# Yet Another Movie That Might Change Your Life ... or At Least Make You Think **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2001, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069 "2001-03-07T06:17:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/141 "2001-03-18T17:42:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > To further expand this point, it’s not confined to prophesy only. The Bible also makes it clear that: > > All Christians can evangelize, > But not all Christians are Evangelists. > All Christians can teach, > But not all Christians are Teachers. > All Christians can act in a pastoral fashion toward someone, > But not all Christians are Pastors. > And, All Christians can prophesy, > But not all Christians are Prophets. Incorrect. 1 Cor 7:7 states (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his **proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that**. And 1 Cor 12:1-10 states quite clearly (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > 1 NOW concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, **I would not have you ignorant.** > 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. > 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. > 4 Now there are **diversities of gifts** , but the same Spirit. > 5 And there are **differences of administrations** , but the same Lord. > 6 And there are **diversities of operations** , but it is the same God which worketh all in all. > 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. > 8 **For to one is given** by the Spirit the word of wisdom; **to another** the word of knowledge• by the same Spirit; > 9 **To another** faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; > 10 **To another** the working of miracles; **to another prophecy** ; **to another** discerning of spirits; **to another** divers kinds of tongues; **to another** the interpretation of tongues. > [@](#): > > Look at it in the natural world and you can see the same principle. Anyone can hammer nails, but not everyone is a Carpenter. Anyone can sing (good or bad), but not everyone is a Singer. Anyone can write, but not everyone is a Writer. Completely irrelevant given the actual Words of the Scriptures I’ve quoted above (King James Version, btw). > [@](#): > > Anyway, I hope that point is cleared up now. Long before you arrived on the scene, I already understood that 'twas God who decided on what gift each person received. Apparently your mistake is in thinking that ALL of those gifts are given to ALL, although the Scriptures state otherwise. > [@](#): > > **jab1** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > It seems to me that the Almighty would have a 100% success rate. It seems to me that the Almighty could do a better job of selecting prophets. In fact, I keep hearing that the Almighty is incapable of error, and yet, according to you, He can’t find a person capable of relaying simple messages! NASA has stricter standards for its manned space flights. > > The Almighty _DOES_ have a 100% success rate. The only problem is, He’s only come to earth once, and even then for only 33 years. Jesus had a 100% success rate. Today, he uses flawed human beings, who do _not_ have a 100% success rate. It’s not God who’s at fault, it’s us. Please explain then why the Scriptures state that the very human prophet is only a prophet if he’s 100% accurate. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately I wasn’t there that night, but everyone was talking about it. I heard it directly from one of the two sisters involved. Are you familiar with the acronym, **FOAF**? It means **F** riend **o** f **a F** riend. In other words: **Urban Legend**. > [@](#): > > It was the _prophet_ who got his wires crossed, not God. Then by the definition provided in the Scriptures, as has been pointed out to you already, he was not a true prophet and therefore was a false prophet. > [@](#): > > That may very well be. But … if Al Gore had won the election, for example, I would have fully expected him to appoint liberal Democrats who want to push his agenda to the cabinet. I expected Bush to appoint conservative Republicans, which he did. If Pat Robertson were elected, I would expect him to appoint Christians, or at least those who share Judeo Christian beliefs. Thankfully, this land is not in such a dire state as Robertson getting elected would require. Bush appointed those who he feels are qualified to perform in the positions to which appointed. The Senate apparently agreed with him. That’s part of the process. It’s quite interesting to note that you expect Robertson, if in the presidency, to appoint “Christians, or at least those who share Judeo Christian[sic] beliefs.” This may shock you, but there are other people capable of performing their jobs without buying into your, or Robertson’s, version of faith. Also, “Judeo-Christian” is not accurate. Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion, and at least one very important tenet of the Christian belief is anathema (i.e., blasphemy) to Judaism. > [@](#): > > You know what? The way these scriptures play out in _real_ _life_, I’ve never seen a situation where a Christian had to “abandon his family” (not saying it’s never happened, just that I’ve never seen or heard of it). You might want to travel some, then. I have seen it happen; however, it’s usually the other way around, in my experience: the family is the one who abandons the Christian convert. I’ve also seen families abandon their family member for such things as marrying an American, or marrying someone of a different race. > [@](#): > > **Monty** responded to my question … > > > [@](#): > > > > Why do you assume that that I ‘refuse to accept that I could possibly be mistaken’? > > …with this answer: > > > [@](#): > > > > Because of the evidence of your backpedalling whenever you’re proven wrong. > > If I’m _TRULY_ proven wrong, sure I’ll admit it. I will not, however, ‘admit’ I’m wrong if I know that I’m not. Just because I can’t and don’t have the desire to prove it doesn’t mean it’s not true! Interesting thing, though, is that you were proven wrong, wth evidence you are refusing to accept just because it doesn’t jibe with the assertion you pulled out of thin air. > [@](#): > > This is giving me more and more insight into how atheists think. I’m trying not to die laughing here. _You think **I’m** an athiest?!_ That’s hilarious! Scroll up and you will notice that I’ve told you more than once that I’m Christian. > [@](#): > > Do you guys really think like this on _all_ issues? Yep; I’m pretty much into the evidence thing. Although I do have faith in the Scriptures. > [@](#): > > In other words, many of you seem to have a particular standard for truth: > > \>\> If it can’t be proven to be true, it’s false. \<\< Incorrect summation. Let me introduce you to the Scientific Method: if a hypothesis is true, then the opposite and mutually exclusive hypothesis is false. If one proves that the opposite and mutually exclusive hypothesis is false, then the first hypothesis is true. If one proves said opposite and mutually exclusive hypothesis to be true, then the first hypothesis is false. The opposite and mutually exclusive hypothesis to yours was proven true and thefore yours was, and remains, false. > [@](#): > > Not “it might be false” or “it could be true or false”, just “it’s false, period”. To me, this is a very blind standard. See again what I mentioined about your test papers above. > [@](#): > > Is this at the root of why some of you don’t believe in God? Ie, do you think that since you can’t prove He exists, He doesn’t exist? Please read what’s posted! Some posters here (such as I, for example) believe in a deity; some posters here don’t; and some (the agnostics) feel that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any deity & therefore they neither believe nor disbelieve–they are agnostic. