All Dogs Go to Heaven...
But not homosexuals.Or divorced people.
Or people who masturbate.
You see according to many people, a dog has a better chance of getting into heaven than anyone that professes Christ and then continues in a "lifestyle" of sin.... whatever the hell that means. These hell-bound sinners include people who have proclaimed faith in Christ and then come out as homosexuals, or go through a divorce, or I guess, masturbate.
Listen, I am no theologian and nor will I profess to know and understand (or be willing to necessarily debate) the ins and outs of the Bible. I will leave that to many of you who enjoy and excel at that sort of thing.
I am just trying to figure out how some "church people" or those that call themselves "Christians" can say they know for certain based on any interpretation of the Bible who's in and who's out.
As I have said before and will probably say again.... we just don't know. That is, with the exception of our canine friends...unless they happen to masturbate too.
posted by Steve at
6/28/2006
33 Comments:
I have seen my neutered dog try to work his mojo with another male neutered dog. I guess he cant go to heaven either.
hugs and kisses,
DSW
My two male dogs are constantly engaged in homoerotic play. I laugh my ass off when they do.
My dogs and I will burn together.
Wait, wait, wait...If all dogs go to heaven and all dogs, at least the one's I've seen, lick them selves, then the only way to masturbate and go to heaven is to manually stimulate one's self orally.
That reminds me, I need to sign up for a yoga class.
Q. Why do dogs lick their wieners?
A. Because they can.
I'm a dog.
My wife keeps telling me that.
I am just trying to figure out how some "church people" or those that call themselves "Christians" can say they know for certain based on any interpretation of the Bible who's in and who's out.
Me too. But I've got to say that just recently I've encountered some "non stupid church people", calling themselves "Christians", who seem pretty certain that according to their interpretation of the Bible, Benny Hinn & Paul Crouch et al must be on the 'out' list.
Hey Scott, I think you may be on to something. Maybe that explains the wearing of Dog Collars for clergy?
Geesh Sheildsy... you are being somewhat vague... what "non stupid church people" that call themselves "Christians" are you referring too?
Did you by chance mean me??
If so... please point to ANYTHING I have written or said that made an interpretation that Benny Hinn & Paul Crouch et al is on the OUT list?
Also... when have I EVER said that I was a NON-stupid church person. Actually I continually say quite the opposite.
And... I do say I am a Christian, but I have very little knowledge as to whether I am in or not. I hope so, but I do not know.
Finally, I do believe that I should add.... the ONLY people group that Jesus repeatedly seemed to make it very clear might be out are those that made the claim to be in and went around claiming to know the rules and guidelines about how to tell if one was in or not.
I honestly wasn't thinking of you specifically Steve, but if the hat fits then feel free to wear it! ;o)
Fair call, in the brief time I've been around annoying you you have never claimed to be "non stupid". However the whole tone of the site is about "them" (i.e. people not including you) not "us". Though in fairness your tone is a whole lot more gracious than Josh's.
Certaintity of being a Christian ... that's a whole other subject!
Jesus' criticism of the Pharisee's ... only problem is that everyone thinks that they're not the ones being the pharisees! See, from my perspective a lot of stuff on this site (Josh's blog primarily) is vey Phariseeical ... casting scorn/doubt/judgement on peoples ministries, demanding 'proofs', more than a whiff of inverted self-righteousness. It's just as possible to be a liberal/emergent/'choose your own label' pharisee as much as a conservative one.
Thous shalt not judge anyone, thou shalt not be certain about anything, thou shalt not allow others to think they can be either, thou shalt not tell people they are wrong (unless they say that you can be wrong) ... it can all become a strange sort of legalism too.
Hmmm, am I going off at a tangent ... not sure!
When I was about 13 (a long, long time ago!) my best friend who was Catholic wanted me to join the Church. When I found out I wasn't supposed to play with my weenie anymore I told him "I don't think so dude!" (or something like that!). He later informed me that "Father (somebody) says you will go to hell if you keep on masturbating!". I thought about that for a while and finally came to the conclusion that it would be worth it!
