|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Do I have to share heaven with this guy?
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
If a cleric is counselling an abusive man, he might hope that the family escapes and that the man finds god. For someone already on the beginning of this path, the culmination could easily be seen as the ideal option possible. Or whatever.
Uh-oh. This is definitely a big negatory. I might be persuaded that counselling might involve letting the person go through "to culmination" in their imagination only if it had a chance of getting them to a point of recognition that they are committing a crime against humanity by reducing their family to fodder. To actually tell them to let it rip and hope for the best is as close to objective and absolute wrong as you can get if you start from a premise of individual rights within a societal context, as RooK has. I agree that this foundation should be the starting point for judging relative "betterness" or "worseness" of different moral "paths," as limited as that word might be.
Brrr. I just felt the chilly wind of Nietzche-breath on the back of my neck.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
1. I cannot respect any belief system which rejects Jesus as the true and only incarnation of God. <snip>
2. Any belief system which does not, at its core, hold to, at the very least, the second part of the Great Commandment, is wrong and evil. <snip>
3. Any belief system which rejects the idea of grace is false. <snip>
However, for 2 and 3 at least, that is humanity's ONLY hope, whether or not you are an atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, whatever; the only hope for humanity is to love your neighbor as yourself (provided you aren't a self-loathing whackjob, I suppose) and to manifest grace whenever you can.
It is sadly ironic that I find myself with an exact mirror image for item #1: due to my belief in the nature of God, I cannot fully respect any form of religion that says one person and only one person reflects the image of God and was in fact God in human flesh. It seems to me to split humanity into irreconcilable warring factions and cannot be true. Christians will never respect non-Christians if this is true.
I agree whole-heartedly on #2.
With respect to grace, I have confessed before that I really don't know what it is getting at. I always heard it expressed as "the unmerited favor of God." In other words, we get love even though we deserve hate. I suppose that us "manifesting grace" means "loving people who deserve hate" but if you treat them as you would treat yourself, I think you are doing that anyway. I probably have it wrong, though; it always seemed an irrational concept to me. The Gospel seems to say that no one "deserves hate"; that is why God is Love and has the power to Save through Love.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Nightlamp, you're wondering about decisiveness, and I have to agree that practicality means that indecision is often the enemy. A more accurate analogy, however, would be if you told those following you that you knew for certain that you were going the right way when you were in fact just guessing.
Erin, that was very well put. Just to be clear, the intrinsic value or integrity of your personal system is not at question here. Nevertheless, I have more to say.
Addressing Mertseger's statement about how something "cannot be right if it gives license to cause harm" - this can be made to apply to pretty much anything that happens in life. Moreover, your own admission that pretty much nothing in practice gets the holy designation of "right" by your specific definitions. What is the usefulness of those definitions?
It still seems to me like you've picked your stance/criterion pretty arbitrarily. Based on that observation alone, I'm of the opinion that means you're on pretty weak footing to be making any judgements about anyone else's beliefs. You don't have to agree with them, but it seems reasonable that you admit that they are just as likely to be right as you are.
JimT, unless you want to restrict the conversation to only Buddhas and Christs, you better be willing to contemplate paths with non-ideal portions.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It still seems to me like you've picked your stance/criterion pretty arbitrarily. Based on that observation alone, I'm of the opinion that means you're on pretty weak footing to be making any judgements about anyone else's beliefs. You don't have to agree with them, but it seems reasonable that you admit that they are just as likely to be right as you are.
I did not choose it arbitrarily. I have very solid reasons for the decisions I've made. However, they would not meet your standards of proof, and they are very personal, so I do not and will not offer them. I will say this, though: whether my belief system is right or wrong was NEVER my point here. My initial post to this thread was that if one believes "X", and someone else says "not X", it is logically impossible and utterly worthless to affirm both statements.
I still maintain that position.
[ 16. December 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Nightlamp, you're wondering about decisiveness, and I have to agree that practicality means that indecision is often the enemy. A more accurate analogy, however, would be if you told those following you that you knew for certain that you were going the right way when you were in fact just guessing.
I am glad you found a point in my story I didn't know there was one.
Imagine it if Jesus told all those parables simply because they were good stories.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
I find Chick's tracts absolutely hilarious and wonder how anyone could take them seriously. In fact, I was just on his site, looking to see if I could score some free tracts to hand out to friends, to have a good laugh. The trouble is:
a) I don't want to pay him money to continue what he does,
b) The message of elitism and spite that is the backbone of his message would not be lost on anyone, and my non-Christian friends might never be able to take anything remotely Christian seriously, by its tangental association with these amazing comic book displays of vindictive naiveteé.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I did not choose it arbitrarily. I have very solid reasons for the decisions I've made. However, they would not meet your standards of proof, and they are very personal, so I do not and will not offer them.
Fair enough.
I'd like to point out that most people will argue that they did not actually choose arbitrarily and that they had very solid reasons for choosing their beliefs... that for some reason would not meet my standards of proof. Considering that, would you be willing to elucidate why you're certain that most people on earth are wrong wrong WRONG?
quote:
I will say this, though: whether my belief system is right or wrong was NEVER my point here. My initial post to this thread was that if one believes "X", and someone else says "not X", it is logically impossible and utterly worthless to affirm both statements.
I still maintain that position.
It is a clever arguer that keeps semantically-true statements at the center of their position. Still, accept that this has been conceded already, and been clarified as "admitting uncertainty means aknowleding that there are other possible answers". Hence, a person can think that Christianity is true, and also admit that it's possible Islam might be true.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Considering that, would you be willing to elucidate why you're certain that most people on earth are wrong wrong WRONG?
