. He got pissed after pope Gregory the Seventh imposed his dictate around 1075, and went to Rome to abolish him. Henry was excommunicated, and the opposition used this fact to question his right to the throne. He then went to the vatican gates at night, stood there wearing a simple bag (i don't know how to translate it's name into English) with his sword's sheathe hanging from his neck, begging forgiveness from the pope. The pope let him back into the church. Henrich then went back to Germany, kicked his opposition's ass, and then went back to rome and abolished the pope anyways

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-02-03 05:01pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Strafe wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:The NT where God threatens to burn all non-believers in hell for eternity?
Which I honestly believe to be a gross misinterpretation thrown in there by people wishing to exercise political control and increase the power of the pope/Church. (Which English king was it that upon being excommunicated, went to the Vatican and basically begged to be let back in?)
Oh, so parts of the NT are BS and others aren't. Precisely how do you pick and choose which irrational parts to believe in and which not?
That's basically the deal, there is no established method. However there are guidelines in a sense. i.e. don't follow the path destined to result in the persecution of "insert name here", or the path ending with "You're all going to hell"

Interpretation of the Bible is extremely difficult given the social context in which it was written. It's not like we can go back and interpret in it's proper context, but we can still try.

In addition to which Hell was taken from Norse mythology in the first place. (Hel, goddess I believe of the underworld or some such thing. Same thing with Christmas, taken from an ancient Roman cult of Mithraism...)
And is described in the canon scripture. If you want to claim that the NT descriptions of hell are figurative, fine, but don't try and claim that the concept of hell is not biblical.
Many of the OT stories that Christians claim are legitamate seem to come from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Much of the bible (NT and OT) was copied from "heathen" legends and folklore.
That is what I claim tho, that it is figurative/allegorical. I seriously doubt the existence of a fire and brimstone pit.

And indeed much of Christianity has elements borrowed from previous religions. It's all a part of the way it grew in popularity. Assimilate the culture and people are more apt to join you.

You can't say Christianity advocates a certain position merely because the Bible says so.
Of course not. I never claimed to hold that position. To believe in something simply because "the Bible says so" is stupid. I can demonstrate however that the whole concept of hell fire and eternal damnation is quite Biblical and to quote YOU: "In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT." YOU are the one claiming the scriptural authority of the NT, not me.
Admittedly it was a generalized statement to say "the NT is fairly obvious...etc" But I still think with some study it is possible to note the clear differences in tone and message. One large difference being eye for an eye being replaced with "Turn the other cheek"

But as noted earlier, interpretation is difficult.

It is necessary, but by no means sufficient. You have to deal with the fact that the Bible was written by man, and is thus quite open to fundie-esque additions. For instance the whole part of the Bible being against homosexuals specifically was added by fundamentalists for the NIV version. It never existed before that.
Thats funny. My KJV Bible has all those condemnations of homosexality.

What I mean was explicitly stating homosexuality. Usually it states something else, which while having the same meaning, isn't stated as homosexuality. The point is moot either way as I don't support the persecution of homosexuals.

Hmm...I butchered the board/quote code there...oh well...

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2003-02-03 05:08pm

You know, I really hate Norton.

I've known for a while that their thought-control software in the Internet Security Family Edition was extremely bad, but apparently I can't access this website either....oy.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-02-03 05:11pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Strafe wrote:
In addition to which Hell was taken from Norse mythology in the first place. (Hel, goddess I believe of the underworld or some such thing. Same thing with Christmas, taken from an ancient Roman cult of Mithraism...)
And is described in the canon scripture. If you want to claim that the NT descriptions of hell are figurative, fine, but don't try and claim that the concept of hell is not biblical.
The concept of hell may occur in the Bible, but the description of it originates in Zoroastrianism. As does Satan, and the idea of resurrection.
You can't say Christianity advocates a certain position merely because the Bible says so.
Of course not. I never claimed to hold that position. To believe in something simply because "the Bible says so" is stupid. I can demonstrate however that the whole concept of hell fire and eternal damnation is quite Biblical and to quote YOU: "In any case Christianity is based on the NT, not the OT, which as is fairly obvious to see is far more compassionate than the OT." YOU are the one claiming the scriptural authority of the NT, not me.
Eternal damnation? That's not anywhere in my Bible. NRSV is rather clear that Hell is destroyed at the end of Revelation, meaning that suffering is not eternal. KJV might not be, it's widely recognized by scholars as a shitty translation.
It is necessary, but by no means sufficient. You have to deal with the fact that the Bible was written by man, and is thus quite open to fundie-esque additions. For instance the whole part of the Bible being against homosexuals specifically was added by fundamentalists for the NIV version. It never existed before that.
Thats funny. My KJV Bible has all those condemnations of homosexuality.

And that's why scholars don't use KJV. The translators didn't understand Greek or Hebrew properly, and mistranslated a good 3-4% of the Bible entirely. I'm working on a paper on the Book of Hosea, and I've already given up on the KJV. NRSV I'll use, KJV I won't touch with a ten foot pole. It's just a bad translation to English.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-03 05:25pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Not really compassionate as in he doesn't have such direct involvment.

Still I don't believe I have yet to see a warm and all loving God anywhere in the Bible.

I agree completely. ignoring the racist christ, there's still revelation 20:10, burning the devil's supporters for ever, and john 14:6, where no one gets to god (and presumably heaven) except through christ. . . which leads to hellfire for quite a lot of people.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

God Hates Fundies

God Hates Fundies

Argh.