My Terms And Conditions For Accepting God

Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
My Terms And Conditions For Accepting God

My main problem with Theists is that they demand submission.

 

"Thou shalt bow down and worship before this idol."

 

In the question of belief systems, I dont see any one of those any better or worse than any other. The act of believing what you don't have to believe is, in my opinion, superstition. With that statement, I mean to say that the problem is in the relation. You can relate to both science and rationality in a superstitious manner, meaning that you will uncritically accept axiomatic tenets, without investigating the matter for yourself, then move on to using it as a "weapon" against people with whom you disagree. It is the authority principle that I have a problem with.

 

Saying "I don't know" is an honest thing. Saying "I don't know but I believe what that guy says, even if I don't really understand any of it" is stupid.

 

Let's say that there is a God. Let's say that there is an Aristotelian "unmoveable mover".  The creator of the universe. The supreme and omnipotent source of all power. Do I have even the slightest reason to believe that such a creature would care about my earthly human sensibilities? No I most certainly do not. I am reminded of that old Roman proverb: It's never good to have the Emperor's attention. If there is a God, an omnipotent creator, isn't it then the most horrendous blasphemy to think that you can know his agenda? That you can magically channel "messages" from God? Shouldn't you simply be grateful for the gifts that you have been given, such as life and the ability to feel, and move on to make the best you can out of what you have?

 

I am willing to accept God if you are willing to discard the Bible. Quid pro quo. I am serious. I will accept God if you can stand before me and say that you really and truly understand that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of old texts that at their best is little more than fables and parabels of inspiration. But The Word Of God they are not. Omnipotent creators don't write books, they create galaxies and supernovas. Omnipotent creators don't give a flying fuck whether you "believe" in them or not, they just laugh at you for being such a self important twat.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm not willing to accept

god in exchange for bible denial but I like the points you make here. This is my trade. I'd be prepared to stop believing all christians and muslims should be burned alive in a vat of jet fuel if christians and muslims admit their book is a crock of made up shit - just a very poor and confusing self help book in desperate need of a surgical edit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

burned alive in a vat of jet fuel

 

That's just atricious. I have no wish to burn anyone alive, unless they did something truly horrible directed right at me, in which case I would definitely consider the possibility. But burning alive people who hold different beliefs and opinions than myself just because I disagree to the point of thinking that they must be retarded? Hello?

 

I have no trouble with God. Not even with the Bible! It is the sheep, the uncritical followers, the "banally evil" (Hannah Arendt) people who are the footsoldiers of doom that I have an issue with. Nothing that is of your opinion can ever really bother me. No matter how fucked up I may think that it is. I don't mind people holding beliefs that are of comfort and solace to them. Why would I? That would just be mean. My ponts of view are mine; no better or worse than those of anybody else.

 

The trouble begins when I am requested to submit, to simply accept something "just because". Our society is based in how we behave towards eachother, not what beliefs and ideas we harbour. What I find offensive about most religions is that they demand precisely that knee-jerk reaction from me that I am incapeable of delivering. It gets really absurd at that point when they produce a fucking BOOK... and claim that it was written by God.

 

The book isn't even bad! I mean, I like many of the stories in the Bible; and I have no problem seeing how the moral teachings of the Qu'ran are superior to many other viable alternatives, but I just can't accept the authority bits. I just can't. I can't fall to my knees and worship an idol. I just can't. I wouldn't be able to live with myself afterwards. I would have to self destruct.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
The problem with going on

The problem with going on the word of experts is that we have so very MUCH information now. A thousand years ago, one relatively intelligent person could conceivably understand the majority of what human beings knew about the universe, if they had access to that information. Our sciences are now so diversified and specialized and extend so deeply in so many directions that we actually had to create a whole new field--Data Analysis--to deal with it all. So in order to grasp a bit of some field that doesn't happen to be my specialty, I'm forced to rely upon the findings of someone for whom it is and trust that s/he got it right.

I can tell you the bible is nothing more than fables and parables for inspiration...so are you a theist now?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'God', 'Allah', etc, are all

'God', 'Allah', etc, are all very problematic, virtually impossible concepts, the Bible and the Quran contain some quite definitely evil commandments to the followers. 

I don't personally think a few poetic narratives are enough to compensate for the all the really bad crap.

I wouldn't burn the believers, I would probably happily burn the Holy Books.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:I am willing

Marquis wrote:
I am willing to accept God if you are willing to discard the Bible. Quid pro quo. I am serious.

Well, this is a tacit admission that you already believe in God.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:
I am willing to accept God if you are willing to discard the Bible. Quid pro quo. I am serious.

Well, this is a tacit admission that you already believe in God.