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Amazing. A fundie asserts that the Bible is not 100% inerrant. > > No, you misunderstand. The Bible is 100% inerrant. When I say, “There are dozens of issues in the Bible that are not 100% set in stone”, what I mean is that there are many issues where the Bible can be viewed in different ways. Classic example is the timing of the rapture, but there are many others. Well, since the Rapture isn’t in the Bible, IIRC, then that’s a pretty poor example. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > …Only those who prophesy are prophets and thus only prophets prophesy… > > I’ve addressed this earlier in this post. You equivocated. Different than addressing, IMHO. > [@](#): > > If you disagree, that’s fine, but you now know where I’m coming from on this issue. I, and at least one other poster here, are just curious how you explain yourself on that issue in direct opposition to the Scriptures you claim are 100% inerrant. > [@](#): > > As for ‘cites’ from the late 70s / early 80s when Christians were getting into politics … you’re kidding, right? Read that bit again. I did not say 20 years, I said 2000 years. Christians have been involved in politics from pretty near the beginning of the faith. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Now how about retracting your erroneous dual assertion about Christians being a persecuted minority in the United States of America in 2001? > > I really, really, really want to know: why on earth do you care so much that I say that? I hate to break it to you, but you will never hear me say that because it would be a blatant lie, so give it up (although, as I said in the numerous earlier threads, I would replace the word ‘persecuted’ with ‘harassed’). Makes no difference: the evidence proves the mutually exclusive opposite of your hypothesis. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Since your assertion is obviously and demonstrably false, it doesn’t matter how long you spent attempting to document it, since there’s no evidence in favour of it! > > I again refer you to my earlier comment. Just to be sure I understand you: are you saying that if you haven’t seen evidence for a particular claim, it’s an untrue claim? NO! If I have seen evidence to the contrary of the claim, then that claim is false. That is far from “absence of proof does not equal proof of absence.” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Are you now admitting here that you basically pulled that assertion out of thin air? > > Nope. I pulled it out of what I’ve seen in the media over the years. And you were shown the proof of that same media doing the opposite of what you claimed. > [@](#): > > Not a research project, just living life and observing things. Your observation skills are sadly lacking, evidently. > [@](#): > > Again, I find it fascinating that you seem to think that if _you_ haven’t seen evidence for a claim, the claim is false. Not it _might_ be false, it’s just false. And no, I don’t have “faith” it isn’t, I’ve _seen_ what I’m talking about, so I’d be acting dishonestly toward myself if I were to say I haven’t seen it. Then you are fascinated by your self-delusion. As I stated above, I have seen the evidence which disproves your claim. You have also seen that evidence but persist in ignoring it. According to your last sentence, you’re acting dishonestly. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Neither Ben nor I was rude to you; however, you have been rude to quite a few folks. I guess that’s your definition of balance and perspective. > > No, in fact you and Ben were both quite rude, specifically by presuming motives on my part and in hurtling accusations my way. Neither of us was rude. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, I _was_ in fact rude back toward Ben at the very least on a couple of occasions, and if I was rude toward you as well, I apologize (I have not gone back and re-read my responses to you). Okay, I’ll forgive the “Sherlock” remarks. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “A large percentage?” I sure hope that’s not another prophecy! Exactly what are the raw numbers of believers in God and non-believers of God on this board and the percentage breakdown, please? > > Well, that’s just the impression I’ve had since being here. From where did you get that impession? I seem to remember you using that word, or a similar one, for your failed prophecy. > [@](#): > > I haven’t seen droves of people here who profess devotion to God, although there are obviously some (ie, Polycarp, etc). Maybe there are more here than I realize. No kidding. Didn’t you mention something above about not seeing the evidence? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So you’re saying, now, that you really did attempt to prophesy? > > _Attempt_ to yeah … _succeeded_, no. It wasn’t a word from the Lord, it was just me. What do the Scriptures say about an attempted prophecy? Chapter and verse will be fine. > [@](#): > > As for your comments on prophesy, I’m curious if my illustration earlier in this post helps you to better see where I’m coming from. If you end up disagreeing that’s fine, but you really need to drop the accusatory tone. I think the Scriptures kind of accurately portrayed where you’re coming from. And I thank Ben for pointing that out. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2001, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/142 "2001-03-18T18:16:12Z")
jab1 wrote: > [@](#): > > And I’d like to recommend another movie for **FoG** to see: _What Dreams May Come_ (though I heard the book was better). In the story, a doctor (Robin Williams) goes to Heaven after being hit by a car. After getting the feel of the place, he discovers that his wife was so distraught over his death, she has committed suicide and gone to Hell. He decides to go to Hell to get her out because Heaven would be Hell without her by his side, that it would be better to be in Hell with her than in Heaven without her. (A novel with a similar story that has yet to be filmed is Robert Heinlein’s _Job: A Comedy of Justice_, the word _comedy_ used as opposite of _tragedy_, meaning “a story with a happy ending.”) See also [I Want to Be With My Wife in Hell](http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/wife.html). ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2001, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/143 "2001-03-18T21:11:48Z")
