Mitt's Magical Mormon Undies: Penn Jillette's Rant Redux

[torchbearer]

just found out one of my favorite professors at the theology department has moved on, the guy dug on the tels of israel. if I find where he ended up, i'll post in here.

 

[ChristopherShelley]

If I can add mes deux centimes

I can't hear the video atm, as my speakers are not working.

If Penn is disrespecting religion, which if I remember accurately, he likes to do, he needs to remember that it will come back to him. (I guess Penn is speaking about Mormonism here, but he doesn't like religion, and berates it, or am I mistaken?)

This piece, to me, speaks of the necessity of not asking others to change and respecting them for who they are. The point is to speak honestly to one another.

The Unbeliever and Christians - Albert Camus
http://www.epubbud.com/book.php?g=DV6H76TX

The Unbeliever and Christians

(Fragments of a statement made at the Dominican Monastery of Latour-Maubourg in 1948)

Inasmuch as you have been so kind as to invite a man who does not share your convictions to come and answer the very general question that you are raising in these conversations, before telling you what I think unbelievers expect of Christians, I should like first to acknowledge your intellectual generosity by stating a few principles.

First, there is a lay pharisaism in which I shall strive not to indulge. To me a lay pharisee is the person who pretends to believe that Christianity is an easy thing and asks of the Christian, on the basis of an external view of Christianity, more than he asks of himself. I believe indeed that the Christian has many obligations but that it is not up to the man who rejects them himself to recall their existence to anyone who has already accepted them. If there is anyone who can ask anything of the Christian, it is 'the Christian himself. The conclusion is that if I allowed myself at the end of this statement to demand of you certain duties, these could only be duties that it is essential to ask of any man today, whether he is or is not a Christian.

Secondly, I wish to declare also that, not feeling that I possess any absolute truth or any message, I shall never start from the supposition that Christian truth is illusory, but merely from the fact that I could not accept it. As an illustration of this position, I am willing to confess this: Three years ago a controversy made me argue against one among you, and not the least formidable. The fever of those years, the painful memory of two or three friends assassinated had given me the courage to do so. Yet I can assure you that, despite some excessive expressions on the part of François Mauriac, I have not ceased meditating on what he said. At the end of this reflection—and in this way I give you my opinion as to the usefulness of the dialogue between believer and unbeliever—I have come to admit to myself, and now to admit publicly here, that for the fundamentals and on the precise point of our controversy François Mauriac got the better of me.

Having said that, it will be easier for me to state my third and last principle. It is simple and obvious. I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all. On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as is silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their mind. This is tantamount to saying that the world of today needs Christians who remain Christians. The other day at the Sorbonne, speaking to a Marxist lecturer, a Catholic priest said in public that he too was anticlerical. Well, I don't like priests who are anticlerical any more than philosophies that are ashamed of themselves. Hence I shall not, as far as I am concerned, try to pass myself off as a Christian in your presence. I share with you the same revulsion from evil. But I do not share your hope, and I continue to struggle against this universe in which children suffer and die.

And why shouldn't I say here what I have written elsewhere? For a long time during those frightful years I waited for a great voice to speak up in Rome. I, an unbeliever? Precisely. For I knew that the spirit would be lost if it did not utter a cry of condemnation when faced with force. It seems that that voice did speak up. But I assure you that millions of men like me did not hear it and that at that time believers and unbelievers alike shared a solitude that continued to spread as the days went by and the executioners multiplied.

It has been explained to me since that the condemnation was indeed voiced. But that it was in the style of the encyclicals, which is not at all clear. The condemnation was voiced and it was not understood! Who could fail to feel where the true condemnation lies in this case and to see that this example by itself gives part of the reply, perhaps the whole reply, that you ask of me. What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today. The grouping we need is a grouping of men resolved to speak out clearly and to pay up personally. When a Spanish bishop blesses political executions, he ceases to be a bishop or a Christian; even a man; he is a dog just like the one who, backed by an ideology, orders that execution without doing the dirty work himself. We are still waiting, and I am waiting, for a grouping of all those who refuse to be dogs and are resolved to pay the price that must be paid so that man can be something more than a dog.

