|
It kind of feels like they're saying -- "I like God's idea of 'Heaven', but not its delivery, so through sheer force of will, I will make it better."Is that really any more far fetched than Pascal's Wager that is often bandied about by some believers? I know you do not subscribe to that line of reasoning, but there are plenty who seem to.
As I understand it, the basic idea behind Pascal's Wager is "Fire Insurance". As near as I can tell, that is a perfectly logical (although a bit flawed) concept. And it doesn't take what exists and changes it to be more desireable as if that can have any effect. I can say the same thing about other religions. There are a number that believe in reincarnation. If you choose to believe that, fine. But to say that you believe in reincarnation except that when you die, you get to choose who or what you come back as just because you don't like that your actions in this life may determine that you come back as a mosquito in the next life seems rather -- (I can't seem to think of the word...) -- hubris? It's almost making ourselves more "god" than the god(s) we are claiming to worship.
Well, if your god(s) is made of weak-sauce…
I believe you said part of the reason you dismissed Mormonism is because the god in the Book of Mormon did not seem like the god you knew from the Bible. I am sure you rationalize that as the god of the Book of the Bible is 'real', but are you so sure you are not dismissing the Book of Mormon because it does not fit your world view?
From an outsider's perspective, the god of the New Testament is a stark contrast to the god of the Old Testament. Maybe New Testament authors did not like all that law holding them back.
"I'm sick of those cursed Sadducees always telling me what to do!"
"Hey, have you heard of this Jesus guy? He says it's o.k. to pick wheat on Sabbath if you are really hungry. Yeah, I know. He says all that other stuff is really not that important. We just have to love god and love each other. Cool, huh?"
|
|
I believe you said part of the reason you dismissed Mormonism is because the god in the Book of Mormon did not seem like the god you knew from the Bible. I am sure you rationalize that as the god of the Book of the Bible is 'real', but are you so sure you are not dismissing the Book of Mormon because it does not fit your world view?
There are a number of reasons I dismis Mormonism. Starting with Joseph Smith's history and the control the church has over its members.
But then I've also known a number of Mormons who seem to do exactly what I was describing above -- changing what their doctrine says to fit something in their mind that is more palatable.
From an outsider's perspective, the god of the New Testament is a stark contrast to the god of the Old Testament. Maybe New Testament authors did not like all that law holding them back.
This kind of goes back to the discussion Bugley and I were having on the Dawkins quote a few pages ago.
My wife knows more about this than I do. There are specific beliefs about this and studies and theories -- more than I know about. The God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament. But actually it doesn't stop there. The God before the Exodus is different than the God after the Exodus and is different than the God after the exile. There are studies into this and a few theories on why. Honestly, I'm not sure yet where I stand on this. My immediate thought runs kind of along the lines of -- is your relationship with your father the same now as it was when you were two? When you were ten? When you were 16? Did your father change that much or did you? Or simply your relationship changed? Could it be that we as human beings have changed over the last 6,000+ years more than that God has changed?
I don't really know. What I said here isn't really grounded in anything Biblical. And I'm not even sure if it's what I believe. Jesus seemed to imply that God was the same. If that's true then something else changed.
|
|
But then I've also known a number of Mormons who seem to do exactly what I was describing above -- changing what their doctrine says to fit something in their mind that is more palatable.
I find myself asking myself -- "Well don't I change my own doctrine to something more palatable?"
I don't think that I do. Maybe I do, but I don't think so. I have modified my beliefs a bit -- largely thanks to you guys -- but I still feel that I'm doing so with the Bible as a guide. I've learned far more about the Bible, what's in the Bible, how and why it was written and so on and I feel that my beliefs now are more in line with what the Bible really says.
As opposed to -- I've known some "Christians" who say that they don't believe in "Hell".
There are a number of reasons I dismis Mormonism. Starting with Joseph Smith's history and the control the church has over its members.
