Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An honest utterance

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about three weeks ago

User Journal 51

#OccupyResoluteDesk's confession that he has no strategy may be the first un-bent thing he's said in my immediate recollection. My suggestion is that he rely upon Nancy Pelosi for advice, and do the precise opposite of whatever she says.

#OccupyResoluteDesk's confession that he has no strategy may be the first un-bent thing he's said in my immediate recollection. My suggestion is that he rely upon Nancy Pelosi for advice, and do the precise opposite of whatever she says.

cancel ×

51 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why start now? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about three weeks ago | (#47787085)

We haven't had strategies for decades, why start now? The only difference is this time we're lobbing missiles first, before committing boots to the ground. Last time we went on an adventure in Iraq we figured we could Han Solo the mission as we went along, and we saw how well that turned out. At least so far we haven't sent any ground troops to die.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47788207)

Then there is your conspiracy theory angle [pjmedia.com] :

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah's rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

In a way, it would be a relief if true; the knowledge that there is at least some rationale to this spinelessness, however disgusting, would have a shred of merit.

Re:Why start now? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47789633)

Wow, cool! You exposed Obama's "October Surprise"? Sharp as a tack you are...

Oh, and the "spinelessness" thing. Is that supposed to evoke a response other than, "what?" Why don't you try to digest your mass media garbage before regurgitating it all over the carpet?

And here again, your dear friend in the white house is indeed following the footsteps of his predecessors (including the nameless one you idolize the most), so where's the beef? You're chasing ghosts.

So, what's up? You ginning for war? AGAIN?? I mean, you know, your buddy McCain is. So is Hillary. In fact, I gotta figure that anybody up there who hasn't made a lot of noise to stay the hell out is for more war... So, what, third time's the charm?

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47790179)

Wow, if you were any more creative in ascribing incorrect motives to me, your handle would be d_r.
I haven't the slightest interest in MOAR WAR. That position, however, does not preclude war having interest in me.

Re:Why start now? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47791125)

I haven't the slightest interest in MOAR WAR.

Not until your faction is "in charge"* no. In the meantime, you merely being contrary. You just don't like the guy pushing the buttons. You are making a fashion statement.

* Actually if you bother to look behind the set, you'll find they always have been. "They", too, never left.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47791793)

You just don't like the guy pushing the buttons. You are making a fashion statement.

Really. Thanks. If BHO wants my support, a coherent strategy would be welcome. But I understand you're trolling. Bravo.

Re:Why start now? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47791811)

...a coherent strategy...

So funny... You really think things are so chaotic in the boardrooms?

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47792227)

You really think that anyone below the level of the Almighty actually controls the course of history with any precision?

Re:Why start now? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47793929)

Nice try, but you're complaining about one particular person, who is doing nothing different than any of the others. Personality, man. Get over it.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47794747)

Wait, so you're arguing that any one person actually controls the course of history? I suppose you'd have to, given that conspiracies just don't scale.
I, for one, think that, despite whatever local bits of order to which you can point, history is mostly a chaotic system, at least as seen from the meatware perspective.

Re:Why start now? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47795145)

Nope, you haven't said any of that. Your focus, more like obsession, is on the one person, regardless of his ability to control anything. You are on a bandwagon. And you'll jump off just as soon as your "party" #ReoccupiesResoluteDesk (or however you put it). You are fooling no one except yourself.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47795625)

This is masterful. You can control what I'm saying, and then beat me up for disagreeing with you. I am become your strawman.

Re:Why start now? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47796047)

You're not disagreeing with me. You haven't heard a word I've said. And I certainly am not controlling what you say. Your pjmedia propaganda rag is doing that. You parrot them word for word

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47797293)

Well, thanks for clearing up where all these strings go, then. What's clear is that nothing stated in the conservative blogosphere could possibly true, since you've negated it all in one of your handwaves. Yuda man.

Re:Why start now? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about three weeks ago | (#47795113)

You just don't like the guy pushing the buttons. You are making a fashion statement.

Really. Thanks. If BHO wants my support, a coherent strategy would be welcome.

One, why is a "coherent strategy" - or any strategy really - required only when the man at 1600 Pennsylvania is not of your own party?

And two, why are you pretending that this would somehow change your feelings regarding the POTUS?

