"to update your beliefs to have a rational basis."
Realizing that many people vote based on all sorts of beliefs, from 'he's cute' to 'he promises to cure cancer', why are you holding me specifically to a higher standard ? Because you think I'll make my decisions based on that imaginary superbeing I believe in, instead of the craven appeals of desperate politicians?
I'm willing to take your story at face value. Sadly, your sample size is indequate to judge the philosophy. Besides, you can't judge a philosophy by its abuse. Having said that...
Calvinism v Arminianism is a theological issue. I'm not aware of a Calvinist Church or denomination, though most denominations end up choosing one or the other, as they do governance and such.
Your father in law, while he may be a Calvinist preacher, has some interesting views, and seems to be legalistic. This is discouraged in my church. Sorry, in fact, it is not what I know to be common among Christian preachers, though I have a limited experience there being the member of only three churches so far, and having a total of 4 pastors. But growing up, I was sent to whichever church was closest, and sat through services of 3 churches and their pastors, Congregationalist, Baptist, and Catholic. Very different. I remember little of Catholic services, being pretty young, but the Congregationalists made an impression. The Baptists, I vaguely recall being pretty loud.
I can understand your confusion. The behavior of your father in law is not Calvinist. It's legalistic, narrow, and not in line with the Gospel I am familiar with. I'm praying that you may, somehow, point out that racism has no place in the Gospel. Nor does sexism. You might point out to him that Jesus was ministered to by women, that women came to His tomb to serve Him, that His resurrection was first proclaimed to women, and a woman informed the disciples of this. Jesus was no respecter of person or privilege, and women were central to His ministry in a time when women were often treated like property or worse. If you're wondering about divorce, I have an answer for you, but maybe not now - this is a lot already.
Somehow, I suspect your father in law will not like being taught this, not just by you, but by anyone. If you need verses, I'm happy to oblige.
"except for "because it's traditional" "your" views are not your views, They are views that have been laid out by the institution you follow without questioning the reason for those views."
You are, in fact wrong. My views are mine, because I examined the institution that presented me with the argument, the reasons, and the logic of their proposition. I accepted them, not at face value, but after 40 years of adulthood and much consideration.
You may not be able to accept that someone can become a Christian by their own choice, but I did. And my pastor encourages me and the rest of the congregation to examine his messages and recommendations to us, testing them against scripture.
If you believe what you write, you are in fact as deluded as you think i am. And you are mistaken about me.
It's more like I won't be able to satisfy the sceptical mind. I just don't think I will have the irrefutable evidence necessary. My own eyewitness testimony is, usually, insufficient.
Dawkins and you don't tell me I'm wrong about my religion. You tell me I'm defective; stupid, ignorant, or insane. Merely 'wrong' isn't enough for him, he has to discredit me entirely, invalidating me as a person. Not merely wrong-headed, but also dangerous.
No matter that religion is not the exclusive cause of pain and harm in our planet, he is committed to eradicating it, under the guise of delivering us from its evil effect.
And while I believe his premise is flawed, he believes my premise is sufficiently dangerous to require suppression.
And you seem willing to tolerate your insane wife. I'm a bit confused. This is some benign defect that is otherwise harmless? Would you please tell Mr. Dawkins to restrain his attack on her, or, forbid, take some action soon, since she is, as a Christian, in his words, dangerous?
Because her faith is, by Mr. Dawkins words, evil. Only a matter of time before she converts another helpless soul and further darkens our world.
Who said I reject evolution? That's a straw man argument. Dawson should be arguing creationism v Big Bang or whatever universal creation theory is being proposed now. I jave no problem seeing evolution as the method.
Dawson does reject the premise of a being creating our universe. I don't think he proposed an alternative, but o could be wrong, and I'm glad to hear he did, if so.
If I knew such a girl, I would be certain she had help and support in bringing the child to birth and offering it for adoption. I know this because I have. And I would only have to ask, and dozens of friends and acquainted folk would also do so.
I cannot offer such a girl any relief from the pregnancy of I want to be true to my faith, but neither would I condemn her for choosing to end her pregnancy. I could not choose for her. I am conflicted enough to not press for legislation on this matter.
I know better than to offer the evidence of various writers who went to their deaths proclaiming the Gospel. Nor can I offer current examples of healing, despite documentation, as these are easily discarded on the absence of direct testimony of the patient and their doctors. And other reports of visitations, etc. generally are to be seen as unreliable, since these usually include like-minded individuals who could reasonably be considered unreliable also.
Proof? How about you prove to me that my faith is harmful?
