Anthony Bourdain In Hell?

No man knows. But it's not unlikely

By William M Briggs Published on June 12, 2018

Hell exists. The unrepentant go there. By all accounts, and from the man’s own pen, Anthony Bourdain was unrepentant. Therefore, Anthony Bourdain is in Hell.

Or perhaps purgatory (which Catholics and other Christians believe is like the cleansing room at the entrance to heaven). Or maybe even Heaven itself. For though the argument above is perfectly valid, it is not necessarily sound. Missing from it is the premise that it is God, and God alone, who judges. Since God knows all, and we know but little, there could be any number of reasons God chose to show Bourdain mercy. Let us pray He did.

On the other hand, if we insert the premise of God’s potential mercy, we still are forced to conclude: Based on what we know, it’s likely Anthony Bourdain is in Hell.

Now this is an unpleasant thought. Indeed, there is none more unpleasant. It is an awful, sickening thing to contemplate. The mind reels, and does its best to refuse to grasp the point. Why? Because we all know it could be our own fate we have in mind. Which is well. It is why St. Paul advised “with fear and trembling work out your salvation.”

Tweet Storm

Such thoughts were probably on the mind of David Leavitt (who is no conservative), who tweeted, “If you’re religious, then you believe there’s a special place in hell or purgatory for people like Anthony Bourdain who take their own lives.”

This, unfortunately, and with the same qualification about God’s mercy, is also true. Suicide in many cases, as the Catholic Encyclopedia writes, “constitutes a grave injustice towards” God. Since the act is final, there is no chance to beg forgiveness.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Leavitt was careful not to claim to know definitively Bourdain is in Hell. But, again, it’s not unlikely.

To say that people did not like hearing this is like saying Vlad the Impaler was displeased with Transylvania’s Saxons.

Many took the attitude that it was Leavitt, or Christians in general, who put Bourdain in Hell. This accounts for Matthew Stone’s article in Patheos: “Christians Claim Atheist Anthony Bourdain Is Burning In Hell.

Stone calls himself a “secular humanist,” which like Bourdain, signals an unwillingness to seek redemption. He said, “There is no heaven, and there is no hell. Death is final, and that is tragedy enough. There is no afterlife.”

They said what?

Stone took exception to Leavitt’s tweet, and to tweets made by other Christians. Including some by the notorious Westboro Baptist Church.

That group is not known for their subtlety or in their accuracy in relating scripture. But in this case they said:

After lapping up the goods of this world — with no observable evidence that he sought and served God — Anthony Bourdain most likely faces a sorrowful and hopeless eternity in Hell. Oh, don’t follow him!!! #ServeGodAndLive #WhyWillYouDie

There is nothing wrong in that. And nothing in poor taste, either.

Somebody calling himself John Garcia shouted, “FEEL SORRY FOR FAMILY BUT BY HIM DOING WHAT HE DID HE WILL BURN IN HELL. UNLESS HE ASKED FOR GOD FORGIVENESS.” True, too.

To take glee in the real possibility of Bourdain’s awful fate is to imply God did not desire salvation for the man. And that is never true for anybody.

But there were some folks who were too sure of themselves. Many said Bourdain was certainly “burning in Hell.” Some even appeared to take pleasure in this judgment. Stone called them out for “wallowing in their deplorable schadenfreude.”

Even if Bourdain is in Hell, no one should take pleasure in the thought. It is off-putting to non-Christians because it doesn’t remind them that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” To take glee in the real possibility of Bourdain’s awful fate is to imply God did not desire salvation for the man. And that is never true for anybody.

Cheering this man’s probable end is too close to the sin of presumption. It smacks of the implication that God won’t apply his judgment to you because you don’t “deserve” Hell. Which all of us do.

A Painful Truth

Still, it’s not the wrong time to bring up the awkward and uncomfortable truth that Hell is what awaits those who shun God. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).

It was Jesus himself, our Lord, who warned us what the parable of the weeds meant. “The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

So, let’s pray fervently for the eternal destiny of everyone, and then trust them to the mercy of God. 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • johnnysc

    “Death is final, and that is tragedy enough. There is no afterlife.”

    Then what is tragic about it?

  • swordfish

    It’s frankly laughable that grown men and women actually believe in such obviously fabricated nonsense.

    • Paul

      Maybe you’ll have the opportunity to discuss it with Anthony for a very long time.

      • swordfish

        Paul and Jackie applaud the idea of fellow human beings who have done nothing particularly wrong suffering forever at the hands of a (supposedly) all-loving God.

        • Ken Abbott

          “Nothing particularly wrong.”

          Swordfish, your problem is twofold: You don’t really know who God is and you don’t really know who you are. Once you have an accurate apprehension of the character of God and the character of man, many things fall into place.

          • newguy40

            No kidding. Great response, my friend.

            Perhaps a good start for swordfish would be an on line Baltimore catechism. Or, visit local parish and find a good priest to talk it over.

          • Kathy

            God’s Word itself would be totally sufficient…2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Psalm 19:7:10. Talking with anyone who believes that and strictly adheres to it would be most helpful.

            However, swordfish must first quit fighting, relinquish his firm grasp of perceived control over his life and realize his need as we all must do. As we know, it’s not always easy, but so worth it.

          • Perrier

            Both.

          • swordfish

            Things have fallen into place for me since I realised that God doesn’t exist.

            The character of God as outlined in the Bible is that of a petty and rather stupid monster. For example: Allowing the fall of man, murdering almost everyone and every living thing in the world due to our being ‘evil’, (including children and animals?), having a system of infinite punishment for finite and often trivial sins, waiting for thousands of years before sending Jesus, communicating his message via a badly written book which condones slavery and rape, not communicating his message to billions of people just because they’re born in the wrong place and/or time, allowing evil and suffering, demanding that people worship him (why?), punishing people for committing suicide. I could go on.

          • Ken Abbott

            “I could go on.” I’m glad you didn’t–that would be compounding error upon regrettable error. What you have outlined above is barely recognizable to anyone familiar with the full breadth and depth and scope of the biblical description of the character and creative/redemptive work of God. In fact, the only way one could accept such a description as you have provided is to understand with sympathy that it was perceived through lenses dirtied and marred by hatred, anger, and bitterness. No one would worship such a wretched divinity as you claim to have found; the fact that untold millions do, in fact, worship with joy and gladness the God revealed in creation and Scripture is evidence in itself that your portrait is disfigured almost beyond recognition (I use the qualifier “almost” because there are facts here and there that have a glimmer of truth, although they are painted in the most jaundiced terms possible).

