Jesus loves you… but if you don’t worship him, you’re going to burn in hell forever.
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[...] Jesus Loves You. Except when he doesn’t. And his dad thinks you’re a shit. Also, he is his [...]
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
It’s a conditional kind of love.
Great video. I’ve always thought that the concept of the Christian god’s love was very conditional. Which isn’t all bad, except for that fact that he’s supposed to be much better than us mere humans. And of course, the punishment involved for not worshipping him everyday.
I can think of plenty of great parents out there who probably love their children as close to unconditionally as it gets. And their children certainly do not worship them, and have openly spited them many times growing. But the parents don’t feel any differently and would do just about anything for them. In comparison with that, god just seems like a bit of an ass.
Jesus does not necessarily love all people.
Unrepentant sinners do not deserve love. Any love we get is just mercy and grace. He doesn’t owe us anything positive at all whatsoever.
Banishing humans to eternal hell fire doesn’t seem al that graceful to me J.K.
The grace is selective. The poster is probably a Reformed/Calvinist Christian and would agree that God doesn’t love everyone, only those that he chooses to love.
It’s very, very different than the very popular and feel-good version of Christianity that the video addressed.
“All we get is mercy and grace” vs “He doesn’t owe us anything positive at all”… hmm. I sense some compartmentalization in your brain. You may want to get that looked at.
>> Jesus does not necessarily love all people.
Since it’s usually offered in a very general sense, “Jesus Loves You” actually means “Jesus Loves Everyone, Even YOU!” You agree that that is incorrect?
I think you are quite right. I wish more Christians would admit there is no such lovey-dovey Jesus that just loves everyone so very, very much.
Of course, I think most Christians don’t want to admit it to themselves. It’s too uncomfortable. They would rather just offer platitudes like “Jesus loves you!”, regardless of how preposterous it is.
It’s odd to me that I respect the Calvinists more and more as I slip away from the faith. They’re about the only ones that admit that sayings like “Jesus Loves You!” is not only wrong, but ridiculous.
Beep Beep, Vrooom!
That was just another Drive By from a kook.
I don’t know any really unrepentant sinners, really. I guess an unrepentant sinner WOULD be kind of a jerk, and might be hard to love.
I DO know personally lots of people who go through life trying to do good things and love their neighbor and be kind and harmless as much as possible, though. And I can think of a lot of people (like, you know, pretty much all of humanity) who are also doing the same things, no matter what their theology (or lack thereof) is. These are people who pretty much mostly do the right thing most of the time and who feel bad when they do something a bit rotten.
What exactly does one have to do to PROVE one’s repentance? Seems a bit silly to grovel before God and beg him to have mercy and grace for you. Wouldn’t an all-knowing God know when people feel bad about the rotten things that they do? Or is the thing that really matters just saying “Jesus” enough? Wouldn’t a loving God be cool with all the people who are going through life minding their own business and being nice normal people? Even if they don’t talk about Jesus all the time?
He doesn’t owe us anything positive at all whatsoever.
That makes very little sense, under any reasonable ethical interpretation. If you create a being (say, much like a pair of parents create a child), then you are responsible for its general well-being so long as your general capacity is greater than theirs. The power differential only exacerbates this; if you are a Creator God, and you create a universe in which there will be sentient creatures capable of suffering, you have certain responsibilities entailed by that set of circumstances, especially since those circumstances are all under your control. Since the creatures in that universe (so far as we know) never approach the level of circumstantial control that God is purported to have, that responsibility never dissipates.
To argue that God’s compassion is entirely supererogatory really doesn’t speak highly for the moral status of God, but rather the opposite. A person who is kind only by whim is not, generally, called “good”, and the status of deity can only make that worse.
“That makes very little sense, under any reasonable ethical interpretation. If you create a being (say, much like a pair of parents create a child), then you are responsible for its general well-being so long as your general capacity is greater than theirs.”
Isn’t it just considered ethical because of the way humans produce and raise their young i.e. we, like many animals, put a lot of resources into creating just a few ‘replicas’ of ourselves over a lifetime. To ensure that the species survives we must put a lot of effort into ensuring that creation survives and can go on to create ‘replicas’ of its self. If on the other hand you adopt of strategy of producing very large numbers of ‘replicas’ of yourself and then let probability play out you still ensure the survival of your species even though the mortality rate is incredibly high. Not saying this is true but just thinking about where are ethics come from and why protection of our young is very much a universal value and not just in humans. You can of course take this idea further and say the reason we grieve so much for the death of our young is just a reminder that we need to take care of them.
