E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell

[tsaketh]

Well, he's completely right. That's a base concept of most fundamentalist churches and of the Catholic church. I commend him for actually supporting his religion rather than picking and choosing whatever sounds nice to him. The fact is that Christ said "No man will come to the Father but by me."

The real theological debate is on the existence of a hell at all. It's not really mentioned in the Bible, except in some of the later additions to the scripture. Hell is really just a mistranslation based on the concept of nonexistence. Those that believe and request forgiveness will be granted eternal life, and those that don't will not. It's a simple religious tenet, and nothing upsetting.

And no, simply calling yourself a Christian doesn't mark you out for paradise, either. You not only have to listen to the word of God, you have to live it. And, as a Christian, you aren't expected to obey the letters of Old Testament law, either. "Worry more about what comes out of your mouth than what goes in."

Those that spew hate are not Christians. Those who are good people but do not request God to grant them forgiveness in the name of Christ are not Christians. A basic Christian belief is that only Christians will ascend to paradise at the time of judgment. To try and say that this man shouldn't speak at E3 is absurd. Essentially, you'd be saying that you shouldn't let anyone who has a religion (Atheists included) speak, because their beliefs might upset you somehow. That's the very definition of intolerance.

As long as he doesn't turn E3 into a pulpit (and he has about as much a chance of doing that as any other random Christian) I say welcome him.

 

[ccesarano]

Well, he's completely right. That's a base concept of most fundamentalist churches and of the Catholic church. I commend him for actually supporting his religion rather than picking and choosing whatever sounds nice to him. The fact is that Christ said "No man will come to the Father but by me."

The real theological debate is on the existence of a hell at all. It's not really mentioned in the Bible, except in some of the later additions to the scripture. Hell is really just a mistranslation based on the concept of nonexistence. Those that believe and request forgiveness will be granted eternal life, and those that don't will not. It's a simple religious tenet, and nothing upsetting.

And no, simply calling yourself a Christian doesn't mark you out for paradise, either. You not only have to listen to the word of God, you have to live it. And, as a Christian, you aren't expected to obey the letters of Old Testament law, either. "Worry more about what comes out of your mouth than what goes in."

Those that spew hate are not Christians. Those who are good people but do not request God to grant them forgiveness in the name of Christ are not Christians. A basic Christian belief is that only Christians will ascend to paradise at the time of judgment. To try and say that this man shouldn't speak at E3 is absurd. Essentially, you'd be saying that you shouldn't let anyone who has a religion (Atheists included) speak, because their beliefs might upset you somehow. That's the very definition of intolerance.

As long as he doesn't turn E3 into a pulpit (and he has about as much a chance of doing that as any other random Christian) I say welcome him.

I like you.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

While I don?t disagree with people having their own religious beliefs I DO strongly disagree with anything but a secular humanist government. Why?

I am strongly pro-choice, I do not wish to have my freedom (or more exactly the freedom of my partner) limited by legislation from a religious government wishing to impose its own beliefs on me. And yes it is because I think people should be able to have sex without consequences, I also think we shouldn?t be adding unwanted babies to the population. Though please don?t comment any more on this, this is not the debate, we shouldn?t drag this into a debate on Pro/Anti-Abortion, I?m just stating this to prove a point about my beliefs.

I am also pro-gay union/marriage whatever you want to call it, though I feel forcing a church that doesn?t accept your union to marry you is pretty aweful, you shouldn?t follow a church if you don?t believe its major principles. I don?t want a government telling people that they can?t have a civil union because a poorly translated book written 2000 years ago tells them so.

I am Anti-Creationist, Evolution is true, the proof is there, I?m not going to go into it because that?s not what this discussion is about. Denying it by saying ?it?s part of my beliefs? is like covering your eyes and saying ?No, you can?t make me accept facts, its not true because I SAY IT ISN?T.? I believe that the current Creationist Theory, the one pushed through in Kansas, does not remotely involve scientific reasoning and hence IS NOT SCIENCE! This should not be something argued in governmental circles, Governments should not be able to make laws based purely on someone?s beliefs and opinions, there must be fact to back it up, it may be undemocratic but it?s the only sane way to do things.

I believe that denying me my choices, on an official and governmental level, should be a crime. As long as my choice does not effect someone else directly, why is it wrong?