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47795639)

"[your] own party". Think through the implications of that, please. And also, understand that I laugh at your every attempt to change the topic off of the disaster that is OUR President.

Re:Why start now? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about three weeks ago | (#47798131)

"[your] own party". Think through the implications of that, please.

I love how you, again, discarded the overwhelming majority of the text of my comment in favor of your favorite snippet. Nonetheless, as much as you try to assign me to a given party - or to claim that Obama is somehow secretly a part of some grand political movement / conspiracy that is counter to everything he has done to date as president - you are at least equally as much a member of the GOP. You can pretend that the Tea Party is somehow distinct from them but we all know how that song will go.

And also, understand that I laugh at your every attempt to change the topic off of the disaster that is OUR President.

i wasn't trying to change anything. If anyone here is trying to change the topic it would appear to more likely be you, with the way you so carefully discard text that you find to be too uncomfortable to reply to.

Although when you say "OUR" rather than "YOUR" you get closer to the truth than you have been in a long, long, time. What Obama has actually DONE as president is vastly closer to the goals that you champion than any of the ones that I ever have. Why you keep claiming that we are femtoseconds away from some grand about-face - when you should instead be celebrating the fact that by and large you are getting from legislation basically everything you have asked for - is beyond me.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47798743)

No, really: if it was MY OWN PARTY, it would be handle along substantially different lines, trust me.

Re:Why start now? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about three weeks ago | (#47799445)

No, really: if it was MY OWN PARTY, it would be handle along substantially different lines, trust me.

So why do you get that privilege but I do not? You insist that I am part of an established party while demanding that I view you otherwise.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47799557)

Wait: you get to accuse me of having my own party, accuse me of having privilege, then accuse me of insisting that you are a member of some established party? I don't remember saying you were the DNC chair, for all your utterances do rival those of Wasserman-Schultz for incoherence.
If you want an accusation, I think you're a defender of statism.

Re:Why start now? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about three weeks ago | (#47803697)

you get to accuse me of having my own party

I do not recall ever having accused you of having your own party. I merely stated that you are very much a proud member of a party. The statement of "your party" does not indicate ownership, but rather membership.

accuse me of having privilege

What privilege are you accusing me of accusing you of having?

then accuse me of insisting that you are a member of some established party

You regularly accuse me of being a member of an established party. I could provide cases of you doing so but you won't read them.

I don't remember saying you were the DNC chair

I never accused you of accusing me of having any power within a party, though you have in that wonderful snippet of nonsense again indicated that you believe me to be a part of a party.

If you want an accusation, I think you're a defender of statism.

Considering most of your "isms" are based on peculiar new meanings of (generally root) words, I have no idea what you might be trying to accuse me of there. I would love for you to tell me what "statism" means to you, but I don't have any reason to expect that you will do so.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47805223)

The statement of "your party" does not indicate ownership, but rather membership.

There is ambiguity here, yes.

You regularly accuse me of being a member of an established party.

Statism is really more of a disease than a party.

Re:Why start now? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about three weeks ago | (#47806071)

You regularly accuse me of being a member of an established party.

Statism is really more of a disease than a party.

If only you would be so kind as to tell me what that "ism" means to you, then perhaps we could discuss the matter.

Re:Why start now? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about three weeks ago | (#47812645)

When proper faith in the Almighty is replaced by a belief in the state, e.g. Al Gore [nytimes.com] :

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

But this is only a distilled expression of the lousy theology exhibited in the Second Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] . Managed liberty is not liberty; Progressivism/Statism/Socialism (you have to understand that these greased pigs resist all labels) is but an ersatz substitute for the real thing, and must be rejected.

Re:Why start now? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about three weeks ago | (#47813527)

When proper faith in the Almighty is replaced by a belief in the state, e.g. Al Gore:

That is a bit of an oversimplification, there.

For one, Al Gore is still a Baptist.

More to the point, however, his quote that you love to bring up

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

Is referring not to individuals but to the shared human condition. He is saying that laws can be made that improve upon humanity. We have seen in times past what happens when laws are discarded in the interest of profit acceleration, he is saying we can do better by instead implementing laws that are interested in improving the situation for all people. He isn't saying that we can take a wicked person and make them righteous or anything to that extreme but rather that we can make a better world for all people through conscientious governance.