And now, what can Christians do for us?

To begin with, give up the empty quarrels, the first of which is the quarrel about pessimism. I believe, for instance, that M. Gabriel Marcel would be well advised to leave alone certain forms of thought that fascinate him and lead him astray. M. Marcel cannot call himself a democrat and at the same time ask for a prohibition of Sartre's play. This is a position that is tiresome for everyone. What M. Marcel wants is to defend absolute values, such as modesty and man's divine truth, when the things that should be defended are the few provisional values that will allow M. Marcel to continue fighting someday, and comfortably, for those absolute values…

By what right, moreover, could a Christian or a Marxist accuse me, for example, of pessimism? I was not the one to invent the misery of the human being or the terrifying formulas of divine malediction. I was not the one to shout Nemo bonus or the damnation of unbaptized children. I was not the one who said that man was incapable of saving himself by his own means and that in the depths of his degradation his only hope was in the grace of God. And as for the famous Marxist optimism! No one has carried distrust of man further, and ultimately the economic fatalities of this universe seem more terrible than divine whims.

Christians and Communists will tell me that their optimism is based on a longer range; that it is superior to all the rest, and that God or history, according to the individual, is the satisfying end-product of their dialectic. I can indulge in the same reasoning. If Christianity is pessimistic as to man, it is optimistic as to human destiny. Well, I can say that, pessimistic as to human destiny, I am optimistic as to man. And not in the name of a humanism that always seemed to me to fall short: but in the name of an ignorance that tries to negate nothing.

This means that the words “pessimism” and “optimism" need to be clearly defined and that, until we can do so, we must pay attention to what unites us rather than to what separates us.




That, I believe, is all I had to say. We are faced with evil. And, as for me, I feel rather as Augustine did before becoming a Christian when he said: "I tried to find the source of evil and I got nowhere." But it is also true that I, and a few others, know what must be done, if not to reduce evil, at least not to add to it. Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. And if you don't help us, who else in the world can help us do this?

Between the forces of terror and the forces of dialogue, a great unequal battle has begun. I have nothing but reasonable illusions as to the outcome of that battle. But I believe it must be fought, and I know that certain men at least have resolved to do so. I merely fear that they will occasionally feel somewhat alone, that they are in fact alone, and that after an interval of two thousand years we may see the sacrifice of Socrates repeated several times. The program for the future is either a permanent dialogue or the solemn and significant putting to -death of any who have experienced dialogue after having contributed my reply, the question that I ask Christians is this: “Will Socrates still be alone and is there nothing in him and in your doctrine that urges you to join us?"

It may be, I am well aware, that Christianity will answer negatively. Oh, not by your mouths, I am convinced. But it may be, and this is even more probable, that Christianity will insist on maintaining a compromise or else on giving its condemnations the obscure form of the encyclical. Possibly it will insist on losing once and for all the virtue of revolt and indignation that belonged to it long ago. In that case Christians will live and Christianity will die. In that case the others will in fact pay for the sacrifice. In any case such a future is not within my province to decide, despite all the hope and anguish it awakens in me. I can speak only of what I know. And what I know—which sometimes creates a deep longing in me—is that if Christians made up their minds to it, millions of voices—millions, I say—throughout the world would be added to the appeal of a handful of isolated individuals who, without any sort of affiliation, today intercede almost everywhere and ceaselessly for children and for men.

 

[torchbearer]

I always recommend watching the video before writing the review/rebuttal.

 

[ChristopherShelley]

I always recommend watching the video before writing the review/rebuttal.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I was responding to what I could respond to:

I do find it interesting about how cool and hip and completely PC it is to attack someone's religion all of a sudden. All my liberal friends on facebook are suddenly anti-Mormon. Funny how that works.

Yeah, when I graduated from High School back in the '60s, we thought it was something we didn't do. We would never attack someone's religious beliefs. We all said that wasn't a cool thing to do.