Heh. I’m a dirty moral realist, so I don’t think that ethics is dependent upon the facts on the ground of the evolution of the species (though I think it does certainly affect whether the species comes to participate in ethical action!). Either way, though, in the case of Christian God, the book expresses a concern and ethic that is very personal in nature (so the shotgun method to making sure humans survive is fairly ethically incompatible with it) especially since God has an unlimited capacity to observe and care about each individual.
Sorry I should have made it clearer … my post wasn’t about the incompatibility of the Christian God and reality but where are ethics actually come from.
No, I know; the first part of my comment was me disagreeing with your account somewhat [:)], the second was me tying it back in to the overthread.
I know I’m way in the minority of the atheist community by being a moral realist (and I still owe brgulker and explanation of how I think that works), but I tend to think that the evolution of the species proceeded down particular paths because certain pre-existing functional social relationships are inherently moral or immoral (in other words, amend slightly the order of causation; evolution does not cause morality, but rather tracks pre-existing moral truths). For example, at some point in human moral development, we decided generally that murder was wrong. I think it does not follow that simply because there was a time before that determination that murders which took place before it were not wrong. I tend to think of ethics as a process of continuous discovery, instead of continuous invention.
Excellent point! I’ve never approached it from that angle, but it makes perfect sense to me. It also reminds me of how baffled I am when I hear christians thanking god for every good thing they perceive, and never blaming him for the bad things. That just doesn’t make any sense at all. Talk about confirmation bias!
Maybe we should aspire to be a bit more like that video in our attempts to bring reason to other people: unintrusive, relaxed, curious. Less “dogma”, criticism, and ridiculing. I know it’s tempting, especially in Teh Interwebs, but from my personal experience in real life, choosing the modest, non-”fundamentalist”, non-offensive way is so much more effective than everything else. My .02$
Agreed. My .02 plus your .02 = $.04
I disagree. Sometimes, some “ideas” are so absurd, so woo-filled, so idiotic, that the only response is criticism and ridicule.
Be that as it may, you do attract more bees with honey than with shit.
Some people don’t like to eat honey, so giving them shit is a nice alternative.
And why would I be interested in attracting bees?
Yes, I do like the way this video maker brought up the very simple, but relevant question about this unconditional love which is actually quite conditional and the condition are rather horrendous for those who don’t receive the love. There is no middle ground, at all. Whereas, at least we humans tend to give out the punishment that is commenserate with the crime. Steal a cookie from the cookie jar before dinner, get a 10 second time out or no dessert after dinner. Kill someone in cold blood, go to prison for the rest of your living days. Etc. Love Jesus, a little, a lot, pretend to, whatever, have eternal life (supposedly). Don’t love Jesus (whether you lead a good or bad life), go to hell forever to burn and feel excruciating pain, FOREVER.
Heh heh heh… oh so typical of the irrationality of the ‘Jesus loves you, but…’ crowd. Just today I got an e-mail from my Dad that was forwarded to him for the nth time, basically stating that we live in a Christian country ruled by Jesus and the bible and if I don’t agree with that statement, I should just shut up.
Now, I normally just LOL and delete his messages pertaining to his almighty, but this time I responded by telling him that in this country, freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion, and that we live in a representational democracy, not a christian theocracy.
I am still giggling at the thought of him trying to figure out what the hell that all means. I love him dearly, but he’s a rethuglican Faux Nooze-bot and has the attention span of a two-year-old when it comes to anything that requires more than 30 seconds of contemplation.
Love this site… keep going, man!!!!
reminds me of a song i heard a few years ago.
“Jesus loves me, but He can’t stand you”
i can’t remember who sang it but it made me laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u8cjV1hMRQ
Jesus Loves You…everyone else thinks you’re a d – head!
