Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9
Westboro Baptist Church Thanks God; for London tube bombings
Topic Started: Jul 11 2005, 01:37 AM (3,073 Views)
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jul 13 2005, 08:12 AM
Steve Miller
Jul 13 2005, 06:56 AM
JBryan
Jul 13 2005, 07:23 AM
Saying God lifted his hand of protection is different from saying God made the terrorists attack us. Surely you can see the distinction.

Would you feel better about "God allowed the terrorists to attack us" - thereby suggesting that he would not have done so were it not for the various groups Falwell doesn't approve of?

I cannot speak with great authority to the evangelical position, but I think you have it pretty much right.

The idea that God has a "protecting hand" on the nation is part of evangelical "covenant theology" -- wherein God has a covenant with the people and gives them land as a sign of that covenant. A very OT concept -- but still what fuels both America and Israel.

The notion is that God corrects his people through letting bad things happens (such as the Babylonian captivity) and blesses them when they are serving Him. God gave America to the "true Christians" who were driven out of Europe. It is interesting that the early settlers used metaphors of the Exodus. Much of America was shaped by this understanding-- including Manifest Destiny that mandated taking over the whole continent. So next time you patriotically sing "From sea to shining sea" you can reflect on the fact that your patriotism is derived from radical protestantism, and that you are living in the New Canaan which we were entitled to take from the heathen natives.

For a good understanding of the Evangelical mindset concerning America, I would recommend Peter Marshall's "The Light and the Glory". You will see what is at stake for the evangelicals, and why the liberals will have a hard time conquering the country.

Of course, as a Catholic none of this makes sense to me. Christ's covenant is with his Bride the Church. But since the Protestants reject that institution, and in many ways the ongoing new covenental sign of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, they have reverted to an OT paradigm of land and place.

Complex stuff, and I will defer to Reverend Dwain for more clarifications.

Steve, I don't have time to post at length, but I will just say that your concept of what "Covenant Theology" encompasses is mistaken. CT involves many aspects, but "guarantees to land" has very little (in fact, I'd suggest nothing) to do with at least Christian covenant theology.

Covenant Theology at its simplest is just the concept that God has entered into a covenant with his people. Thsi covenant is one of love, grace, and providence, among other things. In OT times, this was comprised of the faithful Israelites/Jews. Christian theology says that God's covenant was most fully and finally expressed in Christ, and that through Christ, the covenant is extended to Jew and non-Jew alike. Protestants of Dispensationalist theology would say that there have been/are several different and independent covenants expressed between God and his people. Protestants who adhere to Covenant theology would say that while it has been expressed differently at different times in history, there has been, is, and will ever be, only one covenant between God and mankind; and that a newer expression of the covenant does not negate, but rather more fully expresses, the same covenant.

This covenant, or covenants, depending on which church you worship in, comes with promises - promises of God's pleasure with mankind holding up his end of the covenant, as well as promises of God's displeasure with mankind that disregards the expectations of the covenant. This latter aspect is obviously the part that causes the most discussion, just like the current one, namely, does God allow bad things to happen to individuals or groups as a result of humankind not living faithfully in accordance with the terms of the covenant. (I do not mention "does God actually DO bad things to people", as no Christian theology that I'm aware of holds to that possibility)

In all honesty, the Bible, throughout the OT, definitey says that yes, at times, God does allow bad things to happen to his people, either as a from of direct punishment for something, or as a means of directing them to a fuller faith and greater good. This shows up in some NT passages also, but to a lesser degree. It can be debated that this is not because God isn't allowing these things to happen; but rather, because this just isn't the intended purpose of teh NT. In essence, the OT is full of examples to state that such things happen. The NT writers, almost in a sense of "been there, done that," start with that concept being a given, but now concentrate on the fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures in Christ, and instructions in how to live in Christ.

Beyond the question "does God allow bad things to happen do to individuals' or groups' lack of living in accordance with his will," is the next one: "is EVERY bad thing that happens to be considered a divine punishment, or evidence that the sufferer is a worse sinner than others not similarly afflicted?" Christ himself addressed this second question directly, saying that it was wrong to interpret suffering in this manner. While it is always intended to strengthen for a greater good in the person's or group's existence, it should not necessarily be viewed as a sign of God's judgment that the sufferer is more sinful than others. But then again, it might.

