MacFuse system pref
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Jeffrey Goldberg on 9 Apr 2010 09:11 Mike Rosenberg wrote: > By the way, also strongly doubt that Jesus and/or God will let you into > Heaven simply because you proclaim Jesus as your Lord and forbid your > entrance if you don't. There's no way those guys will take in murderers, > rapists, and used car salesmen who "accept" Jesus while banning people > who lead examplery lives while following other religions or none at all. > Don't tell me that Gandhi didn't go to heaven while heinous criminals > did. Mike, you've missed the point of the theology. You are thinking of Good and Evil in human terms. But John's all loving deity sets the bar so high that the distinction between Gandhi and Stalin is negligible in those terms. So the only way to enter heaven is through accepting His sacrifice of Himself/Son. One of the many problems with this view is that it presents a moral system in which the moral differences between Gandhi and Stalin are negligible. As Sam Harris said, anyone who thinks that the Bible is a good guide to moral behavior either has very distorted view of morals or a very distorted view of guidance. The good news is that most people, including Christians, don't actually take their theology seriously; so they rely on a mixture of native moral intuitions and cultural norms to remain perfectly decent people. It's when people try to take bits of the theology seriously that they get into the kind of mess and confusion that John and others get into. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts Reply-To address is valid
From: Nick Naym on 9 Apr 2010 09:44 In article 828ncmFq2lU1(a)mid.individual.net, Jeffrey Goldberg at nobody(a)goldmark.org wrote on 4/9/10 9:11 AM: > Mike Rosenberg wrote: > >> By the way, also strongly doubt that Jesus and/or God will let you into >> Heaven simply because you proclaim Jesus as your Lord and forbid your >> entrance if you don't. There's no way those guys will take in murderers, >> rapists, and used car salesmen who "accept" Jesus while banning people >> who lead examplery lives while following other religions or none at all. >> Don't tell me that Gandhi didn't go to heaven while heinous criminals >> did. > > Mike, you've missed the point of the theology. You are thinking of Good > and Evil in human terms. But John's all loving deity sets the bar so > high that the distinction between Gandhi and Stalin is negligible in > those terms. So the only way to enter heaven is through accepting His > sacrifice of Himself/Son. > > One of the many problems with this view is that it presents a moral > system in which the moral differences between Gandhi and Stalin are > negligible. As Sam Harris said, anyone who thinks that the Bible is a > good guide to moral behavior either has very distorted view of morals or > a very distorted view of guidance. > > The good news is that most people, including Christians, don't actually > take their theology seriously; so they rely on a mixture of native moral > intuitions and cultural norms to remain perfectly decent people. > > It's when people try to take bits of the theology seriously that they > get into the kind of mess and confusion that John and others get into. > > -j > To paraphrase (a tad out of context) what my long-departed grandmother used to say: "Eccchhh...what do those goyem know from fancy theology?" -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Nick Naym on 9 Apr 2010 10:03 In article 1jgobvb.livgimmhc1a8N%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com, Mike Rosenberg at mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 4/9/10 9:06 AM: > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > >> You can't argue sense into a fundamentalist, Mike. ; ) > > John and I go way back. I just like reminding him of the concept of > cause and effect. Cause and effect are empirical, not logical. He would argue that God and everything Godly remains "above" (pun very much intended) the physical universe and, hence, not subject to empirical analysis. (IOW: "Don't bother me with logical arguments and empirical evidence -- I've embraced a childlike, self-centered, self-serving fairy tale that I will continue to insist is reality and try to get others to blindly accept as well.") > He makes off topic posts, people respond. If he > doesn't like the responses, he can stop posting. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg on 9 Apr 2010 10:40 John wrote: > In article <1jgmzzg.15z4k461yrpy6gN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, > mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote: > >> Well, specifically this bizarre sect John adheres to, since the >> Christian religion as a whole doesn't forbid dancing. > > Thats because you are dealing with new evangelical and not > Fundamentalist. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity > > Also > > http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/whats-fundamentalist-22190/ Well, miracles do happen. John posted something that was largely correct. The way I like to look at the distinction between Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is by analogy to the split within the Soviet Communist Party. Basically, Evangelicals are Trotskyists. They believe in engagement with the rest of the world, particularly in order to convert them. The Fundamentalists are the Stalinists. They are less on a mission to convert the rest of the world than to focus on their own purity. The rest of the world is viewed with hostility as a threat. But what has happened over the past few decades in the US is that (former) Fundamentalists have become much more engaged in local and national politics. It's like they've become Stalinist Expansionists. Anyway, all analogies suck at some point. But this, at least, helps with my thinking. (For those less familiar with the Soviet history this is probably a particularly useless analogy.) Cheers, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts Reply-To address is valid
From: George Kerby on 9 Apr 2010 10:57
On 4/9/10 8:06 AM, in article 1jgobvb.livgimmhc1a8N%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com, "Mike Rosenberg" <mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote: > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > >> You can't argue sense into a fundamentalist, Mike. ; ) > > John and I go way back. I just like reminding him of the concept of > cause and effect. He makes off topic posts, people respond. If he > doesn't like the responses, he can stop posting. And he will disappear. And then come back. Again. And again. Ad nauseum... |