These are the wages of decades of moral relativism among the Left: they have lost the capacity to make moral judgements. The cannot call "good" or "evil" by name because in their view "good" and "evil" are changeable cultural mores, not absolutes. They view the world as an intellectual exercise, not a place where actions have consequences. (Dennis Prager has written about this subject at length.)

I think this accounts for their hostility to Christianity in particular: it demands an absolutist moral stance on many subjects, but also preaches forgiveness for transgression. This offends Leftists on two levels: one, it presupposes that there is a "correct" and an "incorrect" moral approach to life; and two, it presumes to want them to feel guilty for the transgression. A moral code renders moral judgement. There is something about this that seems to chafe on the Leftist mind like an egg rolled in sand.

And yet the Left is willing to make extreme concessions to some of the bloodiest butchers in history (Stalin, Mao, Che, etc. etc.) because they just have a different worldview. Their murder of millions of individuals pales in light of the fact that they were working for mankind. Somehow, the abstract moral of "helping mankind" trumps the real-world moral of not murdering innocent people.

In an academic sense, one can make the argument that Matthews attempts to make (sort of) without being a dipshit. I mean, for example, it's relevant to understand the motivation of the Nazis - but you can still call them evil. Or for a more germane example, why does the general Muslim world have so much tolerance for murderous acts committed against Jews and foreigners (if not other Muslims)?

Since labeling them all evil and closing the book isn't gonna cut it (because we can't hope to fight them all), understanding them and doing what's necessary to change these attitudes (be it fighting, propaganda or a combo of the ruthless and political) isn't such a bad idea, academically.

Of course, I don't think that Matthews has the faculties to even attempt to make such arguments or distinctions. Let's face it, the man is a spitting gibbon in Brooks Brothers.

Your "white Christian" scenario is pretty convincing, especially in hosing down the hypocrisy of the domestic liberal mindset. But if white Christians really (still) were an aggressive force of a billion intent on or passively supportive of cultural triumphalism in a modern political environment - and not largely the laid back pluralistic cats they currently are - it might make sense for their competitors to understand them as well. And if possible, integrate with rather than demonize the majority that are potentially amenable to moderation, sapping the power of the nutjobs. *Some* of the people fighting us are not complete nutjobs, and are so pumped full of Al Jazeera's bullshit that they don't know their head from a camel's ass.

But you know all of this already.

"just as no one blames a crocodile in moral terms for killing a child?"

You can't prove anything.

Bill:

But if white Christians really (still) were an aggressive force of a billion intent on or passively supportive of cultural triumphalism in a modern political environment - and not largely the laid back pluralistic cats they currently are - it might make sense for their competitors to understand them as well. And if possible, integrate with rather than demonize the majority that are potentially amenable to moderation, sapping the power of the nutjobs.

You make two mistaken assumptions here, I think.

One, you assume that it is possible for diametrically-opposed ideologies to co-exist (let us use Islam and Christianity, although it could be anything). I totally disagree with this. If history shows anything, it is that creeds -- whether religious or social in nature -- tend to be absolutist, and to be come more and not less so when faced with an outside threat. Islam is by definition an absolutist creed and thus is inevitably in opposition to any competing relgious or social creed. Hindus, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc. have learned over the centuries to separate their religious creed from the social/civic sphere (with varying degrees of success); this is a trick that Muslims have never seriously attempted, much less mastered. (Turkey is a special case, and would take too long to cover here.)

Two, you have a more felicitous view of human nature than I do. Humans share many of the worst aspects of our homonid cousins the chimpanzees: we are excitable, prone to overreaction, given to dominance heirarchies, xenophobic, and territorial. These traits are in our blood and bones, and cannot simply be hand-waved away.

It requires one to make a value judgement when saying, "Our Western Judeo-Christian values are better than the Islamic values of our enemies". This is not simply a pragmatic argument (our ethos leads to better outcomes), nor is it a triumphalist argument (we won, ergo we're better); it is a moral argument that the individual's free will and self-determination are superior to subjugation and collectivism.

"just as no one blames a crocodile in moral terms for killing a child?"

You can't prove anything. - Sobek

LOL! Now THAT'S obscure humor right there!

I think Sobek nailed Kim Cattrall before she was turned into a mannequin.

I always thought the "Arabs aren't ready for democracy" line peddled by various groups, inlcuding the left, was code for "these savages can't handle it. The left will deny it because the racism was unintentional, but it was still racism in that they denied the people of Iraq are capable of acting as full moral agents. You see much the same thing from people like Naomi Klein who think that we'd be forever in the grip of corporate branding and advertising if she weren't there to save us from ourselves.

Humans share many of the worst aspects of our homonid cousins the chimpanzees: we are excitable, prone to overreaction, given to dominance heirarchies, xenophobic, and territorial.
Posted by Monty at November 23, 2005 10:33 AM

What's your f*$*%*g problem, racist?!?!?

“I’m going to tell you something that a lot of you might not want to hear…”
(One of Clinton’s favorite lines. I hear Warner is starting to recycle it.)

The commenters who attribute Matthews’ idiocy to decades of moral relativism are right. But Ace is right, too, to call it barely-disguised racism. That value-neutral morality is simply too dysfunctional to apply in the real world—i. e., the part of the world where you live on a daily basis. You can only inflict it on people who are who are so remote—in miles, their way of life, or whatever—that you see them less as people than as counters in some game.

If the left were genuinely consistent, then they would accept the views of Jerry Falwell types on the right as a “different perspective,” and one that’s much more palatable than anything the headchoppers are selling. Profanity and sexual innuendo would be purged from TV, so as not to offend their sensibilities. Schools would require kids to spend a month at Bible camp, so they could really understand how these people live. Not gonna happen, of course. The fact that progressive Europeans are actually following through on this program tells me that their lefties are actually more f’ed up than ours.

I'm dreaming, of a White, Christian

Prager notes multiple times that there is no internal contradiction between "understanding" evil and "hating" it. He keeps saying: "I do understand them. That's why I hate them."

He also says that if CM understood them more, he'd hate them too.

Good points.

It seems to me the left is on the horns of a dilemma when they castigate Christians or the US for insensitive treatment of others but excuse the Pol Pots of the world. I'm not sure it's racism so much as just a reflexive need to bash the US and Christianity as a kind of revolt against parental figures. (Yes, they are trying to shame their fathers, OK?) The earliest I remember this pathology coming out in any important way was when the lefties were acting as apologists for Stalin. The needs of the party were seen as justifying the means however wrong they may have been.

This is why hypocrisy had to become such an elevated offense in their world view. Objectively, hypocrisy is a pretty minor sin. Doing evil is bad, but the act of professing good while doing evil is at worst just ornamentally offensive. For the loons, though, elevating it to a major evil allowed them to use not just double standards, but limitlessly diverse standards. Stalin killing and terrorizing millions? Muslim sects slaughtering innocents? Well, they are being consistent with their beliefs that they should be doing that - no evil because there is no hypocrisy. Some US soldiers treating prisoners like it was pledge week at the frat? That is inconsistent with what we aspire to, so it is per se damnable -- however rare, immaterial or swiftly corrected it may be.

The moral and logical emptiness of that position doesn't bother them at all since it gives them liberty to strike at the good guys under the guise of still being allies (and don't you dare question their faith or patriotism!) while preening over their superior intellect and sensitivity for doing nothing about real evil. And, as usual, all at other people's expense.