Neither of which necessitates that the message is false. I would agree that Joseph Smith's history serves as circumstantial evidence against the validity of Mormonism. I see plenty of circumstantial evidence against Christianity as well.
As far as the control the church has, really, how is that not a claim that you simply don't like it? If they are right, they may want tight control to keep people from going over to the dark side. They are just watching out for your soul after all. Who are you to claim to know better than someone who actually has contact with god?
I hope this does not come off as an attack on you, Moff. I am just playing Devil's advocate here. From my perspective, it just looks like a rationalization on all sides…including my own.
Would you agree Jews probably say the same thing about the New Testament?
…because what he taught (outside of breaking rule #1) was palatable?
|
|
…because what he taught (outside of breaking rule #1) was palatable?
I'm not sure I'm following you.
(In theory), Jews are still looking for the "Christ". They just don't think that Jesus was him.
I can't think of (off the top of my head) where Jesus said specifically to worship him. They seemed to get angry with Jesus when he claimed to be God (which really isn't doctrinal teaching regarding Law) and when he healed people on the Sabbath. I don't know that they were able to pin much else on him. I know that there is still a pretty big emphasis on "keeping the Sabbath holy" -- with things like elevators that run all day on the Sabbath because pushing a button is "work" -- so I don't know how they would react now to healing sick people on the Sabbath. The way I see it, if God doesn't want you to heal the sick on the Sabbath and the power/ability comes from God, he can "turn it off" on the Sabbath to keep it from being abused.
Who did the "miracle"?
Edit: I cut out the banter between you and LT because I feel I'm creating a new new shoot or branch in the debate here.
I'd argue that this is really dependent on interpretation. When I look at this I can come up with a number of plausible answers but those answers depend a lot on the time period I'm viewing this from. So if we look at this from the lens of 2010 we might answer that it was smoke and mirrors. If we feel that the battle between good and evil should take a more central stage in this narrative we might decide that the Devil did it.
However I don't believe that either view point would have crossed the mind of those reading in and around the time they where actually written nor are the above the intent of the individuals who recorded this story. The Ancient Jews, so far as we can discern, did not believe that there was but one God. Instead they believed that they particularly as a people where allowed only this one God. With that in mind I think the original point of the story is to show how much better Yahweh is then the God's of their opponents. The miracles are real but the Gods granting the miracles are weak and unable to do the really spectacular 'bend the laws of physics like a pretzel' stuff that Yahweh can.
|
|
... stuff ...
Actually, I agree with most of what you said.
My point really was that with many other religious views, there is a lot of emphasis on the mortal rather than the diety. And while there is a lot of emphasis on Moses and Abraham and so on, the Bible is pretty clear that it's God doing these things and not the mortal.
My point with that question is that the emphasis was on the priests. Their gods are not mentioned by name at all. I understand that they were most likely priests of specific gods or the pantheon, but it doesn't say that. Likewise, it doesn't say that Moses did the miracles.
I think that's an important point of that and many of the Hebrew stories. Moses looked to God for miracles while Pharaoh looked to his priests. The "boils" plague is interesting from that point of view. In that part of the story it said that the priests were unable to duplicate that plague because of the boils they had they were unable to perform the ritual. Moses didn't need to "perform".
Outside of that, I agree that the main point is essentially saying "our God is bigger than your gods". Although it's hard to tell for sure. Again, their gods aren't specifically mentioned. Also, (and I'm not an ancient Hebrew expert), but as I understand it the Ba'al story has Elijah mocking the priests saying something along the lines of "maybe you should call louder, he could be on the toilet". So then, did the writer(s) of the Old Testament believe that there were other gods or just that people worshipped other things?
I removed a couple posts and the replies to them.
Let's make sure this stays the civil religious thread. Also, flag it and move on.
So then, did the writer(s) of the Old Testament believe that there were other gods or just that people worshipped other things?
