|
Post by jb on Jul 30, 2019 16:14:13 GMT -8
I have no disagreement with the thought that many others have experienced truth, beauty and a lot of other wonderful things through their religions. These things will mean different things to different cultures.
But the way you express it sounds as if one religion is as good as another, much like a fashion statement. It's simply a matter of taste. Brad likes a black leather coat, JB prefers brown suede, Tim looks better in green wool. All these coats keep us warm, so what difference does it make which one we choose?
I'll chalk your conclusion up to my inartful expression, because it was not my intent to convey an indifferentism in any manner, as I surveyed the manifold and multiform ways religions make differences, temporally & eternally, intrinsically & extrinsically. We strive to get things as right as we possibly can in this life in solidarity with and compassion for all, that we may all move more swiftly and with less hindrance, with less suffering and greater consolation, through this earthly life. What's at stake, eternally, not elaborated on much in this thread by me but which I've articulated elsewhere, is our degree of participation in beatitude, from a tiny votive candle to a blazing helios, all for the greater glory of God, ad majorem Dei gloriam. If one's sole criterion, though, for what difference religion makes, is keeping one out of hell, then my believing that nonChristians and atheists can be saved, i.e. soteriological inclusivism, and my believing that the Holy Spirit can animate all people of goodwill and breakthrough in elements of truth, to various degrees, in other religions and even secularists, i.e. theological inclusivism, then I've been properly understood in that regard, too. To characterize such inclusivisms as mere matters of taste or fashion feels like a trivialization of something that's very important to me, but I offer no quibble. Label me as you will. I wonder, though, do you intend that characterization for those inclusivist approaches, which are mainstream catholic teaching, Roman, Anglican & Orthodox? Many would. But, perhaps, you intend it only for my departure point from there to universalism? In other words, if one's sole criterion, for what difference religion makes, is keeping one out of hell, then my believing that nonChristians and atheists, for that matter, all the vicious & wicked, eventually ARE saved, though not without some purgative process & period, then, I am certainly sympathetic to and understanding of your objections, however strenuous. Those objections are voiced by most people of large intelligence and profound goodwill! This superminority universalist stance is controversial and provocative and could be in error. I'm still in the process of processing it and struggling with a suitable articulation, which is more difficult when one is in the earliest stages of understanding anything. Coming into this forum will hopefully advance my struggle. And, if for no other reason, maybe my presence here has served as a foil to help others deepen their own self-understandings, even if not grasping mine entirely (my fault). Well, the Coroner of Brad County has declared this a dead horse, so, maybe I best deferentially quit beating it. But, for those interested, two very eloquent voices, who've debated in the past, are Ed Feser, for the majority view, and David Bentley Hart, for the minority position. They tackle the exegetical arguments, e.g biblical proof-texting, which hasn't persuaded me; the pragmatic arguments, e.g. hell is useful, so, it must be true, which is even more fallacious; the majority consensus argument, e.g. most Christians ... but that's a perilous criterion for a superminority tradition, globally. I'll post this, then return with links for Feser & Hart. I expect they'll reengage in a few weeks when the book is released. The blogosohere & twitterverse will explode, as will editorial pages & book reviews, religious & secular. Feser edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/01/a-hartless-god.html?m=1Hart afkimel.wordpress.com/essential-readings-on-universalism/These guys are brilliant and witty but their snark can get rather off-putting to some (me!).
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jul 30, 2019 18:47:08 GMT -8
With apologies to Sir Walter Scott.
"Truly," said Wamba, without stirring from the spot, "I have consulted my legs upon this matter, and they are altogether of opinion, that to carry my gay garments through these sloughs, would be an act of unfriendship to my sovereign person and royal wardrobe; wherefore, Gurth, I advise thee to call off Fangs, and leave the herd to their destiny, which, whether they meet with bands of travelling soldiers, or of outlaws, or of wandering pilgrims, can be little else than to be converted into theologians before morning, to thy no small ease and comfort."