            “Give to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering, and come before him. Oh, worship the LORD in the beauty of his holiness.” (1 Chronicles 16:29) God, in all goodness and truth, is ineffably beautiful. “All goodness finds its definition in his character…the measure of goodness. At the same time, the Scriptures speak about God as the author, source, and foundation of all truth. In the same way and in the same dimension, the Scriptures speak about the beauty of God.” (R. C. Sproul) The ancient triad of the good, the true, and the beautiful all find their ultimate and final and complete manifestation in the God Who Is. The greatest experience imaginable for any creature will be beholding the beatific vision, to bask in the refulgent glory of God and to see him as he truly is, dazzling the eye and delighting the heart and mind beyond our current capacity to comprehend.

          • swordfish

            “there are facts here and there that have a glimmer of truth, although they are painted in the most jaundiced terms possible”

            Well, I did write it in a bit of a rush, so maybe I got some of it wrong. Let’s go over it again:

            “Allowing the fall of man,”

            Well, that’s true. An omnipotent God doesn’t let a talking snake into his perfect garden by accident.

            “murdering almost everyone and every living thing in the world due to our being ‘evil’,”

            Also true assuming you believe in Noah’s Ark.

            “having a system of infinite punishment for finite and often trivial sins,”

            True. It’s called hell.

            “waiting for thousands of years before sending Jesus,”

            True. If science is right and we evolved, Jesus waited for hundreds of thousands of years. No hope for those millions of sinners.

            “communicating his message via a badly written book which condones slavery and rape,”

            True. The fact that there are so many Christian denominations and sects proves that the Bible’s message is confused. And it does condone slavery and conquest rape.

            “not communicating his message to billions of people just because they’re born in the wrong place and/or time,”

            True. Billions have never heard the Christian message even today. There was an article about it here in The Stream not long ago.

            “allowing evil and suffering,”

            True. The Problem of Evil.

            “demanding that people worship him (why?),”

            True. It’s the first commandment.

            “punishing people for committing suicide.”

            True. See the above article.

          • Ken Abbott

            “Allowing the fall of man.” Would you rather that free agency had been abolished from the start?

            “murdering almost everyone…” When all are guilty of a capital crime, the Judge of all the earth (and the Imparter of life to begin with–that which he gives he is fully within his rights to take away) executes just judgment. That any were spared at all was of grace.

            “communicating his message…” A common misunderstanding of the development of denominations. Practically all of them can be accounted for on the basis of polity differences and the recipients of the sacraments. As to the supposed confusion of Scripture’s message, I counter with the doctrine of perspicuity (clarity), which maintains that the Scriptures are abundantly clear on the essentials of salvation.

            “not communicating his message…” To the contrary, a foundational teaching of Christianity is general revelation, or the testimony of creation to the reality of God. That so many choose not to see it is “credited” to their willful suppression of the truth in unrighteousness. Furthermore, as all are created in God’s image, all have an awareness of his reality (what Reformed theologians have termed the “sensus divinitatis”) and his law written on the human heart. But again our sin mars and derails our apprehension of these things.

            “allowing evil and suffering…” And yet the unbeliever has an even greater problem with the reality of evil. At least Christianity has an answer for it.

            “demanding that people worship him…” As is only fitting. God alone is worthy of worship, and given his being and action as creator and constant provider, worship is due him. Withholding worship from God is the same as robbing him.

            “punishing people for committing suicide.” To the best of my knowledge, that is a minority view in Christianity. It is certainly not termed unforgivable in Scripture.

            I look forward to your reflections on the second half of my post from two days ago that provided a much more rounded-out view of God as revealed in his word than the rather distorted one you provided.

          • swordfish

            “Would you rather that free agency had been abolished from the start?”

            If by ‘free agency’ you mean free will, then I don’t think we have such a thing, or even that it makes any sense as a concept. In any case, we’re severely linited by what we can choose to do anyway – is our free agency limited because we’re unable to kill people hundreds of miles away by telekinisis? In other words, there are lots of bad things we can’t choose to do but no one complains that that limits our free agency.

            “When all are guilty of a capital crime”

            Small children are guilty of a capital crime carried out by someone else? And how are animals guilty?

            “the Scriptures are abundantly clear on the essentials of salvation.”

            No they are not. Jesus didn’t even give consistent answers on how to enter the Kingdom of heaven.

            “To the contrary, a foundational teaching of Christianity is general revelation, or the testimony of creation to the reality of God.”

            Sorry, but that’s nowhere near sufficient. How were people supposed to accept the scriptures before they were written, or if they’ve never seen them?

            “At least Christianity has an answer for [evil].”

            Christianity has an answer based around non-existent free will, which doesn’t explain the existence of things like earthquakes.

            “Withholding worship from God is the same as robbing him.”

            Of what?

            “To the best of my knowledge, that is a minority view in Christianity. It is certainly not termed unforgivable in Scripture.”

            LOL. Did you read the article and look through the comments? Maybe those scriptures aren’t as clear as you claim they are.

            “I look forward to your reflections on the second half of my post from two days ago that provided a much more rounded-out view of God as revealed in his word than the rather distorted one you provided.”

            I have no reflections on it as it had no real content.

          • Ken Abbott

            1) Free agency or free will is generally meant to indicate the ability to act according to one’s desires within the constraints of one’s nature, absent any contrary force. No one has seriously defined it as the ability to do anything one might wish to do regardless of circumstances.

            2) Death is the consequence of sin. All have sinned. Because the first man was the federal representative of all mankind and the viceroy over all creation, when he fell he brought all down with him and creation was made subject to the curse.

            3) The message of salvation *is* clear: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. This is stated in more or less the same words in several places in the NT, especially where the gospel is being proclaimed. Expansion on it is readily found in the epistles.

            4) According to the Scriptures themselves, God’s testimony in creation is more than adequate; the problem is that sinful men are liars and self-deceivers, willfully suppressing the truth because they will not have God in their thinking.

            5) Refusing to worship or acknowledge God with gratitude and thanksgiving robs him of the glory and honor due him. By analogy, there are certain things owed a sovereign ruler by his subjects (and I’m not talking taxes here); if they fail to provide those, he is justly offended. The grandeur and majesty and beauty of God (all of those things you dismiss at the end of the last post as contentless) demand our response in worship.

            6) Perhaps *you* ought to re-read Mr. Briggs’s article. Nowhere does he say that it was Anthony Bourdain’s suicide that condemned him to hell; rather it was his evident unbelief that apart from the grace and mercy of God would put him there. I can’t speak to the comments of others. Unless you want to force suicide into the category of the unforgivable sin (which correct methods of interpretation would prevent you from doing with success), the Bible does not state that those who commit suicide are irredeemably condemned.