My impression is that they started off as hard polytheists, which I think is the scholarly consensus, and that the Hebrew Bible was largely written during a transition between polytheism and monotheism. (Deuteronomy and its textual family are fairly hard monotheist, but generally dated a bit late compared to the Yahwist and Elohist writings.) It certainly reflects tensions between different priesthoods and their cult centers and mythic lineages. Likewise it bears all the fingerprints of popular religious strife with its recurring themes of the Jews whoring after other gods. Those other gods were probably traditional deities of their ancestors, just like Yahweh. (The same dynamic in Europe culminated in turning pagan gods into Catholic saints and in the Americas led to people like the Inca practicing Christianity but following their indigenous religion's traditions on the side.) The Bible comprehends a category of god-fearers who appear to be out of line with the state cult theologically but still believers in Yahweh and occasional observers.
From hard polytheism the progression seems to have been:
1) Other gods are real, but ours is the greatest so worship him more. One of the psalms explicitly puts Yahweh in the company of a sort of congress of deities, though I've read some translations that go out of their way to obscure the fact.
2) Other gods are real, but ours is the greatest and only he should be worshiped. Hence the miracle-offs of Exodus.
2b) (optional stage) Other gods are real, but evil. Ours is good so worship him instead.
3) Other gods are false, but ours is real and should be worshiped.
At the last state you'd see things like the popular claim among some evangelicals (and reflected in the Ten Commandments movie) that other cultures were worshiping statues and rocks and things that they thought were gods. Needless to say the number of people who literally worshiped the statues instead of the personas they represented is probably pretty damned small, though the Egyptians did believe that souls could inhabit statues after death and that might be where some of the confusion came from. Lots of modern religious people have strange attitudes about religious artwork too.
|
Great comments, Moff and Samnell!
As I understand it, Christ is rather specific in the New Testament with regard to Heaven and the afterlife--without looking any of this up, I believe it goes something like this: your reward in Heaven is holistic reunification with God including the eternal direct worship of Him in His presence.
When Christ answers the question of being reunited with one's wife (and the specific question was in effect, 'will I be married in Heaven, and will it be to my first wife or the fourth one...?'), His answer is that you are beyond such mundane concepts in Heaven; that your sole focus is glorification to God; that you would not, in fact, even recognize your former earthly spouse (to whom, ultimately, you were only married in order to produce more faithful worshippers...apparently).
There's connection here between this concept of Heaven and the idea of worshiping God without the benefit of iconography, which many Christian sects interpret as strictly disallowing any representations beyond a simple cross. Both are almost too ultimately intellectual for the average person to accept...or understand.
Essentially, the anti-image rule ultimately requires the worshippers to focus prayer and intent on the concept of God itself, which I akin to doing higher math with no paper and no Greek. Likewise, the Heaven-as-a-higher-state-of-consciousness concept, where one simply continues to worship, but now in the direct Presence, I feel neglects to remember that most people can really only imagine something better as, well, something better. If life is full of cold weather and rain, dirt floors and three day old soup with mouldy bread, then Heaven, rather than a place where such things have absolutely no meaning, must be a warm, dry and sunny temperate park with picnics, oven-fresh French loaves and bisque...
And don't forget, Christianity doesn't, apparently, allow for multiple go-rounds to get it right...no coming back as a mosquito in order to help teach you a lesson and motivate you closer to a higher understanding.
If you choose to believe that, fine. But to say that you believe in reincarnation except that when you die, you get to choose who or what you come back as just because you don't like that your actions in this life may determine that you come back as a mosquito in the next life seems rather -- (I can't seem to think of the word...) -- hubris? It's almost making ourselves more "god" than the god(s) we are claiming to worship.
Kudo's.
A thought provoking response. The kind of thing I like about this thread when its at its best.
Great comments, Moff and Samnell!
As I understand it, Christ is rather specific in the New Testament with regard to Heaven and the afterlife--without looking any of this up, I believe it goes something like this: your reward in Heaven is holistic reunification with God including the eternal direct worship of Him in His presence.