One, you assume that it is possible for diametrically-opposed ideologies to co-exist (let us use Islam and Christianity, although it could be anything). I totally disagree with this.

I disagree with your disagreement. While I'm enough of a pessimist to acknowledge historical practicalities about human nature - we are indeed a bunch of violent chimps, at heart - I also recognize that pluralism is an achievable, adaptable trait, even within ideologies that were once very doctrinaire, even absolutist. And diametrically opposed ideologies do co-exist - if not smoothly - within this country.

Early iterations of the Judeo-Christian ethic, while much more amenable to tolerance than the circular logic of Islam, still maintained some rather "my way or the highway" edicts, including a directive in the Old Testament to murder the residents of any village of non-believers and salt the earth behind you.

Let's face it, a lot of literal interpretations of the Bible, carried out today, would be considered horrific in a modern context, such as stoning to death any disobedient kids.

that's why selective literal readings of Islamic text to make a de facto point about the religion's fundamental failures fail to move me; it's fairly logical to posit that the adaptability of religion in relation to the context of culture is much more powerful than the ostensible immutability of any given religious doctrine.

Sure, some religious doctrines might be less amenable to change, and Islam may certainly be one of them, but that's not the same as being irrevocably immutable to social influence and the adaptability of human interpretation.

The question is, can we fast forward some modernity and pluralism into the culture of the Muslim world before circumstance forces a more radical solution. I'm convinced that we can, and I think the sea change brought on by the policies of the neoconservatives is already upon us.

Ace, thank you for posting that recording.

I'd always suspected that Matthews had the flaw of nascent dhimmitude, but now that suspicion has been largely confirmed.

What is striking about the man are his outbursts....the way he just shouts. In contrast to Prager's voice, it really stood out in a way it doesn't on his show, where many others may be barking loudly as well. I know that's an aesthetic observation, but it grates when combined with the relavitism.

Let's face it, a lot of literal interpretations of the Bible, carried out today, would be considered horrific in a modern context, such as stoning to death any disobedient kids.

that's why selective literal readings of Islamic text to make a de facto point about the religion's fundamental failures fail to move me

Except that mainstream Christians don't follow the word of the Old Testament. They follow the word of the New Testament, which, of course, is what makes them Christians.

Bill:

I don't think that relion per se is the limiting factor holding back the Arab peoples from integrating into the modern world. I think a deeper issue is tribalism -- the notion that one's fealty is first to immediate kin, then to extended family, and then to the tribe. From the tribe, it goes only to God, with nothing else between.

We see the same pathologies in sub-Saharan Africa -- remember the bloodbath in Rwanda a decade ago? That was pure tribalism, Hutus vs. Tutsis. Never mind that the people had intermarried until they were basically ethnically homogeneous; the differences were large enough to drive average citizens to slaughter each other with abandon. Hutu husbands killed their Tutsi wives with machetes; parents murdered their children.

We can say the same of the Balkan conflict -- it was less a Christian-vs-Muslim thing that it was a tribal thing.

But tribalism is a horrible thing in many ways. It leads to nepotism, corruption, and institutionalized racism and class-ism that can last for centuries. (Look at India's persistent problems with the caste system.)

Ultimately, a moral imperative is one that recoginizes each individual person on his or her own merits, and allows them to succeed (or fail!) on their own. But the kicker is that everyone has to agree to this basic compact for this idea to work. Only the Anglosphere has made this work to any great degree, and I'd argue that it is largely due to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

(And this is coming from an avowed atheist, by the way, so I'm not arguing for God. Let Him make His own damned debating points!)

a directive in the Old Testament to murder the residents of any village of non-believers and salt the earth behind you.

Where is this in your Bible? I don't recall God ever commanding that the earth be salted.

There were commands to the Israelites to annihilate their enemies, but all of those were very specific to certain particularly aggressive rival tribes. There were never any commands to seek out unbelievers in other lands just to convert and/or obliterate them.

Maybe you're thinking of the Romans and Carthage.

Edit: (After going through several minutes of INTERNAL ERROR BLAH BLAH BLAH)

Monty's got a better grasp of religion than you do. Let him put you some knowledge.

Where is this in your Bible?

Condiments 24:13-17

I think it's actually part of the apochypha, somewhere before Tobit.

I'm not sure it's racism so much as just a reflexive need to bash the US and Christianity as a kind of revolt against parental figures.

I feel -- what's the word? Oh yes -- vindicated.

I'd argue that it is largely due to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

I'd agree, but the bloody and racist history of Christian nations does not, at first blush, give the rest of the world any reason to believe this.

Monty's got a better grasp of religion than you do.

Like I said: eighteen years of being raised in a Calvinist (or maybe Pentecostal*) household warps one in many strange ways, but it does give one a certain perspective of American Protestant Christianity.

*My family subscribed to the "work your ass off" and "hard work is its own reward" school of Calvinism; but our theology probably owed more to Billy Graham than to any Presbyterian sermon-book.

Monty's got a better grasp of religion than you do. Let him put you some knowledge.

Oh, I grasp religion just fine. Here's the passage I was thinking of (Old Testament and all, but):

"If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot. That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt."

Deuteronomy 13:13-15

Oh you're right! No mention of "salting the earth," only burning everything to the ground. That completely invalidates my point!

And if by "aggressive tribes" you mean "preaching another religion" you're right again.

You got me!

LET MONTY "PUT ME SOME KNOWLEDGE!"

But seriously, explain away, contextually rationalize all you want about the Bible, it's got some passages, if literally interpreted in a modern context, that would compel horrific behavior. I'm not arguing that the Bible is bad, I'm not arguing that Judeo-Christian ethics aren't more predisposed to peaceful, pluralistic behavior than Islam - but I am arguing that they carry some antiquated ideas that are outdated in less violent times. Society has adapted our interpretation of religion. And this is good. And possible in other cases.

Now if you'd like to hit me with some further condescenion (in what was an otherwise civil debate), knock yourself out. But I caution - it's almost happy hour, and I bid you "adieu."

The difference being, of course, that most believers of the bible don't practice the 'horrific behavior' that the bible is capable of compelling.

When confronted with some of those passages about killing unbelievers, etc, 99.9% of unbelievers will say 'that's the old testament' and that we are no longer under those laws or expected to abstain from shellfish, cows cooked in milk, etc.

Just once, I'd like to see a group like CAIR say "Those passages in the Koran about killing infidels? Those aren't applicable today."

Bill,

We seem to have entered one of those weird Intarweb zones where we actually agree but are calling each other fucking liars anyway. With spittle flying and big veins bulging in our necks. So let us break the bread of peace and trouble not each other's houses.

I argue in favor of the Judeo-Christian ethos, not any particular creed. And I think we both know what that is without he having to go all Bean-O on you and write a million-word essay on the topic. And I further argue that this creed is morally superior to many other ethical/moral systems because it places both responsibility and reward right where it belongs: with the individual human being.

By the way, I actually agree with Bill, as well.

But I'm still willing to get into the insult thing. Just for kicks.

But if you want a book-length treatment of this very topic, check out Huntington's Who are we?.

contextually rationalize all you want about the Bible, it's got some passages, if literally interpreted in a modern context, that would compel horrific behavior

Are you purposefully trying to be dishonest?

If you don't want people to hit you with "further condescension" then stop conflating the Old Testament w/the New Testament.

The New Testament is the very basis for the Christian religion. Christians believe that the teachings of Christ and his subsequential sacrifice represent a new covenant with God.

