18 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettI thought he was being charitable. Even now, I can't read through your complete sermon. It's painful in it's deliberate approach and it's exactly why people catch up on their sleep in church. Thank God you don't do this for a living.
Your evaluation for points 1 and 3 contradict themselves, Herr Doktor.
Criterion 1: ...I remain wholly unconvinced that RWillis's economic ideology actually derives from Acts. This earns a score of 1.
Criterion 3: I agree that these words of Acts contain grains of socialist ideology. This earns a score of 3.
How do you account for this discrepancy?
18 Jun 07
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettDon't be dense. There's no discrepancy.
Your evaluation for points 1 and 3 contradict themselves, Herr Doktor.
Criterion 1: ...I remain wholly unconvinced that RWillis's economic ideology actually derives from Acts. This earns a score of 1.
Criterion 3: I agree that these words of Acts contain grains of socialist ideology. This earns a score of 3.
How do you account for this discrepancy?
That you believe some proposition P and that some writing endorses P does not entail that it was the writing led you to believe P.
For example, Jesus putatively believed in the socialist ideology without needing to have first read Acts. In this way, you're just like Jesus.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateAnd we can see why you were not selected as a judge.
I thought he was being charitable. Even now, I can't read through your complete sermon. It's painful in it's deliberate approach and it's exactly why people catch up on their sleep in church. Thank God you don't do this for a living.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI see.
Don't be dense. There's no discrepancy.
That you believe some proposition P and that some writing endorses P does not entail that it was the writing led you to believe P.
For example, Jesus putatively believed in the socialist ideology without needing to have first read Acts. In this way, you're just like Jesus.
It is true that my economic ideology does not derive from Acts. But the 'personal transformation' which occurred was the realization that Jesus' message was the foundation for that economic ideology, and when seen in the proper light, Christianity (when properly interpreted) and socialism are natural partners. The transformation was the realization that instead of being enemies, Christians and socialists can both find comfort in the words of Jesus, and that they have more in common than either party typically assumes.
Given that I was already far over budget on my word count, my conclusion may not have driven that point home forcefully enough.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateUnlike Jesus, who had time for everyone, and who advised turning the other cheek.
Yes, I have no tolerance for imbeciles and I would have dealt with you with a firm hand.
I invite you to pretend that you were a judge and write a critique of my sermon. Of course you'd have to read the whole thing first...
19 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettWell man, yours was the only one I read, and I found it thoroughly enjoyable.
Unlike Jesus, who had time for everyone, and who advised turning the other cheek.
I invite you to pretend that you were a judge and write a critique of my sermon. Of course you'd have to read the whole thing first...
19 Jun 07
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI have been straining at the bit to ask you this rwingett. You say that Christ leaned toward the left side of the political spectrum in terms of economics, yet when we look at examples of the left wing throughout the world they tend to be vehemenlty atheistic. In fact, communism declared all out war on God himself via such regimes as the USSR and China. Why do you think this is?
I see.
It is true that my economic ideology does not derive from Acts. But the 'personal transformation' which occurred was the realization that Jesus' message was the foundation for that economic ideology, and when seen in the proper light, Christianity (when properly interpreted) and socialism are natural partners. The transformation was the realizati ...[text shortened]... budget on my word count, my conclusion may not have driven that point home forcefully enough.
19 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyI believe it's a common conception amongst these types of systems that religion was a political tool developed by the rich (kings and rulers notably), used for the express purposes of subjugating the masses. Probably not an unreasonable hypothesis.
I have been straining at the bit to ask you this rwingett. You say that Christ leaned toward the left side of the political spectrum in terms of economics, yet when we look at examples of the left wing throughout the world they tend to be vehemenlty atheistic. In fact, communism declared all out war on God himself via such regimes as the USSR and China. Why do you think this is?
19 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think christianity and socialism became estranged until Marx came along and published the Communist Manifesto. And even then I think a lot of the antipathy on the left toward religion was directed at the church hierarchies, which have been conservative (and wealthy) defenders of the status quo since the 4th century. But throughout the 19th century, and especially before 1850, Christian Socialism was a quite popular. There is certainly scriptural support for the concept. The final rupture between the two was probably the Russian Revolution, when the Soviet Union officially proclaimed itself an atheistic state. Support for socialism amongst christians plummeted after that. But even then, it retained a large measure of appeal in Central and South America.
I have been straining at the bit to ask you this rwingett. You say that Christ leaned toward the left side of the political spectrum in terms of economics, yet when we look at examples of the left wing throughout the world they tend to be vehemenlty atheistic. In fact, communism declared all out war on God himself via such regimes as the USSR and China. Why do you think this is?
19 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettWhat though of Mr Chavez? Is he not a communist and did he not proclaim himself as some kind of religious authority within the Catholic church? Perhaps we are seeing the emergence of the religious left? I think you and I can agree that the emergence of the Chrisitan left is just as distasteful as those in the religous right. Therefore, why is the message of Christ not distastful? Christ's message is not distastful because the goal is not money, power, and reelection, rather, it is a simple CHOICE to submitt yourself and your finances to what you see the will of God being done for the kingdom of God which is at hand. In short, Christ's message has little to do with the squablings over material posessions and economic status as it does promoting the kingdom of God.
I don't think christianity and socialism became estranged until Marx came along and published the Communist Manifesto. And even then I think a lot of the antipathy on the left toward religion was directed at the church hierarchies, which have been conservative (and wealthy) defenders of the status quo since the 4th century. But throughout the 19th century, ...[text shortened]... after that. But even then, it retained a large measure of appeal in Central and South America.