When Christ answers the question of being reunited with one's wife (and the specific question was in effect, 'will I be married in Heaven, and will it be to my first wife or the fourth one...?'), His answer is that you are beyond such mundane concepts in Heaven; that your sole focus is glorification to God; that you would not, in fact, even recognize your former earthly spouse (to whom, ultimately, you were only married in order to produce more faithful worshippers...apparently).
There's connection here between this concept of Heaven and the idea of worshiping God without the benefit of iconography, which many Christian sects interpret as strictly disallowing any representations beyond a simple cross. Both are almost too ultimately intellectual for the average person to accept...or understand.
Essentially, the anti-image rule ultimately requires the worshippers to focus prayer and intent on the concept of God itself, which I akin to doing higher math with no paper and no Greek. Likewise, the Heaven-as-a-higher-state-of-consciousness concept, where one simply continues to worship, but now in the direct Presence, I feel neglects to remember that most people can really only imagine something better as, well, something better. If life is full of cold weather and rain, dirt floors and three day old soup with mouldy bread, then Heaven, rather than a place where such things have absolutely no meaning, must be a warm, dry and sunny temperate park with picnics, oven-fresh French loaves and bisque...
And don't forget, Christianity doesn't, apparently, allow for multiple go-rounds to get it right...no coming back as a mosquito in order to help teach you a lesson and motivate you closer to a higher understanding.
I pretty much agree but think that there must be more to it. If I understand correctly Buddhists more or less believe in a 'dwell within the light' type of final reward and it does not seem to unduly damage their religion. Hence why the need to imply to the faithful that there will be a reunion with Fluffy?
I think I've mentioned it on this thread before but Orson Scott Card has a thought provoking take on the 'problem with Heaven' in The Worthington Saga. I recommend picking a copy up if it ever crosses your path.
"Why even mention Hilter to prove the point. As far as I understand orthodox view of salvation, Hitler could have had a deathbed conversion to Christianity and be in Heaven, yet every Jew he had killed, if they didn’t have a similar conversion, ends up in Hell for eternity where, according to some orthodox notions of Hell, they experience something even worse than the Holocaust. This, to me, is as nuts as the worst I’ve heard come from the Bin Ladens of the world.
From my reading on the topic I think, as a general rule, that a deathbed conversion by Hitler would be useless in terms of Protestantism. He has added to much evil to his soul that there just is no way out at this point.
For Catholic's, if my understanding of doctrine is correct, it would actually be possible though not likely. He'd have to do a lot more then just mouth words of repentance and say 'I'm sorry'. Ultimately he needs to get past an all knowing God so his understanding of the crimes committed and repentance for those crimes needs to be absolute - right to the core of his being. A priest could take his confession but only God gets to decide if its sincere.
So far in the distant future as to make speculation of what we might or might not know absolutely meaningless. At the moment, if the theory is true, (and we don't know that it is) then its speculated that we might start noticing the first effects in 10 to the 100th power years.
er..no, we don't. You've heard, perhaps, of the heat death of the universe?
No, it's really not...
Within your own post you provide a possible way around the conundrum. The possibility of a kind of mathematics that would allow us to follow any individual component of the complex system. We would not know what all of them did but we could find out what any given one of interest did if we happened to care.
You seem intent on showing that science can be drowned in data but, even if we don't find a way around that particular issue I don't see how it is really all that important.
Using your human neuron's example I am interested, in terms of scientific inquiry, about such things as how they are made, how they work, how we can replicate them (for example to create artificial intelligence) or fix broken ones (to cure some kinds of disease) and a great many other questions regarding them. One question I don't particularly care about is what exactly each individual one is doing in every individuals head at any given time.
It may be possible to replicate that for a single individual with a great deal of time and expense but once we have done that a couple of times we have learned all there likely is to know from such an experiment. The universe will likely always be full of vast sums of data that we really can't be bothered to explore, but most of it is phenomenally trivial and no one cares - its the answers to the interesting questions that we are after.
From my reading on the topic I think, as a general rule, that a deathbed conversion by Hitler would be useless in terms of Protestantism. He has added to much evil to his soul that there just is no way out at this point.