Now: there are "Evangelicals" of both Covenant (think Reformed/Presbyterian tradition) and Dispensationalist (think Arminian/Baptist tradition) stripes. Generally speaking, when someone today refers to "Evangelicals," they are usually talking about folks who are of a more Dipensationalist bent, who are not overly keen on the concepts of "Covenant Theology."

It's true that the concept of "Manifest Destiny" was influenced by Covenant Theology, as well as Dispensationalist Theology. But MD should not be confused with either CT or DT.

To equate CT with the simplistic concept of having been granted land would be an equally big misreading to the theology.

And as for this: "Christ's covenant is with his Bride the Church. But since the Protestants reject that institution, ..." I'm going to assume you said this merely as bait; Protestants do not reject the Church; and in fact, their view of convenantal relationship with God is exactly as you've said - it is a covenant between God and his faithful, the Church. We do, however, believe the Chruch to be a bit larger than you Catholics do. Anyone who has told you that Protestant Covenant Theology has something to do with land or anything other than their life in Christ is sorely mistaken.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jul 13 2005, 10:19 AM
The institutional Church (apostolic) was rejected by Protestants and along with it went the sacramental expression of the union between the Lamb and the Bride.

Nonsense. Rather, what went was the Catholic understanding of what the Church is. Unfortunately, when they want to see the Bride, they still only look in a hand mirror instead of a full-length model.

Seriously Steve, I can't go on at length here, but your take on CT and evangelicalism is mistaken on this count.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dwain: I appreciate your note, and that you don't have time at present. From a Catholic-Orthodox apostolic point of view, the fact that the Protestants thought themselves capable of rejecting the apostolic traditions and redefining what the Church is, is egregious. Churches are, in apostolic theology, founded by Christ through the apostles. The use of 'church' to describe Protestants or Evangelicals is only by equivocation or analogy of language, but for that reason you will not find protestant communions referred to as "churches" in Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology.

And it is hardly a hand held mirror -- we fully recognize all apostolic churches -- Orthodox, Coptic, Maronite, Melchite, Chaldean, Mar-Thoma, Syro-Malabar, etc.

Please also note that I stated that protection and land were part of CT -- at least in the American experience as taught by Peter Marshall. You may well disagree with him about this. Also, I am not conflating CT with MD, but as you note the one is intrinsic to the other. The notion of judgment on a particular nation/ people is, for the apostolic church, superseded in the Body of Christ which is the only grounding for the theology of the New Covenant. I do not think it is a question of "been there, done that", but rather a whole new paradigm that Falwell inter alia does not appreciate. He seems to still be working in an OT paradigm of land/people as evinced by his statement.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"Also, I am not conflating CT with MD, but as you note the one is intrinsic to the other."


Actually, I believe that that the biblical connection of MD is far more the concept that Christians are God's chosen people, period - CT can then be shoehorned to support MD, and DT can be equally shoehorned to support it. Truly, the concept of having been promised any sort of real estate as part of God's covenant, or of covenant theology any time after Moses, is a severe misunderstanding of the concept, whatever Peter Marshall's credentials may be to the contrary.

Regarding the relationship between MD and CT: I believe that MD would have been espoused by 19th century Americans regardless of whether CT ever existed. Even if I were to grant that MD would never have been espoused without the existence of CT - that, as you say, one is intrinsic to the other - the reverse relationship does not exist whatsoever.

And of course, I understand the Catholic Church's position regarding Protestants. I just felt compelled to point out the other side of the coin.

But I think that the Catholic Church's postion that we Protestants have "rejected" the true Church/Bride of Christ is exactly what has led to such a severe misunderstanding or flawed teaching about Protestant theology. The Catholic concept that because we rejected the "true Church," so we had to find some other way or thing through which establish a covenant with God, and we therefore reverted to some OT version of God's covenant and that it ties in with some necessity of provision of land as a sign of such a covenant, is absolute nonsense (in fact, all Protestant theology that I'm familiar with would say pretty much the exact opposite, if you'd like to discuss it further). The evidence for it's nonsensical status is that, to Protestant thought, we haven't rejected the Church at all - so there is therefore no need for us to have to come up with some "alternate" manner of defining the covenant relationship between Christ and his Bride.