"The analysis turned theologians to my comfort!" quoth Gurth; "expound that to me, Wamba, for my brain is too dull, and my mind too vexed, to read riddles."
"Why, how call you that done by those grunting brutes wandering about with their heads in the clouds ?" demanded Wamba.
"Analysis, fool, analysis," said the deacon, "every fool knows that."
"And analysis is good Saxon," said the Jester; "but how call you the act when she is flayed, and drawn, and quartered, and hung up by the heels, like a traitor?"
"Exegesis," answered the layman.
"I am very glad every fool knows that too," said Wamba, "and exegesis, I think, is good Latin-Greek; and so when the thought lives, and is in the charge of a Saxon slave, she goes by her Saxon name; but becomes a Latin, and is called exegesis, when she is carried to the Castle-hall to feast among the theologians; what dost thou think of this, friend Gurth, ha?"
"It is but too true doctrine, friend Wamba, however it got into thy fool's pate."
"Nay, I can tell you more," said Wamba, in the same tone; there is old Alderman Right Behaviour continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he is under the charge of serfs and laymen such as thou, but becomes Ortho-Praxis, a fiery Latin-Greek gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. Mynheer Salvation, too, becomes Monsieur de Soteriology in the like manner; he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Latin-Greek name when he becomes matter of theology."
"By St Dunstan," answered Gurth, "thou speakest but sad truths; little is left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their theological masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones, leaving few here who have either will or the power to protect the unfortunate Saxon layman..."
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 4, 2019 11:53:47 GMT -8
The link will take the reader to a story about some so-called "Christian" who had been very popular for the last couple of decades. Apparently he had written books about his Christianity. Fake ChristianI should start off saying that I have always had a healthy skepticism of these types who go around advertising their great Christianity through writing books and going on TV. There is something very unseemly about the hubris involved in such actions. And such behavior appears to be more popular than ever in our culture, so I am doubly skeptical of those who claim to speak for Christians and morals through today's popular media. Their objective seems to be fame, nothing more. I can't help but believe this particular "Christian" has always been an egotistical phony who has finally come out of the closet. Speaking of coming out of the closet, one wonders if he couldn't control homo feelings or something of that sort. I was also heartened to read the article's author's remarks on the legalistic approach too many take toward Christianity. I was speaking to my oldest friend about this last week. One of the things I dislike about the way many in the Catholic Church approach salvation is their legalistic approach. In the end, it would appear that they, like many in rabbinical Judaism love figuring out how to get around the spirit of the law, by splitting legalistic hairs so fine that they wouldn't withstand the breath of a gnat.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 4, 2019 12:12:17 GMT -8
Following on my previous post, this so-called "Christian Pastor" renounced both Christianity and his wife. I like what Roger Scruton has written about marriage in his "An Intelligent Person's Guide to Modern Culture."
In the religious ceremony of marriage, the words uttered by bride and groom have a supernatural power. Although they have been spoken by every couple who were every joined by them, it is as though they are being spoken here and now for the first time. Like spells, they create what they describe, and the vow becomes an eternal echo of the frail and mortal voice that utters it. Deny the sacred presence and the focus shifts to a man and a woman, and the words between them are no longer vows but defeasible promises, which can be cancelled when the parties choose. The words then lose their solemnity, become commonplace, trite and stilted, like the pseudo-antique jargon in a legal document.
Max Weber wrote in this connection of the progressive, "disenchantment"- Entzauberung- of social life. Places, times and actions lose their holiness, the gods retreat from us, and our bonds are sealed by no higher force than law.
A good point as to why one should beware of legalistic religious types. Religion and faith is much more than law.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 4, 2019 12:16:12 GMT -8
Another point which Scruton makes is:
The blasphemer is not the one who disbelieves in God, but the one who is angry at himself for believing too much-the one who seeks to free himself from the divinity, and who shouts and snarls in his helplessness.