In other words, Christ said, "These are the new rules you need to follow. The old deal you had with God is gone, just like he told ya."

This is so fucking fundamental. Stop talking out of your ass. . You sound like a dipshit leftist.

By the way, I actually agree with Bill, as well.

Whew! Glad you said it first. I agree with you, Slub.

I love how fucking apeshit you go when you reply to me. "Violent chimp" is an apt description.

That passage in Deuteronomy you posted is not exactly right. I looked it up on a Bible site got more context:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

This describes a military response to attempts of cultural invasion and corruption, not the other way around as you would have it.

Moses specifically commanded several times that strangers not be harmed or molested simply because of their strangeness, because the children of Israel were strangers to others when they came out of Egypt and they were helped by them.

I'm sorry everything doesn't fit into the anti-religion narrative you read on kook websites.

I don't necessarily agree with Bill's interpretation of scripture, but do agree that Christianity, by far, has shown far more adaptability to western culture than Islam.

We can argue whether that fact is always a good thing, but overall, I think his basic point is sound.

Sue, Warden, me too then.

Whoa Whoa,
Christianity has shown more adaptibility to Western culure?

Western culture was derived from Christianity.

Western culture was derived from Christianity.

Only partially. Greco-Roman (Hellenic) ideals played a large part in it as well.

Dang. Sue beat me to it.

Oh ya, the Greeks and their democracy thingy.

Oops. I'll be quiet now.

Quite a lot of early Church doctrine (especially that of Thomas Aquinas) was heavily influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato. The philosophers were pagans, but their idealist philosophy appealed to the Church since it fit in nicely with the cosmology of the time (the One True Church in an eternal and perfect universe). Which explains why they reacted so savagely to the Copernican revolution, and especially to Galileo -- he completely screwed up the nice perfect "crystal sphere" model of the universe and forced the Church to start interpreting Scripture rather than presenting it as a literal truth.

Aquinas and other theologians, though, were never all that wedded to a literalist view of the Bible. It's a common misconception among many non-Christians, but throughout history Christians have rarely adhered to a strict literalist view of the Bible. This really only arrived in a major way during the Reformation in Europe, and was concentrated in the Puritan sects who eventually emigrated to...you guess it...America. Which is why it has such deep roots here.

Wesleyan and Calvinist doctrine is rather "interpretationist" as well, focusing more on spiritual development and acceptance of the Christian lifestyle. The "fire breather" school of Christian theology gained prominence fairly recently, and grew out of the post-Reconstruction revivalist sects of the South (Baptists, mainly, but also Foursquare Gospel, African Zion, and the derivatives).

And wow did I just go off on a damned tangent about American Christianity there? Holy shit, I did! Apologies. I must now crawl back into my hole and mutter darkly about the nasty hobbit who stole my Precious.

This is so fucking fundamental. Stop talking out of your ass. . You sound like a dipshit leftist.

Whoa, Warden, take a deep breath.

As long as Mild-Mannered Bill has left for Happy Hour, I'll try to explain.

I haven't read anything that suggests Bill is conflating the testaments, or misunderstands that Christians are not bound by all the dictates given to Israel, or disagrees that the Judeo-Christian ethos is more likely to promote peace and pluralism. He is simply making the point that people can cherry pick passages from the Bible (including the New Testament) to condemn our religion, as some have done with passages from the Koran relating to jihad.

Here's a good one, spoken by Christ himself:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 NIV)

Good grief! Doesn't sound like the "religion of peace" to me. Christ is preaching a religion of hate!

As a Christian myself, of course, I recognize that taking such a passage out of context is a cheap shot.
That's the point (I thought) that Bill was making.

That's some impressive book learnin' there, Monty.

You ain't one of them...college faculty hippie types are you?

That Martin Luther, he was a rascal I tell you.

Dave in Texas, you evil Frisbyterian, you had better beware the Hula-Hoopist Inquisition!

Yes he was, Dave. And he farted a lot, by all accounts.

Slublog:

Alas, I am only the product of a devoutly Christian household. I have one aunt who refuses to let me in her house until I renounce my atheism and ask God to forgive me. I haven't spoken a word to that august lady in nearly twenty years. She is not what we used to call a "Sunday Christian"; she's a fire-breather all the week long.

I just find the general liberal hostility to Christianity...weird. I guess it's because my own experience was mainly happy and positive -- I didn't leave the faith out of bitterness or anger, but rather out of intellectual conviction. Some of the best memories I have of my childhood were of sitting in Church and listening to everybody sing. (I guess that's why my favorite bluegrass tune is The Model Church).

I am a lapsed Christian, but whatever I am now, I was made mainly by the Christian faith. And I just cannot see that as a bad or negative thing.

better beware the Hula-Hoopist Inquisition!

but no one expects the Hula-Hoopist Inquisition. are they gonna use the comfy chair on me?

All's I'm sayin is, dude was busting my balls night and day.

He is simply making the point that people can cherry pick passages from the Bible (including the New Testament) to condemn our religion, as some have done with passages from the Koran relating to jihad.

I think I might have had a knee-jerk reaction to what I see as a common ploy used by Christian bashers, pulling a crazy passage from the Old Testament and using it to impugn someone's beliefs.

Upon further review, I think Bill's point was that religions are capable of moderation through cultural pressures.

However, I still think his comparison is flawed. The radical change from Old Testament to New Testament doctrine didn't happen slowly. It was relatively immediate and took a person of such influence that he changed the course of history. How often does someone like that come along?

Anyway, apologies to Bill at happy hour. I misunderstood where he was coming from.

All's I'm sayin is, dude was busting my balls night and day.

Maybe you should have tried cuddling - like a papal Viking, of course.

Actually, Monty, you should renounce poetry and ask God to forgive you.

Michael:

Still cheesed about that poetry contest, huh?

Bwaaahahahah!

(See, that's why I had to renounce Christianity. I take way too much pleasure in the pain and shame of others.)

A completely OT tangent about religion.

I was at a little get-together over the weekend and one of the ladies there, a Baptist, said she had been recently trying to comfort a good friend of hers who had lost her husband.

Her friend is Catholic, so unlike the Baptists who believe that when you die you go to Christ, believes that you are in God's waiting room for a while first.

The Baptist lady said she asked her friend , 'wouldn't you feel better if you knew that your husband was with Christ right now, as I believe?'

Her friend rejected the premise of course, and I felt that this woman was indicating that her friend also wasn't very pleased with being told her religion kind of sucks, in an hour of need (Well DUH). She was puzzled that her friend couldn't objectively see this obvious flaw in her faith.

I was really surprised, because she seemed so nice, like the other Baptist ladies there. But only one of them seemed to think that other people having different beliefs about religion wasn't the end of the world.

It really ticked me off.
Sorry, felt like sharing.

yes, I often look for opportunities like these to challenge a person's faith, really tear into it critically, because I know that when people are suffering, they think it's fun to argue about something they turn to for comfort and understanding.

Laura:

That nice Baptist lady had the right idea, she just didn't put the question tactfully. She should have said: "Would you feel better now if your husband was not in purgatory suffering in agony for the many sins he committed during his wretched life as a minion of the antichrist in Rome?"

OK, maybe raising a doctrinal issue was a bad idea. She could have just chatted about current events, like politely inquiring: "Did your husband ever recover from ass-fucked by a priest when he as an altar boy?"

Yeah, that's better.