Not particularly. As I said, it's personal. And to be honest, I am not all that interested in putting some pretty painful stuff out there to be mocked now and used to smack me around later.
quote:
Still, accept that this has been conceded already, and been clarified as "admitting uncertainty means aknowleding that there are other possible answers". Hence, a person can think that Christianity is true, and also admit that it's possible Islam might be true.
I don't believe that. Christianity makes some very exclusive claims. If you really, truly believe those claims, you simply cannot say "but then again, Islam, which categorically and unambigously denies these specific claims of Christianity which I believe could be right, too" with any sort of integrity. Unless, of course, it's in the same vein as considering the possibility that the Earth might reverse rotation overnight and the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. But I'm not sure you'd ever see any scientist treating that possibility as anything but theoretical.
[I claim ultrazillion points!!!]
[ 16. December 2003, 02:52: Message edited by: RooK ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Mis en scene: the study of an earnest hellhost
His eyes scan the conversation. Line after line. After line. After line.
His earnest eyelids begin to droop. He utters several {snarks}, but they are few and far between.
Eventually, his head drops onto the keyboard of his computer. Unseen, a line of intermittent k's and semi-colons begin to dance over the screen. A little trickle of drool begins to seep from between his lips. Soon, the keyboard begins to emit little electrical {snickets} that soon turn into {znoks} while little christmassy flashes began to dance under his nose between the function keys.
One noise, in particular, reaches his ear, and the little electrical shock accompanying it causes him to turn his head.
On the screen, the k's and semicolons are replaced by random patterns of s's, r's, and v's.
The flow of drool increases, as do the electrical {zaps} from the keyboard. Strands of his much-aligned left-over hippy ponytail fall between the keys, grow damp from drool, and fuse electrical connections. The USB port begins to grow warm.
Something--call it an unconscious atavistic sense of self-preservation--causes him to turn his head even farther. The flow of drool onto the delicate electronic equipment ceases, diverted down the inside of his cheek where it pools until a deep breath causes him to inhale fifteen centiliters of air-chilled saliva into his lungs.
{SNARGER} {COUGH} {SKRONK}
He snaps his head away from the keyboard and strands of super-heated hair fly around and slap his cheek, leaving welts and the marks of drool desiccated to ash.
Groggily and in considerable pain, he clears the computer screen of sanscrit and even though he knows what to expect, feels his eyes begin to droop as he reviews the conversation between JimT, Erin, and RooK.
"Damn," he thinks to himself, "these people are trying to kill me. At least boredom didn't make me forget how to breathe before I fell asleep. That could have been dangerous."
[ 16. December 2003, 02:36: Message edited by: tomb ]
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Divine Outlaw-Dwarf, your hay-bale of "Absolute Relatavism" obviously doesn't exist. Never really seen the beastie. What I, and I suspect some others, are arguing from is a position of humility and intellectual honesty. There isn't any way to know for certain who or what is right, and to say otherwise is to just lie to yourself.
Palpable nonsense. Apart from analytic truths : 2+2=4 in a decimal counting system etc., which I know for certain are right, there are perfectly good criteria for deciding some beliefs more worthy of assent than others. This is not certainty, admitedly, but nor is it arbitrary. Absolute relativism does exist - one encounters it frequently in people's religious opinions. It has even crept into the academy in the guise of some of the sillier postmodernisms.
Truth, and our human capacity to approach it falteringly is a good thing. Knowledge can be emancipatory. The facts are our friends!
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I am not all that interested in putting some pretty painful stuff out there to be mocked now and used to smack me around later.
I hate it when my nefarious plans are scuttled by being transparent. Well, my interest in this conversation just dropped a whole pile of notches. I guess I'll just go back to picking on the comparatively defenseless morons (pretty much everybody else).
quote:
Christianity makes some very exclusive claims. If you really, truly believe those claims, you simply cannot say "but then again, Islam, which categorically and unambigously denies these specific claims of Christianity which I believe could be right, too" with any sort of integrity. Unless, of course, it's in the same vein as considering the possibility that the Earth might reverse rotation overnight and the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. But I'm not sure you'd ever see any scientist treating that possibility as anything but theoretical.
Well, you've got to appreciate that I'm looking at the whole topic with the perspective that most christians wholeheartedly believe that their god could make the Earth reverse rotation if he wanted it to. You're not going to impress me with making some extreme claims look silly, because it all looks pretty darn silly already.
Divine Outlaw-Retard, there's a pretty vast intellectual chasm between analytic truths in a decimal counting system and the myriad of claims made by religions. Still, I can appreciate what you mean by approaching truth, I just happen to avoid intercontinental ballistic leaps of belief in that process. If absolute relativism exists, it does so in a manner I have not observed nor understand. You're welcome to it, if you find it. I'll just stick with my fundamental relativism, thang-Q.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Because at least one person (*not looking at Scot*) has argued above that any path that leads one to God cannot, by definition, be wrong. So this dude's path that eventually landed him on God's front porch destroyed a fair number of lives. He got to God in the end, though, while there is a helluva good chance that his wife and children never will.
So was it right? Or was it wrong?
No, I did not. What I argued was that any path that leads to God cannot, by definition, be completely wrong. As for your hypothetical, RuthW already gave the exact answer that I would have. The dude’s path became “right” the minute he pointed it toward God.