The only way that that argument could even possiblymake sense is if somehow, Protestants, late at night and when they're all alone with their innermost thoughts, secretly felt that in fact, the Catholic Church is, in fact, the only "true church" and that they were being unfaithful to it - and I can assure you that such is not the case at all.

Our creeds state that we believe in "the holy catholic Church," and we mean it when we say those words - we just feel that only one of those two words needs to be capitalized.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyElton
Fulla-Carp
As a gay person and a non-Christian (I have read and studied paganism), I find Falwell and Phelps both to be offensive. Falwell saying who I am and my beliefs are one of the reasons god let the attacks of 9/11 happen is extremely offensive to me. The only time I ever agreed with Falwell is when he said that Phelps (and his clan) are wacko.
Hilary aka LadyElton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Gryphon: "QUOTE (Amanda @ Jul 13 2005, 06:12 AM)
The Christian Right is our own Taliban


That's wrong. What's more, it's deeply offensive."

Perhaps if you are a member of the CR. It seems accurate enough to me. Do I get to play the game of ruling others' opinions out of court by calling them deeply offensive as well?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Thumpy: "With all due respect, it is this sort of rhetoric that makes it hard for me to believe that you ever studied philosophy, let alone hold a doctorate in it, let alone presumed to teach it.

In Euthyphro, which I have read on several occassions in the past, Plato does no such thing as prove that "that the existence of a god was logically irrelevant to morality." Rather, he has Socrates looking to Euthyphro as an examination for the relationship between piety and action. (He is looking for justification against the charges against himself for impiety which would condemn him to death). Socrates asks the famous question of Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”. This dialogue has engendered the "Euthyphro Dilemma", [“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” ] which is posited (incorrectly in my estimation, since the question does not account for telos among other factors) as a refutation of Divine Command theory, but this question is neither actually found in the Euthyphro dialogue nor is it answered in the dialogue.

In the end, Euth finds reason to leave and Socrates must be resigned to his fate since he cannot find justification from his indictment. Hardly what you portray the dialogue to prove. "

The dialogue is universally understood to prove that religion and morality are logically distinct. The standards for admission to theology school must be quite low. The dialogue proves either that (a) morality is logically independent of the will or existence of a god or gods or (b) that morality is meaningless and arbitrary and unworthy of rational assent

Dwain: "This dialogue has engendered the "Euthyphro Dilemma", [“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” ]..."

Not sure what the fuss is; the answer to this question is simply "yes.""

Actually, contrary to Thumpy's post, the ability to understand the Euthyphro distinction here is generally taken in introduction to philosophy classes to be a good proxy for logical reasoning ability in general. It was clear from our last discussion of this issue that you did not understand it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 13 2005, 02:14 PM
Thumpy: "With all due respect, it is this sort of rhetoric that makes it hard for me to believe that you ever studied philosophy, let alone hold a doctorate in it, let alone presumed to teach it.

In Euthyphro, which I have read on several occassions in the past, Plato does no such thing as prove that "that the existence of a god was logically irrelevant to morality." Rather, he has Socrates looking to Euthyphro as an examination for the relationship between piety and action. (He is looking for justification against the charges against himself for impiety which would condemn him to death). Socrates asks the famous question of Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”. This dialogue has engendered the "Euthyphro Dilemma", [“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” ] which is posited (incorrectly in my estimation, since the question does not account for telos among other factors) as a refutation of Divine Command theory, but this question is neither actually found in the Euthyphro dialogue nor is it answered in the dialogue.

In the end, Euth finds reason to leave and Socrates must be resigned to his fate since he cannot find justification from his indictment. Hardly what you portray the dialogue to prove. "

     The dialogue is universally understood to prove that religion and morality are logically distinct.  The standards for admission to theology school must be quite low.

Universally, huh? So show me the argument in the text -- and not your wishful interpretation of it.

The question (of sorts) is asked, but the answer is not definitively given. Are you that sloppy of a reader? Do you just accept what is "universally understood" without trying to understand it yourself?