Well, I don't know if this is a different strain of Baptist, but this particular church is pretty aggressive about promoting their faith and hauling in converts. Oops, sorry, I mean, saving people.

Well, it's really not the appropriate time for those kinds of remarks. Better to wait until the funeral service begins and then stand up in your chair and scream "burn in hell, papist"!

More people can join the discussion that way.

lauraw:

I was really surprised, because she seemed so nice, like the other Baptist ladies there. But only one of them seemed to think that other people having different beliefs about religion wasn't the end of the world.

The issue is simple: for serious believers, religion isn't therapy. It's not a feel-good life-affirmation device, or a crutch to use when you're mad or sad or down on your luck. It can be those things, of course, but that's not it's purpose.

I am always amazed when people are shocked when religious people actually take the tenets of their faith seriously. (Think of Excitable Andy's umbrage that the Pope is so Catholic!) By her own lights, the Baptist lady was doing no more than her faith prompted her to do: to carry the word of God to the idolatrous Papists.

Secularists of all stripes keep on misunderstanding the religious motives of friend and foe alike when they miss this crucial point: religious believers aren't playing games or indulging in therapy. They (generally) believe in their faith, and take the scriptural admonitions as commandments of God rather than gentle suggestions from an indulgent father-figure.

Yaweh is a jealous god and an angry God. Jesus may have mediated that personality somewhat, but the Old Testament personality is always lurking behind that "love thy neighbor" facade.

I am always amazed when people are shocked when religious people actually take the tenets of their faith seriously.

Yaweh is a jealous god and an angry God. Jesus may have mediated that personality somewhat, but the Old Testament personality is always lurking behind that "love thy neighbor" facade.

Dang! It's a rare atheist who has any appreciation of this. You're going to get me going on Paul's explication of the wrath of God in Romans . . .

Aw, never mind. I'll save it for another joust at the Politburo Diktat.

Secularists of all stripes keep on misunderstanding the religious motives of friend and foe alike when they miss this crucial point: religious believers aren't playing games or indulging in therapy.

And as I unsuccessfully argued on a long-ago thread, it never occurs to secularists to seriously ask the question: 'what if they're right?' For me, constantly asking that question has been a gateway to tolerance and some understanding.

This double speak is quite common. Multiculturalism is the celebration of everyone but traditional American culture. Moral relativism is good for everyone, but Republicans, the US, or its allies. Everyone's interests must be taken into account, but ours - if Iran wants to get nuclear weapons, well, that's ok it is just in their national interests - "well, isn't it in our national intersts to stop them?" *silence* "Does that mean we can develop more bunker busters?" *silence*

Yaweh is a jealous god and an angry God

Lion tamer may be able to put his head in the lion's mouth.

But he better never forget he's dealing with a lion.

Yeah Monty don't I know it.

It has been many years since I was around people like that and it was kind of like falling into cold water.

I always think that if you want your faith to be respected in a country that embraces religious freedom, then you must respect others'.

I can't be bothered by these people, I just have to stay away from them.

I am always amazed when people are shocked when religious people actually take the tenets of their faith seriously. By her own lights, the Baptist lady was doing no more than her faith prompted her to do: to carry the word of God to the idolatrous Papists.

Because the Bible is full of examples where Christ or the Apostles were fucking with the bereaved at funerals? I don't think so.

If anybody was not recognizing that religion isn't just comforting therapy, it was the Baptist woman presenting the case that the widow would feel much better if she just abandoned Catholicism. It isn't as if the widow could actually believe.

I'll let the psychologists among us parse the possible motives, but there is no way that lady could reasonably have expected to make a convert that day. Things like that never put me off Christianity, but they have certainly put me off some Christians.

LauraW:

There's that strong a baptist congregation in Connecticutt? The story wouldn't have been that suprising if you lived 1000 miles south, but Connecticutt?

Oh man, did I really mispell 'Connecticut' twice in a row? [Shuffles off mumbling . . .]

Then again, Monty, you may have been making exactly that point and not excusing the insensitivity of the guest.

Sorry about that, Chief.

Yes, Monty, I often find myself in the peculiar position of explaining religion to the superficially religious. But the Baptist lady's doctrine is bizarre. Unless they've changed the Baptistism grossly, per her religion it's too goddamned late for the dead Catholic. He chose wrong; you don't make deals with Jesus after death. So this "wouldn't you feel better if your husband was in puppy dog heaven..." stuff is just wanton cruelty.

Now, if she's angling for the widow's soul, that's something else. But she picked a bad time and a completely nonsensical argument.

Oh, they're southern Baptists, all right. They're just not southerners.
But I believe they are aligned with a church from down South.

Because the Bible is full of examples where Christ or the Apostles were fucking with the bereaved at funerals? I don't think so.

Yeah. My concept of Christianity is following the example of Jesus. That is not what that woman was doing. She was indulging in pride (self-satisfaction and superiority). She was not honestly trying to bring that woman closer to God.

She was indulging in pride

If not venting some strident anti-Catholicism. Some of those churches are pretty venomous about Catholics.

I was raised Catholic, and I have to say that one thing which really puzzles me about some fundamentalist baptists is what it must be like to live life thinking that God is so vindictive.

Jesus spent his whole life teaching forgiveness and charity. To imagine that God is going to literally torture you to death for choosing slightly wrong, even if you do good things... it just seems strange to me. It would be hard for me to live in such a universe without getting depressed.

(I hope I'm not stepping on anybody's toes by saying this...)

Let me give a discussion from my religious days that may shed some light on the "who goes to heaven and who burns in hell" thing (remember, this comes from an atheist who was a pentecostal at one time; others might explain it differently).

In my faith, we believed that one had to make a conscious decision for Christ to be "saved". But since children were by definition not able to make the decision, they could not be damned no matter what -- no child (even the unbaptised) would be condemend to hell if they died untimely. Suffer the little children to come unto me said Jesus, as so we believed.

However (you just knew there was a "however" in this somewhere, right?), it means something to be a Christian. To be a Christian means that you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the only path to salvation. If you are one of the "multiple paths, many faiths" folks, then sorry; my sect would wave to you as you were cannonballed down into Hell with the other sinners and ne'er-do-wells. To people of my faith, being a Christian meant renouncing alternative paths to Heaven, and that renunciation included evangelizing non-believers to see the light and redeem themselves. That is part and parcel of what it was to be a Christian.

I became an atheist because I could not accept this core tenet of the faith: there is only one true way to salvation, and that is through Jesus Christ. A Hindu or a Muslim may be a fine and upstanding person, but if they reject Christ, they are doomed. There is no way to finesse your way out of it. Accepting the Christian creed means accepting this truth. I could not accept it, so I left the faith.

But this does not mean in any sense that a Christian may not be a member of a pluralistic society. Christians go about this process very successfully, in fact, but it is more a testament to the American genius at civil government than any basic liberality of the Christian creed.

I was raised Catholic, and I have to say that one thing which really puzzles me about some fundamentalist baptists is what it must be like to live life thinking that God is so vindictive.

Consider the sacrifice of Abraham. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Jacob, whom he loved, to prove his faith. This commandment has bothered theologians for aeons because it presents a God who is one of two things: a capricious and cruel God, who knew even as He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son that He would not allow it, and thus became a malevolent trickster; or a God who fully intended Abraham to kill his own son, and changed His mind at the last moment, and thus became a cruel and inconstant God.

The travails of Job present one with similar dilemmas. What does it say of a God who would do these things (or allow these things to happen)?