I have said similar things in the past. I think it might be time to republish my "Atheistic Fundamentalists"
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 4, 2019 12:59:47 GMT -8
Two or three decades back, the Episcopalians named a homosexual bishop (in New Hampshire). I think he was a formerly married man who gave up his wife for his homosexuality. Something similar happened with a New Jersey governor early last decade. Perhaps our religious bloodstream needs more faggocytes.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 4, 2019 13:13:08 GMT -8
That was my laugh for the day!!!
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 4, 2019 13:42:18 GMT -8
I suppose why one leaves a religion can be as unique as why one gets on in the first place.
It is worth noting the Dennis Prager says that Leftism is the most dynamic movement today. I wouldn’t call this guy a fake Christian. He’s simply converted to a new faith—even if he hasn’t overtly said so.
Many join Leftism from within Christianity, bending Christian doctrine to meet the Leftist tenets. But at the end of the day, for many people (young or old), the traditional doctrines of Christianity are an embarrassment, particularly as it leaves one to be labeled “intolerant,” particularly of sexual libertinism.
No man is an island. We all need to belong somewhere. And to have access to the mainstream in the current society it is increasingly necessary to profess Leftist beliefs. Think about how relatively quickly the Roman Empire turned away from its suite of gods to Christianity. Constantine made it de facto necessary for entry into upper Roman society. This is little different from what William the Conquerer did for all things French when he conquered England.
Paul and others were most definitely fish swimming against the current in their own time, thus being on the outside looking in is part and parcel of Christianity. It’s about keeping the faith (and the conduct) despite whatever everyone else is doing in this fallen world. And it was never about simply normalizing bad behavior, splitting hairs, and legalisms. It was about separating the wheat from the chaff.
Of course all these things are hard and particularly inconvenient when living in this modern world. And certainly I don’t live by those words. But it is what it is. As Christianity weakens, it becomes more and more a host to the virus of Leftism. You can still call it by the same name, but its essence has already been fundamentally transformed by Leftism in ways that threaten a complete takeover.
For now, we witness this slow-motion process of the disintegration of the Christian idea because this world demands “tolerance” not separating the wheat from the chaff (that is, in the words of Dennis Prager, holding standards above mere feelings). I don’t blame this guy for jumping ship, per se. He’s simply glimpsed a rainbow-colored light on the road to Gomorrah.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 4, 2019 17:24:56 GMT -8
J.B., go on as long as you’d like. I simply hit a dead-end. I can easily admit that universal salvation might be possible. But beyond that, all I can talk about is the context of the idea. I simply see it as more caving to the Left. More Christian ideals going out the window, however one tries to frame it.
I have an opinion on matters, but this site costs me nothing so I hold no special privilege here. Go on as long as you’d like. I’m like God. I created this big sandbox in which people can use their free will.
And as I warned at least once elsewhere, if the political section (not the religious section here) starts to take over, I will erase it as surely as Noah’s flood erased the things on the earth that displeased God. So if anyone has a favorite post or comment in the political section, do save it locally to your hard drive. I consider that impermanent, an experimental feature.
I’m here mostly for TV, book, and streaming content reviews. I’m fully aware that what we say here on various subjects has almost no import regarding the world at large. That world is primarily changed by three things: the media, the entertainment complex, and public education.