Mr. Callan, I agree with your comments on the limitations of the “path” metaphor. Back on page 3 I observed that religions are themselves metaphors for the relationship between the divine and the mundane. Does that make a metaphor about religion a metametaphor? In any case, the image of a road is just a useful and inadequate way of talking about the quest for a closer relationship.
DOD, no matter how many times you argue against it, it’s still a strawman.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Considering that, would you be willing to elucidate why you're certain that most people on earth are wrong wrong WRONG?
Not particularly. As I said, it's personal. And to be honest, I am not all that interested in putting some pretty painful stuff out there to be mocked now and used to smack me around later.
I have to respect your personal boundaries, and so I won't probe.
Nevertheless, given that you hold only one path to be true, and that path necessitates Christ (in substance if not in name, I'll assume, though you may clarify) then in that respect (only! I am not accusing you of hatred, causing harm of any kind, intolerance or any lack of Golden Rule as these other groups seem to lack) your position is identical that of Chick, Phelps and a fundamentalist in any religion who includes the idea that his or her religion's path is the sole and unique path to God. (It also seems a strange position for a libertarian to take, but there you go.)
quote:
quote:
Still, accept that this has been conceded already, and been clarified as "admitting uncertainty means aknowleding that there are other possible answers". Hence, a person can think that Christianity is true, and also admit that it's possible Islam might be true.
I don't believe that. Christianity makes some very exclusive claims. If you really, truly believe those claims, you simply cannot say "but then again, Islam, which categorically and unambigously denies these specific claims of Christianity which I believe could be right, too" with any sort of integrity. Unless, of course, it's in the same vein as considering the possibility that the Earth might reverse rotation overnight and the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. But I'm not sure you'd ever see any scientist treating that possibility as anything but theoretical.
[I claim ultrazillion points!!!]
No, certain subsets of Christianity under certain specific definitions make very exclusive claims. And only certain subsets of Islam under certain specific definitions make very exclusive claims which contradict the Christian ones (and, indeed, mystics of all stripes).
One perfectly legitimate view of Christ is that He is the Doorway. If you find yourself in the presence of God, then you have done so through Christ. That is, Christ's role is functional, universal and independent of the forms of the religion. And it's certainly independent of the social phenomenom of people publically claiming Jesus as their "Lord and Savior."
I shall not speak of Islam as a whole, since it is obviously more exclusionary in many respects than Christianity. Nevertheless, in my readings of Rumi and Ibn Al Arabi (Sufi mystics), I have found a lot in common with the thoughts of Christian mystics.
Thus, I think that there is a surprising rigidity in your position which may well be useful in your life and those of others. But, nevertheless, there are other equally Christian positions which are not so determined to see Aristotalian dichotomies between every religion.
quote:
Tomb groused:
Groggily and in considerable pain, he clears the computer screen of sanscrit and even though he knows what to expect, feels his eyes begin to droop as he reviews the conversation between JimT, Erin, and RooK.
So use your toasting fork to boot this thread to Purgatory where it belongs. It would be a worthy thread there.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Well, you've got to appreciate that I'm looking at the whole topic with the perspective that most christians wholeheartedly believe that their god could make the Earth reverse rotation if he wanted it to. You're not going to impress me with making some extreme claims look silly, because it all looks pretty darn silly already.
And again, I'm truly not interested in turning you or anyone else to my beliefs. I probably should care whether or not you are a Christian, but I don't. I probably should be concerned about the everlasting state of everyone's souls, but I'm not. That's probably why I'm not really getting why everyone is so agog over the mere suggestion that some people hold crap beliefs. Who gives a shit? What difference does my belief that (the general) you are wrong make, anyway? If I were to say "RooK, I know that you believe that everything is relative, but I think that's really fucking stupid", how does it affect your life in any discernible or meaningful way? Are you going to change your beliefs because Erin thinks they're wrong? Not hardly. Is Erin going to actually give a flying fuck about what all 6 billion other people on the planet believe as long as they leave her the hell alone? Even less likely.
So what's the big deal?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
So what's the big deal?
And with a deep, rumbling crash, the piece finally fits in the puzzle in a way that I understand.
I blame my socialist indoctrination in the mountains of Canada for impairing my understanding of Libertarian mentality. With the fundamental assumption that every person doesn't have to give a shit about what anyone else thinks as long as they respect their mutual rights, you're completely right - there is no big deal. Functionally speaking, it becomes exactly like my mental-acrobatics to find ways to respect a select few people and ignore everyone else as much as possible. And it makes perfect, consistent sense.
Except, of course, that I don't agree philosophically, but that hardly matters.
Well, congratulations, Erin. I thought I had you truly and utterly pinned by the seeming arbitrariness of your beliefs, and all your squirming just seemed to confirm it. To everyone else that agreed with Erin and who isn't a xenophobic Libertarian freak - you're all still fucked. Lucky for you, none of you is really a prize worth pursuing.
Mertblurter, this conversation never really belonged in Purgatory for one important reason - it would only encourage all the pseudo-intellectual flies like you to buzz around my sparring with Erin.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Mertblurter, this conversation never really belonged in Purgatory for one important reason - it would only encourage all the pseudo-intellectual flies like you to buzz around my sparring with Erin.
That was sparring? Looked like reasoned discourse to me. But what do I know, I don't seem to be smart enough to resort to such sophisticated zingers as adulterating a user name or a barfing completely novel and original epithets like "pseudo-intellectual".