But this is only a distilled expression of the lousy theology exhibited in the Second Bill of Rights

You like to talk about that as if it matters. The Second Bill of Rights is not even marginally close to being as important in relation to current government as the "Axis of Evil" speech, yet you talk about the former all the time and the latter pretty well never.

Managed liberty is not liberty

So then why do you insist on trying to manage it? Just because you want to sell it doesn't mean you aren't managing it.

Progressivism/Statism/Socialism

Well, the last of the list you have repeatedly demonstrated no functioning understanding of. The first of the list you throw around as a universal label for things you don't like. How is the second related to the first and last? I doubt you will respond to that question.

"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47822205)

Look, I don't want to ever hear you bitch again about ME tampering with definitions, sir. You're freebasing the concept of "human redemption" outright. The plain meaning of the word is clear [google.com] .
This is underscored by the fact that Al Gore is still labeled a Baptist. He is, at best, heterodox for this act. As a member of my church, he'd be (lovingly) rebuked, and reminded that there is nothing under the sun we can do, individually, or collectively, to be redeemed.
In context, I think that Al Gore is doing the Devil's work here, and preaching a false, human-crafted Gospel.

Re:"redemption" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about two weeks ago | (#47822893)

You're freebasing the concept of "human redemption" outright. The plain meaning of the word is clear.

Did you actually read the link you provided? The first definition has to do with the redemption of humanity as a whole. Why are you selectively discarding that one in favor of the second, more narrow definition? And why didn't you provide a link to only that one instead?

This is underscored by the fact that Al Gore is still labeled a Baptist. He is, at best, heterodox for this act.

So wanting to improve on humanity is a bad thing, then?

As a member of my church, he'd be (lovingly) rebuked, and reminded that there is nothing under the sun we can do, individually, or collectively, to be redeemed.

So then why do anything at all?

In context, I think that Al Gore is doing the Devil's work here, and preaching a false, human-crafted Gospel.

Is not the entire New Testament a "human-crafted Gospel"? To say nothing of the fact that global warming is not nearly as encompassing as any religion that has come of the New Testament.

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47823153)

The first definition has to do with the redemption of humanity as a whole.

If you know shred #1 of Baptist teachings, you know what you say is simply incorrect. You're in violation of Alinsky Rule #2 here, and need to quit while you're behind.

Why are you selectively discarding that one in favor of the second, more narrow definition?

Christ died for human sins on an individual basis. If you were the only human being (as a thought experiment) Jesus Christ would've perished to redeem you. There. Is. No. Collective. Redemption in Baptist theology. Al Gore's statement, from a Baptist perspective, is patently false.

So wanting to improve on humanity is a bad thing, then?

I don't know why you'd say that. It's not actually the topic at hand. Certainly, I'm to love my neighbor, both by explicit Mosaic Law and out of thanks for the actual redemption obtained via Christ. At the same time, I know 535 jackwagons cannot combine to redeem anyone, starting with themselves. They can't even read their own laws, for all you despise my following their leadership. I've laughed at another third of Marx's Moronic Meanderings, by the way--still sucks.

So then why do anything at all?

Jesus Christ is the meaning of life. That understanding has sustained me in dialogue with you well past any natural, fleshly capacity to yell at a brick wall.

Is not the entire New Testament a "human-crafted Gospel"? To say nothing of the fact that global warming is not nearly as encompassing as any religion that has come of the New Testament.

If you think that the New Testament was merely a few Jews and a Greek faffing about in koine Greek, you may not understand life. Or you may be correct and I'm all in vain [blueletterbible.org] . Such cannot be ruled out at an intellectual level, and I won't go soiling myself sounding like a "global warming" fanatic or something.

Re:"redemption" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about two weeks ago | (#47825225)

The first definition has to do with the redemption of humanity as a whole.

If you know shred #1 of Baptist teachings, you know what you say is simply incorrect

First of all, the definition does not refer to Baptist beliefs. The first definition that you linked to is essentially agnostic in regards to specific theological denominations.

Second, unlike you I do not claim to be a great scholar of things that I have not read. If the Baptists hold a specific alternate definition of redemption to be core to their existence, then so be it.

There. Is. No. Collective. Redemption in Baptist theology. Al Gore's statement, from a Baptist perspective, is patently false.