I think you're half and half. The conversion wouldn't matter under Calvinism, since we're all so evil before we're even born that there's no way out of Hell. But if Hitler was one of the elect, who God apparently picks at random since we're all infinitely undeserving and thus must be equally unappealing to him, it would be straight to Heaven regardless of any mortal deeds, good or bad.
At least that would be my understanding for strict five points Calvinism, which is an admirably tidy piece of work. (I'm not a fan, but it's a very well-built theological structure and credit where credit's due.)
Things get murkier when you're dealing with the confused, ambiguous Calvinesque theology popular among American fundamentalists and their televangelists. For the cheap grace sorts, one recitation of the Sinner's Prayer would be enough for life. You're saved and the saved are saved, so that's the end of it. (There's sort of Calvin, Perseverance of the Saints.) Of course if you sin after that, it means you didn't really mean the prayer the first time and have to go do it again or you are most definitely getting cooked.
I think you're half and half. The conversion wouldn't matter under Calvinism, since we're all so evil before we're even born that there's no way out of Hell. But if Hitler was one of the elect, who God apparently picks at random since we're all infinitely undeserving and thus must be equally unappealing to him, it would be straight to Heaven regardless of any mortal deeds, good or bad.At least that would be my understanding for strict five points Calvinism, which is an admirably tidy piece of work. (I'm not a fan, but it's a very well-built theological structure and credit where credit's due.)
Things get murkier when you're dealing with the confused, ambiguous Calvinesque theology popular among American fundamentalists and their televangelists. For the cheap grace sorts, one recitation of the Sinner's Prayer would be enough for life. You're saved and the saved are saved, so that's the end of it. (There's sort of Calvin, Perseverance of the Saints.) Of course if you sin after that, it means you didn't really mean the prayer the first time and have to go do it again or you are most definitely getting cooked.
I mean 15th and 16th century Protestantism. I really should post that as a disclaimer.
In any case you make it sound arbitrary and its not supposed to be. Obviously the concept of the elect is meant to deal with issues surrounding the parts of the bible that would seem to indicate that only a very small number of Christians are actually going to get into the Kingdom of God. Even this is not the only interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses (a branch of Protestantism - though I suspect that some Protestants would consider them to have gone beyond that) believe that there will be a hierarchy in Heaven from Jesus to the elect and then from them to the rest of the faithful.
The elect, however, are expected to come from among those who devoutly practice the faith. Certainly everyone is so evil from birth that it is only Gods infinite mercy that any one gets in at all but that does not mean that your not being judged while on earth. You get free will after all and its meant to play a part by making the judging process meaningful.
I mean 15th and 16th century Protestantism. I really should post that as a disclaimer.
Fair enough, but that still includes Calvin. ;)
In any case you make it sound arbitrary and its not supposed to be. Obviously the concept of the elect is meant to deal with issues surrounding the parts of the bible that would seem to indicate that only a very small number of Christians are actually going to get into the Kingdom of God. Even this is not the only interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses (a branch of Protestantism - though I suspect that some Protestants would consider them to have gone beyond that) believe that there will be a hierarchy in Heaven from Jesus to the elect and then from them to the rest of the faithful.
Sure. I'm not saying that all predestinationists think exactly the same thing. It does sound quite arbitrary to me, though. Ultimately the defense against the concept of God just rolling dice or something amounts to a declaration that God is Good and just wouldn't do that kind of thing. That's fine for believers, but I plain don't see how you can declare everyone hell-worthy in more or less uniform degree, to the point that nothing they ever do could make any difference on it, and then go on to say that the choice of who gets into Heaven isn't random. Since we're all functionally identical ab initio, and our deeds are irrelevant, what criteria could their be to distinguish among us?
The elect, however, are expected to come from among those who devoutly practice the faith. Certainly everyone is so evil from birth that it is only Gods infinite mercy that any one gets in at all but that does not mean that your not being judged while on earth. You get free will after all and its meant to play a part by making the judging process meaningful.
