You claim to not believe in the God of the Bible, while Paul Washer does. Now, if the Bible is true, (and Paul is convinced that it is), his pointing people to Christ is absolutely the most loving thing he could possibly do. And he has given his life to doing exactly that. Therefore, to accuse him of hate is intellectually dishonest. Even if he were wrong and there is no God at all, he is still motivated by love.
You, on the other hand, hold the intellectually dishonest position of hating the very God you claim to not believe in.
First, I don't "claim to not believe in the God of the Bible." I DO NOT believe in the God of the Bible. There is a difference.
Second, I find Welsher's rhetoric in his sermon towards children hateful and dishonest. "Everything that happens on this planet that is bad is because of disobedience." He claims when someone dies or you fall down and get hurt it is due to your disobedience and sin. That is a disgusting thing to put in a child's mind. What happens when one of these children has a mother die of breast cancer? Can they process that? It is their mother's fault? Their grandfather who does of old age was disobedient to God? That is the most loving thing Welsher can preach towards children? I reject that teaching and I reject your defense of it.
Finally, nowhere in this post, on this blog or anywhere else do I claim to hate God. I cannot hate something when I reject its existence. That is the equivalent of saying "I hate the Loch Ness Monster" or "I hate Compassionate Conservatives." I reject the existence of these things so to turn around and say that I hate them is illogical. Nothing I have ever posted or argued is an attack on God or any other deity.
You are the intellectually dishonest one since you are putting words in my mouth and projecting your belief in God on me and so therefore my rejection is hateful. Wrong.
The entire point of this post is to outline the dishonest and hateful things preachers say in the name of their religions. I reject not only the deities and the religions, but the dishonest claims of the those who spread it. In this case especially when it will distress children.
Our usual Sunday Hate is rhetoric that is directed at "the other" in this case it is the self. What is hateful about this message is that he is telling each one of these children that they have no individual worth. That regardless of their good deeds, they are scraps at the Lord's table and that none of them actually deserve Heaven. That God owns them like slaves (or sheep). Incidently, he does not treat his slaves very well. As for hating God, the admittingly jealous and vindictive character in the Bible. None of us at LH are very fond of the authors of that invention. But we try not to hold that against the all too human deity. I don't blame Holden for J.D. Salinger's failings.
4 comments:
Let's both be intellectually honest for a second.
You claim to not believe in the God of the Bible, while Paul Washer does. Now, if the Bible is true, (and Paul is convinced that it is), his pointing people to Christ is absolutely the most loving thing he could possibly do. And he has given his life to doing exactly that. Therefore, to accuse him of hate is intellectually dishonest. Even if he were wrong and there is no God at all, he is still motivated by love.
You, on the other hand, hold the intellectually dishonest position of hating the very God you claim to not believe in.
First, I don't "claim to not believe in the God of the Bible." I DO NOT believe in the God of the Bible. There is a difference.
Second, I find Welsher's rhetoric in his sermon towards children hateful and dishonest. "Everything that happens on this planet that is bad is because of disobedience." He claims when someone dies or you fall down and get hurt it is due to your disobedience and sin. That is a disgusting thing to put in a child's mind. What happens when one of these children has a mother die of breast cancer? Can they process that? It is their mother's fault? Their grandfather who does of old age was disobedient to God? That is the most loving thing Welsher can preach towards children? I reject that teaching and I reject your defense of it.
Finally, nowhere in this post, on this blog or anywhere else do I claim to hate God. I cannot hate something when I reject its existence. That is the equivalent of saying "I hate the Loch Ness Monster" or "I hate Compassionate Conservatives." I reject the existence of these things so to turn around and say that I hate them is illogical. Nothing I have ever posted or argued is an attack on God or any other deity.
You are the intellectually dishonest one since you are putting words in my mouth and projecting your belief in God on me and so therefore my rejection is hateful. Wrong.
The entire point of this post is to outline the dishonest and hateful things preachers say in the name of their religions. I reject not only the deities and the religions, but the dishonest claims of the those who spread it. In this case especially when it will distress children.
Our usual Sunday Hate is rhetoric that is directed at "the other" in this case it is the self. What is hateful about this message is that he is telling each one of these children that they have no individual worth. That regardless of their good deeds, they are scraps at the Lord's table and that none of them actually deserve Heaven. That God owns them like slaves (or sheep). Incidently, he does not treat his slaves very well.
As for hating God, the admittingly jealous and vindictive character in the Bible. None of us at LH are very fond of the authors of that invention. But we try not to hold that against the all too human deity. I don't blame Holden for J.D. Salinger's failings.
"Even if he were wrong ... he is still motivated by love"
HE HITS ME 'CAUSE HE CARES!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Coo coo ka choo Mr. Robinson
Post a Comment