That’s not to dismiss anyone’s thoughts as unimportant. I’m just saying gone are the days when I’m going to get upset because I might disagree about something. In the end, it really doesn’t matter within the context of what is, for all practical purposes, a counter-culture forum.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 11, 2019 14:34:04 GMT -8
Here is an excellent article on the queer mafia takeover of the Catholic Church. Neumayer is a devote Catholic. He has done much study into the problem and has openly called out numerous perverted-pedophile-pagan-priests who occupy high positions in the Church. One must assume what he says is true as if it were not, he would have been sued to bankruptcy. More power to him. Lavender Mafia in the ChurchAs an extra, this article points out the corruption spread through the Church by Vatican II. As some will know, I have pointed out that Vatican II was the downfall of the Church and any devote Catholic must question its validity in Church doctrine. Even Pope Paul VI saw that it was letting the Devil into the Church. That is one reason a red flag is raised when anyone uses Vatican II as a basis to support a particular belief which is outside traditional Church doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 11, 2019 15:06:30 GMT -8
The Lavender Mafia can't be dealt with adequately without the urging of the Pope. Unfortunately, the Peron Pope (or Anti-Pope) doesn't even support action, much less urging it. Of course, part of the problem is that he's a Jesuit, and it seems the main use of jesuitical reasoning these days is to justify denying Church doctrine on sexual issues. We see this in Jesuit colleges as well.
Libertinism, which is basically self-indulgence as an amoral principle, is very seductive. How long till the Church declares Aleister Crowley a saint?
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 11, 2019 15:15:06 GMT -8
Now that's a thought. He should be wearing a goat's-head hat and pentagram medal hanging around his neck.
If you end the sentence at "denying Church doctrine" I believe you would be on target.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 11, 2019 16:39:20 GMT -8
It would be especially appropriate because Crowley sometimes styled himself the Beast of the Apocalypse. (It might be interesting to work up some sort of numerological basis for getting the letters of his name to add up to 666.) The Lavender Mafia would probably have no problem with that.
Incidentally, a good fictional version of Crowley is Count Manzeppi from The Wild Wild West, who actually appeared in two episodes (the only villain aside from Dr. Miguelito Loveless to appear more than once). He was played by Victor Buono, who no doubt had as much fun doing it as he did as King Tut on Batman. I saw Count Manzeppi as the man Aleister Crowley wished he was.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 14, 2019 10:53:12 GMT -8
I read part of a lengthy article on the modernization of the Catholic Church which started prior to Vatican II. (I can’t find the link.) Modernity was resisted vigorously by Pope Pius X. But the quest for modernity by the elites was finally ratified in Vatican II. The rest you could say is history. Including this quest for universal salvation.
At heart, it’s the pull between whether or not the Gospel (in even its harsh elements) is to be taken as Gospel or whether you can “nuance” it in line with more modern ideas of how things should be.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the impulse. Islam, for example, is an evil quagmire of foul doctrines that could use a heavy delousing of modernity.
But can the same be said for Christianity? You can pile up its historic faults (real or imagined) in a big basket and the weight of the basket would seem to urge for change.
My thought in this regard is whether the change is reasonable and moral or whether such change is more the product of the impulse to destroy all that has come before, simply because of its own Original Sin of having not been birthed from the minds of modern intellectuals who, of course, are the smartest and most moral creatures ever to exist and are thus in a position to judge all of time.
There is the other crucial point: If something (Christianity), which states that it is woven from the very fabric of how the universe is, is little more than the product of ideological fashion, then can it ever be anything other than an ongoing social preference? Can it be a timeless expression of the way things are, instead of the way some want it to be, if there is this constant jiggering and tinkering?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 18, 2020 16:47:50 GMT -8