        • Paul

          I never applaud it, merely making an observation.

        • swordfish

          Edit: Also thanks to Miss A and newguy40 for wishing harm on others.

    • Sigelitedark

      Please prove that it is “fabricated nonsense”.

      • Ken Abbott

        Swordfish rejects the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and the credibility of the Bible. It suits his purposes to think of such things as made up.

        • swordfish

          Just to be clear, it doesn’t ‘suit my purposes’ to disbelieve in God, it’s just a fact that I disbelieve in God.

          • Ken Abbott

            Exactly. Will, purpose. You will not have God in your thinking. That’s purpose.

          • swordfish

            You can’t say “exactly” then completely disagree with me (-: Do you will yourself to disbelieve in fairies, or do you just disbelieve in fairies?

          • Ken Abbott

            How can I just disbelieve in fairies if I don’t will, purpose, or choose to do so? Is my disbelief determined for me? Is it a matter of randomness? Is it a default that I have never acted to change?

          • swordfish

            “Is it a default that I have never acted to change?”

            Basically, yes.

      • swordfish

        I can’t prove that it is fabricated any more than I can prove that Narnia is fabricated, but the fact that there is no evidence for either place outside of a book should raise a reasonable doubt.

        • Sigelitedark

          Actually the evidence is all around you; however, your blind faith in a null hypothesis leaves you oblivious to it and leaves you to wallow in aimless hopelessness.

          • Miss A

            “Aimless hopelessness ” I love that! I’ve been thinking about that today. In the atheist world view there is no hope and that this evil world is all there is. That outlook makes want to end it.

          • swordfish

            I expect that when I die, it will be the end, but that doesn’t equate to hopelessness at all. All good things come to an end, but that doesn’t devalue such things, it makes them more valuable. Also, this article is about hell – how does the imagined existence of such a place give hope?

          • Beth Van

            I pray that someday you will be able to open your heart, and your mind, to God, and that by doing so you will come to understand what Christian faith is and why we have hope.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            hahahhah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Hannah

            “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” From a purely selfish viewpoint, why would you want to even risk that? It defies logic to spurn the offer of eternal life in favor of a nihilistic worldview. Judging by your answers given above, you would rather live with the belief that you’ll die permanently, both body and soul, than lend creedence to the notion that Nature, be it man, beast, or bug, has a Divine Creator Who created you with purpose and reason. It goes against your very fibre to touch on the idea that you might be wrong about what happens after death.

            Contrary to what you think of others like me, it grieves me to see you like those in “The Great Divorce” – willfully existing apart from their Creator just so they can say they did it themselves. If that is your desired course, like God, I will honor it but I will not cease in my efforts to implore you to take another straighter, narrower path.

          • swordfish

            “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance.”

            Other religions claim the same thing. Do you not worry that by following Christianity, you’re angering Allah or Vishnu? I assume that you don’t worry about that because those other religions obviously aren’t true. I view Christinaity in the same way you view Hinduism or Islam.

            “you would rather live with the belief that you’ll die permanently,”

            I’d rather not die, but you can’t choose your beliefs. I don’t believe any gods exist, or that the universe was created.

          • Miss A

            If I believed that this life, this world was all there is. All the little good and plenty bad we deal with and that we go through all that just to die, then to nothingness.,emptiness would consume me.You believe life is good and that we should just enjoy and enjoy . I believe life is tough, it is the ultimate test. I believe that by the grace of God, life was given to me so that I could find God.

          • swordfish

            I’m not hopeless thank you very much, I’m very happy with my life. And: what evidence?

          • Sigelitedark

            hope (hōp)►
            v. To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.
            v. Archaic To have confidence; trust.
            v. To look forward to with confidence or expectation: We hope that our children will be successful.
            More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

            What are you hopeful for? What “something” of consequence are you wishing for with expectation of its fulfillment? Are you hopeful as your last day on earth inexorably approaches or is this mood dependent? True happiness in this world is often fleeting and a rare thing, if one can be truly honest with themselves–so what have you got to look forward to when your “fairy tale” life is over with? Referring back to your mention of Narnia, it was C.S. Lewis who wrote of his past atheism: “Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. ” Those moods can be troublesome on one’s faith whatever view your reason takes and have to be dealt with.

          • swordfish

            “What are you hopeful for?”

            Lots of stuff. My kids being happy for one.

            “so what have you got to look forward to when your “fairy tale” life is over with?”

            Nothing, the same as I had before it started. So what? If you go on holiday, is it pointless unless it lasts forever?

            “when I [CS Lewis] was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable”

            I haven’t had any of those.

          • Sigelitedark

            You forgot to mention that you’re hopeful that your null hypothesis is correct.

          • swordfish

            I assume you’re hopeful that your null hypothesis on Islam and Hinduism are correct.

          • Sigelitedark

            You assume wrong as I’m not the one claiming there is no higher power.

          • swordfish

            I didn’t claim that, although it appears to be true as far as I can tell. What is your claim anyway? If you’re claiming that hell exists, please provide some evidence.

          • Sigelitedark

            “I didn’t claim that, although it appears to be true as far as I can tell.”

            LOL! Remember stating this?

            “Just to be clear, it doesn’t ‘suit my purposes’ to disbelieve in God, it’s just a fact that I disbelieve in God.”

            Sure sounds like a claim of not believeing in a higher power. As for claiming that hell exists, hell is the complete and eternal separation from God and is described multiple times in the Bible (i.e. Sheol in the old testament 65 times). Please cite your evidence to the contrary other than your own flawed emotional intuition. Are you hopeful that your belief in mechanisitic materialism will provide some clue to your fatalistic and dead end view of the world? Chaos theory? Please proceed.

          • swordfish

            “Sure sounds like a claim of not believing in a higher power.”

            Not believing in something isn’t the same as claiming it doesn’t exist, although I’ve noticed that many believers have a hard time understanding this distinction.

            “hell is the complete and eternal separation from God and is described multiple times in the Bible […] Please cite your evidence to the contrary other than your own flawed emotional intuition.”

            Your evidence is: a book says hell exists. My evidence to the contrary is that other books say it doesn’t exist.

          • True Faith

            If you are happy with your life why do you waste your time posting on subjects you so totally disagree with? Also, you are very rude to say that the beliefs of people are “laughable” and “fabricated nonsense” with not a ghost of an argument. You atheists or whatever you call yourselves give yourselves a bad name through your lack of simple manners before we even discuss what you actually think.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            dude, your religion is crap. OWN IT

          • swordfish

            “Also, you are very rude to say that the beliefs of people are “laughable” and “fabricated nonsense” with not a ghost of an argument.”

