Sinners in the Hand

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I'm telling you I think the only true realist is God, there is no other
that sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality thereby
molding reality and so on.

This makes it sound like you think a realist is one who "sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality...and so on." But I don't know why you would think that ...[text shortened]... claim true or false? Hypothetically, would it be permissible for God to torture babies?[/b]

"Okay, but does this mean that you think there are no moral facts? If so, then what makes a true moral claim true (assuming that you are committed to the idea that at least some moral claims are true)? Also, if you have two competing value systems (both of which are internally consistent), is one just as credible as the other?"

I told you before I do not believe morals are just a static set of rules.
I believe you can have two moral claims and that it is possible that at
one time one should be put on top of the other. For example I think
our own lives are precious and should be taken care of, and I think
that other people's lives are precious and should be taken care of.
Yet if another's life is in danger a choice may come down to risking
one's own life to save the other. That would be a place I think that
though both are valid keep one's own life safe, and saving the other life
would put two competing values in conflict. There something like
love would say this is the way choose this, than love becomes more of
a guide than a set static rules in play.
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I doubt reveal was what you meant. No typo.


Originally posted by jaywill
[b]

It is OK with me if you revere the Puritans. I suppose worse things could happen. [/b]

Thanks. You are quite correct. I did use "revere".

Originally posted by jaywill
Seems rather blunt to me.

In the last 40 years I have seen many Christians repent in places where I have met. Your thought that "In the good old days of John Edwards they did but no more" seems like some kind of hype.

Hey, if you get more edification out of brother John Edwards' messages, that's fine with me.

The glory goes to God and not to any man.

The myth is hard to swallow, but at least Edwards' sermons are literature. In Edwards' sermons there is something redeemable among the generally unredeemed: spiders, mostly.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The myth is hard to swallow, but at least Edwards' sermons are literature. In Edwards' sermons there is something redeemable among the generally unredeemed: spiders, mostly.

So you read the whole sermon of Jonathan Edwards or you just recall a small part of it?

So you have read and compared them to the messages of Spurgeon, Whitfield, Moody, ? You've done extensive reading of earlier American and other nation's sermons of this type ?

Originally posted by jaywill
So you read the whole sermon of Jonathan Edwards or you just recall a small part of it?

So you have read and compared them to the messages of Spurgeon, Whitefield, Moody, ? You've done extensive reading of earlier American and other nation's sermons of this type ?

all, many times; some, not all--I vaguely remember reading Whitfield, cannot recall reading Spurgeon's sermons, but have read pieces of his writings, and remember reading a few of Moody's (which never had quite impressed me as having the same substance of the others); yes






In Whitefield, for instance, we find:

I. And, FIRST, I am to consider what is meant by an almost Christians.

An almost Christian, if we consider him in respect to his duty to God, is one that halts between two opinions; that wavers between Christ and the world; that would reconcile God and Mammon, light and darkness, Christ and Belial. It is true, he has an inclination to religion, but then he is very cautious how he goes too far in it: his false heart is always crying out, Spare thyself, do thyself no harm. He prays indeed, that "God's will may be done on earth, as it is in heaven." But notwithstanding, he is very partial in his obedience, and fondly hopes that God will not be extreme to mark every thing that he willfully does amiss; though an inspired apostle has told him, that "he who offends in one point is guilty of all." But chiefly, he is one that depends much on outward ordinances, and on that account looks upon himself as righteous, and despises others; though at the same time he is as great a stranger to the divine life as any other person whatsoever. In short, he is fond of the form, but never experiences the power of godliness in his heart. He goes on year after year, attending on the means of grace, but then, like Pharaoh's lean kine [cow?], he is never the better, but rather the worse for them.

http://www.pioneernet.net/rbrannan/whitefield/

This sermon, which seeks to address issues roughly similar to Edwards' "Sinner in the Hand of an Angry God" offers a bit more pop-psychology, a bit more anthropology, than Edwards. Edwards takes a stronger theological stance, and offers much richer metaphors. Edwards is better. Both had a profound impact upon American culture.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
all, many times; some, not all--I vaguely remember reading Whitfield, cannot recall reading Spurgeon's sermons, but have read pieces of his writings, and remember reading a few of Moody's (which never had quite impressed me as having the same substance of the others); yes






In Whitefield, for instance, we find:

I. And, FIRST, I am to consider w ...[text shortened]... icher metaphors. Edwards is better. Both had a profound impact upon American culture.

Paris Reidhead gave a sermon that floored me, I think you would
find it very interesting. It can be found on line.

Ten Shekels and a Shirt

Bible: Judges 17

I'd say he nails what it means to be a Christian better than many
I have heard before. A little dry at the start but he ends very well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Paris Reidhead gave a sermon that floored me, I think you would
find it very interesting. It can be found on line.

Ten Shekels and a Shirt

Bible: Judges 17

I'd say he nails what it means to be a Christian better than many
I have heard before. A little dry at the start but he ends very well.
Kelly

I found the usual vermin, but no spiders.

