|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 17, 2021 22:34:18 GMT -8
This is a good example of what you are talking about. A case of beauty being only skin deep.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Feb 18, 2021 8:30:31 GMT -8
Grand Inquisitor The important element of the Grand Inquisitor is the temptations. Jesus is told he can offer man everything, bread, long life and happiness. Jesus refuses this power in favor of free choice. This is the choice that leftist always offer, green new deal, money growing on trees, and life ever-lasting in a liberal utopia. Conservatives and libertarians know this is a choice that always leads to tyranny and reject it. It also makes Jesus the first libertarian. Rush was always quick to point out this obvious contradiction. I think he understood it intuitively but others required time to to think about it and reach their own conclusions. The 1100-1400 time slot in my area will be very empty for a long time.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 18, 2021 9:17:24 GMT -8
Very well said by Morson. I particularly like that formulation of goodness vs. prudence. Very astute.
That formulation is a challenge to Matthew 6:20 (or seems so) to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.” From what I understand from observation, “faith” is often a value unto itself. Much like a video game with progress bars and health meters, your “health” meter goes up the more faith you have. So faith itself becomes its own purpose. The bible and Jesus become like a talisman.
Maybe that is why it is so habitual that, despite entire countries dominated by the Christian faith, there is often so little goodness. There’s that whole discussion of faith-vs-works. But I would think the emphasis should be on works because its too easy otherwise for religion to be just like a lucky charm.
This is one reason I enjoy listening to Dennis Prager. He’s a challenge to that easy-peasy, good-time-rock-and-roll, self-absorbed thing that passes for religion. He believes in God and he doesn’t have to resort to spookiness, miracles, or faith to do so. It might not be as immediately satisfying. But as Prager said just yesterday to a caller who chastised him for not having enough sympathy for George Floyd: “I’m not interested in sympathy. I’m interested in the truth.”
Trust me, Catholics look at “charismatic” Protestant Christians as you or me might look askance at the latest fruit-loop gay “pride” parade in San Francisco. Catholics have their own set of problems, but (making broad generalizations), they don’t tend to go off as half-cocked with emotion-based religion as Protestants do.
Perhaps this is aided and assisted by the centrality of saints. Read a biography of any saint worth his or her salt, and you’ll find Jesus. You’ll find people struggling to do the good thing despite enormous hardships.
Yes, it’s true, many did struggle as a direct result of wanting to please God and do his work. But using God and Jesus as a model for good behavior is exactly what you want. What you don’t want is what is listed in the Ten Commandments (#3) about not taking his name in vain. Dennis Prager explains (something most Christians probably have little idea about) that this has nothing to do about swearing. It has everything to do about using God’s name and prestige for selfish and narrow causes — including, one would presume, basting in feel-good emotions simply by merely identifying with a cause or religion.
But….in defense of Protestants, Buddhists tend to be extremely naive about human nature. They tend to be the epitome of the kind of “niceness” that ushers in the horrors of socialism. Catholics have this infection as well. Mercy, kindness, helpfulness, compassion, love — these are all vital and needed.
But there is the other side of the coin. There are other balancing values (self-responsibility, justice, hard work, long-suffering, honesty, prudence, objectivity, etc.) that must exist alongside them and buttress these other values lest one slips into the kind of sloppy, and even evil, behavior that Prager warns about when he quotes from the Talmud: Those Who Are Kind To The Cruel, In The End Will Be Cruel To The Kind.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 18, 2021 9:26:30 GMT -8
Some skin. And this Clooney ass could use a good kickin’. “No thanks, I already had a wife.” Rimshot. I wonder what bad movie that is from. Scratch that. I don’t wonder.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 18, 2021 9:50:20 GMT -8
Perhaps, but I see it more as an exhortation to stop worrying about worldly advancement and get on with God's work.