            I’m responding to an article which very rudely, and with no consideration for the feelings of Mr. Bordain’s friends and relatives is claiming he will probably go to hell.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            show us this evidence. don’t be a coward

          • Sigelitedark

            Hiding your posting history makes you the coward.

    • At least 90% of all people have a religion, and believe in God, or a god or gods. Not to do so is abnormal. Indeed, one can make the case that to persistently and maliciously refuse to admit the possibility of religious feelings and beliefs is a form of mental illness, harmful to the individual and society.

      • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

        You are not normal, son

      • swordfish

        What a load of old rubbish. That 90% you’re referring to mostly believe in gods which you don’t believe in, so your relationship to their god(s) is the same as mine to your god. As for “maliciously refuse to admit” – what a ridiculous choice of words! How is it malicious to disbelieve something? Is it malicious to disbelive in pixies?

  • Paul

    Perhaps an eternity eating McDonalds?

  • Nobody Specific

    I think non-Christians and immature Christians struggle with this because the idea of allowing someone to go to eternal damnation seems so harsh. What they need to keep in mind or understand is that God has actually been very generous toward all of us in this respect. He is our creator he can do as he wishes with us.

    He sent his own son to pay our ransom though and offers us each the assurance of pardon and salvation if we seek Christ! There is no need for anyone of us to suffer that fate we bring it about only through our own choosing.

    • swordfish

      “He is our creator he can do as he wishes with us.”

      The idea that God can treat us in any way he wants just because he has created us doesn’t follow at all. If anything, the reverse should be the case. If you’re a parent, you may understand.

      • newguy40

        Ever read the book of Job?

        If God allowed His only Son to be tortured and murdered in the most gruesome way, why would he treat an unrepentant soul less harshly with eternal damnation for suicide?

        Do you know about how Jesus Sacred Heart not only burns with His love for us but also grieves over how we have acted with the many gifts He has given us and how ungrateful we are?

        I’m a parent. Raised two now adult men. It has been a tough haul my friend. At some point they became mature and understood why rules exist and how they are responsible for their actions and lives and not me their father.

        sorry. I’m not being clear here. But, assuming God’s mercy without repentance and a firm amendment for change is a sin, too.

        pax–

      • Sigelitedark

        But I thought you pro-murder folks thought women could treat their unborn anyway that they want, including having them dismembered in their most vulnerable state. Being a parent, you should know this is wrong, but you’re a useful slave to the untenable condition that is leftism.

        • swordfish

          As it happens, I’m not a leftist and I’m not a very strong supporter of abortion either.

          • Sigelitedark

            “As it happens, I’m not a leftist and I’m not a very strong supporter of abortion either.”

            Well, you either support abortion or you don’t since fractional abortions are still usually fatal to the unborn child; but assuming that you don’t support abortion, do you also reject the identity politics of the leftists and equality of outcome premises? Just trying to distill truth and reality from the vapors of nuance here.

          • swordfish

            “Well, you either support abortion or you don’t […]”

            This obviously isn’t true – there’s a difference between supporting abortion at 1 week and at 250 weeks, for example. As for leftist identity politics, that’s too complicated to go into here, and off-topic, but I certainly don’t support recent UK legislation banning ‘hate speech’, for example.

          • Sigelitedark

            “This obviously isn’t true – there’s a difference between supporting abortion at 1 week and at 250 weeks…”

            Actually it’s obviously true as abortion is abortion. Life begins at conception, yes or no? This life is discretely human, and whether it’s taken at a day, a week, or 250 weeks, it is a still a human life being suctioned out or in more advanced stages dismembered and then aspirated. What is problematic is that defining when exactly a life is viable is not only subjective but clearly a devaluation of human life (exactly how slavery was rationalized) as opposed to having no price tag. And so 99.06% of aborted babies are killed not for the emergency saving of the life of mother but rather as a retroactive form of birth control and convenience of the mother.

            Regarding one’s stance on identity politics and/or equality of outcome, it’s a pretty stable metric for whether one is a proponent of leftist dogmas of Marx and the post-modernist ravings of Derrida, so deflection duly noted.

          • swordfish

            “deflection duly noted”

            You introduced politics into this, it has literally nothing to do with the article, and I’m not interested in it.

            “Actually it’s obviously true as abortion is abortion” [Followed by tedious and predictibe anti-abortion rant.]

            My wife had several miscarriages. Those were natural abortions which your God would be responsible for if he existed.

          • Miss A

            Ah there they go, they always whip up miscarriages. I bet your wife intentionally miscarried right? You equate artificial with natural because it doesn’t matter?

          • Sigelitedark

            “Those were natural abortions which your God would be responsible for if he existed.”

            I am sorry for you and your wife’s losses. My wife had several miscarriages as well, yet we still kept our faith, though it was admittedly very difficult. Your resentment, while completely understandable, is also quite telling.

            C.S. Lewis “The Problem of Pain”
            God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains:
            it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

            It is out of our own free will that we choose to abort and kill our own babies. The responsibility and consequences of our own actions falls squarely upon our shoulders.

          • swordfish

            “Your resentment, while completely understandable, is also quite telling.”

            It isn’t telling at all – I have no resentment because I don’t believe in God, nor did I at the time this happened. It was an entirely natural occurence.

            CS Lewis: “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

            How typical of Lewis to make such an asinine statement.

          • Sigelitedark

            Actually it is telling because in calling them “natural abortions” you’ve unwittingly conceded that something outside of your wife’s or your control, namely nature, caused the unfortunate miscarriages. Does nature have consciousness or is it an inanimate machine? You are “blaming” nature, a higher power, for your misfortune. Now please explain how your belief in nature is so different from a belief in God, as they are not mutually exclusive unless you can cogently prove otherwise.

            As for your critique of Lewis, I believe his success speaks for itself. Could you say the same for yourself?

          • swordfish

            (Very late reply – just found the email from Disqus in my spam folder)

            “Now please explain how your belief in nature is so different from a belief in God, as they are not mutually exclusive unless you can cogently prove otherwise.”

            The difference between belief in nature and belief in God is that I have evidence that nature exists but no evidence that God exists.

            “As for your critique of Lewis, I believe his success speaks for itself. Could you say the same for yourself?”

            His success in what sense – monetary? popularity? What has this got to do with the validity of his arguments?

        • swordfish

          I’ve never vored for a leftist party in my life, not that politics has anything to do with this.

        • swordfish

          Looking at this again a month later, I realise I should have pointed out this is pure whataboutery.