Shieldsy, I would say that my impression of StupidChurchPeople is that they are completely self-effacing. They have claimed themselves (as I am) to be totally church addicted and broken people. I think you should go back and listen to earlier podcast and read older blogs. Agreed, lately they have made specific instances of StupidChurchPeople acting stupidly. Though I may hope not to be lumped in with Binny Hinn, the fact is I may well side by side with him when it comes time to enter heaven (or hell).
That being said, I actually feel more compelled to call my fellow Christians stupid, than I would a non-believer. I think it may have to do with ego. We both share the name “Christian” after all. To prevent the embarrassment that comes with a family member acting stupid, I will criticize, berate, and throw my little hissy fits. Feel free to ignore.
Shieldsy... I know... I know....
But we could go round and round here now....couldn't we...
Now you are calling Josh's blog Phariseeical.... but aren't you now being a Pharisee too. Judging him as much as he judges others?
So is it Phariseeical to cast doubt or require proof? Is it being a Phariseeical to ask for support to back up the extraordinary claims of others? In the case of Hinn, Crouch and TBN, I can point to many sources that are skeptical and have been also critical of what they do and have provided research to back it up. No one says TBN or Hinn might reach people or do some good (as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day), but by and large their are many people...not just us... that say they are... well... questionable "ministries" and possibly not worth placing your charitable donations into their coffers.
When it comes to pointing out the stupidity in everyday Christians (as I did Richard in a previous post), there's a difference in calling someone stupid and saying that because of this behavior or that behavior they aren't going to heaven. On Josh' post about the tulsa guy... it's one thing to loudly proclaim for him to back up his claims that he has "done greater miracles than that of the Bible".... but never did Josh and I prescribe a way of behavior or rules he should follow to be certain of "getting into heaven". We never questioned his salvation... yet he questioned ours because according to him, we weren't "doing anything" or "getting people saved".
However the whole tone of the site is about "them" (i.e. people not including you) not "us".
I couldn't disagree more. THat is not the "whole" tone of this site. Have we talked about "them"... yes... it that the whole tone... no.
If you look back at Josh's blog prior to these recent posts, he is much more intorspective on his own failings, much more so than I am. And even when I have pointed out the "them stupid church people" I have generally included myself. Am I disappointed and critical of others... yes... but when I do so or take that tone, I don't think I have to defend that. I have been in places of leadership within the church, I have been in different types of churches as a member and as a pastor... I feel I am qualified to speak and be critical of the things we do as church people that need to be challenged or modified. I think I am qualified to talk about the stupid within the church.... cause I was not only a club member, I was once the club president.
Yeah, so... what's your agenda? 'Cause if we don't have to be worked up about homosexuals standing in the way of Christ, then we don't have to be worried about Stupid Church People standing in the way of Christ, either.
I liked that crazy lady you interviewed a while back. Now SHE knew how to take a stand for something! You gotta respect that.
'Cause if we don't have to be worked up about homosexuals standing in the way of Christ, then we don't have to be worried about Stupid Church People standing in the way of Christ, either.
We don't?
'Cause I have stood in the way of Christ many times when I was a Pastor that had an agenda.
Isn't that like saying an ant got in the way of my car on my way to work this morning?
The way I see it, if Christians screw things up, the stones have it covered.
Isn't that like saying an ant got in the way of my car on my way to work this morning?
Yes... and no.... depending on whether you truly believe that church people view Pastors as ants or not... I think they tend to put them on a pedestal a bit more than that. That compounds the things that pastors mess up.
It's a bit like playing Whack-a-Mole, isn't it, Steve? ;)
Exactly Nun... you read my mind.
LOL. Good whacking Steve :oP
This thread has come full circle, we're back to whacking it...