Only if you've just admitted to discarding the Bible.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote: Let's say

Marquis wrote:

 

Let's say that there is a God. Let's say that there is an Aristotelian "unmoveable mover".  The creator of the universe. The supreme and omnipotent source of all power. Do I have even the slightest reason to believe that such a creature would care about my earthly human sensibilities?

You could if he gives you a reason.  Let's assume that he reveals himself to the world, shows that he cares about us, and that 66 books accurately document this revelation.  Then you would certainly have reason to believe that he cares about you.

Quote:
I am willing to accept God if you are willing to discard the Bible. Quid pro quo. I am serious. I will accept God if you can stand before me and say that you really and truly understand that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of old texts that at their best is little more than fables and parabels of inspiration.

Proof?

Quote:
But The Word Of God they are not. Omnipotent creators don't write books, they create galaxies and supernovas. Omnipotent creators don't give a flying fuck whether you "believe" in them or not, they just laugh at you for being such a self important twat.

How are you privy to the motives of omnipotent creators?  I'm just curious.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Marquis

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Marquis wrote:

 

Let's say that there is a God. Let's say that there is an Aristotelian "unmoveable mover".  The creator of the universe. The supreme and omnipotent source of all power. Do I have even the slightest reason to believe that such a creature would care about my earthly human sensibilities?

You could if he gives you a reason.  Let's assume that he reveals himself to the world, shows that he cares about us, and that 66 books accurately document this revelation.  Then you would certainly have reason to believe that he cares about you.

Quote:
I am willing to accept God if you are willing to discard the Bible. Quid pro quo. I am serious. I will accept God if you can stand before me and say that you really and truly understand that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of old texts that at their best is little more than fables and parabels of inspiration.

Proof?

Quote:
But The Word Of God they are not. Omnipotent creators don't write books, they create galaxies and supernovas. Omnipotent creators don't give a flying fuck whether you "believe" in them or not, they just laugh at you for being such a self important twat.

How are you privy to the motives of omnipotent creators?  I'm just curious.

 1. He has not made such a revelation. The books do not accurately document it - no consistency to be found.

 2. Why do you worship a being that does not give a fig about you?

 3. As privy to their motives as you are (as per your earlier post).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. He has not

jcgadfly wrote:

1. He has not made such a revelation. The books do not accurately document it - no consistency to be found.

Prove it.  What really happened in Jerusalem that the books didn't accurately document?  And what is your source for this?

Quote:
 2. Why do you worship a being that does not give a fig about you?

I don't.

Quote:
3. As privy to their motives as you are (as per your earlier post).

Assuming that you are claiming that I do not know God's motives at all, I would be obliged to thank you admitting that the original poster has no idea what God's motives are. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. He has not made such a revelation. The books do not accurately document it - no consistency to be found.

Prove it.  What really happened in Jerusalem that the books didn't accurately document?  And what is your source for this?

Quote:
 2. Why do you worship a being that does not give a fig about you?

I don't.

Quote:
3. As privy to their motives as you are (as per your earlier post).

Assuming that you are claiming that I do not know God's motives at all, I would be obliged to thank you admitting that the original poster has no idea what God's motives are. 

1. As the books were written at least 40 years after the focal character supposedly existed, I can safely say no one was around to document the happenings.

2. You claimed to know the motives of omnipotent beings - don't you read what you post?

3. If you don't worship such a being, why leap to its defense?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is simply no way

There is simply no way anyone could validly claim to know what the motives or thoughts of such a being were. The OP certainly did not claim to know, and you have no more warrant to know.

Even if he appeared, how could he demonstrate the historical accuracy of the Bible? Produce a time machine for us to go back and see for ourselves?

No matter what such a being showed us, there would be no way for us to distinguish a truth from a clever special effect. After all, a being of such power could show us whatever he wanted.

Once you accept the possibility of such a being, there is no way you could know with any certainty the true nature of anything  that such a being could have influenced, which is pretty much anything.

As the OP said, about all you can do is "simply be grateful for the gifts that you have been given, such as life and the ability to feel, and move on to make the best you can out of what you have".

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Only if

jcgadfly wrote:

Only if you've just admitted to discarding the Bible.

Well, I don't subscribe to the God of the Bible. But even if I did, the fact remains that there are still countless theists who do not.

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. As the

jcgadfly wrote:

1. As the books were written at least 40 years after the focal character supposedly existed, I can safely say no one was around to document the happenings.



And how is the fact that the books were written after the events happened proof that the events were not accurately documented?

If I write an essay on World War I, is it necessarily false because I wasn't around when it happened? 

Quote:
2. You claimed to know the motives of omnipotent beings - don't you read what you post?