Rather clever. I’ll have to repost the vid on FB, along with a special little smiley face emoticon for my southern baptist cousins. Yea, the conditional love just gets into a logic loop. God rewards you only if you choose to worship him. Ok…but if he made everything & all the rules, why not just make us so all we know how to do is worship god? Dig it…if I build a little ramp of cardboard & put a ball at the top, it’s going to roll downhill every time, EVERY time. You know why? Because balls roll downhill. Also, I don’t like stepping in dog poop, so I must train my dog not to poop near the door. And then I can only encourage her to make the right choice thru frequent use of the patented happy dog owner voice. But if I were all powerful & creating a dog from scratch, I believe I’d make a poop-free dog, tho of course that’d mean I’d have to find a new equally annoying chore for my child. This is not like a group of 9 year olds building a soapbox racer. Christians are not saying we’re an early prototype & god is messing around to find the best design. He’s suppose to be ALL knowing, ALL powerful. So why make an inherently flawed creation then fling it against the wall in a tantrum when it doesn’t work right?
“Jesus is his own Dad”. Hmmm. Schizophrenic?
I used to be schizophrenic, but now we’re just paranoid.
“There are two main parts of the Christian God: God the Father, God the Son (aka Jesus), and God the Holy Spir… There are three main parts to the Christian God…”
“I used to be schizophrenic, but now we’re just paranoid.”
I don’t think schizophrenic means what you think it does … :-)
Yes, schizophrenia is “a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality”, “most commonly manifest as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction”… not multiple personality disorder, which is different.
There are various degrees of severity. Many schizophrenics are functional: they hear voices, but know that aren’t real. Creepy.
You can take any slightly complex topic, and completely twist it by treating it simplistically. Unfortunately the idiotic tone the cartoon character takes in your clip, extends to the logic ‘he’ applies. You cannot rationalise Creation and God in this superficial manner. Of course there are extremes on the fringe of Christianity as there are in atheism and every other ‘ism’ in existence. The simple truth is that Good and Evil exist. God is good, but the power of evil is indisputed. Walk away from good and you fall into the clutches of evil. Bad things happen. rationalising that and trying to set it within the liberal illusion that most of us in the West live within, just does not gel. For something more scientific and detailed check out Ian Wishart (Editor of Investigate Magazine), Divinity Code, but please get the facts straight before posting ‘defamatory’ and misleading material like this on your site. Unfortunately for many of us, the rational, human definitions of God are justified through ignorance or a refusal to change our way of life. When the turth becomes apparent it may be a little too late but as far as I can see God is not wasting His time yelling and screaming at you guys to obey Him or perish. The examples you site are human. Read the Bible – a document inspired by God, and be a little more diligent in understanding the facts, then make up your own mind. By that time you will have experienced God – as one who has been through that process I guarantee, it is a lot better than sitting outside and throwing barbs at Christians. Wishart is briefly described on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Wishart.Good luck.
The simple truth is that Good and Evil exist.
Prove it.
Read the Bible – a document inspired by God, and be a little more diligent in understanding the facts, then make up your own mind.
That’s the whole problem. Most of us did and saw what it truly is – a story about a cosmic tyrant who only loves those who kiss his ass and throws everyone else into “evil” (which he also created, mind).
Can you prove Darwin’s theory of evolution? many of the fundamentals of what we call science are based on faith – theory or beliefs, and it is quite obvious that trying to rationalise everything within the severely limited knowledge we have restricts our perspective to a very narrow and simple one. Prove it? I cannot, but I am satisfied that the indicators are sufficient for me to justify my faith. The story about the ‘cosmic tyrant’, you must have read a different book to mine. No-one is forcing you, least of all God. He really does not want anyone to come to Him other than through his or her own conviction. You don’t need to look far to see evil, nor do you need to look far to see good. The matter is whether your mind is open and objective. Either way, it’s your call.
Proof… that is an interesting concept. I was raised as a Catholic by a Father who refused to go to church, sent my younger brother and I alone on Sundays without breakfast, so we’d spend the collection money on donuts and hot chocolate.
I never bought into the whole ‘holy spirit’ thing, even at a young age — simply did not make any sense, too much like a fairy tale. Communion? More like CANNIBALISM! Then WHAM… I read ’2001- A Space Odyssey’ and saw the film at the theater right after that. Talk about an epiphany… that story and film made more sense to me than any of the baloney I listened to in church or Sunday school, and I’ve been a practicing agnostic/atheist ever since. I am 53 years young.