Jeez, Jeffrey, do you just sit around and make this stuff up?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Thumpy: You should look at the passage from Euthyphro 9b to 11d or so.

Again, the ability to understand this passage is generally taken in the profession to be a proxy for logical reasoning ability in general in Intro to Philosophy classes. Sorry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 13 2005, 02:14 PM
The dialogue proves either that (a) morality is logically independent of the will or existence of a god or gods or (b) that morality is meaningless and arbitrary and unworthy of rational assent


I notice you keep adding to your message.

Since the text is predicated on a henotheistic view, it can hardly serve to provide the refutations that you wish. Furthermore, it does not even do that if you read the text. You already extrapolated it to include a monotheism (which Plato probably did hold) but which is not in the text. Really, you must be more ethical in your reading and evaluation.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Jeffrey, I see I am going to have to coin Gryphon's Corollary to Godwin's Law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Thumpy: "Since the text is predicated on a henotheistic view"

Actually, no it does not. Look again at passage 9c-9d, where Socrates's helps Euthyphro out by stipulating that all the gods will universally agree on what they hate and love. Again, the ability to see that Plato's argument explicitly and intentionally supercedes the popular religious morality of the day, is regarded as a simple test of basic logical reasoning ability. Your interpretation would possibly get a D+/C- or so at a middling state university in an intro class, basically out of pity. No professional philosopher, even one who believed in religion, would ever uphold your interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Gryphon: "Jeffrey, I see I am going to have to coin Gryphon's Corollary to Godwin's Law. "

Does this mean that Burton doesn't get to call his opponents Satanists, and JBryan doesn't get to compare my views to the Holocaust on the Shiavo case?

At any rate, Amanda's point is that most religious fundamentalist views have key points in common, theologically and emotionally. It doesn't seem proper that you get to reply to that by acting offended, or invoking Godwin's law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 13 2005, 02:27 PM
Thumpy: You should look at the passage from Euthyphro 9b to 11d or so. 

    Again, the ability to understand this passage is generally taken in the profession to be a proxy for logical reasoning ability in general in Intro to Philosophy classes.  Sorry.

Jeff:

I understand well the dilemma -- that if piety means loving what the gods love, then it is not based on objective goodness but only on what they prefer to love; or if what they love is based on objective goodness, then this objective goodness is indepedent of and above the gods. This second point (a theory of preexisting Forms) is what I understand Plato to have held in the Timaeus. In the first instance then (by extension) morality is arbitrary to what the gods (all of them) love; in the second instance it does not matter what the gods love, the moral thing is to love the good regardless of whether the gods love it.

This is not germane to the monotheistic Christian understanding of God. The transcendentals (unity, being, truth, goodness, beauty) are predicated of God who is their source, and all experiences of the transcendentals are manifestions of (and even participations in) the originary source. There is no good that is not a participation in the Good, no truth that is not derivative of the True, no beauty that is not reflective of Beauty itself. [edit: Christian theology is very much influenced by Dionysius -- more so probably than by Augustine. Aquinas cites Dionysius more than Plato, Aristotle or Augustine in his sed contra]

You might not agree with this theologically, but this is why the questions grappled with by Spinoza or Leibniz is just not germane to the Christian, and why your appeal to Euthrypho is not compelling.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
ivorythumper
Jul 13 2005, 12:12 PM
The institutional Church (apostolic) was rejected by Protestants and along with it went the sacramental expression of the union between the Lamb and the Bride.
Not at all. What an odd thing to say. (And please, if it appears that I'm misunderstanding you any place along the way, help me out). And I might question your framing of the argument from the outset. Certainly you wouldn't suggest that the modern apostolic or Catholic church is very representative of the original church in such respects as women. And I don't know how we can ever reconcile our differences about the Eucharist, or Communion, unless you see that you are wrong. :D But seriously, I recognize the sacrament as a remembrance of Christ's atoning work as Jesus said. Catholics believe in transsubstantiation, which I assume is what you are speaking of when you say that Protestants don't recognize the implicit nuptial character of the Catholic Eucharist.
Quote:
 
The notion of "church" is still there -- whatever group of two or three gather -- but now takes so many forms that Christ now has a harem of Protestants and Evangelicals.
Again, you are misstating. Christ's bride is the Church. The entire Church. Meaning all Christians, whether they be Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical Free, or non-denominational. Christians comprise the Church. Not Catholics. Not Baptists. Not church members. There are many churches, but there is but one Church, the bride of Christ.
Quote:
 
you folks don't hold marriage to be an irrevokable sacramental sign of God's unity with humanity.
I would say that is painting with a bit of a broad brush, but I fully understand your point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
I think it is VERY hypocritical for all you Christsians to condem Fred Phelps for being so anti-gay.