Hint - you'll be wanting to understand my faith first, k?
Now all I need is an SD slot, but Google prefers a consistent user experience, so accomodating user storage is limited to the built-in they provide. Kinda like the browser no longer being able to load the desktop version of iGoogle. But I'm not bitter.
"Calvinists believe it doesn't matter what you do since God already decided where you were going before you were even born"
Wrong.
Calvinists believe you are chosen (elected) by God, so if you don't believe, He hasn't chosen you. Or you are ignoring Him. Either way, Total Depravity as a result of the Great Fall leaves us all facing damnation, unless we turn, and hear, and are healed.
Call me old-fashioned, but calling me an uneducated, ignorant, narrow minded fool because I believe in something he does not strikes me as insulting. Especially when he chastises me for my beliefs, and in the same breath claims his are correct and just, and he is more enlightened than I for having them.
And his assertions that many who believe in God do so because they were taught so by their parents, and have enver examined their faith critically nor independently.
That he even has to address this is proof that he is wrong. His arguments are largely insulting to me personally.
But he is entitled to them, and I don't seek his blood or life because of it. Nor do I want him silenced. Would that he grant me the same consideration, but he would have me shut up if he could.
Trying to transfer costs to the sender is interesting. What if the receiver decides to drop most traffic, forcing the sender to retry, driving up costs? What if the receiver just discards traffic for whatever reason, does the sender pay for that traffic? What if the receiver, in this case, permit requests to be sent to the 'sender', so that a traffic imbalance is perpetuated, but they fail to actually deliver the traffic.
Profit!
This is better than the COCOT scams of the 90s. I may go back into the ISP business.
Slashdot Mirror
"to update your beliefs to have a rational basis."
Realizing that many people vote based on all sorts of beliefs, from 'he's cute' to 'he promises to cure cancer', why are you holding me specifically to a higher standard ? Because you think I'll make my decisions based on that imaginary superbeing I believe in, instead of the craven appeals of desperate politicians?
Thats funny. Really, that is humorous.
I'm willing to take your story at face value. Sadly, your sample size is indequate to judge the philosophy. Besides, you can't judge a philosophy by its abuse. Having said that...
Calvinism v Arminianism is a theological issue. I'm not aware of a Calvinist Church or denomination, though most denominations end up choosing one or the other, as they do governance and such.
Your father in law, while he may be a Calvinist preacher, has some interesting views, and seems to be legalistic. This is discouraged in my church. Sorry, in fact, it is not what I know to be common among Christian preachers, though I have a limited experience there being the member of only three churches so far, and having a total of 4 pastors. But growing up, I was sent to whichever church was closest, and sat through services of 3 churches and their pastors, Congregationalist, Baptist, and Catholic. Very different. I remember little of Catholic services, being pretty young, but the Congregationalists made an impression. The Baptists, I vaguely recall being pretty loud.
I can understand your confusion. The behavior of your father in law is not Calvinist. It's legalistic, narrow, and not in line with the Gospel I am familiar with. I'm praying that you may, somehow, point out that racism has no place in the Gospel. Nor does sexism. You might point out to him that Jesus was ministered to by women, that women came to His tomb to serve Him, that His resurrection was first proclaimed to women, and a woman informed the disciples of this. Jesus was no respecter of person or privilege, and women were central to His ministry in a time when women were often treated like property or worse. If you're wondering about divorce, I have an answer for you, but maybe not now - this is a lot already.
Somehow, I suspect your father in law will not like being taught this, not just by you, but by anyone. If you need verses, I'm happy to oblige.
Sad.
"except for "because it's traditional" "your" views are not your views, They are views that have been laid out by the institution you follow without questioning the reason for those views."
You are, in fact wrong. My views are mine, because I examined the institution that presented me with the argument, the reasons, and the logic of their proposition. I accepted them, not at face value, but after 40 years of adulthood and much consideration.
You may not be able to accept that someone can become a Christian by their own choice, but I did. And my pastor encourages me and the rest of the congregation to examine his messages and recommendations to us, testing them against scripture.
If you believe what you write, you are in fact as deluded as you think i am. And you are mistaken about me.
So a Christian should be denied representation based on their religion. Interesting.
It's more like I won't be able to satisfy the sceptical mind. I just don't think I will have the irrefutable evidence necessary. My own eyewitness testimony is, usually, insufficient.
And by "widely used as a means to oppress those who follow them, and to persecute those who don't." could be applied to other means and beliefs.
Your point? Religion is specially dangerous? Ha.
I don't think that's my defense, but more precisely, that seems to actually be Mr. Dawkins defense of his stance.