I believe the proof is overwhelming that de Bible is a Bronze Age morality story. written by men hundreds of years after the fact who had heard the whole thing via a classic game of Telephone. I can prove that the religious dogma contained in de Bible has no bearing on my life whatsoever, because I don’t give creedence to a single word of it, so therefore it does not matter to me or my life. It may to others, but like the Rock Man said to Oblio (my namesake) in ‘The Point’… ‘you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear.’
I believe Darwin’s theory makes excellent sense, tho proof is in the eye… I’ve read both de Bible and Evolution of Species and Darwin’s book is crazy smart and logical. Love the drawings, the rationale and his dry observations.
That is what I believe.
Science is not–I repeat, NOT based on “faith.” The scientific method is in no way analogous with belief in imaginary sky friends, fiends, and assorted creatures. And as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, Dilhan, scientists have repeatedly proven that Darwin’s initial theories about the evolution of species is correct.
Uh, yes we can prove Darwin’s Theory. Over a period spanning more than one hundred and fifty years it has been tested thousands of times by thousands of scientists from dozens of disciplines and still, after all that, it still works. A scientific theory isn’t the same thing as an opinion. Evolution is a theory and a fact.
Evolution is a theory and a fact.
Evolution is a theory which coherently explains
anda (very, very large) set of facts.FTFY. :)
No. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the theory which explains those facts.
Fixed that for you. :)
… why religious folks insist on bringing Darwin’s corpse to discussion? What does it even have to do with anything?
Though, in a sense, we can indeed prove that life changes over time. We’ve observed it, documented it, tested it, made it happen. Evolution is a fact and we know it so, today. The theory part of it regards the how and when (much like we don’t know why gravity happens, but we know for a fact that it does, indeed, happen).
Why religious people keep insisting science is some sort of faith-based magic juju? Do you argue that your computer works on faith? That engineers just guess how to make a car work?
I could say the same to you. Trying to justify ignorance by saying “Goddit” only leads to a very narrow and simple perspective that solves nothing.
Kudos to you. Except those indicators are insufficient (and, indeed, nonexistent) for a lot of us (like me); why should we care?
“Love me or else” isn’t very loving.
But that’s alright, because I’m living quite happily without it. If there’s a God – and I admit there might be – It either doesn’t care (which I find more likely) or is irrelevant to my life.
Remember, what’s evil to one may not be evil to another. And even though those things may exist, they are neither absolute nor a result of God.
Quite.
Logically every opinion is subjective and ultimately it is your opinion and belief that must guide your actions. My comment on this forum is in response to the simplistic and erronoeus treatment of a complex subject in the video at the start of this thread. As for Darwin’s Theory being fact, please see http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ for scientific reasoning from scientists, as to why Darwin’s theory is a theory, and now disputed. If you infer that the bible is an unscientific fairy tale, perhaps you ought to examine why some of the world greatest scientists, Copernicus, Newton, Babbage, Faraday and Francis Bacon included, believed in Christianity and accepted the teachings in the bible. Like I said, ultimately, it is not what they believed but what you believe and my only request is to keep an open mind, respect the faith that I and other Christians have and consider the possibility that God does exist. The results may surprise you.
Ah yes… the old ‘keep an open mind’ saw. Although I will respect other people’s right to have their faith, I do not respect the agony, hatred, violence and terror that faith causes people to perpetrate on its behalf. Like a crazed zealot whose faith allows him to impose a death sentence on others with impunity, for his faithful interpretation of God’s will is all he/she needs to justify his/her actions. THAT faith… it just keeps on happening, over and over and over again.
Sorry… that kind of faith-based license has no weight in my world, and I reject it completely.
> “As for Darwin’s Theory being fact, please see http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ for scientific reasoning from scientists, as to why Darwin’s theory is a theory, and now disputed.”
First of all, you’re clearly unaware that the word “theory” has a significantly different meaning in the world of science. That’s a clear indication that you know little actual science (I’m not claiming I know a lot either, but at least I know basic stuff like the scientifc method and nomenclature). It gives me strong reason to suspect that you haven’t actually looked in any depth at the science behind evolution which you criticize.
