+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: All Babies Go to Heaven (/showthread.php?tid=31958)
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - MacMagus - 05-25-2007
> No, of course not. God is perfect, not me.
Again with the "perfect."
What does it take to judge whether God is perfect?
I probably wouldn't want to be God's judge. Too much pressure.
What if he screwed up? Would you take off points? "I'm sorry, God. I can only give you a seven for that performance. Maybe you should practice some more. I hear Australia is pretty isolated. You could do some cool stuff with THAT continent..."
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - MacMagus - 05-25-2007
You're not bringing out my good side, yoregano.
I have an idea.
Instead of speaking in absolutes when you're talking about your personal beliefs, how about you qualify your statements.
Examples:
"I have faith that God is perfect, not me."
"I believe that a true spiritual faith in Christ is something perfectly intended by God."
There are waaay too many religions in this world and not enough falsifiable evidence for you to keep making sweeping allegations about God and existence in this kind of forum and have those allegations go unchallenged.
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - kj - 05-25-2007
>>>You're not bringing out my good side, yoregano.
If you aren't showing your "good side" that is no one's responsibility but your own. Blaming yoregano is silliness.
>>Instead of speaking in absolutes when you're talking about your personal beliefs, how about you qualify your statements.
For starters, maybe you can give yoregano some sort of reason that he should do what you ask of him? Because it makes sense to you? Try again. Because it makes sense to someone else? Try again. He may be gracious enough to honor your demands, but he sure doesn't have to.
Fwiw, it's not necessary to qualify his statements because, as any english 101 student will tell you, it is redundant to say "in my opinion, such and such". Of course it's his opinion, unless he states otherwise. To do as you've asked would be for him to adopt _your_ opinion that all religions have equal footing. He does not have to do that. As far as whether his statements can be challenged, of course they can. This is a forum for discussion. Same goes for your statements, whether you like it or not.
kj.
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - Lux Interior - 05-25-2007
[quote yoregano]
No, of course not. God is perfect, not me. I'm just supposed to try. As the late Keith Green said:
Just keep doing your best,
And pray that it’s blessed,
And jesus takes care of the rest.
Why do you need the second and third parts? Can't one do his best and not pray and not believe in Jesus?
Does it matter if you strive to be a good person in the name of Bhudda, Mohamed, or whatever? Does it matter if you just do it because it seems like the right thing to do?
[quote kj]as any english 101 student will tell you, it is redundant to say "in my opinion, such and such". Of course it's his opinion, unless he states otherwise.
I disagree. If I say, "Two plus two is four" that's just my opinion?
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - kj - 05-26-2007
>>>Why do you need the second and third parts? Can't one do his best and not pray and not believe in Jesus?
Does it matter if you strive to be a good person in the name of Bhudda, Mohamed, or whatever? Does it matter if you just do it because it seems like the right thing to do?
I think in this case it matters _at least_ because Jesus defines what good is. Hopefully yoregano can explain more, because the quote, I think, means more to a christian than you know. But there are problems with the idea of just following some rules of good behavior. From a pragmatic sense, just think of the idea that there is an omnipotent being watching you all the time. It might be possible to game the system with a list of rules, but not when someone knows your every thought. And when you have a "good heart", it doesn't matter if there is an absence of rules in some particular situation, or whatever, you still try to do the right thing. I do think you would get a different result without the 2nd and 3rd parts though, even though it might seem subtle.
As an aside, I would like to see MacMagus' definitive list of what makes a person good, since we have to have one for how to get to heaven. But maybe he doesn't think there is such a thing as a good person.
>>I disagree. If I say, "Two plus two is four" that's just my opinion?
I suppose one could debate that sort of thing, but you could look at it as a particularly unanimous opinion. Actually, maybe the answer is that it isn't an opinion, so why would you have to identify it as one? I suppose part of the answer is also that you would almost never run into any statement that had that sort of unanimity in any discussion of even moderate complexity. At any rate, english teachers do teach kids not to start essays with, "In my opinion" ;-).