The tendency of many Xtian pastors to see the world in binary terms with their truncated attribution of all that is not Christianity to a caricature they call Humanism may move many Xtians, but it moves me away from their churches. If not for the secular thinking the Europeans adopted from the pagan Greek, and Muslim Arabic worlds in the Middles Ages and the Renaissance, Christianity would yet be nothing more than a tribal religion of little influence in the world.

The Puritans may have been witch drowning dogmatists, but they embraced the secular learning of their day, and they were among its scholars.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I found the usual vermin, but no spiders.

The tendency of many Xtian pastors to see the world in binary terms with their truncated attribution of all that is not Christianity to a caricature they call Humanism may move many Xtians, but it moves me away from their churches. If not for the secular thinking the Europeans adopted from the pagan Greek, ...[text shortened]... gmatists, but they embraced the secular learning of their day, and they were among its scholars.

You listened to this sermon?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Okay, but does this mean that you think there are no moral facts? If so, then what makes a true moral claim true (assuming that you are committed to the idea that at least some moral claims are true)? Also, if you have two competing value systems (both of which are internally consistent), is one just as credible as the other?"

I told you before I do not ...[text shortened]... ay choose this, than love becomes more of
a guide than a set static rules in play.
Kelly

I do not believe morals are just a static set of rules...There something like love would say this is the way choose this, than love becomes more of a guide than a set static rules in play.

That's a very, very good response. I agree that morality is pretty much something that would naturally resist codification into simple rules. Perception of strict rule-based moralities of constraint are manifested naturally in children; but where they are manifested in adults, I think it is indicative of lack of development and maturity. More appropriate, as you point out, is to consider the deliverances of love and the virtues and to let them guide our deliberations, which can themselves be very intricate and textured. Relatedly, better to consider what sorts of persons we want to be in the virtues that we manifest than for us to defer to some set of rules. The problem with the latter is that even if such rules are in fact worthy of being followed, deference to a rule-structured morality causes one to lose contact with the justification behind the rules and our actions, and that is not a very good recipe for wisdom. So, good post, and I agree.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You listened to this sermon?
Kelly

Read the text. I don't have time to listen to such things. His comments concerning Humanism cannot be supported by a couple of books I bought when I was attending churches where preachers made similar statements. Having a fundamentally scholarly mindset--I go to the source to verify--I bought copies of The Humanist Manifesto and Paul Kurtz, In Defense of Humanism. Reading these books made it impossible to stomach the binary caricatures of this relatively unsuccessful pseudo-religious movement that some Xtians attempt to set up as their straw man, except they never quite succeed in knocking it down.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Read the text. I don't have time to listen to such things. His comments concerning Humanism cannot be supported by a couple of books I bought when I was attending churches where preachers made similar statements. Having a fundamentally scholarly mindset--I go to the source to verify--I bought copies of The Humanist Manifesto and Paul Kurtz, [i] ...[text shortened]... ians attempt to set up as their straw man, except they never quite succeed in knocking it down.

[/i]Okay, I honestly thought you'd see he hits the topic well. His take on it compared
to Christianity is, 'Is God a means or an end." He does do it well, and what He ends
up doing is talking about how humanism has entered the thinking and colored the
thoughts of the people inside and outside Christianity. You do not view humanism
as the happiness of man?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[/i]Okay, I honestly thought you'd see he hits the topic well. His take on it compared
to Christianity is, 'Is God a means or an end." He does do it well, and what He ends
up doing is talking about how humanism has entered the thinking and colored the
thoughts of the people inside and outside Christianity. You do not view humanism
as the happiness of man?
Kelly

His sermon is coherent and on point. As literature, it is not up to the standard set by Edwards. As analysis of the foils he argues against, the sermon is drivel. He has about as much understanding of Humanism as I do of differential equations.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
His sermon is coherent and on point. As literature, it is not up to the standard set by Edwards. As analysis of the foils he argues against, the sermon is drivel. He has about as much understanding of Humanism as I do of differential equations.

I guess I will respectfully disagree, I have never read it, but have listened to
it a couple of times. I've heard drivel before when it comes to sermons, and
that wasn't one, again in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess I will respectfully disagree, I have never read it, but have listened to
it a couple of times. I've heard drivel before when it comes to sermons, and
that wasn't one, again in my opinion.
Kelly

It may be fine as encouragement to believers to get them to walk in the path of righteousness, but as a guide to ways of thinking that differ from the pastor's understanding, it relies upon distortion and caricature. The whole sermon is built upon an edifice of a non-existent philosophical foundation.


As literature, it has no lasting power. It may well be, however, that the delivery is a fine example of oratory.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
It may be fine as encouragement to believers to get them to walk in the path of righteousness, but as a guide to ways of thinking that differ from the pastor's understanding, it relies upon distortion and caricature. The whole sermon is built upon an edifice of a non-existent philosophical foundation.


As literature, it has no lasting power. It may well be, however, that the delivery is a fine example of oratory.

It was nice disagreeing with you again. 🙂
Kelly