**Esprix** said: > [@](#): > > And once again you claim to be the one that knows what’s in other people’s hearts, and all about their relationship with God and Jesus Christ. Esprix, as you are aware, I made a very detailed point back in C&L and elsewhere that you can’t just observe _actions_ and assume what’s in a person’s heart. To continue with the race example, if someone behaves in a racist fashion, their heart could be saying “I like this. I want to be this way the rest of my life. Sign me up for the KKK!” He could also be saying, “This is awful. What a sick attitude I have. God help me change!” And no one can know the difference unless they honestly tell someone what’s in their heart. It’s very telling to me that you continue to raise accuasations like these when you know that I’ve addressed them. **Icerigger** … cute sarcasm. I have no idea what you are talking about one way or the other so I can’t really comment. I somehow don’t think you were intending to be taken seriously anyway ;). **Czarcasm** , you appear to have made your mind up. I’m sorry you feel that you must take such a blatantly judgmental attitude about it. I have stated as clearly as humanly possible that I wasn’t claiming to be a prophet, and yet you insist on saying I was. I guess you wont find out until judgment day that you were wrong. **Monty** , those are great scriptures about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible has more to say about it as well (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Follow the way of love and **eagerly desire spiritual gifts** , especially the gift of prophesy … I would like **every one of you** to speak in tongues, but I would **rather** have you prophesy… (I Cor 14:1,5a) In other words, yes I Cor 12 says the spirit gives certain spiritual gifts to people. But in I Cor 14 you are _encouarged_ to _eagerly desire_ for those gifts! Paul says he’d like everyone to speak in tongues, but he’s rather everyone prophesy! The point is, yes they are gifts from God, but any believer can _ask_ for those gifts. > [@](#): > > Please explain then why the Scriptures state that the very human prophet is only a prophet if he’s 100% accurate. I have already answered this question in detail earlier in this thread, so I will not insult your intelligence by repeating it. > [@](#): > > Are you familiar with the acronym, FOAF? It means Friend of a Friend. In other words: Urban Legend. So you assume just because I wasn’t there it’s an Urban Legend? I have honestly never met people like on this board. You take the tiniest bit of evidence and draw conclusions immediately. I’m not saying you should believe me, but that fact that you so quickly dismiss it says a lot. > [@](#): > > Interesting thing, though, is that you were proven wrong, wth evidence you are refusing to accept just because it doesn’t jibe with the assertion you pulled out of thin air. Again, quite frankly this scares me for you and anyone who agrees with you. One of two possibilites exist: 1. You _genuinely_ believe that I was ‘proven wrong’. If you do, that’s frightening. I make a claim, and some of you provide some evidence to counteract the claim, and from that you just conclude that the claim was false. Again I ask, is your standard of proof this flimsy for everything? 2. You are deliberately repeating a lie for the purpose of antagonizing me. Why else would you say I ‘pulled the assertion out of thin air’ when I clearly already said I didn’t? I tend to think you are are a smart person, so I lean toward this option. Surely you are not so blind as to genuinely believe I was ‘proven wrong’ by a handful of contrary examples. I can only hope for your sake that you have merely willfully blinded yourself. > [@](#): > > I’m trying not to die laughing here. You think I’m an athiest?! That’s hilarious! Scroll up and you will notice that I’ve told you more than once that I’m Christian. You’re right! I missed that, sorry about that. > [@](#): > > The opposite and mutually exclusive hypothesis to yours was proven true and thefore yours was, and remains, false. Again, if you genuinely believe on the flimsy and weak evidence you guys provided that the opposite and mutually exclusive hypothesis to mine was “proven true”, it really does expose a lot about why so many of you are blind. You draw your conclusions before you know what in the world you are talking about. I think in this case, you simply drew the conclusion you _wanted_ to draw because it fits into your worldview. > [@](#): > > I, and at least one other poster here, are just curious how you explain yourself on that issue in direct opposition to the Scriptures you claim are 100% inerrant. Once again, I have already answered this question in detail earlier in this thread, so I will not insult your intelligence by repeating it. The fact that you keep asking questions I’ve answered is very telling. > [@](#): > > I have seen the evidence which disproves your claim. You have also seen that evidence but persist in ignoring it. Nope, I clearly agreed that there were good signs that the media is slowly but surely starting to play fair, but we have a long ways to go. I’m assuming you read the post where I said that in the previous thread, so why are you acting as though I ignored it? … Obviously, this thread has gotten hopelessly hijacked, and I’m beginning to see evidence that this was intentional on several people’s part. If that’s the case, you can pat yourselves on the back, you succeeded ;). It’s becoming quite clear that most of those who’ve been debating this prophesy stuff have made up their minds and aren’t going to change them no matter what I say, and so I see no point in continuing this debate. Having said that, I do enjoy reading honest questions from people like quix, which struck me as simply a sincere desire to understand more about where I’m coming from. But I didn’t return to this board to waste my time duking it out with Ben and Monty over prophesy. So let’s leave it at this: if you guys want to believe I’m a ‘false prophet’ or any other deep dark evil thing you want to conjure up, go ahead and believe that. I’m not going to try to convince you of the truth since you have made it clear you are either determined to a) believe a lie, or b) keep saying a lie that you know to be a lie. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/144 "2001-03-18T21:20:13Z")
Gadarene, I have started ‘Blameless in Abaddon’ (if you’re still out there!) and am wondering if you’ve had success in finding ‘Judgment’ for rent anywhere yet. To be honest, I’d love an update and a confirmation that you indeed are going to watch the movie, because so far I’m honestly not enjoying this book. _IF_ however you are going to uphold your end of the deal, it will be more than worth it to me to uphold mine. I just re-watched Judgment earlier this week, and it gets better with each viewing. I think this is becoming one of my favorite Christian movies. The one biggest weakness in the film is the Mr T subplot (I’m sorry but Mr T cannot act), but thanfully it’s only a subplot. The main plot is quite riviting. Again, Gadarene I hope indeed that you do get to see it, as well as some of the rest of you. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2001, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/145 "2001-03-18T21:28:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by FriendofGod_ > **And by the way you were very nice in the way you asked them.** To be totally honest, I wish everyone would just drop this whole “rudeness” thing. If it truly offends one, then simply go elsewhere. If one is able to swallow one’s “offense” and say, “I’m going to answer, because the issue is important to me and I feel that I have something to add,” then do that. By saying, “I’ll answer, but be polite,” one comes across as sanctiminious, insulting, and thin-skinned. Either have this conversation, or don’t. Don’t make it look like you’re posting against your will. (Note–when I say “you” I mean you in general, not any one person in particular). > [@](#): > > **It was me, not God or Satan. I was in what Christians call ‘the flesh’ … ie, I was operating out of personal concern rather than the leading of the Holy Spirit, which obviously doesn’t work!** And it seems to me that you really disillusioned a lot of people (dare I say, pissed a lot of people off as well) by at first claiming it was (probably?) a prophecy, and then saying, “Well, no, I guess it wasn’t a prophecy. My bad, carry on.” Here is how I understand the sides in the issue (note, there is some conjecture as to the reasoning of each side; I apologize if my conjecture is wrong): **Ben, Monty, et al.