Here let me put this towel on my head so you'll believe that you can't see me.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
Mis en scene: the study of an earnest hellhost
"Damn," he thinks to himself, "these people are trying to kill me. At least boredom didn't make me forget how to breathe before I fell asleep. That could have been dangerous."
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
As for Mr. Callan's idea about the relational and propositional nature of Christianity, this strikes me as a useful way to consider the whole topic, though I honestly have a hard time seeing why anyone would prefer the propositional view; to me the whole thing is about a relationship, not a set of propositions. I don't think we'll be sitting entrance exams for heaven.
I think on one level I agree with you. But I think this may be the sort of thing that Father Gregory has in mind when he says that modern western Christianity tends to take aspects of the faith and set them against one another. Theology and philosophy are important, if for no other reason than because, if we are going to make claims about God, it is important that they stand up to critical scrutiny.
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
1. How does one evaluate the objective and absolute truth of a statement such as "Jesus is the only way to God?" It seems to me impossible. If someone does not believe a bat can hurt them, you can hit them with a bat. If someone does not believe that "Jesus is the only way to God," what means are available to demonstrate its objective and absolute truth regardless of the beliefs and world view of the hearer?
I think that the problem derives from logical positivism. According to this venerable doctrine there are beliefs which are verifiable which are valid and beliefs which are not which are nonsense. The nonsense claim had to be dropped for a variety of interesting philosophical reasons but the belief remains that verifiable beliefs (falsifiable, for those of us who follow the One True Faith) are on some important level superior to those which are not. Suffice it to say, we are obliged to hold some metaphysical beliefs and, clearly, some of those beliefs are preferable to others. Personally, I think that an incarnational theology, one which speaks of a God who shares in the sufferings of His creation, and thereby redeems it is preferable to a distant deity who, like Miss Otis, is obliged to send his regrets. I agree, that it is not up there with the proposition "this will hurt you more than it will hurt me" expressed by the hypothetical wielder of a baseball bat, but it strikes (npi) me as being a meaningful proposition which can be rationally assessed as to it's truth or falsity.
quote:
When one compares the absolute truth of a statement like #1 with the absolute truth of the potential harmful effects of a baseball bat, the disbelieving hearer, no matter how thick their skin, cannot but feel a measure of undeseved disrepect for their intellect. While it is true that disbelieving an objective truth will never make it false no matter how hard one disbelieves, believing a non-demonstratable truth can never turn it into an objective and absolute truth no matter how fervently one believes it, nor how many agree with it. It also does not make it true if the disbeliever cannot prove it false. It is simply an unverifiable belief. We all have them. They are not equivilent, but neither can any of them said to be objective and absolute. In my worldview, only the demonstratable can truly be said to be objective and absolute. All else is belief, which can be argued "better" or "worse" but not "absolute."
I think we need to distinguish between 'objective' and 'absolute'. 'Absolute' in the sense you are using it seems to me to describe a position which is uncontroversial and uncontested - "This will hurt" is an absolute proposition. "Jesus Christ is the incarnate deity" is not. We can believe but we cannot, this side of the grave, know. But the statement "Jesus Christ is the incarnate deity" can legitimately claim to be a statement of objective truth as can the statement "Jesus Christ was not the incarnate deity". Clearly the two statements are incompossible (just for you!) in as much as only one of them can be said to be objectively true. Clearly neither are absolute as they cannot be verified or falisified empirically. But either can be rationally held and both can be rationally debated. I don't think that metaphysical beliefs are either too irrational to be taken seriously - as you say we all have them - or mere statements of aesthetic preference. Preferring Christianity to Islam, or vice versa, is not like preferring Coke to Pepsi. There are real issues involved even if the issues can be intangible or abstruse.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
OK, I'm going to risk being called a moron by RooK, or worse and more likely, being completely ignored.
We were originally talking about the incarnation, right, and the impossibility of two contradictory beliefs about the incarnation being true at once. Yes?
Now I ain't no Christian, but everything I read here and elsewhere has suggested that during his life Christ was both God and a man at once. Both fully God and fully man, yes? He's definitely God, one of the trinity, three-in-one, one-in-three, ineffable, omnipotent, outside time, etc. But at the same time he's a man, weak, inside time, limited to human understanding, does't know about the ineffable plan, despairs, addresses his father as a seperate being, dies.
Now this is patently impossible. Either Christ is God, or he's not - he can't be both. Yet he can be both because God has, in some ineffable manner, sorted it all out.
This being the case, I can't for the life of me see why there is a problem if one set of people say 'Christ is God incarnate' and another say 'No, he's not'. Both statements can be true because, well, by your own doctrine, both ARE true.
No?
Rat
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Erm, no. Saying Jesus was fully human does not negate His Godness.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I blame my socialist indoctrination in the mountains of Canada for impairing my understanding of Libertarian mentality. With the fundamental assumption that every person doesn't have to give a shit about what anyone else thinks as long as they respect their mutual rights, you're completely right - there is no big deal.
Their God-given, inherent-and-cannot-be-taken-away rights, you mean. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And here goes the triple post.
JimT, going back to your question about grace. THE definitive book on the subject is Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?". I think it should be required reading for everyone on the planet, and when I am finally Supreme Tyrant in Chief I will shove it down everyone's throat. Until then, however, get a copy. It is a brilliant, understandable treatment of the subject.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
DOD, no matter how many times you argue against it, it’s still a strawman.