          • Sigelitedark

            “The idea that God can treat us in any way he wants just because he has created us doesn’t follow at all. If anything, the reverse should be the case. If you’re a parent, you may understand.”

            Did you also forget that these are your “whataboutery” words? Do ‘ya see what I did? You’re still a joke a month later!

          • swordfish

            I responded to the previous comment with a refutation of it, you responded to me by bringing in something completely different and off-topic. Your comment was whataboutery, mine wasn’t.

  • Hannah

    We will obviously not know until then, but I like to employ C. S. Lewis’ imagery of Hell and Heaven from his book “The Great Divorce” when I converse with others about this particular topic. He does a splendid job of explaining without explicitly saying that those who are in Hell are there because that’s their choice. In life, they rejected God, thus in death, they would still do the same. It would be counter to everything we know of God for Him to force someone to have residency in Heaven if they didn’t want to. Love always has been and always will be a choice – and out of love for us, He honors that choice, though it grieves Him.

  • Sigelitedark

    Bourdain did not believe in a higher power nor that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and he also broke the Commandment about murdering people including oneself, so suffice it to say that he is probably eternally separated from God.

  • Trilemma

    Christian: “God, how do you want your Anthony Bourdain?”

    God: “Well done good and faithful servant.”

    • Ken Abbott

      Well, we know he dislikes lukewarm things.

    • Miss A

      I pity those like you who dont even try to understand God.

      • Trilemma

        Why do you believe you understand God. I discovered that the First step in understanding God was to close my bible.

        • Andrew Mason

          How can you understand someone when you stop listening to them? The Bible is God’s Word, the means by which He reveals Himself to us.

          • Trilemma

            Trying to understand God by reading the Bible is like trying to understand a celebrity by reading the tabloids or a Wikipedia article. Try talking with the person.

          • Ken Abbott

            A better analogy, T, is a memoir or perhaps an intellectual autobiography. Your error is to think that God had no input into the writing of the books of the Bible when, in fact, he inspired all of it and the contents are as he purposed them to be.

          • Andrew Mason

            More like reading a diary or a summarised transcript of a conversation than tabloids or Wikipedia. And Scripture is quite clear on its role – it’s the primary means God speaks to us.

          • Trilemma

            Hebrews 8:10 seems to say that under the New Covenant, the primary means God speaks to us is directly with our minds and hearts.

          • Andrew Mason

            Your Hebrews passage is Jer. 31:31-34. It says nothing about how God will communicate or reveal Himself to us. Note too that Jesus grounded many of His statements in Scripture.

        • So the first step in seeing the light is to close your eyes?

          • Trilemma

            Yes. Close your eyes so that you are not blinded by what you see and open your soul so that you can see God.

        • Ken Abbott

          A fatal error, T. “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11)

          “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.” (Psalm 119:105–the entire psalm is an eloquent testimony to the supreme worth of God’s word)

          “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

          “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

          I could go on and on.

        • Miss A

          Nobody can understand God, we can only try. I believe we can never wrap our human brains around what exactly God is. I might have understood your comment, I now do. The Christian God is evil and but your God is very good. Is that it?

          • Trilemma

            No. Same god. Different beliefs.

  • jofm1

    He broke the 5th commandment of God — “Thou shalt not kill.” This in itself is a grave and mortal sin. Plus to kill oneself — to give up on life and end it for whatever reason is a sin of despair which is a sin against the Holy Spirit which will not be forgiven.
    Stupid people think they can end their little problems on earth by killing themselves only to find out their problems are much worse and permanent afterwards. God does want us all to be saved and condemns no one to hell. Souls choose hell themselves by their actions, choices and lives on earth. There should be no sadness for this person or “saint making” eulogies. He is where he chose to be and I hardly think that’s purgatory.

    • Andrew Mason

      Strictly speaking it’s thou shalt not murder. Killing as a soldier, in defence of others, or in the execution of justice, is Biblical.

  • tz1

    This is a good article.
    We can’t know the state of anyone’s soul, only guess based on evidence. God’s mercy is as infinite as his Justice, and at the judgment throne we don’t KNOW (we are to worry about this
    There may be something else hidden as well, something true and embarassing beyond #MeToo.
    Our duty is to round up the cattle into the salvation pen, not to worry about the rogues.

  • Rigid Vinegar Puss Catholic

    Those who gloat about someone being in hell are far more likely to get there themselves than those who hope people are saved.

    • Richard A

      You sound pleased by the prospect. (Discerning tone across the ethernet is of course a somewhat delicate business).

  • Rigid Vinegar Puss Catholic

    We should all worry about whether or not WE are going to hell.

    • Ken Abbott

      Luke 13:1-5–“But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

  • Jennifer Hartline

    Since the Catholic Encyclopedia was mentioned and linked here, let me also add this: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that the act of suicide is always wrong, and contrary to the law and love of God, and then it adds the following:

    “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.” CCC 2282

    And then this: “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.” CCC 2283

    The point is that the Church never says anyone is automatically condemned to hell for committing suicide, and it is our duty to pray that the infinite mercy of God will find every soul. We hope. We do not presume or despair, but we hope and pray.

  • Kathy

    It’s a little disconcerting to see the guessing game being played here. It reminds me of a funeral I attended recently. The officiant was all over the place, saying the person “is now face to face with God”, that we needed “to pray that the angels would take her to heaven” and that she is “still in the grave”, seemingly body AND spirit. This was a Catholic funeral, but as at that one, officiants at some Protestants ones have proclaimed that ALL at the funeral will see the deceased again and that the deceased was now with ALL of their loved ones in heaven.

    The Bible is clear on who is saved and who is not. Why all the speculation? Lots of confusion and deception at these funerals. Not at all helpful to the biblically illiterate…
    I would call it harmful.

  • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

    um there is no heII freaks

    • Ken Abbott

      Jesus had a different opinion. Why should I trust yours rather than his?

      • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

        why would I trust you? you cant prove anything..faith, what a joke

        • Ken Abbott

          What does *my* trustworthiness have to do with it? I made the verifiable statement that Jesus had a different opinion on the existence of hell than you posted over a half-hour ago. What I asked was, what makes your opinion more trustworthy than his?

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            awww, now you are going to play games.
            don’t be a coward

      • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

        What does *my* trustworthiness have to do with it?