Church and State MUST be separate, otherwise we cannot have truly responsible government, unless you could prove that 100% of your constituency is of ONE faith, and only One faith, you should not, as a public official, espouse your beliefs, atheistic, Christian or otherwise. As well I feel my beliefs are not amoral on any ground outside of one backed by religious beliefs, hence why should they be restricted by laws? My "religion" doesn't find them wrong, so why should the religious be allowed to tell me what to do? Why can they say "My Kids MUST be taught their WRONG opinion so they will be more inclined to choose our faith." Why not give them the choice to make up their own minds? Guys like this shouldn?t, in an ideal world, be allowed to say shit like this and remain in office.

Oh yes, I don't think atheism counts as a religion, the absence of something does not make it something. I choose NOT to believe, and I simply do not want others forcing me to believe, I only believe they are wrong when their beliefs are forced upon me.

 

[Zemalac]

You know, its very sad for me...I live in Vermont, and I have yet to talk to a Christian from around here that feels this way. Every last Christian i've talked to whose a local believes in there faith as there personal way of understanding, and once they get into other religions, basically say that its none of there business, and don't worry about it. Which is a very Christian way to look at it. (I'm not exactly Christian, but I have a great deal of respect for it, just frequently not the Christians). Its so sad that I hear about the nut jobs through our politicians.

In the interest of fairness, I find Atheists to have exactly as many self-righteous, pretentious blowhards who are just as controlled and dogmatic about there disbelief as any Christian is about there belief. What a surprise, every group is equally capable of stupidity. Though I do admit that the Atheists tend to be dicks in private locations, to friends, and on the internet, while Christians tend to be dicks by influencing policy. Truth be told, the biggest problem with Christians is that they are more effective.

I agree with everything in the post quoted above.

I think it will be interesting to see what he's going to say at E3. Unfourtunately, from what I judge his character to be he probably won't deliver a statement like the one he did in church. I say unfourtunately because I enjoy watching controversy.
Seriously, who cares what he said? He said it to a church of like-minded people, and as far as I can tell hasn't allowed that extremist thinking to color his decisions in the political arena, which is more than you can say for most people with those sentiments.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Because he also said "no man", yet has agreed with Hagee, who says he does.

As for "inappropriate content", given that this man is definitively right wing, what exactly does inappropriate content entail? Because Black And White (non-Christian Ideology), The Witcher (same) or any other game that deals with God, Satan, Pacifism, Communism etc. could well be deemed 'inappropriate'.

You are mining for a contradiction where there is none, and I don't understand why. Perry does not disagree with what Hagee said, and what Hagee said is in line with a not-insubstantial number of other Evangelical Christians, BUT he notes that no man, including Hagee, is the ultimate authority on God's will. There is a difference between believing something, and knowing that you might be wrong. I think this is the distinction Perry was making.

A lot of this would probably hinge on the man's vague pronouns: "That's what the faith says." Is "That" referring to what was said in the immediately prior sentence, or to the subject matter the sentence before was referring to? For some reason, I lean towards "That" being the idea that non-Christians are going to hell. Maybe you're reading it differently?

"Inappropriate content": as defined in this particular bill, [a href=http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01634F.htm]"obscene, as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code."[/a] I'm assuming the Texas Penal Code, so...
"§ 43.21. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this subchapter:
(1) "Obscene" means material or a performance that:
(A) the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the
prurient interest in sex;
(B) depicts or describes:
(i) patently offensive representations or
descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual
or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual
bestiality; or
(ii) patently offensive representations or
descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism,
masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female
genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, covered male
genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed and
marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital
organs; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, and scientific value." [a href=http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.009.00.000043.00.htm#43.21.00]Source[/a]

Fairly standard text for obscenity/indecency laws in the US. I don't see what it has to do with the Governor's leanings? Typically something left up to the courts.

Another relevant tidbit from the law:
"(e) The office is not required to act on any grant
application and may deny an application because of inappropriate
content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative
fashion, as determined by the office, in a moving image project. In
determining whether to act on or deny a grant application, the
office shall consider general standards of decency and respect for
the diverse beliefs and values of the citizens of Texas."

 

[Geoffrey42]

Church and State MUST be separate, otherwise we cannot have truly responsible government, unless you could prove that 100% of your constituency is of ONE faith, and only One faith, you should not, as a public official, espouse your beliefs, atheistic, Christian or otherwise. As well I feel my beliefs are not amoral on any ground outside of one backed by religious beliefs, hence why should they be restricted by laws? My "religion" doesn't find them wrong, so why should the religious be allowed to tell me what to do? Why can they say "My Kids MUST be taught their WRONG opinion so they will be more inclined to choose our faith." Why not give them the choice to make up their own minds? Guys like this shouldn?t, in an ideal world, be allowed to say shit like this and remain in office.

