Thursday, October 24, 2013

All dogs to heaven but some babies to hell (according to Mark Driscoll)

As someone who is kind of apathetically hanging on to her faith by a rapidly fraying thread, I feel like I should just ignore Mark Driscoll. His facebook page and blog are sort of like the digital equivalent of somebody anachronistically punching Jesus in the stomach and making him vomit and then putting a picture of Mark Driscoll's face in the corner of it. And then people "like" it? And "share" it? WHAT?! WHY?! I don't. I can't.
What happens to babies when they die? Mark Driscoll asks
Whatever God feels like doing to them, GOSH! Mark Driscoll answers
Case in point, THIS GARBAGE, buried in words and words of "lots of other people think all babies go to heaven," is this "truth" bomb:
Ultimately, the Father determines which children he will spiritually adopt into his family. This is his decision. It is not the decision of parents who have sent their children on to him, nor the theologians who try and give a guarantee to grieving parents.
In other words, God can totes send babies to hell. Because He's God. He does whatever he feels like doing. GOSH. So Mark is pretty sure his miscarried baby is going to heaven. But your baby. I dunno. Depends. On God. And stuff.

I feel like he totally just preys on people's greatest fears. Like what a sick dude. He makes me physically ill. It reminds me of Dawkin's law of Conservation of Terror via Friendly Atheist.
“Threats expand to fill the vacuum of their implausibility.”
The more implausible the threat, the more terrifying it has to be in compensation. A plausible threat, such as a teacher’s threat of punitive detention, doesn't have to be very terrifying in order to be effective, because the child knows that it will probably be carried out. A very implausible threat is unlikely to be believed, so it has to be made very terrifying in order to have any hope of persuading the child. Now think about the most terrifying threat you have ever met, namely the threat of hell. What does that suggest to you about its plausibility?
This is like hell times a dying babies (in hell). Like way to up the jackass ante, Driscoll. You are just beyond reasonable.

If I were like a Good Christian™, I still don't know what I should do? Ignore him because the last thing this guy needs is more attention? But when Christians ignore people like him, others take our silence to mean that we are condoning him or supporting him or something, which OHMYGOD NO I do not support Mark, no no no, times a million NOOOOO.
But how come when a popular Christian says something anti-gay, or anti-women, or anti-science, or anti-doubt, we hear so many damn crickets? Why are Christians so afraid to criticize their own pastors? Or other pastors? Why do relatively few comment on the awful things said in and done by the church? Or are they just so numb to it all that they've given up?{Richard Dawkins is Not the Atheist Version of Pat Robertson}
My point is, I don't really know what to do with Mark. Reading him makes my brain cells cry. Ignoring him feels like letting stupidity and hate flourish. But I'm just one little person with a tiny blog. One little person who thinks Mark Driscoll's version of Christianity where babies go to hell makes the cage fighting baby Jesus cry.

Photobucket

No comments:

Post a Comment