** : You said it was a prophecy, it was false, then you said that it wasn’t a prophecy. **FoG** : No, I said it was probably a prophecy. It was wrong, so it was obviously not a prophecy. No big deal. **BMEA** : But it IS a big deal. You can’t just go around prophesying, be demonstrated wrong, and then keep going as if nothing happened. **FoG** : Sure you can. It says so in the New Testament. **BMEA** : Then what the hell good is prophecy, if it can be wrong? **FoG** : Well, if it’s wrong, then it, by definition, isn’t prophecy. **BMEA** : Then how do you know if something you say is prophecy? **FoG** : If it’s from God. **BMEA** : And how do you know if it’s from God? **FoG** : Well, it has to be true, and it has to be edifying. **BMEA** : So the proof is in the pudding, so to speak? **FoG** : Yes. **Quix** : Then what the hell good is making a prophecy? I mean, you can’t tell if a prophecy is legit until it either comes to pass, or it doesn’t come to pass. Why make prophecies in the first place? Furthermore, if it DOES turn out to be wrong, you ( **FoG** ) seem to be so ready to dismiss it as inconsequential. However, it’s obvious to me that there WERE consequences to your failed non-prophecy. So why mess around with this tool? I’ll let you actually respond to that, **FoG**. Onward… > [@](#): > > \*\*But satan’s version [of prophecy] is always a cheap counterfeit of God’s. \*\* By “cheap counterfeit,” I assume you mean that it is ultimately harmful and often wrong. If this is true, how are you so certain that Satan wasn’t speaking through you with regard to **matt**? > [@](#): > > **I believe that while many fortune tellers and so-called ‘psychics’ use very _natural_ magician-type tricks…** It’s my opinion that you were utilizing EXACTLY these “natural” tricks yourself. By tricks, I mean things like being ambigious in your prediction, saying something that would apply to a large percentage of people, etc. Suppose (and I know this is a big hypothetical) you were to call a psychic, **FoG**. Suppose that she’s TOTALLY off base on everything that she says. You tell her, “Look, lady, you’re WAY off.” She replies, “Well, is there someone in your life having these problems? [No] Well, then certainly there are Evil Spirits influencing this reading.” Would you buy that explanation? Personally, I’d say, “Bah, you were wrong, lady. Just admit it.” And then I’d never call a psychic again. Now, let’s compare this to your situation. You _were_ very wrong with your prediction. To your credit, I don’t think you tried any of the traditional “dodges;” rather, you admitted that you were wrong. However, you **still** claim to have the ability to prophesy. Can’t you understand why many Dopers are so skeptical of your claim, even vehemently hostile at times? > [@](#): > > **A prophesy is something that comes directly from God through a person to bring encouragement, comfort, and sometimes challenge… He speaks through people, according to I Corinthians 14, for one purpose only: to encourage, edify, uplift, etc.** Well, my immediate response is, “So, how do you know that a prophecy is from God??” You thought yours was, but it wasn’t. If the Christian doing the prediction can’t even tell if a prophecy if Divine, then it seems like an utterly worthless (and sometimes destructive) tool to me. > [@](#): > > \*\*While they might be accurate at times, the spirit behind it is evil and designed to steal, kill, and destroy people. \*\* I’d certainly be offended by this blanket statement if I thought there was anything to so-called psychics besides psychology. Regardless, I’ve seen many commercials where a psychic WAS encouraging, uplifting, edifying, etc. Is it impossible that these psychics are speaking the Lord’s word? > [@](#): > > **If you go to a Godly Bible believing church and get a prophesy from a believer, you are still responsible for careful discernment but the likelihood that the word is from satan is slim to none.** Ok, let’s assume that you’re right, and that Satan isn’t going to speak through a prophesying Christian (I don’t know why, but I’ll just go from there). How does the questioner know that God is speaking, and not just the Christian’s human side? After all, you don’t attribute your prediction to Satan, but it was still wrong. What kind of standards can a questioner use to determine if a prophecy is actually Divine, and not just from a Christian’s human side? Here’s my take. It’s going to sound offensive, but it’s really just plain-speak. Your version of prophecy is dangerous and worthless. Dangerous–You pissed off a number of non-Christians, and maybe even some Christians (see **Monty** , for example). Worthless–If a “prophet” is right, and a prophecy is edifying, then it was from God. If a “prophet” is right, but the prophecy is not edifying, it’s from Satan. If a “prophet” is wrong, but the prophecy was edifying, it’s from the human side, no biggie. If a “prophet” is wrong, and the prophecy was not edifying, Satan again. Like **Czarcasm** said, it’s a “heads, I win, tails, you lose” scenario. Quix ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/146 "2001-03-18T23:34:34Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. You _genuinely_ believe that I was ‘proven wrong’. If you do, that’s frightening. I make a claim, and some of you provide some evidence to counteract the claim, and from that you just conclude that the claim was false. Again I ask, is your standard of proof this flimsy for everything? \ Here is the conversation, stripped to its essence: FOG: Our society and the media are particularly hostile to those of the Christian faith, far more than any other faith. Everyone Else: That’s ridiculous. Political candidates loudly profess their Christian beliefs while nearly half the country says they would not vote for an atheist. Movements are afoot all over the country to put Christian idealogy up in the classrooms and courtrooms, not to mention replacing science curricula with Christian dogma. Most major newspapers have a religion section that is almost exclusively devoted to Christianity. Our president says that Wicca is not a religion, and his former President daddy said (while in office) that he wasn’t sure atheists should be considered citizens, but that they’re certainly not patriots. Not only is what you say not true, but the converse is true–society is predominantly Christian, and tends to be hostile to other faiths. FOG: Well, it’s certainly interesting that some people see it that way. Of course, they’re totally wrong, because it’s obvious to me that Christians have it harder than anyone in our society. I don’t care what evidence you have, I refuse to look at it any other way. THAT is what drives us crazy. Re: Prophecy–so let me get this straight. You make a prediction. If it turns out to be right, it came from God. If it doesn’t, it came from you, or possibly Satan. No wonder you think God has a 100% accuracy record! I’ve used this analogy before: think of a batter. Whenever he gets a hit, we count it as a hit. When he doesn’t get a hit, we don’t count the at-bat–he “just wasn’t himself today”. Lo and behold, he’s batting 1.000! Tell me this–if your prophecy here had been correct, would you have claimed that it came from God? What if you just happened to guess right? As most cold readers will tell you, you had a good shot with “are you having trouble at work”. Here’s one for you: write down a “prophecy” on a piece of paper–the word “carrot”. Then ask someone to name a vegetable. When they say “carrot”, tell them that God told you what they would say, and show them the piece of paper. (Something like 95% of people will say “carrot”. Try it!) On the off chance someone says “cucumber” or “broccoli”, just say that your prediction must have come from Satan or something. (That’s called an “out”.) Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2001, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/147 "2001-03-18T23:40:25Z")