The Bible is full of seeming contradictions and gray areas. Maybe the reason is that the writers wished to force people to think about things, not just live life off a list of dos and don't. Of course, thinking can cause consternation.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 18, 2021 10:14:13 GMT -8
Some protestant denominations make "justification by faith" a type of fetish. Martin Luther was particularly obnoxious in this regard, in my opinion. He once said something like the greatest fornicator could die in the act and still go to heaven if he believed in Christ. Martin may have been using a bit of hyperbole to make a point, but that really is a bit too much for me.
My thoughts are that if one truly has faith, good works will follow. The verse, "By their fruits, ye shall know them," was referring to how believers should look out for false prophets, but I believe it can be used as a rule helping to identify the righteous as well.
That works/actions are important can be seen from Jesus' remarks at the end of his Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 7
24) "So every one who hears these words of Mine and acts upon them-obeying them-will be like a 'sensible (prudent, practical, wise) man who built his house upon the rock.
25) And the rain fell and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
26) And every one who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a stupid (foolish) man who built his house upon the sand:
27) And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great and complete was the fall of it;
To my mind, the parable of building a house on a rock is one which calls for "works", but these works must be based on faith in Jesus and his message, i.e. the rock. While a house built upon sand may show a good deal of "works," without the foundation of faith in Christ and his message, there is no foundation to rest upon and the works are, in the long term, for naught.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 18, 2021 12:40:02 GMT -8
I think you’re being very generous with the word “some.” If the redemptive power of Jesus is true — like a magic potion, applied once — it would seem deathbed confessions and the varnish of “faith” can cure all. As I was discussing with my friend, JB, on that other thread regarding the idea of universal salvation: I think it’s reasonable to assume that God makes these judgments and has as least as much leeway as any earthly courtroom judge, if not more. We can only surmise and pick our way through it as best we can. But every conception of a Judeo-Christian God is one of a god who hates evil and is a God of judgment. This shouldn’t even be up for discussion. But the Redemption formula is ready-made for legalistic minds and deathbed confessions. Indeed, the Catholic sacrament of confession is another form of this to some extent. I think the generally accepted orthodox approach is that without true penance (and a true mending of one’s ways), these approaches (from the human point of view) are disingenuous, at best. But we’re not the ultimate judge. I’m not shocked by the opinion that Martin Luther may have been obnoxious. He’s no hero of mine by any means. Dennis Prager was talking to a guest recently about “The Reformation” and the guest said that this choice of words was not accurate. I wish I could dig that up. He made some interesting points. Here’s a PragerU video on the subject of the Reformation. It’s a good summary but I don’t think it would teach you anything new.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 18, 2021 12:55:18 GMT -8
I think that’s it. “Faith” and “Works” are likely inseparable. But as I understand it, it’s better to work yourself to faith then just marinate in “faith.” That is, if you don’t have an effervescence of faith, you can work your way to it. Your works will change you. But if God is not real, these are all just mind games anyway.
I’m generally of the mind that there’s no way we can all relate to this subject in the same way, and I’m not talking about emotion vs. reason. I just think we all have such different capacities and life experiences. I couldn’t begin to understand mathematics in the way Feynman or Einstein could. They had a vision of things far beyond what I could see.
And so this is certainly why a very carefully crafted, maintained, and honest church structure is so vital. The Bible (and the saints) are meant to be (at least as one function) the reliable communication of real things that mere mortals like us have a hard time grasping or experiencing. The “faith of a child” is not a bad concept in this regard.
This is why it is so potentially horrible when the church (Protestant or Catholic) substitutes narrow political dogma for real dogma. It leaves the laity trying to build their life of faith, family, and works upon sand.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 18, 2021 15:12:36 GMT -8
I agree. I believe religion is the most intensely personal thing there is. More than race, sex, job, whatever. Because of this, I am happy to discuss and even argue about religion, but only up to a point.