Ok, but I've been talking about afterlife destinies. What one does while alive is a separate topic. :)
I mean 15th and 16th century Protestantism. I really should post that as a disclaimer.Fair enough, but that still includes Calvin. ;)
In any case you make it sound arbitrary and its not supposed to be. Obviously the concept of the elect is meant to deal with issues surrounding the parts of the bible that would seem to indicate that only a very small number of Christians are actually going to get into the Kingdom of God. Even this is not the only interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses (a branch of Protestantism - though I suspect that some Protestants would consider them to have gone beyond that) believe that there will be a hierarchy in Heaven from Jesus to the elect and then from them to the rest of the faithful.Sure. I'm not saying that all predestinationists think exactly the same thing. It does sound quite arbitrary to me, though. Ultimately the defense against the concept of God just rolling dice or something amounts to a declaration that God is Good and just wouldn't do that kind of thing. That's fine for believers, but I plain don't see how you can declare everyone hell-worthy in more or less uniform degree, to the point that nothing they ever do could make any difference on it, and then go on to say that the choice of who gets into Heaven isn't random. Since we're all functionally identical ab initio, and our deeds are irrelevant, what criteria could their be to distinguish among us?
Ok, but I've been talking about afterlife destinies. What one does while alive is a separate topic. :)
The elect, however, are expected to come from among those who devoutly practice the faith. Certainly everyone is so evil from birth that it is only Gods infinite mercy that any one gets in at all but that does not mean that your not being judged while on earth. You get free will after all and its meant to play a part by making the judging process meaningful.
OK here we get to the brain breaking stuff. Doctrine of Total Depravity.
I had though this was limited to just Calvinists and only some of them but it'd seem that most Lutheran's follow this as well and more off shoots of Calvinism then I had originally expected. I'll have to do more research to see what kind of numbers we are talking about.
Even so who the elect are is not meant to be purely arbitrary. Though it is not exactly merit based either since, if it was, there would be no point in most people even trying...to few elect and to many Christians.
Wait a minute... Are you guys talking pre or post 1385 DR? I think Elminster is, like, the only Elect still around...
OK here we get to the brain breaking stuff. Doctrine of Total Depravity.I had though this was limited to just Calvinists and only some of them but it'd seem that most Lutheran's follow this as well and more off shoots of Calvinism then I had originally expected. I'll have to do more research to see what kind of numbers we are talking about.
Yeah. I limited myself to Calvinism because I've got a relatively good grasp of the basic five points stuff but am not as strong with the salvation theology of Lutherans and the like and their interrelations.
Even so who the elect are is not meant to be purely arbitrary. Though it is not exactly merit based either since, if it was, there would be no point in most people even trying...to few elect and to many Christians.
I certainly agree that Calvinists don't believe election is purely arbitrary. But if it's not based on merit what else could it be? I mean you could say it's based on skin color or something but that still doesn't really tell you anything meaningful about a person. The class of facts about people that don't relate to deeds is pretty much limited to inborn things like that, unless there's something I'm missing. If no fact about a person matters, then the choice can't help but be random. If the facts about a person aren't relevant, then it would pretty much have to be arbitrary.
At least that's my take.
Luke Muehlhauser interviews Richard Carrier about his work on the historicity of Jesus, mostly about methodology. There's audio (and forgive Luke's bog-standard slightly pompous podcaster voice, he gets better when actually in conversation) and a transcript.
A sampling discussing the criterion of embarrassment:
There are many examples and I give several where completely false things that made great difficulties for religious people were invented none the less. We know they’re invented. One of them is the castration of Attis. There’s this Attis cult, there’s this whole religion going on around the time of Christianity, it originates before Christianity.