Oh yes, I don't think atheism counts as a religion, the absence of something does not make it something. I choose NOT to believe, and I simply do not want others forcing me to believe, I only believe they are wrong when their beliefs are forced upon me.

You go on a tirade about the separation of church and state, then condemn the guy for making a comment about his personal beliefs? How are those related? As long as he maintains the separation of church and state in his activities as a governor, what does it matter? I think this goes back to what Malygris said before about a root-disconnect between the US and the rest of the Western world as it pertains to publicly espoused religious beliefs and public office. Rather than just saying "It is bad that he said this", why not back it up with some of your secular, humanistic reason and evidence?

I find it entertaining that you think that atheism is not a religion. What else can you call a belief with no proof, except to call it faith? A lack of proof is not evidence against. Come! Join the agnostics! Life makes so much more sense over here!

 

[ear8dmg]

I'm a Christian. I used to share this unequivocal view that people that weren't believing Christians would have an eternal punishment. It's certainly true that that's the majority Christian viewpoint in recent times and, if it surprises anybody that a Christian is coming out and saying it, you're only showing your own ignorance.

Having read the bible a few times, my own take is "it's complicated". What is 'Hell'? Which word that we translate as 'Hell' would you be referring to? I can think of at least 3 and only one of them refers to punishment. You think you're going to 'Heaven'? Then what's the 'New Earth' for?. Is Jesus the way to Eternal Life or is Christianity the way? etc etc.

I'm a 'Doubting Thomas' type believer. A lot of what of I believe is down to experiences that come to a simple choice of "either God works in the context of Christianity or I am actually stark raving mad". It's probably an easy choice for you lot but for me it's a toughie. If God still chooses to work through the Christian Church it says an awful lot more about grace than any sermon could.

 

[LAWLCAKES]

And believing in giant invisible people who live in the sky makes sense?

And believing that just because something cannot be observed it must not exist makes more sense?

Lawl? With that logic, I can believe in anything.

Guess what? Tiny purple gnomes created the universe ... it's completely illogical of you to not believe me because they cannot be observed ... it must be true!

 

[Geoffrey42]

And believing in giant invisible people who live in the sky makes sense?

And believing that just because something cannot be observed it must not exist makes more sense?

Lawl? With that logic, I can believe in anything.

Guess what? Tiny purple gnomes created the universe ... it's completely illogical of you to not believe me because they cannot be observed ... it must be true!

I think you missed my point. Do your tiny purple gnomes inform my everyday life in any way? No? Then I don't care if they exist or not. There is nothing for me to gain in disputing your claim. That does not mean that I believe you.

 

[Arbre]

@The Atheists: You do realize that your disbelief only protects you from the "threat" of hell. If God is real, and certain portions of the Bible turn out to be true, your disbelief will not save you from Hell itself.

Yes and?

 

[The Sorrow]

Okay, apparently the Big G's gonna march my agnostic ass straight to Hell.

Eh, at least I get to meet Jimi Hendrix...

 

[Arbre]

I find it entertaining that you think that atheism is not a religion.

There's no divine connotation, in that it doesn't hinge on the existence of one or several gods. The mistake, however, is to firmly assess that no sort of god-like entity exists.
Of course, the god-like entity is the most easiest copout ever invented by man, but the wisest thing to do is to acknowledge our ignorance, stop pretending we know the universe because we, mere humans, have written down stuff in old books out of nowhere.
I say we'll see when we'll be there. Until then, there are other priorities.

 

[ccesarano]

Eh, at least I get to meet Jimi Hendrix...

Actually I'm pretty sure Jimi was a Christian. I also continue to find amusement that Dave Mustain, lead guy of Megadeth, was brought into Christianity by his Christian Uncle....his Christian Uncle being Alice Cooper.

No one EVER pays attention to the awesome Christians...*sigh*

I am Anti-Creationist, Evolution is true, the proof is there

You do realize this is just one of the many things the scientific community cannot make up its mind on, right? Because there's proof going both ways? And none of it is undeniable, hence it still all being theory and not fact?

All you people that believe in "facts" and "science" put a lot of FAITH into theories you don't even realize are just as ridiculous as believing in a deity.

Now, Pedro, you actually post some nice sounding stuff, but a lot of it is misunderstood thinking.

Church and State MUST be separate, otherwise we cannot have truly responsible government,

Really? That's funny, because the majority of the irresponsible people I know aren't religious. They are a bunch of self-serving amoral assholes that, well, I'm certainly not keeping in touch with them after College. They aren't always bad guys, but the majority of the responsible and altruistic people I've known in my life have at least had a strong religious background, if not are religious people themselves (primarily Christian).