Physicist Alan Sokal had his spoof paper
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity published by a peer-reviewed social science journal, none of the editors realising it was intended as a spoof. Criticising modern science 'Sokal' claims:
quote:
Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
He claims that the value of pi is not constant. And argues that
quote:
The teaching of science and mathematics must be purged of its authoritarian and elitist characteristics, and the content of these subjects enriched by incorporating the insights of the feminist, queer, multiculturalist and ecological critiques.
There are, in other words, circles in which the notion of truth, and the human capacity to journey towards it, are subject to doubt in the most extreme and bizarre fashion.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think we need to distinguish between 'objective' and 'absolute'. 'Absolute' in the sense you are using it seems to me to describe a position which is uncontroversial and uncontested - "This will hurt" is an absolute proposition.
Well, it's an induction from past experience based on the assumption that the person I am about to hit with a hammer is like every other person who has hitherto been hit with a hammer, that the hammer is relevantly similar to every other hammer and that the effect of the hitting will be the same. Is that absolute in your terms? I don't know.
I take absolute and objective to be synonyms. I am very unhappy about eliding the way in statement which a statement is true with the conditions of epistemic access to that truth. This was one of the key errors of logical positivism. If 'Jesus rose from the dead' is true, then it is true absolutely. It may well be the case that this belief is not susceptible to (pre-eschatological) falsification, but this is not a weakness in the quality of the truth so much as in our capacity to access that truth.
Semantics at the end of the day, I guess. But semantics can be important.
[ 16. December 2003, 14:07: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
There's a theory that everyone is trying to serve God, in his/her twisted way. So maybe this is just Jack Chick's defect, but everyone else (Paisley, Bin Laden, Hitler, and you and me, everyone) is trying to move towards the light, no matter how badly they may be doing it.
In terms of vile disgusting comments, this is surely as bad as anything Chick has spat out?
Let me get this straight..Hitler's massacre of the Jews and enslavement of europe was simply "Taking the scenic route" to God?
Try this idea, maybe, just maybe, it was the polar opposite of moving towards the light? He was moving away from it, and continued to move away to it towards eternal damnation in hell?
To suggest the actions of Hitler, Bin Laden or Hussein were really just "off beam" but heading in the right direction is insane and offensive in my opion.
And, AdamPater, your thread title "Do I have to share heaven with this guy?"...have you considered Mr. Chick might just say the same thing about you?
matt
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And here goes the triple post.
JimT, going back to your question about grace. THE definitive book on the subject is Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?". I think it should be required reading for everyone on the planet, and when I am finally Supreme Tyrant in Chief I will shove it down everyone's throat. Until then, however, get a copy. It is a brilliant, understandable treatment of the subject.
Pointless piece of trivia: Bono from U2 loves this book as well and has plugged it in interviews.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
quote:
Let me get this straight..Hitler's massacre of the Jews and enslavement of europe was simply "Taking the scenic route" to God?
Try this idea, maybe, just maybe, it was the polar opposite of moving towards the light? He was moving away from it, and continued to move away to it towards eternal damnation in hell?
Please note the essential word "trying" in my sentence. I am not saying that they are moving toward the light, but that the drive that causes them to do what they do is a perverted form of the same drive that sends people to God. I think there's a good case to be made for the idea that our bad drives are actually good drives that have become sick and deranged. I am very definitely not saying that anything that any of the people I mentioned have done is defensible or acceptable to God. I don't believe there was anything in my post to suggest that I was.
What I was clearly saying was that these people are wrong in the sense of 'being in error' (about how to understand that desire and drive) rather than wrong in the sense of 'fundamentally and profoundly evil'. So we should put them right rather than just washing our hands of them.
Hope that's cleared things up, Matt.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Coming to this thread late, so my redux of this rather interesting thread is what follows!
Personally, I can't see that much wrong from a factual point of view with this tract.
Yes, little Muslim kids in the middle east are brought up to think it is good to die in battle for Allah. Sorry if that offends you, but it just happens to be true.
Some have said that Chick implies all muslims are like this. He doesn't, otherwise, he would have set his story featuring nice middle of the road muslims in Middle class America wouldn't he?? His tract describes the state of affairs in the middle east.
Yes, he is overly simplistic, yes, there are other motives and factors involved that the tract doesn't cover, but the crux of the matter is broadly as he puts it. Fundamentalist muslims are exactly that. They have a fundamental grudge against non-muslims because it's in the Qu'ran.
There is a really quite touching niavity amongst many people to believe that deep down there is a cute cuddly little tolerant liberal inside every fundamentalist muslim, just waiting to get out if only we weren't so nasty and mean to them, and if that nasty Mr. Bush would be nice to the poor little palestinians.
I'm sorry, but it's just not true. There are plenty of good reasons for American foreign policy changing, but this isn't one of them.
Fundamentalist muslims don't hate americans because of American foreign policy in Israel. They hate them because they allow women to go outside without headscarves. They hate them because they drink alcohol, they hate them because they believe in democracy rather than theocracy.
That is the truth about the real hardcore fundamentalists. I'm sorry if it hurts.
Sure, american foreign policy may help fundamentalist recruitment, but by the time they are indocrinated into fundamentalist islam, it's the doctrine that counts. It's the fierce conviction of the doctrine that makes people strap on the semtex.
quote:
Yes, young Muslims are raised to be suicide bombers, but not in the moral vaccuum depicted here. Suicide bombings are driven by utter utter desperation in the face of oppression, not just by religious fundamentalism
"Utter utter desperation"?? However bad things are for palestinians (and I'm not saying they aren't bad at times) plenty of people have suffered far worse without resorting to suicide boming. Why? because they weren't fundamentalist muslim. Yes, the palestinians are in a tough spot, but it's a distinctly fundamentalist Islamic solution to start blowing yourself up when you're being oppressed.