 

[Sola_Fide]

it was stating that god was in the sky and you were on the ground.

we go back to the greek and hebrew.
it did not dictate that man goes to heaven.
god is in heaven. you are on earth.
you are beneath Him.
not once does it say you will go up to him.
(doesn't it sound like the author is telling you to stop bothering god with your minor problems?)

So...are you saying if the wisdom literature in the Old Testament does not deal with certain aspects of theology, that Christianity is false?

 

[torchbearer]

So...are you saying if the wisdom literature in the Old Testament does not deal with certain aspects of theology, that Christianity is false?

no, it just is what it is, a snap shot- a picture of the authors perception in that place and time. its like reading layers of earth to find out the history of the earth.
modern day christianity is not what it was at the time of the Acts of the apostles, it nots what it was to maccabees, or the israelites or jews, nor the hebrews.. it has all evolved, not even saying that is good or bad- or if it proves christianity false- not making any point. only observations.
interested in truth, not in trying to reinforcement my fantasy world.

 

[Sola_Fide]

no, it just is what it is, a snap shot- a picture of the authors perception in that place and time. its like reading layers of earth to find out the history of the earth.
modern day christianity is not what it was at the time of the Acts of the apostles, it nots what it was to maccabees, or the israelites or jews, nor the hebrews.. it has all evolved, not even saying that is good or bad- or if it proves christianity false- not making any point. only observations.
interested in truth, not in trying to reinforcement my fantasy world.

What is "modern day Christianity" to you? And what is Christianity in "the time of the Acts" to you?

 

[torchbearer]

What is "modern day Christianity" to you? And what is Christianity in "the time of the Acts" to you?

post 25 of this thread explains the modern day version of commercialy available, everyone is welcome into heaven you are forgiven if you tell enough people your are saved religion. church on every block, multi-billion dollar industry- selling jesus, in any way posible that is commercially viable. a church wouldn't survive long if it doesn't have membership because the pastor tells them they all insult god by participating in the largest usury scheme in the world- the federal reserve system.

the acts were a time of getting into heaven was as tough as fitting a camel through the eye of the needle, the real conflict was judaism vs. including pagans and their traditions. heretics are eventually purged by nicea. acts= guys saying what jesus thinks, ends up being their cultural bias, as proven by paul's opinion of women as second class citizens.

 

[torchbearer]

I would say the acts of the apostles could be historically contained as a chapter in history by starting with the death of jesus and going up to the founding of the first pope/papal state. men who had become so married to the government of the roman empire that they eventually create an empire on behalf of the idea of a man named jesus who taught something competely different than what they were offering humanity. que crusades. the start of the dark chapter.

 

[Sola_Fide]

post 25 of this thread explains the modern day version of commercialy available, everyone is welcome into heaven you are forgiven if you tell enough people your are saved religion. church on every block, multi-billion dollar industry- selling jesus, in any way posible that is commercially viable. a church wouldn't survive long if it doesn't have membership because the pastor tells them they all insult god by participating in the largest usury scheme in the world- the federal reserve system.

the acts were a time of getting into heaven was as tough as fitting a camel through the eye of the needle, the real conflict was judaism vs. including pagans and their traditions. heretics are eventually purged by nicea. acts= guys saying what jesus thinks, ends up being their cultural bias, as proven by paul's opinion of women as second class citizens.

So, you think first century Christianity was "getting into heaven was tough as a camel going through the eye of a needle"?

Isn't it impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? What do you think Jesus was saying there?

 

[ChristopherShelley]

What is "modern day Christianity" to you? And what is Christianity in "the time of the Acts" to you?

post 25 of this thread explains the modern day version of commercialy available, everyone is welcome into heaven you are forgiven if you tell enough people your are saved religion. church on every block, multi-billion dollar industry- selling jesus, in any way posible that is commercially viable. a church wouldn't survive long if it doesn't have membership because the pastor tells them they all insult god by participating in the largest usury scheme in the world- the federal reserve system.

the acts were a time of getting into heaven was as tough as fitting a camel through the eye of the needle, the real conflict was judaism vs. including pagans and their traditions. heretics are eventually purged by nicea. acts= guys saying what jesus thinks, ends up being their cultural bias, as proven by paul's opinion of women as second class citizens.

