Thursday, October 21, 2010

John Loftus in Hell


Of course, I'm no adherent to the view of hell as literal fire and torture. But it does serve some fairly good satiric purposes.

Wanna know when the hell will really start for John, though?

When he finds out everyone there already has a copy.

And every one of them wants a refund.

9 comments:

  1. Just expect to get your butt kicked high as usual, Edski; read the first post. You get three before I stop allowing them. Haven't they caught you loafing down there in the basement yet, or is it just less expensive than giving you an unemployment check?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If hell is not "literal fire and torture" then what type of punishment is it? It looks like such punishment was depicted as the most fearsome imaginable in intertestamental and first century literature. According to the NT. Jesus said "Be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell." Mat 10:28 Echoed in Luke 12:5 as, "Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." Or, in a parable Jesus states, It's better to pluck out your eye or limb that offends ye, rather than enter hell with both eyes or limbs. In Rev. people are "cast into a lake of fire" whose "smoke rises forever" in the sight of heaven's inhabitants. Is that supposed to be a metaphor for something less painful than fire or more painful than fire? Or consider Mat 25:41 in which Jesus says, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

    Even if hell is less painful than literal fire and all such metaphors are mere hyperbole, if you agree that those in hell suffer without end, then wouldn't that still constitute torture? Even feeling and thinking nothing but shame for all eternity would constitute torture in my opinion. Eternal weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    In the end that would also destroy a person's mind, just reliving the loop of shame with no other input. Quite horrendous. And quite merciless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice to see your disgorgements are still up to their usual quality, Edski. Allow me to painstakingly slap you as usual, too.

    >>>If hell is not "literal fire and torture" then what type of punishment is it? It looks like such punishment was depicted as the most fearsome imaginable in intertestamental and first century literature.

    I'm putting an article in my next E-Block -- released tomorrow -- summing up my findings, Edski, and if you want the full answer you'll just have to shell out some clams to see it. But no, that's the case only according to the primitive, backwards, fundy literalist reading you still retain. Once again you're just not informed when it comes to the modes of expression used in agonistic societies.

    <<>>Even feeling and thinking nothing but shame for all eternity would constitute torture in my opinion.

    Precisely. Just redefine "torture" out of all semblance of meaning. No "Sesame Street" in hell, Edski. Your poor schlep, what will you do with yourself? :D

    <<<In the end that would also destroy a person's mind, just reliving the loop of shame with no other input. Quite horrendous. And quite merciless.

    Learn to define "mercy" right, too, Edski. It has to do with covenant obligations, not withholding deserved sanctions. And it might destroy YOUR mind, but it's pretty clear that your mind would be destroyed by high school algebra.

    But actually, Edski, you're right. Because you know what I think people in hell will get?

    They'll get to read YOUR endless, moronic posts. For all eternity. With NO editing or moderating powers and no limit of three per post.

    Now THAT is hell. :D

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm actually quite open to the view that an unbeliever like Edski could still be in the presence of God for all eternity.

    He just wouldn't enjoy it....

    ReplyDelete
  5. JP, Does E-Block have an OCLC number? Can I order copies of articles via interlibrary loan? How widely is it read?

    Why is your "summation" of this question superior than that of intertestamental and first century Jews as well as the Christian Fathers, medieval theologians, Reformation theologians, etc.?

    All of your sentences above told me nothing.

    Neither have I seen any proof that I am under a form of covenant.

    As for whose mind was "destroyed by high school algebra," I'll leave that to anyone reading our exchanges on your blog to decide. And I invite such persons to also read my own blog for comparison purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Nick: And then he'd call it "torture" because he didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Edski:

    Gee, you say you're so smart, Edski? Then finding out how to get the E-Block is your first test. Let's see if you pass. It has a few hundred readers and is in OCLC the same way your blog or Loftus' is.

    >>>Why is your "summation" of this question superior than that of intertestamental and first century Jews as well as the Christian Fathers, medieval theologians, Reformation theologians, etc.?

    Because it's right and they're not. Except the Jews and many of the Fathers, who actually agree with me, except you're reading their texts like a fundy (just like you read the Bible).

    All of this of course is your way of not being able to actually answer the arguments. Your old "so and so is a good Christian and he disagrees" routine, which you haven't grown up out of yet, not since being a fundy. Argument by authority never seems to get out of your system, does it, Edski?

    >>>All of your sentences above told me nothing.

    Sorry you're so stupid. Better luck next time.

    >>>Neither have I seen any proof that I am under a form of covenant.

    I never said you were. You're not.

    >>>As for whose mind was "destroyed by high school algebra," I'll leave that to anyone reading our exchanges on your blog to decide. And I invite such persons to also read my own blog for comparison purposes.

    Edski wants people to experience hell here on earth, apparently. Also be sure and check his record on theologyweb where he gets a lot of laughs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A fourth comment from Edski will not be published both because he has had his three strikes for this post, and because he managed to use a crude sexual inneundo, showing his usual class.

    The irony is that he was also whining about his comments being moderated. Gee, Edski, good job proving my point and practice there. I knew you were useful for something.

    But no, why should I expect you to write a response to my TCD chapter on you? It's been years now and you haven't replied to 95% of what else I've written that concerns you. Moron. :D

    ReplyDelete