Eternity is the biggest thing there is and everyone must decide for themselves how they will approach it.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 18, 2021 15:26:32 GMT -8
I had a look at the video and it is ok, as far as it goes. Before I watched the video, I took the short quiz at the bottom of the page. The answers were pretty easy, but the last one "What was a by-product of Luther's protest?" is the type of question I always have a problem with. The answers were, 1) The Enlightenment, 2) Communism, 3) Conservatism, 4) None of the above. Of course, I knew the answer they were looking for was the Enlightenment, but I find that extremely simplistic and in fact only partially true. The true answer is much more complex thus the question is misleading in itself and should not even be included in such a quiz, in my opinion.
In fact, a very good argument can be made that someone else mentioned in the video was more responsible for the Enlightenment than Luther. That would be Johannes Gutenberg. More than any other one thing, it was the printing press, which resulted in cheap books which expanded and sped up the distribution of knowledge that led to the Enlightenment and the proliferation of knowledge.
One could say that Luther was the first and prime mover of the Protestant Reformation, but even there, he had a lot of company. Wycliff, Hus and others came before Luther. He also had contemporaries such as Melanchthon and Zwingli. Finally, there was the next generation leader, John Calvin whose influence on Protestantism was much broader and profound than Luther's. I would say that modern Protestantism (at least before the heretics got a hold of it about 50 years ago) is more a product of Calvanism than Lutheranism. Much of the reason for this is due to Calvin's influence on John Knox who was fundamental in founding the Presbyterianism is Scotland, which spread into England with James I. The Puritans followed and then left for other shores, like Plymouth Colony.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 20, 2021 10:04:05 GMT -8
It’s easy to agree with that because it makes so much sense. I’ve certainly had discussions with religious people that have turned sour. Religion is often little more than the deification of one’s own ego. And if you prick the religion, you prick this ego. And sparks can fly. Other than physical pain (and even then), nothing is as disconcerting to people than to challenge their high-minded conception of themselves.
This is likely why most of the true Christian saints did not drive around with hair-trigger egos. They truly believed in God, and not just God as a tacked-on glorification of their own selves.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 20, 2021 10:16:50 GMT -8
I totally agree. And one considers that “the Enlightenment” is just a nice name for the supposed primacy of atheist thought unbound by religious dogma, it’s interesting that it would be included as a (presumably) positive byproduct of the Reformation. Of course, Catholics don’t see it as a reformation, and I frankly don’t blame them. To my mind, it reformed little and just created a new set of problems. It was just a battle of wills and powers.
Surely a Protestant touchy-feely utopia never arose because of their supposed superior views of the Bible. What Europe earned by the split was a never-ending set of wars (probably nothing new in this regard), up to Napoleon and beyond. If these are “Christian nations,” guided by superior Protestant thought, when you look at history as an actual experiment being run, there isn’t a lot to brag about — outside of a burgeoning marketplace and newfound ideas about political freedom.
And as we see with the Catholic Church’s absorption of socialist thought, we might give Protestantism credit for economic and political progress that would have arguably been impossible under a Catholic regime. But as for religious progress, I look at bit askance at Protestantism as much of an improvement. But there were certainly many things that needed reforming. And I’m not personally a yuge fan of Protestantism or a blind Catholic apologist. The chief problem with Catholicism is twofold: One) a power hierarchy that, like any bureaucracy, protects itself for its own sake, and Two) an inherent cult-mindedness inculcated by the way the religion is taught and practiced which leads to dogmatism, not truth. Without a doubt. And I believe the video did mention that without the printing press, Luther’s ideas would have quickly evaporated. Sounds plausible. I would say this is one case where the subject of the video was difficult to summarize in 5 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 20, 2021 12:39:30 GMT -8
I can understand sticking to their beliefs, but I have big problems with some of the results of their beliefs, e.g. jihadism.
While I think it is very important for a society to have similar religion traditions, I think the one thing people should sometimes consider is the fact that the just don't know one way or the other. This would allow a bit of a cushion when discussing the subject.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 20, 2021 13:12:05 GMT -8
I find most interesting subjects almost impossible to summarize in a 5 minute video. However, I understand the desire to spread some knowledge in an easy and memorable way, particularly given the short attention spans of people under the age of 50.