Secondly, that site offers underwhelmingly little evidence to support its claims. All they have are a handful of links to articles by – surprise! – fellows of the Discovery Institute and other ID advocates. Why no links to some actual scientific articles? Could it be because they don’t exist?
In short, that site is a joke. It offers nothing but the personal opinions of a bunch of ID’ers who fail to back it up with anything of substance – as usual. You claim they offer “scientific reasoning”, but they do absolutely nothing of the sort, they merely offer handwaving and unsubstantiated opinions. No facts, no research, no real articles.
> “… perhaps you ought to examine why some of the world greatest scientists, Copernicus, Newton, Babbage, Faraday and Francis Bacon included, believed in Christianity and accepted the teachings in the bible.”
Ah, argument from authority, who’d have guessed. As for Copernicus, Newton, and Francis Bacon, they lived in a period of time before the rise of natural sciences, where the Bible was considered the default authority on scientific matters, so why would they believe anything else? And what specifically did their belief in the Bible add to their works? What? Unless there was some actual connection between their work and their religion, why bring it up? I could counter with names like Einstein, Paul Dirac, or Richard Feynmann, but it would serve as little purpose as your own parade of names.
You like to pretend that you’re open-minded, but from here it sure seems like what you are really doing is using your alleged open-mindedness as an excuse to exclude facts and opinions that are inconvenient to your faith.
“my only request is to keep an open mind, respect the faith that I and other Christians have …”
Maybe a good start would be to practice what you preach. You claim to be open minded yet say evolution is disputed – did you decide this from looking at the evidence or because the evidence contradicts with your chosen holy text so the evidence must be wrong? Open minded doesn’t mean believe in any old woo regardless of the evidence, open minded doesn’t mean deciding the answer first and then looking for the ‘facts’ to fit it. With regards to showing respect for your faith maybe you would consider showing respect to the many thousands of real scientists who have worked in the field of evolution instead of claiming that the kooks from the DI are somehow scientists when in fact their actual actions attack not support science. ID is not science, it’s creationism dressed up as science.
I see no need to respect the man made myths of sky gods — tolerate yes, respect no. I respect your right to believe in the world of woo just don’t expect me to respect the ideas of the world of woo.
Oh lookie! The fundies have four scientists who agree with them (barely). I really believed 100% of scientists accepted evolution as fact. Now I know that is a LIE! It’s only 99.99999995%!!!!! Creationism must be true!
Okay, now on a more serious note. Three of the five scientists listed on the site you linked are using the God in the Gaps argument. They can’t provide any other explanation that improves upon Evolution, but they feel there might be more to it (which in no way refutes the validity of evolution anyway, it just means more can be learned). So, since we cannot explain X, God must have done it. The fourth scientist is a mathematician (i.e. possibly unqualified to speak on issues dealing with biology) and doesn’t even seem to have an argument. This website is a joke.
Imagine twenty cardiologists in a room. Nineteen of them tell you if you don’t have a specific surgery, you will die. They show you EKGs and other data that supports their claim, and make an intelligent argument as to why you should get the surgery. One cardiologist says the other nineteen are all wrong. He can’t provide a better explanation for your symptoms, and doesn’t give you much to go on to support his assertion that you don’t need surgery, but he’s adamant you don’t need it. What do you do?
BTW… this is a truly amazing thread… many thanks to all who posted here, and for this amazing site.
Quite right too Oblio, faith based agony, hatred, violence etc., are to be condemned and rejected outright. I am a recent convert from Catholicism to Christianity. Not once in the 4 years I have been a Christian have I seen anyone truly representing God, causing agony, inciting hatred or violence. I guess it goes back to the theory that God is ‘threatening’ non believers. As the multitude of atheists should prove, that statement of the consequences of evil, is not really causing agony. Readingthe Bible and going to Church are both voluntary – the rest is up to the individual. ‘Keeping an open mind’ in not ‘an old saw’ but a request for an intelligent approach, for whether Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist, you need to rely on your own intellect to determine what you believe and what you don’t believe. If anyone professing to be Christian has incited violence or hatred, they cannot be considered in any sense to be Christian. A quick glance at the basis of Christianity should confirm that.