There have been a trio (at least) of article regarding this subject at FirstThings: Opiate of the Theologians by Michael McClymond. Theological Fraud by Michael Pakuluk. Harrowing Hart on Hell by Douglas Farrow. I read (or skimmed, really) one of these. I think it was the one by Pakuluk. I tend to want to shy away from too much detail because I think it’s very easy to fall into describing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. How are we to make such judgments? What we can know is: + Church tradition clearly favors the idea of eternal punishment for some. + There are enough biblical passages of various types and shaded meaning that honest (or dishonest) theologians can concoct just about anything. The third consideration is: + Eternal punishment for relatively minor offenses cannot be the work of a just god. So to try to reconcile all this, a lot of tradition is either discounted or re-imagined. It’s not unreasonable to do so. But the main problem is one of authority. If the Bible is no more than a piece of Silly Putty that can be stretched this way and that according to present need or desire, then it’s not describing anything other than opinion, ancient or otherwise. Hart doesn’t help himself when he writes, “"I have made no secret of my conviction that the book’s argument is more or less invincible. Call me arrogant if you wish.” One might agree with Hart’s position. One might even hope it is the correct position. But as one astute commenter remarked: Another writes: And another: Again, I get a chuckle out of Dennis Prager who says that there are things in the Torah that he questions or perhaps doesn’t quite think are right. But he assumes that he is wrong and that the Torah is right. We might be aghast at the idea of eternal damnation…and rightfully so. But I don’t see how it’s up to us to re-write the book. And I think the Zeitgest (Hart is a socialist) of the Left is this constant acid drip on orthodoxy. He’s basically evincing Critical Theory whether he’s heard of that by name or not. What we should do is council not be be friggin’ biblical lawyers but maybe to take up some of the attitudes and practices of Christianity’s core practitioners, such as Paul:
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Feb 18, 2020 17:01:48 GMT -8
One suggestion I've seen is that Hell isn't eternal torture, but rather oblivion instead of an afterlife of eternal bliss. Of course, the value of that as a threat to coerce obedience is law. But in Christian terms, obedience solely for the sake of receiving benefits or avoiding torture is irrelevant. In the end, faith in Christ and genuine repentance for sin are what count.
Of course, one can see problems with this, which the Devil brings up in Bedazzled. He mentions losing Mussolini to a last-minute repentance. (Of course, it would have to be genuine.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,007
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 18, 2020 17:11:24 GMT -8
There are apparently plenty of passages in the bible about God or Jesus going the extra mile, of nothing being more satisfying than the return of the prodigal son, etc.. So we could expect that loving mercy, as per Micah 6:8, is not just one of God’s talking points but one of his eternal ambitions.
That said, if you’re God, you’re going to know that there will be plenty of people who will not quit or temper their barbaric ways without a good, solid, credible threat. Whether he carries out this threat, as I’ve made my prime argument in this regard, is up to him. But to believe he might make a threat as a sort of baseline means of deterring the beastliest people — who would not otherwise be persuaded by talk of mercy or love — seems a common-sense measure.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 18, 2020 21:23:59 GMT -8
1 Corinthians 13. My favorite verse in the Bible. I was just showing that to my wife yesterday or Sunday. We saw some program on TV which quoted part of the verse, and I told her it was the most beautiful verse in the Bible. I pulled out my King James and gave it to my wife to read.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 18, 2020 21:36:24 GMT -8
This is exactly why the examples such as the one of Mussolini misses the point.
Christ promises anyone, regardless his past sins, will be saved if he truly believes in him and repents his sins. Of course, only God would know whether such a deathbed declaration were genuine. If God sees that it is sincere, the penitent would be saved. At least that is the theology as I read it. One of the reasons the Catholic Church came up with Purgatory was probably to give those who were not SOBs throughout their lives a sense of justice i.e. worse people had to spend longer in Purgatory than better people. It is also no coincidence that one could pay the Church to pray/say masses/etc. for one's relatives in Purgatory.
Of course, the New Testament makes clear that everyone is corrupt and it is Christ's sacrifice which washed away mankind's guilt.
We cannot see into the hearts of others in such things thus to injunction to forgive others if they do repent and ask for forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 18, 2020 22:51:22 GMT -8
I read Pakuluk's piece and he makes it clear that Hart's work is the work of the Devil. Although he doesn't mention this, Hart is like those 19th century philosophers of dialectic who in declaiming socialism claimed to have set Hegel on his head.
I wonder what motivates types like Hart if it isn't some demonic urge to destroy the Church?
Could it be that they want to gut the interior, but keep the facade of Christianity, as it appeals to a couple of billions thus is useful as a vehicle to move the masses? Once they have control they can then make Christianity say anything they wish. Is it simply another march through the institutions?
|
|