That said, I think whoever put this video together should have ended with something like, "If you find what I have just told you intriguing, go to our PragerU video no. ------- which goes into more detail on the subject. If you would like to read more about Luther, these books might interest you."
Perhaps I am being picky, but I think educator should push out go information wherever possible.
There were plenty of wars to go around prior to the Reformation. There has never been a shortage of bloodshed at any time in history. Religion has just been one more excuse for bad people to kill, maim and steal from others.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 20, 2021 14:13:39 GMT -8
I agree. My main point is that the Reformation and Protestantism didn’t seem to have changed the formula for the occurrence of war in the least, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 20, 2021 14:46:42 GMT -8
In fact, I suspect that the Reformation stirred things up more than usual as it gave an excuse for many vassals (minor and not so minor aristocrats) to throw off the rule of their masters (the Vatican for example), as well as giving many (not necessarily minor lords) an excuse for crimes under the guise of religion. For example, some prince or count who coveted the lands of a Catholic prince ruling a mainly Protestant area would use that to invade and throw out the Catholic prince.
The rulers finally got enough sense to decide that the faith of the ruler was to be the faith of the populace. All were to accept this or depart. Good for the rulers, not so good for the populace who disagreed.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Feb 20, 2021 16:54:01 GMT -8
One of the advantages of growing older is my enemies have a way of dieting early. Unfortunately,it is also a curse as too many friends pass also. The one indisputable fact is that we all die, we don't have a lot choice of when or where but we can stand up and say not today. Rush will be missed
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 20, 2021 19:41:25 GMT -8
He will be missed, Artler. But I have to admit that I overdosed on all this and quickly turned on Dennis Prager shortly after 9:00 a.m. this last Friday.
I wonder what they’ll do with the show. Like I said, I can imagine Mark Steyn maybe anchoring two to three days a week and maybe fill-ins. But other than Steyn, I thought the regular rotation of fill-ins was always dull.
And other than Steyn, there is no heir apparent. But the EIB network is raking in so much money, it’s hard to imagine anyone connected with it just putting it to bed. They might survive on “the best of Rush” for another week or so. But I can’t imagine going beyond that.
Rush had his run. I’m sorry for his friends, family, and loyal followers for their loss. But I kinda was disengaged from that sideshow for some time now. I say that somewhat as a bittersweet thing, for I had been a regular listener for ten years or more at one point.
But then something changed. Or maybe I changed. Certainly I found more of the sustenance I needed in Dennis Prager. But the whole “social networking” thing, whether via Facebook or listening to a daily polemic program, it all became just so much noise to me.
By the way, I did read a bit of his first Rush Revere book. I had assumed this would be a book aimed at kids that would be fun for adults to read as well. And I would probably rate is a a decent children’s book from what I read. But this is way too kid-oriented for an adult to read. Still, I think Mr. Kung mentioned that this was one of Rush’s projects that will have some lasting value.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,046
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 22, 2021 9:10:51 GMT -8
I was curious to see what they would start off with this week on The Rush Limbaugh Show. It’s Mark Steyn with Kathryn Limbaugh as the guest.
So, not to put too fine a point on it, I immediately switched over to Dennis Prager. It’s okay to call me cold and heartless. But I can’t baste in Limbaugh eulogies for another week.
And I don’t really see any plan yet for what they’re going to do with the EIB network. The don’t seem to be off-and-running in a new direction even though there was plenty of time to prepare for this. That may come. But they seem to be floating for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 22, 2021 10:40:34 GMT -8
OK, you are cold and heartless. Rush was around for for decades and was at the top of his game every year of that period. He was also the most prominent personality of the "conservative" movement. I am sure many people, consciously or not, see Rush's show as some type of clock in their lives. Something like, "I was just out of high school, the first time I heard Rush," or "my father, who loved Rush, died during the twentieth year of Rush's show." My point is that I figure much of this mourning over Rush is, at least partially, mourning for ourselves. We wonder where the time went. Rush's death is a very stark reminder that we will all be walking off this mortal coil, in the not-too-distant future.
|
|