Actually, I never made that claim.  The original asked if there was any reason to believe that God would care about us and I cited one possible reason.

Quote:
3. If you don't worship such a being, why leap to its defense?

What on earth does that question have to do with the fact that you inadvertently disagreed the original poster, whom you presumably were defending in the first place?

And when did I say that I don't worship such a being?


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There is

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is simply no way anyone could validly claim to know what the motives or thoughts of such a being were. The OP certainly did not claim to know, and you have no more warrant to know.

"Omnipotent creators don't write books, they create galaxies and supernovas. Omnipotent creators don't give a flying fuck whether you "believe" in them or not, they just laugh at you for being such a self important twat."

Those were his exact words and it was a statement of certainty. 

Quote:
Even if he appeared, how could he demonstrate the historical accuracy of the Bible? Produce a time machine for us to go back and see for ourselves?

By that metric, we would have no reason to believe anything that happened in antiquity.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. As the books were written at least 40 years after the focal character supposedly existed, I can safely say no one was around to document the happenings.



And how is the fact that the books were written after the events happened proof that the events were not accurately documented?

If I write an essay on World War I, is it necessarily false because I wasn't around when it happened? 

Quote:
2. You claimed to know the motives of omnipotent beings - don't you read what you post?

Actually, I never made that claim.  The original asked if there was any reason to believe that God would care about us and I cited one possible reason.

Quote:
3. If you don't worship such a being, why leap to its defense?

What on earth does that question have to do with the fact that you inadvertently disagreed the original poster, whom you presumably were defending in the first place?

And when did I say that I don't worship such a being?

We have other sources for WWI that can be researched - none for the Bible. For example, the birth of Christ supposedly happened during a census ordered by Augustus. No such census happened.

I made a mistake on the quotes and misapplied something to you. I apologize.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:We have other

jcgadfly wrote:

We have other sources for WWI that can be researched - none for the Bible.

Would your examples include accounts for WWI from contemporaries? 

Quote:
For example, the birth of Christ supposedly happened during a census ordered by Augustus. No such census happened.

Actually, we know that there was a census ordered by Augustus.  It took place in 6 AD, which Josephus made specific reference to. 

Atheists point to the fact that it took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't happen until a few years after Jesus was born.  This was the aforementioned census that Josephus referred to.  But "governor" is actually translated from a Greek word which means "to be leading" and Quirinius actually had other positions of power before he became governor of Syria.  We know that when Jesus was born, he was a military leader in Judea, which is a province of Syria. 

So there could have been a census.  We just don't have any record of it.  But we do know that the bible mentions it being the FIRST census, which suggests that Luke knew there were others that happened afterward, including the one mentioned by Josephus.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Atheists

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Atheists point to the fact that it took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria

 

Atheists don't give a good god damn whether or not there was an actual Jesus or whatever the fuck he had to say. Atheists think this is irrelevant. Atheists mind their own business. Atheists are skeptical about your message of submission more than anything. Atheists feel in their hearts that it just isn't right to bow down before an idol to worship fantasy and nonsense. Atheists relate to this in truth and honesty. Atheists know their limitations as men, but are still both proud and happy to have life and the opportunity to live it as they bloody well please, free from the stifling demands of submission and the cowering before existential fears. Atheists take life on at face value, without needing to "explain" that which can hardly be spoken about in any sensible way.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is simply no way anyone could validly claim to know what the motives or thoughts of such a being were. The OP certainly did not claim to know, and you have no more warrant to know.

"Omnipotent creators don't write books, they create galaxies and supernovas. Omnipotent creators don't give a flying fuck whether you "believe" in them or not, they just laugh at you for being such a self important twat."

Those were his exact words and it was a statement of certainty. 

Quote:
Even if he appeared, how could he demonstrate the historical accuracy of the Bible? Produce a time machine for us to go back and see for ourselves?

By that metric, we would have no reason to believe anything that happened in antiquity.

Gods created by man does not mean they exist, who gives a fuck there is ZERO EVIDENCE for your god, those where his exact words? really, fuck me god spoke to you? fuck your fucking important, congrats. Oh wait, it's still an imaginary being that does not exist, makes you back to being unimportant.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis

Marquis wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

burned alive in a vat of jet fuel

 

That's just atricious. I have no wish to burn anyone alive, unless they did something truly horrible directed right at me, in which case I would definitely consider the possibility. But burning alive people who hold different beliefs and opinions than myself just because I disagree to the point of thinking that they must be retarded? Hello?

 

 

I'm glad you think this is extreme - but it's what the believers think you have 'deserved' from the moment of your conception. Eternal immolation.