The "oppression" of Palestinians in Israel is nothing compared to that of (for example) the Jews in Nazi germany, but were there waves of Suicide bombings throughout Berlin Cafe's throughout the 1930s? No. Of course not.
Why not? The reason is twofold. One, such a response is not in the psychology of Judaism in the same way that it is in Islam, and two, the Nazis would have killed every Jewish man woman and Child faster than you could blink the moment a jew pulled the pin on a hand grenade.
It's worth considering the full spectrum of what Israel could do to the palestinians before calling them "intolerant". The dome of the Rock still stands proud for example.
The Israelis could simply obliterate the palistinians. It's within their power. No one could stop them. Israel is the most powerful nation on earth militarily. Seriously. Not everybody realises this, but if American and Israel came to blows, Israel would kick america's ass. There is not an army in the world better trained and better equipped with more combat experience than the Israelis.
(As an aside, there is a myth that Israel is only militarily strong because of american support. This was true once, but Israel is now able to build planes and Tanks of american design under license within Israel. Not only that, but they have souped up and modified many of them to make them superior to the original american designs. Israel has massive stockpiles of munitions such that, if america withdrew all military support tomorrow, Israel could fight a full scale war for several years and have the equipment to do it.)
The question is not "does every fundamentalist muslim become a suicide bomber?" but rather, "Is every suicide bomber a fundamentalist muslim?". Clearly, the answer to the first question is "no", but the answer to the second question is "very nearly..."
quote:
" at the end of every fucking tract he is gloating over bad hell-related shit happening to people he doesn't like."
This statement I entirely agree with. The only problem of the entire tract for me is the final two panels depicting Abdullahs fate.
I'm not neccessarily sure that Chick is even wrong. Maybe this guy would go to hell, but I couldn't be sure he's right either. One has to be very careful about "playing God" when talking about the eternal fate of individuals. God knows their true motives and state of their heart better than we do.
quote:
Islam is false. That's a necessary part of being a Christian.
Muslims are not evil, just mistaken
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) Chestertonian! Islam? FALSE?!! Muslims? MISTAKEN?! You've got a lot to learn about being a liberal Christian m'lad. Face it, you're a raving fundie at heart. Come and join us evangelicals, we'll be far more tolerant of outmoded, niaeve beliefs like these. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:
The factual accuracy of his belief system about God, heaven and hell is irrelevant, because those things aren't verifiable facts; his mistake is to act as if they were. If you have to have an answer, his belief system is 'wrong' inasmuch as it involves making unsubstantiated and absolute truth claims about these unverifiable beliefs.
Is it a verifiable fact that God, Heaven and hell are not verifiable facts? Or is that merely just your belief?
If so, can you prove that please? because I believe that it is not a fact.
There is a problem of metalogic here. Essentially, any declarative statement can be prefixed with the words "I believe" and any belief statement can be prefixed with the words "It is a fact that..."
Consequently, it is logically, and grammatically correct to say "I believe that it is a fact that I believe that it is a fact that I believe that it is a fact that.....ad infinitum" for any declarative statement.
So which comes first? the belief or the fact?
You have said it is wrong for Chick to act as if his belief was a fact.
Your logic is circular, because the immediate counter-argument is that this is only your belief and yet you are stating it as fact. You come back at me saying "That's only your belief" and so the cycle goes on.
It's the flaw in all post modern pluralist philosophy.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
quote:
What I was clearly saying was that these people are wrong in the sense of 'being in error' (about how to understand that desire and drive) rather than wrong in the sense of 'fundamentally and profoundly evil'. So we should put them right rather than just washing our hands of them.
Except that people like Hitler and his ilk are never 'put right.' You're talking about people who, in the way some Biblical translations put it, have confounded themselves. What you propose sounds great, mind you, but 'put[ting] them right' is only idealistic hokus-pokus.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
quote:
Chestertonian! Islam? FALSE?!! Muslims? MISTAKEN?! You've got a lot to learn about being a liberal Christian m'lad. Face it, you're a raving fundie at heart. Come and join us evangelicals, we'll be far more tolerant of outmoded, naive beliefs like these.
I'll consider it. As long as I don't have to be a creationist or one of those KJV-only folks.
quote:
Is it a verifiable fact that God, Heaven and hell are not verifiable facts? Or is that merely just your belief?
This is a very good point. I don't think there can be anything that can be known to be unknowable.
The Riv: How do we know who has 'confounded himself'? I think in theory anyone can be brought to his senses. That may of course be because I'm a rationalist and a hopeful universalist.
[ 16. December 2003, 15:47: Message edited by: chestertonian ]
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
it's a distinctly fundamentalist Islamic solution to start blowing yourself up when you're being oppressed.
Nope.
Its a recent development in Islam. And mostly used by quite a limited set of Muslim "fundamentalists", not the majority of them. They got the methods they use from the world champion suicide bombers, the Tamil Tigers. (Who by religious background are mostly Hindu & Christian)
Its been used by lots of people in other circumstances, for example by Russians fighting against the Nazis in the 1940s.
Nothing disctinctively Islamic about it at all.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Chestertonian, you begin with genocide, mass rape and torture, and work backward from there.