Steve, I recommend that we go back to ignoring the detractors...It seems to me that they're just a bunch of attention whores in the same vein as the money whore TV preachers.
The bottom line is this, they will not change their minds (they have the power of Gawd behind them); so debating is futile, that is, unless you like playing whack a mole. But remember this, over the long haul you never get more than your token’s worth of tickets when you play whack a mole. In fact, you get less; that’s how the system is set up.
What happened to the safe place where we could discuss stuff without having to fight all of the time?
I miss it.
Recall from a previous discussion:
Shieldsy said...
I don't like your blog or agree with what you say or the way you say it.
Anyone else out there want to help me shut it down with a good old sustained DoS attack?
DOS is short for denial-of-service attack, a type of attack on a network that is designed to bring the network to its knees by flooding it with useless traffic.
This is usually done in a technical manner by having computers ping the server repeatedly but blogger is robust so it doesn't work as well here. However, an old fashion way of doing it is to send a bunch of goons over to argue so that the people who generally show up there get frustrated and leave. I've seen this happen on another site, I'd hate to see it happen here.
Now, I know this sounds a bit paranoid. I may be wrong...
Well, I'm done taking shit like that from people. I've been a doormat for too long. Time to take a stand against the El Guapos of the world who think it's their job to be the morality police on the internet.
This is my friends' house (Steve and Josh's, that is); I feel safe here, the owners seem to like me okay, and I will not stand to see someone come in and take a crap all over it. If you do this, you are nothing more than an internet vandal. We don't swim in your toilet, so don't pee in our pool.
The people of Santo Poco will overcome! Long live the The Church of the Holy Burrito! Viva la Stupid Church People!
you should list some kind of article or something from someone who is mildly credible that states that dogs go to heaven and homosexuals, divorced people and people who masturbate don't.
then i might believe that someone actually said that...unless your exagerrating, then i think you might be a divorced, masturbating homosexual (whose has never owned a pet). i'm torn.
wow steve, I leave for a little while and I walk in on this conversation. It is good to see so many people dialogging on your site.
Hey Chris Lewis, you are wrong about Steve... He has owned a pet.
Steve, I recommend...
Chill, Scott. It's not about you. People visit this blog because they're interested in what Steve thinks. I'm happy for you if you don't need the debate, but many of us are still searching for answers.
/sorry for the third post./
I agree with Nun - if reading a blog gets your panties in a wad...piss off.
People visit this blog because they're interested in what Steve thinks.
That's a frightening thought isn't it. :-)
/sorry for the third post./
That's ok... we won't charge you this time.
Scott: I personally think that if we aren't dialoguing or creating discussion (and even a little heated interaction from time to time), then I shouldn't have a blog or ever comment on another site again.
Sure, there are people in and around these parts that will not ever "change their minds"... but that isn't the goal for me. Sometimes my goal is to simply say what's on my mind or heart, other times its to evoke a reponse, and sometimes it's to challenge people to consider another viewpoint or way of approaching things... we can't always agree... now what fun would that be.
It's the differences of opinion and diversity of experiences that cause us to grow.
I have learned my words are powerless anyway. But wait, that's another post I am working on... can't give it away for free here.
There's a difference, however, between having a heated debate/some disagreement, and questioning someone's salvation or threatening to shut them down, or even just telling them you don't agree with how they run their website.
That would be like the difference between me having a heated debate at a party Steve is throwing (which is kinda how I view stupidchurchpeople), and telling Steve I disagree with the kind of party he's thrown (even tho' I bothered to show up). I think that's what Scott was really getting at, as evidenced by his follow-up comment.
Steve - I've been frustrated lately about the direction of some of the disussion on a number of blogs, especially by dissenters (and have commented about it) but after reading your last comment, I am reminded that communicating isn't always about changing someone's mind or accomplishing a specific result...thanks.