Yahweh is a flinty, hard-as-nails God who commands obedience first and above all. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The Old Testament God is ruthless, vindictive, and merciless to His enemies. Jesus obviated the need for sacrifice by giving his own life to grant humankind his grace, but the essential nature of God did not change. He commands obedience of the faithful above all; and he condemns the unbelievers to Hell.

Didn't you get this in catechism?

Monty, I'm sure you were an inquisitive and curious yute.
Surely you asked, "But what about the people in the Amazon or in Fiji who never even heard of Jesus?"

Whe I asked that question the answer I got was that God has a plan for everyone and He will deal that. In the meantime, Bart, you are still obligated to go forth and spread the Good News.

Also, you left out the part about the Pentecostals believing that just accepting Jesus as your savior does not guarantee eternal life in Heaven. God still judges your heart and if you really are a disciple of Christ. AND you will not enter the Kingdom unless your name is in the Book of Life (?) which was written a long long time ago.

there is only one true way to salvation, and that is through Jesus Christ. A Hindu or a Muslim may be a fine and upstanding person, but if they reject Christ, they are doomed.

The word "reject" invites a whole lot of parsing. Different Christian traditions have differing understandings of what it means.

VRWC Agent:

The word "reject" invites a whole lot of parsing.

Not to the sect I belonged to. They took the "no other gods before me" thing very seriously indeed.

Re the sacrifice of Abraham: his son was Isaac, not Jacob. Loose theological shit.

Yahweh is a flinty, hard-as-nails God who commands obedience first and above all.

Jesus makes fun of people who are so literalistic. He asks what they'd do if their sheep or whatever falls in a hole on the sabbath day, when they're technically not supposed to work.

Jesus also told the story of the good Samaritan for a reason!

But personally, I think a lot of the old testament stuff is just old stories. (And the story of Abraham possibly goes way back, and may have its roots in an ancient transition from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice.) God getting beat in a wrestling match? Samson killing his guests? It just doesn't square with the example of Jesus, unless I look at them as metaphors, histories, and old oral traditions. But the Ten Commandments are gold.

Didn't you get this in catechism?

Probably, but I didn't pay close attention; I was too busy flipping through the Bible reading the demonic posession stories. "My name is legion!" I loved that stuff as a kid.

This commandment has bothered theologians for aeons because it presents a God who is one of two things: a capricious and cruel God, who knew even as He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son that He would not allow it, and thus became a malevolent trickster

God asked for absolute obedience, did not actually carry through on the price, and struck a new covenant with a fallen people because Abraham came through. This is malevolence?

I also believe Job was rewarded for his fidelity, was he not?

Yahweh is a flinty, hard-as-nails God who commands obedience first and above all.

As I understand it, He is perfect and all powerful and nothing imperfect can endure His presence. That might seem harsh, but it's the nature of shadows that approach light. It isn't sadism; it's a result of Man's own fall and something Christian faiths believe God remedied with his own sacrifice.

That seems a little more big-hearted to me that what you are describing.

You and I followed a similar spiritual trajectory, Monty. I was raised a whitebread Presbyterian, then tilted toward a...ummm...I don't know what the words mean. Pentecostal? Evangelical? Fundamentalist? I don't understand the nuances of these labels today. It just seems to me, if you're a thinking being, the God question has got to be the first and most important question you tackle.

In the end, I suspect I have fallen even further from grace. Once I realized the center wouldn't hold, all the stuff around the edges flew apart. Job was the start of it (he lost his sons, but that's okay because God gave him new sons? Kind of sucked for the sons, didn't it? Did they not each matter as much as Job?), but the Old Testament is too easy a target.

Once I realized I was making lame excuses for the Gospels, there came a reckoning. If you find you can't believe any one component, then what reason is there to believe any other component? If the whole cloth isn't true, why cling to a thread?

I think some introspection is in order for anybody that takes great offense when somebody else shares their faith. I also think that people who pick funerals as their forum to share their theology with the bereaved are asshats.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I suspect I have fallen even further from grace

As a former calvinist you should know that once you're saved you're always saved (in the Westminster confession of faith its refered to as perserverence of the saints) - Good news for you!

Weasel, are you saying Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus?

If the whole cloth isn't true, why cling to a thread?

From this dilemma are new Christian sects forged, Weasel. Read the Gospel of Thomas (the Gnostic Gospel) for some insight -- Christians have been wrestling with this literally from the very first.

Minor nitpick: I wouldn't call the Gospel of Thomas "gnostic", although it was found with a bunch of gnostic texts.

Brew -- and yet the Book says very few will ultimately get into heaven and everyone will be surprised at who makes it. So how does that work, since so many have confessed? And if that one act of contrition is all that's required and good works won't do the trick, what's the point of all the rest of it?

Bart -- once you work out that a team of reindeer could not possibly fly to every house in the world between dusk and dawn on a single day, what reason do you have to believe in a man in a red suit?

Monty -- if new sects begin with the disturbing inconsistency of the doctrine as a whole, what speaks to the integrity of any one component?

Monty -- if new sects begin with the disturbing inconsistency of the doctrine as a whole, what speaks to the integrity of any one component?

It makes me a little uncomfortable to answer these questions in any authoritative way, Weasel; remember, I am speaking only from my own experience, not from any ultimate theological authority.

That said, I'd answer your question in this way:

In America as in almost nowhere else, Christian sects have sprouted up like spring corn. Besides the established churches -- Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and others -- you have a great plethora of "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" strains, which includes the Baptists.

I think that this represents something of the character of America during its formative years. Congregations of like-minded people would sometimes form a sect out of disagreement with non-theological rule, or dislike of a preacher or bishop or alderman. And during the Depression years, when the evangelical sects exploded both in numbers and in schisms, there was a great desire for clarity and simplicity in faith that the more "ornate" sects could not satisfy. Fundamentalist Christianity in America is actually very egalitarian and community-oriented -- people who grew up in small towns in the South or the Midwest know what I mean. Most of a small town's social life revolves around the church house.

So ultimately it isn't theology that leads to sects being formed -- it's simply new communities being born and old ones dying off. I can take a Baptist from Vermont and a Baptist from Georgia, and I can almost promise you they will be like night and day on theology -- and yet they profess the same Christian faith.

It is an odd thing, I grant you, but entirely in keeping with the American character.

Oh! Sorry, Monty. I missed what you meant. Yes, I can totally see the proliferation of protestant sects in the US as a manifestation of...ummm...cultural energy. Like our overwhelming variety of musical styles or clothes or fast food. My bad -- I thought you were speaking to essential truths. And now. Officially. Too happy and mellow and tiddly to argue God on the internet. Perhaps our host will give us a running open thread on theology some day.

Meanwhile, happy Thanksgiving, whatever you thank!

I used to think David and Bathsheeba's first son was punished unjustly.

I don't anymore.

Anybody here a Nazarene?

I would venture that Church of the Nazarene might be closest to the Puritans than any other modern sect of Christianity in America.

Perhaps even closer than Amish and Mennonite if you exclude the time-warp thing.

Might be a tie with the Mormons, I don't know enough about them.

lauraw:

The Seventh-Day Adventists, Foursquare Gospel, and Christ Zion churches are all pretty strict. And simply referring to oneself as a "Baptist" is like answering "America" when someone asks you where you're from -- there seem to be more varieties of Baptists than there are species of beetles.