I agree with ken here: the Militant Palestinian Extremists didn't invent homicide bombing. What they did do, however, was perfect it.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
Hmm. No rehabilitation for certain people. Not wholly sure that I agree with you. Don't we have a duty to forgive and to try to help people? And you can't limit forgiveness to things that don't really bother you. So I think that we're obliged to help people to fix themselves.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Is it a verifiable fact that God, Heaven and hell are not verifiable facts? Or is that merely just your belief?
If so, can you prove that please? because I believe that it is not a fact.
There is a problem of metalogic here. Essentially, any declarative statement can be prefixed with the words "I believe" and any belief statement can be prefixed with the words "It is a fact that..."
Consequently, it is logically, and grammatically correct to say "I believe that it is a fact that I believe that it is a fact that I believe that it is a fact that.....ad infinitum" for any declarative statement.
So which comes first? the belief or the fact?
You have said it is wrong for Chick to act as if his belief was a fact.
Your logic is circular, because the immediate counter-argument is that this is only your belief and yet you are stating it as fact. You come back at me saying "That's only your belief" and so the cycle goes on.
It's the flaw in all post modern pluralist philosophy.
matt
Yes yes, very clever, you can vanish up your own arse by applying postmodernism to everything. Well done. You've rebuilot the straw man of absolute relativism, which nobody here has espoused. I suggested that relativism is the only honest approach to religious myths and beliefs, not that it should be appied to every statement.
You're ignoring the difference between factual verifiable truth and moral religious truth. Can you not see the simple distinction between things we can empirically prove and things we can't?
Religious truth is quite different from factual truth. Discussing and exploring our ideas about what might be out there in a spirit of open-minded enquiry, informed by tradition and religious scriptures, is a noble endeavour. Insisting that you know the truth about this stuff when that's quite plainly a physical impossibility helps no one.
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Their God-given, inherent-and-cannot-be-taken-away rights, you mean.
Oh, ha ha.
I guess it's fine that you pull human rights out of your ass fully formed (perhaps with a little corn), just so long as that set of rights as a minimum conforms with those agreed upon in our society.
Mertseger, that was a full point - very witty. If you read the bile-inducing sputum that followed you, however, don't you think I might have had a point? Sometimes conversations are more entertaining when you don't have to be polite.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Showing as much grace and mercy to the esteemed but droolingly bored tombmeister (short of saying nothing at all--vain hope!), I'll mention to RooK that I realize there are "non-ideal paths" and was limiting discussion to people who are trying to live with some purpose toward some "good" since the subject of the thread is "sharing heaven"; I'll thank Erin for the referral of Yancey's book on grace, which I believe I've heard about, and cannot but think I will have to like it, he being described as a product of "Southern fundamentalist culture"; and will thank Mr. Callan for his reply, noting that I personally do not divide the world into "fact" and "bullshit" the way logical positivists do.
I'll close by encouraging Erin and others to inappropriately display deeply-held personal beliefs resulting from deep and painful personal experience, the better to be mocked and scorned by the graceless and grace-filled intellects of towering international stature quartered about The Ship. I've found it exceptionally beneficial for discovering unknown parts of my self and have been rewarded with more than a few unexpected, positive surprises about myself and others. I'm sure that there are better ways of doing it than I have; ones perhaps that show some level of dignity and decorum. But without a steady supply of Eliza Doolittles, what would all the Henry Higginses do?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Damn it. Why can't you people who write long paragraphs with big words stay in Purgatory where you belong.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
nicole wrote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yet there is something so profound and simple about the nature of faith in Christ and acceptance of his grace really marks Christianity off from other faiths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
um, maybe its me, but, while i can see many things that could be said about christianity, i don't see how it is any simpler or more profound than any other of the major world faiths.
I think what I was trying to say is that, at its core, Christanity merely requires faith, whereas other religions may require adherence to specific laws, rules, practices, etc.
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Isn't the Internet primarily a forum to vent spite in clever ways? If so, then we need a place like Hell on the Ship for all the hot fat to drip into.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Mertseger, that was a full point - very witty. If you read the bile-inducing sputum that followed you, however, don't you think I might have had a point? Sometimes conversations are more entertaining when you don't have to be polite.
Takes towell off head.
Thank you, and I absolutely agree that some conversations are more entertaining when you don't have to be polite. I was, however, truly, enjoying your conversation with Erin. That conversation was largely polite, and showed me things about the subject from two interesting perspectives. I maintain that the atmosphere in this thread still seems pretty Purgatorial. Therefore, I shall taunt ![[Smile]](smile.gif) you further with this link (via Dave Barry's blog.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Damn it. Why can't you people who write long paragraphs with big words stay in Purgatory where you belong.
Amen!
Mutters, "Ontological? Absolute relativism? Pelagian? Logical positivism? Obscurantist? Incompossible? Wish the admins hadn't banned me from deleting long words and their users."
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
Hmm. No rehabilitation for certain people. Not wholly sure that I agree with you. Don't we have a duty to forgive and to try to help people? And you can't limit forgiveness to things that don't really bother you. So I think that we're obliged to help people to fix themselves.
Forgive? Yes, that is a fundamental Christian duty.
Try to help? Not necessarily, IMO. Punsihment and forgiveness are two, very different, distinct things. Saddam, for example, and people like him, made conscious decisions long ago to both disregard and far surpass the rationale of his fellow human beings. Now, let him endure whatever result that kind of willful distancing from humanity humanity determines to be necessary.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
It's amazing how far you won't get saying "Christianity is better/more right/more fun/more spiritual than Islam or Judaism."