If you are voting against gay marriage you are just like him in my book.
It's all or nothing.
Equality or bigotry.
Which do you support?

To quote Bush, you are either for us or against us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
Jul 13 2005, 03:25 PM
I think it is VERY hypocritical for all you Christsians to condem Fred Phelps for being so anti-gay.

If you are voting against gay marriage you are just like him in my book.
It's all or nothing.
Equality or bigotry.
Which do you support?

To quote Bush, you are either for us or against us.

It is not hypocritical, Kenny. One can accept a homosexual as a friend and a fellow human being deserving of respect, without needing to embrace the gay agenda.

It is a false dichotomy to insist on "equality or bigotry". But if that, however, is your criterion then that is not my problem (especially since I have already attempted to discuss "gay marriage" with you and you refuse to discuss it). Sorry.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Steve: "I understand well the dilemma -- that if piety means loving what the gods love, then it is not based on objective goodness but only on what they prefer to love; or if what they love is based on objective goodness, then this objective goodness is indepedent of and above the gods. This second point (a theory of preexisting Forms) is what I understand Plato to have held in the Timaeus. In the first instance then (by extension) morality is arbitrary to what the gods (all of them) love; in the second instance it does not matter what the gods love, the moral thing is to love the good regardless of whether the gods love it. "

Not quite. You are reading back later Plato into this early dialogue, along with some views of your own. Socrates and early Plato did not hold to the theory of Forms, at least in the Republic Book 5 version. Plato developed the theory (in several different versions) to answer the famous Socratic questions, and then modified it and (my interpretation) abandoned it in the Parmenides and beyond (because of the "third man" problem and others). The Euthyphro is an early aporetic dialogue, with no resolution, and no big philosophical machinery (such as the theory of Forms) behind it.

Socrates's simply shows that morality (a) either has its own reasons independent of the will or preference or even existence of the gods, or (b) is arbitrary (since without reasons god could love cruelty as easily as kindness, there being no basis for morality independent of divine approval).

It does not work to define away the problem by saying (as Dwain tried to do in an earlier thread) "God is Goodness", because this is just a version of (b) (why is this "goodness" by definition not as easily cruelty, as kindness, there being no reason for morality, independent of what god says?). Calvin probably is a DCM theorist, and seems to accept that cruelty would be good, if God commanded it.

By the way, you should have no issue with this. Aquinas and the RCC do not accept the DCM theory of morality. Aquinas thinks that God commands the good because it is good, not that things are good because God commands them.

At any rate, religion is logically independent of morality, if morality is objective. This was shown about 2500 years ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Thumpy: "(especially since I have already attempted to discuss "gay marriage" with you and you refuse to discuss it)."

I think we should discuss whether Catholics should be allowed to vote and immigrate into the US. I'd like to see your carefully thought out reasons in favor of this. I mean, it is one thing to accept that they are human beings and be friends with them and all, and quite another to accept the Catholic agenda and actually let them have political equality and vote and enter the country. I mean really, that is just going too far. You wouldn't want your daughter to actually date one of them, would you??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
You are right that the Church is not concerned with Divine Command theory(DCM?), and neither is Aquinas. There is more to Aquinas than the one side that God commands the good because it is good, for it has to do with telos and perfection in understanding what is a proper good. The commandment to do good is in some sense synonymous with the commandment to be perfect (many treatises on what this means). The notion of the good (summum bonum) in Aquinas is synonymous with being -- fully actualized perfection, and individual goods are those which are ordered to the actualizing of being. Hence the commandment to do good is not because God says so or that God says so because it is good independently of Himself, but because it is the path to perfection and actualization of our being. This again, is why for the Catholic view of things, Ethrypho is insufficient, and why the Catholic line does not simply explain away goodness by predicating it of God.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
You are correct. Satanist comparisons shall be strictly limited to Micro$oft Corporation, its products, and its business practices, and direct comparisons to the Antichrist shall solely be limited to Bill Gates.