Is your claim then that to be a Baptist, one must live one's life by Baptist ideals and only Baptist ideals? Strange, I recall you recently attempted (and notably failed miserably) in trying to wrap up one of my statements under No True Scotsman and now you seem to be embracing it in your own argument.

So wanting to improve on humanity is a bad thing, then?

I don't know why you'd say that. It's not actually the topic at hand.

It most certainly is. If you see a different topic at hand, it is likely because you didn't read the text you quoted and linked to. I would love to know what topic you think is "at hand" here, but I doubt you will be so kind as to share that.

I know 535 jackwagons cannot combine to redeem anyone, starting with themselves

Interesting statement of faith, there. If humanity can never improve, then why try, right?

I've laughed at another third of Marx's Moronic Meanderings

So you read 33% more than the title page? You might finish reading the manuscript before the end of time!

So then why do anything at all?

Jesus Christ is the meaning of life. That understanding has sustained me in dialogue with you well past any natural, fleshly capacity to yell at a brick wall.

That appears to be your attempt to justify doing nothing towards the betterment of anything.

Is not the entire New Testament a "human-crafted Gospel"?

If you think that the New Testament was merely a few Jews and a Greek faffing about in koine Greek, you may not understand life.

Who then wrote it? Space aliens?

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47832937)

Is your claim then that to be a Baptist, one must live one's life by Baptist ideals and only Baptist ideals? Strange, I recall you recently attempted (and notably failed miserably) in trying to wrap up one of my statements under No True Scotsman and now you seem to be embracing it in your own argument.

The entire purpose of this thread has been to point out that, in a Baptist context, Al Gore's statement is full of crap.
If you intend to go another direction, fine.

Is not the entire New Testament a "human-crafted Gospel"?

If you think that the New Testament was merely a few Jews and a Greek faffing about in koine Greek, you may not understand life.

Who then wrote it? Space aliens?

Did you say you knew anything of Christianity [blueletterbible.org] ?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

I'll give you 3/4 of a No True Scotsman on that one; there are some shades of meaning you can put on the word "given" for example. But if you think that the Jews were just kind of making stuff up as they went along, then you should consider disavowing the label "Christian".

Re:"redemption" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about two weeks ago | (#47834035)

The entire purpose of this thread has been to point out that, in a Baptist context, Al Gore's statement is full of crap.

First, if that was your only point, it took you an absurdly long time to get to said point. You literally spent days talking about things in this thread that did not in any way relate to that point.

Second, is the Baptist community truly that homogeneous on that matter? I don't have first-hand exposure to that denomination but I know there was plenty of room for differences in opinion in the Christian denomination that baptised (and eventually confirmed) me oh-so-many decades ago.

But if you think that the Jews were just kind of making stuff up as they went along, then you should consider disavowing the label "Christian".

I never accused anyone of "making stuff up". Indeed you have made up that accusation from nothing at all. My point is only that you are taking the writings that were written by an assortment of (mostly) men from quite some time ago and treating your favorite translation of their writings as being the immutable and uncontestable truth.

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47839103)

Second, is the Baptist community truly that homogeneous on that matter?

Come on down, mister. You said

Who then wrote it? Space aliens?

I replied with a conditional

But if you think that the Jews were just kind of making stuff up as they went along, then you should consider disavowing the label "Christian".

You counter with

I never accused anyone of "making stuff up". Indeed you have made up that accusation from nothing at all.

Can you clarify at what precise point you felt as though you were accused of, well, anything at all, please?

Re:"redemption" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about two weeks ago | (#47839419)

Did you have an argument to make there, or are you just typing to keep your fingers moving? I read your comment start-to-finish several times (I would recommend you try the same some time) and couldn't find an argument.

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47839949)

Did the closing question mark elude you? I asked a question. Are you feigning illiteracy as a dodge, then?

Re:"redemption" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about two weeks ago | (#47841213)

If anything your closing question mark shows that you still aren't reading what you are replying to. I stand by my point that you had no apparent point to make in that comment.

Let's call it: "The Banana Ear" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47841847)

"Sorry, I can't understand what you're saying. I've got this banana in my ear, curling 'round my head, and blocking my vision."

Re:Let's call it: "The Banana Ear" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about two weeks ago | (#47842797)

Is that your plight? How then do you type your replies, are you using dragon or something of that sort? It would help to explain a lot here...