It spreads through Rome like 100 BC at least, so it’s all over the place. In this there’s the myth that Attis kills… this is a God, the God Attis. Son of a God in fact even, kills himself by cutting off his balls. [laughter] In honor of this, his priests cut off their balls. [laughter]
Now in Roman culture this kind of emasculation is one of the most embarrassing insulting things that you do. It totally dehumanizes you and this whole sort of masculine, macho culture is like that. That’s the worst thing you could do and why on earth would you ever worship a eunuch as your savior?
I certainly agree that Calvinists don't believe election is purely arbitrary. But if it's not based on merit what else could it be? I mean you could say it's based on skin color or something but that still doesn't really tell you anything meaningful about a person. The class of facts about people that don't relate to deeds is pretty much limited to inborn things like that, unless there's something I'm missing. If no fact about a person matters, then the choice can't help but be random. If the facts about a person aren't relevant, then it would pretty much have to be arbitrary.
A form of Affirmative Action, maybe?
I certainly agree that Calvinists don't believe election is purely arbitrary. But if it's not based on merit what else could it be? I mean you could say it's based on skin color or something but that still doesn't really tell you anything meaningful about a person. The class of facts about people that don't relate to deeds is pretty much limited to inborn things like that, unless there's something I'm missing. If no fact about a person matters, then the choice can't help but be random. If the facts about a person aren't relevant, then it would pretty much have to be arbitrary.A form of Affirmative Action, maybe?
I am struggling to write a post that would not provoke endless, tedious political trolling. I know that's not what you're trying to get either, but in twelve years on the internet I've had exactly one useful, lucid conversation about affirmative action. The only thing I've had worse luck with was holocaust deniers. I've had more constructive conversations about abortion with pro-lifers, to give you an idea.
So leaving that aside:
If affirmative action denied that there was any such thing as a worthy candidate, the comparison would work. But total depravity doesn't allow for worthy candidates. We're all equally and permanently unworthy. (And because of something that at absolute maximum two people have any culpability in too, just to make it extra fair.) Even the programs' worst critics agree that there exists such a thing as a qualified candidate for a position.
A form of Affirmative Action, maybe?I am struggling to write a post that would not provoke endless, tedious political trolling. I know that's not what you're trying to get either, but in twelve years on the internet I've had exactly one useful, lucid conversation about affirmative action. The only thing I've had worse luck with was holocaust deniers. I've had more constructive conversations about abortion with pro-lifers, to give you an idea.
So leaving that aside:
If affirmative action denied that there was any such thing as a worthy candidate, the comparison would work. But total depravity doesn't allow for worthy candidates. We're all equally and permanently unworthy. (And because of something that at absolute maximum two people have any culpability in too, just to make it extra fair.) Even the programs' worst critics agree that there exists such a thing as a qualified candidate for a position.
It was never meant to be more then a joke, not a serious proposition.
The incongruous answer I came up with while looking for some kind of trait that you neither born with** nor is merit based.
** That said predestination would seem to imply that your born with it. Almost every Catholic or Orthodox critique of the topic focuses on this and the implications for free will.
Anyway flipping around the internet and I think the numbers are pretty high. I'd say Doctrine of Total Depravity remains at the root of most Protestant Churches today. In fact its this that causes such an emphasis for being Born Again. Pretty much any church that puts some kind of emphasis on being born again usually has a Doctrine of Total Depravity at its root because it is in being Born Again that God tells the elect that they have been chosen.
Did she remember to factor in a day for god is like a billion years for man?
|
Date of the Rapture confirmed!
The end of the world is nigh too...apparently...
What a great idea to reduce personal debt! I bet she wrote the entire car off on this year's returns, plus the gas and maintenance, website fees...
Date of the Rapture confirmed!
The end of the world is nigh too...apparently...
That is gonna be one sad panda come May 22nd...
|
|
That is gonna be one sad panda come May 22nd...Date of the Rapture confirmed!
The end of the world is nigh too...apparently...
I wonder if they remembered to carry the 2...
That is gonna be one sad panda come May 22nd...Date of the Rapture confirmed!
The end of the world is nigh too...apparently...
I thought it was October 22, 1844.