Torchbearer, did you answer sola_fide's questions? Did you say what those things were to you, as sola_fide asked, or did you answer as to what they were? Did you state opinion or fact? I couldn't tell.

 

[torchbearer]

Torchbearer, did you answer sola_fide's questions? Did you say what those things were to you, as sola_fide asked, or did you answer as to what they were? Did you state opinion or fact? I couldn't tell.

the words i wrote are the facts as i read and pieced them together. which in the end you could just say is my opinion of the facts. make sense?
though, i believe- if you search on your own, and you have the chance to experience such a class as I did, and really explore these ideas with other open and brilliant minds, that you'd come to a similar conclusion.
we didn't end that class in a big riff, we actually came together on the facts, and agreed, that the average person perception of what is really facts is fiction. the history of this religious evolution of certain tribes of men is very interesting.
more interesting than any movie. i'm a history geek. sorry.

 

[Sola_Fide]

the words i wrote are the facts as i read and pieced them together. which in the end you could just say is my opinion of the facts. make sense?
though, i believe- if you search on your own, and you have the chance to experience such a class as I did, and really explore these ideas with other open and brilliant minds, that you'd come to a similar conclusion.
we didn't end that class in a big riff, we actually came together on the facts, and agreed, that the average person perception of what is really facts is fiction. the history of this religious evolution of certain tribes of men is very interesting.
more interesting than any movie. i'm a history geek. sorry.

What's more important than your view of the facts of history are the presuppositions whereby you interpret those facts.

You have naturalistic presuppositions, therefore you will have naturalistic interpretations of the "facts" you think you find. For example, the reason you think you can atomize the texts of Scripture and pull them apart and not view them as a cohesive whole is because you reject the existence of God.

Theology is the ruling disciple. Theology governs and informs your interpretation of "the facts".

 

[torchbearer]

What's more important than your view of the facts of history are the presuppositions whereby you interpret those facts.

You have naturalistic presuppositions, therefore you will have naturalistic interpretations of the "facts" you think you find. For example, the reason you think you can atomize the texts of Scripture and pull them apart and not view them as a cohesive whole is because you reject the existence of God.

Theology is the ruling disciple. Theology governs and informs your interpretation of "the facts".

everyone has different lenses. you can only tell me what you see.

 

[ChristopherShelley]

the words i wrote are the facts as i read and pieced them together. which in the end you could just say is my opinion of the facts. make sense?
though, i believe- if you search on your own, and you have the chance to experience such a class as I did, and really explore these ideas with other open and brilliant minds, that you'd come to a similar conclusion.
we didn't end that class in a big riff, we actually came together on the facts, and agreed, that the average person perception of what is really facts is fiction. the history of this religious evolution of certain tribes of men is very interesting.
more interesting than any movie. i'm a history geek. sorry.

No need to apologize. I think one of the biggest problems in the world is misrepresentation. That is my own opinion. When people present beliefs as facts and facts as beliefs, i.e. "This is the way it is", things get messy. But they are already messy to begin with, imo. I don't think it's a simple thing.

I'm not a history geek, but I certainly am a geek. I have my own blinders (obviously). I think when I read about history, I'm usually more concerned with the lessons than the "facts", the dates and events etc.

I wasn't raised in a religious family, although neither of my parents were "athiests" or anything. They just didn't really participate in religion or "non-religion." I went to a Quaker school for 10 years, so I had some experiences with Quakerism, along with the Sunday school that I attended briefly as a child.

The funny thing is that from getting into Paul last year and other experiences and interactions with people during my life, las summer I actually, conciously, turned to God. That was my own experience, and it was, in my mind, out of necessity. I didn't feel like I had anyone or anything else to turn to.