I don't really want to burn the christians alive. But I want them to have to travel from Sydney to Perth and back, nonstop, on a bus with no air conditioning.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

We have other sources for WWI that can be researched - none for the Bible.

Would your examples include accounts for WWI from contemporaries? 

Quote:
For example, the birth of Christ supposedly happened during a census ordered by Augustus. No such census happened.

Actually, we know that there was a census ordered by Augustus.  It took place in 6 AD, which Josephus made specific reference to. 

Atheists point to the fact that it took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't happen until a few years after Jesus was born.  This was the aforementioned census that Josephus referred to.  But "governor" is actually translated from a Greek word which means "to be leading" and Quirinius actually had other positions of power before he became governor of Syria.  We know that when Jesus was born, he was a military leader in Judea, which is a province of Syria. 

So there could have been a census.  We just don't have any record of it.  But we do know that the bible mentions it being the FIRST census, which suggests that Luke knew there were others that happened afterward, including the one mentioned by Josephus.

Yes to contemporary evidence of WWI - no to the Bible being contemporary evidence or having contemporary extra-biblical sources (Josephus wasn't a contemporary).

It could have been a confusion with Quintillius also (on Luke's part). Nonetheless, no simultaneous "worldwide" census happened.

Still way too many mental gymnastics needed to make the birth of Jesus work. All we really know for sure is that Luke didn't get it right - shouldn't a plagiarist at least attempt a decent copy?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yes to

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes to contemporary evidence of WWI - no to the Bible being contemporary evidence or having contemporary extra-biblical sources (Josephus wasn't a contemporary).



Ah, so even if we had no writings from contemporaries, we have reports from contemporaries passed down to the authors.  You've conceded that if I write an essay on WWI, we can rely on it because we have reports from contemporaries that I can go by.  Therefore, you are special pleading when you say that we cannot rely on the gospel accounts if the authors were not contemporaries of Jesus (the bible is 66 books, by the way, not just the New Testament).

Quote:
It could have been a confusion with Quintillius also (on Luke's part). Nonetheless, no simultaneous "worldwide" census happened.

Umm, did you read what I wrote?  There could have been a census, we just have no record of it.  Just because we have no record of it does not mean that it never happened.  The Bible specifically referenced it as being the FIRST census, meaning that there could were probably others after it. 

Your evidence against the gospel is that it *could have* been confusion?  Then do you concede that your assertions are essentially subjective and conjectural?

Quote:
Still way too many mental gymnastics needed to make the birth of Jesus work. All we really know for sure is that Luke didn't get it right - shouldn't a plagiarist at least attempt a decent copy?

Actually, we are not sure of that at all.  You've just made a claim that you haven't backed up.  I've shown that everything written in the gospels is entirely consistent with there being a census at the same time Quirinius (hilarious how you call him "Quintillius", which suggests that you never heard of him before I even mentioned him) was a military leader.

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

I want them to have to travel from Sydney to Perth and back, nonstop, on a bus with no air conditioning. 

 

LOL!

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Prove

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Prove it.  What really happened in Jerusalem that the books didn't accurately document?  And what is your source for this?

Have you ever engaged in a side-by-side reading of the gospels and all the other Christian scriptures that are interwoven?

Forget the absolute fact that Judaism could never produce Christianity as it's successor.  Just sticking with what Christianity claims as it's sources is enough to conclude that Christianity is a made-up pagan religion.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Umm, did

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Umm, did you read what I wrote?  There could have been a census, we just have no record of it.  Just because we have no record of it does not mean that it never happened.  The Bible specifically referenced it as being the FIRST census, meaning that there could were probably others after it.

There was no census at the time a census needs to have happened.  It isn't like they are a secret.  Or that the ensuing rioting after a census was a secret.

Furthermore, the "City of David" is Jerusalem.  Not Bethlehem.  Bethlehem is the "House of Bread" (no, really -- that's what it means).  Using biblical sources, Jesus would have been born around the Festival of Sukkot, when the entire city of Jerusalem would have been full and pilgrims would have needed to stay in the suburbs.  Which Bethlehem is.  Don't believe me?  Use Google and find where the two cities are located.  Dating Jesus's birth isn't even hard -- I did it for my former mother-in-law one day on a lark.

Additionally, Joseph was NOT of the Tribe of Judah, because we know from historical records that James ("the brother of Jesus&quotEye-wink was a Kohen -- Temple Priest -- and they are all of the Tribe of Levi.  Not that this means anything, since priests are tied to the Temple and have no ancestral lands anyway.

And not sure what you mean by "First".  The first census is recorded in Bamidbar.  So ... which "first" is this of which you are cluelessly speaking?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."