It was never meant to be more then a joke, not a serious proposition.
That's what I get for being so serious-minded. :)
Anyway flipping around the internet and I think the numbers are pretty high. I'd say Doctrine of Total Depravity remains at the root of most Protestant Churches today. In fact its this that causes such an emphasis for being Born Again. Pretty much any church that puts some kind of emphasis on being born again usually has a Doctrine of Total Depravity at its root because it is in being Born Again that God tells the elect that they have been chosen.
You're probably right. I never did a heavy survey of the various post-Reformation creedal statements. I know there were several sort of trans-denominational declarations and confessions, and some of those certainly skew Calvinist.
OK, never mind Good Stewardship. Resisting the Green Dragon tells me that "Without doubt one of the greatest threats to society and the church today is the multifaceted environmentalist movement."
After all, God forbid a Christian would want to protect God's creation! This, to me, is a good example of people who can't tell where their politics end and their religion begins.
After all, God forbid a Christian would want to protect God's creation! This, to me, is a good example of people who can't tell where their politics end and their religion begins.
How could they tell? I've read so many objections to the separation of church and state on the grounds that everything a Christian does with regard to anything is supposed to be totally based on religion that asking a state with Christians in it to ease off the holy boosterism is equivalent to demanding they commit mass suicide, since they can't live any other way.
Leaving aside that this describes how the Taliban and Saudi Arabia prefer to run things exactly, this implies that there's a special Christian way to wash one's car, shop for groceries, use the toilet, get a bikini wax, beat your children, run over animals in the road, and so on. The last time I read this argument, one of the examples was driving to work.
"Yea, verily I tell you, drive alone in the carpool lane and punch a hippie in the face. Ever shall you buy the biggest gas-guzzling land boat you can't afford, even unto millimeters to the gallon. If thou lackest in endowment, buy two. Thou shalt adorn it with yellow ribbons, bumper stickers, and call yourself godly for doing so. Always wear a pin bearing my true sign, the American flag, as a symbol of your devotion." -Jackassery 6:66
|
|
OK, never mind Good Stewardship. Resisting the Green Dragon tells me that "Without doubt one of the greatest threats to society and the church today is the multifaceted environmentalist movement."
After all, God forbid a Christian would want to protect God's creation! This, to me, is a good example of people who can't tell where their politics end and their religion begins.
I'm not sure I get it. They say a lot without saying anything in their little blurbs. But then I guess that they want you to buy their 12 disc DVD set (what kind of environmental problems does that bring up?) to tell you what they won't tell you on their website. I was trying to figure out more and went to either their parent website or one of their supporters -- Cornwall Alliance -- (Never heard of it -- a little more on Wikipedia) -- to try and get more information. They do have more, but then again, they have more words without actually saying anything.
From Wikipedia from one of their documents --
"The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost. Is that idea true? We believe not. We believe that idea-we'll call it "global warming alarmism"-fails the tests of theology, science, and economics."
I'm really kind of curious where they feel that not burning of fossil fuels "fails the tests of theology". Especially since "theology" predates most (all?) burning of fossil fuels. I fail to see where it is written -- "burn all you can so the following generations are screwed."
I'm really kind of curious where they feel that not burning of fossil fuels "fails the tests of theology". Especially since "theology" predates most (all?) burning of fossil fuels. I fail to see where it is written -- "burn all you can so the following generations are screwed."
Its right there where the two pages got stuck together. Just look for the slightly thicker page. It might take awhile but you'll find it.
I'm really kind of curious where they feel that not burning of fossil fuels "fails the tests of theology". Especially since "theology" predates most (all?) burning of fossil fuels. I fail to see where it is written -- "burn all you can so the following generations are screwed."
I always thought it had something to do with Prosperity Theology.
Greg
I feel dirty just reading about them.
And I am a dirty, dirty poodle.
WBC is up the street picketing at our court house.
The World Boxing Council is there? Cool!
Or maybe White Blood Cells.