One question, FoG. _If_ your “prophesy”, as vague as it was, had turned out to be correct, what would you have claimed? That it was a lucky guess? Or that your god had spoken to you? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/148 "2001-03-19T02:30:22Z")
FoG: Glad to see that you actually do read the Bible on occasion. Interesting verse you quoted, too–but all I saw is an encouragement to ask for a particular gift. Now please give the chapter and verse where the Lord told you to say you have the gift of prophecy when you don’t. Don’t forget about giving the chapter and verse about what’s supposed to happen to a false prophet whilst you’re about it. > [@](#): > > You take the tiniest bit of evidence and draw conclusions immediately. The thing you seem to miss is that the tiny bit of evidence we’re accepting is from a reputable source. As your complete lack of evidence equals zero, that shows you’re just not a reputable support for providing evidence. This is especially true when you make a claim at the outset and then when the evidence is presented disproving your claim you just say, “Well, I can’t be bothered to dig up the proof.” > [@](#): > > Again, quite frankly this scares me for you and anyone who agrees with you. I’m 42 years old and have been doing quite nicely without your fears for me. > [@](#): > > One of two possibilites exist: > > 1. You _genuinely_ believe that I was ‘proven wrong’. You were and the proof came from a reputable source. > [@](#): > > If you do, that’s frightening. I make a claim, and some of you provide some evidence to counteract the claim, and from that you just conclude that the claim was false. Actually, all the evidence presented disproves your claim. That’s because you have not, as of yet, provided any evidence to support your claim. > [@](#): > > Again I ask, is your standard of proof this flimsy for everything? Actually, as has been explained to you already, this standard is pretty exacting. Evidently, you don’t hold to the same standard for what you’ll claim. > [@](#): > > 1. You are deliberately repeating a lie for the purpose of antagonizing me. I am not the one to have been proven to make false assertions and false accusations on this issue–you have. I am holding firm to the conclusion to which the evidence led me. As you flat out refuse to provide any evidence to support your assertion, it’s fairly obvious that the evidence leads to the opposite, and well-supported, conclusion. > [@](#): > > Why else would you say I ‘pulled the assertion out of thin air’ when I clearly already said I didn’t? Why? Because of your track record. I really don’t see your say-so as proof of your statement’s accuracy. > [@](#): > > I tend to think you are are a smart person, so I lean toward this option. Because I’m acting in a way smarter than you, you think I’m a liar? That’s certainly a conclusion pulled out of thin air! Actually, pulled out of somewhere else, but I shan’t say where. > [@](#): > > Surely you are not so blind as to genuinely believe I was ‘proven wrong’ by a handful of contrary examples. FoG: Just because you don’t want to accept a conclusion opposite to your assertion does not mean you were not proven wrong. You now have the “contrary examples” at your fingertips–disprove them. A smart person would accept the conclusion to which that leads him. As you flat out refuse to (or just plain can’t) provide any proof of your assertion, and many others have shown proof of the opposite assertion, well, what conclusion should that smart person draw? Certainly not yours, without proof! > [@](#): > > I can only hope for your sake that you have merely willfully blinded yourself. I am not blind, and I have noticed that you certainly are not the first crusader to appear on this board with incorrect, weak, and sometimes false statements about the Scriptures. Feel free to search for postings under the UserID of ARG220, if you dare. I’ll leave it to other posters to provide the names of the other crusaders. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/149 "2001-03-19T04:11:28Z")
**quixotic78** said: > [@](#): > > If it truly offends one, then simply go elsewhere … Either have this conversation, or don’t. Don’t make it look like you’re posting against your will. You are right, and to be honest, as I step back from this whole debate I realize how amazingly foolish I was to answer Ben’s question in the first place. I should have known better from previous encounters that he’s not someone I can trust. And Monty, who has now started a pit thread dedicated to me (yay!), has pretty much exposed himself blatantly as someone with an agenda against me. quix as for your other questions, forgive me but I’m not going further with the hijacking of my own thread. You made a lot of interesting points, but to be honest I should never have introduced the subject into GD at all. To really understand how it works you have to see it in operation over the course of months and years. Don’t take this wrong, but everyone is commenting on something they’ve never seen. In all honesty, it’s not as confusing as you seem to think it is. I see your questions as legitimate, but in this environment that Ben/Monty have created, I’m not going to continue at this time. Perhaps someday we can have a prophesy thread and have a full fledged debate over it. By the way, I think you’re being overly generous by saying I made anyone ‘mad’. To be honest, I think all I did was hand some outright enemies some ammunition to use against me, and nothing more. **DoctorJ** … this is another issue I’d like to put to bed, to keep from hijacking my own thread. In a nutshell, your ‘stripped to the essence’ summary is incorrect. In fact, you’ve combined two separate discussions together. Discussion 1: Me: I said I thought Christians were more harassed than atheists and/or Wiccans in the USA Others: No, atheists and/or Wiccans feel that they are harassed quite a bit in the USA Me: That’s interesting, never really thought about it, didn’t know that atheists/Wiccan’s felt that way Discussion 2: Me: The mass media has a bias and slant against Christianity Others: No they don’t. Look at these examples of shows that show Christianity in a positive light. Me: I agree that things might be changing, but that doesn’t change the fact that Christians have been portrayed in a primarily negative light in the mass media for years. Others: why don’t you just admit you’re wrong and we’re right, our examples prove that there isn’t a bias against Christianity in the media. Me: you’ve got to be kidding. A handful of examples of Christians being portrayed postively in the media _proves_ that Christians _haven’t_ been portrayed negatively in the media for years? Others: just admit you are wrong, we proved we were right, why can’t you just admit it Me: I just realized, I don’t really care about this issue at all! I have no desire to prove my statement true or false. Believe whatever you want. Others: just admit you are wrong, we proved we were right, why can’t you just admit it etc etc. It’s this latter exchange that I assumed you were referring to. You quoted me in your summary as saying something like this: “Of course, they’re totally wrong, because it’s obvious to me that Christians have it harder than anyone in our society.” I challenge you to find a single quote in which I actually said something even remotely close to this after I’d heard your arguments that other faiths were harassed as well. Take a look at “Christians - The Persecuted Minority” page 1 for what I _genuinely_ said on this point (near the bottom of the page): [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=60286](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=60286) **Czarcasm** , as I said I’m not going to drag this out, but in a nutshell I never even got past the ‘initial inquiry’ to even _get_ to a real prophesy! Only the person receiving the prophesy can determine if it’s God or not, based on the standards in the scriptures. **Monty** : as I said, both your blatant attack in your opening paragraph (ie, continuing to attack and accuse me) and your pit post have exposed you as someone with an agenda against me. In all sincerity, my jaw dropped to the floor when you gave your age. I expected about 30 years younger from the way you behaved here. Your arrogant and presumptuous attacks are even more jaw dropping. I will not respond to any further posts of yours, regardless of topic or tone, unless over time it appears that you’ve grown up. You have exposed yourself as someone who cannot be trusted. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/150 "2001-03-19T05:32:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > Discussion 1: > Me: I said I thought Christians **were** more harassed than atheists and/or Wiccans in the USA > Others: No, atheists and/or Wiccans **feel** that they are harassed quite a bit in the USA > Me: That’s interesting, never really thought about it, didn’t know that atheists/Wiccan’s **felt** that way > > _(emphasis mine- Ben)_ Think about that, FoG. People here have said several times that Presidents Bush (Jr. and Sr.) said that atheists and Wiccans don’t deserve the full rights of US citizens. But somehow, in your eyes, that’s not real persecution- it’s just something that makes them _feel as if_ they were as truly persecuted as Christians. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Only the person receiving the prophesy can determine if it’s God or not, based on the standards in the scriptures. \*\* How very convenient for charlatans. > [@](#): > > \*\* > **Monty** : as I said, both your blatant attack in your opening paragraph (ie, continuing to attack and accuse me) and your pit post have exposed you as someone with an agenda against me. \*\* The more astute readers will remember that I covered this kind of behavior in my original “fundie porn” post. If FoG inspires anger, it’s not that he did anything wrong- it’s that Monty has an agenda. There’s an old Russian proverb, FoG. “If ten people tell you you’re drunk, go lie down.” Paul himself warned against giving offense. So why don’t you think about the fact that Monty and I aren’t the only people here who have problems with you? It seems to me like many, many people here have a low opinion of you, and I think you need to think about what you’re doing to set so many people against you. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/151 "2001-03-19T06:09:50Z")
Dearest Screwtape, as part of your continuing education in the techniques of deviltry, I shall relate to you a most clever stratagem which I employed recently at the SDMB. A Christian named “FriendofGod” came to the message board, ready to preach the (ugh) Gospels. As you know, the SDMB is visited by a number of lost souls, including atheists like Ben and Mormons like Monty. Clearly, I had to find a way to discredit FoG before he could do any damage by snatching souls from my very fingers. What better way to completely discredit him than through false prophecy? I led him to believe that God was telling him that a certain “matt” was having a great confusion at work. Why matt? Because matt was unemployed! Delightful! A Christian named Triskadecamus even warned FoG that he was discrediting Christianity by uttering such false prophecies, but FoG didn’t listen. What marvellous results I have wrought through FoG! How can he possibly preach the Gospel when so many people have so little respect for him? Monty even started a Pit Thread about him; six people have posted to poke fun at FoG, and not a single person has supported him. But what is the finishing touch on my masterpiece of temptation? It is the fact that to this day, FoG refuses to admit that the prophecy was put in his mouth by me. He himself has even stated several times that in order for a prophecy to come from me, it must have a negative effect, and tear people down. Of course, since the actual wording of the prophecy itself was so blandly friendly, FoG maintains that it couldn’t possibly have come from me. But what do I care about wording? An angel such as myself only cares for _results,_ and with his focus on mere wording, FoG has completely blinded himself to those very destructive _effects_ which he himself knows to be the true hallmark of Satanic prophecy! I must say, I am quite proud of myself. Even FoG’s fellow Christians cannot save him now; they rebuked him in no uncertain terms, and warned him that his actions were only serving to do my work, and even then he refused to open his eyes to the harm he has done. Honestly, Screwtape, you should read the Bible more often. There’s a lot of good stuff in there: remember the part about how the Antichrist would fool even the faithful? I hope you will take the lessons of my letter to heart and apply them at once to your own work. Yours truly, SATAN _(IANCSL, nor do I play him on TV, nor, for that matter, have I read The Screwtape Letters. I did, however, think that this needed to be said, and borrowing Lewis’ work seemed to be the only way to effectively make the point. -Ben)_ ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/152 "2001-03-19T06:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Monty: as I said, both your blatant attack in your opening paragraph (ie, continuing to attack and accuse me) Here’s a concept: prove my assertions (and Ben’s) about you wrong. > [@](#): > > and your pit post have exposed you as someone with an agenda against me. Please be so kind as to do a search of this site for the term Fornographer to see what I think of you now claiming martyr status. As it is, I have no agenda. Well, there is that whole fighting ignorance thing that the SDMB is supposedly all about. Not to mention the Biblical expression, “Ye shall know the truth and it shall set ye free.” Ben and I have actually given you some amazingly sound advice here. Sadly, it’s gone to waste. Seems like our advice was merely a bunch of pearls. > [@](#): > > In all sincerity, my jaw dropped to the floor when you gave your age. I expected about 30 years younger from the way you behaved here. Really? Long before I was 12 years old, I learned that it’s a bad thing to tell falsehoods. Can I then infer that you’re far younger than 12? > [@](#): > > Your arrogant and presumptuous attacks are even more jaw dropping. And where was I arrogant? Where did I presume? I’d say that it’s quite presumptuous and arrogant to say one speaks for the Lord when one, by one’s own admission, doesn’t. Here’s what that looks like to me: you tried to bolster your argument with “hey, I, FoG, speak for the Lord! How dare you question me?!” Doesn’t cut it here. > [@](#): > > I will not respond to any further posts of yours, regardless of topic or tone, unless over time it appears that you’ve grown up. You have exposed yourself as someone who cannot be trusted. Actually, my tone’s been pretty mellow. And, as I just mentioned, I learned long before the age of 12 not to act in the manner you do here. BTW, exactly where did I lie? It seems to me that the sole issue of trustworthiness of one’s words rests in proof that one has lied. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/153 "2001-03-19T08:38:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > **You are right, and to be honest, as I step back from this whole debate I realize how amazingly foolish I was to answer Ben’s question in the first place. I should have known better from previous encounters that he’s not someone I can trust. And Monty, who has now started a pit thread dedicated to me (yay!), has pretty much exposed himself blatantly as someone with an agenda against me.