        • Ken Abbott

          You made a positive assertion that hell does not exist. Jesus made several positive assertions that it does. You cannot both be correct. So if I am looking for credible answers on the existence of hell I need to have confidence in the ones answering the question.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            that’s nice, son
            you lost this one

          • Ken Abbott

            Well, that’s one way to save face in a losing argument. Declare victory and take your ball home.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            I am not arguing, son. I am frustrating you and your weak trolling
            let me know when you can grow a pair and deal with me, coward

          • Ken Abbott

            That’s twice you’ve used the label “coward” here. In what way have I demonstrated cowardice? If anything you appear to be the one who lacks the bravery to respond with civility and respect. Your several posts commenting on this article consist of little more than name-calling and mockery.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            why so triggered? you seem weak and dumb. AM I correct?

          • Ken Abbott

            Wrong on all counts and no surprise there, Funky.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            I know, you are a coward

          • Ken Abbott

            Get back to me when you want to have a serious adult discussion. Based on what I’ve seen here, that may take a few years.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            dude, you are an idiot. ok?

          • Ken Abbott

            Dude, you must be, like, eleven. Okay?

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            hehhe, you cant let it go. Are you this weak offline??

          • Ken Abbott

            I dunno. What are the chances of you finding out?

            Seriously, it’s been fun-ky, but duty calls elsewhere now. Have a terrific rest of the day.

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            neat, see ya boy

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            I am going to pray for you.

          • Ken Abbott

            Likewise. First civil thing you’ve posted. If it was sincerely meant, I appreciate it. “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            yawnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
            coward

    • Sigelitedark

      You’re already living in a hell, Funkster; ‘ya just don’t know it–kinda like how your own stench doesn’t bother you yet people who walk by you while lying on that park bench instantly gag and retch, and need to rinse their eyes out with a bottle of cold milk for relief.

      • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

        neat story, freak

        • Sigelitedark

          LOL! Embrace your suck. #LivingWithFunk

          • Funkenstein✓Funkᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ™

            aww, now you are mad

          • Sigelitedark

            Nahhh, just laughing at you–we all are! By the way, just ran into this article that could explain why you and your life-partner are always at each other’s throats. Hope you guys get some counseling.

            Taken from the left-leaning Atlantic Monthly 2013
            In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”[71]
            […]Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
            The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]

            Hope this helps you out and you’re very welcome!

  • Boris

    Yes and Adolf Hitler repented although he didn’t have to. He was just inspired by that other famous anti-semite Martin Luther. So we know that your Christian brother Adolf Hitler is in heaven. After all Hitler roasted non-Christians just as Jesus supposedly does making Brother Adolf the most Christ-like man who ever lived.

    • Sigelitedark

      “Yes and Adolf Hitler repented although he didn’t have to.”

      You know this exactly how? Hitler committed suicide as well which is not a form of repentence, quite the opposite actually.

      • Boris

        Yeah but he roasted unbelievers and it just doesn’t get anymore Christian than that. Millions of suspected witches were murdered by superstitious Christians. So were supposed heretic and other unbelievers. John Calvin had hundreds maybe thousands of people murdered and he is a Christian hero. So Hitler was the most Christ-like to most Christian man whoever lived.

        • Sigelitedark

          You didn’t explain who Hitler was able to repent but he suicided himself along with Eva. Please stay on point, Boorish.

          • Boris

            We don’t really know what Hitler told the priest he called for in his bunker. But he was doing the work of Christ here on Earth so why would he have to repent anyway?

          • Sigelitedark

            “Yes and Adolf Hitler repented although he didn’t have to.”

            Remember writing this? Thanks for admitting us that you have no idea what you’re talking about. LOL! Better snort another line of ritalin, Doris.

          • Boris

            I was being facetious and of course the literal minded don’t get it. Much the same way your literal minded approach to the Bible made it go zoom, right over your head.

          • Sigelitedark

            Yes, you were being an ignorant jackwagon, thanks for admitting so. Nice going Doris. LOL! #BorisPwned

          • Boris

            It’s probably a good thing Jesus can’t read English. He’d probably have something to say to you on judgment day. Something like, “I never knew you.” Do you understand ancient Greek?

          • Sigelitedark

            He actually spoke aramaic, you ignoranus. #FootMouthDisease

          • Boris

            We don’t have any New Testament texts written in Aramaic. They’re all in Greek. When the authors have Jesus quote the Old Testament it’s from the Greek version, not Hebrew. I don’t believe Jesus or the apostles even existed let alone that they ever spoke a particular language. There’s not shred of contemporaneous evidence that any of them did.

          • Sigelitedark

            Thank you for conceding. Typical response from one with an untenable position. You are an intellectual joke staged to be sharted out of Kathy Griffin’s nether region next time she’s triggered by Pres. Trump, which should be soon. We’ll wait with anticipation to witness your asstronomical debut! #BorisResigns

          • Boris

            We don’t have any New Testament texts written in Aramaic. POOF

          • Sigelitedark

            “We don’t have any New Testament texts written in Aramaic. ”
            A fallacious straw man argument from again, the intellectual midget aka Boris. You do know that the Gutenberg printing press wasn’t invented during the time of the early Church, right and thus had to be handwritten after having been handed down in a verbal tradition?
            Please explain how there can be more copies of the biblical New Testament manuscripts with remarkable consistency between them then any of Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle? And having been written by first-hand witnesses to the events described within, the New Testament is filled with the testimonies of people who were tortured and died for their stories. Please explain how archaelogical history and more recently genome testing has supported historical and cultural descriptions in the Bible. Please explain how Josephus the Jewish historian of 67 A.D. was able to provide direct commentary on New Testament references. And lastly (for now), please explain how the Bible, though containing 66 books and written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers was able to prophetically describe God’s plan for salvation culminating in Jesus Christ.
            Did ‘ya get all of that, or did I just explode that vacuous mechanistic materialist nutshell of yours?

            Poof…or more like #ppbbbbbtt

          • Boris

            Oh please I am Jewish. The Old Testament as you call it does not mention Jesus and it isn’t about your dying and rising solar deity either. Before assuming something magic happened you first have to eliminate the more likely possibility which is that the stories in the Bible were written to conform to older well known prophecies. It’s pretty easy to put a prediction of the destruction of the temple on the.lips of a mythical Jesus decades after the event had already taken place. Prophecy my eye. It’s hard to believe people can be duped by such an obvious scam. But if everybody had critical thinking skills there would be no religions. So go ahead prove that these stories were not written to conform to earlier prophecies. Good luck. LOL How gullible do you want to be?

          • Sigelitedark

            No cited examples? Unsurprising, but you are mistaken as your Torah did mention the coming of a Messiah, yes? Yet you choose to deny Jesus because He was not as you think (and those Jews at the time of His ministry as well) the Messiah should be–perhaps some militant savior-du-jour like Saul and David were in their own times? This lack of faith in God and utter disobedience was a common theme that beset the chosen people of Israel as evidenced by the Mosaic diaspora’s extended desert wanderings before finally coming to the land of milk and honey. Ye of little faith, Christ had much material to work with in bringing forth the salvation of the world through His death and resurrection. Repent, foolish scoffer.

