[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

Kevin:

Whether or not we are living in the end times is irrelevant.  We have
been living in the end times since before Jesus left.  Jesus himself
said so, and he said that we won't know the time, that he'll come like a
thief in the night.  I'm pretty sure that he meant for us to grow in
faith (spiritual maturity), to share the reason for our faith, and to
care for other believers, contending in love with one another, as if he
just left ~and~ as if he were coming back next week, until he does come
back.  I have been unable to find any purpose in sharing the details of
the end times or Hell with unbelievers.  Some remain un-convicted,
regardless of the stick you use, and some are convicted and ready for
their Savior, before you beat them with the stick.  Jesus came for
sinners, the righteous have no need for forgiveness or guidance, and
there's no sense trying to convince them otherwise with threats of Hell
or the tribulation.

I might share may faith this way:  If you know that you've been
wandering around on a rooftop, blindfolded, and that you might fall off
someday or maybe you've already fallen off a few times...  If you're
ready to take off your blindfold, I want to introduce you to my hero.

Brian:

I agree that living by fear is not good.  My hero said that we will
always have three gifts, to the end of the game (he said 'age' not
'game'):  faith, love, and hope.  There are opposites to these gifts:
fear, hate, and resentment, perhaps.  They are the landmarks of the dark
side.  People learn best by positive example, though, so I teach myself,
not "what would Jesus do?", because I have neither his insight nor his
author's license, but, "Which of these paths/attitudes/choices is most
faithful, hopeful, and love full?  Which alternative is likely to grow
me in these things?  Which is likely to encourage the growth of my
sister, brother, or neighbor?"

Last, Pascal's wager still applies, because, as far as I know:
1) Only Jesus claims exclusivity.  I think all other major religions
allow for salvation by their means or whatever else you like.  Only
Jesus said there's just one way, over his dead body, and at his
resurrected feet.  :-)  To claim the gift, is tacit admission that he is
the solution to your problem.
2) And God let's you into the family, just because you have the faith to
ask.  He doesn't exclude you on your doubt.  You do that to yourself.
Live your faith, and let your doubt worry about itself.  Nobody runs to
God out of their fear of Hell.  If it were simple spiritual blackmail,
you wouldn't give in to it.  Any shred of self-respect would prevent it.
You might suicide, but you would never give in.  On the other hand, a
God that lays his son's body down to build you a "bridge", ~that~ you
can run to in faith, love, and hope.

It's impossible to bet with Pascal out of cynicism.  If you can bet with
Pascal, you can.  If you can't, you inherently bet against him, because
you don't believe in Jesus.  Perhaps it ought to be called Pascal's
Razor, but I think that's taken.

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 07:15 -0600, Sean LeBlanc wrote:
> On 09-26 23:18, Brian Gibson wrote:
> > Vigilance is good.  Living by fear is not.  
> > 
> > You know.  All this hatred has a simple fix.  Leave
> > them alone.  Oh wait, I forgot.  Der's oil in dem der
> > hills.   
> 
> This sounds like what I've heard Chomsky say when asked how to end
> terrorism. The answer was to stop participating in it. That won't compute
> for people who think America can do no wrong and has done no wrong.
> 
> 
> Kevin - 
> 
> As for literalist interpretation of religious texts, "the Bible" in
> particular...I've read/heard too much Biblical scholars like The Bible Geek
> (Robert M. Price - http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ - even the
> fervently irreligious/religious I think would find him fascinating in his
> depth of knowledge of all things Bible. Trust me. Don't let the book titles
> frighten you off. You can find mp3 material for free if you search for Bible
> Geek and mp3 in which the Infidel Guy talks to him - some of those are 2
> hours long. It's fascinating stuff.) to believe that any particular version
> of the texts would be a reliable start - too many
> additions/deletions/editing/deliberate misinterpretations to start with, and
> nothing to corroborate any of the stories outside the context of the Bible,
> either. 
> 
> It may work for some folks in their personal lives (apparently for you), and
> that's great if you think it makes your life better, but I think it's a
> terrible idea to use it as a literal guide for American leadership, either
> foreign policy or domestic. In the past, we've had people not plant crops
> because they thought the Bible said the end times were coming - I don't want
> the modern equivalent in foreign or domestic policy to happen. 
> 
> 
> 
> And speaking of the End Times (tm):
> 
> That's been predicted numerous times in the past, and those dates have
> already rolled by, so I think I'll disregard future claims, too:
> 
> http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm
> 
> I think there is also a book dealing with this, but can't remember the
> title. 
> 
> I find it amusing there are areligious/New Age parallels to this end of the
> world stuff in the 2012 and/or Singularity discussions swirling around out
> there.  I haven't read Kurzweil's book yet, but I have to admit I'm
> skeptical going in that an AI will "wake up" in a few decades. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as for Pascal's Wager---
> 
> I no longer consider myself an atheist these
> days, but that argument always made me chuckle. It falls down for two good
> reasons:
> 
> 1. Which theist sect do you pick? Assuming for the sake of argument that
> Christianity is the "right" one, that narrows it down - a little bit. I
> can't find a cite right now, but there are 20K-30K sects of it, IIRC. If
> true, then, at best, your chances are 1 in 20,000.
> 
> 2. If God knows your thoughts, he would know what a cynical choice that was,
> just to save your rear end. Was it a genuine choice, or just fear of
> punishment? I think an omniscient God would know, and wouldn't let you into
> Heaven. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Iran, 
> 
> I read this article earlier yesterday, and then was catching up
> on older WSJs while at my step-son's basketball practice. One of the older
> WSJ had a review neo-con Ledeen's book, which the article mentions. Is he
> really accusing himself of treason? I was chuckling when reading WSJ's
> review of the book. They did say even he warns against all the saber
> rattling - I'd almost like to pick up the book to see how he couches that,
> being a neo-con and all - even though it doesn't appear he signed or
> contributed to the PNAC stuff. 
> 
> Again, all this sounding of the alarms over Iran sounds all too familiar and
> all too contrived. The fact that Fox and even CNN act as if he's the leader
> of Iran concerns me. What's striking is that Iran was our ally right after
> 9/11, too. But, if someone thinks going to Iraq was legit and that it's
> going swimmingly except that the "liberal media" isn't reporting the good
> things (like rebuilding schools we leveled), none of this will matter.
> Anyway, from the article, here:
> 
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=13872
> 
> "There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in
> the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for
> outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns
> for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like
> Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of
> Iran.s rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American
> and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that
> the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against
> Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.
> 
> The neoconservatives are even claiming that the United States has been at
> war with Iran since 1979. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this assertion is
> absurd. In the .80s, the Reagan administration sold substantial numbers of
> arms to Iran. Some of those beating the war drums most loudly now, like
> think-tank rat Michael Ledeen, were middlemen in the Reagan administration.s
> unconstitutional weapons sales to Tehran. The sales would have been a form
> of treason if in fact the United States had been at war with Iran at that
> time, so Ledeen is apparently accusing himself of treason."
>  
>