It is equally amazing many more people are likely to feel that Christ was more important/useful/helpful than Mohommed or some such.
When you talk of "At its core, Christianity..." you are talking about Christ, hopefully, not "Christians who I think really get it." I don't think Christianity is any better than any other religion, but then, I don't like religions, which are human creations. Christ I can understand. I leave it to others to label me Christian and to judge whether my relationship with Christ seems to be working or not. This seems to entertain them to no end.
There's no real point judging religions by what they SAY they are about, or what they are about in theory. We would never judge politicians that way. There's also no point judging religions by what certain extremist adherents to them do. If we compare the human part of it, I don't think we have a leg to stand on thinking we're better. If we talk about Christ being one of a kind, I think we'll get somewhere.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Damn it. Why can't you people who write long paragraphs with big words stay in Purgatory where you belong.
RooK gaveth us the apple, and we did eat. Blameth him. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
"Damn," he thinks to himself, "these people are trying to kill me. At least boredom didn't make me forget how to breathe before I fell asleep. That could have been dangerous."
I think in this battle between Purgatory and Hell, Hell lost. Fortunately the war isn't over. Yet.
So mote it be.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
And, AdamPater, your thread title "Do I have to share heaven with this guy?"...have you considered Mr. Chick might just say the same thing about you?
I think it ought to be clear that my thread title is an example of one of those long words from high school English the definition of which I've long forgotten. The sense of humour of the Almighty and Beloved being what it is, I shall probably have to share a chorus sheet with both Mr Chick and my Year Nine English teacher, though we'd all probably call that purgatory rather than heaven.
In any case, I have been completely silenced by the evening news, in which a family from the Gaza strip were interviewed who would have fitted Chick's tract perfectly. The stuff in Chick's tract that made me most angry aren't lies at all. I draw the line at apologising to the bugger though.
Tomorrow I'm planning to go buy myself a brand new hanky to squeeze while I get on with my job of working at being part of heaven where I am. At least I can count on being ignored by RooK.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
I suggested that relativism is the only honest approach to religious myths and beliefs, not that it should be appied to every statement.
You're ignoring the difference between factual verifiable truth and moral religious truth. Can you not see the simple distinction between things we can empirically prove and things we can't?
Religious truth is quite different from factual truth. Discussing and exploring our ideas about what might be out there in a spirit of open-minded enquiry, informed by tradition and religious scriptures, is a noble endeavour. Insisting that you know the truth about this stuff when that's quite plainly a physical impossibility helps no one.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Quite plainly a physical impossibility? That's a bit strong for the leg you have to stand on, isn't it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Personally, I don't see a difference between emperical proof and religious proof (or truth). That's because I see them both as being about personal faith and reliance upon stuff you think is true, and following in the paths of conventions others have set up. You decide how much and what sort of proof is enough for you, then you decide to live as if that thing is true. I don't care if this is about Australia, the moon or Christ.
I realize most people live as if gravity and DNA and evolution are Proven Facts, but I tend to view them as the latest, best myths we have right now. I have no problem placing faith in them, but would never agree that there is some level of provability or truth to them that "spiritual" things are below, beside or otherwise other than.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:
I take absolute and objective to be synonyms. I am very unhappy about eliding the way in statement which a statement is true with the conditions of epistemic access to that truth. This was one of the key errors of logical positivism. If 'Jesus rose from the dead' is true, then it is true absolutely. It may well be the case that this belief is not susceptible to (pre-eschatological) falsification, but this is not a weakness in the quality of the truth so much as in our capacity to access that truth.
I don't disagree with you. I think that the demarcation between empirical and metaphysical beliefs is a useful one if only because empirical beliefs are, er, empirical and metaphysical beliefs are, well, metaphysical. And, of course, those were the terms in which JimT set the problem, as it were. But I agree that metaphysical truth is 'just as true' as empirical truth and an account of truth which gives priority to empirical truth is entirely contingent on metaphysical assumptions.
JimT - I didn't accuse you of being a logical positivist. I suggested that you were unduly influenced by logical positivism. There's a subtle but important distinction. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Some have said that Chick implies all muslims are like this. He doesn't, otherwise, he would have set his story featuring nice middle of the road muslims in Middle class America wouldn't he?? His tract describes the state of affairs in the middle east.
Read the f****** tract. At the end of it Chick expects the neophyte evangelical to pray the following:
quote:
Dear Lord, thank you for showing me the what you think about Islam. I reject it.
What God thinks about Islam. Note there is no context, no sense in which alienated young men in the occupied territories (the main source of Islamic suicide bombers) become recruits for this kind of ideology. No sense that Islam is a religion with a long and complicated history which was practicing religious tolerance whilst Catholics and Protestants were burning each other at the stake. No sense that Islamic fundamentalism is a specific form of Islam. What quarter would you give to an Islamic tract which suggested that the Late Genocide in Bosnia was 'what God thinks about Christianity'.
Originally posted by the Riv:
quote:
I agree with ken here: the Militant Palestinian Extremists didn't invent homicide bombing. What they did do, however, was perfect it.
Would you explain to me how a Palestinian suicide bomber is an advance on a Tamil suicide bomber, beyond the fact that Tamil suicide bombers are Scary and Foreign whereas Palestinian suicide bombers are Scary, Foreign and Islamic? Or is there some technical nuance about the use of HE which is eluding me here?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