And you can still sometimes catch those bizarre tent-revival gigs if you travel through parts of the South and the Midwest -- full-on Elmer Gantry speaking-in-tongues craziness (but some damned good music). It's a barrel of fun even if you're a heretic like me; better than a night at the carnival, in my opinion.

The Amish and Mennonites are actually offshoots of the old Dutch Reformed sects; their theology really isn't that far out of the Christian mainstream.

A Hindu or a Muslim may be a fine and upstanding person, but if they reject Christ, they are doomed.

Actually, the starting point of Christian theology is that there are no Hindus or Muslims who are fine upstanding persons, nor are there any such Christians.

You are fundamentally corrupted, according to Christianity. You are a vessel being filled with the wrath of God.

God help you, you're in trouble.

The great thing about Luther is his emphasis on the proper distinction between Law and Gospel when you interpret the Bible. If you don't get this (and Baptists don't, BTW), you will end up with craziness instead of Christianity every time.

So, I guess we all agree that Chris Matthews is full of shit?

So, I guess we all agree that Chris Matthews is full of shit?

Oh, unquestionably. But boy, we did wander down a strange path to that conclusion, didn't we?

But boy, we did wander down a strange path to that conclusion, didn't we?

Yes, we did. But fortunately, in the process, we weren't subjected to any of your crappy bad poetry, which is well beneath the standard of the Ode to Odgen Nash by any objective standard.

Amazing. The same bunch of commenters who can discuss politics and theology will all be calling each other all sorts of nasty and wonderful names in the next flame war.

What a weird group this is.

If I had another glass of wine, I'd be gushing right now.

What a weird group this is.

I concur, you cock-knocking dickweed.

Happy turkey day to all -- Monty has to call it an early night.

Slublog,

Have some stove-top stuffing with that wine - as kind of a tribute to Mrs. Stovetop.

Couldn't hurt.

It's been a real pleasure listening to you blasphemers ramble.

By the way, thanks for ignoring my comment, Monty, you fucking jerk.

What am I, the Asshole Who Shall Not Be Named?

Love you guys.

Jerks.

All the best.

Amazing. The same bunch of commenters who can discuss politics and theology will all be calling each other all sorts of nasty and wonderful names in the next flame war.

Why wait for the next flame war? This thread is clearly out of control, Slub, and if you weren't such a cock-sucking little faggot you would have noticed.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, BTW. God bless you all.

Aww...brings a tear to my eye.

You miserable bastards.

Happy Thanksgiving.

What am I, the Asshole Who Shall Not Be Named?

Well, Bart, I guess so.

Self-nomination counts for a lot around here.

I would like to generically offer a Happy Thanksgiving to all of the nameless and ignored assholes who frequent this site.

Not all Christians think that good people of other religions are doomed. (As I said, the story of the good Samaritan is there for a reason.)

Many think that you're cool as long as you're a really really good person, but it's just so much harder to be a good person unless you're a Christian.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Enjoy your tofurkey!

Happy Thanksgiving to all the good men and women on this site. And you too, Michael.

Sorry: one more shot across the bow before I give it up for the evening. Regarding the "what about non-beleivers who are good people argument", Paul directly refutes that directly in Romans 1:19-20.

And Jesus himself says in John, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me."

Unambiguous and not really amenable to "parsing" to make it mean something else. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle-room -- at least not to my eye.

But from this happy heretic to all and sundry: enjoy your holiday with your families. Thanks for the great conversation, and for letting me bloviate so much.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the good men and women on this site.

. . . and all the ships at sea. Happy T-giving all. [go Broncos!]

the starting point of Christian theology is that there are no Hindus or Muslims who are fine upstanding persons, nor are there any such Christians.

You might want to speak for your own denomination on that score, Michael.

Monty, I read Romans as supporting natural theology. You don't?!

You're both cocksuckers, BTW, and God definitely frowns on that.

Have a happy and blessed Thanksgiving anyway. And the same to the rest of you out there. (Even B-a-r-t.)

God bless us, every one!

Oh wait, wrong holiday? Sorry. I'll get back in the basket.

This athiest is also thankful for a good life in a wonderful country with the best countrymen a gal could ask for.

In addition to the all around Good Life that has been afforded me this year:

--One of my customers got rid of a wasps' nest outside the front of my store that was a danger to my customers

--One of my customers nailed down a warped board in my front ramp that was tripping people

--My UPS guy has given me three bottles of his homemade wine (and its damned good)

--A customer gave me a signed repro of one of his paintings

--A guy took a bunch of my cardboard scrap out to the cardboard dumpster for me

--One Saturday afternoon I was struggling with my front gate for an hour, and a customer came by and dislodged it for me so that I could finally go home

--Several customers have brought me hot coffee or sweets whenever they came by

--Some customers sent me nice emails or called me, telling me nice things about how well they were treated and that their packages arrived in great condition, which always makes my day

--Some of my customers made significant charitable contributions, and I was privileged to surprise them and go in halfsies on the shipping with them

--My best friend is a jewel who I can always count upon, and she can always count upon me

--My mother and father and mother-in-law are still with me, and I treasure them

--My husband is a damned sexy man and gets hornier with Each. Passing. Year.

I'm sure I have forgotten a number of good things, but I am thankful for them also.

--To whom am I thankful, you may ask, if I am indeed an athiest?

Why to myself, of course.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, I LOVE YOU CRITTERS

That's so sweet, Lauraw.

Now learn how to spell atheist, stupid.

I'm definitely going to pray for all your damned souls.

What women? There are no women commenters on AOSHQ.

Michael is correct. There is one fundamental doctrine that all Christian denominations share and that is the depravity of man. We have a sin nature imputed to us that seperates us from God. The removal of this condition is what Christ's death on the cross acomplished. BTW, Romans does not support natural theology. Paul simply says that nature reveals God's existence so that no man can deny him. According to Paul, our salvation still depends on the atoning nature of Christ's death on the cross.

Sure there are women, silly Josie.

We have Michael and bbeck and...
I guess that's it.

lauraw, you're the cat's pajamas. Have a great Thanksgiving!

To whom am I thankful, you may ask, if I am indeed an athiest?

And as I unsuccessfully argued on a long-ago thread, it never occurs to secularists to seriously ask the question: 'what if they're right?'

Paul simply says that nature reveals God's existence so that no man can deny him.

He says more than that, BF. Your take on Romans2:14-16 is by no means universal. It expressly contemplates God writing the same moral precepts upon the hearts of Gentiles as He gave to the Jews and these uncatechized living in conformity with it and being judged in accordance with that standard God gave them.

I wouldn't presume to argue here what interpretation is right (and I've never seen anyone's faith budged by argumentation alone anyway). I have only said that the interpretation being offered is not universal within Christianity. The idea that all Hindus, Muslims, and other non-Christians are damned is only one of several Christian positions. That isn't theology. It's a fact.

Unambiguous and not really amenable to "parsing" to make it mean something else. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle-room -- at least not to my eye.

Damn, Monty, you are a Lutheran absolutist at heart. I just know you are. But your bad poetry is a disgace to the faith.

Monty, I read Romans as supporting natural theology. You don't?!

Don't know about Monty, but I don't. Paul discusses natural revelation in Romans, but nothing even close to "natural theology". I think he repudiates "natural theology" (which I take to mean, some sort of tolerant mutual-paths-to-salvation asshat theology).

You're both cocksuckers, BTW, and God definitely frowns on that.