(Bill Gates might not be the Antichrist, but he'll do until the real one comes along).
Quote:
 
Amanda's point is that most religious fundamentalist views have key points in common, theologically and emotionally.  It doesn't seem proper that you get to reply to that by acting offended, or invoking Godwin's law.
Posted Image No, she's not going to get away with flimsy reasoning like that. In a parallel universe far, far away there was a thread titled, for short, Cootie Shots. In it some people tried to argue that little children--elementary school children--should be taught about homosexuality against their parents wishes which were spelled out in forms that they signed at the start of the school year, and that Cootie Shots does this while teaching about discrimination and tolerance. The beginning of one of my replies was, "A child can be taught about discrimination and tolerance by discussing people of different races or handicaps for example. Sex and homosexuality are not age-appropriate topics for little children."

Similarly here parallels can be drawn between groups of people who believe the tenets of their religion without drawing strict comparisons to a group that treated women inhumanely, routinely carried out public executions and punishments (beatings and cutting off of limbs for example) in soccer stadiums, and trafficked in illegal drugs.

I think Gryphon's Corollary to Godwin's Law is very appropriate here, Jeff.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 13 2005, 03:45 PM
Thumpy: "(especially since I have already attempted to discuss "gay marriage" with you and you refuse to discuss it)."

I think we should discuss whether Catholics should be allowed to vote and immigrate into the US. I'd like to see your carefully thought out reasons in favor of this. I mean, it is one thing to accept that they are human beings and be friends with them and all, and quite another to accept the Catholic agenda and actually let them have political equality and vote and enter the country. I mean really, that is just going too far. You wouldn't want your daughter to actually date one of them, would you??

You would have to show that "marriage" between two persons of the same sex is a human right.

In some other thread long buried I argued that marriage in its essence is ordered toward procreation and the rearing of children. I never got a real reasoned objection to this, just a lot of "well, what about the sterile and the aged who cannot conceive" without the acknowledgement that regardless the sexual act (as conventionally understood -- wink, wink) is still ordered toward procreation.

I also entertained the question of (in my sense legitimate) civil corporations that would entitle any number of consenting adults to enter into a legally recognized structure that allowed for the benefits of inheritance, insurance, visitation rights, etc. Such an arrangement would preclude adoption -- just as Walmart or McDonalds cannot adopt -- since the intrinsic nature of the relationship is not ordered toward procreation.

Kenny would not even touch it. Some of the liberals on the board thought it (or some variant) reasonable. I think you were on vacation at the time.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"Actually, contrary to Thumpy's post, the ability to understand the Euthyphro distinction here is generally taken in introduction to philosophy classes to be a good proxy for logical reasoning ability in general. It was clear from our last discussion of this issue that you did not understand it.

Well gee, Jeffrey, that hurts. I suppose I should be devastated by this slam for a month or more.

Oh, wait. I'm too stupid and devoid of the capacity for logical reasoning to even understand wisdom from the likes of you. Hmm, I feel better already.





"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
LadyElton
Jul 13 2005, 06:07 PM
Falwell saying who I am and my beliefs are one of the reasons god let the attacks of 9/11 happen is extremely offensive to me.

I understand your position. Let me ask you this: why do you think God allowed 9/11 to happen?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 13 2005, 02:42 PM
Thumpy: "Since the text is predicated on a henotheistic view"

Actually, no it does not. Look again at passage 9c-9d, where Socrates's helps Euthyphro out by stipulating that all the gods will universally agree on what they hate and love. Again, the ability to see that Plato's argument explicitly and intentionally supercedes the popular religious morality of the day, is regarded as a simple test of basic logical reasoning ability. Your interpretation would possibly get a D+/C- or so at a middling state university in an intro class, basically out of pity. No professional philosopher, even one who believed in religion, would ever uphold your interpretation.

Well, Jeff, since consensus among a henotheistic assembly is not the same as monotheism, you are still grasping at straws.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9