Re: Revolution : Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:58 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote: I'd heard that she was a bit dodgy. It was first published in something like 1995 and what it seems to be, thus far, is a very calm look at her, at her public image, at the reality etc. Nobody has ever really been able to refute Hitchens's assertions. Only a week or so ago research was published in Canada which, in essence, supports the research done by Hitchens. Story It's quite interesting. Part of her 'idea' was that these poor people who she picked up should die in a manner that reflected the pain suffered by Christ. So, for instance, although she raised millions and millions of pounds, she'd let cancer sufferers die in pain. Of course it was different when she was ill – then she'd be taken to some of the world's finest hospitals. I do like Hitchens's description of her (not in the book) as "a thieving fanatical Albanian dwarf". The new edition that I'm reading was published after access to her private letters was allowed – and after Hitchens's own death. Extraordinarily, the letters appear to reveal her own huge doubts about her faith – yet she continued that approach of, in effect, facilitating the suffering of the poor.

Dead Man Walking wrote: I'd heard that she was a bit dodgy. It was first published in something like 1995 and what it seems to be, thus far, is a very calm look at her, at her public image, at the reality etc. Nobody has ever really been able to refute Hitchens's assertions. Only a week or so ago research was published in Canada which, in essence, supports the research done by Hitchens. Story It's quite interesting. Part of her 'idea' was that these poor people who she picked up should die in a manner that reflected the pain suffered by Christ. So, for instance, although she raised millions and millions of pounds, she'd let cancer sufferers die in pain. Of course it was different when she was ill – then she'd be taken to some of the world's finest hospitals. I do like Hitchens's description of her (not in the book) as "a thieving fanatical Albanian dwarf". The new edition that I'm reading was published after access to her private letters was allowed – and after Hitchens's own death. Extraordinarily, the letters appear to reveal her own huge doubts about her faith – yet she continued that approach of, in effect, facilitating the suffering of the poor.

Re: Revolution : Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:44 pm  

I didn't realise she was a real person, I always thought she was some sort of animatronic prune.

Re: Revolution : Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:54 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Not out of context at all, as you've very helpfully illustrated.

That would suggest you don't know how to read for context.

And yes, it is a book to make people think: such as how homosexuality is bad, but gang rape of children is not.

I have no idea where you have got the notion that there is any approval of the gang rape of children but the 'homosexuality is bad' line comes from the Old Testament. It was actually considered an abomination rather than bad. The word abomination is used to describe a feeling - of disgust, repulsion. Therefore, what is being described is not a moral judgement on homosexuality but an emotional reaction to it. Jesus said nothing on the subject.

What we're back to here is a number of things: 1) that being a decent human being is less important in terms of Jesus/God than worshipping God. We see this in the commandments too. Which to most people would seem ethically perverse.

Would it? I suppose that would depend upon what you consider to be a 'decent' person. Are you a decent person? Am I? Who is the arbiter? A lot of people who adopt the Christian faith find it somewhat releasing to realise that they don't actually have to conform to a specific notion of 'decent' in order to be accepted by God. What matters is that the person is always striving to put the aims of God first, regardless of what others may think.

2) Since God created everything and knows everything (according to Judeo-Christian tradition), we're back to the point that there is no choice. So the rich man doesn't choose any path; it has already been ordained him by God at the moment of creation.

There are two predominant schools of thought on the doctrine of choice within Christianity: Arminianism and Calvanism. Kirkstaller, for example, would be a Calvanist: everything is predetermined (God wills it all and human beings have no control over what occurs, although that is a very simplistic explanation). Whereas the more common position within the UK today anyway is the Arminian doctrine of free will, namely we have a choice in whether we do evil or good and we take the consequences accordingly.

3) Ultimately, whether you get into heaven or not is down to whether God is having a good day or not when you die.

You are confusing Christianity with Islam there.

Re: Revolution : Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:32 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

That would suggest you don't know how to read for context...

This would suggest that you're continuing with your usual patronising attitude over religion.

SaintsFan wrote:

... I have no idea where you have got the notion that there is any approval of the gang rape of children but the 'homosexuality is bad' line comes from the Old Testament...

Thank you. You have now revealed your own total ignorance of the Bible.

Lot. Bloke living in Sodom. Or Gomorrah. One or the other.

God thought him a good geezer. In fact, better than good – the only one from the two towns who was worth saving, since God had decided to kill off everyone else because they were doing what he'd designed and created them to do.

Two 'visitors' arrive in Lot's community. Might have been angels. Local blokes took one look and thought: 'Phworrrr!' Lot decides to protect visitors by offering his lusty neighbours his two virgin daughters instead.

Blah blah – Lot and his family are the only ones who get to escape these dreadful towns. Lot's wife dies because she dares to look back at the destruction. Bad, bad woman. Lot and his daughters escape. They get away. Remember – he's the one good man worth saving. In spite of offering his virgin daughters to be raped.

Funny thing is, a short while after, they rape him when he's drunk and get up the duff by their own dad.

But hey, it's being queer that's bad.

SaintsFan wrote:

There are two predominant schools of thought on the doctrine of choice within Christianity: Arminianism and Calvanism. Kirkstaller, for example, would be a Calvanist: everything is predetermined (God wills it all and human beings have no control over what occurs, although that is a very simplistic explanation).

Actually, he's an Arminianist, on the basis that he both argues that God knows and has pre-decided everything – but that choice still exists.