Well yeah. That brings us to the doctrine of the Office of the Keys of Confession. Don't get me started. We'll be here all night, and I have to cook a turkey tomorrow.

That's right, I'm cooking the turkey. My daughter remembers that I promised to cook a genuine Texas barbecued, mesquite smoked turkey for Thanksgiving, and she's holding me to it. She even got her Texas boyfriend to bring me the mesquite chunks. I sure wish I could learn to shut up when I'm drunk. Unfortunately, the weather sucks right now. So, tomorrow I'm going to be out there in the Ohio snow slow-cooking the friggin' turkey in my genuine Texas barbecue (hand-welded in San Antonio by a barbecue genuis, Mr. Charles Lamb, I should add) . With mesquite chunks flown in from Texas by my daughter's boyfriend.

--My UPS guy has given me three bottles of his homemade wine (and its damned good)

I'm impressed. Free hooch from the UPS guy. You must be one mighty good package wrapper. Happy Thanksgiving!

We all are merely part of an overall Universe bound together by the ultimate rule that there is only One. For us, we are bound by our own laws and limitations, practicing within our own self-built walls.

Humanity is here to save itself or condemn itself. Whats the point to humanity if its simply going to be saved?

When you guys evolve past the primitive stage of thinking - war, religion, war, religion, war, religion, revenge, religion, ownership, control, religion, war, religion - only then can you truly understand.

You become what you want to become. If you envision yourself as a slave to some book written by Humans, then so be it, that is your choice and thats what you will be.

Religion, prove me wrong, is the biggest catalyst for wars and corruption that the Earth has ever seen throughout recorded history. Religion makes some men rich and other men dead, it causes bloody war after bloody war, once in a while gives someone so much power that when they speak and even if it is irrational people believe.

So. I guess I'll be called some moonbat or some whacko. Thats fine.

Who was it that said this?

"Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean I'm a whacko."

You must be one mighty good package wrapper.

Yes, that was intended as sexual innuendo.

They took the "no other gods before me" thing very seriously indeed.

Monty, I almost missed this. Taking "before" means making a choice between. "Rejecting" means a presentation that could be considered. As I said, denominations differ, but at least one tradition I know of recognizes the concept of "invincible ignorance" that would precluse rejection or a wrongful acceptance.

It isn't universal. Again, that is just a fact.

(which I take to mean, some sort of tolerant mutual-paths-to-salvation asshat theology).

*sigh*

No, Michael. The idea would be that you are basically judged according to what you were given. God's call how sharply he graced you with the goods and God's judgment how well you did with it. Sort of like a parable about coins ... how did that go again?

Religion, prove me wrong, is the biggest catalyst for wars and corruption that the Earth has ever seen throughout recorded history.

It is the greatest source of kindness and mercy I know of. Wars? Please check out the concepts of "power," "pride," and "property" just to name a few.

Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean I'm a whacko.

I see the two truths as completely unrelated. :-)

So. I guess I'll be called some moonbat or some whacko. Thats fine.

OK. You are a moonbat and a whacko . Your mushy-headed concept of religion is ridiculous.

On the other hand, I do agree with this:

Religion, prove me wrong, is the biggest catalyst for wars and corruption that the Earth has ever seen throughout recorded history.

Can't argue with that.

The interesting issue is: where are all these "religions" coming from?

You would think that we could evolve beyond this silly strife, wouldn't you?

Just so we stay on topic, you do agree that Chris Matthews is an asshole, right?

Josie, where do you get your philosophy, the Azgars from Stargate SG-1?

All that's missing from your post is simple Earthlings at the end of each sentence.

The idea would be that you are basically judged according to what you were given.

So, God grades on the basis of a modified curve, adjusted for the minority students.

Don't think so. And you can't get there from Romans.

According to Paul, what you were "given", VRWC, as a result of Adam's fall, is a totally corrupted human nature that is in a perpetual state of rebellion against God. If you think He is going to grade on a curve, you are in deep shit.

Not for nothing, but my comment that our dear friend, Montgomery Ward, conveniently ignored posed the dilemma of the fate of those not introduced to Christ in their lifetimes.

But today I'm Bart the Largely Ignored.

The idea that all Hindus, Muslims, and other non-Christians are damned is only one of several Christian positions. That isn't theology. It's a fact.

VRWC, I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'one of several Christian positions'. Are you saying some Christian denomination teaches non-Christians are saved? If so, I'd like to know which one.

"If you envision yourself as a slave to some book written by Humans, then so be it, that is your choice and thats what you will be."

Actually I envision myself as being free from the penalty of sin, free from the power of sin and, someday, free from the presence of sin.

You become what you want to become.

I want to become Vinny Falcone...

Damn. It isn't working. You lie!

As I said, denominations differ, but at least one tradition I know of recognizes the concept of "invincible ignorance" that would precluse rejection or a wrongful acceptance.

That's precisely where Paul's concept of natural revelation comes in. Anybody can look at the night sky and apprehend that "the heavens declare the glory of God", and they can start to figure out the difference between God and chaos. According to Christian theology, in real life, there is always a "rejection" or a "wrongful acceptance".

Not for nothing, but my comment that our dear friend, Montgomery Ward, conveniently ignored posed the dilemma of the fate of those not introduced to Christ in their lifetimes.

But today I'm Bart the Largely Ignored.

. . .

Actually I envision myself as being free from the penalty of sin, free from the power of sin and, someday, free from the presence of sin.

Another Lutheran has been outed!

God bless us, every one!

Get back in the fucking box, Tim.

So, God grades on the basis of a modified curve, adjusted for the minority students.

More like the parable of the talents, Michael. He judges based on what He has given. And please don't paraphrase Martin Luther and attribute it to Paul or Christianity universally. It may be your understanding of the Gospel, but -- as I keep repeating -- it is by no means universal. Further, if we put it to a vote among believing Christians, it would likely lose.

my comment that our dear friend, Montgomery Ward, conveniently ignored posed the dilemma of the fate of those not introduced to Christ in their lifetimes.

Bart, I did try to step up to the plate on that.

Are you saying some Christian denomination teaches non-Christians are saved? If so, I'd like to know which one.

Categorically, BF? No. Neither are Christians. But were the pre-Columbian Indians all damned for having been born before Christ or the Ineteret's free exchange of information? Apparently denominations split. The different understandings of Romans is probably key, but I don't do this for a living.

VRWC: As I said, denominations differ, but at least one tradition I know of recognizes the concept of "invincible ignorance" that would precluse rejection or a wrongful acceptance.

Michael: That's precisely where Paul's concept of natural revelation comes in. Etc, etc.

Michael, once again I'll try to make this clear: This is not really the place for a theological debate. I've been to those boards and they go on and on. Maybe the acrimony should not be surprising since people's most sacred cows are offered up for the chopping (and all people think their cows should survive) but believe me, the rifts between Eastern Christians and Western Christians -- or between Eastern/Western and Protestants, or between the ever more numerous Protestant factions -- will not be resolved on Ace's bandwidth.

The point is that Christianity has splintered points of view on the questions I have pointed to. Any assertion that there are no dissenting opinions, or that the opinion presented might itself be a dissent, is simply and factually wrong. This isn't about whether you are right or wrong or what my opinion about that might be. It is about whether other points of view even exist.

I am surprised that, as an atheist, Monty can read the verses I cited without seeing natural theology. Whether others more vested in the issue would concede the possibility is definitely something I would want to engage in a different forum.