          • Boris

            Outside of the Bible there is no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus Christ or any of the apostles ever existed. Outside of the Bible there are no witnesses to such events as this supposed trial, crucifixion, resurrection or events like dead people climbing out of their graves, the world going dark, Herod’s supposed slaughter of the innocents any miracles done by any apostles or Jesus. There are no mentions of Paul preaching on Mars Hill or anywhere else. The great world traveling, church planting, miracle working snake handler that no one ever heard of and history cannot tell us anything about. Not a word. Nothing anywhere about Peter bringing new doctrine to Rome or any other apostles doing anything including being martyred. If you’re going to make the absurd claim that God took human form so he could come to Earth and start your particular religion you’re going to have to provide some pretty good evidence that he did. Outside of the Bible you’ve got nothing. That is just not good enough.

          • Hannah

            *Tacitus’ “Annals”, particularly his Annal concerning AD 116. Cornelius Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian, proconsul of Asia, and a trusted historian even in his day. He described Emporer Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and how Nero perpetuated that the Christians were to blame: “Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he had started the fire himself], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hdeous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” – (Annals, 15:44)

            *Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews” (circa AD 93-94), particularly books 18 and 20. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian unaffliated with the church who wrote, “At this time, there was a wise who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixtion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Book 20)

            *Thallus via Sextus Julius Africanus in his “History of the World” (circa AD 221). The former was a Samaritan historian who wrote a three volume account of the history of the Mediterranean area in the middle of the first century, only twenty years after Jesus’ crucifixtion. The latter quoted an important passage from Thallus’ original account (unfortunately lost, as is most ancient historical documents). Thallus had chronicled the alleged crucifixtion of Jesus and offered an explanation for the darkness that was observed at the time of Jesus’ death: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his ‘History’, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

            There are several others I could mention, but this isn’t meant to be a lecture but rather a refutation of your statement that we’ve got nothing outside of the Bible. You want to be right, not correct. Pride is an ugly monster who can never be satisfied, and it will abide no other gods before it.

          • Boris

            I said there was no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Jesus and no evidence at all that any of the apostles existed. Origen had read Josephus and those passages that supposedly mention Jesus were not there when Origen was alive or he would have mentioned them for sure. Eusebius produced the first copy of Josephus with these so-called “golden paragraphs” in them. It’s a forgery. Look it up. But to me it doesn’t matter because neither Josephus or Tacitus were alive when Jesus supposedly lived. Anything they wrote was hearsay and not even first or second hand hearsay. By the time they wrote it the Church already existed and stories about Jesus were circulating by then as were stories about Apollo, Dionysus and other godmen. Josephus wrote that Hercules was a real person as well. I don’t think that’s a very reliable account do you? How about his claim to have witnesses a ten-foot tall giant casting out demons? I think we have reason to doubt Josephus’ reliability on that account too, don’t you? You’re talking about hearsay accounts that appeared more than a half century after the events they supposedly confirm. This resurrection thing is supposedly the best attested event in history. But the truth is this event is not attested to at all by anyone at any time. Except in the Bible. You’re talking about God showing up on Earth and without the Bible we would not know a thing about it. No one would ever. And people are supposed to make this big most important decision of their lives on what exactly? That isn’t even worthy of a decision. We’ll pass.

          • Hannah

            And yet when I say that Josephus used Luke as a reference for political positions that were present in the first century, you will turn it around and use that as proof that Josephus is an unreliable. I could point to the fact that not just Jewish histories talk about a worldwide flood, but then the argument becomes “not reliable enough”. I could point out that even the most dedicated historians haven’t been able to disprove the Scriptures’ historical integrity, but again, that’s not reliable enough. Heck, you say that Josephus and Tacitus are unreliable because they weren’t alive during His time – in a culture where history was passed down orally and everyone was each other’s fact checker. In this day and age, it seems ludicrous and unreliable, but you’re looking at it through a contemporary lens, and that alone disqualifies you as a reliable observer.

            You may have “disproven” Josephus and Tacitus, but what of Thallus and Africanus? I didn’t mention Mara bar Serapion, a Syrian prisoner who wrote to his son in AD 73 talking about how the Jews killed their “wise king” and how he “lived on through his teachings.”

            Unbelief can never have enough proof.

          • swordfish

            “not just Jewish histories talk about a worldwide flood,”

            It doesn’t matter how many histories talked about a worldwide (or more likely local) flood, we know from scientific evidence that no such flood has ever happened. If the Bible story of Noah was true, no one would have survived to write these stories anyway!

          • Boris

            >And yet when I say that Josephus used Luke as a reference for political positions that were present in the first century, you will turn it around and use that as proof that Josephus is an unreliable.
            You got that backwards. The author of Luke used Josephus as source material. That is taught in every seminary in the world. By the way you fundamentalists would be shocked at what the Christian seminaries teach and have been teaching for the last century. Look at Martin Luther King’s seminary papers and tell me you believe he was a Christian. According to Christian scholars nothing written in the pre-scientific era can be trusted as fact or history. This includes the biblical texts.

            >I could point to the fact that not just Jewish histories talk about a worldwide flood, but then the argument becomes “not reliable enough”. I could point out that even the most dedicated historians haven’t been able to disprove the Scriptures’ historical integrity, but again, that’s not reliable enough.
            Scientific data debunks the flood story as well as the Passover event, the Garden story and pretty much everything else in your flat earth Buybull.
            >Heck, you say that Josephus and Tacitus are unreliable because they weren’t alive during His time – in a culture where history was passed down orally and everyone was each other’s fact checker. In this day and age, it seems ludicrous and unreliable, but you’re looking at it through a contemporary lens, and that alone disqualifies you as a reliable observer.
            Your prejudice and superstitions make you about as unreliable as a person can be.
            >You may have “disproven” Josephus and Tacitus, but what of Thallus and Africanus? I didn’t
            mention Mara bar Serapion, a Syrian prisoner who wrote to his son in AD 73 talking about how the Jews killed their “wise king” and how he “lived on through his teachings.”

            Dredging up historians who lived more than a century after Jesus supposedly existed clearly demonstrates the sheer desperation of your position. And make no mistake your Christian cult leaders and apologists are very desperate as well. They claim that the existence of Jesus is a slam dunk but there have been a whole bunch of books and websites appear like “The Case for Christ” whose only goal is to try to prove Jesus Christ actually existed. They have failed miserably and they know it and right now they are in full panic mode. Just like you are.