People easily forget that a good chunk of this country's founders were *gasp* CHRISTIAN! Sure, plenty were Deist, and plenty were something else entirely, but a good chunk of the most significant ones were Christian. However, what people need to learn now is that they knew where to take Christian ideas and where to leave them to the individual.

I like the idea of someone in my office that has a strong religious background, because it should hopefully be a sign that they actually have a strong backing of what is right and what is wrong. However, I also feel that, despite personal opinion, things like gay marriage should not matter to the government. It really shouldn't, because there are much more important things to care about. Abortion is certainly a sticky subject, but people should be more willing to think more deeply in it than women's rights or religion (what, in the end, any discussion I've been in has boiled down to). How about we figure out why other alternatives aren't being chosen? What's that, the adoption system in this country is totally fucked? Well why are you holding a Pro-Choice sign instead of trying to get the adoption system fixed? Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do?

Creationism shouldn't be in a science class, it should be in a theology class, and I feel every high school should have a class that focuses on the different world theologies. Unfortunately, we get the theories of Darwin crammed down our throats. Darwin, who was inspired by Nietzche. Nietzche, who has time and again been proven wrong by well read literary circles that no what they're talking about (well, to be specific, his later stuff where he became a conceited asshat, which is primarily what Darwin's hit is based on). So, by association (using logic now), Darwin's theories being based on theories and ideas proven wrong time and again only makes Darwin's theories....oh fine, I'll be politically correct and say "misunderstanding" or something so I don't tell you people that buy into his tripe "wrong".

Maybe it's easier for me to see compromises easier being a political moderate, but I say the world and the government needs a balance of both sides. If religious ideas are inspiring some decisions, I have no problem unless they truly hurt the freedoms of others (such as banning gay marriage). However, if they begin going down that "it's my divine right" path, then they need a boot to the ass. At the same time, though, I have trouble taking someone whose t-shirt says "Jesus is a ****" seriously intellectually, and wouldn't want them in any position of responsibility. That's the kind of person you have cooking your fries at Wendy's.

 

[Flour]

You do realize this is just one of the many things the scientific community cannot make up its mind on, right? Because there's proof going both ways? And none of it is undeniable, hence it still all being theory and not fact?

All you people that believe in "facts" and "science" put a lot of FAITH into theories you don't even realize are just as ridiculous as believing in a deity.

Proof with over 100 years of evidence to back it up. It's only a theory until every "missing link" is found, something that will probably never happen.
It's also nice that you use "faith" in a way that's helping you. Nobody is going to worship a fossil or new scientific idea. But yes, some of the ideas are strange, but they're still testable, something an invisible omnipotent being isn't.

That's funny, because the majority of the irresponsible people I know aren't religious. They are a bunch of self-serving amoral assholes that, well, I'm certainly not keeping in touch with them after College. They aren't always bad guys, but the majority of the responsible and altruistic people I've known in my life have at least had a strong religious background, if not are religious people themselves (primarily Christian).

Strange, I see the exact opposite. Most religious people I've met have been assholes that think they're better than anyone else just because they follow a 2000 year old collection of myths.

I like the idea of someone in my office that has a strong religious background, because it should hopefully be a sign that they actually have a strong backing of what is right and what is wrong.

Yeah, let me answer this with a quote about some of those great christian "morals"

22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Or to put it simpler, stone virgin women who were raped. Yeah, that is a great idea of what it right or wrong..

Unfortunately, we get the theories of Darwin crammed down our throats. Darwin, who was inspired by Nietzche. Nietzche, who has time and again been proven wrong by well read literary circles that no what they're talking about (well, to be specific, his later stuff where he became a conceited asshat, which is primarily what Darwin's hit is based on). So, by association (using logic now), Darwin's theories being based on theories and ideas proven wrong time and again only makes Darwin's theories....oh fine, I'll be politically correct and say "misunderstanding" or something so I don't tell you people that buy into his tripe "wrong".

They're no longer "Darwin's theories" the only thing that guy did was build a foundation that is considered outdated by any serious scientist. A good school gives the facts as they're known by scientists and basically tells students to think for themselves.

At the same time, though, I have trouble taking someone whose t-shirt says "Jesus is a ****" seriously intellectually, and wouldn't want them in any position of responsibility. That's the kind of person you have cooking your fries at Wendy's.

Every side has idiots. How different is it from somebody wearing a shirt that says "non-believers will burn in hell"?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

ultimate sexual acts

And he's banning that??? But still...

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, and scientific value.

And you don't think games have a problem here?