Terrorist Attack In Paris

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes, that's true - but not quite complete for two reasons.

1. Even a hard Calvinist agrees that he/she does not know who is on that list - only God knows.
2. Even a hard Calvinist is aware that God works through people and Christians are commanded to make disciples of all nations

If that was not so, there would be no point at all in Calvinists preaching the good news and sending folks out on mission, would there? "Predestination" doesn't get us off the hook!

Because only God knows who is on the list, any one (or even all*) of my non-believing neighbors can be saved.

Is that a suitable response to yours?


*I only have half a dozen neighbors, assuming nearby houses as the criteria. In the Good Sam. sense of course, anyone in need is my neighbor. Even with the wider definition, I suppose that while mathematically not all will be saved, any one can be - viewed from my unknowing position. Perhaps I mean, "may be"?

[Big RR]

Well that's one way of putting it; the other is, no matter what you do you will either be saved or you will not--it has already been decided and there is nothing you can do about it. I don't accept the predestination as a given, but if I did, that would be a consequence of it. Sure I wouldn't know who is on the 'list", nor would anyone else, but I think the idea of predestination makes the idea that everyone can be saved if they choose to believe as pointless.

As for why do they go and preach, I do think that comes from another belief that we can reveal our beliefs through our works. And while they will deny that their works will affect who is to be saved, it is all they have to demonstrate their faith (and you know who they think are going to be saved, even if they don't say so).

Personally, I am willing to leave people's ultimate fates to the grace of a caring god, not a being who created some to live and perish knowing they were not on the "saved" list. Predestination is not something I can square with the concept of free will.

[wesw]

when in doubt about such things there is always what jesus said himself. preachers and theologians often over think things. heck , I m not even sure about everything that paul wrote.

as far as the number of terrorists, I look at the territories, nations, and parts of nations under their control. I look at the govts and/or monarchies under their control, or influenced by them.

[RayThom]

Don't forget, that's the magic number the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that are going to make it to heaven. Of course, they use "The New World Translation" bible. Imagine that, writing their own book to justify their core beliefs. The lengths that some christian posers will go to achieve a modicum of theological validity. Shocking!

[MajGenl.Meade]

As for why do they go and preach, I do think that comes from another belief that we can reveal our beliefs through our works. And while they will deny that their works will affect who is to be saved, it is all they have to demonstrate their faith (and you know who they think are going to be saved, even if they don't say so).

I'm not a hard predestination fan myself. But I think you are selling good people short in the above. I've known some Calvinist missionaries and there's not a one of them doesn't think that they are the instrument by which God will save those He has chosen to save. That is, they are part of the predestined process.

They will very much NOT deny that their works will affect who is to be saved - they think it is part of the process of salvation for some but will make no difference at all to others.

Furthermore, there is no telling if the work done today will not yield a convert 30 years from today - that's in God's hands, as you wrote. But you are right - they do believe that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be unsaved.. the clay has right to argue with the potter and so on.

I personally don't believe in the kind of worldview that seems to boast that no one at all is saved. It is repugnant.

And BTW, to preach merely because it's a "good work" would, in fact, not be a good work at all but would be some form of self-glorification. If preaching is the only means by which a person demonstrates their faith, then they ain't a very Christian Christian!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Imagine that, writing their own book to justify their core beliefs. The lengths that some Non-Christian posers will go to achieve a modicum of theological validity. Shocking!

FTFY, Ray!

[Gob]

Meanwhile, back in France..

[rubato]

And your point, Econo, is what? We know the following:

....

2. The jihadists are not a fringe group of Muslims -- there are hundreds of thousands or millions who are willing to wage war, and hundreds of millions who support them.

No, what we know is that there are tens of thousands of terrorists if you sum up Al-Shabab, Isis, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram &c. A small number in relative terms and they are stretched to support even that number.


And we also know from Somalia that if you remove obstacles from communities who are trying to support themselves that they stop tolerating Al Shabab.



yrs,
rubato

And while there are only tens of thousands of militant terrorists there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim military who are fighting against them: Iraqi army: 283,000, Kurdish Peshmerga: 150,000-200,000 , Afghan army: 200,000, Pakistan army: 642,000. So we have a much larger number of MUSLIMS who are fighting terrorism than there are terrorists.

[BoSoxGal]

I didn't learn anything weird about a God who only saves according to geography; I'm just saying that you being Christian is an accident of your birthplace as much as the average Indonesian's is being Muslim.

I don't believe a God of love would put so many of his beautiful creatures into circumstances in which they'd be almost certain to fail the test of faith. That's just cruel.

I don't see how adherents to major faiths aren't also hung up on that concern; in fact, it was that which first led me to question my own faith.

[rubato]

There is a serious shared defect in the Judeo-Christian-Moslem traditions in that they all preach exclusivity of truth. Christians and Moslems have both used that idea to metasticize different sects within their religions which periodically fall on each other in murderous rage and call each other 'devil-worshipers' and the like. The evolution of the secular state created an entity powerful enough to get that conflict under control in the West and we are hoping the same for the Moslem world.


I don't recall an example of that in Judaism but perhaps it was because they were so often a persecuted minority being murdered by Christians or economically oppressed by Moslems. Perhaps the growing conflict in Israel between the orthodox and everyone else is the first stage of the process of meiosis and differentiation which leads to violent intra-species religious conflict. If so,it is further proof of the necessity of keeping religion out of government.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't recall an example of that in Judaism

Funny of the year! Back to college and Pentateuch101 for you, me bucko!

I don't believe a God of love would put so many of his beautiful creatures into circumstances in which they'd be almost certain to fail the test of faith. That's just cruel.

Me either! But fortunately I'm not required to believe that. I recognize this really isn't the thread to debate the issue but I am sorry that you experienced such deficient theological training. Uninformed Christians are a definite deterrent.

[rubato]

I don't recall an example of that in Judaism

Funny of the year! Back to college and Pentateuch101 for you, me bucko!
... " .

I was referring to the recent millenia for which we have better historical sources. I don't recall that the religious conflicts in the bible were between different sects of Judaism but then the victor gets to enshrine their slanders as fact, don't they? "They were idolators so we killed all of them." Gets written down Instead of "their idea of Judaism was slightly different so we &c." Now we have more impartial observers so that when Mormons and Christians are in conflict, for example, we can score them as two sects of Christianity, which they are, rather than accept the bigoted view.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Of course, of course. It's OK. There, their, they're.

[Lord Jim]

Meanwhile, back in France..

I just heard on MSNBC that they and other news broadcast networks are refusing to show that cover on the air...

If this is true, score one for the terrorists...

[Big RR]

Agreed. At times like these principle trumps etiquette. And if the press doesn't stand up for freedom from censorship, it's doomed to be the mouthpiece of those who would censor it.

[Crackpot]

NPR (in print) and fox have.

[Crackpot]

IMO that cover is perfect.

The Irony being that in the actual for bing of imagery to prevent idolatry any image therefor becomes an Idol and provokes the very behavior that was meant to be curbed.

[Big RR]

Is that a recent reversal for Fox? I thought they were joining with the other services in not running/pixylating the cartoons.

[MajGenl.Meade]

when Mormons and Christians are in conflict, for example, we can score them as two sects of Christianity, which they are

[Crackpot]

I saw it this morning on the tube at work. I think there can be wrest incy line draw. Between "the cartoons" and this cover.