            >Unbelief can never have enough proof.
            Oh please belief needs no evidence at all. You’ve never seen a shred of evidence to support any of your Christian superstitions. All someone had to do as put the fear of eternal damnation in your mind and you were willing to believe anything to try to avoid the flames of hell.

          • Sigelitedark

            Very amusing–such a feeble walk-back of your claim of the OT never describing a Messiah. So you’re Jewish yet you do not hold your Torah as a testament of God’s will and grace but rather look to secular confirmations of your faith. You are not a very religious Jew and very lazy intellectually. Please explain Josephus ben Mattathias (37-100A.D.), a Jewish historian, as well as writings of Ptolemy, Cornelius Tacitus (A.D.55-120) Roman historian, Suetonius (49A.D.) Roman historian, Pliny the Younger (112A.D.) Roman governor in Bithyria, Tallus (A.D52) secular historian, Phlegon’s “Chronicles”, Mara Bar-Serapion (70A.D.) who compared Jesus to philosophers Socrates and Pythagoras, Liucian of Samostate Greek satirist of 2nd century who was scornful towards Christians yet did not deny His existence, and the Babylonian Talmud speaking of “It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu”. Please getcha’ some ejumacation so you are more able to offer cogent refutations…or not–and stop wasting YOUR time displaying your abject ignorance so publicly. MY time you’ve encumbered in the most entertaining way, however. Thank you!

          • Boris

            My parents were Jewish as were theirs and so on. The Torah is the words of my backward, superstitious, animal sacrificing primitive ancestors. If you give any credence to this stuff then you’re the intellectually lazy one, not me. None of these historians wrote any of what you are talking about until the Second Century. By then the Church existed and stories about Jesus as well as Apollo, Hercules, whom Josephus also regarded as an historical person, and other gods were floating around many parts of the Roman Empire. So anything written by then was based on hearsay on not even first or second hand hearsay. And it probably came from Christians in most cases.
            I compare Jesus to Socrates as well. I don’t believe either one of them existed. Both are figures who exist only in literature and literature that was clearly written in the style of fiction and with a very clear agenda. The fact that you have to resort to stuff that was written more than a half century to a whole century and even later to support your delusions clearly demonstrates the sheer desperation of your position. Outside of the Bible there are no witnesses to any of the central events described in the New Testament, the supposed events that your entire system of superstitions is balanced so precariously upon. Had you known that before you got indoctrinated it would not have been so easy for others to induce faith would it have? Be honest.

          • Sigelitedark

            Well, this is typical anti-axiomatic drivel of the leftist mindset, and your rejection of ancient philosophers (even Socrates?) is rather comically puerile. NOWHERE do I see any cited refutations from you, so I accept your concession as you’ve run out of time on the chess clock, so to speak. Plus, you’ve become really boring.

            Like intellectual lampreys, you post-modernist nihilists latch onto the body of good that is Western civilization, and in macabre fashion must necessarily leech away and abominate the very cornerstones that make Western civilization great, one being in this case of history. Ironically for all of us, it is free speech that blankets and protects Marxist and Derridan post-modernist parasites such as you; however, it is the strength of the tenets of our Constitution (especially the 2nd amendment) which serves as the best parasiticide for the failure that continues to be the leftist agenda. Free speech also allows useful idiots like you to spout off, exposing your lunacy on the internet for all to see in perpetuity. That’s also why you guys hate free speech too, another ironic truth.

            “My parents were Jewish as were theirs and so on. The Torah is the words of my backward, superstitious, animal sacrificing primitive ancestors.”

            Your resentment and latent anger at your family is quite palpable and rather telling. You should seek professional counseling to deal with your own deep-seated familial issues, and perhaps you will be less inclined to troll our threads, of which you are a miserable failure at too, and instead spend the time reconciling with your family. I leave you with this: It’s really not too late for you, prodigal son! Baby steps….

          • Boris

            I don’t hate my family. We’re all atheists just as almost every Jew on the planet is an atheist. 75 percent of the people in Israel are atheists. Every intelligent person is an atheist. We’re so intelligent that minority controls the entire planet and you believers do our bidding at our whim. On your knees boy it is time to worship us. And if you don’t we may just do to you what you people did to us unbelievers in the past. We may just use a few million of you to toast our marsh mellows.

          • Sigelitedark

            “We’re so intelligent that minority controls the entire planet and you believers do our bidding at our whim. On your knees boy it is time to worship us. And if you don’t we may just do to you what you people did to us unbelievers in the past. We may just use a few million of you to toast our marsh mellows.”

            Ah, you pitiably triggered snowflake. I rest my case! Come at me, soytoy.

          • Boris

            Says the captain of the 45 pound bench press club. I don’t think pencil neck geeks should be telling people to come at them. You could break.

          • Sigelitedark

            P.S. Doris:

            You know, I just now noticed that you cowardly hide your posting history. You SHOULD be ashamed of your inane betacuck rants! LOL, thanks for the entertainment value you provide for us here. Here’s a list of phyto-estrogenic foods that you should probably eschew to mitigate your depressed testosterone levels. You’re welcome!

            Phyto-estrogenic Foods
            Examples of such foods include:
            Seeds: flaxseeds and sesame seeds.
            Fruit: apricots, oranges, strawberries, peaches, many dried fruits.
            Vegetables: yams, carrots, alfalfa sprouts, kale, celery.
            Soy products: tofu, miso soup, soy yogurt.
            Dark rye bread.
            Legumes: lentils, peas, pinto beans.
            Olives and olive oil.
            Chickpeas.

            Dismissed!
            #ResentfulCulturalJew
            #SorosIsThatU
            #BorisPWNED

          • Boris

            I am not a leftist nor are there any other labels that apply precisely to me. Free thinker perhaps. You know the kind of people you fear the most. The authoritarian left’s attack on free speech is just as dangerous as the far right’s attack on freedom of the press. I don’t have any issues with my family. None of us are religious. People like you love to put labels on yourselves and other people. Why?

  • Claudio Piccinini

    So, why not “pray fervently” instead of writing articles “challenging the truth».
    The great accuser…

  • Kelly B

    What an ugly, ugly comments section, just as I expected.

    However, it gives me even more reason to delight in my Savior, who speaks only truth, including telling us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. We are but sojourners here and I thank God that this world is NOT my home!

  • Based on what we know, it’s likely Anthony Bourdain is in Hell. Now this is an unpleasant thought.

    And that doesn’t make you question whether this “all-good” Christian god is actually what he’s billed as? Maybe it should.

Inspiration
A Case for Fear
Austin Roscoe
More from The Stream
Connect with Us