What a surprise. It’s the “No True Scotsman” argument.
“Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus Going on before! Christ, the royal Master, Leads against the foe; Forward into battle, See His banner go…”
War is war, and war is violence and death, and war never determines who is right, only who is left (hey… that rhymes!). Am I wrong, or have many MANY Christians sang this song at the top of their lungs with a smile on their faces, without a hint of irony or pathos? I know… it’s just a metaphor. Right. I am sure Scott Roeder sang this tune while he polished his barrel in preparation for blasting Dr. Tiller in his church. I’m sure Roeder considers himself a pious Christian soldier, fighting a holy battle… could you tell him anything to sway his mind? I’ll bet Randall Terry and James Dobson think he represents exactly the spirit of a good Christian. Are they good or bad Christians?
(sigh)
Please, don’t think that I am denigrating your faith, but know you cannot ignore that Christianity, along with almost every other organized religious belief, is at its root a system that requires blind allegiance and resorts to violence to achieve its goals and objectives. Always has, always will.
On the other hand, thoughful religious belief can do so much good, help so many, provide so much, give unflinchingly. What a strange situation, don’t you agree? We humans are so flawed… evolution is not yet completed in our case… many rivers to cross heh heh heh.
Now there we have agreement, Oblio – thoughtful religious belief can do so much good. It is a little unfair to define a Church of millions by the action of a handful of extremists. The concept of Christian soldiers is an allusion to the battle of good and evil – no-one spills out of Church after signing that hymn, to slaiughter heathens. Not anymore, but it was done as you know by the crusaders. They cannot be construed to be true Christians, and neither can the nuts you mention. There is a whole host of belief systems covered by the term Cristianity today. The Christianity I know and refer to in my comments is the one whose God wrote “Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs.” The Christianity I know requires conviction – not blind allegiance. That would be contrary to what Jesus taught – understanding why we do something is fundamental to being a true Christian for blind allegiance would make it a cult, based on only superficial understanding.
We could go on and on with this. I value the debate and only add that what I have stated is based on my own experience and belief, not what any pastor has instructed me. That is where much of the problem lies – priests or pastors, themselves human, and subject to human frailty – can be tempted to deify themselves. As much as the Crusaders wrongly through they fought and killed non believers for God, man made rules and requirements have so often clouded and distorted what God set out. He never intended for anyone to read, memorise and blindly follow his doctrine, but to question, understand, and then with certainty based on that understanding, to follow it in the knowledge that it is good and right. God would not have created us with human intelligence and human freedom otherwise. It’s a tough and complex debate and Ian Wishart, Editor of ‘Investigate’ Magazine, goes a long way towards addressing the issues scientifically and objectively. Check it out if you have the inclination.
This seems oxymoronic to me —> “thoughtful religious belief”
Nicely put, Dilhan, but… therein lies the problem: you offer thoughtful and heartfelt insight on how your belief and understanding of God makes sense to you and your life, but I hazard to say that there are just as many people who would belittle your reasoning — their God is the be-all and end-all, de Bible must be taken literally as written, and anyone who says or thinks otherwise is a tool of Satan. Sheesh… the op/ed letters section of my local news rag is regularly filled with their rants.
Those are the God-fearing, anti-everything else people that make me shake in my boots. They use their piety as a holy sword to smite down every other justification of belief or non-belief, because theirs is ‘the one true God’. Try to shake that from their psyche and you end up with scripture-spouting, wide-eyed calls for death and destruction of their enemies… all in the name of and to the greater glory of their savior.
THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND WITH THEM.
I have many close friends who are very religious and God-fearing, whose lives are carefully molded around their belief… but they honor and respect my decidedly non-believer status. As I like to say, freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion, and my religious friends do not question me on the way I feel… I love them for that. But to a lot of other people, I AM THE ENEMY. I am the reason the world is in turmoil (not clashes of religious dogma), I am the reason God will punish mankind (not the holy wars, past and present), I am the willing dupe of Satan (not the blindered followers of an ancient fable)… I am their reason to continue their holy struggle, because their piety and belief tells them they will ultimately win out, ‘good’ over ‘evil’, and nothing will sway them frrom that path.
I am not their enemy… they are doing it to themselves, but we will all suffer for their actions.