For this forum, I would just point to charity/love and a univerally understood gift of God in Christian understanding. As I have pieced it together, that has been the foundation of how we have been such an unusually tolerant, and yet assertive when crossed, nation. If you want a jihad for your particular faith so as to deny the existence of all others, however, we should carry it to an appropriate forum where I am sure you will find yourself unsatisfied.

At the top: " Ineteret's" means "Internet's" and at the last paragraph "and" should be "as." Loose shit.

Maybe we do need Vinnie Falcone working the front. Just for the record, though, I was wearing a shirt.

BTW, Ace, if the thread is worth reading at this point, I can't help but notice the potential crazy numbers of links and posts that would accompany relatively open threads on religion.

I'm not trying to start something. It's just the way I roll.

Well, it rarely occurs to Christians to ask the question: 'what if the Vikings were right?' either. For better and for worse.

Yes, my advice was uniquely canted towards atheists. Like myself. It'd be nice if it were more universally applied though.

anon wrote:
[religion] ... causes bloody war after bloody war

in my opinion, not true. religion is just an excuse. there would have been wars, and there would be wars even if there were no religions at all in the world.

VRWC, I have no doubt that many Christians do believe that all good people have a shot at the prize. Clearly, Christians believe all sorts of watered down, low-cal, happy clappy stuff that isn't in the least supported by their own scriptures. Or, at best, is hinted at in some of them and flatly denied in others.

I accidentally got into an argument somewhere else a month or so ago. I made an offhand reference to hell, not thinking that was a controversial concept, and a Christian piped up and said, "Oh, we don't emphasize that any more."

And I was all, like, "what do you mean, you don't emphasize it? You mean, you've decided it's bad PR? Or are you saying you don't believe it any more?" And he was, like, "oh, it's not really a big deal. It's only mentioned a couple of times in the Bible." So I had to go find an online Bible and look up all the references, which were numerous and not at all hypothetical. (For my pains, I got that old thing about the Devil quoting scripture. You'd think, since I'm going to spend eternity on fire and he's not, he could've been more gracious about it).

See, I can follow as far as "the universe is really, really big and beautiful, so there must be a God" but I don't see how you get from there to the Middle East and holy carpenters and Apostles and loaves and fishes and lakes of fire. It seems to me, you have to buy that whole package. Or not. If you can pick and choose, why not throw it all over and worship Crom or My Little Pony or the Doorknob God? They're all equally good explanations for the Crab Nebula.

When it comes right down to it, though, the more important question is...I got a boneless turkey breast this year...how's that going to affect my cooking times?

Another Lutheran has been outed

Nope. A calvinist thru and thru who has found a home in the C&MA :)

It seems to me, you have to buy that whole package. Or not. If you can pick and choose, why not throw it all over and worship Crom or My Little Pony or the Doorknob God?

This is where the Bible comes into play. I choose to accept it as divine revelation and feel it is the final authority in all matters. There is discernment involved because some parts of the bible are allegorical and some are historical and some are doctrinal. But when you start 'adding' to the scriptures, either by 'special revelation' or tradition then that's where the trouble starts (and ususally the next 'denomination').

For this forum, I would just point to charity/love

Right on, brother! BTW, I wish all my fellow Christians would read 1Corinthians 13 and take it to heart (especially v. 1-3). We'd then have no more incidents like the one lauraw witnessed.

Religion, prove me wrong, is the biggest catalyst for wars and corruption that the Earth has ever seen throughout recorded history.

Okay, I'll prove you wrong with one word: women. They've driven more men to kill each other over time than any other agency I can think of, including God. Men really are just shaved apes when it comes to the ladies.

And then theres territoriality -- that's launched more wars than religious differences by far. And competition for resources. And polotical dissidence (which I consider distinct from relgious conflict, although the two are often intertwined). And tribalism, which I discussed earlier.

Conquest and empire-building comes ahead of religion easily -- many of Imperial Rome's wars were fought to either gain or defend empire, with little religious aspect at all.

So I'd say that while religion is a catalyst for warfare, it's not even in the top five in historical terms.

my comment that our dear friend, Montgomery Ward, conveniently ignored posed the dilemma of the fate of those not introduced to Christ in their lifetimes.

I did reply indirectly by referring to Romans 1:19-20 (which is probably exactly what your pastor would do if you asked him the same question). The upshot is: there's no excuse, even if you're a Fijian or an Aleut on some distant glacier.

And I've often thought that if I were not an atheist, I would have made a dandy Jesuit. Just in case you were wondering.

You are all a bunch of retard theologians.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

Universal Truths:

Chris Matthews is an asshole, and this will not change.

Bill from INDC will not learn from this thread, nor from any future one.

Monty is cool.

All women on the Internet are men, even the ones that show you their boobs.

In-laws suck, in varying degrees mind you, but they still suck.

Turkeys take a long time to bake.

I love you all, even if you are stinky Gentiles, and hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

Happy retarded Thanksgiving, all.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

P.S. I think Ace owes us a collective award for the AOSHQ MOST BIZARRE THREAD EVER.

Beer...we have beer. Bond marathon on Spike TV...check. I make that T minus ten minutes to bird. Ten minutes to bird and counting.

Thankful? Oh, yeah. Happy gluttony and drunkenness, ever'body!

I got a boneless turkey breast this year

Thou shalt not ditch the best part of the turkey.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

Snowing like hell here in western PA and boyfriend is smoking a cigar with Dad in another room as I write. I strolled by and heard the word "dowry" mentioned...

Have a wonderful day, all!

Sounds like they're getting along just fine, Lipstick! That's great.

I hope your father can afford to pay the dowry.

Be a shame to let this guy get away just because you were two goats short.

I hate it when that happens.

It's tiara time.

I have tried, but I have never won.

I WANT THAT FRIGGIN' TIARA!

Did Lipstick or Laura win?
My vote goes to Lipstick for dragging her love-life into the tread.

I WANT THAT FRIGGIN' TIARA!

Do I even have to say it?

Yeah, Lipstick gets my vote too. It's weird how she's not even embarrassed about putting her ear to the door so she could listen in on Dad and Boyfriend.

He got the tiara before, but it smelled funny when I got it back. I think he...did something bad with it.

I put it in the dishwasher to sterilize it and almost all the glitter came off.
I had to dip it in glue and re-do it. Now it sparkles like new.

Ain't no way in the world the sissy's getting it back.

Lipstick can have it if she considers this a cautionary tale and never lets him 'borrow' it.

OK, I quit. I know when I'm tilting at windmills.

Really, this is my last comment on this thread.

FWIW, I sprayed that damn thing with Lysol before I returned it. Sorry that didn't work.

meep meep.

I did NOT put my ear to the door. The door was open and I just happened to be walking by. Yes, that's right.

Oh, and Bart, don't you have some father issues you have to take care of?

Hi ho, I know this thread is dead but I'm here to defile the corpse.

Religion, prove me wrong, is the biggest catalyst for wars and corruption that the Earth has ever seen throughout recorded history.

Communism.

Religion makes some men rich and other men dead,

Communism.

it causes bloody war after bloody war,

Communism.

once in a while gives someone so much power that when they speak and even if it is irrational people believe.

Communism.

Really wish I'd been "here" for this ...

Oh, look at Lipstick, jumping on the Bart-bashing band-wagon.

Bart, my comment was from last Saturday, so I was not jumping on the Bart-bashing bandwagon, but leading it. ;)

Yeee-ha!!!