** I think you’re being unfair now. I’ve been lurking on SMDB since last August, and **Ben** is not what I’d call a rude poster. Naturally, that’s just my take, and you’re more than entitled to yours. But I still think it’s a big leap from “Ben is rude” to “I shouldn’t have answered his questions, because he’s not trustworthy.” I don’t even really know what you MEAN by him being untrustworthy. And as far as **Monty** having an AGENDA against you? I really think you’re reaching there. I think that it’s fair to say that you perturbed him in this and other threads, but that’s a far cry from him having some sort of AGENDA against you. Hell, I was even going to post to that very same thread, because I was tired of the whole “rudeness” bit. Made me think I was debating with Mr. Rogers, heh. But then I decided it’d be more constructive if I stayed out of the Pit. If I had posted, does that mean I have some agenda? No, it means I was getting frustrated. > [@](#): > > \*\*quix as for your other questions, forgive me but I’m not going further with the hijacking of my own thread. \*\* It’s your thread, and so your call, but I was of the opinion that this thread had been thoroughly hijacked, and so there was no sense in getting back to the original question. It’s not a bad thing, _per se_, as the discussion about _Judgement_ seemed to keep going back to Mr. T anyways! 🙂 \*\* > [@](#): > > You made a lot of interesting points, but to be honest I should never have introduced the subject into GD at all. To really understand how it works you have to see it in operation over the course of months and years. Don’t take this wrong, but everyone is commenting on something they’ve never seen.\*\* Well, I’ve never seen, I don’t think, a true prophecy. However, in my college years (I say it like I’m 60 instead of 22, hehe), I was in a Bible Study group/cult whose leader said that he WAS a prophet. My roommate showed him some OT verse saying, essentially, you ain’t a prophet if you’re wrong. There never really was any resolution to the issue. Now, it seems the situation with Matt is strikingly similar. And I understand that you’re very Bible literate, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to ask some questions. > [@](#): > > \*\*I see your questions as legitimate, but in this environment that Ben/Monty have created, I’m not going to continue at this time. Perhaps someday we can have a prophesy thread and have a full fledged debate over it. \*\* Hey, that sounds like a fine idea to me. Start it whenever 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\*By the way, I think you’re being overly generous by saying I made anyone ‘mad’. To be honest, I think all I did was hand some outright enemies some ammunition to use against me, and nothing more. \*\* Yeah, “mad” probably isn’t the right word… but I think you have to admit, the fallout of your misprediction wasn’t exactly neutral, as you’d earlier asserted. And now, onto the “Christians/Atheists are more persecuted” discussion. THIS is why I put “I can’t believe I’m doing this…” as my subject. I’m actually going to agree with **FriendofGod** in a qualified sense. The “atheist” side hasn’t proven that atheists are harassed more than the Christians. I haven’t seen anyone post statistics saying, “80% of Wiccans in the US have felt harassed for there beliefs, as opposed to 75% of Christians.” All the pro-Atheist crowd has done is mention a few court cases, posted a sound byte or two from G.H.W. Bush, and mentioned that shows like “Seventh Heaven” exist, whereas there is no “God isn’t Real, Deal with it” show. While these constitute evidence for the pro-Atheist side, they’re far from proof. **FriendofGod** keeps saying that he has a sense that Christians are persecuted. The pro-Atheists keep saying that his claim is ridiculous, as EVIDENCED (not proven) by X, Y, and Z. It’s silly to expect either side to have a sociological study done to either prove or disprove his original claim. So, what’s this mean? **FoGgy** , you’re allowed (IMO) to feel that Christians are persecuted. I just hope that you accept that atheists and Wiccans don’t have it all peaches and cream, either. However, you can’t state your feeling on this issue as fact. **Pro-Atheists** , you’re allowed to disagree with his claim. But I think you look petty, mean-spirited and, well, wrong when you say definitively that he is wrong, and you look even WORSE when you call him a liar (because of this particular issue, at least). Ok, good night everybody, Quix ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/154 "2001-03-19T09:28:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > **But I think you look petty, mean-spirited and, well, wrong when you say definitively that he is wrong, and you look even WORSE when you call him a liar (because of this particular issue, at least).** Bear in mind, though, that no one is calling him a liar because of his position, much as FoG might like us to believe that that’s the case. When FoG is called a liar, it’s because of what he did in trying to argue his position. To give just one example, FoG’s original claim was that Christians have much more to fear from bigotry in America than atheists and Wiccans, and even expressed outright incredulity at the idea that anyone could think otherwise. Now, however, he’s watered it down to stating the obvious: that Christians are sometimes harassed. Such a change becomes problematic when he puts words in our mouth, claiming that we are unreasonably refusing to believe that Christians ever experience harassment when in reality we disagree with his original, very different claim. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/155 "2001-03-19T23:58:18Z")
What we’re trying to say, **FoG** , is, “Climb down off the cross; we need the wood.” ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/156 "2001-03-20T01:11:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **FriendofGod** _ > > **Esprix** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > And once again you claim to be the one that knows what’s in other people’s hearts, and all about their relationship with God and Jesus Christ. > > Esprix, as you are aware, I made a very detailed point back in C&L and elsewhere that you can’t just observe _actions_ and assume what’s in a person’s heart. To continue with the race example, if someone behaves in a racist fashion, their heart could be saying “I like this. I want to be this way the rest of my life. Sign me up for the KKK!” He could also be saying, “This is awful. What a sick attitude I have. God help me change!” And no one can know the difference unless they honestly tell someone what’s in their heart. Well, unless you’ve got racist Christians pouring their hearts out to you, _all you have to go on_ is their actions, which, by your own admission above, says nothing about their relationship with Christ. Furthermore, I put it to you that even if they _were_ to personally reveal to you their innermost feelings about God and the Bible, it still wouldn’t mean anything - the only people who can define the relationship a person has with Christ is that person and God. (This, of course, extends to gay Christians as well.) You really should try to comprehend that. > [@](#): > > It’s very telling to me that you continue to raise accuasations like these when you know that I’ve addressed them. Oh, gee, what does it tell you? This I gotta hear… Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Navigator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4af34b/32.png) [@Navigator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navigator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/157 "2001-03-20T01:49:24Z")