Re:Let's call it: "The Banana Ear" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47843799)

What is that you're on about? I've got an entire bunch of bananas on my head, like a cross between Carmen Miranda and BHO.

Re:Let's call it: "The Banana Ear" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about two weeks ago | (#47845523)

What you're trying to do here didn't work before and won't work now either.

Re:Let's call it: "The Banana Ear" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47847681)

Au contraire: absurdity seems the most efficient means of responding to you.

Re:"redemption" (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about two weeks ago | (#47855253)

there is nothing under the sun we can do, individually, or collectively, to be redeemed.
Of course there is: "Repent, and sin no more". (And since you're fallen... repeat as necessary).

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47858305)

Fair point. Let me elaborate: "There is no work we can undertake of ourselves whereby we can say: Lord we are justified by this thing WE did under our own power." Even the act of accepting salvation is a passive one.

Re:"redemption" (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about two weeks ago | (#47861553)

I disagree with that a little; Salvation is a gift that must be accepted. You have free will, you can choose to accept -- or even later, abandon that gift -- however you wish.

But you have to make that choice if you are able to.

And... your faith must bear fruit.

(Children and the severely mentally impaired are not able to make that choice.)

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47865899)

I'm not persuaded that, once properly accepted, salvation can be relinquished (Rom8:38 [blueletterbible.org] )
As for faith bearing fruit: what specific fruit did the saved thief on the cross beside Christ bear? Not to discount the book of James; I certainly concur on an integral/derivative relationship between works and faith. However: no scoring!

Re:"redemption" (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about two weeks ago | (#47866225)

I'm not persuaded that, once properly accepted, salvation can be relinquished

That flies against free will. One could, theoretically, at some future date, reject Christianity and lose their salvation.

The Protestant argument is that they never had Salvation to begin with... so when they rededicate their life (again), are they truly saved that second / third / fourth time?

For some of us -- because I've experienced Christ present in the Eucharist, I could never turn away from my faith. But the choice remains mine.

This is probably the wrong venue for this discussion though. If you would like to continue, shoot me an email.

As for faith bearing fruit: what specific fruit did the saved thief on the cross beside Christ bear?

Acceptance that he was a sinner who deserved his fate, and earnestly asking Christ to deliver him.

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47866889)

That flies against free will. One could, theoretically, at some future date, reject Christianity and lose their salvation.

Again, I'm not sure you're any more capable of un-saving yourself than you were saving yourself in the first place.

This is probably the wrong venue for this discussion though.

Why so? I know some people on here that really, really need to ponder this ssuff.

earnestly asking Christ to deliver him

Fair enough. Where I can't follow is the need to set up point systems. The auto-salavtion plan is laid out in Job 40. tl;dr: you're toast.

Re:"redemption" (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about two weeks ago | (#47870961)

There is a misconception that the Catholic Church has a "point system" -- it doesn't.

What the Church encourages is to live out your faith -- and, as James eloquently points out -- a faith without works is a dead faith.

Logically, this makes sense. If you've truly accepted Christ, and His commandments to be more like Him, then your life *should* be different from what it was before.

You are correct that none of us can get to Heaven on our own. We need Christ's grace and mercy -- my point is simply, we can turn back on that journey of ours at anytime.

This is what "those who have faith at the end" means -- those of us who have the faith at the end of our lives enter in to Glory.

Many Christians mistakenly believe that once "saved", always "saved", therefore they can do as they please because grace covers it. So it's OK to cheat on their spouse, steal, murder, etc, because after all, well, they just love Jesus enough and He died on the cross for it, so no worries, let's party!

This line of thinking is folly.

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about two weeks ago | (#47877095)

Many Christians mistakenly believe that once "saved", always "saved", therefore they can do as they please because grace covers it.

Show me the mature Christian that buys off on the "Jesus the blank check" theory. That immature notion indicates an utter non-grasp of the New Testament in general, and the Roman Epistle in particular.

Re:"redemption" (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about two weeks ago | (#47880751)

Simple -- they're at a MegaChurch near you.

But what they do, when, say, Ted Haggard gets high and engages in gay sex, is say... well, he wasn't really saved before. But this time (after the whole rededication / rebaptism) it'll stick -- pinky swear.