You can't resist, can you, love? What was it last time – lecturing me on the nature of evangelicalism?

SaintsFan wrote:

You are confusing Christianity with Islam there.

No. I've just described both Arminianism and, most particularly, Calvanism. In other words, it doesn't matter a flying you-know-what what you do – God has already decided what will happen to you, regardless. So you'd better hope he's not all menstrual.

Re: Revolution : Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:56 pm  

Mintball wrote:

This would suggest that you're continuing with your usual patronising attitude over religion.

It's a weakness of mine. A weakness of yours is to assume the worst about people.

Thank you. You have now revealed your own total ignorance of the Bible.

I'm not perfect like you hon.

I do know the story you refer to but I didn't recognise it from your original description. Which doesn't surprise me really as the story is not about gang rape.

Actually, he's an Arminianist, on the basis that he both argues that God knows and has pre-decided everything – but that choice still exists.

You will have read more of his/her posts than I have but based upon what I have read of his/her posts, I would place them under the Calvanist banner.

God has already decided what will happen to you, regardless.

If you say so.

Re: Revolution : Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:18 am  

So, do we reckon we will have a revolution ?

Kirkstaller mentioned Godwin's Law recently, I reckon we need an extension of that law, whereby as soon as thread changes from its original topic to the same-old-same-old "God exists, no he doesn't" argument, the thread is over.
But with the caveat that you can't deliberately end a thread by tossing-in a religious bit.

Re: Revolution : Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:20 am  

SaintsFan wrote: I do know the story you refer to but I didn't recognise it from your original description. Which doesn't surprise me really as the story is not about gang rape... No. It's not "about" gang rape. But that does not mean that the offer of two young women, to be used sexually, without their consent, is not a major part of the story. And that their being offered to strangers to be used sexually does not stop God regarding their father as the only person (man) in the two towns who is worth saving. Ergo, God does not regard offering young women to be gang raped as a bad thing. In other words, the story provides an illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god. Similarly with the story of Job, the story is 'about' faith. But in the process of being 'about' faith, it also reveals another illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god – in that case, as a god who is prepared to see people killed or allow them to suffer in order to satisfy a bet. Job's family and slaves become the 'collateral damage' in God's gamble with Lucifer (who was, of course, created by God). And there are many more such illustrations of the nature of the God of the Bible. SaintsFan wrote: You will have read more of his/her posts than I have but based upon what I have read of his/her posts, I would place them under the Calvanist banner. If you say so. Collin Burrow (a senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford) recently wrote, in an article about Milton for the LRB: "... since his [Milton's] views on salvation were more or less Arminian. Where Calvin believed that God predestined the damned and the saved to hell or to heaven from the beginning of time through no merit of their own, Arminius held that God offered the opportunity of faith in him to all, and foreknew who would accept and who would reject that offer ..." Kirkstaller's approach fits with the latter.

SaintsFan wrote: I do know the story you refer to but I didn't recognise it from your original description. Which doesn't surprise me really as the story is not about gang rape... No. It's not "about" gang rape. But that does not mean that the offer of two young women, to be used sexually, without their consent, is not a major part of the story. And that their being offered to strangers to be used sexually does not stop God regarding their father as the only person (man) in the two towns who is worth saving. Ergo, God does not regard offering young women to be gang raped as a bad thing. In other words, the story provides an illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god. Similarly with the story of Job, the story is 'about' faith. But in the process of being 'about' faith, it also reveals another illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god – in that case, as a god who is prepared to see people killed or allow them to suffer in order to satisfy a bet. Job's family and slaves become the 'collateral damage' in God's gamble with Lucifer (who was, of course, created by God). And there are many more such illustrations of the nature of the God of the Bible. SaintsFan wrote: You will have read more of his/her posts than I have but based upon what I have read of his/her posts, I would place them under the Calvanist banner. If you say so. Collin Burrow (a senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford) recently wrote, in an article about Milton for the LRB: "... since his [Milton's] views on salvation were more or less Arminian. Where Calvin believed that God predestined the damned and the saved to hell or to heaven from the beginning of time through no merit of their own, Arminius held that God offered the opportunity of faith in him to all, and foreknew who would accept and who would reject that offer ..." Kirkstaller's approach fits with the latter.

[Wanderer]

Re: Revolution : Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:30 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Kirkstaller mentioned Godwin's Law recently, I reckon we need an extension of that law, whereby as soon as thread changes from its original topic to the same-old-same-old "God exists, no he doesn't" argument, the thread is over.

I wouldn't argue with that as a philosophy ...

El Barbudo wrote:

But with the caveat that you can't deliberately end a thread by tossing-in a religious bit.

... but therein lies the problem.

Re: Revolution : Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:57 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

A lot of people who adopt the Christian faith find it somewhat releasing to realise that they don't actually have to conform to a specific notion of 'decent' in order to be accepted by God.

Hmm.

What about a person who adopts the Christian faith, but finds that they are one of those people who God has already predetermined for rejection and eternal hellfire, whatever they do? How 'releasing' would they find that?

Or is there no way of an individual actually finding out in advance? (Audiences with Jesus and a rabbit excepted, of course - I imagine those are not the norm)

Re: Revolution : Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:11 am  

Mintball wrote: <snip> I've long been a fan of Mike Harding's take on Sodom & Gomorrah

Mintball wrote: <snip> I've long been a fan of Mike Harding's take on Sodom & Gomorrah