Ben said: > [@](#): > > (IANCSL, nor do I play him on TV, nor, for that matter, have I read The Screwtape Letters. I did, however, think that this needed to be said, and borrowing Lewis’ work seemed to be the only way to effectively make the point. -Ben) Lewis’ word had Screwtape as the wiley old experienced demon and he was counseling his protege Wormwood. The darklord Satan didn’t have much of a role in the book. Besides, Brian would take offense at you taking on his nomiker so soon after his demise, shouldn’t there be a 40 day waiting/mourning period? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/158 "2001-03-20T02:55:29Z")
**quixotic78** said: > [@](#): > > I think you’re being unfair now. I’ve been lurking on SMDB since last August, and Ben is not what I’d call a rude poster. Naturally, that’s just my take, and you’re more than entitled to yours. But I still think it’s a big leap from “Ben is rude” to “I shouldn’t have answered his questions, because he’s not trustworthy.” I don’t even really know what you MEAN by him being untrustworthy. And as far as Monty having an AGENDA against you? I really think you’re reaching there. I think that it’s fair to say that you perturbed him in this and other threads, but that’s a far cry from him having some sort of AGENDA against you. Hell, I was even going to post to that very same thread, because I was tired of the whole “rudeness” bit. Made me think I was debating with Mr. Rogers, heh. But then I decided it’d be more constructive if I stayed out of the Pit. If I had posted, does that mean I have some agenda? No, it means I was getting frustrated. Well, I can see your point, but I can say this, I didn’t make that statement lightly after reading one or two posts. Both Ben and Monty have deliberately ignored my very clearly stated explanations of how I see prophesy working from the scriptures. Obviously they disagree, but rather than doing the honorable thing and saying, ‘We dont agree with you but thanks for clearing up where you’re coming from’, they keep on with their attacks and continue hurtling insults like ‘false prophet’, ‘liar’, etc. They don’t even try to hide their judgmentalism. I might be wrong that they have an agenda but to me they’ve done a darn good job of making it seem like they do. Constructive criticism and disagreements are cool, personal attacks are not. quix, I’ve seen Ben personally attack me in the past, which is why I felt stupid for even getting in a discussion with him. I am a big believer in respecting yourself enough that you don’t give anyone the time of day if they attack you like Ben and Monty have. > [@](#): > > It’s your thread, and so your call, but I was of the opinion that this thread had been thoroughly hijacked, and so there was no sense in getting back to the original question. It’s not a bad thing, per se, as the discussion about Judgement seemed to keep going back to Mr. T anyways! Were you the one who said you were a Mr. T fan ?! I have to say Mr. T is entertaining but not the best actor … his storyline in this movie is unfortunately kinda the weak link in the movie. Hey if you like Mr. T you’ll love this. My brother has the DVD of Judgment and we were watching the ‘Making Of’ segment the other night. They showed several bloopers, including this deliberate one: Mr. T is sitting down talking with two street kids and is trying to coax them to help him on a mission. One of the kids says, ‘Who do you think we are, the A Team?’ Mr T tries to maintain his composure then he busts out laughing! It was really pretty hilarious. Hey quix, do you think you’re going to see the movie? I have this feeling you might really enjoy it. You seem to like looking at both sides of issues and this movie does a good job of doing that. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ve never seen, I don’t think, a true prophecy. However, in my college years (I say it like I’m 60 instead of 22, hehe), I was in a Bible Study group/cult whose leader said that he WAS a prophet. My roommate showed him some OT verse saying, essentially, you ain’t a prophet if you’re wrong. There never really was any resolution to the issue. Now, it seems the situation with Matt is strikingly similar. And I understand that you’re very Bible literate, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to ask some questions. As I’ve said your questions strike me as very very sincere. I am very Bible literate, but here’s one principle I follow: there are places in the Bible that appear to contradict (ie: “hate your parents to follow Christ” vs “love your neighbor to follow Christ”). When that happens, there are sometimes some of the richest Bible truths hidden in there. Anyway, as I said earlier in the thread, based on _my_ studies at least, the Bible teaches that a NT-time period prophet is 100% different from an OT-time period prophet, who did indeed have to have a perfect track record. But I’m digressing again. As I said, maybe we can do a full thread someday. > [@](#): > > Yeah, “mad” probably isn’t the right word… but I think you have to admit, the fallout of your misprediction wasn’t exactly neutral, as you’d earlier asserted. Well it was _really_ stupid on my part to do it, and sure it had consequences. > [@](#): > > The “atheist” side hasn’t proven that atheists are harassed more than the Christians. Exactly, although in reality I think Dr J and others got their debates mixed up. I gave a final word on the ‘who is harassed more’ issue back in ‘Christians the Persecuted Minority’ and said I’d learned more about how atheists think, etc. The issue they seem to keep raising is the ‘have Christians been portrayed negatively in the media’ issue. > [@](#): > > While these constitute evidence for the pro-Atheist side, they’re far from proof … It’s silly to expect either side to have a sociological study done to either prove or disprove his original claim. _EXACTLY_ and that is the only point I’ve been trying to make. > [@](#): > > FoGgy, you’re allowed (IMO) to feel that Christians are persecuted. I just hope that you accept that atheists and Wiccans don’t have it all peaches and cream, either. Certainly! That’s what I realized in the ‘persecuted minority’ thread. > [@](#): > > However, you can’t state your feeling on this issue as fact. I don’t expect anyone to believe me because I say it’s true, but at the same time I have to say it’s not just a ‘feeling’ on my part. It’s based on reading and observing things for 20 years. It’s something that I certainly think is factual. I don’t know what else to call it. > [@](#): > > Pro-Atheists, you’re allowed to disagree with his claim. I agree 100%. To be completely honest, I was surprised that anyone disagreed with it. But if someone does disagree, I would expect them to want evidence and since I haven’t provided any, I don’t blame them for disagreeing. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/159 "2001-03-20T03:13:31Z")
Just to make sure that FoG is aware of his Christian duties: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=64053](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=64053) -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069/160 "2001-03-20T03:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > \*\*Both Ben and Monty have deliberately ignored my very clearly stated explanations of how I see prophesy working from the scriptures. \*\* FoG, how on earth can you expect anyone to believe that? I actually _thanked_ you for your explanation, and you level yet another false accusation against me! -Ben [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-movie-that-might-change-your-life-or-at-least-make-you-think/57069.md?page=9)