Hey Scott, sorry you feel like that. And, yes, I think you are being a little paranoid. Any increase in 'detractors' is purely coincidence and nothing conspiratorial (at least I'm not party to it if there is).
The quote of mine you use from a thread in Josh's blog demonstrates the danger of quoting things out of context. It was a sarcastic parody of Josh's post (which said more or less the same thing as I did but in reference to TBN & Hinn). I'm glad that you and the other regular posters all jumped to the defence, because it served to illustrate the point I was making ... i.e. you get all defensive and protective towards a blog you feel an affinity to, but you just don't seem to grasp that that is how thousands (millions?) feel about those ministries Josh was slagging off in the most vulgar terms. Recommend that people read the rest of the relevant thread to get the full picture (including my apology for the tone of my post).
My understanding of Blogs is that they are published publicly so that the public can read and comment. That's what I do. As I've said elsewhere, I come to this particular blog because it deals with things I'm interested in but has views and opinions I wouldn't normally encounter or agree with. I don't come to 'pick a fight' but I do come here to challenge & be challenged. A couple of times it's all got a bit petty and personal, but I don't think that us 'detractors' are the only ones guilty of that or even the worst offenders. So long as there continues to be comments & criticisms about some of the people & principles I hold dear then I' ll do my best to defend them. If that makes me an "attention whore" then Steve must be my pimp!
The chances of me having my mind completely changed by the stuff I read here is about as likely as yours is to be by reading the comments of the 'detractors' i.e. slim to non-existent. Adults rarely change their minds, especially through debate with complete strangers (which is one reason I choose to work with kids!). But there is value in debate & discussion ... even if it just means people having to think through and articulate the reasoning for their viewpoint. Personally I thought we'd had some pretty good 'discussions' actually. Hey, I've even been in agreement on a couple of occasions. My 'Good Whacking' comment to Steve was a genuine compliment for the quality of his responses to me and the other guy on this thread.
Ironically, comments to the effect of "I liked it when it was small and intimate" sound like something that people say just before they leave an emerging mega-church!! If this site is meant to be a 'closed community' for a like minded group of friends then I'm more than happy to butt out, but wouldn't it make more sense to have some sort of members only set-up rather than an internationally accessible public blog? If the site gets more traffic and consequently more 'detractors' commenting, Steve & Josh might have to consider doing moderated comments, or maybe a policy of complete 'non-response' as you advocate. Strongly suspect that if it isn't me 'detracting' then you'll start to encounter more like me as your site comes to the attention of more and more people.
Sorry, long serious post!
Word to the mother:
ninjanun said...
There's a difference, however, between having a heated debate/some disagreement, and questioning someone's salvation or threatening to shut them down, or even just telling them you don't agree with how they run their website.
...I think that's what Scott was really getting at, as evidenced by his follow-up comment.
Steve, Shieldsy, and the rest of the international community:
My comments seemed to have struck a nerve. I'd like to summarize and reiterate my points:
I like discussion/debate/arguing.
I don't like being told I'm wrong, going to hell, and a disappointment to our lord for my thoughts and ideas (I get enough of that at church).
Like Ninjanun, I'd prefer to hold this discussion in a safe environment because I'm not exactly sure about all of this stuff yet.
I don't want to formalize the posting system; I would prefer just to ignore those who come in here throwing insults with the desire to beat us down with the bible.
Steve,
I've been struggling with the church, my faith, and the day to day reality of being a believer who thinks. I have found very few people in my local area who share that struggle. SCP has been another contact or channel to express these thoughts and I would hate to see it turn into a continual bar brawl where I constantly have to watch my back. I much prefer it be a few friends sitting around sharing some beers (or girly drinks as the case may be) and shooting the shit. As for me, I'll ignore the loud, obnoxious bikers at the other end of the bar...
Hey everyone....
Just to make it clear... my hope is that SCP will become what you want it to be.
I agree with Sheildsy in this regard... it is not our desire here at SCP to create a community where only those that agree with us are welcome. That would be the ultimate in hypocrisy on our part. Here we are expressing our opinions freely, but we censor those that take issue with us??