And that's really where I think a lot of my Protestant brothers are incorrect -- they focus too much on whether a person is "saved" and not what happens afterward. What MUST happen afterwards that the faith should bear fruit, otherwise, the faith is dead. (Those who keep the faith to the end...)

So what is that fruit? Corporal works of Mercy, becoming more Christ-like, always continuing to refine one's self, abandoning venial sin habits, etc. Those are the fruits of a faith that is alive and well.

tl;dr: Don't just be a pew sitter on Sunday morning because you like the coffee or the praise band (Prayer Bolt.. ) or want to feel like you're part of the club. "Oh hey, we're part of Faith Grace Meadow Church -- yeah, the one the size of a Wal-Mart superstore. Yeah, the praise band makes me feel happy, and the pastor just talks about what's in the Bible."

"Oh, I was thinking about trying Grace Faith Meadow, they say they teach just what's in the bible too"

"NO THEY ARE DIRTY HEATHENS!"

And so on, and so forth. The riff on the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front from Life of Brian was intentional.

And while I'm wound up...

The segregation I see in the Protestant Community really bothers me. "Oh, we only send our kids to christian school (or homeschool)" -- meaning that there are fewer points of light in the public schools.

Or, "We only buy Christian media" -- fine, but then without Christian influence the culture rots faster.

It's time for Christians to stop segregating ourselves, and START FIGHTING THE CULTURE WAR. Start throwing some (metaphorical) punches at the culture.

Re:"redemption" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#47888631)

And that's really where I think a lot of my Protestant brothers are incorrect -- they focus too much on whether a person is "saved" and not what happens afterward. What MUST happen afterwards that the faith should bear fruit, otherwise, the faith is dead. (Those who keep the faith to the end...)

You're right and you're wrong.

You're right that throughout history, winning the revolution is just the beginning. The violence didn't stop after the French overthrew the King. The Soviets didn't stop after they overthrew the Tsar. The Nazis didn't stop after they won the elections. The North didn't just pack their bags and go home after they defeated the South. For any ideology to stick, violence and coercion must be a constant presence, to keep the conquered in line, to indoctrinate their children, and assimilate their culture into the collective.

But you're wrong in the next part

So what is that fruit? Corporal works of Mercy, becoming more Christ-like, always continuing to refine one's self, abandoning venial sin habits, etc. Those are the fruits of a faith that is alive and well.

No, you do not keep your faith alive by living like your book tells you. You keep the faith by "interpreting" your book so that you give yourself exceptions whenever it is necessary to use violence and coercion. The Roman Catholic church that the Protestants objected to was so powerful precisely because the Catholic church wasn't practicing what they preached.

The Protestants themselves were no better of course, as it takes two to tango in the religious wars that followed the Reformation. Protestants were also not better than Catholics when it comes to coercion their kids to follow the same faith, lest they become those damn hippies and their rock and roll and dungeons and dragons!

Re:"redemption" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a week ago | (#47894479)

And that's really where I think a lot of my Protestant brothers are incorrect -- they focus too much on whether a person is "saved" and not what happens afterward. What MUST happen afterwards that the faith should bear fruit, otherwise, the faith is dead. (Those who keep the faith to the end...)

And of course works flow naturally from salvation. The notion that there are some metrics associated with demonstrating salvation, itself, is an equal and opposite bugaboo. You fully grasp, I'm sure, that any mortal system implies the potential for rigging.

The segregation I see in the Protestant Community really bothers me. "Oh, we only send our kids to christian school (or homeschool)" -- meaning that there are fewer points of light in the public schools.
Or, "We only buy Christian media" -- fine, but then without Christian influence the culture rots faster.

Given my sons are 3yrs old and 3mos old, I understand the argument all too well. Just because Jesus reserve a millstone for those who offend the little ones affords me scant motive to offer MY two kids. Let me double down. I can recite John 3:16 all day, but that ain't jack for motivation to donate even 50% of mine to these Godless Commie Sodomites. Giving people the Good News is not the same as giving people your offspring.

Start throwing some (metaphorical) punches at the culture.

Ponder, if you will, the case of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: have we become more like them? They sure as sugar haven't become much more like us in any way I can identify. By all means, let us interact in ways with 'the world' that drive the world toward Christ. If the interactions move the system the other way. . .

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>