Religion to me, like pretty much everything else, is very complex. I can't consider myself a "Christian" (especially according to a friend of my family who says I can't until I ..., she has "requirements", which I understand. I told her I don't know whether I would ever be what she considered to be a Christian, but that I can learn from God and Christianity. Like I said, for me it's complex.)

The point of my first post was to try and point out that it is possible, at least I believe it is, to not be a Christian yet understand what it is to be a Christian and respect that.

I think that is important, and to the point of what others said in this thread, it drives me crazy to see someone (in person, or in the media) ripping a religion when I know that that religion means something, often everything, to some people. It would be like someone insulting a family member of mine. I just find it to be ignorant and unnecessary.

At the same time, others think that religion is ignorant and unncessary.

I just wanted to speak to that point.

I would have watched the video, but I've had a hard drive on a desktop and then my laptop battery die on me this week and I'm in PC turmoil atm.)

I was just trying to point out that, in that piece, the author imo makes a good analysis of where "believers" and "non-believers" often fail each other. I think that if those two groups can find common goals then that might be as good as it can get.

<3

 

[Sola_Fide]

everyone has different lenses. you can only tell me what you see.

Yes, and your lense is atheistic. You've swallowed hook line and sinker the theological liberalism of the Ehrman's of the day. Have you ever heard or read any of the many, many refutations to Ehrman? Or do you take everything he says as gospel?

 

[ChristopherShelley]

What's more important than your view of the facts of history are the presuppositions whereby you interpret those facts.

You have naturalistic presuppositions, therefore you will have naturalistic interpretations of the "facts" you think you find. For example, the reason you think you can atomize the texts of Scripture and pull them apart and not view them as a cohesive whole is because you reject the existence of God.

Theology is the ruling disciple. Theology governs and informs your interpretation of "the facts".

Yeah, see that makes sense to me within my understanding of Christianity. It is an acceptance of the word of God and must be interpreted as such, from the individual details to the entire bible. (I don't know if that is accurate. That is my understanding atm.)

But what I think is interesting and important is whether Christians can find any value in looking at the bible, or the word of God, in any other light. I don't know.

I would think that it could be of value, but that it would be extremely difficult. I tried to talk with that friend about my own thoughts on Christianity, some of which I just expressed, and eventually she said something to the effect of, "You're either a Christian or you're not," which I completely understand and respect. For me, I don't know that I will ever give my life to Christianity the way she thinks I need to, but I haven't ruled it completely out either. For me atm, it's more important to respect Christianity then to be a Christian.

One quick story.

When I was like 7 or 8, a sibling of mine nearly drowned. I saw her and started crying and dropped to my knees and cried to God (what God was to me at that time) to please not let her die. Personally, I think I need God. I have tried not to rely on God, but I came to a point again, last summer, when I felt like I had no choice but to turn to something that I could depend on absolutely.

I try to honor "God", like I do truth and beauty and other things. But that's just me. My friend said she's leaving me in the hands of God. I'm either in or I'm out. I find that difficult, but the way I see it, if God is there, then I really have no choice!

Oh well, another day, another of life's mysteries unsolved (at least for me).

<3

 

[torchbearer]

Yes, and your lense is atheistic. You've swallowed hook line and sinker the theological liberalism of the Ehrman's of the day. Have you ever heard or read any of the many, many refutations to Ehrman? Or do you take everything he says as gospel?

i'm not an athiest.
that is what i mean, from your lenses i must look like an athiest because i can approach this topic objectively.

 

[Sola_Fide]

i'm not an athiest.
that is what i mean, from your lenses i must look like an athiest because i can approach this topic objectively.

Well, whatever you say you are, you are not approaching the Scripture with a Biblical view of inspiration.

You aren't being objective....I hope you realize that.

 

[torchbearer]

Well, whatever you say you are, you are not approaching the Scripture with a Biblical view of inspiration.

You aren't being objective....I hope you realize that.

it is objective, i'm not supposing anything, or appealing to emotion. i did make a statement with general facts. you are now welcomed to open up your bible and read whatever you want out of it.
if you are curious about my claims, reread the entire thing with the ideas i've expressed in mind. see where they fail and why.