An example:
"There are waaay too many religions in this world and not enough falsifiable evidence for you to keep making sweeping allegations about God and existence in this kind of forum and have those allegations go unchallenged."
Is there the kind of unanimity on this statement that there is with your statement (2+2)? No, so I guess he should have said, "in my opinion". It gets silly, so it isn't necessary. And yes, that is my opinion, obviously. kj.
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - MacMagus - 05-26-2007
> I think in this case it matters _at least_ because Jesus defines what good is.
See? You said, "I think."
So now you're not going to get trashed for stating beliefs as absolutes.
> As an aside, I would like to see MacMagus' definitive list of what makes a person good
I think that would not be a fruitful discussion. You've already made the assumption that someone can make a definitive list of the ingredients to a moral quality. Such prejudices make good fodder, not good conversation.
> But maybe he doesn't think there is such a thing as a good person.
I don't think that a good person is someone whose goodness is defined by an arbitrary set of rules pulled out of a book of contradictory stories handed down by an authority that demands credulity based upon the presumed existence of an intangible mascot.
> you could look at it as a particularly unanimous opinion
WTF is a "particularly unanimous" anything? This is the kind of thinking that I reflexively ridicule. Count yourself lucky that I've got a date in a few minutes...
> Is there the kind of unanimity on this statement that there is with your statement (2+2)?
My statement was falsifiable. I think that at this point it has been proven a substantive theory.
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - MacMagus - 05-26-2007
> For starters, maybe you can give yoregano some sort of reason that he should do what you ask of him?
To be nice.
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - yoregano - 05-26-2007
Hmm, some interesting posts. Look, I certainly don't expect anyone in a forum to change their opinion on something based on what they read here. If you take offense to what I post, I'm sorry. This has always been a pretty crowd when the word "Christian" appears. Each is either as receptive or hostile as one chooses to be.
If anyone here is honestly interested, Lee Stobel's The Case for Christ is good reading.
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - Lux Interior - 05-26-2007
as any english 101 student will tell you, it is redundant to say "in my opinion, such and such".
Okay. So you're saying that it's redundant to state that something you say is an opinion. It is implicit.
Actually, maybe the answer is that it isn't an opinion, so why would you have to identify it as one?
Okay. So you're saying that it's not necessary to state something you say is a fact. It is obvious. So, you are correct when talking to yourself, then.
I guess what you are saying is that as long as the person talking shares your exact same opinions, beliefs, etc. that you don't need to qualify your statements.
I suppose one could debate that sort of thing, but you could look at it as a particularly unanimous opinion.
"Unanimous opinion"? You gotta be kiddin' me! Facts are facts, regardless of whether people "unanimously" agree. E=mc^2 is not a fact because Einstein said it was. It just is.
Re: All Babies Go to Heaven - kj - 05-26-2007
>>See? You said, "I think."
I was being nice.
>>So now you're not going to get trashed for stating beliefs as absolutes.
I don't have any idea why you think I would care whether you trash me or not. I don't know who made you the guardian of all knowledge. It seems you think you've been appointed to run around determining who is wrong or right.
>>You've already made the assumption that someone can make a definitive list
No, I know it can't be done.
>>WTF is a "particularly unanimous" anything? This is the kind of thinking that I reflexively ridicule. Count yourself lucky that I've got a date in a few minutes...
Everyone agrees it is a fact. Reflexively? I don't think so. You believe it's justified, and you choose to do it. Btw, if you look closely, I didn't say 2+2=4 because there is a consensus, if that's what's bothering you.
>>My statement was falsifiable. I think that at this point it has been proven a substantive theory.
You know, if everyone agreed science is the only source of truth, you'd be right. But they don't. I'm definitely not an enemy of science, but there is a lot more to life. Central to your arguments is the belief that everything that matters must be amenable to evaluation using the scientific method. It's circular. According to science, science is the only source of truth. You have to accept science as the yardstick in the first place.