"Prove to me your God exists..."
Let's get it right. Ok.
True. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
No, you won't. You'll point and giggle. And some will drag me out of the mud, as they can't tolerate it.
My beliefs matter to me. If God exists, that us important.
If not, feh. I suspect you think He does not.
Dawkins and you don't tell me I'm wrong about my religion. You tell me I'm defective; stupid, ignorant, or insane. Merely 'wrong' isn't enough for him, he has to discredit me entirely, invalidating me as a person. Not merely wrong-headed, but also dangerous.
No matter that religion is not the exclusive cause of pain and harm in our planet, he is committed to eradicating it, under the guise of delivering us from its evil effect.
And while I believe his premise is flawed, he believes my premise is sufficiently dangerous to require suppression.
And you seem willing to tolerate your insane wife. I'm a bit confused. This is some benign defect that is otherwise harmless? Would you please tell Mr. Dawkins to restrain his attack on her, or, forbid, take some action soon, since she is, as a Christian, in his words, dangerous?
Because her faith is, by Mr. Dawkins words, evil. Only a matter of time before she converts another helpless soul and further darkens our world.
Who said I reject evolution? That's a straw man argument. Dawson should be arguing creationism v Big Bang or whatever universal creation theory is being proposed now. I jave no problem seeing evolution as the method.
Dawson does reject the premise of a being creating our universe. I don't think he proposed an alternative, but o could be wrong, and I'm glad to hear he did, if so.
We think if ourselves as small c conservatives nowadays.
If I knew such a girl, I would be certain she had help and support in bringing the child to birth and offering it for adoption. I know this because I have. And I would only have to ask, and dozens of friends and acquainted folk would also do so.
I cannot offer such a girl any relief from the pregnancy of I want to be true to my faith, but neither would I condemn her for choosing to end her pregnancy. I could not choose for her. I am conflicted enough to not press for legislation on this matter.
Others have different opinions.
I know better than to offer the evidence of various writers who went to their deaths proclaiming the Gospel. Nor can I offer current examples of healing, despite documentation, as these are easily discarded on the absence of direct testimony of the patient and their doctors. And other reports of visitations, etc. generally are to be seen as unreliable, since these usually include like-minded individuals who could reasonably be considered unreliable also.
Proof? How about you prove to me that my faith is harmful?
Hint - you'll be wanting to understand my faith first, k?
Or the cisterns (scuse me, subways) don't fill up.
Interesting.
Now all I need is an SD slot, but Google prefers a consistent user experience, so accomodating user storage is limited to the built-in they provide. Kinda like the browser no longer being able to load the desktop version of iGoogle. But I'm not bitter.
I could buy this one.
If this were just about facts , we would already be done, but it is not. It's about beliefs.
See. That's the problem. You think your views should be free to roam the intellectual landscape, but mine are too dangerous to be let loose.
Seriously?
And you seem to think libertarian is somehow desirable to me. Wrong.
"Calvinists believe it doesn't matter what you do since God already decided where you were going before you were even born"
Wrong.
Calvinists believe you are chosen (elected) by God, so if you don't believe, He hasn't chosen you. Or you are ignoring Him. Either way, Total Depravity as a result of the Great Fall leaves us all facing damnation, unless we turn, and hear, and are healed.
At least that's how I understand it.
Call me old-fashioned, but calling me an uneducated, ignorant, narrow minded fool because I believe in something he does not strikes me as insulting. Especially when he chastises me for my beliefs, and in the same breath claims his are correct and just, and he is more enlightened than I for having them.
And his assertions that many who believe in God do so because they were taught so by their parents, and have enver examined their faith critically nor independently.
That he even has to address this is proof that he is wrong. His arguments are largely insulting to me personally.
But he is entitled to them, and I don't seek his blood or life because of it. Nor do I want him silenced. Would that he grant me the same consideration, but he would have me shut up if he could.
And reading this again, I'm astonished.
Trying to transfer costs to the sender is interesting. What if the receiver decides to drop most traffic, forcing the sender to retry, driving up costs? What if the receiver just discards traffic for whatever reason, does the sender pay for that traffic? What if the receiver, in this case, permit requests to be sent to the 'sender', so that a traffic imbalance is perpetuated, but they fail to actually deliver the traffic.
Profit!
This is better than the COCOT scams of the 90s. I may go back into the ISP business.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
The UN intervenes when it is in its interest to do so. It fails to intervene even when it woudl be in the interest of victims to do so.
Imperfect I can tolerate. Deliberately biased is harder to tolerate. The UN is past just biased.