And Scott... you can ignore those bikers at the end of the bar if you wish, but I absolutely, positively enjoy dialoguing with people that are vastly different from me... and want to offer me a different perspective on life. I don't have to argue even if they seem to want to.. and if they try and pick a fight or push my buttons, I can choose to walk away or stand up for myself. The choice is mine... but building bridges is much better than putting up walls in my opinion. But to each his own and I don't condemn you for either position... please use and take from SCP whatever you need to assist you on your journey. Let's watch each others back... and I have a feeling that Sheildsy (or the bikers) will even surprise you by watching yours from time to time.
If we don't like being told we are going to hell, a disappointment to God, etc... then we need to choose our own ways to deal with it. Sometimes I ignore and sometimes I swing back... I pick and choose depending on my energy to deal with it at the time.
And Sheildsy.... we'll never close the doors to this bar. It's always open. Much of what you wrote captured the heart of our site... we are hear for everyone, we are non-exclusive... we can dish it and take it (well we better be able to).
I have said it before and I will say it again.... I wish the church (and SCP) could handle their differences like the pickup basketball games I used to play at the park. You would get out there and play hard, scrap, push and shove, get knocked down and knock people down, cuss at each other, stand up to each other.... all in the name of giving and getting respect. And everyone hated to lose. But at the end, you'd shake hands, give each other the proper respect due to them for playing the game, and then walk off and leave it all on the court. Until the next game where it would all happen again... I miss that shit.
I don't think my dog masturbated before he died. I sure hope not. He was a glutton though. So now I hope that smart people who know who is or isn't going to hell refrain from telling me if my dog is in hell because he was a glutton. He may also have been a wine bibber....or something like that.
aren't all dogs horny gluttons?
I've been reading Shieldsy and Steve's debate about debate. Debates about debating are always pretty funny. (not making fun) I find that you both agree on the same things, but it seems to be more of a territorial thing than anything. (speaking of dogs)
"you're being a pharisee!"
"no, you're the pharisee!"
I know the context of that paraphrasing is poking fun just bit, but I'm allowed some pigheadedness since, you know, I'm a fucked up human and all.
(the following is all IMHRO): r = righteous.
Humans are constantly seeking control of their own lives. Some try to get control of their lives by controlling others. The plight of an honest man (or woman) is to give control to God (or, be obediant to the morality and rules that he most assuredly created for our well-being). In order to do so, we have to STOP trying to control everything. So, if you think I'm telling you what to do right now, tell me to shut the fuck up. I mean it. Tell me to suck my own dick. ok ok don't do that. That would piss me off a little.
It seems like the ultimate paradox. Stop controlling, be controlled, and you'll have that shit (peace) you were looking for. I find that the people that piss me off the most are the ones telling me that they have the answer. FUCK THEM. No one has the answer. Not me OR you. Or anybody. I'm not talking to anyone right now. I'm just saying that control has nothing to do with virtue. Someone seeing and controlling what I do, (including wanting me to smile at them etc.) involves a weakness in THEM. Rest assured that I don't care if someone smiles at me anymore. Because a person's facial expression is NOT virtuous. The only thing truthful and virtuous is truth, whatever that is.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against smiles, or even fake smiles. I'd prefer someone smiling sure. But I don't hedge my bets on someone else's smiley face. I guess I'm criticizing comedians now more than pastors. But, I've felt that comedians were more honest and less of demagogues than pastors. Comedians actually care if their crowd likes their shtick. (good ones do at least) The best comedians or pastors are always the ones that expose truth in a self-degradating, all-inclusive, likeable manner.
I was watching Dave Chapelle last night on the Anderson Cooper show and was blown away. I wish Dave Chapelle was a preacher, because he's as humble a "speaker" as I've seen.
I'm truly, truly rambling. bye.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home